Saturday, June 9, 2012

Reid Promises New Senate Rules If Dems Win in November

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 8 June 2012 | John Semmens

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) says he will be introducing new rules for how the Senate conducts business if Democrats control both Houses and the Presidency after the November elections. Reid’s target is the cloture vote required to cut off debate. Under current rules it takes only 41 senators to block cloture.

“Right now it’s kind of a moot point because even if we could silence GOP obstructionists in the Senate whatever we pass can still be thwarted by the GOP-controlled House,” Reid pointed out. “But if Democrats controlled both Houses and the Presidency eliminating a senate minority’s ability to impede legislation would be a much more important tool for pressing ahead with a progressive agenda.”

Reid acknowledged that he would oppose the reforms he has in mind from being made if Republicans were to regain a majority in the Senate in the upcoming elections. “Republicans are anti-progressive,” Reid argued. “Their policies are bad for America. We will use every tool in our kit, including the filibuster, to prevent them from enacting legislation we deem harmful to this nation’s well-being.”

if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...

The Stooge Also Rises

No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money ^ | 8 June, 2012 | John Richardson

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) plays the stooge in Project Gunwalker well. Situated as he is as the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (and former Chairman), he has used his position to deflect criticism of Eric Holder, to impede the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, and to seek to undercut the authority of Chairman Darrell Issa at every step. His own recommendations based upon the scandal are nothing but bald-faced attempts to impose more gun control on the American people.

By contrast, when you look at the history of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, both Sen. Sam J. Ervin (D-NC) and Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN) worked together to find the truth of the matter. Some of the most damaging testimony against the Nixon Administration came out of questions from Sen. Baker. The point has been made many times that no one died in Watergate as opposed to the two federal LEOs and an estimated 300 Mexican nations who have been killed with weapons from Operation Fast and Furious. You would think that many deaths, Ranking Member Cummings might actually want to know the truth.

Mr. Cummings' latest foray is to attempt to minimize the damage to Eric Holder and his politicized Justice Department from the leaked wiretap authorizations which show that senior DOJ knew and approved of Project Gunwalker. Cummings attacks Chairman Issa for asking for the wiretap authorizations, for leaking information that shows the complicity of senior DOJ officials, to question a possible contempt citation, and to generally undercut Issa.

His statement released yesterday:

Washington DC (June 7, 2012)—In light of public statements today by Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa that he never issued a subpoena to the Justice Department demanding copies of wiretap applications relating to Operation Fast and Furious, Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings issued the following statement: “The Chairman has been demanding these wiretap applications for months and even threatened to hold the Attorney General in contempt for not providing them, yet today he claimed he never wanted them in the first place. It makes no sense to hold the Attorney General in contempt for withholding documents that Chairman Issa claims he never requested. These changing demands raise fundamental questions about the investigation and suggest that it is designed to promote an election-year political agenda rather than obtain needed information.”
During a hearing today with Attorney General Eric Holder, Chairman Issa tried to backtrack from his previous demands for wiretap applications relating to Operation Fast and Furious by stating: “We did not request any wiretaps under seal.” Explaining the basis for his claim, he argued: “I’m the person who signed the subpoenas.”
In contrast, on May 3, 2012, Chairman Issa publicly released a draft Contempt Citation, arguing that the Attorney General should be held in contempt of Congress because he “refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas related to Operation Fast and Furious.” The Contempt Citation explicitly cites the Attorney General’s failure to turn over the wiretap applications that Chairman Issa subpoenaed:
“The wiretap applications document the extensive involvement of the Criminal division in Fast and Furious, yet the Department of Justice failed to produce them in response to the Committee’s subpoena.”
Moreover, the Chairman and his staff have been demanding copies of the wiretap applications for more than a year in correspondence with the Department, and the Department has made clear repeatedly, including in letters on June 14, 2011, February 1, 2012, and May 15, 2012, that federal law prohibits it from doing so and that such disclosures could compromise ongoing investigations and prosecutions like that of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murderers.
For example, in his letter to Chairman Issa on May 15, 2012, Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote:
“As the Committee knows well, the sealing and disclosure of materials relating to electronic intercepts authorized under federal law are governed by a federal statute and a court sealing order, both of which prohibit the Department from disclosing the materials that the Committee seeks. Indeed, disclosure of these materials in violation of these provisions, including by Department personnel to the Committee, is punishable as a criminal offense.” The federal wiretapping statute, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on June 19, 1968, provides for up to five years in prison for the unauthorized disclosure of wiretap communications. The statute also prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of wiretap applications made by law enforcement officials to federal judges, who must seal them to protect against their disclosure. The statute states:
“Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication under this chapter shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction. … Applications made and orders granted under this chapter shall be sealed by the judge.”
It remains unclear whether Chairman Issa will withdraw the Contempt Citation based on his statements today.
Cummings is nothing but a stooge for Eric Holder and Barack Obama. Unfortunately, he plays his role well.

Valerie Jarrett. The Real Power & Corruption Behind The Oval Office. Part 1, 2

Blogster ^ | 6-3-12 | JoAnne Mor

We have often heard Valerie Jarrett is the de-facto President. That might not be far from the truth.
Our team has been exhaustively researching this woman,...again.
We went back over notes, articles and saved links, as well digging deeper into new documents that we've gotten a hold of.
Valerie Jarret is very powerful.
I am hoping to keep our article brief, but there is an awful lot to share.
As you may know, Valerie Jarrett is Obama,'s closest cabinet member. That is no coincidence. She is one who helped get him where he is.
Sure, he knew all the street radicals, but it was Valerie who really got his foot in the door. Without her, he'd still be hustling votes for other "Made" Chicago politicians.
First we'll start with a little personal backround on Ms Jarrett, then we will lay out the sheer magnitude of the corruption that infests Chicago and has now taken hold in the White House itself.
Valerie Bowman Jarrett is an American who was born in Iran, to two American parents. She lived in Iran until the age of 5, then London for another year. The family moved to Chicago when Valerie was almost 7.
From Key Wiki
"Jarrett received her B.A. from Stanford University in 1978 and her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981. Jarrett went to the exclusive University of Chicago Lab School before transferring to her mother’s alma mater, Northfield Mt. Hermon, in western Massachusetts for the last two years of high school.
"After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School, she went to work for Chicago’s first African-American mayor, Harold Washington, whose election many Sixties radicals attributed to themselves. After Washington’s death in 1987, she stayed on under his successor, Richard Daley.
In City Hall, she and her colleague Susan Sher recruited Michelle Robinson, then engaged to Barack Obama, and Jarrett quickly melded her way into their lives.
Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Jarrett served as a Director of corporate and not for profit boards, including Chairman of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board of Trustees, and Vice Chair of the University of Chicago Board of Trustees. She was a Director of the Local Initiative Support Corporation, The Joyce Foundation, and a Trustee of the Museum of Science and Industry.
Hiring Michelle
A former Deputy Corporation Counsel for Finance and Development under Harold Washington, Jarrett continued to work in the mayor's office into the 1990s.
In 1991, while Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, Jarrett hired Michelle Robinson, then engaged to Barack Obama.
Finance responsibilities
Valerie Jarrett ran the finances for Obama’s 2004 Senate bid and served as treasurer of Obama's HOPEFUND.
Friendship with Marilyn Katz
Marilyn Katz worked with Students for a Democratic Society. She is a personal friend of Jarrett's. "
Ok. Now that you have some background, we are going to take you on an epic adventure. This adventure is the truth and I will corroroborate the facts with docs and links.
This adventure will take us beyond Chicago, beyond the White House , all the way to the mid East and back.
We will introduce you to some of the most corrupt operatives, foreign Billionaires and many more shady players and events.
Valerie Jarrett not only worked for powerful Mayor, Harold Washington, but she was also the daughter in law of another Powerful Chicago politician and Socialite, Vernon Jarrett, a full blown Communist/Progressive. I won't go into too much detail on him, but his Communist associations are well documented and easy to find.
After Washington left office, Valerie stayed on with the new Mayor, Daley.
Through these powerful men and her position inside the Chicago machine, Valerie soon en massed astounding power.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Part 2

