Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Obama Amnesty Begins for Millions of Illegal Aliens: Work Permits, No Safeguards Against Fraud


Stand With Arizona ^ | 08-15-2012 | John Hill


The Face of Arrogance

Stand With Arizona

Obama's lawless bypass of Congress in granting blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens began this morning across America.
Tens of thousands of illegals lined up early, and flooded into DHS centers to apply for nearly automatic 2-year stays from deportation and work permits, with far looser provisions and requirements than were ever imagined in any version of the 3-times defeated 'Dream Act' in Congress.
Thanks to Obama's decree on June 15th, blanket amnesty for illegal aliens under 30 begins today as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) begins accepting applications for “deferred action” and work authorization.
To soften the public relations blow, the White House estimated that about "only 800,000" illegal aliens would be covered under this amnesty, when Obama issued his edict - a complete fiction that he knew the media would not challenge. However, the figure was disputed by the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimated about 1.4 million beneficiaries. Then last week, the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute estimated that 1.76 million illegal aliens will be eligible.
In reality, the numbers will be higher - FAR higher. Why? Because, as House Judiciary chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told DHS Secretary Napolitano in an August 13th letter, there are no mechanisms in place to detect, deter, or to punish fraud.
NONE. Nothing to stop illegals who either fall slightly outside the criteria, or far beyond its provisions to submit fraudulent documents and gain an automatic 2-year stay from deportation, and no consequences if they do. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not even require original or certified documents to be submitted - opening up a Pandora's box of potential fraud from a group of individuals accustomed to a lifetime of employment and Social Security fraud, tax evasion and identity theft.
What is to stop 2 million new border crossers tomorrow from applying for and receiving this amnesty? Absolutely nothing.
So why are there zero safeguards against fraud in this process? As FAIR's Ira Mehlman pointed out:
The lack of fraud control is not an accident; it is by design. According to the letter, DHS officials have confirmed that the Department will not use fraud prevention or detection methods that are “too expensive,” “time consuming,” or which would “unduly impact” the expedited processing of applications...
In plain English - because they don't want to reject any of these applicants. This is a political act. The provisions and requirements are absurd and completely for show. You can read yourself the new, so-called "guidelines" published just two days ago by the USCIS. In it one discovers that the path to amnesty is easily available for illegals aliens under the following circumstances:
  • Provide a simple affidavit that one arrived in the U.S. prior to his or her 16th birthday and is under the age of 30
  • Submit easily-acquired or fabricated copies of school or health records to back this up
  • No H.S. diploma or GED is required, as in the Senate 'Dream Act' bill - as little as enrollment in a "literacy course" or "GED preparation course" will suffice. Did they even finish the course or obtain a GED? DHS won't follow-up to find out.
  • Even Middle-School dropouts can qualify, as the DailyCaller discovered. So much for our "future scientists, researchers, and entrepreneurs". This amnesty opens to door to hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers to be granted legal status.
  • No meaningful background checks will be performed, as DHS does not have the staff or budget to do so (and wants to rubber stamp them in any case)
  • Illegals are permitted less than "three misdemeanor convictions" that are not "significant" - and even more if they are concurrent with a single crime - and still receive Obama's amnesty. Even if they have a felony, DHS can waive the restriction in "special cases".
  • There is NO punishment for fraud in the application process. As USCIS puts it: "DHS annot use information from deferred action applications against the alien during subsequent removal proceedings"
  • Since illegal aliens typically have multiple fake or stolen identities, criminals and even terrorists could gain quasi-legal status through this process, due to the failure to properly vet their documentation.
  • Illegal aliens are being charged a miniscule $465 fee - and no penalties - to apply, but even that fee can be waived. As a result, this amnesty will cost the taxpayers at least $585 million (and that is based on the lower estimate of applicants)
EXCERPT...CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

Obamacare Doubles Premiums for Many Americans

ATR ^ | 2012-08-10 | Justin Sykes

In a recent campaign speech in Cincinnati Ohio President Obama claimed "premiums will go down."
However, studies on the effects of Obamacare evidence premiums will not go down but will increase for "a material portion of the population." Specifically the young and healthy will be burdened by exponential increases in their premiums as a result of Obamacare.

