Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Obamacare: The Road to Repeal Starts in the States

Townhall.com ^ | August 7, 2012 | Michael F. Cannon

States that have refused to implement the Obama health law have already blocked $80 billion of its new deficit spending. If more states follow suit, they can block the other $1.6 trillion and force Congress to repeal the law.
The law relies on states to implement two of its most essential pieces: health-insurance "exchanges" and a vast expansion of Medicaid. Exchanges are government agencies through which the law channels $800 billion to private health-insurance companies.
The Medicaid expansion adds another $900 billion to the federal debt, with private insurers again taking a slice. States are under no obligation either to implement either. Responsible state officials will say no to both.
It is a myth that creating an exchange gives states more control over their insurance markets. Yes, the law directs the federal government to create one in states that do not. But every exchange must be approved by federal bureaucrats, empowering them to impose whatever oppressive rules on "state-run" exchanges they would impose through a federal exchange.
A critical mass of states could literally force Congress to repeal the Obama health law.
In contrast, by refusing to create an exchange states can block the law's debt-financed subsidies to private insurance companies and avoid new taxes on their employers and consumers.
The law imposes a $2,000 per-worker tax on employers, but only in states that create an exchange. (If Virginia creates one, there will be a giant sucking sound as employers flee to Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina and Florida, which have said they will not.) States creating exchanges will have to increase taxes another $10 million to $100 million per year to cover their operating costs.
* * * * *
The Supreme Court further empowered states when it overturned the law's Medicaid mandate. That mandate required states to expand their Medicaid rolls dramatically on pain of losing all federal Medicaid funds, which comprise 12 percent of state revenues. Twenty-six states challenged that mandate as unconstitutionally coercive.
They won. The court held the federal government cannot withhold existing Medicaid grants from states that fail to expand their programs. States may now refuse to expand their programs without fear. .author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/cannon.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/cannon.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; }

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
More by Michael F. Cannon
And they should. My Cato Institute colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale estimates this expansion would cost Florida, Kansas, Illinois and Texas roughly $20 billion each in its first 10 years. New Jersey and New York would pay $35 billion and $53 billion, respectively. So you know we're not cooking the books, Gokhale projects California would save money.
But not for long. President Obama is already trying to shift even more Medicaid costs to the states. It's called "predatory federalism": Washington uses a low introductory rate as bait, then once states are hooked it changes the terms. In the end, even California will take it on the chin.
This is money states don't have. Nor can Washington, with its trillion-dollar deficits, afford the $900 billion the Congressional Budget Office estimates this Medicaid expansion would cost the federal government.
In total, state officials can block $1.6 trillion of deficit spending simply by sitting on their hands. According to CBO estimates, the handful of states that have already refused to expand Medicaid are saving taxpayers $80 billion.
* * * * *
Blocking these provisions will expose the full costs of the law, instead of allowing the federal government to shift those costs to taxpayers. The resulting backlash will push members of Congress to switch their votes and support repeal, just as two House Democrats did during the latest repeal vote. A critical mass of states could literally force Congress to repeal the Obama health law.
Opposition to these individual provisions, like opposition to the Obama health law, is bipartisan.
Among the governors refusing to create an exchange is New Hampshire's Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who signed a law forbidding one. Montana's Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer is among the dozen or more governors who are balking at the Medicaid expansion. Not that it takes a governor — a solid bloc of state legislators, or even just one committee chairman, is enough.
The Obama health law is weaker, and the path to repeal is clearer, than it has ever been.

Boy Scouts, Chick-fil-A Prosper Despite Left’s Hateful Attacks!

Townhall.com ^ | August 7, 2012 | Robert Knight

Twelve years ago, Bryant Gumbel called me an (expletive) idiot on CBS’s “The Early Show” for defending the Boy Scouts after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed their right to uphold moral standards for leaders and members.


Whether or not you agree with his unvarnished assessment, I’d like to think that most people would think he crossed a line.


Though he was caught on camera saying it, CBS denied it. Years later, Mr. Gumbel himself smugly confirmed it. This is what liberals mean when they lecture us about keeping a civil tone.


A couple of weeks ago, on July 17, the Scouts released a two-year study whose conclusion was that it’s still not a good idea to put males who sexually desire other males into the Scouts as either role models or members. The report followed the dismissal in April of an out lesbian Cub Scout leader.

As in June 2000, liberals exploded in outrage, with the media leading the charge.

“Once again CNN is cheerleading the fight for gay rights, this time within the Boy Scouts,” Media Research Center’s Matt Hadro reported on July 18. “An effusive Starting Point panel welcomed gay activist Zach Wahls on Wednesday and celebrated his cause of pushing the Boy Scouts towards acceptance of openly-gay scouts and leaders.

“Wahls is no stranger to CNN, as back in May he was lauded as a ‘very powerful’ activist during a soft interview. On Wednesday, the CNN panel oozed admiration for him. ‘I'm a big fan. I've followed you for a little while,’ Starting Point regular Margaret Hoover told him. ‘You're a wonderful spokesman for the effort for equality.’”

Ms. Hoover is the media’s idea of a “conservative.”

Later that day, as Mr. Hadro reported, “anchor Don Lemon gave the sappiest of interviews to former Cub Scout den leader and lesbian Jennifer Tyrell, booted from the organization because she is openly-gay. Lemon asked saccharine questions like ‘You doing okay?’ and ‘do you feel disrespected?’ and ‘You sound a little sort of downtrodden.’ … Unsurprisingly, no guest was brought on to defend the Boy Scouts.”

Over on NBClatino.com, blogger Esther J. Cepeda opined that, “It’s obvious that the decision to treat gays as unfit for membership in an organization that seeks to instill loyalty, friendliness and bravery in their young charges is far from, in the words of the Scout oath, morally straight. But it’s their rope, and it’s up to the Boy Scouts to decide whether to use it as a lifeline or a noose.”

I don’t think it’s hard to figure out which sort of knot that many in the media would like to use on the Boy Scouts.

America got another taste of liberal intolerance and insanity this past couple of weeks when homosexual activists and Democrat mayors of several big cities erupted over Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s support of marriage. Mr. Cathy said in an interview published by the Baptist Press that he and his company believe that God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The company donates to pro-family organizations that progressives reflexively label as “hate groups.”

Led by CNN, the media portrayed Mr. Cathy’s remarks as an attack on gay marriage, even though Mr. Cathy discussed what marriage is, not what it isn’t.

The good news is that Mike Huckabee’s call for pro-family Americans and free speech lovers to observe Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on August 1 was a smash, with long lines around the fast-food stores. Since Chick-fil-A is privately owned, sales figures are unavailable, but they went to the moon and back. That should more than offset any boycott or in-your-face “Kiss-In.”

It would be nice if Americans similarly rose somehow to the defense of the Boy Scouts. In a July 31 Wall Street Journal column, “A Century of Eagle Scouts,” Michael S. Malone, author of the new book Four Percent, provides a wonderful reminder of how much the Scouts, founded in 1910, have accomplished and given back.

Of “more than 115 million boys who have passed through the Boy Scouts of America in the last 102 years,” about “two million have become Eagle Scouts,” Malone writes.

