Friday, June 22, 2012

GM may suffer future sales backlash from thousands of retirees!


Torque News ^ | June 22, 2012 | Frank Sherosky



Many of the 118,000 salaried retirees are bitterly stating they will never buy another GM vehicle; and anyone who discounts the effects their numbers can have on sales should reconsider.


GM retirees have been loyal GM fans, often purchasing more than one car, not to mention convincing others in their family and friend networks to buy as well. Like the GM reitrement plan, though, those days may be over.
Call it what you will, but in recent emails both the General Motors Retiree Association (GMRA) and the National Retiree Legislative Network (NRLN) consider the ending of the GM retirement fund a definite breach in loyalty. No doubt it is a throwing under the bus; and if GM can do this to its own, then imagine what might happen to customers over time.
For sure, it’s not a great image message for GM. You might even justify the move by General Motors Company (NYSE: GM) as financially prudent. Nonetheless, this financial reengineering has still has soured the attitudes of a majority of GM retirees who have been sending emails to the retiree organizations in a grass roots effort to even protest before the government. Reason is, this kind of financial re-engineering will also create more pension risks to the remaining pension plans by eliminating PBGC protections. It will also significantly reduce PBGC premium contributions from companies.
Fact is, Ford offered lump sum buyouts as well. However, Ford did not take the low road by palming the entire pension plan into an annuity-based entity like Prudential. Even Chrysler has stated that it has no intention of ending its pension plan for salaried retirees.
Of course, Prudential is not complaining, as they are being paid handsomely to take over. Perhaps that is why the monthly benefit is not easily matched by other life insurance companies, including Oxford Life and Security Benefits Corporation which sell indexed annuities with bonus growth and legacy preservation options. Problem is, while you wait a year or two to grow the amount toward an equivalent income, what are retirees supposed to draw from in the meantime? The only choice is savings or IRA; and that's supposed to supplement for the remainder of life.
Be apprised, only a life insurance company can guarantee an income in an annuity form; in this case, Prudential is a group annuity. However, many outside advisors like Mainstay Capital are chomping at the bit to get a hold of all those lump sum dollars to create bond ladders and portfolio mixes in an attempt to preserve legacy funds as well as growth.
According to the NRLN and the GMRA, General Motors is going to give Prudential $3.5 to $4.5 billion to replace its salaried retirees' pension plan with an annuity that will provide steady income, but not provide salaried retirees with the financial protection of ERISA and the PBGC if Prudential went belly up. For the record, on a solvency rating, Oxford Life and Security benefits are higher on the security chain, according to the Standard Analytical Service 2012 report.
Other Backlash
It is the auto sales backlash, though, that GM best be prepared to accept as a result. For the record, it is not only the active retirees that are affected by this move. Future retirees at GM will suffer the same fate of loss of protection. Furthermore, potential customers of GM are watching closely how they treat people.
Sure, one can look at it as an opportunity for retirees. However, the money sent to Prudential could have just as well paid into the pension fund, says the NLRN. Hard to disagree. So, do not think this is a free event even for GM. Earnings will take definite hit for the remainder of the year; and GM still owes the taxpayers which includes the retirees. No wonder the stock can't get kack to its IPO price.
More important, though, every pension that was not at risk is now definitely at risk; and greater risk will have to be taken in the market just to match the Prudential numbers, if the lump sum is taken by those who received a lesser amount.
In my view, it is that kind of corporate character that the public watches. My own book, “Perfecting Corporate Character” authored as far back as 1999, is filled with examples of such plans, manipulations and corporate deck-chair maneuvering by corprate executives.
Bottom line is, GM will lose many future sales from retirees as a result. See, when times got tough, those retirees and employees were always a source of sales which GM, even after killing its bond holders in bankruptcy, could count on. Better believe that will now be curtailed - big time.

Obama Asks People Getting Married To Forgo Gifts, Ask Their Guests To Donate To His Campaign Instead! (Could he be any more pompous?)


Weasel Zippers ^ | June 21, 2012 | ZIP



Obama Asks People Getting Married To Forgo Gifts, Ask Their Guests To Donate To His Campaign Instead…

You can even register your wedding on his campaign website. Could he be any more pompous?

The Punk President and His ‘Gangster Government’ Go All In!


PJ Media ^ | June 22, 2012 | Tom Blumer



Can we really survive four more years of this?


On November 4, 2008, as it become obvious that Barack Hussein Obama would defeat John Sidney McCain and become the nation’s forty-fourth president, I told readers at my home blog to “Say hello to the Punk Presidency.”