An article published by the Washington Post today compiled numerous studies from around the country, all of which indicated that Obamacare will lead to sharp premium increases for young and healthy Americans.
President Obama's campaign promise that "premiums will go down" finds no factual support. If legislative action is not taken to repeal Obamacare:
Nationwide Study - Premiums in the individual market would increase from 8 to 37 percent in 2014 - with a cumulative increase of as much as 122 percent between 2013 and 2017.
Ohio - A healthy young man would experience a rate increase of 90 to 130 percent.
Indiana - The law would boost premiums in the individual market on average by 75 to 95 percent and in the small employer market by 5-10 percent in 2014.
Ohio - Rates would go up 55 to 85 percent above current rates.
Minnesota - Individual market premiums will increase between 26 to 42 percent.
Maine - Individual premiums will increase on average by 40 percent and premiums in the small group market are likely to increase 8 to 9 percent...20 percent of the individual market would still experience premium increases even after subsidies.
Maryland - Individual premiums will go up on average by 34 to 36 percent.
Wisconsin - Before tax credits, the average premium increases in the individual market will be 30 percent.
Colorado - Individual premiums will go up on average 19 percent.
Rhode Island - Before tax subsidies, premiums for individuals will increase on average by 8 percent.
Read more: http://atr.org/obamacare-doubles-premiums-americans-a7126#ixzz23dxt4OyV

POLL: Floridians Like Ryan

SurveyUSA ^ | SurveyUSA

In Florida, 17% Change Vote Because of Ryan VP Pick; Vote Changers by 4:3 are Drawn To Romney: 17% of registered voters in the state of Florida say they will change who they will vote for in the election for President as a result of Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as Vice President, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted statewide for WFLA-TV in Tampa.

Of those who will change their vote, 57% say they are more likely to vote for Romney, 42% say they are less likely to vote for Romney. The state of Florida is one of the most important swing-states in the country. Florida's 29 electoral votes are critical to Romney.
Reaction to the Ryan pick breaks along party lines. 82% of Republicans, 91% of Tea Party members, and 86% of conservatives say the selection of Ryan is excellent or good. 57% of Democrats and 51% of liberals say the Ryan selection is bad or very bad.
75% of Republicans say Ryan would be ready to step-in as President if Romney were unable to serve, compared to 28% of Democrats who say Ryan would be ready.
Cell-phone and home-phone respondents included in this research: SurveyUSA interviewed 640 adults from the state of Florida 08/13/12. Of the adults, 590 were registered to vote. This research was conducted using blended sample, mixed mode. Respondents reachable on a home telephone (70% of registered voters) were interviewed on their home telephone in the recorded voice of a professional announcer. Respondents not reachable on a home telephone (30% of likely voters) were shown a questionnaire on their smartphone, laptop or other electronic device.

Easy things Romney can do to survive first year


 by WileyC

There's quite a few people that serve at the pleasure of the president. There's no congressional oversight because they are members of the executive branch, in effect, and they are simply appointed. Others require the Advice and Consent of the Senate and become more contentious (judicial appointments are always a hot-button issue).

Romney needs to walk into the Oval Office prepared to clean house. It's much better to take the political heat early than to have a viper working against you during your presidency. "W" learned this the hard way when he tried to play nice coming into office. Just like with a failing business that has bad leadership, you have to clear the ranks of anyone who will stand in the way of success.

Too many agencies are rife with A) liberal partisans or B) endemic corruption. The EPA and the State Department are so glutted with socialists and progressive they are probably lost causes. In other cases, there are plenty of good people (the Justice Department) and the only major problem is the person currently at the top.

The best plan is to clear out everyone that BHO brought in with him and anyone who has proven to be an issue when it comes to real reform. Don't accept moderates; put people ready to make real change and be ready to can them if they can't handle it.

Shooting at Family Research Council - Shooter Opposed Chick-Fil-A & FRC's Pro-Life Pro-Family Agenda

Texas Conservative Republican News ^ | 8/15/2012 | David Bellow

A hero guard was shot today as he stopped a gunman from entering the Family Research Council in Washington DC. The shooting is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism. Family Research Council is a Christian, conservative based organization. Fox News reports that witnesses say the shooter was speaking out against the Family Research Council's Pro-Life, Pro-Family agenda as he tried to enter the building. A security Guard stopped the shooter to ask where he was going and that is when the security guard was shot. Thankfully, the guard fought back, even after being shot, and was able to wrestle the shooter to the ground and took the gun. 

Witnesses say that after the shooter was subdued, the shooter told the guard, "it was not about you, it was about what this place stands for." The shooter was allegedly even carrying a Chick-Fil-A bag as he tried to enter the building.