In Part 1, we told you of how Valerie Jarrett controls developing in Chicago. We told you of all the boards she sits on, her Development companies, her partner Allison Davis and her connections to Obama and Michelle.
Now we want to introduce you to other movers and shakers in the Chicago corruption machine that Valerie Jarrett controls.
Nadhmi Auchi is an Iraqi Billionaire. He was convicted of fraud in the oil for food scandal. Auchi is an arms dealer, Oil mogul and invests in many real estate properties. Auchi was barred from entering the US due to his fraud conviction.There is a lot of info on Auchi out there. More on Auchi: wiki/Nadhmi_Auchi
Three weeks before Obama bought his mansion, Auchi loaned Rezko $3 million Dollars. The mansion deal was arranged by Rezko, who we know was already doing business with Jarrett. Remember, she was on the boards and committees that controlled real estate & development in Chicago.
The bank was Mutual bank of Harvey , run by Amrish Mahajan.
The data available in the Sun-Times spreadsheet is corroborated by the following data, which is democratically available at the Federal Election Commission ‘s website:
OBAMA, BARACK VIA OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC 12/20/2003 500.00 24020030170 04/14/2004 1000.00 24020461757
Not only was Mahajan a member of Rezko’s bundling network; his bank, the Mutual Bank of Harvey, granted Rita Rezko the $500,000 mortgage she needed in order to purchase the lot on which the Obama mansion in Chicago sits. As many of you may recall, the Obamas could not have purchased the mansion they could not afford unless transactions for the mansion and the lot closed on the same day. Obama needed to locate someone who would buy the lot, and he approached Rezko, the convicted slumlord with whom Obama toured the property before they mutually agreed to the following arrangement :
The home and lot sales closed on June 15, 2005. A land trust controlled by the Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million, and the Obamas secured a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust to complete that purchase. That same day, Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, bought the side lot for $625,000. A $37,000- a-year Cook County employee, she secured a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey.
The structure of this transaction begs the following question: What bank would lend a government employee who earns $37,000 per annum a $500,000 mortgage? What bank would assume such a risk?
The Mutual Bank of Harvey, of course, for the Mutual Bank of Harvey’s President is a man who is deeply connected to the Chicago machine that backed Barack Obama. Indeed, Amrish Mahajan was one of Mayor Daley’s first political appointments in 1989, when he was named to a seat on Chicago’s Plan Commission, where he would be joined by Obama’s former boss and Rezko’s business partner Allison Davis and by Valerie Jarrett, Daley’s Chief of Staff who chaired the Commission from 1991-1995 . Mahajan, in other words, worked with those who devised and profited from Daley’s failed public housing experiment in Chicago , a public housing policy Obama helped fund as state Senator and US Senator .
Rezko, according to the Boston Globe , was one of the major beneficiaries of Obama’s legislative advocacy for funding of Daley’s public housing experiment. Other major beneficiaries are Jarrett and Allison Davis. Mahajan was also a beneficiary, for his bank had made $3.4 million dollars in loans to Tony Rezko’s slum landlord business since 2002 . A banker for one of the slumlords who benefitted from the Daley housing program Obama helped bankroll, Mahajan was returning a favor when he wrote a $500,000 mortgage in 2005 for the wife of one of his clients. Although Tony’s financial problems were mounting in 2005 , and althoughRita earned only $35,000 per annum, Mahajan underwrote the mortgage.
Via: http:// 5382/ about-the-financial-institu tion-mentioned-in-the-sun- times-obama-tony-rezko-amr ish-mahajan-the-kenwood-ma nsion-rita-rezko/
Jarrett's long connections to Miner
" Jarrett was an associate between 1981 and 1984 at Ballard, Shepard and Pole Ltd. and then moved on to a real estate practice at Sonnenschein, Carlin, Nath and Rosenthal. But Jarrett "wasn't happy with private practice," recalled Judd Miner , ". . . and she wanted to get involved in the Washington administration." Miner recruited Jarrett to the city's Law Department with the corporation counsel under the late Mayor Harold Washington.
According to the Sun Times, “A few years later, back in private practice, Miner would make another recruiting coup: a young Harvard Law School graduate named Barack Obama. And over at City Hall, Jarrett, Daley's deputy chief of staff, would hire another lawyer fleeing corporate life, Michelle Robinson, Obama's then-fiancée.” Could it be possible that Jarrett already knew Obama at this point if she had worked for Miner? The Sun Times also mentions that Obama and Michelle's marriage might never have happened if they had not met at the Chicago law frim of Sidley & Austin in the summer of 1989. Michelle Robinson was the lawyer assigned to be his adviser. Somewhat curious....
It is noteworthy to mention that after Jarrett left Daley’s office she took Michelle Obama with her to the Chicago Housing Department to be her assistant. This coincided precisely with the time Obama was installed at Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland where he was writing the “bids” for Tony Rezko’s companies. Is it possible that these bids were coincidentally being approved by Jarrett and Michelle? Very curious…"
VIA: candidconcepts/ 114-who-is-valerie-jarrett- part-ii.html

No doubt that she's THE power, critical influence and perhaps the actual decision maker in this odyssey of Barack and Michelle Clampett on their incompetent, vindictive, nouveau riche celebrity power tour, while the security and leadership of this country's become an irritating side job. Also, no doubt why Tony Rezko refuses to entertain any discussions about Obama as he serves his long prison sentence. Apparently, NO ONE crosses Valerie, as former Chief of Staff and brother of former mayor Richard Daley (as well as former Clinton Sec. of Commerce) Bill Daley, from the Chicago political swamp machine himself, discovered. Lord, help us.

Romney More Anti-Planned Parenthood Than McCain!

Life News ^ | Steven Ertelt

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, the nation's biggest abortion business, says Mitt Romney is even more anti-Planned Parenthood than John McCain.

The ad buy targets Romney's previous comments saying he would "get rid" of federal taxpayer funding for the abortion business and Planned Parenthood indicated the ad buy would target places like West Palm Beach, Florida; Des Moines, Iowa; and voters in northern Virginia.

Answering a question from CNN affiliate KDSK of St. Louis, Romney listed a series of programs he would cut or eliminate as president in order to reduce the federal deficit.