“Since the mid-1960s, all Eagle candidates are required, beyond earning the traditional 21 merit badges, to devise, plan, execute and manage a community-service project. … it was only recently that the National Eagle Scout Association decided to look beyond the anecdotal and tally up all of the Eagle service projects ever done. It came to the jaw-dropping total of more than 100 million hours of service. Eagle Scouts are adding more than three million more hours each year.”

Let’s recap: Chick-fil-A serves millions of delicious, nutritious chicken meals, unabashedly embraces Christianity and gives back to communities in numerous ways through its Winshape Foundation. The Boy Scouts train millions of boys in practical skills and the more important value of what it means to be a man.

No wonder the Left has declared war on them. They know the enemy when they see it.

Obama Bundler Kills Woman, Media Silent

Jammiewf.com ^ | 8/7/12 | Jammie

The disgusting ad making the rounds today has already blown up in the faces of Team Obama.
The pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action lobbed a heavy-duty attack at Mitt Romney this morning, airing an ad that links the closure of a GST Steel plant in Kansas City to the loss of a family’s health insurance — and the death of a woman some time later.

The man speaking in the ad, Joe Soptic, says, “Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care and my family lost their health care. And a short time after that my wife became ill.” Soptic explains he’s not exactly sure when his wife became sick, but that when he took her to the hospital she had undetected, advanced cancer and died 22 days later.

The Romney campaign has pushed back on other GST Steel-related attacks by arguing that the plant in Kansas City closed after he stepped away from his management job at Bain. (Democrats counter that Romney was still listed as a top executive at Bain through 2002, and that he built up the private equity firm during the time it invested in GST Steel.)
In the case of this particularly jarring super PAC ad, it may also be relevant that Soptic’s wife died in 2006, years after the GST factory closed down.
So seven years after Romney really left Bain this woman died. Yet left unmentioned is the fact when the plant closed, it was an Obama bundler running Bain, as noted a few weeks ago when this whole bogus “Romney didn’t leave Bain until 2002″ meme surfaced.
(Excerpt) Read more at jammiewf.com ...

We Are Sliding Toward A Recession!

The Daily Reckoning ^ | 8-7-2012 | Bill Bonner


Paris, France – “Déjà vu” is a French expression that means…well, you know what it means.

For our purposes, we will use it to refer to the slumpy economy…and to the feds’ response. We’ve see it all before.

“Dans la merde” (Up the creek without a paddle) (In deep do-do) is another French expression…which refers to where you end up when the feds’ undertake to fix it.

But the Dow shot up 217 points last Friday. Gold went up $18. How to explain it?
With Europe on the brink of a blow-up (where it’s been for years)…China’s economy slowing down dangerously…and much of the rest of the world already in recession you’d expect investors would think twice before buying more stocks. After all, what are stocks? They’re shares in real businesses. When those businesses do well, the shareholders should do well. But businesses don’t usually do well in a recession.
Investors, however, seem to be following a different line of thinking. They are responding to two entirely different hypotheses.
1. The economy is doing well. That was the news in the latest unemployment report. Therefore it makes sense to own stocks and gold. As the economy improves, more people will borrow and spend. As they do so, interest rates and consumer prices will rise. Businesses will do better as their sales rise. Higher inflation rates will cause gold to go up, too.
2. The economy is not doing well. And the worse it does the more pressure builds on central bankers to ‘do something.’ What can they do? Only add more cash and credit. More liquidity will send both stocks and gold up.
Now, you will look at these two hypotheses and think you have discovered a sure thing, no? A can’t-lose proposition, right? Either the economy is doing well. Or not. Either way, stocks are going up! Win…win…right?
Wrong!
How about a third hypothesis? In this one, the whole world is sliding into recession. Britain and Europe are already there. Japan is almost there. The US is trailing, but not by much.
Recession is what should happen. The developed economies are still in a Great Correction. And the effects of massive doses of new credit…cheaper money…and a big increase in the world’s money supply (central bank assets have doubled since ’08)…are wearing off. Once again, the private sector is trying to correct its mistakes — shucking off bad debt however it can. People are being more careful with their money — which is why sales fall and unemployment rises.
Nothing new about this either.
And nothing really new about the feds’ reaction. Murray Rothbard described the feds’ response after the crash of ’29:
“If the Federal Reserve had an inflationist attitude during the boom, it was just as ready to try to cure the depression by inflating further. It stepped in immediately to expand credit and bolster shaky financial position. In an act unprecedented in its history [but repeated after ’08..] the Federal Reserve moved in during the week of the crash…the final week of October…and in that brief period added almost $300 million to the reserves of the nation’s banks. During that week the Federal Reserve doubled its holding of government securities…”
Then, as now, the big increase in money supply produced something that looked like a recovery. Rothbard continues:
By mid-November, the great stock break was over, and the market, falsely stimulated by artificial credit, began to move upwards again.
In our current episode, stocks have recovered from their ’08-’09 crash. Banks, teetering on the brink of collapse, were saved too — as the feds let it be known that they would do ‘whatever it takes’ to spare them from the consequences of their own mistakes.
And the leaders of the rescue, mainly Ben Bernanke himself, are hailed as heroes…having saved civilization. The 1930s had its heroes too. The first was Mr. Herbert Hoover, who had engineered rescue efforts following the Great Crash. Rothbard:
President Hoover was proud of his experiment in cheap money and in his speech to the business conference on December 5, he hailed the nation’s good fortune in possessing the splendid Federal Reserve System, which had succeeded in saving shaky banks, had restored confidence, and had made capital more abundant by reducing interest rates.
We know, however, that the heroes of the ’30s had not really saved the financial system from a day of reckoning; they merely postponed it…and stretched it out.
The crash and depression of ’20-’21 was more severe than the current crisis, but it was over within 24 months, during which time the feds made no rescue attempts. The washout after October 1929 probably would have been short and violent, too. Instead, the feds came to the rescue and turned it into a 20-year period, which included a Great Depression and WWII.
That’s our third hypothesis: déjà vu all over again, with more intervention, but no real recovery. Instead, the day of reckoning will be pushed into the future…and the whole correction process will be turned into a long, painful episode of little growth, high unemployment and periodic financial crises.
And here’s an additional forecast: Ben Bernanke will not want to re-live the ’30s. He will not want that déjà-vu experience. When the US economy is ‘dans la merde,’ he will give it more cash and credit…so that it is even further ‘dans la merde’!

$1.3 billion in ‘clean energy’ subsidies produce 288 jobs, quadruple cost of electricity in NV!

Nevada Journal ^ | August 7, 2012 | Kyle Gillis

LAS VEGAS — As U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prepares to host his fifth annual National Clean Energy Summit on Aug. 7, a Nevada Journal examination of Nevada’s renewable energy sector shows that over $1.3 billion in federal funds funneled into geothermal, solar and wind projects since 2009 has yielded and is projected to yield just 288 permanent, full-time jobs.

That’s an initial cost of over $4.6 million per job.

Despite this, Sen. Reid continues to hype Nevada as the “Saudi Arabia of renewable energy,” even though the renewable energy subsidized with federal dollars and mandated under Nevada’s Renewable Portfolio Standard costs consumers and NV Energy, Nevada’s publicly regulated utility company, up to four times as much as fossil fuels, such as natural gas.