According to Media Research Center, Tony Perkins, the President of FRC, was an outspoken defender of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s public stand against same-sex marriage, which made the fast-food chain a flashpoint in the nation’s culture wars. The Cathy family foundation has funded the Family Research Council.

‘‘He’s taking a bold stand,’’ Perkins said after Cathy’s comments were reported. ‘‘Chick-fil-A is a Bible-based, Christian-based business who treats their employees well. They have been attacked in the past about their stand. But they refuse to budge on this matter, and I commend them for what they are doing.’’

Family Research Council has been involved in protecting traditional marriage nationwide and fighting against the killing of unborn babies. FRC recently supported and promoted the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. I was one of the many people who waited in line to get a chicken sandwich at Chick-Fil-A to support free speech and support traditional marriage. It was a record breaking day for Chick-Fil-A. Those opposed to Chick-Fil-A and Christian, conservative values must have been very upset to see that that most Americans support family values. Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day brought thousands of supporters to EACH Chick-Fil-A all across America. The anti-Family, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual Marriage supporters were only able to get very few supporters to show up to protests "kiss ins" at few Chick-Fil-A locations in America.

It seems as though this shooting was motivated by hate and anger by a man who does not like the Christian, conservative beliefs of FRC or Chick-Fil-A. It does not help that this hate was likely fueled by liberals and Democrats who got on national TV and illegally and unconstitutionally threatened to use their government power to kick Chick-Fil-A out of their cities because of the personal Christian beliefs of the owner of Chick-Fil-A. These liberals call for tolerance of other people's beliefs, unless you are a Christian and then they don't seem to believe your beliefs should not be tolerated. They go past just not tolerating Christian beliefs though. Can you imagine a mayor saying that no businesses would be allowed to open in his city if the business was owned by a gay person? There would be national outrage! And yet, the liberal media did not seem outraged that mayors in cities like Boston and Chicago openly stated that they would prevent a business (Chick-Fil-A) from opening in their cities because the owner has Christian beliefs.

What a sad day in America.

Even as I post this article, the liberal New York Times has the articles about this shooting at the bottom of the news section under the title "More News." Higher up on the NY Times front page, under the main news section, they have a much more breaking news article titled: Gay Male Stand-Up Comics Await Spotlight 

House Dems: It’s unfair to debate the issue of the deficit commission Obama created and then ignored!

Hotair ^ | 08/15/2012 | Ed Morrissey

Man, I love the smell of panic in the morning ... at least when it comes from the other side:
Some Democratic lawmakers want to make sure that one question does not get asked at the upcoming first presidential debate --- about Simpson-Bowles.
Three Democratic House members objected Tuesday to a request by four senators that President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney be asked which of the commission’s proposals to address the debt they support. The Democrats said such a question would force “candidates to choose solutions from one menu of options.” ...
But that caused Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) to cry foul, writing in their own letter to the debate commission on Tuesday that although the Simpson-Bowles commission’s plan “may contain proposals helpful to our recovery…to hold it out as the only pathway to fiscal responsibility and economic success is foolish and wrong.”
“We urge the [Debate] Commission to fight any effort to unnecessarily narrow such an important debate by placing disproportionate attention on one set of proposals over another,” they wrote, adding that such a question would “cheapen the debate” and “thwart the candidates’ ability to explain alternative proposals.”
On the face of it, this is a ridiculous assertion. Asking one question about the Simpson-Bowles plan doesn’t restrict a range of answers on budget reforms and deficits. The moderators can ask other questions on the topic, and the candidates themselves can expand on those options in their answers to the Simpson-Bowles question. Ryan will almost certainly do so, since he served on the commission and passed his own version of budgetary reform in the House — twice.
But of course, this isn’t about the range of options in the debate. Democrats don’t want Barack Obama to have to answer for his total rejection of the commission he called into existence in the first place. Obama announced his grand plan to find consensus on the deficits after taking a beating on the massive deficits his budgets ran up, a few months before the midterm elections. He wanted to gain traction against the rising Tea Party by taking away one of the key fiscal arguments. When that plan failed, Obama completely ignored the recommendations from Simpson-Bowles even though the panel was a presidential advisory commission.
Part of this effort by Democrats to bury that history has been a new effort to get Erskine Bowles to repudiate his remarks from September 2011 praising Ryan while criticizing Obama and his budget. So far, Bowles isn’t budging:
Erskine Bowles is not backing away from his previous praise of Rep. Paul Ryan now that the Wisconsin congressman is on the Republican presidential ticket.
“I like him,” Bowles, the former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and co-chairperson of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, told The Daily Caller in a phone interview.
“I think he’s smart. I think he’s intellectually curious. I think he is honest, straightforward and sincere. And I think he does have a serious budget out there — it doesn’t mean I agree with it by any stretch of the imagination. But I’m not going to act like I don’t like him or that I don’t have some real respect for him.”
Looks like Bowles won’t be making a Cory Booker Hostage Video any time soon.