"You get rid of Obamacare, but there are others," Romney the station. "Planned Parenthood, we're gonna get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I would eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, both excellent programs, but we can't afford to borrow money to pay for these things."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Are the 10 Poorest U.S. States Really Republican?

Forbes ^ | 06/09/2012 | Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson, Grove City College

“Most of the 10 poorest states are Republican” is a quote of CNN’s Jack Cafferty. It appeared in his “Cafferty File” blog last September 22, and was accompanied by the opinion, this is “something the GOP can’t be too comfortable with.” Indeed, in an election year, you can bet that Democrats will try to make hay with those data.

My previous column made the case that Democratic Party policies have induced the impoverishment of America’s poorest cities. Turnabout is fair play. If Republican policies have led to the economic stagnation of entire states, whereas Democrats are only responsible for ruining cities, then the Dems might have the stronger campaign talking point. Let’s examine the 10 poorest states to see if Republicans are to blame for their relative economic standing.

The poorest states, based on per capita income, are, from first to last: Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina. Of these, exactly half—Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, and West Virginia—have Democratic governors and three have Democratic majorities in the lower house of their legislature, so these state governments can hardly be classified as completely Republican. On the other hand, only North Carolina voted for Obama in 2008, so in that sense, these states may be leaning Republican.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

A common analytical error is the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy—“after this, therefore because of this.” For example, chronic federal deficits became chronic in the 1960s. What changed in America at that time? Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union in 1959 and 1960, respectively; therefore, the erroneous assertion to follow is that we need only expel those two states from the Union to solve our deficit spending problem. Absurd, right? Similarly, we can’t facilely assume that the lower per capita incomes in the 10 poorest states were caused by Republican policies. Looking at the list of the 10 poorest states, all except Montana are east of the Mississippi River. That means they are older states. Those nine also happen to be concentrated in the South. This is significant: They were all slaveholding states. They focused on producing commodities, whereas the northern states produced more value-added goods, more manufactured goods, more capital-intensive goods.
In short, those nine erstwhile slaveholding states have been lagging behind the northern states economically for two centuries. Just because one generation of leaning Republican has not eliminated a disparity that was entrenched for centuries, it is not an indictment of Republicans. 

Detroit: The Moral of the Story (What can we learn from a rich, productive city that was ruined?)

National Review ^ | 06/09/2012 | Kevin D. Williamson

The Left’s answer to the deficit: raise taxes to protect spending. The Left’s answer to the weak economy: raise taxes to enable new spending. The Left’s answer to the looming sovereign-debt crisis:

Raise taxes to pay off old spending. For the Left, every deficit is a revenue-side problem, not a spending-side problem, and the solution to every economic problem is more spending, necessitating more taxes. The problem with that way of looking at things is called Detroit, which looks to be running out of money in about one week. Detroit is what liberalism’s end-game looks like.

And Detroit does in fact have a revenue problem, as I argued in the May 14 National Review (“Let Detroit Fail”): “Revenues declined by more than $100 million between 2007 and 2011. Income-tax revenue dropped by 18 percent, utility-tax revenue by 17 percent, property-tax revenue by 2.3 percent. Seeking a quick fix to its revenue problems, Detroit chartered several casino-gambling operations, only to see taxes from them begin to decline (by 1.5 percent last year) after a period of early growth. Detroit, once the wealthiest city in the United States by per capita income, is today the second-poorest major U.S. city.”
Detroit is evidence for the fact that the economic limitations on tax increases sometimes kick in before the political limitations do. The relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, economic incentives, growth, and investment is complex, to say the least, and deeply dependent on the historical and economic facts of particular places at particular times. We have theories of growth, but no blueprint. But Detroit was not reduced to its present wretched circumstances by historical inevitabilities or the impersonal tides of economics. It did not have to end this way, but it did, and understanding why it did is essential if we are to avoid repeating Detroit’s municipal tragedy on a national scale.
One lesson to learn from Detroit is that investing unions with coercive powers does not ensure future private-sector employment or the preservation of private-sector wages, despite liberal fairy tales to the contrary, nor do protectionist measures strengthen the long-term prospects of domestic firms competing in highly integrated global markets. We cannot legislate away comparative advantage or other facts of life. But the problem of unions’ coercing distortions in the private sector is at this point a relatively small one, given the decline of unionization outside of government. Organized labor being a fundamentally predatory enterprise, its attention has turned to the public sector, where there are fatter and more stable rents to be collected.
The second important lesson to be learned from Detroit is that there are hard limits on real tax increases, a fact that will be of more immediate significance in the national debate as our deficit and debt problems reach crisis stage. Even those of us who are relatively open to tax increases as a component of a long-term debt-reduction strategy must keep in mind that our current spending trend is putting us on an unsustainable course in which our outlays will far outpace our ability to collect taxes to pay for them, no matter where we set our theoretical tax rates. The IMF calculates that to maintain present spending trend the United States will have to nearly double (88 percent increase) all federal taxes to maintain theoretical solvency. Those tax increases are sure to have real-world effects on everything from investing to immigration. At some point, the statutory tax increases will not increase actual revenue.
Even the best tax regimes are cannibalistic: Every tax is an incentive for the taxpayer to relocate to a more friendly jurisdiction. But tax rates are not the only incentive: Google is not going to set up shop in Somalia. Healthy governments create conditions that make it worth paying the taxes — which is to say, governments are a lot like participants in any other competitive market (with some obvious and important exceptions). The benefits of being in Detroit used to be worth the costs, but in recent decades millions of people and thousands of enterprises large and small have decided that is no longer the case. It is not as though one cannot profitably manufacture automobiles in the United States — Toyota does — you just can’t do it very well in Detroit. No one with eyes in his head could honestly think that the services provided by the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan are worth the costs.
The third lesson is moral. Detroit’s institutions have long been marked by corruption, venality, and self-serving. Healthy societies have high levels of trust. Who trusts Detroit? This is not angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. People do not invest in firms, industries, cities, or countries they do not trust. Corruption makes people poor.
What is true of Detroit is true of the country. Our national public sector not only is bloated and parasitic, it is less effective, less responsible, and less honest than that of many other developed countries, including New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Germany. I am not an unreserved admirer of Transparency International’s global corruption-perceptions index, but I believe that it is in broad outline accurate. Liberals are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from the relative success of countries such as Canada or New Zealand, concluding that what we need is a bigger welfare state, government-run health care, etc. (Conservatives, for our part, tend to overemphasize the role of comparatively low taxes and light regulation in the success of countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong. Those are important, but there are other equally important factors.) In reality, there is a great diversity of health-care arrangements and social-spending levels among the countries that have more effective institutions than ours, while many countries with the sorts of institutions liberals admire (take Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal for starters) are in crisis, in significant part because of plain corruption. What the more successful countries tend to have in common is a public sector that is less intent on looting the fisc.
Sure, Hong Kong and Singapore have lower levels of government spending (as a share of GDP) than does the United States. So do Switzerland and Australia. At 38.9 percent of GDP, our public-sector spending is indistinguishable from that of Canada (39.7 percent). It is not obvious that we have much to show for it.
The city fathers of Detroit inherited one of the richest and most productive cities in the world, and they ruined it in a generation. The gentlemen in Washington have been entrusted with the richest and most productive nation in the history of the world, and the trendline does not look good. Those of us seeking to radically reduce the footprint of government must remind ourselves from time to time that our case is as much ethical as economic, that the ethical and the economic are indeed closely intertwined.