That moniker came not from whim but from study. By Election Day in 2008, the question was no longer whether our new president was a punk. It was only whether he would only fit the word’s relatively benign definition as a “young, inexperienced person” or would be much worse than that, namely a “petty criminal or hoodlum” whose administration would abuse its awesome power and access to the treasures of the richest and greatest country on earth in ways previously unseen.
It wasn’t long before it became obvious that the country had selected the latter, after which a grievous and ongoing financial toll which continues began to accumulate. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Democratic Party politics and presidencies could have predicted that the paeans to fiscal responsibility Obama mouthed during the 2008 campaign would be thrown overboard as soon as the electoral vote count reached 270. But few expected to see so much brazen, politically driven profligacy so quickly.
Once in office, Obama started with an $800 billion stimulus package which turned out to be little more than temporary layoff prevention for certain public employees and the distribution of billions to “green” and “clean” energy firms which could never survive in the marketplace on their own. It was sold to the public largely as a recovery-motivated attempt to bring about “shovel-ready” jobs. We’re supposed to believe that Obama only later discovered, thanks largely to barriers imposed by government red tape and organized labor, that there really isn’t any such thing as a shovel-ready job. In hindsight, it’s reasonable to contend that Team Obama knew this from the start, and didn’t care. There were cronies and contributors who needed care and feeding.
Separate but of course related, the jobs of UAW members at General Motors and Chrysler had to be saved, without meaningful worker sacrifice, by hook or by crook. Well, actually the latter, considering that Chrysler’s post-bankruptcy ownership structure was built by separating certain secured lenders from their legally superior position as creditors in bankruptcy, while GM’s reorganization and re-emergence denied unsecured bondholders their rightful due. Beyond the Obama government’s tens of billions in direct bailouts, both companies will continue to enjoy billions in benefits, at taxpayers’ current and future expense, from their Treasury-granted permission to use loss carryforwards from their bankrupt predecessors, something which politically non-favored enterprises coming out of bankruptcy cannot do.
During the Chrysler hijacking, prescient commentator and political analyst Michael Barone wrote: “We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely to be part of a continuing series.” That it exactly what has transpired. A very small sample: Due diligence-compromised Energy Department loans, including to Solyndra, a company which managed to move its principals (here we go again) into a position ahead of the American people in bankruptcy; the blatant bribes employed in ensuring ObamaCare’s passage; the utterly meritless and temporarily thwarted anti-fracking campaign by the EPA’s Al “crucify them” Armendariz against Range Resources (and the likely dozens of others in the EPA and at other regulatory bodies quietly attempting and possibly succeeding in similar takedowns which haven’t yet been stopped); condoning to the point of virtually sanctioning Black Panther voter intimidation at the polls in Pennsylvania, effectively giving the green light to anyone else who wishes to engage in similar activities this fall; and serial, often media-assisted intimidation of opponents, their donors, and out-of-favor executives.
This brings us to the president’s June 20 claim of executive privilege over documents in the deadly “Fast and Furious” debacle. As Landmark Legal Foundation head Mark Levin said in opening his radio show that evening:
We have a president of the United States who evades the Constitution every step of the way and then asserts it when he attempts to evade it.
… Eric Holder has no grounds to stand on whatsoever.
… This has all been staged; it’s all been planned. Drag out the process as long as possible. Don’t assert privilege early in the process. Just spit out a little document here and there … claim you’re cooperating …
… and within minutes (of Congressman Darrell Issa’s indication that he would pursue contempt charges) we get … an immediate assertion of executive privilege by the president …
… It didn’t happen at the eleventh hour. This has all been planned politically.
That is how a “gangster government” operates.
In 2007 and 2008, the establishment press not only failed to vet candidate Obama, it ridiculed and demonized those who tried, in the process concealing his already evident authoritarian lineage, background, and tendencies from the majority of the electorate. Those who still laughably claim to “speak truth to power” continue to instead mindlessly serve as Obama’s protective detail. At the Associated Press, aka the Administration’s Press, as of just before 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the wire service’s story on the historic vote by the Issa-headed House committee to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt and Obama’s indefensible invocation of executive privilege was sixth from the top in its Politics stories list and fifth from the top in U.S. stories. Their predictable “We always tag Dear Leader’s opposition as the bad guys” headline: “GOP House Committee Holds AG Holder in Contempt.”
Now that our Punk President and his administration have irretrievably gone all in, the likelihood that America can survive four more years with him in charge as a place where the rule of law and the Constitution have any enduring meaning is very slim. Let’s not find out.

Are We Better Off Than We Were Four Years Ago?


Townhall ^ | 06/22/2012 | Donald Lambro



Are you better off than you were four years ago?


That is the politically pivotal question that will ultimately determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

This of course was the question former governor Ronald Reagan posed in his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter. The answer was a landslide that swept Carter out of office after just one term and launched what was to become one of the most transformative presidencies in modern American history.
It's a question former governor Mitt Romney is likely to pose to the voters when he debates Barack Obama whose troubled presidency bears striking similarities to Carter's.
When Reagan posed the question about his rival, he said voters should ask themselves "Is it easier for you to go buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago?"
Thirty-two years later, Romney's list of economic and fiscal questions will be much longer than the basic bread-and-butter problems Reagan recited.
Here's a sampling of the major issues, drawn up by The Weekly Standard, that Romney may include when he asks voters if they are better off now than they were when they went to the polls in November of 2008 to elect Obama:
-- The unemployment rate: 6.8 percent in November of 2008 and 8.2 percent now and rising in at least 22 states.
-- The national poverty rate: 13.2 percent then, and 15.1 percent now.
-- Americans on food stamps: 30.9 million then, 44.7 million now.
-- A gallon of regular gasoline: $2.40 then, $3.60 now.
-- Homeownership rate: 67.8 percent then, 65.4 percent now.
-- The percentage of Americans without health insurance: 16 percent then, and 17.7 percent now.
-- America's median household income: $50,203 then,$49,445 now.
-- The number of Americans participating in the labor force: 65.8 percent then, but now down to 63.8 percent because millions of discouraged job seekers have stopped looking for work.
-- The annual budget deficit: $459 billion in fiscal 2008, but $1.32 trillion in fiscal 2012.
-- The federal debt: $10.57 trillion then, $15.69 trillion now.
-- The number of civilian federal employes: 2.67 million then, 2.75 million now.
One number that will undoubtedly come up in this fall's presidential debates will be Obama's preposterous claim at a White House news conference on the economy that "the private sector is doing fine," while federal, state and local government employes were the ones most in need of a federal assistance to prevent further layoffs.
The Heritage Foundation's researchers looked into Obama's claim and produced statistics showing that is patently untrue.
"Private-sector employment is nearly 4 percent lower than it was when the recession began -- worse than the declines in state and local government employment, and far worse than federal employment," the conservative think tank said.
While Heritage's figures measured private vs. public employment from December 2007 to May of this year, it nonetheless shows that the private sector suffered the hardest hit in the 2008-2009 recession and its aftermath:
Private sector employment fell by 3.9 percent over this period, while federal employment jumped by 11.6 percent and state and local public workers declined by a relatively modest 1.3 percent and 2.8 percent respectively.
Meantime, there are new and growing signs that more Americans are continuing to lose confidence the dismal Obama economy which grew at a snail's pace 1.9 percent in the first three months of 2012.
"The Gallup Economic Confidence Index fell to -24 for the week ending June 17, the third straight week of decline," Gallup reported Tuesday. "The index is down four points from the prior week and eight points since late May, when it had reached a four-year best of -16."
Notably, Gallup says it "routinely sees slight one-week declines in confidence and occasional two-week declines, but has not recorded a three-week decline since last summer, when the index fell for four straight weeks spanning July 11 through Aug. 7."
This is an economy that is struggling under Obama's policies that are in Romney's words, "anti-growth, anti-job creation and anti- investment." And that won't change until the policies are changed.
It should be clear by now, in the fourth year of Obama's presidency, that his policies have been designed to grow the government, not grow the economy. They began with the nearly $800 billion spending stimulus that poured the money into federal and state government coffers in the vain hope of jump-starting the economy and creating jobs in the process.
But when the money ran out, the unsustainable stimulus stopped, the economy sagged, real jobs were still in short supply and we've been in a deepening economic hole ever since.
Remember Obama's 2010 "summer of recovery" that never happened? It was destined to fail because the history of public works stimulus spending by government has never worked -- as this year's mediocre 1.9 percent economic growth rate proves once again.
But Obama believes that bigger government is still the answer because that's all he believes in. In a speech in Chicago a week ago, he said government programs are "what made this country great."
Not business and industry, risk-taking investors, and a free people pursuing the American dream, but bureaucrats and government.
Obama's leftist brand of anti-private sector economics is the reason why we are still not better off than we were four years ago.