Even with these government-granted advantages, the few clean-energy jobs in the state of Nevada are still precarious.

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

Why More Money Printing Will Increase Unemployment

TMO ^ | 8-7-2012 | Michael Pento


Money Printing Doesn’t Create Jobs
The developed world’s central banks are now foolishly preparing for a full assault on their respective currencies in an attempt to lower unemployment rates. Spurring these central bankers into action is persistently anemic markets and employment data, which they believe can be rectified by creating inflation.
U.S. jobs data showed that the Non-farm payroll report for July produced 163k jobs. That sounds ok at first glance. However, the Household Survey conflicted with the Establishment Survey, in that it concluded 195k net individuals actually lost their jobs last month; and that the unemployment rate ticked higher to 8.3%. Americans continue to leave the workforce—150k left last month—while our unemployment rate has now been above 8% for the last 41 months. That stubbornly high and rising unemployment rate will likely cause Mr. Bernanke to announce QE III in September.
Taking a look over in recession-ravaged Europe, the unemployment rate in Spain rose to 24.6% in the second quarter of 2012, which was an all-time high since records were kept starting in 1976. That has already caused Mr. Draghi to promise an unprecedented and unlimited bond buying scheme that will necessitate hundreds of billions in freshly printed Euros--just for starters.
Adding to the fears of weak growth and increased joblessness are the depressed stock markets around the globe. The Shanghai Composite Index is down 13% in the last 3 months. The Nikkei Dow has shed 15% in the last 4 months. And Spain’s IBEX has plunged 21% in just 5 months.
So Bernanke and Draghi have threatened to unload a massive debt monetization and inflation strategy to get people back to work. That all sounds great and wonderful, except the total disregard for a currency’s purchasing power is one of the reasons behind those long unemployment lines.
If one doesn’t know their history, you might be duped into believing money printing has a chance to reduce unemployment. In fact, all central bankers need to do is open their eyes and see what is going on around them to understand their folly.
Spain’s unemployment rate, which has soared from 9% in 2008, to just below 25% today, hasn’t stopped inflation from rising. Spanish inflation rose 2.2% YOY in July, and that was up from 1.8% in the month prior. That’s not runaway inflation by any means. However, it is certainly not deflation either. According to the philosophy of today’s central bankers, having one quarter of your workforce in perpetual siesta should bring about massive deflation. Which, of course, must be fought with the full force of the printing press. But all that accomplishes is to bring rising prices along with the misery of being unemployed. The saddest part is that the ECB launched their LTROs in December 2011 and March 2012. Therefore, the full inflationary impact from these programs is only just beginning to be realized.
The history of the U.S. shows the same results. Our inflation rate reached its apex in 1980 at 13.5%. According to those who place too much faith in counterfeiting, that should have brought with it full employment. But the unemployment rate was a lofty 7.2% at that time and reached 10.2% within the next two years.
The truth is that destroying the purchasing power of your currency serves to increase the unemployment rate. That’s because it erodes the impetus to save and invest, robs the middle class of its standard of living and leaves the economy in ruins. Economic growth comes from stable interest rates, low inflation and a sound currency. Persistent money printing erodes all of the basic principles of a strong Economy.
What you eventually end up with is a chronically weak currency, intractable inflation, onerous tax rates, a sovereign debt crisis and a depressionary economy.

Obama Campaign Admits Lawsuit Targets Ohio Military Voters To Equalize Vote

Examiner ^ | August 7, 2012 | Kevin Fobbs

Senior Obama Campaign official David Axelrod, admitted Sunday, August 5th on Fox News that Ohio military voters who are allowed early voting was indeed the target of the lawsuit filed against the state of Ohio. He incorrectly claimed that military early voting was an exception, which must be corrected, so that all Ohio voters can have the right to vote early.

As Ohio democrats and the Obama campaign were targeting the military overseas voters and lambasting the Ohio state legislature and the Secretary of State for engaging in alleged discriminatory practices, they conveniently avoided mentioning that federal law protects early voting rights of overseas soldiers.

The Obama lawsuit’s claim for relief states that as a matter of fact, Ohio voters are similarly situated as military overseas voters, in their inability to vote early. The lawsuit states: “Whether caused by legislative error or partisan motivation, the result of this legislative process is arbitrary and inequitable treatment of similarly situated Ohio voters with respect to in-person early voting.”
What is clear is that the intention of the lawsuit is to convey a sense of voter rights imbalance where none exists both legally or factually. The Obama lawsuit claims that the action by the state of Ohio was, ‘arbitrary’ and unconstitutional to allow three extra days of in-person early voting to military voters and their families who are overseas.
Yet, the 1986 and amended 2010 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows this preferential treatment as a matter of fact and of law.
The very purpose for the law’s passage was due to congress’ recognition that tens of thousands of soldiers could not avail themselves of their U.S. Constitutional voters rights due to actual physical impossibilities related to their military service. Ohio voters are not...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...

Joe Soptic, the man blaming Romney for wife’s death, is a familiar face on the anti-Romney beat!

The Examiner ^ | 8/7/2012 | Charlie Spiering

Former steel worker Joe Soptic has resurfaced in a new pro-Obama Super-PAC ad, blaming Romney for his wife’s death from cancer.

“I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he’s done to anyone,” Soptic says in the ad. “And furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned.”

But Soptic is actually a familiar face on the anti-Bain beat, and accused Romney of this before!

Soptic was featured in an Obama ad in May, who explained that although he wasn’t “rich” he was able to put his daughter through college.

In January, Soptic complained to Democracy Now, a liberal non-profit TV station, that when the steel company he worked for was bought out by Bain, they tried to buy out his job.

“I guess the first thing I noticed that when the company was bought out by GST, They became very union non-friendly, they started looking for ways to eliminate jobs,” Soptic said.

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

Chick-fil-A "Kiss-In" Nothing But A Three-Ring Media Circus!

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 6 August 2012 | Editorial

Media Bias: What if they gave a news event and no one came? That's the story of the Chick-fil-A "Kiss-In" called by gay rights activists and copiously covered by the press. The real story is how the media played it up.

In a dishonest bid to discredit the authentic display of national unity Aug. 1 over free-speech rights at Chick-fil-A, a fast-food chain whose CEO supports traditional marriage, the mainstream media marshaled their troops to cover what was billed as a "kiss-in" counterdemonstration by gay rights activists at the same outlets last Friday.

One problem: The media outnumbered the kissers.

As an example, at a West Hollywood Chick-fil-A, the media presence was so ubiquitous that their denizens outnumbered the sparse participants, and the cops had to be called in because the media were interfering with customers' access to the establishment.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Dear Harry Reid: You May Shut Up and Slink Away Now (and Take That Hag Pelosi With You)!


Mitt and Ann Romney have released their complete 2010 tax return and an estimate of their 2011 return. (A full copy of their final 2011 return will be made public as soon as it is filed in the upcoming weeks). The Romneys have provided extensive information about their personal finances, with several hundred pages of tax returns now made public.