Somali Islamists offer 10 camels as bounty for Obama (Lesser Amount For Hillary)

CNN ^ | 6/9/2012 | CNN

(CNN) -- The United States offers millions for information leading to the capture of the world's most wanted terrorists.

A Somali militant group has purportedly countered with an offer of camels for U.S. officials.

Al-Shabaab has placed a bounty of 10 camels for President Barack Obama and two camels for information on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

An audio statement posted on jihadist websites purportedly from Al-Shabaab jeered news that the United States is offering millions of dollars for information on seven key members of al-Shabaab through its Rewards for Justice program.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The U.S. Economy By The Numbers: 70 Facts That Barack Obama Does Not Want You To See!

The Economic Collapse Blog ^ | 06/09/2012 | Michael Snyder

Why is the economy going to collapse? Have you ever been asked that question? If so, what did you say? Sometimes it is difficult to communicate dozens of complicated economic and financial concepts in a package that the average person on the street can easily digest. It can be very frustrating to know that something is true but not be able to explain it clearly to someone else. Hopefully many of you out there will find the list below useful. It is a list of 70 numbers that show why we are headed for a national economic nightmare. So why does the title of the article single out Barack Obama? Well, it is because right now he is the biggest cheerleader for the economy. He is attempting to convince all of us that everything is just fine and that the economy is heading in a positive direction. Well, the truth is that everything is not fine and things are about to get a whole lot worse. Certainly others should share in the blame as well. Congress has been steering the economy in the wrong direction for decades, the "too big to fail" banks have turned Wall Street into a pyramid of risk, leverage and debt, and the Federal Reserve has more power over the financial system than anyone else does. Our economy has been in decline for quite a while now, and soon we are going to smash directly into an economic brick wall. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are in denial about this. A lot of people out there doubt that an economic collapse is coming. Well, if you know someone that believes that the U.S. economy is going to be "just fine", just show them the list below.
The following are 70 facts that Barack Obama does not want you to see....
$3.59 - When Barack Obama entered the White House, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.85. Today, it is $3.59.
22 - It is hard to believe, but today the poverty rate for children living in the United States is a whopping 22 percent.
23 - According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities permanently shut down in the United States every single day during 2010.
30 - Back in 2007, about 10 percent of all unemployed Americans had been out of work for 52 weeks or longer. Today, that number is above 30 percent.
32 - The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.
35 - U.S. housing prices are now down a total of 35 percent from the peak of the housing bubble.
40 - The official U.S. unemployment rate has been above 8 percent for 40 months in a row.
42 - According to one survey, 42 percent of all American workers are currently living paycheck to paycheck.
48 - Shockingly, at this point 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be "low income" or are living in poverty.
49 - Today, an astounding 49.1 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives benefits from the government.
53 - Last year, an astounding 53 percent of all U.S. college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed.
60 - According to a recent Gallup poll, only 60 percent of all Americans say that they have enough money to live comfortably.
61 - At this point the Federal Reserve is essentially monetizing much of the U.S. national debt. For example, the Federal Reserve bought up approximately 61 percent of all government debt issued by the U.S. Treasury Department during 2011.
63 - One recent survey found that 63 percent of all Americans believe that the U.S. economic model is broken.
71 - Today, 71 percent of all small business owners believe that the U.S. economy is still in a recession.
80 - Americans buy 80 percent of the pain pills sold on the entire globe each year.
81 - Credit card debt among Americans in the 25 to 34 year old age bracket has risen by 81 percent since 1989.
85 - 85 percent of all artificial Christmas trees are made in China.
86 - According to one survey, 86 percent of Americans workers in their sixties say that they will continue working past their 65th birthday.
90 - In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.
93 - The United States now ranks 93rd in the world in income inequality.
95 - The middle class continues to shrink - 95 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were middle class jobs.
107 - Each year, the average American must work 107 days just to make enough money to pay local, state and federal taxes.
350 - The average CEO now makes approximately 350 times as much as the average American worker makes.
400 - According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined.
$500 - In some areas of Detroit, Michigan you can buy a three bedroom home for just $500.
627 - In 2010, China produced 627 million metric tons of steel. The United States only produced 80 million metric tons of steel.
877 - 20,000 workers recently applied for just 877 jobs at a Hyundai plant in Montgomery, Alabama.
900 - Auto parts exports from China to the United States have increased by more than 900 percent since the year 2000.
$1580 - When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs more than $1580 an ounce.
1700 - Consumer debt in America has risen by a whopping 1700% since 1971.
2016 - It is being projected that the Chinese economy will be larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2016.
$4155 - The average American household spent a staggering $4,155 on gasoline during 2011.
$4300 - The amount by which real median household income has declined since Barack Obama entered the White House.
$6000 - If you can believe it, the median price of a home in Detroit is now just $6000.
$10,000 - According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 46 percent of all American workers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, and 29 percent of all American workers have less than $1,000 saved for retirement.
49,000 - In 2011, our trade deficit with China was more than 49,000 times larger than it was back in 1985.
50,000 - The United States has lost an average of approximately 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
56,000 - The United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.
$85,000 - According to the New York Times, a Jeep Grand Cherokee that costs $27,490 in the United States costs about $85,000 in China thanks to all the tariffs.
$175,587 - The Obama administration spent $175,587 to find out if cocaine causes Japanese quail to engage in sexually risky behavior.
$328,404 - Over the next 75 years, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars. That comes to $328,404 for each and every household in the United States.
$361,330 - This is what the average banker in New York City made in 2010.
440,00 - If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 440,000 years to totally pay it off.
500,000 - According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.
2,000,000 - Family farms are being systematically wiped out of existence in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of farms in the United States has fallen from about 6.8 million in 1935 to only about 2 million today.
$2,000,000 - At this point, the U.S. national debt is rising by more than 2 million dollars every single minute.
2,600,000 - In 2010, 2.6 million more Americans fell into poverty. That was the largest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.
5,400,000 - When Barack Obama first took office there were 2.7 million long-term unemployed Americans. Today there are twice as many.
16,000,000 - It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
$20,000,000 - The amount of money the U.S. government was spending to create a version of Sesame Street for children in Pakistan.
25,000,000 - Today, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents.
40,000,000 - According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue.
46,405,204 - The number of Americans currently on food stamps. When Barack Obama first entered the White House there were only 32 million Americans on food stamps.
88,000,000 - Today there are more than 88 million working age Americans that are not employed and that are not looking for employment. That is an all-time record high.
100,000,000 - Overall, there are more than 100 million working age Americans that do not currently have jobs.
$150,000,000 - This is approximately the amount of money that the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress are stealing from future generations of Americans every single hour.
$2,000,000,000 - The amount of money that JP Morgan has admitted that it will lose from derivatives trades gone bad. Many analysts are convinced that the real number will actually end up being much higher.
$147,000,000,000 - In the U.S., medical costs related to obesity are estimated to be approximately 147 billion dollars a year.
295,500,000,000 - Our trade deficit with China in 2011 was $295.5 billion. That was the largest trade deficit that one country has had with another country in the history of the planet.
$359,100,000,000 - During the first quarter of 2012, U.S. public debt rose by 359.1 billion dollars. U.S. GDP only rose by 142.4 billion dollars.
$454,000,000,000 - During fiscal 2011, the U.S. government spent over 454 billion dollars just on interest on the national debt.
$1,000,000,000,000 - The total amount of student loan debt in the United States recently surpassed the one trillion dollar mark.
$1,170,000,000,000 - China now holds approximately 1.17 trillion dollars of U.S. government debt. Yet the U.S. government continues to send them millions of dollars in foreign aid every year.
$1,600,000,000,000 - The amount that has been added to the U.S. national debt since the Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives. This is more than the first 97 Congresses added to the national debt combined.
$5,000,000,000,000 - The U.S. national debt has risen by more than 5 trillion dollars since the day that Barack Obama first took office. In a little more than 3 years Obama has added more to the national debt than the first 41 presidents combined.
$5,000,000,000,000 - What the real U.S. budget deficit in 2011 would have been if the federal government had used generally accepted accounting principles.
$11,440,000,000,000 - The total amount of consumer debt in the United States.
$15,734,596,578,458.59 - The U.S. national debt as of June 7, 2012.
$200,000,000,000,000 - Today, the 9 largest banks in the United States have a total of more than 200 trillion dollars of exposure to derivatives. When the derivatives market completely collapses there won't be enough money in the entire world to fix it.