Fast and Furious Desperation


American Thinker ^ | June 22, 2012 | Thomas Lifson



There is a school of thought among GOP party pros that Fast and Furious is a distraction, that President Obama would rather talk about anything other than the economy. Much as I admire the insight and focus of people like Karl Rove, President Obama and his coterie are showing unmistakable signs of desperation. We witnessed the President's gum chewing demeanor, and awful presser performance in Los Cabos at the G20 summit -- a televised disaster that commandeered prime time television in the East.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

If the Obamacare Ruling Goes Our Way, It's Worth Celebrating!


Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | June 22, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Paul in Glenn Rock, Pennsylvania. How are you, sir? Welcome.
CALLER: I'm wonderful, Rush. The more important thing is, how are you?
RUSH: I'm cool. Everything is hunky-dory. If I told you anything other than that it would cause a national panic.
CALLER: (laughing) God bless Rush Limbaugh, now and always.
RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: This is a very quick -- Snerdley, I thought he was going to laugh right off his chair. I'm a first-time caller, but maybe a memorable caller. What does he mean -- I'm talking about John Boehner and the other pundits -- don't spike the football with the health care thing?
RUSH: Are you really asking, or are you asking rhetorically?
CALLER: Rhetorically.
RUSH: He's basically saying, "Let's not gloat."
CALLER: Huh?
RUSH: We're not going to spike the football means we're not going to taunt.
CALLER: We're not going to taunt.
RUSH: We're not going to gloat. We're not going to have the ref throw a yellow flag on us after we score the touchdown.
CALLER: What was Queen Nancy doing when they ran this thing through on Christmas Eve and then just a little bit later marched up Capitol Hill with the ding dong gavel that they use in the carnival to ring a bell?
RUSH: I understand, but you see, if we do that the independents will get mad at us and vote for more communism. Well, that's what the consultants tell our guys.
CALLER: Well, they're wrong.
RUSH: So you want a little gloating, you want some celebrating?
CALLER: I've been celebrating my whole life, because I'm a winner. I'm 69 years old.
RUSH: It's a character thing. I understand what Boehner's saying. In fact, after the 2002 midterms, you might get mad at me for this, the 2002 midterms, I was on NBC's election night coverage with Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, and it was a Republican sweep. And both those guys were stunned. The first House race's midterm elections in a president's first term usually go against him. The conventional wisdom was that Bush was going to lose because of 9/11. The conventional wisdom was that history would be true to form and Republicans would lose a lot of seats in the House, and it was just the opposite.
We were coming off the Wellstone Memorial and all night long I'm watching the returns come in and it's going the opposite of what they thought. It turned out to be huge and I was telling these guys why it happened. I loved Russert. Brokaw I like. He's okay. But clearly they were shocked. They get stuck in their narratives. And when the night was over and it was my last spot, they said: "So what next, Rush?" I said it's important for the Republicans not to gloat about this from the standpoint, "Let's not act surprised we won. That's what should have happened. Let's not act surprised we scored a touchdown. Let's not act like something that doesn't happen very much. Let's act like winners, like it's something that we expect and move on."
I didn't want a repeat of 1994, where we won big and stopped teaching because we assumed everybody thought that we had become the majority. So what Boehner is saying, whether you agree with him or not, what he's trying to express here is that we're better than Pelosi, we have a little class. The country's in dire straits and it's not about us. It's about saving the country from the direction we're headed under Obama, and this is one step, but there's a lot to go. But if you want to go out there and spike the football, you go right ahead. I'm going to spike the football. I'm going to have my little fun with it if that happens.
CALLER: And I could never be mad at you Rush. You are running the Institute of Conservatism. You're the professor of conservatism. I look forward every day to listening to you and gaining your knowledge that you share with everyone.
RUSH: That's what my wife, Kathryn, says to me about once a year.
CALLER: I guarantee you. I guarantee you. I'm just looking so forward to the coming weeks and the coming campaign. Could I ask you one other quick question?
RUSH: Sure, fire away. It's Open Line Friday. That's what it's for.
CALLER: I'm speaking personally. In the '10 election I worked about three months for the Republican Party in the '10 election and I found out just being on the phones what a big difference that it can make. I found out, just using my head a little bit in my own family, there's two people in my family that have never voted. Can you believe that? Two people. And they know how I feel. I guarantee you, they're voting because I'm taking them.
RUSH: This is great. You found out, A, it feels good. And, B, you mattered, you were a factor. But B, it does matter. It's fundamentally important to do so. I'm glad you did that. Spread the word. By the way, I want to get an indication from you, if you're going to spike the football, what is that? What are you going to do? If we get a ruling that you like, how are you going to celebrate?
CALLER: How am I going to celebrate? I'm going to celebrate by telling all my friends, all my acquaintances, just sharing it.
RUSH: Yeah, but what are you going to do?
CALLER: I might go pop a cork.
RUSH: Well, okay. Pop popcorn and swig some Big Gulps eat some trans fat.
CALLER: (laughing) I came up with a good one for Mayor Bloomberg anyway. They probably would have come out with a piggyback where you get one, you get one free on a piggyback, that wouldn't have --
RUSH: Yeah, the 15-ounce cups and sell them twice.
CALLER: Yeah. If everyone's listening, look in their family, and if they can get one person, just one in their family to get out there that hasn't gotten out there before. I'm going to drive two of them to the polls.
RUSH: Well, that is superb. One of our great sponsors here, FreedomWorks, that's what they do. They put people like you together with other people who want to bring about that result. That's cool. This spiking the football, I knew when Boehner said that, that there were going to be some people not happy about it, because it is a huge deal if we beat this. It's monumental. It's going to rank right up there with one of the most important things that ever happened to save the country. And it is worth feeling really, really good about. I understand -- look it, folks, it's inside the Beltway, the liberals run that show. They run everything inside the Beltway. And I guarantee you, they're being advised by consultants, "Don't gloat. Don't spike the football. It will tick off the independents. Obama's personally liked. People aren't going to look at this as a personal defeat for Obama." I can hear it all now.
By the way, I have it on good authority... I had a powerful influential member of the media, I had a super secret phone call this morning from the highest levels of the Republican establishment. I'll just tell you what I was told. That nobody knows how the court's going to rule. The person I talked to thinks it's highly unlikely that Obama knows. I said: "You really think Kagan or Sotomayor or somebody hasn't called him?"