Auto Bailout Cost Climbs to $25 Billion yet Obama Threatens to Do the Same for Other Industries!

Townhall.com ^ | August 15, 2012 | Daniel J. Mitchell

I’ve been against the auto bailout from the very beginning because it was a corrupt payoff to lazy corporate fat-cats and an ossified union.

And when folks on the left say the bailout is a success, I explain that any industry can be propped up with a sufficiently large injection of other people’s money.

Now we have new data on how much “other people’s money” has been diverted. It’s a big number, and it seems to get bigger each time there’s a new estimate. Here’s part of a Reuters report.
The U.S. Treasury Department has said the auto industry bailout will cost taxpayers $3.4 billion more than previously thought. Treasury now estimates the 2009 bailout will eventually cost the government $25.1 billion, according to a report sent to Congress on Friday. That is up from the last quarterly estimate of $21.7 billion.
Sort of reminds me of the old joke about the lousy businessman who says he loses money on every sale, but he makes up for it with high volume.
Well, that incompetent businessman has a kindred spirit in the White House. Here’s some of what Politico reported.
President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance… he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry…”

Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned. He wants to do the same thing in “every industry.” Well, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, there are 60 industries in America. At $25 billion each, that means $1.5 trillion.
By the way, Mickey Kaus explains that the government’s numbers are incomplete and that the actual damage is significantly higher. And this Reason TV video exposes some of the government’s chicanery.
P.S. If you’re in the mood for some satire, here’s a bailout form showing how you can become a deadbeat and mooch off the government.
P.P.S. Just in case you’re new to this blog and don’t know my history, rest assured that I’m also against Wall Street bailouts.
P.P.P.S. Ethical people should boycott GM and Chrysler, particularly since these companies are now handmaidens of big government.

Obama demands court uphold his "right" to ignore Constitution!

Coach is Right ^ | 8/15/2012 | Doug Book

Obama’s Department of Justice is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people.

On May 16th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), striking down those sections of the Act which provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.”

When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority, government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Where are the Conservative Presidential Debate Moderators?

GOP USA ^ | 8/15/12 | Bobby Eberle



In just over a month, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will square off in a series of debates. It's a time-honored tradition, and if they are anything like the GOP primary debates, hopefully people will learn more about the candidates and make an informed decision. However, what is blatantly missing from the debate line-up is any moderator from the center-right. Why is it that the so-called "nonpartisan" Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) can only pick left-wing moderators?
As announced by the CPD, the one vice presidential debate and three presidential debates will be moderated by the following people:
First presidential debate:
Jim Lehrer, Executive Editor of the PBS NewsHour
Wednesday, October 3, University of Denver, Denver, CO
Vice presidential debate:
Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, ABC News
Thursday, October 11, Centre College, Danville, KY
Second presidential debate (town meeting):
Candy Crowley, Chief Political Correspondent, CNN and Anchor, CNN's State of the Union
Tuesday, October 16, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Third presidential debate:
Bob Schieffer, Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News and Moderator, Face the Nation
Monday, October 22, Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, co-chairmen of the "nonpartisan" CPD, had this to say about their selections: "These journalists bring extensive experience to the job of moderating, and understand the importance of using the expanded time periods to maximum benefit. We are grateful for their willingness to moderate, and confident that the public will learn more about the candidates and the issues as a result."
In referencing the "expanded time periods," the moderators are referring to new formats for the debate which are designed to allow the candidates time for more in-depth discussions:
First presidential debate
The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.
The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.
Vice presidential debate
The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.
Second presidential debate
The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.
Third presidential debate
The format for the debate will be identical to the first presidential debate and will focus on foreign policy.
The more discussion, the better. The more in-depth a candidate is forced to go on an issue, the less he can rely simply on talking points. But the real problem here is about who is leading the discussions. Why is it the same, tired "journalists" from the left? If this commission is truly nonpartisan, why continue to pick left-wing media hosts? It absolutely makes no sense.
CNN is represented, but not Fox News? Just the other day CNN's Soledad O'Brien was caught referencing a story from a left-wing blog as one of her "sources" when she was interviewing a Republican legislator from Virginia.
On CBS, Bob Scheiffer conducted the first Romney/Ryan interview for "60 Minutes," and, as reported by The Right Scoop, the portion of the interview where Ryan says, "My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida," was edited out of the broadcast. Hmmmm... perhaps it doesn't go with Obama and the media's plan to paint Ryan as an enemy of seniors?
There are so many examples of left-wing bias, and yet these same people are used over and over again for events such as the upcoming presidential debates. How could the "nonpartisan" commission be so stupid?

