Monday, September 10, 2012

GM & Medicine

Barack Obama's Running Mate: A Proven Liar, Coward, and Bully!

American Thinker ^ | 9/10/12 | William A. Levinson

We must say up front that we sympathize with Vice President Biden for the loss of his wife and infant daughter in a 1972 car crash. It is, however, unfortunate that Biden himself lacks the common decency not to misuse and pervert the memory of his spouse and child for political gain, and not to misuse the resources of the U.S. Senate to inflict pain on an innocent family for the same reason.

As reported by Inside Edition, a police investigation of the accident showed that Mrs. Biden pulled into an intersection after she failed to notice an oncoming tractor trailer, which apparently had the right of way. The truck's driver, Curtis Dunn, put his own life at risk in an effort to avoid the collision; he twisted the wheel so hard that he overturned his vehicle. Delaware Online adds emphatically that neither driver had consumed alcohol. Senator Biden, as reported by the New York Times, nonetheless chose to publicly and falsely accuse Mr. Dunn of killing Biden's wife and child while driving drunk :

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

L.A. Mayor: Immigrants would “Self-Deport” if Romney Elected (Bad Thing?)

Red Alert Politics ^ | 09/10/2012 | Regina Conley

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in his Democratic National Convention speech that immigrants would find life so intolerable under a Mitt Romney administration that they would, “self-deport.”
“Instead of supporting their dream, Governor Romney wants to make their lives so miserable, so oppressive, so intolerable that they would leave behind the life they’ve built and ‘self-deport’,” he said. “But we believe we’re a better country than that. And thanks to President Obama, as we keep on fighting for the DREAM Act, they can remain in the country they love.”
Really, Villaraigosa? You think so little of the immigrants of this country that they would return to their own much more oppressive, and even dangerous countries, just because the American government didn’t give them free handouts?
Villaraigosa has clearly never seen miserable, oppressive and intolerable, if he thinks an America where immigrants have to work toward their citizenship falls under that category.
Try raising a family with no money in downtown Mexico City; try living in fear that it will be your daughter that is kidnapped next; try being afraid to walk down the street or say hello to a stranger; try watching your life’s work go up in smoke because your government expropriated your business and then ran it too the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Brass Standard

Creators Syndicate ^ | September 11, 2012 | Thomas Sowell

Politics takes a lot of brass. And Bill Clinton is a master politician. His rousing speech at the Democrats' convention told the delegates that Republicans "want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place."
That is world class brass. Bill Clinton's own administration, more than any other, promoted an unsustainable housing boom, which eventually and inevitably led to a housing bust that brought down the whole American economy.
Behind all the complex financial processes that reached to Wall Street and beyond, there is one fundamental fact: many people stopped making their mortgage payments.
Why did that happen? Because mortgage loans were made to people who did not meet the long-established qualification standards for getting a mortgage loan. And why did that happen? Because the Clinton administration threatened lawsuits against lenders who did not approve mortgage loans to minority applicants as often as to white applicants.
In other words, racial quotas replaced credit qualifications. A failure to have racial statistics on mortgage approvals that fit the government's preconceptions was equated with discrimination.
Attorney General Reno said that lenders who "closely examine their lending practices and make necessary changes to eliminate discrimination" would "fare better in this department's stepped-up enforcement effort than those who do not." She said: "Do not wait for the Justice Department to come knocking."
Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had similar racial quota policies, and began taking legal actions against banks that turned down more minority applicants than HUD thought they should.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Teacher's Strike

Why the Chicago teacher’s strike is bad news for President Obama

The Washington Post ^ | 10Sep 2012 | Chris Cillizza

For the first time in nearly three decades, Chicago public school teachers went on strike this morning. At first glance, you might be tempted to think that what happens in Chicago has little to no effect on the politics of Washington and the presidential race. But, you’d be wrong. There are several reasons to believe that what happens in Chicago could have a real — and negative — impact on President Obama and the broader race for the White House this fall. We list the three biggest reasons below.
* It’s Chicago: Yes, we know that President Obama has no role — either way — in the strike. But, that the strike is happening in Chicago, the town where President Obama made his political name doesn’t help him. And that the current Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, was Obama’s first presidential chief of staff isn’t much help either. Remember that Republicans are doing everything they can to link Obama to Chicago and Chicago-style politics — thinking that it will turn off independents in the middle of the country. That the teachers strike will be at (or close to) the top of every evening news show until it ends allows Republicans a daily news peg to remind people that Obama is from the Windy City.
* Labor, distracted: Organized labor has experienced a series of major setbacks over the past few years — from losing a Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Romney slams striking Chicago teachers!

The Washington Times ^ | Sept. 10, 2012 | Ben Wolfgang

Mitt Romney on Monday blasted the Chicago Teachers Union for its decision to “turn its back” on students in the Windy City after the labor group, representing teachers and support staff in the nation’s third-largest public school system, walked off the job for the first time time in 25 years.