"No, the Court's done a pretty good job of maintaining security like this."
Okay. Fine. Then I was told that if the mandate is thrown out, if the mandate is found unconstitutional, that the Republicans are going to move immediately to ban the rest of it. Not replace it. They are going to move to ban the rest of it. If only the mandate goes down, they're going to immediately move to ban the rest of it. Now, you have to keep in mind they don't have the votes right now to get rid of anything. They're just the majority in the House. They can't control what the Senate does. They don't have enough votes to override Obama. But I think I was told the truth.
I think if the mandate goes down, I think House Republicans will make a huge show next week of going after the rest of the bill. If the whole thing is upheld, I think they're going to make a massive move to repeal the whole thing, because I was told they know. They're very confident in the polling data that only 30 percent of the American people want this. I'm just telling you what I was told. Time will tell, but it's well understood at the highest levels inside the Beltway, that I can't be spun. So I'm pretty confident that what I was told is truthful and heartfelt. Now, beyond making a big show out of repealing the whole thing, if there is an action to follow, we'll all have to wait and see. Time will tell. And it won't be very long.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Folks, I tell you: If you want to spike the football next week if the ruling on health care goes our way, you go right ahead. If there is anything worth celebrating out there, it's liberty. If there's anything worth celebrating it's our freedom -- and we don't get to celebrate that enough. We don't take the time to celebrate that enough. So if you want to spike the football, you go right ahead. Because if this ruling comes down, do you think the other side is going to sit there and whimper away?
They are going to be out there.
They've already got the plan.
They're going to try to scare everybody to death with what's ahead. "You're not going to get health care! You're not going to be able to afford it. You're going to die. Grandma's going to die. Grandpa's gonna die." You wait. They're going to be loading this thing up with scare tactics like you haven't seen. It's going to become their number one campaign issue. I'll tell you what it's going to be. It's going to be a variation of, "Five people just said that you can't have health care while they keep theirs. Five people just said that."
In fact, it's going to be "five guys."
"Four white guys and a misdirected black guy" is what they'll say. "Four white guys and an Uncle Tom just told you that you can't have health care. President Obama gave you health care. He's the first president in 100 years to do it, and five guys on the Supreme Court have just taken it away from you." It's going to be bloody. You'll be able to keep everything if this goes down the tubes. But you don't keep your doctor; you don't keep your plan if it is fully implemented.
"Five rich Republicans took your health care away from you and they have theirs. They didn't lose theirs because they're on a government plan that was just like what Obama tried to give you." You wait. There's a part of me that's always believed that since the thing is so unpopular anyway, Obama wouldn't mind it going down. And then he can just say, "You know what? To the hell with the incremental stuff. I'm just going to go single-payer from the get-go." I'm just going to go straight for the whole ball of wax.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We go to Cincinnati. This is John. I'm glad you waited, sir. Great to have you with us.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, good to talk to you. I've got a projection and I want to see what you think about it.
RUSH: All right.
CALLER: If the Supreme Court strikes down this individual mandate, which I feel they should and they will, I think you're going to see Obama and Holder pretty much say, "The heck with state rights." They're going to go after Massachusetts over its individual mandate just to distract and deflect and make another constitutional problem, and put the spotlight on Romney.
RUSH: Well, I think you have a point there. They haven't done that yet. Obamacare, as the legitimate child of Romneycare, is something they have yet to spring. They're going to do that. We know they are. (interruption) Snerdley is in there laughing himself silly but it's the truth. They haven't sprung that yet. But we know the Romneycare authors, advisors, were out publicly last year saying that they were called to the White House to put together Obamacare in the spitting image of Romneycare.
We all knew this during the primary. This is something the regime will use. They haven't used it yet. When you hear John here say, "If Holder and Obama don't get their way they'll launch a national mandate," and you pooh-pooh it, look: Folks, you cannot pooh-pooh that stuff. Barack Obama, a week ago today, basically said, "(Raspberry) to the US Constitution." He knowingly, back in 2007 and 2008, admitted to a bunch of Hispanics that he just couldn't legally grant amnesty to illegal aliens. It was against the law, he said, and he couldn't do it.
Well he did.
He just did it.
Political re-election, and the desire for political re-election outweighed whatever is legal or not. This bunch has behaved outside the Constitution a number of times. That's just the most recent example. So it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that they would, in a fit of pique and anger, say, "Oh, yeah? Oh yeah? Try this!" And just do it, on the theory: Who's going to stop them? There isn't an election until November. Who is going to stop them? Pelosi and the Democrats and the House goes along with whatever they do.
Pelosi is already out there encouraging... In fact, this is another thing. We had the story the other day that the debt limit may have to be raised in October. Right before the election. Another debt limit fight would not benefit Obama. Raise spending? That's why he's in trouble, one of the many reasons he's in trouble. So Pelosi is urging him, under the Fourth Amendment, to say, "The hell with Congress!" and just raise it. She claims there's a clause in the 14th Amendment that permits him to do it.
Remember this came up in one of the previous debt limit battles. Pelosi has said (paraphrased), "I'm perfectly happy with Obama granting amnesty to these 800,000 and more young Hispanics who are here through no fault of their own." So If Holder and Obama want to spit on the Constitution next week? It's much easier to believe that something that has happened will happen again than it is to believe that something that hasn't happened will happen. And they've already done it. So it's a legitimate fear, it's a legitimate concern, when you understand Obama's avowed purpose.
Obama's purpose is to strip this country's super-power status away from it. There are still a lot of people who can't get their arms around that. They just can't. You tell them, you give them the evidence, you throw all his words at them, and they still don't want to believe it. They don't want to believe we've elected somebody with that view of the country. It's still a hard sell. But nevertheless, it's a legitimate concern to have about what these people will do. This is the signature legislation. This is the reason Obama will have a presidential library. He's the first president ever to have "affordable healthcare for all Americans."
I know, but that's what he's angling for.
END TRANSCRIPT