Governor Romney’s tax returns show:

First, as a successful businessman, Governor Romney has not only added value to our economy through his investment and business activity, but he has paid millions in taxes every year to the U.S. government.
Second, the Romneys take to heart “to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.” Accordingly, they have been extraordinarily generous in their charitable giving, donating over $7 million from 2010-2011 – donating even more to charity than they paid in taxes.
Third, Mitt Romney has scrupulously complied with the U.S. tax code, and his income is reported and taxed at the applicable rates, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed.
As the law does not require the release of any tax returns, the release of these 500+ pages of tax returns goes above and beyond what is required.
In addition, Gov. Romney has released numerous financial disclosures since 2002, as required by law – which have also been posted on this site. There are 3 federal Public Financial Disclosures (from 2007, 2011, and 2012), and 6 Massachusetts Statements of Financial Interests (from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007).
With a decade's worth of financial disclosure documents and the Romneys' recent tax returns, the American people have an extensive view of the Governor's personal finances, above and beyond what is required by the law.
Nancy Pelosi recently said that there has been too much time spent talking about tax returns instead of the economy. We don’t agree with her on very much, but she’s right about that.
It's time to focus on the real issues in this campaign – turning around the economy and getting America back to work again.
2011 Return
2011 Estimated Return
2010 Returns
2010 Mitt and Ann Romney Return2010 Mitt Romney Trust Return2010 Ann Romney Trust Return2010 Family Trust ReturnTyler Foundation Return
Federal Financial Disclosures
2007 Federal Financial Disclosure2011 Federal Financial Disclosure2012 Federal Financial Disclosure
State Financial Disclosures
2002 State Financial Disclosure2003 State Financial Disclosure2004 State Financial Disclosure2005 State Financial Disclosure2006 State Financial Disclosure2007 State Financial Disclosure

Obama: 'I'm not the president of black America'

Politico ^ | August. 7, 2012 | BYRON TAU

President Obama addresses the criticism that he hasn't done enough for the black community in an interview with Black Enterprise magazine:

How do you respond to criticism that your administration hasn’t done enough to support black businesses?

My general view has been consistent throughout, which is that I want all businesses to succeed. I want all Americans to have opportunity. I’m not the president of black America. I’m the president of the United States of America, but the programs that we have put in place have been directed at those folks who are least able to get financing through conventional means, who have been in the past locked out of opportunities that were available to everybody. So, I’ll put my track record up against anybody in terms of us putting in place broad-based programs that ultimately had a huge benefit for African American businesses.

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

10 Smart Things I've Learned from People Who Never Went to College

Forbes ^ | 8/02/2012 | David DiSalvo

1. You can learn something useful from anyone.
2. If quality slips, it really doesn’t matter how good your ideas were.
3. Don’t ever let a bully intimidate you – not even once.
4. Reciprocity is the name of the relationship game and always will be.
5. Learning is good; Doing is better.
6. Kindness isn’t optional.
7. You can survive anything
8. Get a dog.
9. Money is important, but experience is invaluable.
10. Just be ready.

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

Cruz Missile

Real Clear Politics ^ | August 8, 2012 | William Murchison

As a smasher of idols, Cruz's gift is for the sharp, short, telling blow that reveals the defects and deficiencies of the present product being hawked in Washington. Quite a large number of good people, actually, are similarly exercised about America's present career path. 

Cruz, as it happens, speaks better and more passionately than most of them. That would include David Dewhurst, a very good man and a very good conservative: just not passionate by nature.

The needs of the hour seem to include passion -- conviction -- verve -- zeal. Of which, Ted Cruz has a large supply. In a way, he's the same pig-in-a-poke that Obama was: scant experience in government and high ratings as an orator. Even Obama had a little more legislative experience. What Cruz has that Obama, if he has it, never has displayed is a sense of the possibilities inherent in human freedom.
Those possibilities electrify a senatorial candidate whose father, a near penniless Cuban immigrant, came to America, dreaming of ... how to put it? Dreaming of more than he had. His son connects with that dream in a way in which the author of "Dreams of My Father" seems oblivious.

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

Romney camp argues welfare reform shows how Obama more liberal than Clinton

Daily Caller ^ | August 7, 2012 | Alex Pappas

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign says Barack Obama’s “gutting” of welfare reform shows how the president is much more liberal than former Democratic President Bill Clinton.


“President Obama apparently believes that Bill Clinton was way too conservative,” said Ted Cruz, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Texas, in a Tuesday conference call organized by the Romney campaign.


The campaign plans to start running television ads about Obama’s “dismantling of bipartisan welfare reform” passed during the Clinton administration in 1996, Romney officials said Tuesday.

In June, the Obama administration issued a memo removing work requirements for welfare recipients that were a hallmark of the welfare reform package. Obama officials argue the changes give the state’s more flexibility in dealing with the program....
....On Tuesday, Cruz argued that the maneuver on welfare reform is a sign that Obama is “far, far to left of the Clinton administration.” He also said Obama resorted to the change in an election year to please “some of the political ideologues in his party.”
“I don’t think sacrificing the welfare of the most vulnerable in society for political purposes — which is what President Obama and his administration is doing — is right or makes any sense at all,” Cruz said.

....Cruz, who won a Republican run-off in Texas last week, argued the Obama administration’s position is both “fiscally irresponsible” and “yet another action of executive arrogance by this president.”

“If he disagreed with requiring welfare recipients to work or seek work, he could’ve gone to Congress. He could have proposed new legislation. He could’ve tried to make the case to the American people. But he did not do that,” Cruz said.
The former Texas solicitor general also said the policy “hurts the recipients of welfare.”

“The most compelling reason behind the bipartisan welfare reform that we saw is that helping those receiving government assistance to get jobs to stand on their own feet fundamentally transforms their lives,” Cruz said. “We are not doing anybody a favor by giving them welfare in perpetuity and making them dependent on government.”....
Full article

Cruz, Gingrich hammer Obama on welfare decision

Daily Caller ^ | August 8, 2012 | Alex Pappas

Cruz, who won a Republican run-off in Texas last week, argued the Obama administration’s position is both “fiscally irresponsible” and “yet another action of executive arrogance by this president.”

“If he disagreed with requiring welfare recipients to work or seek work, he could’ve gone to Congress. He could have proposed new legislation. He could’ve tried to make the case to the American people. But he did not do that,” Cruz said.

The former Texas solicitor general also said the policy “hurts the recipients of welfare.”

“The most compelling reason behind the bipartisan welfare reform that we saw is that helping those receiving government assistance to get jobs to stand on their own feet fundamentally transforms their lives,” Cruz said. “We are not doing anybody a favor by giving them welfare in perpetuity and making them dependent on government.”

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

Do the rich pay their fair share? (Short answer: YES!)