Poll shows Romney cutting into youth vote, capturing 41%

examiner.com ^ | August. 15, 2012 | Howard Portnoy

For months now, the Obama campaign has been trying to re-energize youth voters, the segment of the electorate between the ages of 18 and 29. His inability to reconnect with this all-important demographic, 66% of which turned out for him at the polls in 2008, has been highlighted by survey after survey. One poll released in April revealed that of the 61% of college-age Millennials who are registered, only 46% said they were sure they would vote this time around.
But a newly released poll suggests the enthusiasm among young voters might be on the rise. Unfortunately for Obama, the poll, by John Zogby of JZ Analytics, carries better news for his opponent than it does for him. The Examiner reports that Republican Mitt Romney now has the support of 41% of America's youth voters. Obama is still ahead in this metric, receiving 49% of what Zogby calls "CENGAs" (for "college-educated, not going anywhere"), but that number is far below what he needs from this demographic if he is to recapture lightning in a bottle.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...

My Record?

Posted Image

Freedom or Free Stuff

Posted Image

Super-Pacs

Posted Image

His Plan

Posted Image

The Bull

Posted Image

Spine and Plan

Posted Image

Socialism at Day-Care

Posted Image

Play Book

Posted Image

Dive

Posted Image

"I will not raise your taxes!"

Posted Image

Obama's Educational Excellence Initiative

Townhall.com ^ | August 15, 2012 | Walter E. Williams

President Barack Obama recently wrote an executive order that established a White House initiative on educational excellence for black Americans that will be housed in the Department of Education. It proposes "to identify evidence-based best practices" to improve black achievement in school and college. Though black education is in desperate straits, the president's executive order will accomplish absolutely nothing to improve black education. The reason is that it does not address the root causes of educational rot among black Americans. It's not rocket science; let's look at it:

The president's initiative contains not one word about rampant inner-city school violence, which makes educational excellence impossible. During the past five years, Philadelphia's 268 schools had 30,000 serious criminal incidents, including assaults -- 4,000 of which were on teachers -- robberies and rapes. Prior to recent layoffs, Philadelphia's school district employed about 500 police officers. In Chicago last year, 700 young people were gunfire victims, and dozens of them lost their lives. Similar stories of street and school violence can be told in other large, predominantly black cities, such as Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Oakland and Newark.

If rampant school crime is not eliminated, academic excellence will be unachievable. If anything, the president's initiative will help undermine school discipline, because it advocates "promoting a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools." That means, for example, if black students are suspended or expelled at greater rates than, say, Asian students, it's a "disparate use of disciplinary tools." Thus, even if blacks are causing a disproportionate part of disciplinary problems, they cannot be disciplined disproportionately.
Whether a student is black, white, orange or polka-dot and whether he's poor or rich, there are some minimum requirements that must be met in order to do well in school. Someone must make the student do his homework, see to it that he gets a good night's rest, fix a breakfast, make sure he gets to school on time and make sure he respects and obeys his teachers. Here's my question: Which one of those requirements can be accomplished by a presidential executive order, a congressional mandate or the edict of a mayor? If those minimal requirements aren't met, whatever else is done is for naught.
Spending more money on education cannot replace poor parenting. If it could, black academic achievement wouldn't be a problem. Washington, D.C., for example, spends $18,667 per student per year, more than any state, but comes in dead last in terms of student achievement. Paul Laurence Dunbar High School was established in 1870 in Washington, D.C., as the nation's first black public high school. From 1870 to 1955, most of its graduates went off to college, earning degrees from Harvard, Princeton, Williams, Wesleyan and others. As early as 1899, Dunbar students scored higher on citywide tests than students at any of the district's white schools. Its attendance and tardiness records were generally better than those of white schools. During this era of high achievement, there was no school violence. It wasn't racially integrated. It didn't have a big budget. It didn't even have a lunchroom or all those other things that today's education establishment says are necessary for black academic achievement.
Numerous studies show that children raised in stable two-parent households do far better educationally and otherwise than those raised in single-parent households. Historically, black families have been relatively stable. From 1880 to 1960, the proportion of black children raised in two-parent families held steady at about 70 percent; in 1925 Harlem, it was 85 percent. Today only 33 percent of black children benefit from two-parent families. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; today it's 72 percent.
Too many young blacks have become virtually useless in an increasingly high-tech economy. The only bright outlook is the trickle of more and more black parents realizing this and taking their children out of public schools. The president's initiative will help enrich the education establishment but do nothing for black youngsters in desperate educational need.