On Becoming Illegal. (You'll love this!)



FORMS ARE GOING FAST- SIGN UP TODAY! Becoming Illegal (Actual letter from an Iowa resident sent to his senator,) The Honorable Tom Harkin 731 Hart Senate Office Building Phone (202) 224 3254 Washington DC , 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for only three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out. Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me, given that I still have college age children driving my car. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance

Your Loyal Constituent, (hoping to reach 'illegal alien' status rather than just a bonafide citizen of the USA ) Donald Ruppert Burlington , IA Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue Service at 1-800-289-1040

Quoth The Gipper



Quoth the Gipper...

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid"

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."

"We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent"

"Peace is not the absense of conflict; it is the ability to manage conflict by peaceful means"

"Of the four wars of my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong"

"If the Soviet Union ever let another political party come into existence, they would still be a one-party state...
because everbody would join the other party"

"How do you tell a communist? He reads Lenin and Marx. And how do you tell an anti-communist?
Someone who understands Lenin and Marx."

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction; it's not something we pass along in our bloodstream.
It must be fought-for, protected, and passed-along for them to do the same"

"Entrepeneurs and small businesses are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States"

"If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat"

"They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong"

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"

"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours"

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement..."

Obama pick for NLRB was top lawyer for union tainted by mob ties, history of corruption!


foxnews.com ^ | 6/22/2012 | Doug McKelway



The rap sheet for members of the International Union of Operating Engineers reads like something out of "Goodfellas."

Embezzlement. Wire fraud. Bribery. That's just scratching the surface of crimes committed by the IUOE ranks. And it is from this union that President Obama earlier this year picked one of his latest appointees to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency tasked with resolving labor disputes between unions and management.

That recess appointee, Richard Griffin, was former general counsel for the 400,000-member union of heavy equipment operators -- a union tainted over the years by mob connections and a history of corruption.

Public documents obtained by Fox News show that more than 60 IUOE members have been arrested, indicted or jailed in the last decade on charges that include labor racketeering, extortion, criminal enterprise, bodily harm and workplace sabotage.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Obama, where is the recovery?


By John Thune, Special to CNN


  • John Thune: Two years ago this week, Obama claimed that economy will improve
  • Thune: Today, Americans are still waiting for the recovery
  • He says Republicans have a better plan: Repeal health care law, stop tax hike, cut spending
  • Thune: Road to real recovery is not doubling down on the failed policies of the past few years
Editor's note: John Thune is a senator from South Dakota and the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. He serves on the Senate Budget and Finance Committee.


(CNN) -- Two years ago this week, the Obama administration hailed the advent of the "Summer of Economic Recovery." The president's stimulus bill had passed a Democratic-controlled Congress just over a year before, accompanied by rosy predictions on job creation from the administration.
President Obama claimed that "the economy is headed in the right direction," and Vice President Joe Biden confidently predicted the creation of 250,000 to 500,000 new jobs a month. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner published an op-ed in The New York Times boldly entitled "Welcome to the Recovery."

Two years later, Americans are still waiting for the recovery. Today's job figures are well below the 250,000 to 500,000 jobs per month that Vice President Biden forecast. This year, the economy created a dismal 77,000 jobs in April and just 69,000 jobs in May, less than half of the 150,000 jobs needed each month just to keep up with population growth. Unemployment, which the White House predicted would shrink below 6% by April 2012, has remained at or above 8% for 40 straight months.
It doesn't take an economist to realize the president's economic policies have spectacularly failed to make things better.

Yet, the president doesn't seem to understand just how badly Americans are hurting. Despite the more than 23 million Americans who remain unemployed or underemployed, the president recently claimed that the private sector is "doing fine" and that what America actually needs is more government spending and more government workers. In other words, more of the same. More stimulus spending from Washington that explodes the debt. More government picking winners and losers. More taxes. More regulation.
It's time to try something new.