Hotair ^ | 08/07/2012 | Dustin Siggins

Last week, Georgetown law professor Peter Edelman wrote about poverty in America in the New York Times. Edelman spent most of his time outlining what he sees as the causes of poverty in America, but he did offer some basic liberal fare when it came to solutions:
We know what we need to do — make the rich pay their fair share of running the country, raise the minimum wage, provide health care and a decent safety net, and the like. But realistically, the immediate challenge is keeping what we have. Representative Paul Ryan and his ideological peers would slash everything from Social Security to Medicare and on through the list, and would hand out more tax breaks to the people at the top. Robin Hood would turn over in his grave.
Edelman’s ideas are, of course, philosophically laughable to readers of this site – for example, the wealthy already pay a higher average tax rate than everyone else. Unfortunately, they are popular within certain segments of Congress, the media, higher education, etc. Their appeals to emotions (“Robin Hood would turn over in his grave”) often make conservatives look cold and heartless. So how do we turn the tables, especially when it comes to taxes? Simply put, we break down the math of taxes into the most easily understood manner possible – direct comparisons.
Normally this would be an arduous endeavor, but a numbers breakdown comparing income to federal taxes paid just came out this week from Just Facts, based upon a Congressional Budget Office report in July that analyzes the 2009 effective federal tax rates of households. Here is the relevant Just Facts
chart:

To break it all down even more simply, consider the following, based upon two tables at the link above:
  1. In 2009, the top 20% of earners brought in an income about 10 times that of the bottom 20% of earners. However, they paid about 221 times as much in taxes.
  2. Breaking down the top one percent of earners is even worse for the liberal argument. To wit: The top one percent of earners made about 50 times as much money as the bottom quintile in 2009, but paid about 1,500 times as much in taxes.
Let me repeat this: in 2009 the top one percent paid about 1,500 times as much in taxes as the average in the bottom twenty percent. So now the question arises: what is the fair share the wealthy should pay? Is 40% of their income going to the federal government enough? How about half? Does it matter that the 50% or so of Americans who pay little or no non-retirement income taxes basically get a free ride when it comes to federal roads, immigration control, etc. – on the backs of the wealthy?
While almost all Americans do pay some sort of federal taxes…the 50% or so of taxpayers who don’t pay non-payroll income taxes benefit from federally-funded roads, education services, immigration control, the military and other federal services. Who, then, pays for these services? According to the Tax Foundation in an October 2011 report, “The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.” In short, most taxes for non-retirement social spending – the same social spending liberals are so keen on expanding – are being paid by those people liberals also say don’t pay enough in taxes – the top five percent.
The nation desperately needs tax reform, both to jump-start the economy and begin the process of expanding the tax base. However, targeting the rich simply isn’t going to do enough – as the Joint Economic Committee pointed out, even the much-ballyhooed Buffett Rule would only bring in about $47 billion over ten years. Liberals can wish the rich aren’t paying enough taxes all they want to, but it’s simply not true. And until they they start pushing solutions that include the elimination of loopholes and lowering rates, we’ll know they aren’t serious about increasing fairness, reducing deficits, or getting the economy back on track.

Nobody Committed Any Crimes (Except Treasury and Obama)

Market-ticker ^ | August 7, 2012 | Karl Deninger

Emails obtained by The Daily Caller show that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating the pensions of 20,000 salaried retirees at the Delphi auto parts manufacturing company.
The move, made in 2009 while the Obama administration implemented its auto bailout plan, appears to have been made solely because those retirees were not members of labor unions.
....
One email dated Thursday, April 2, 2009 shows PBGC staffer Joseph House discussing a meeting he and his colleagues were anticipating with the entire auto bailout team the following day.
House emailed PBGC colleagues Karen Morris and Michael Rae that during the Friday morning meeting, the “agenda is everything — lead off with Chrysler, then we’ll get into GM/Delphi.”
....
But after the Friday meeting, House emailed PBGC staffers Karen Morris and John Menke. “We’ve been disinvited,” he wrote. “It’s for the best.”
“Who uninvited us?” Morris replied.
“Treasury,” House responded.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.org ...

Carney declines to condemn Reid’s Romney tax attack (Because Obama is a dirty, rotten liar too!)

daily caller ^ | 8/6/2012 | Neil Munro

White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to condemn Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s unsupported claims that Republican candidate Mitt Romney didn’t pay any taxes for a decade.
Carney’s decision to allow Reid’s attack to stand will likely aid Obama’s campaign strategy, which seeks to paint Romney as an out-of-touch Richie Rich who can’t be trusted by swing voters to recognize and respond to their economic hardships.

Any media coverage of Romney’s complex business deals and tax filings aids Obama’s negative strategy — and also keep attention away from the stalled economy.

Carney’s support for Reid came during Monday’s press conference when he repeatedly refused to criticize or address Reid’s allegations, despite the lack of evidence.

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

Koch brothers hit back after Zach Galifianakis calls them "creepy"

seebs news ^ | 8/7/12 | Stephanie Condon Topics Campaign 2012

(CBS) The upcoming movie "The Campaign," starring Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis as two buffoonish congressional contenders, takes aim at the powerful, Republican-aligned Koch brothers.
But now with Galifianakis bad-mouthing the conservative duo off screen, the Koch brothers are reminding people that he's just an actor.
In the comedy, actors Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow play the Motch brothers, who are financially backing the implausible candidate portrayed by Galifianakis. In an interview with the New York Daily News on Monday, Galifianakis said it's "pretty obvious" the characters are based on Charles and David Koch.
"I disagree with everything they do. They are creepy and there is no way around that. It's not freedom what they are doing," Galifianakis said when asked about the Koch brothers.
The brothers, co-owners of Koch Industries, are arguably two of the largest funders of non-profit "social welfare organizations" that support conservative causes. They reportedly plan to raise up to $400 million for this year's elections, much of it through anonymous donations to groups like Americans for Prosperity. That group is set to spend $25 million on a new advertising campaign against President Obama.
A spokesman for the Koch brothers responded to Galifianakis' remarks in a statement obtained by CNN.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...

Obama's Right; His Plan Worked!

Townhall.com ^ | August 6, 2012 | Morgan Brittany

It’s not like he didn’t tell us.

It’s not like all the warning signs were not there for all of us to see.