Paul Ryan Is Not Freddy Krueger!

Townhall.com ^ | August 15, 2012 | Brent Bozell

Mitt Romney made a smart executive decision selecting Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate. Ryan's genial personality, serious policy wonkery and political courage have dazzled conservatives and won respect even in a few liberal circles. Romney scores points for political courage as well. He knew liberal politicians and journalists would talk in punishing terms about Ryan's budget ideas.
They did not disappoint. It took only minutes for the onslaught to begin. At the same time liberal media outlets acknowledge the country now faces two opposing visions of government, why is only the Romney-Ryan vision "polarizing" and "extreme"?
To be sure, Ryan's early press clips weren't terrible when compared to the immediate viciousness that greeted Sarah Palin four years ago. Still, reporters predictably unloaded with the Freddy-Krueger talk of "budget-slasher" and Ryan "ripping" into the middle class.
Start with ABC's Bianna Golodryga. On Sunday, she announced, "New battle lines have been drawn after Mitt Romney chose conservative congressman and budget-slasher Paul Ryan as his running mate." This is not only wrong, but it's also a classic example of ABC's partisan shamelessness. Golodryga is married to former Obama budget director Peter Orszag.
Then came ABC's David Kerley, unloading all the Democratic-National-Committee talking points: "Sen. Harry Reid claimed that the pick of Ryan caters to the far right rather than standing with the middle class. Others called Ryan extreme. The ticket, a match made in millionaires' heaven. Ryan, the author of disastrous budgets."
The next day, ABC's David Muir added "Ryan is known in the political world for his controversial budget plan that would call for steep cuts and the Obama campaign said it would change Medicare as we know it."
On CNN, Obama-loving Soledad O'Brien asked Gov. Robert McDonnell "how does a Paul Ryan pick help you with that when you look especially at the budget which, you know, looks really closely and rips out a lot of the entitlement spending which will affect the middle class. I think that could be potentially a big problem, wouldn't it?"
On CBS, Bob Schieffer insisted, "There's some really tough stuff in there. I mean, he really slashes into social programs ... in order to try to get this budget back into balance." On NBC, Peter Alexander painted Ryan as "the architect of a politically polarizing budget plan to slash trillions in federal funding, including cuts to Medicare."
All of these claims are blatantly inaccurate. We're told Ryan favors a cut of "$5 trillion over the next ten years," but Ryan's plan would actually increase federal spending over the next 10 years, from about $3.6 trillion this year to just under $4.9 trillion in 2022. Under the supposedly radical Ryan plan, it would take 18 years to achieve a balanced budget. It is why conservatives are uncomfortable with his plan.
Just like the years of Speaker Newt Gingrich, our media routinely smear proposals to reduce the growth of spending as "steep cuts."
The reverse is even more ridiculous. In the current fiscal year, the deficit is $970 billion and is expected to be the fourth trillion-dollar deficit in a row when September ends. Would the media ever describe the spending trajectory under Obama as "steep increases" or a "polarizing expansion of government" or "catering to the far left"? How about describing this dramatic increase as "extreme"?
Why not present these two visions in matching terms? They could. But they shouldn't. By any objective measure, Obama's spending is radical and Ryan's plan, which proposes to slow that extremist spending, is not.
The same thing happens on social issues such as abortion. The conservatives hold "extreme" positions. When Obama holds the exact opposite position, it's never extreme. Andrea Mitchell suggested the Ryan selection would alienate women: "This is not a pick for suburban moms. This is not a pick for women. This is a pick for the base."
Again, the reporter flunks math. Married women have been breaking in favor of the Republicans and favored McCain over Obama in 2008. Feminist Mitchell likes to suggest all "women" naturally favor abortion. But that's simply false.
On ABC, Jake Tapper said Team Obama would emphasize Ryan "is a Catholic and he opposes abortion being illegal even in cases of rape and incest." Memo to ABC: Barack Obama not only supports abortion in every case, he even pushed legislation in Illinois to kill babies who somehow survive an attempted abortion -- "post-birth abortion." Isn't that as "extreme" as it gets? Who is doing the "slashing" or "harsh cuts" in this scenario?
Republicans need enthusiasm in every precinct for their ticket, and it's there right now. But in every election cycle, our so-called mediators in the press make sure the Republican road to victory is "harsh," "steep" and extreme in its perils.
Maybe it's the media's already dismal approval ratings that are in need of a deep cut.