Obama Forced a Change Nobody Wanted!

Family Security Matters ^ | June 9, 2012 | ALAN CARUBA

Barack Hussein Obama promised to transform America with an ill-defined message of change during his 2008 campaign. As Americans discovered what that change involved, they began to reject it. It was a change to the Left, to liberalism, to socialism.

The first sign of rejection was the 2010 election when voters returned power in the House of Representatives to Republicans. Since the 2006 midterm elections that gave the Democratic Party a sweeping victory and elevated Nancy Pelosi as the first woman to become Speaker of the House, Americans have had an opportunity to experience the liberal agenda and they don't like it.

They didn't like the way Obama wasted 2009 on pushing his socialization of one sixth of the nation's economy with Obamacare, a bill then-Speaker Pelosi told voters that the bill would have to be passed so they "could see what was in it." Soon enough the Supreme Court will render a decision on its constitutionality and the likely outcome is that it will be struck down.
The voters didn't like Obama's massive "stimulus" redistribution of their taxes that included a bailout of General Motors and Chrysler that could have been avoided by simply allowing them to go through the normal process of bankruptcy and restructuring. Instead, Obama screwed their creditors, normally the first in line to be compensated for their losses, and gave the auto unions a seat on the auto companies' boards of directors, erasing the line between management and unions.
Recall, too, that the 2006 elections reflected the dissatisfaction of voters with the long years of wars in Afghanistan and, in particular, in Iraq. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, just before the national elections, combined with the unalloyed worship of a completely unknown Illinois Senator, the outcome was the election of Obama.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now the shame of the failure to address the financial crisis in time-tested and proven ways is Obama's. He could have cut taxes. Instead he pushed for an end to the Bush tax cuts and talked endlessly about raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires." In point of fact, his tax programs were and are aimed at the middle class. He could have cut government spending. Instead he increased it with all manner of phony schemes such as "cash for clunkers."
Since 2009 Obama has added four trillion dollars to the nation's debt and has presided over the first, historic downgrade of America's triple-A credit rating. The continuing news of taxpayer losses in his administration's disastrous "investments" in solar and other "clean energy" firms that continue to fail has added to the clear perception of an ideologically driven agenda that is out of touch with reality.
The victory of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, barely five months before the forthcoming November elections is yet another reason to celebrate the rejection of Obama and his policies that have given the nation 42 months of an unemployment rate that is unprecedented since the Great Depression. Gov. Walker's election signals the decline of the union movement and his reforms resulted in tens of thousands of union members choosing to leave the unions in Wisconsin.
The realization that unions, in particular the public service unions, have raped the public coffers of states, marks a turning point that will result in reforms that will greatly aid recovery. The millions the union movement poured into the defeat of Gov. Walker are millions that have been diverted from Obama's reelection.
USA Today reported that "The residents of only nine states have returned their economies to the level that existed before the downturn struck at the end of 2007-and most of those states are energy producers." The nation runs on the energy that the oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear provide. Obama has waged a war on oil and coal in particular and the public has taken notice of how insane this policy has been.
The outcome of the Wisconsin elections has not been lost on the Democratic Party. It will now be in full panic mode and Americans will be subjected to a campaign of lies intended to distract and deceive them.
Obama can no longer blame former President Bush for his failures, cannot blame events in Europe, and cannot blame Mother Nature. He has only himself to blame. Voters from the Left to the Right know this. Except for the hardcore liberal base and the mainstream media, the rest are ready to reject Obama.

Obama's "Hope And Change" Has Become President's "Us Versus Them"

Investor's Business Daily ^ | June 8, 2012 | Victor Davis Hanson

Barack Obama lately has been accusing presumptive rival Mitt Romney of not waging his campaign in the nice (but losing) manner of John McCain in 2008. But a more marked difference can be seen in Obama himself, whose style and record bear no resemblance to his glory days of four years ago.

Recently, the president purportedly has been reassuring Democratic donors that his signature achievement, ObamaCare, could be readjusted in the second term — something Republicans have promised to do for the last three years.

What an evolution: We have gone from being told we would love Obama-Care, to granting exemptions to favored companies from it, to private assurances to modify it after re-election — all before it was even fully enacted.

Obama's calls for a new civility four years ago are apparently inoperative. The vow to "punish our enemies" and the intimidation of Romney campaign donors are a long way from the soaring speech at Berlin's Victory Column and "Yes, we can."
Obama once called for a focus on issues rather than personal invective. But now we mysteriously hear again of Romney's dog, his great-great-grandfather's wives and a roughhousing incident some 50 years ago in prep school.
The "hope and change" slogan for a new unity gave way to a new "us vs. them" divide. "Us" now means all sorts of targeted appeals to identity groups like African-Americans for Obama, Latinos for Obama, gays for Obamas, greens for Obama, or students for Obama.
"Them," in contrast, means almost everyone else who cannot claim hyphenation or be counted on as a single-cause constituency. In 2008, the Obama strategy was supposedly to unite disparate groups with a common vision; in 2012, it is to rally special interests through common enemies....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Scott Walker: Obama’s Comments Reflect a Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Economy!

The Weekly Standard ^ | 6-8-12 | Stephen Hayes

Much has been made of Barack Obama’s comment Friday morning that the “private sector is doing fine.” The mockery is well-deserved.

The president's comment this morning has the potential to be one of those remarks that penetrates deeply into the electorate, well beyond those who keep track of the day-to-day contours of the presidential campaign. The private sector, of course, is not doing fine. GDP growth is 1.9 percent—and slowing. The private sector is adding jobs at a rate that barely outpaces population growth—and slowing. Major corporations are sitting on their cash rather than spending it, consumer confidence is down, so is productivity—no president should be satisfied with this private sector performance.
Pick your cliché—tone deaf, out of touch, etc—they all work.