Fed warns of economic slowdown
Republicans have a plan to get our economy moving again. First, we need to ensure businesses are confident enough to expand and hire more workers. That means stopping the job-killing regulations that are strangling small businesses and reforming our burdensome and complicated tax code to fuel economic growth. It also means stopping a large tax increase, which is scheduled to hit next year unless Congress acts. The threat of this massive tax hike is creating serious economic uncertainty and discouraging companies from hiring more workers.
We can create tens of thousands of new American jobs by encouraging the development of America's vast energy resources and supporting truly shovel-ready projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, which would create an estimated 20,000 jobs, according to TransCanada, while boosting domestic energy production.
We also need to protect jobs by repealing the president's health care law, which is driving up health care costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. The director of the Congressional Budget Office testified that the health care law will mean 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. Those are jobs Americans can't afford to lose.
Finally, we need to cut reckless government spending and tackle the mounting debt crisis. America's brightest days are ahead. But if we don't take action soon, our country could end up in the kind of financial disaster Greece and Spain are facing. Our children and grandchildren should not have to pay for Washington's inability to stick to a budget. We owe it to the next generation to leave the country better than we found it.

The first step on the road to real recovery is not doubling down on the failed policies we've seen over the past 3½ years. Republicans are ready to get to work to jump-start our economy. We hope Democrats will join us.

Obama saw corporate job as working for the enemy!


The Examiner ^ | June 21, 2012 | Byron York



New evidence comes in the just-released biography "Barack Obama: The Story," by David Maraniss. Obama spent very little time in business, but he did have a job at a company called Business International for about a year after he graduated from Columbia University in 1983. The book contains new details about the future president's brief stint in corporate America.

Obama was a low-level editor in Reference Services, working on reports describing economic conditions in various foreign countries. By all accounts, he disliked the work, not just because it was pedestrian and boring, but because it was in business.

"He calls it working for the enemy," Obama's mother, Ann, wrote after a phone conversation with her son, "because some of the reports are written for commercial firms that want to invest in [Third World] countries."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

7 Reasons Obama’s Amnesty For Under 30 Illegals Is Terrible Policy


Townhall.com ^ | June 22, 2012 | John Hawkins



1) It's illegal: Since there are currently no work permits for illegal aliens, handing them out would require a change in the existing law. If this were a dictatorship like North Korea or Cuba, Dear Leader Barack Obama could simply issue a decree and change the law. Here in America we're a republic which means that he unquestionably, uncontroversially cannot issue work permits for illegal aliens without a bill passing through Congress. His attempt to do so may seem like a small matter to some people, but it sets an extremely dangerous precedent that undermines democracy in our country.
2) Refusing to enforce the existing law sets a terrible precedent: As Obama himself has admitted, he "swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books." He is breaking that oath to try to give amnesty to illegals. Imagine the chaos that will reign if this becomes standard practice. Suppose Mitt Romney wins. Could he end the death tax or corporate taxes by telling the IRS not to enforce them? What about putting an end to hate crime laws or the endangered species act by simple choosing not to enforce them? This is the can of worms Barack Obama is ripping wide open with his imperial decree.
3) This is a temporary solution designed to be a permanent fix: Barack Obama is asking illegal aliens to sign up and apply for work permits. However, since his policy doesn't have the force of law behind it, if Mitt Romney's elected, he could hand those same applications to ICE for use in tracking down illegals to be deported. In fact, that's exactly what Mitt Romney should do (Good luck with getting him to do it) since illegal aliens are by definition breaking the law and the penalty is deportation. In any case, the American people and businesses cannot effectively make long-term decisions based on important policies that can change the second a new party gets into power. Replacing laws with illegal presidential decrees creates instability and unreliability that makes for bad policy that helps paralyze the country.
4) There is no realistic way to verify the program: Illegals often use phony names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and documents. The whole idea that the government can reliably verify the documentation from hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people like this to prove they were here before they were 16, have graduated from high school, haven't broken any laws, have lived here five years, and are under 30 is absolutely laughable. What will inevitably happen is that the bureaucrats handling it will quickly conclude that it's futile to try to sort through this mess. They'll also have to face legal challenges for people who are denied and so they will just rubber stamp every application that doesn't have egregious errors in it. In other words, this process has no realistic hope of success before it even begins unless you define "success" as simply allowing just about every illegal who puts in an application to stay in the United States.
5) Billing this as a way to help children is a dodge: First of all, thirty year olds are not children. They're adults and if they're eligible for this program, it means they're adults who've been knowingly breaking this country's laws for 12 years. Someone like that is not worthy to receive American citizenship in the first place. Oh, but what about the real children who will be helped by this program? What about a 14 year old who was brought here five years ago by her parents? Well, can't you see the obvious set-up here? What happens when the 14 year old's parents are caught? Then, when the law is enforced, people will claim we're "breaking up families." Of course, that's a dumb argument we don't apply to other criminals. After all, putting burglars (who have kids) in jail breaks up families, too. Still, this policy is designed from the get-go by proponents of illegal immigration whose ultimate goal is to allow even more illegals to stay here.
6) This will encourage illegal immigration: If you can pass for 30 years old or younger and you've ever considered coming to America illegally, now is the time. All you have to do is get here, get some phony documentation, and chances are you'll get to stay in the country indefinitely with a work permit. There are undoubtedly tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of illegals on the way here to take advantage of Obama's stupidity. Moreover, what's the long term message we're sending with this program? It tells legal immigrants that they're complete morons for being dumb enough to obey our laws and it tells illegals that despite all the tough talk, if they break our laws for a long enough period of time, eventually our politicians will come along and reward them for it.
7) Americans will lose jobs: We have an unemployment rate that's over 8% and the economy seems to be stalling out again. In a rational world, we would probably dramatically slow down the number of legal immigrants we're allowing to come here in order to give our soft economy more time to absorb already unemployed Americans. Instead, Barack Obama wants to give hundreds of thousands, if not millions of illegal immigrants work permits so they can take jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. Whatever happened to putting Americans first?