Barak Obama’s now infamous words, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” have come true. Remember when he told Joe the Plumber “we just have to spread the wealth around”? Well, he spoke the truth. Like in “The Wizard of Oz”; “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”; we believed the media when they downplayed Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers.
Move on, there is nothing to see here.
America bought it hook line and sinker and now it is becoming crystal clear. Obama's plan is working and in three and a half years he has taken America in a completely different direction and the results are disastrous.
This is no accident. Obama and his minions in the White House along with his many Czars are not stupid people. On the contrary, they are “scary” smart and dangerous to our liberty.
I wonder how many people who scoffed at the idea that Obama means to collapse the system are now re-evaluating their position. Because we can turn a blind eye no longer; this could be a deliberate and calculated effort.
If he isn’t deliberately overwhelming the U.S. economy to create economic crisis, social chaos (class warfare/Occupy Wall Street) and systemic failure, his plan at least is creating the conditions for it.
Here are some numbers and facts:
#1. The unemployment rate is holding steady at over 8%, currently at 8.3. The number of people who are unemployed, meaning they are 16 or older, not in the military, a prison or a mental institution, and have actively looked for a job in the last four weeks jumped by 45,000 during the month of June, climbing from 12,749,000 to 12,794,000 in July. During July, the number of people who simply left the labor force (150,000) exceeded the number of newly employed (45,000) by more than two to one (105,000). The real unemployment rate is 15% or more.
#2. There were 45 million people on food stamps in 2011 and that number has expanded in the first half of 2012. It is expected to continue to rise over the next few years. More people are receiving government assistance than ever before. Half of all American households are receiving government aid.
#3 We now have a 16 trillion dollar national debt. If spending continues at this pace it won’t take long before the system collapses under its own weight.
#4 Obama passed Obamacare in the midst of the worst economy in a hundred years. He didn’t care that giving 30 million people health care will eventually add to the national debt. That is part of his plan. Overwhelm the system.
#5 Legalize 12 million illegal aliens. That will just add more votes to the Democrat party; and burden the education, health and welfare system even more. It’s all part of the plan.
#6 Redistribute the income. Raise taxes on the small business people and job creators. Let’s just punish success and reward the takers. It won’t be long before the tipping point is reached and there are more takers than givers. Four more years of Obama will insure that.
These points are right out of the playbook of Cloward and Piven. These are the two Columbia professors who outlined the plan to overwhelm the system with entitlement and government spending. They envisioned a socialist utopia and according to their playbook, it is working. Barak Obama worships at their altar and he follows the steps to socialism religiously. The far left socialist Marxists have been planning this for years and now they are seeing their dreams come to fruition. You have to give them one thing, they don’t give up.
Not only is our domestic policy being dismantled, but our foreign policy is suffering as well. This administration doesn’t want America to be a leading force in the world. In fact they will do everything in their power to weaken our capabilities and to reach out to enemies who intend to destroy us and our allies.
As Glenn Beck says, “the middle east is on fire!” One by one we are seeing countries in chaos. This chaos is being created to build instability in the region. Unease and fear, all of this is in the playbook that is being followed. Israel is tense and has its finger on the trigger pointing at Iran. Syria is crumbling by the day and the Arab Spring has all but turned into a frigid winter.
The media and the left are feeling so confident in their success that they aren’t even trying to hide it any longer. Is anything more arrogant than the words caught on an open mike to Russian president Medvedev stating that he (Obama) will be able to do more after he is re-elected? Excuse me, but there wasn’t even a Republican nominee at the time!
Take heed in his recent words where he boldly told us the truth. “We tried our plan and it worked.”
America, for the future of our country, he must fail.
Politichicks.tv
@Morganbrittany4

Obama Campaign Dangerously Low on Cash, Leading to Panic

The Atlanta Black Star ^ | August 5, 2012 | Nick Chiles

The Obama campaign has taken a huge risk by burning through hundreds of million of dollars in the early stages of the presidential campaign, opening offices in swing states, registering voters and getting to know local communities, but the expenditures have left the campaign dangerously low on cash heading into the final three months of the campaign.
The analysis of the Obama expenditures by the New York Times shows that the campaign has spent $400 million from the beginning of 2011 to June 30, 2012. That number includes $86 million on advertising, $50 million on hiring Democratic party workers, $46 million on direct mail and postage, $24 million on phones and even $25,000 on flower arrangements. The result is a vast and well-organized network of on-the-ground staff and infrastructure—and a discernible panic among Democrats that the campaign possibly has put itself in danger because the Mitt Romney campaign has far more money, $25 million more cash on hand at the start of July.
And although Romney has spent much of his money from the primaries and has to wait until after the convention to access tens of million dollars he has waiting, he can count on the pro-Romney Super PACs to take up the slack right now.
Obama supporters say the campaign’s fundraising has acquired a sense of urgency, sending out many more alarming emails to donors and scheduling more fundraising stops for the president. The campaign also has asked former President Bill Clinton to help with the fundraising efforts.
“My upcoming birthday next week could be the last one I celebrate as president of the United States, but that’s not up to me—it’s up to you,” the president wrote in an email to supporters last week.
But Obama campaign and Democratic party officials told the Times in interviews that they believed the Obama strategy would prove to be wise when election day has arrived.
“You can pay for direct mail or TV ads at the last minute, but you can’t shortcut long-term volunteer training programs,” said a campaign official. “The relationships we’ve built, the depth of what people know about their communities, our data systems, the training and organization—good luck doing that in less than 100 days.”

Mark Cuban's Magnet to Bring Breitbart's 'Occupy Unmasked' to Theatres before elections!

Breitbart.com ^ | Aug. 6. 2012 | John Nolte

"This film is controversial, and that's exactly the reason we want to ensure it can find its audience prior to the November elections.” -- Mark Cuban, co-studio head of Magnolia Pictures
Mark Cuban is a man who, in February of this year, attended a $30,000 a plate Obama fundraiser. Reportedly, as President Obama entered the event, he and Cuban "embraced warmly."

Magnolia Pictures is a specialty releasing company (its "edgier" label is Magnet), that is known mainly for its backing of left-wing films, which include, "Casino Jack and the United States of Money," "Enron: The Smartest Guy in the Room," "Food, Inc.," "God Bless America," "Jesus Camp," "No End in Sight," and "Redacted."

Cuban's quote, however, isn't about what you might think. He's not only talking about his eagerness to release on multiple platforms, and just before the upcoming election, a film that takes no prisoners in exposing the left; it's a film "presented by" none other than Andrew Breitbart (read the official statement below).

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

Why Not?

Posted Image

Keep it UP!

Posted Image

The Seal

Posted Image

Shooting Blanks

Posted Image

Diversion!

Posted Image

True Job Growth since 1948

Posted Image

Obama's Media!

Posted Image

TRUST?

Posted Image

Who needs proof?

Posted Image

Liberal Logic

Posted Image

Who's Yer Daddy?

Posted Image

TWO BOOBS!

Posted Image

Obama's Dummy!

Posted Image

Happy Birthday?

Posted Image

Momentum

Posted Image

Eat More Liberals

Posted Image

The Hollow Republic

National Review ^ | Aug 6, 2012 | Yuval Levin

President Obama must surely wish he could undo the campaign speech he delivered in Roanoke, Va., on July 13. That was where he offered up the view that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." It is a line that could haunt him right to November, revealing as it does an unwillingness to credit success and a hostility toward the culture of entrepreneurship. But the remark came in the context of a broader argument that was just as telling on a different point, and no less troubling.

The president simply equates doing things together with doing things through government. He sees the citizen and the state, and nothing in between - and thus sees every political question as a choice between radical individualism and a federal program.

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

160 U.S. Counties Have More Registered To Vote Than Actual Live, Eligible Voters!

Reaganite Republican ^ | August 7, 2012 | Reaganite Republican


Holder sez 'fraud not widespread'...
but the numbers say something else:


A non-partisan group (Houston-based True the Vote) has found 160 different counties coast-to-coast who's registered voters actually outnumber all eligible voters- and can somebody please tell me how a county (in Illinois, what a shock) could have over 500% of their eligibles registered?

And it's not just one isolated incident... it's 160: yet that's merely what was uncovered when somebody actually rolled-up their sleeves and had a real look at the problem we all know is there.

We also know who are operating under the assumption that voter fraud helps them politically, thus Team Obama's selective enforcement of immigration laws and refusal to assist states wishing to rectify their voter registration lists, all while in complete and utter (public) denial voter fraud even exists (they won't admit it and support it- so they refuse to acknowledge it and support it).