Beyond that, the president lamented the end to the expansion of the public sector the same week voters in Wisconsin and, somewhat surprisingly, California made clear that they approve of efforts to reduce the size of that sector.
“Where we're seeing weakness in our economy have (sic) to do with the state and local government, often times cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government,” Obama said. “And who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.”
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Obama’s comments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy.
“There are two very different views in the country,” Walker said. “The current administration seems to think that success is measured by how many people are dependent on the government. I think success is measured by how many are not.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama "most liberal, most incompetent" president since Carter

CBS News ^ | June 8, 2012 | Rebecca Kaplan

Gov. Jindal, responding to Obama's statement that the private sector was doing fine, he added: "Mr. President, I've got a message for you: The private sector is not doing well when 23 million Americans are unemployed and underemployed in this great country. This president, the private sector is so foreign to him he might need a passport to actually go visit and he might need a translator to help him talk to folks in the private sector."

Gov. Jindal, who has not yet campaigned with Romney, grabbed his chance Friday to try on the attack-dog role traditionally given to running mates. He called Obama "themost liberal, most incompetent president in the White House since Jimmy Carter," and accused him of staying out of the Wisconsin recall election this week out of cowardice.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Eric Holder has become a litmus test for democrats

Flopping Aces ^ | 06-08-12 | DrJohn

The. Most. Corrupt. Attorney. General. In. History.

Eric Holder's contempt for America and its citizens is nothing less than astonishing. He has done one stupid thing after another but this time Eric Holder has peed on the leg of the United States and claimed it was raining:
Holder Claims Emails Using Words ‘Fast and Furious’ Don’t Refer to Operation Fast and Furious

( – Attorney General Eric Holder claimed during congressional testimony today that internal Justice Department emails that use the phrase “Fast and Furious” do not refer to the controversial gun-walking operation Fast and Furious. Under questioning from Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who read excerpts of the emails at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department oversight, Holder claimed that the phrase “Fast and Furious” did not refer to Fast and Furious but instead referred to another gun-walking operation known as “Wide Receiver.”
However, the emails refer to both programs -- "Fast and Furious" and the "Tucson case," from where Wide Receiver was launched -- and reveal Justice Department officials discussing how to handle media scrutiny when both operations become public.
(Excerpt)

Obama camp: Romney might win!

washington Examiner ^ | 6/9/2012 | by Joel Gehrke

President Obama's campaign warned supporters that the president could lose his reelection bid in an attempt to convince donors to contribute more money.

"We are not guaranteed to win this election," Ann Marie Habershaw, chief operating officer for the campaign, wrote in the fundraising email. "If there's anyone still out there acting like we have this thing in the bag, do me a favor and tell them they're dead wrong." Habershaw warned that Romney, who outraised Obama in May, would continue to build a warchest now that he is the Republican nominee.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Tale Of Two Doctors - Seniors better understand this!

Boy, if this doesn't hit the nail on the head, I don't know what does!

Two patients limp into two different medical clinics with the same complaint. Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement.
The FIRST patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the following week.
The SECOND sees his family doctor after waiting 3 weeks for an appointment, then waits 8 weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another week and finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then pending the review boards decision...
Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The FIRST is a Golden Retriever taken to a vet. The SECOND is a Senior Citizen on ‘Obama Care’...
Next year if HE gets another term , you'll HAVE to go to a vet! 

Rep. Joe Wilson Was Right: Obama Has Deceived Us

IBD Editorials ^ | June 8, 2012 | HENRY I MILLER

He was correct. Prescient even. But one politician's invective directed at President Obama early in his administration seems to have been forgotten.

On Sept. 9, 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., received widespread attention when he interrupted a speech by the president to a joint session of Congress by shouting, "You lie!" The incident resulted in a formal rebuke, essentially along party lines, by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
Wilson may have been indecorous, but he was right. And the president has continued to deceive. As the economy has failed to rebound, the president has been desperately blaming everyone but himself — George W. Bush, European advocates of fiscal austerity, and especially Republicans in the U.S. Congress.

He fails to mention that for the first two years of his administration, his party's majority in the House and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate gave him a blank check for huge "stimulus" programs and for his socialist agenda.

Supremely arrogant and uncollegial, the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid routinely rolled the GOP. (Recall Pelosi's extraordinary arrogance when queried about the proposed ObamaCare legislation: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.")
Shortly after he was elected president, Obama promised substantial budget cuts.
He said officials would "go through our federal budget — page by page, line by line — eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible, cost-effective way."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama says private sector 'doing fine,' then Standard & Poor keeps downgrade, negative outlook ! ^ | 6/8/2012

Just hours after President Obama declared the private sector was "doing fine" -- a comment from which he later backed away -- one of the nation's major credit rating agencies affirmed neither the private nor public sector was flourishing.

Standard & Poor’s affirmed its long-term credit rating on the United States at AA+ and said its outlook remains negative.

The credit agency made the announcement after Obama's said Friday morning that the private sector is "doing fine" and that the GOP Congress is slowing down the economy. It was immediately pounced on by Mitt Romney and other Republican leaders, resulting in the president backpedaling by the afternoon.
Obama said late Friday it is "absolutely clear" that the U.S. economy is "not doing fine." He also said there has been some "good momentum" in the private sector but Congress needs to act to help boost jobs in the public sector. In addition to his comments about the private sector during a morning White House press conference, he said the weaknesses in the U.S. economy have to do with state and local government.
"If Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments,” the president said.
Romney, the GOP presidential candidate, responded within minutes from a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
“He said the private sector is doing fine,” Romney said.

“Is he really that out of touch? I think he’s defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people. Has there ever been an American president who is so far from reality as to believe in an America where 23 million Americans are out of work.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Oversampling Dems (Party ID has shifted, polls are stuck in ’08.)

National Review Online ^ | June 7, 2012 | Michael G. Franc

How important is it for polling organizations to include the correct proportions of self-identified Republicans and Democrats in their polls? The short answer is: Extremely.

In this hyper-partisan age, the partisan ratio can not only determine the poll’s top-line results, but also shape the ensuing media interpretation of what it all “means.” That interpretation defines the expectations game, which, in turn, affects fundraising, voter enthusiasm, and turnout.

According to a spate of recent polls conducted by Marist/NBC News, Democrats hold strong or even commanding leads in three key U.S. Senate races: Florida (up 4 points), Virginia (up 6), and Ohio (up 14). In three other swing states — Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa — recent Marist/NBC News polls found President Obama and Governor Romney locked in a dead heat.