Obama's Iftar Dinner - He touts Islam as a religion that Sandra Fluke could like!

The American Spectator ^ | August 15, 2012 | George Neumayr

Obama's politically correct spin on Islam grows more and more buffoonish.

At the very moment he accuses Christians of waging a "war on women," he casts Islam as a benevolent religion to which the Sandra Flukes could take refuge.

He used his remarks at this year's Iftar dinner to praise Islam as a female-friendly religion. "Indeed, you know that the Koran teaches, 'Be it man or woman, each of you is equal to the other,'" he said. For Obama, it is the Bible, not the Koran, that reeks of dangerous patriarchy. Obama has mocked the Book of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and St. Paul's letters, but he would never dare question a passage in the Koran, which he regards as a holy and blameless book in no need of politically correct revision.
If the oppression at Georgetown gets to be too much for Sandra Fluke, she could always try her luck in the Islamic world, where the rights of women are spreading like wildfire, according to Obama. Thanks in part to Islam, he said, this year's Olympics can be dubbed "The Year of the Woman," as Muslim countries generously allowed a few women to play: "Also, for the very first time in Olympic history, every team now includes a woman athlete. And one of the reasons is that every team from a Muslim-majority country now includes women as well."
Obama was particularly pleased that women got the chance to "face down tanks" in the Arab Spring. Nothing proves sameness between the sexes better than the equal opportunity to die.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

Obama Campaign Goes Racist, Anti-Semitic

Townhall.com ^ | August 15, 2012 | Ben Shapiro

Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate has utterly unhinged the Obama campaign. Last week they were happily jabbering about Romney's record at Bain Capital, implying that he had killed a man's wife, stating that he was a tax cheat and blaming him for outsourcing jobs. This week they're stuck defending Barack Obama's $700 billion cuts to Medicare and spending addiction.
That leaves the Democrats with one solution: get ugly.

Joe Biden led off the festivities in Virginia this week, where he informed the population of 49-percent-black Danville that "he said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street. They gonna put y'all back in chains." That last line is a direct transcription -- Biden lapsed into a heavy southern accent, clearly making a slavery reference. According to the Obama campaign, then, Romney's Wall Street plans are the same as placing Americans in chains. If that isn't insulting to black Americans, nothing will be.
But the Obama campaign wasn't done. The same day Biden unleashed his inner race-baiter, the Obama campaign's Julianna Smoot send out a mass email accusing Ryan of "making a pilgrimage" to Las Vegas to "kiss the ring" of Jewish mega donor Sheldon Adelson. This was an obvious attempt to drive a wedge between Ryan and blue-collar Catholics by invoking anti-Semitic imagery; the implication is that Ryan, instead of making a pilgrimage to Rome to kiss the ring of the Pope, was heading to Vegas to kiss the ring of a wealthy Jew. Ryan, the email implied, was a Judas willing to sacrifice religion for money in the Sodom and Gomorrah of Vegas.
This isn't just nasty campaigning. It's vile campaigning.
It wasn't surprising, of course -- not after the Obama campaign seemingly worked hand-in-glove with a super PAC to release an ad accusing Romney of murdering Joe Soptic's wife of cancer after Bain Capital fired Soptic and Soptic lost his health insurance. It wasn't surprising after the vulgarities that seem to spout daily from the Obama headquarters; their emails suggest that they must win the "damn" election and their staffers call Obamacare opponents "mother---ers." No hope and change to be found here -- just vulgarity and racism.
Just because the Obama campaign is running a disgusting campaign doesn't mean it will hurt them. Negative campaigns remain extraordinarily effective. But it won't work against the revitalized Romney-Ryan ticket. Ryan is simply too likeable -- 50 percent of Americans like him, as opposed to 32 percent who don't -- and he is highly intelligent and scrupulously honest. That means he'll be tough to categorize with the left's three favorite anti-conservative insults: stupid (Palin), corrupt (Nixon) and mean (Bush). Ryan isn't extreme; he's praised by people like ... Barack Obama and Erskine Bowles.
The question that remains for the American public is whether they can be polarized by the divide-and-conquer rhetoric of the Obama campaign. If Obama can't convince Americans that Romney-Ryan will destroy America, he'll have to destroy America himself to ensure re-election by separating Americans by race, sexuality and religion. That's precisely what he's doing.