A nonpartisan election integrity group has sent legal notices to 160 counties across the U.S. that it says have more voters on its registration rolls than actual live, eligible voters — and thus represent potential hotbeds for election fraud, the organization told TheBlaze exclusively.
The Houston-based True the Vote said the counties may be in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which mandates that election officials maintain clean voter rolls by removing people who have died, moved away or are no longer eligible to vote. True the Vote is demanding each of the counties show proof of compliance or they’ll bring civil suit.
The counties in question are spread across 19 states that together account for 203 electoral college votes, including six current battleground states. Among the counties are LaSalle, Ill., which True the Vote identified as having 520 percent voter registration; Jefferson, Miss. with more than 230 percent; and Hanson, S.D. with 165 percent.

No problem- right!

Romney launching new attack on Obama over welfare law (Obama to allow welfare for just laziness)

reuters ^ | 8/7/2012 | Steve Holland

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will launch a new attack against President Barack Obama on Tuesday, taking aim at the Democrat's plan to waive parts of a landmark welfare-to-work law.
Romney is targeting Obama's plan to let states seek a waiver from the work requirements of a 1996 welfare law that was a signature bipartisan achievement of former Democratic President Bill Clinton's administration.
Romney's attack, laid out in a new television ad and a topic he will address at a campaign event in the Chicago area, is aimed at bolstering his charge that Obama's solutions to many of America's problems is to rely on government.
"Middle-class Americans are working harder and harder to make ends meet. Under President Obama, they have fewer jobs and less take-home pay. And now, President Obama wants to take their hard-earned tax dollars and give it to welfare recipients without work requirements," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.
The directive from the Health and Human Services Department allows states to pursue a waiver from the work requirement of the welfare law in order to test alternative strategies that would help needy families find jobs. The aim is to give states some flexibility in how they carry out the welfare law as some state governors have advocated, rather than sticking to a rigid formula.
But the health department's decision has generated strong opposition from Republicans. In the House, 76 Republicans complained in a letter to Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who sought to assure them that states will have to move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...

Economists Agree: Extending Tax Cuts Aids Economy (Duh)



Townhall.com ^ | August 6, 2012 | Kavil Glass

Speaker of the House John Boehner has recently touted a list of 88 economists who warn against the expiration of tax cuts on high-income earners. These economists came together from some of the country's top universities, think-tanks and business organizations to write that the expiration of the tax cuts pushed by President Obama "will hurt the economy and must be stopped before it goes into effect."
Speaker Boehner also touted a study from Ernst and Young conducted for the National Federation of Independent Businesses that found that allowing tax rates to go up on high-income Americans could destroy up to 700,000 jobs.
The Ernst & Young study also predicted that economic output would be reduced by $200 billion next year, investment would fall and would lead to a 1.8% reduction in American wages.
Democrats used to promote temporary tax cuts distributed across a wide range of income levels as "stimulus" that could aid an ailing economy. As the fight over these tax increases have proven, that's only when they're not fighting class warfare against "the rich."
Back in 2010, the CBO estimated that extending all the tax cuts would prove a lot more helpful to the economy than passing cuts for everyone but the top rates. Depending on their model, in the short term, the top rate cuts would give the economy a 30-50% boost over what would have been estimated otherwise.
Furthermore, as CBO director Doug Elmendorf's chart reveals, passing permanent tax cuts would be even more helpful to the economy in the short-term - though it's important to point out that in the medium and long term, the effects of increased government debt would become a significant drag on the economy.
If the rationale for extending these tax cuts is to boost economic output in the short-term, it makes little to no sense to exempt rate increases for upper-income Americans.
But the Democrats have never been ones to adhere to common sense.

The Ticking Time Bomb of Iran and Obama!

Townhall.com ^ | August 7, 2012 | Chuck Norris

Last Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted on his website his most recent anti-Semitic tirade, saying global forces should join together to annihilate Israel. Meanwhile, in Orlando, Fla., President Barack Obama had a takeout plate of pulled pork and rice.
The Jerusalem Post reported Ahmadinejad as saying, "Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom."
Those words came from the same international leader who called the Holocaust a myth and entreated that Israel should be "wiped off the page of time" in a 2005 speech.
One might think Ahmadinejad's caustic influence would play out with only extremists, until one realizes that his words preceded Iran's annual "Quds Day" (Aug. 17), a nationwide event and national holiday (since 1979) during which massive crowds condemn Israel and the U.S. with chants of "Death to Israel" and "Death to America."
To add insult to injury, in the past week, Iranian officials have chided increased Western sanctions as "warfare." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds the last word on all Iranian state matters, retorted that his Islamic Republic can overcome the latest round of sanctions restricting their oil and money. And a top Iranian official said his government will share "experience and capabilities" with the regime of President Bashar Assad in Syria.
Tensions with Iran have been ramped up lately way beyond Obama's foreign diplomatic abilities and sanction-only quasi-restrictions. To put it simply, the former senator from Chicago is way over his head. He's playing chess with madmen.
Obama's foreign-relations political waffling is not only a dismal failure but also a detriment to peace, stability and safety in the Middle East. One day he coddles Israelis, assuring them that America will stand by them. The next day he is the pro-Palestinian in chief, dissing Israel's president to the French president. (Remember when Obama belittled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a hot-mic moment after French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he "cannot bear Netanyahu; he's a liar"? Obama replied, "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.")
In 2010, The Jerusalem Post reported that only 10 percent of Jewish Israelis really believed that Obama is "more pro-Israeli" than pro-Palestinian.
With Egypt granting the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power, Syria percolating with chemical weapons -- which some are saying were possibly smuggled from Saddam Hussein's alleged surplus -- Hezbollah perched in Lebanon and Hamas working internal affairs, Israel remains in the cross hairs of the Middle East thugs.
Imagine the volatility that will reign in the Middle East during the next four years! And 43 percent of Americans really want to re-elect a U.S. president who, rather than come to the active aid of our greatest ally in the Middle East, disses Israeli leaders on French soil?
Mark my words. America could very well aid and abet World War III with a leader like President Obama who is in his second term. Obama already has initiated that political momentum with his actions and inactions, but will we stand by and watch him carry it to fruition in a second term?
Foreign dictators and other extremists are praying U.S. citizens re-elect Obama. The truth is that the world's stability is buckling under the lethal combination of a militant Ahmadinejad and a passive Obama -- one pushing for the annihilation of Israel and the other sitting back and waiting for it to happen, one creating the bomb and the other sitting back and watching while the fuse is lit.
Add to all that the Obama administration's second-term plans to radically reduce the U.S. military!
WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, Aaron Klein, has just written (scheduled for release Aug. 14) a groundbreaking expose and borderline prophetic look into exactly what will happen in a second term with Obama. For example, in "Fool Me Twice: Obama's Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed," Klein details Obama's second-term "large-scale reductions to the U.S. military. Some examples: Scaling back the size of all U.S. ground forces by 20 percent; reducing the Navy's surface fleet by 20 percent; reducing the Air Force by two combat air wings; reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 292 deployed nuclear weapons and the complete elimination of the Trident II nuclear missile; the complete halt of all further missile defense development; the total cancelation of the second SSN-744 Virginia Class submarine."
Fellow Americans, America and the world need a U.S. president who will restore our economy and steady chaos in the world, not usher in Armageddon with his anti-Semitic, noncommittal, conciliatory, laissez-faire leadership. The very personage of the U.S. president should emanate deterrence, not indifference.
We need a president who will honor the timeless traditional relationship between America and Israel and reciprocate a blessing back to the U.S. by simultaneously observing these eternal promises: "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; they shall prosper that love thee!" "Blessed is everyone who blesses you, O Israel, and cursed is everyone who curses you."