Are Republican prospects really that much rosier in these swing states out West and on the Plains than they are in the East and industrial Midwest? The discrepancy, it seems, may be due to the percentage of self-identified Democrats and Republicans in the survey samples.
In Marist’s survey of the Florida Senate race, for example, Democrats in the sample outnumbered Republicans by 8 percentage points (43 to 35 percent). In Ohio, the Democratic advantage was 9 points (37 to 28 percent); in Virginia, the spread was considerably smaller (31 to 29 percent). In contrast, two of the three polls that found the presidential race to be neck and neck sampled significantly more Republicans. Marist actually included more Republicans than Democrats in the Colorado and Iowa polls — a 4-point advantage in Colorado (35 to 31 percent) and a 1-point spread in Iowa (35 to 34 percent). In the Nevada survey, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by only 2 points, as in Virginia (40 to 38 percent).
So what partisan baseline should polling organizations use? After all, baselines can determine the shape and outcome of important Washington policy debates, whether the discussion is about budgets, taxes, or polls. Did the Gang of Six propose the largest tax increase or the largest tax cut in human history? The answer depends on the baseline one uses. Tell me your baseline, and you’ve told me everything I need to know about your analysis.
I have found that the most reliable baseline on party identification, both nationally and at the state level, comes from the extensive polling conducted by the Gallup Organization. Each year Gallup collapses the 350,000-plus interviews it has conducted throughout the year into one overall snapshot of party affiliation. In February, Gallup released the results of 353,492 such interviews conducted during 2011, including more than 1,000 in each of the 50 states and an enormous number in the states surveyed by Marist/NBC News: 18,090 people were interviewed in Florida, 13,172 in Ohio, 9,927 in Virginia, 7,105 in Colorado, 4,439 in Iowa, and 2,730 in Nevada. If volume counts, Gallup’s data mine of interviews is sheer gold.
In reviewing all this data, Gallup identified an important national trend:
In the last four years, the political leanings of Americans have increasingly moved toward the Republican Party after shifting decidedly Democratic between 2005 and 2008. In 2008, Democrats had one of the largest advantages in party affiliation they have had in the last 20 years. . . . Prior to that, the parties were more evenly balanced.
The net result of the movement is that the nation looks to be essentially even in terms of its party loyalties headed into a presidential election year. Clearly, President Obama faces a much less favorable environment as he seeks a second term in office than he did when he was elected president.
The partisan divide, Gallup found, has narrowed not only nationally, but in almost every state as well. Gallup’s 2008 surveys of state-level party identification found that the terrain in all the states Marist surveyed was decidedly pro-Obama and pro–Democratic Party. The Democratic advantage ranged from 9 percentage points (in Virginia and Florida) to 11 points (in Nevada and Colorado) to an overwhelming margin of 18 points (in Ohio and Iowa).
The intervening years, as the table above(? How about below?) depicts, have not been kind to the president and his party. Whatever the cause of this shift, the two parties now are essentially at parity in all six of these states.

Here are the results:
Marist, however, uses Democratic to Republican ratios in two of its Senate polls — Florida (8-point Democratic edge) and Ohio (9-point advantage) — that are more in keeping with the state of play in 2008 or 2009 than that of today. Marist’s 2-point Democratic advantage in its Virginia Senate poll is closer to Gallup’s finding of a 1-point GOP lead, but it still bestows more of an advantage on the Democratic candidate than seems warranted.
The share of Republicans in Marist’s Iowa poll is 5 points more favorable than the Gallup finding, so that one Marist poll may overstate things in the GOP’s direction. But in both Colorado and Nevada, the partisan breakdown follows Gallup’s numbers almost exactly.
If all polling organizations were to use Gallup’s party-identification findings in their surveys, some Republicans would be added and some Democrats subtracted from the samples (except occasionally, as in the Iowa poll). The top-line political conclusions would no doubt tilt slightly more in the Republican direction.
The polling results on policy questions, meanwhile, would depict a nation that is more consistently right of center on everything from social issues such as abortion to economic issues relating to the size and scope of government. The journalists who report on these polls and the headlines accompanying their handiwork would highlight different narratives from the ones they do today. Most significant, there would be fewer Election Day “surprises” that prompt the disappointed to mutter darkly about special interests or rigged elections.
– Michael G. Franc is vice president of government studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Turning the Tables on Obama and the Dems

Canada Free Press ^ | 6/8/2012 | Judi McLeod

Barack Obama is not seeking 2012 re-election for posterity’s sake. Obama is not waiting for his daughters to some day immortalize him in another book called “Dreams From My Father”. Obama is not seeking re-election for any reason other than to grab the four more years necessary to complete his messianic Fundamental Transformation of America.

Nothing that has ever been done before will come along to tear America from the voracious jaws of Obama. This is a man who was propelled from within the foul ranks of street activism to the highest office in the land; the socialist community activist who hid his true face from the American people with the help of a book based on “conceptual” relationships. This is the man who came from nowhere; did nothing to earn his lofty perch and who sealed off all those documents that would tell who he really is. This is a man who changed his name from Barry Soetoro to what he perceives to be the more royal and more substantial sounding ‘Barack Obama’.

The Big Lie now lives and we are mired down in teeming propaganda.
Thinking that anything about these times is normal is both dangerous and naive.
Believing that recent joyful events in Wisconsin would stop Obama in his tracks would be akin to believing that a child with a pea shooter could stop a raging bear.
“With five months until Election Day, Barack Obama faces a grim new reality: Republicans now believe Mitt Romney can win, and Democrats believe Obama can lose…”, Mark Halperin wrote in Time Magazine. “Last week’s anemic job-creation and economic growth data was sandwiched between two Bill Clinton specials: ... the 42nd President lauded Romney’s business record as “sterling”; then he veered from the Obama line on extending Bush-era tax cuts…
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Return of the Reagan Democrats! ^ | June 8, 2012 | Robert Tracinski

Scott Walker beat the spread.

Sometime politics is like betting on football. It's not just about whether your team wins. It's about whether you beat the spread. The rough calculation going into Tuesday's recall election in Wisconsin was that if Governor Scott Walker won by less than five percentage points, the race would not have any clear national-level implications, but if he won by five points or more, it would. The final result, 53.2% to 46.3%, is a margin of 6.9 percentage points. He beat the spread...

But we are finally reaching the Thatcher Line: the point at which the government runs out of other people's money. Europe has gone over that line already—Greece maxed out Germany's credit card—and now we are approaching it...

Wisconsin is the bellwether for that cultural-political shift, but it is not the only example. Two less-heralded votes on Tuesday were held in California, where voters in San Diego and San Jose—hardly bastions of conservatism—approved referendums cutting back on benefits for government employees. In San Jose, the measure was approved by a 70%-30% margin...

The result is that the Blue Dog Caucus in the House has been reduced from 54 members after the 2008 election to 26 after the 2010 election, and after November, it may be winnowed down to as few as 10 congressmen.

Paul Ryan summed up the trend after the 2010 election, and events are bearing him out: "Reagan Democrats are becoming Reagan Democrats again." Democrats who are not adherents of the socialist hard left are becoming appalled at the out-of-control growth of government, and they will support any politician who has the will and the courage to rein it in.

You tell me if Barack Obama qualifies. And since he doesn't, that is why the result in Wisconsin!