Why Mitt Romney Is More Like Ronald Reagan Than You Think


Policy Mic ^ | February 2012 | John Giokaris



I’m a loud and proud Mitt Romney supporter. And it bothers me that I have to defend him as much as I do with fellow Republicans. The far right has been looking for the “anti-Romney” candidate all year long fearing that Romney isn’t “conservative enough” to go against Barack Obama. I’m here to tell them they’re absolutely wrong.
When I ask far right conservatives just what the heck are they looking for, the answer I get the most is “the next Ronald Reagan.” But what they don’t realize is that they’ve created this monolithic myth around Reagan that is not only inaccurate, but is impossible to live up to.
The far right wants to believe that Reagan was the most conservative president in history who never had to compromise in his life. If only.
While Reagan certainly talked a good game of conservative principles and values, his record shows that while some taxes went down, others went up, and government spending as well as the national debt continued to grow under his administration uninterrupted. Moreover, Reagan had a Democrat-majority Congress all throughout his eight year term in the White House. He couldn’t get anything done without their approval, which led to some of the greatest pieces of bipartisan legislation this country has ever seen, including the 1982 Job Training Partnership Act, the 1983 Social Security Amendments, the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, and the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
So how is that any different from what Romney had to deal with as governor of Massachusetts with an 85% Democrat state legislature? Romney passed what he could and vetoed anything he didn’t like, but ultimately reached across the aisle whenever he had to and solved a lot of the problems Massachusetts had, which included spending cuts, lowering taxes, and health care reform, that turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million budget surplus and gave the state a credit rating upgrade.
The far right also accuses Romney of being a flip-flopper on issues like abortion. Hello again Ronald Reagan, who signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act as governor of California in order to reduce the number of back alley abortions that was out of control in California at the time. Reagan then “flip-flopped,” and later became pro-life.
In fact, Reagan was also a liberal Democrat while he was working in Hollywood, supported Franklin Roosevelt’s big government policies under the New Deal, and was divorced.
Today’s far right would consider Reagan to be a “moderate sellout” with “too much baggage in his past.” They would have you believe that the difference between Romney and Obama is a difference between Coke and Pepsi. I couldn’t disagree more. Romney is a foreign policy hawk, a staunch supporter of lowering taxes, and an unapologetic free market capitalist with 25 years of private sector experience under his belt, just as Reagan was. Obama, on the other hand, is a career politician who fights for tax hikes and believes government is the solutions to all of life’s problems.
Romney provides a stark contrast to Obama much like Reagan did to Jimmy Carter in 1980. The country was suffering from a crippling recession with any hope of an economic recovery blunted by excessive taxation and regulation. One candidate blamed the American people for being soft and lazy instead of looking at his own misguided faith in big government solutions and redistribution of wealth policies while another firmly believed in free market economics and understood what makes America the great nation that it is – because of its liberty, prosperity, and strong national security.
Déjà vu 2012, where Americans have to choose once again between continuing down the same path of big government-based solutions and economic stagnation under its current leadership or switch gears to a leader who wants to flex America’s muscles and reopen the private sector economy for business again without apologizing for either.

“Coke and Pepsi?” Yeah right.


Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (Obama plummets to near all time low of -22)


Rasmussen Reports ^ | Friday, June 22, 2012



The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided.

The president picks up support from just 35% of white voters overall. That’s eight points below the 43% of the white vote he won in 2008. Among white Democrats, 17% currently plan to vote for Romney.

Just 33% now believe the president is doing a good or excellent job when it comes to the economy. That’s down from 41% at the beginning of May.
Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). See tracking history.
With speculation about Romney's vice presidential nominee running high, Scott Rasmussen contends in his latest weekly syndicated newspaper column that “more important than the process of selecting the nominee will be the way the choice is rolled out to the public.” Most Americans, he explains, "will learn all they know about the new name on the ticket during the week the candidate is introduced.”
Forty-five percent (45%) believe that America’s best days have come and gone. Just 37% believe they are in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...


 
Actually, Obama is already toast, big time. Democrats would be wise to dump him right now for a zillion obvious reasons. But.....they won’t!!! So.....the fools (Democrats) will go down to a massive electoral defeat on November 6, 2012, joining the incompetent, anti-American, failed POTUS Obama!!! ABO=Anybody But Obama!!!

America Hater


Townhall.com ^ | June 22, 2012 | Mona Charen





They always get the benefit of the doubt, these America haters -- from our enemies, of course. But also from our celebrities, our "mainstream" press and other organs of liberal opinion.
The case of Julian Assange, would-be scourge of America, is depressingly typical -- if slightly surprising because the administration he sought to embarrass and discredit was Obama's. There's discomfiting news about Assange this week, which we'll get to, but first, a review.
Remember the respectful treatment the Wikileaks founder received? After publishing 250,000 confidential documents obtained by an Army private -- some of which provided names and addresses of Afghan civilians who had cooperated with NATO against the Taliban, others that simply provided embarrassing diplomatic scuttlebutt -- Assange got a sympathetic "60 Minutes" interview. It was conducted at the country estate where he was under house arrest (or "mansion arrest" as the Daily Mail put it). A little matter of rape and sexual assault charges leveled in Sweden.
Why, you might ask, does an otherwise undistinguished Australian programmer and "Internet activist" get such cushy digs as the 10-bedroom Ellingham Hall in which to entertain foreign journalists and fight extradition? Why do Bianca Jagger, Jemima Khan, Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali and Michael Moore, among others, provide moral support and/or bail money for the pale crusader? Why does Time magazine feature a black and white photo of Assange on its cover, with his mouth taped over by a colorful American flag?
Why does Assange obtain cult status, whereas Women in White, who brave persecution to protest Cuba's human rights abuses and Harry Wu, a 19-year veteran of the Chinese gulag who campaigns for religious liberty in China and Manal al-Sharif, the Saudi woman who drove a car to highlight the kingdom's benighted treatment of women, struggle in relative obscurity? It's simple: Assange hates America. He has compared Guantanamo to Auschwitz. He claims that Wikileaks has uncovered "thousands" of American war crimes. He disclosed a stolen 2004 Army memo detailing the "Warlock" system that jammed improvised explosive devices. He praised the leader of Hezbollah for "fighting against the hegemony of the United States." Such paranoid anti-Americanism purchases credibility with the beautiful people.
Did they know or care what he was capable of? Assange was eventually persuaded to redact some of the material he received prior to publication, but as Declan Walsh of the Guardian reported, his initial attitude toward those who might lose their lives at the hands of the Taliban or others for cooperating with the U.S. was brutal. "'Well, they're informants,' he said. 'So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.'"
Assange is upheld, by those of limited understanding, as a symbol of openness and press freedom. Yet he has associated himself with some of the most flagrant abusers of press liberty in the world. He cheerfully agreed to serve as the host of a TV program on the Kremlin's propaganda channel "Russia Today." According to a report by the International Federation of Journalists, Russia has been responsible for the deaths or disappearances of more than 300 journalists in the past two decades.
His first interview -- and it was a soft one -- was with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who tends to torture people who displease him. When Nasrallah boasted that his code was unbreakable, the two men "laughed companionably," reported The New York Times.
Now we learn that Assange, who remains under an arrest warrant, is seeking the protection of the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Yes, Ecuador, whose Chavez-wannabe leader, Rafael Correa, has called journalists in his country "media vultures."
Ecuador's criminal code now prohibits journalists from showing a "lack of respect" for the president. And Correa has abused a feature of the broadcasting code to require that private TV and radio stations interrupt their programming to transmit government messages called "cadenas." Between 2007 and 2011, reports Human Rights Watch, there have been 1,025 such messages, sucking up 151 hours of broadcast time. The number of private outlets is shrinking though, as the government continues to shutter independent radio and TV stations (seven in June alone) on various pretexts.
That's where our Internet crusader for "openness" is headed or would like to be. The British government isn't cooperating, warning that Assange will be arrested if he steps out of the embassy.