Suicide as a Jewish Value

Sultan Knish ^ | Monday, August 06, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield

A month ago, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz sat down with the host of a Jewish television channel and could not name any reason for Jews to vote for Obama except for his support for abortion. Which is to say that the favorite muppet of the Democratic Party could not think of any reason to support B.O. except a mutual commitment that fewer Jews be born.
It is a little-known fact that Margaret Sanger, that pioneer of eugenic solutions to "racial, political, and social problems", began by targeting Jews, opening her first center in Brownsville, Brooklyn, complete with Yiddish and Italian flyers, aiming for the two immigrant groups whose high reproduction rates were considered a social problem.
Abortion as a Liberal Jewish value has been a stunning success. In New York City, where Sanger first set up shop, 74 percent of all Jewish children are members of the traditionalist Orthodox religious group. Liberal Jews are already panicking over the prospect of a future Jewish population in New York City that is staunchly conservative and religious.
A recent survey of New York City Jews also shows a nearly even split between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. 46 percent of New York Jews are planning to vote against Obama, and a majority of New York City Jews think that Romney would be better at fixing the economy than B.O. But it is only to be expected that the group for whom abortion isn't a Jewish value would come to outnumber the group for whom abortion is a Jewish value.
The problem with values is that you have to live with their consequences. When your values dictate that terrorists deserve all the protections of the civilian justice system, then you have to be ready to live with the explosions. If your values dictate minimal population growth, then you have to accept the consequences of extinction. Values that are contrary to survival carry their own natural cost. And when your values are at odds with your interests, then your values might as well be an open window, a loaded revolver or a dose of strychnine.
Liberal Jews like to talk about Jewish values rather than Jewish interests, because their values are incompatible with Jewish interests-- even as a matter of simple survival. The usual liberal grab bag of values that are represented by the Jewish hand puppets of liberalism, like Wasserman-Schultz, aren't just alien, they threaten the basic survival of the Jewish People.
When asked to justify what interests the Democratic Party and American Jews have in common, the Jewish liberal dives into a copy of the New York Times and comes up with illegal immigration, abortion, gay rights and support for peace in the Middle East.
That list of Liberal Jewish values not only fails to align with a single Jewish interest, but each of them threatens Jewish interests... that is if survival is to be considered a Jewish interest.
Peace in the Middle East means aborting Israel, dissecting it into small pieces and repeating the process until there is no country left. It's another case of liberal Jews trying to do to Israel what they have already done to themselves. To believe that pressuring Israel into making a non-stop roll of concessions to Muslim terrorists is a Jewish value is to believe that suicide is a Jewish value.
Illegal immigration, a cause that virtually every major Jewish organization has signed on to, means the mass migration of Mexicans to the United States. The ADL's own survey shows that nearly half of foreign-born Latinos rate as strongly Anti-Semitic, over three times the rate of white Americans. (Bad news for the glorious civil rights alliance; the ADL's strongly antisemitic ratings are 12 percent for white Americans, 35 percent for African-Americans and 44 percent for foreign-born Latinos.) The only way to make sense of this is that Liberal Jewish groups believe that increasing Anti-Semitism in America is actually a Jewish value.
But liberals of all creeds need more Mexican illegal aliens and immigrants from all across the Third World to compensate for the good work of Sanger. Liberal Christians fear the reproduction rates of Conservative Christians as Liberal Jews fear the reproduction rates of Orthodox Jews. The only way out of the demographic race is to import "ringers" who will have the children that they won't. The new eugenics is political eugenics. Birth control is no longer for the people that Sanger considered the "unfit", they're valued now for their reproductive rates which help the "fit" stay in power.
Growing Anti-Semitism is a small price to pay for the Liberal values of having people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz sitting in Congress instead of selling tie-dyed t-shirts and hand-painted seashell bongs in a flea market. And like all the wages of liberalism, the price for it isn't paid by the people on top, but by those at the bottom. Those Jews living next to the 44 percent in New York City or on farms in the West Bank within firing range of their Palestinian Muslim peace partners. The Jews whom Sanger and Schultz consider "unfit".
There is a fundamental gap between the interests of those Jews and those of a liberal elite who claim that their Liberal values are our Jewish values. The values of the elite are linked to power while those of the population are linked to survival. The power of Liberal Jewish elites is inextricably linked to the decimation of Jewish populations, whether in the United States, Europe or Israel.
Jews who have grown up within the bubble of Liberal Jewish values are repeatedly asked to choose between their own interests, their physical, social and economic welfare, and the values that have been presented to them as Jewish values. They are encouraged to believe that betraying their own interests is a noble act of self-sacrifice for the greater good.
This is the same false choice between interests and values, between the low ground of survival and the high ground of moral superiority, that the left subjects all Americans and Europeans to on a regular basis. What all the lecturers on the theme of the moral high ground and the new value system have forgotten to mention is that a value system that is incapable of perpetuating itself is of very little use to anyone. It isn't even any good as an act of martyrdom because martyrs are remembered by the people who share their beliefs.
Martyrs that live on die for a faith, not for the extinction of a faith. And that is what Liberal Jewish values are. The extinction of a faith and a people in the name of a better faith in liberalism and a better people in the form of a multicultural rainbow of other people who have children, but still vote Democratic, because their religious values have not yet been submerged within a liberal identity.
The paradox of the multicultural alliance is that the political survival of the narrow wedge of liberals at the top depends on a larger wedge of non-liberals who vote for them but don't share their values. If the minority communities adopted the full panoply of liberal values, they would be on the same path to extinction as the people for whom they have been taught to pull the lever on Election Day.
That is what makes the multicultural alliance into a frighteningly unstable beast which is always at risk of either breaking left or breaking right and must be constantly replenished through fresh supplies of immigrants who are still economically liberal and socially conservative enough to keep the system going.
Jewish Liberals are stuck in a particularly hellish version of this paradox preaching an extinction based value system that is doomed to lose the race to traditionalists. And the only way out is to try and suborn and break down the values of Jewish traditionalists more aggressively in order to gain fresh recruits for their zombie army of the living dead.
Margaret Sanger at least understood that, " the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit"... can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes". Birth control teaching without eugenics would never be enough, but the age when the government can mandate a One Child Policy is not yet here. And even if it did arrive, it would still lead to a higher birth rate for couples in traditional marriages.
The race between traditional Jewish values and Liberal Jewish values must always end in the same way over and over again. Suicide can never become a Jewish value unless it is universalized and it can never be universalized until every traditional group is broken down. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has already lost and she probably knows it. If she doesn't, the Jewish Federations who are busy typing up the survey results certainly do. And while that will lead them to redirect more money to groups such as Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Uri L'Tzedek which act as leftist outposts of the war on traditional Judaism-- that too is another race they cannot win.
In Israel and America, the proponents of Jewish suicide are successfully wiping themselves out, while the proponents of Jewish survival are filling up cradles. The race between the Jewish values of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and their values is already being won.