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Chicago Rally Against HHS Mandate Takes a New "Twist"

Canada Free Press ^ | June 8, 2012 | Joshua Caswell

CHICAGO -- This Friday, June 8, at noon local time across the country, tens of thousands of Americans, in over 150 cities coast to coast, took to the streets in public protest against the HHS Mandate during the second nationwide Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally.
This time the flagship rally held at Chicago’s Federal Plaza took an interesting twist—suddenly transforming from a formal political rally to a Swing Dance festival!
Media pundit and blogger, Jill Stanek, danced unannounced on stage to a Jazz Band at the end of her speech. At the same time hundreds of youth converged on already crowded plaza wearing 1930’s style outfits, carrying huge clusters of yellow balloons and shooting yellow confetti into the crowd as cheers erupted.
The exuberant and festive Swing Dance theme was an attempt to “swing public opinion” announced organizers, “in less than a year we won’t have this kind of freedom.”
Rally 239.JPG

Jill Stanek - pro-life blogger extraordinaire

Rally 249.JPG

And now the fun begins as Jill ends her speech with. . . . a swing dance?

Rally 368.JPG

Who can resist?

Rally 277.JPG

Rally 399.JPG

Rally 425.JPG

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Ongoing Disgrace That Is Obamanomics

Forbes ^ | 6/7/2012 | Peter Ferrara

President Obama has led America into an accelerating downward spiral. Destination: Argentina. Last Friday’s calamitous jobs report was just a signpost on the way.

Argentina enjoyed the world’s fourth highest per capita GDP in 1929, on par with the U.S. at the time. But then the nation lost its way through its embrace of a leftist, union allied government, which took control of the economy and imposed wildly irresponsible taxes, spending, deficits and debt. After World War II, the hugely popular Juan Peron came to power and institutionalized the madness. It has been all downhill for Argentina ever since. Sound familiar?
Today, Argentina ranks 53rd in the world in per capita GDP according to the International Monetary Fund, 57th in the CIA World Factbook, at a level less than one third that of the U.S. But its national debt at 51% of GDP is actually less than that of the United States under the Obama Administration, where we are rocketing towards 70% of GDP by the end of this year, and 200% in 25 years, according to CBO.
Friday’s jobs report shows Obama’s Juan Peron trend. While a measly 69,000 jobs were created in May, the report adjusted downward the jobs created in March and April by 49,000, leaving actually only 20,000 new jobs on net. The number of jobs created has declined every month this year.
While Obama and his propagandists claim 27 consecutive months of job growth, employment growth is the norm and not the exception for the American economy. In the 62 years from the end of World War II in 1945 until 2008, jobs grew in 86% of the months, or 640 out of 744. But Obama and his propagandists think you are too stupid to know the country you live in. They know at least
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; History; Society
KEYWORDS: argentina; evita; obamanomics; peron

New Brain Target for Appetite Control Identified

Columbia University Medical Center ^ | June 7, 2012 | NA

Finding raises hopes for new anti-obesity medications!

New York, NY (June 7, 2012) — Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) have identified a brain receptor that appears to play a central role in regulating appetite. The findings, published today in the online edition of Cell, could lead to new drugs for preventing or treating obesity.

“We’ve identified a receptor that is intimately involved in regulating food intake,” said study leader Domenico Accili, MD, professor of Medicine at CUMC. “What is especially encouraging is that this receptor belongs to a class of receptors that turn out to be good targets for drug development, making it a highly ‘druggable’ target. In fact, several existing medications already seem to interact with this receptor. So, it’s possible that we could have new drugs for obesity sooner rather than later.”

In their search for new targets for obesity therapies, scientists have focused on the hypothalamus, a tiny brain structure that regulates appetite. Numerous studies suggest that the regulatory mechanism is concentrated in neurons that express a neuropeptide, or brain modulator, called AgRP. But the specific factors that influence AgRP expression are not known.
The CUMC researchers found new clues to appetite control by tracing the actions of insulin and leptin. Both hormones are involved in maintaining the body’s energy balance, and both are known to inhibit AgRP. “Surprisingly, blocking either the insulin or leptin signaling pathway has little effect on appetite,” says Dr. Accili. “We hypothesized that both pathways have to be blocked simultaneously in order to influence feeding behavior.”
To test their hypothesis, the researchers created a strain of mice whose AgRP neurons lack a protein that is integral to both insulin and leptin signaling. As the researchers hypothesized, removing this protein — Fox01 — had a profound effect on the animals’ appetite. “Mice that lack Fox01 ate less and were leaner than normal mice,” said lead author Hongxia Ren, PhD, associate research scientist in Medicine. “In addition, the Fox01-deficient mice had better glucose balance and leptin and insulin sensitivity — all signs of a healthier metabolism.”
Since Fox01 is a poor drug target, the researchers searched for other ways to inhibit the action of this protein. Using gene-expression profiling, they found a gene that is highly expressed in mice with normal AgRP neurons but is effectively silenced in mice with Fox01-deficient neurons. That gene is Gpr17 (for G-protein coupled receptor 17), which produces a cell-surface receptor called Gpr17.
To confirm that the receptor is involved in appetite control, the researchers injected a Gpr17 activator into normal mice, and their appetite increased. Conversely, when the mice were given a Gpr17 inhibitor, their appetite decreased. Similar injections had no effect on Fox01-deficient mice.
According to Dr. Accili, there are several reasons why Gpr17, which is also found in humans, would be a good target for anti-obesity medications. Since Grp17 is part of the so-called G-protein-coupled receptor family, it is highly druggable. About a third of all existing drugs work through G-protein-coupled receptors. In addition, the receptor is abundant in AgRP neurons but not in other neurons, which should limit unwanted drug side effects.
Dr. Accili and Dr. Ren’s paper is titled, “G protein-coupled purinergic receptor GPR17 mediates orexigenic effects of FoxO1 in AgRP neurons.” The other contributors are Ian J. Orozco (CUMC), Ya Su (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY), Shigetomo Suyama (Yale University School of Medicine), Roger Gutiérrez-Juárez (Einstein), Tamas L.
Horvath (Yale), Sharon L. Wardlaw (CUMC), Leona Plum (CUMC), and Ottavio Arancio (CUMC).
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (DK58282, DK57539, DK80003, DK45024, NS49442, and DK63608).
The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interest.
Columbia University Medical Center provides international leadership in basic, pre-clinical and clinical research, in medical and health sciences education, and in patient care. The medical center trains future leaders and includes the dedicated work of many physicians, scientists, public health professionals, dentists, and nurses at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Mailman School of Public Health, the College of Dental Medicine, the School of Nursing, the biomedical departments of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and allied research centers and institutions. Established in 1767, Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons was the first institution in the country to grant the M.D. degree and is among the most selective medical schools in the country. Columbia University Medical Center is home to the largest medical research enterprise in New York City and State and one of the largest in the United States.
Upon its official opening in October 1998, the Naomi Berrie Diabetes Center at Columbia University Medical Center established a new standard of care for the 1.6 million people with diabetes in the New York area—combining world-class diabetes research and education programs with unprecedented family-oriented patient care. Named for the mother of the late Russell Berrie, founder of RUSS™ Toys, the center is today recognized as the most comprehensive diabetes research and treatment center in the tri-state region and has been designated a national “Diabetes Center of Excellence” – one of only three in the state of New York. Approximately one hundred faculty and students, affiliated with the Center, conduct basic and clinical research related to the pathogenesis and treatment of all forms of diabetes and its complications. For more information, visit
Media Contact: Karin Eskenazi, 212-342-0508,