One might say, "He's got it coming. He deserves it."

Obama's White Support Is Too Low to Win!


Real Clear Politics ^ | June 22, 2012 | David Paul Kuhn



President Obama does not currently have enough white support to win re-election even if he retains his minority base from 2008. At the same time, electoral data indicates Mitt Romney has not yet attracted enough of these white voters to capitalize on Obama's weakness.

Pundits often note that Romney cannot win with his current level of Hispanic support. That's likely true. But so is the converse: Obama cannot win with his level of white support unless white swing voters withhold their votes from Romney as well.

Today, fewer whites back Obama than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale. Romney does not need to emulate Ronald Reagan to win. Should he match Reagan’s share of the white vote in 1984 -- presuming all else remains constant since 2008 -- Romney would rout Obama.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...

Axelrod's ObamaCare Dollars! Obama pushed a truck of money to Axelrod and his son!


WSJ ^



The fight over ObamaCare is raging, and a few news outlets report that something looks ethically rotten in the White House. An outside group funded by industry is paying the former firm of senior presidential adviser David Axelrod to run ads in favor of the bill. That firm, AKPD Message and Media, still owes Mr. Axelrod money and employs his son.

The story quickly died, but emails recently released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee ought to resurrect it. The emails suggest the White House was intimately involved both in creating this lobby and hiring Mr. Axelrod's firm—which is as big an ethical no-no as it gets.

Mr. Axelrod—who left the White House last year—started AKPD in 1985. The firm earned millions helping run Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. Mr. Axelrod moved to the White House in 2009 and agreed to have AKPD buy him out for $2 million. But AKPD chose to pay Mr. Axelrod in annual installments—even as he worked in the West Wing. This agreement somehow passed muster with the Office of Government Ethics, though the situation at the very least should have walled off AKPD from working on White-House priorities.

It didn't. The White House and industry were working hand-in-glove to pass ObamaCare in 2009, and among the vehicles supplying ad support was an outfit named Healthy Economy Now (HEN). News stories at the time described this as a "coalition" that included the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the American Medical Association, and labor groups—suggesting these entities had started and controlled it.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Well lookey here, Obama pushed a truck of money to Axelrod and his son out out of Obamacare, the SEIU also involved. Dig deeper, you'll find more i'm sure, this is corruption to the bone. 

Obama's amnesty-by-fiat: Naked lawlessness!


Jewish World Review ^ | June 22, 2012 | Charles Krauthammer



“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations [of immigrants brought here illegally as children] through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.” — President Obama, March 28, 2011
Those laws remain on the books. They have not changed. Yet Obama last week suspended these very deportations — granting infinitely renewable “deferred action” with attendant work permits — thereby unilaterally rewriting the law. And doing precisely what he himself admits he is barred from doing. Obama had tried to change the law. In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the Dream Act, which offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants. Congress refused. When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to simply implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal. “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. . . . But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
That was then. Now he’s gone and done it anyway. It’s obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping. He needs a big Hispanic vote and this is the perfect pander. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats? Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress’s exclusive Article I power to legislate.
With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...



Over 40% of all voters in America believe in this man and what he is doing to the country. These are your neighbors, your co-workers, many of your local officials, the people who you pay to teach your children and the people you pay to entertain you.

Once More, With Meaning (Obama Has No Case for Re-Election)


WSJ Online ^ | 6/21/2012 | Peggy Noonan



The Romney strategy the past eight weeks has been, in a small way, shrewd: have the candidate out there talking in a candidate-like manner, but don't let him say anything so interesting that it will take the cameras off Mr. Obama. The president is lurching from gaffe to mess, from bad news to worse. Don't get in his way as he harms himself.
*snip*
As for the president, his big campaign speech last week in Cleveland not only was roundly panned but was deeply revealing. In it—all 54 minutes of it—he attempted to make the case for his economic stewardship and his re-election.
What he revealed is that he doesn't know the case for his own re-election.
Politicians give 54-minute speeches when they don't know what they're trying to say but are sure the next sentence will tell them. So they keep talking. They keep saying sentences in the hope that meaning will finally emerge from one of them.
A 54-minute speech is not a sign of Fidel-like confidence, or a love for speaking. A 54-minute speech is a sign of desperation.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...