Obama's Ironic Lie About an American Icon

Townhall.com ^ | August 15, 2012 | Terry Jeffrey

To justify expanding the power of the federal government and increasing the burden of debt on federal taxpayers, President Barack Obama has repeatedly lied about a peerless icon of America's pioneering spirit -- the Golden Gate Bridge.

"During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge," Obama said in his January State of the Union Address. "After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today."
Obama suggested here that the federal government invested in the Golden Gate Bridge. Elsewhere, he has used a royal "we" to seemingly credit the federal government.
"We built this country together. We built railroads and highways. We built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. We built those things together," Obama said on May 10 in Seattle.
"We were creating the conditions for everybody to be able to succeed," Obama said. "These things made us all richer. They gave us all opportunity. They moved us all together, all forward, as one nation, and as one people.
"And that's the true lesson of our past," Obama concluded.

But it is not true.

The federal government did not conceive of the Golden Gate Bridge. Or design it. Or finance it. Or build it. Nor did the state government of California.

The people of Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma and Del Norte counties, as well as parts of Napa and Mendocino counties, built the bridge. The Bank of America financed it by buying bonds approved by voters in those counties. And drivers who actually crossed the bridge and paid its toll provided the money to pay off those bonds -- a feat accomplished only 34 years after the bridge was completed.

The movement to build the bridge, Louise Nelson Dyble reported in "Paying the Toll: Local Power, Regional Politics and the Golden Gate Bridge," essentially started at a 1923 meeting convened by Frank P. Doyle, chairman of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce. The movement crystallized when state assemblyman Frank L. Coombs, a native Californian born in 1853, pushed through legislation permitting the creation of a "special district" that Northern California counties could join if they wished for the purpose of building a bridge from San Francisco to Marin.
The special district was a corporation separate and apart from state and local governments. It was dependent on local voters for authorization, who in turn were responsible for guaranteeing its funding.
This differed sharply from the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge, which would be funded by both the state and federal governments.
"In contrast," writes Dyble, "Golden Gate Bridge boosters were vehement about maintaining local control of the project. However, local control also meant local risk; even Coombs, the sponsor of the enabling act for the Golden Gate Bridge, remarked that its financing put a 'heavy burden on the small counties.' Also, the Golden Gate Bridge had little chance of winning state or federal assistance because the bridge district was structured to limit its accountability to other governments."
Dyble quotes a remarkable claim published in a report from the chief engineer for the project. "After the 40th year, the bridge having retired its bonds and accumulated the substantial surplus of 17 million-odd besides, will become free," said the report. "The user's tax of a toll bridge falls only on THOSE WHO USE THE BRIDGE. Thus the visitor relieves the local taxpayer and pays his pro rata cost of the improvement."
In 1930, Dyble reported, the people in the six counties that were part of the special district voted by the necessary two-thirds majority to approve a bond issue.
But that was just one year after the 1929 stock market crash. Who would buy the bonds?
As Kevin Starr wrote in "Golden Gate: The Life and Times of America's Greatest Bridge," the special district looked into borrowing money from the federal Reconstruction Finance Corp., which had already provided $71.4 million in financing for the Bay Bridge. But that was to no avail.
"Enter Amadeo Peter Giannini, chairman and president of the Bank of America and the controlling presence on the Bankamerica syndicate that was considering the purchase of $6 million in Golden Gate Bridge District bonds necessary to begin construction," wrote Starr.
According to Starr, Giannini asked Strauss how long the bridge would last. "Forever," said Strauss.
But the debt incurred in building the bridge was not eternal. The bridge district paid it off in 1971.
Alas, as Dyble noted in her history, the bridge district then morphed into a mass transit agency that uses tolls imposed on motorists to subsidize buses and ferries.
Obama's repeated use of the Golden Gate Bridge as a symbol to justify his use of federal deficit spending to sustain a manifestly flawed vision for spurring economic growth is ironic because the building of that bridge is as much a symbol of local action and fiscal prudence as the bridge itself is an icon of architectural excellence and engineering prowess.