“Teachers unions have too often made plain that their interests conflict with those of our children, and today we are seeing one of the clearest examples yet,” said Mr. Romney, the GOP’s presidential nominee.

The two sides are reportedly not far apart in salary negotiations, but other issues — such as changes to health insurance packages and the implementation of evaluation systems that rank teachers partly based on students’ standardized tests scores — are still outstanding.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, formerly President Obama’s chief of staff, said the walkout is “not a strike I wanted. It was a strike of choice … it’s unnecessary, it’s avoidable and it’s wrong,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

OBAMA SKIPPING STAGGERING AMOUNT OF DAILY INTELLIGENCE MEETINGS (too hard for him to understand) ^ | 09/10/2012 | Mytheos Holt
One of the centerpieces of the Democratic case for Barack Obama‘s reelection in Charlotte last week was the President’s record on national security – specifically, his decision to pursue the operation that eventually led to the death of Osama bin Laden.
That impressive achievement, however, may be blunted by the force of revelations by former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen in today’s Washington Post. Thiessen writes:
President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.
The Government Accountability Institute examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Chairman of Progressive Corp. contributes nearly $1mil to effort to legalize medical marijuana in MA

The Republican ^

The chairman of insurance giant Progressive Corp. this year provided another $465,000 for a ballot question to legalize medical marijuana in Massachusetts.
Peter B. Lewis, who supports medical marijuana, has now contributed $990,000, including $525,000 last year, to the Committee for Compassionate Medicine, the organization leading the effort to legalize medical marijuana in Massachusetts. Lewis is nonexecutive chairman of Progressive, which is based in Mayfield Village, Ohio.
ccording to reports filed with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance last last week, the Committee for Compassionate Medicine has raised $512,850 this year and spent $405,825. Including last year, the committee has now raised $1.039 million and spent $924,000.
The group opposed to medical pot raised $600. Voters will decide medical marijuana and another statewide ballot question on Nov. 6.
The ballot question would make Massachusetts the 17th state, including Maine and Rhode Island, to have laws allowing the medical use of marijuana.
Heidi Heilman, a member of "vote no on question 3," the group opposed to medical marijuana, said she does not like someone from out of state bankrolling policy that she said would be detrimental to public health in Massachusetts.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Chinese Solar Company Learns Cronyism with Harry Reid

National Legal & Policy Center ^ | September 10, 2012 | Paul Chesser

A solar company project that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully lured to Clark County, Nev. – where his son Rory was a former commissioner and now lobbies on behalf of the Chinese company that owns it – now wants the dominant utility in the state to buy its electricity.

said in a July 30 online conference that ENN “would start tomorrow if NV Energy would purchase the power,” according to a Reuters report. Adding that the utility controls 95 percent of all of the electricity that is produced in Nevada, Reid also said, “they should go along with this.” At the same time Reid has verbally pummeled NV Energy over its only coal-fired power plant in southern Nevada, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

similar 2009 visit by Energy Secretary Steven Chu), and ever since has flexed “his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.” Meanwhile Rory works for “the state’s largest and most prestigious law firm,” and somehow ENN was steered to Clark County for its proposed $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant, where it has been granted a 9,000-acre site that it is purchasing from the government at a price “well below appraised value.” The $4.5 million cost is between 11 percent and 15 percent of the property’s true worth.

Review-Journal reported that two Clark County solar projects were put on a federal fast track for permit approvals, and 13 renewable energy projects in Nevada have been fast-tracked by the Bureau of Land Management since 2009. And the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office has backed both partial and full guarantees of nearly $3 billion in financing for five projects either completely or partially located in Nevada. A Nevada Journal analysis showed that $1.3 billion in federal funds readily shoveled into Silver State renewable projects is expected to create only 288 permanent, full-time jobs. Even Bill Clinton’s arithmetic puts that at $4.6 million spent per job.

“Saudi Arabia” of renewable energy. Other than the Obama administration, there has been no greater advocate for “green” boondoggles in Washington than Harry Reid. The favor has been returned, with big renewable firms such as Brightsource Energy helping the Reids’ campaigns with big donations and fundraisers.

Review-Journal article from last July, have donated thousands of dollars to Democrat candidates and interests.

Center for Responsive Politics, Meng and Zhou each gave $5,000 to Harry Reid’s Searchlight Leadership Fund PAC in August 2011, and Meng has also contributed $4,000 to the Democratic Party of Nevada for this campaign cycle. Meng gave $1,000 to President Obama, and both gave $2,500 each to Democrat Sens. Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). Meng also gave $1,000 to the Democratic senator, Debbie Stabenow, who represents the state where he resides, Michigan. Nelson, Whitehouse and Stabenow are all up for re-election in 2012.

said Wang Yusuo, ENN’s chairman, at Reid’s energy summit. “If the United States launches more open investment policies, Chinese companies could make more investments into American market, in turn create more jobs and accelerate the country’s economic development.”

Obama's Recovery For Burger-Flippers Only! ^ | 9 Sep 2012 | by Ben Shapiro

According to new analysis of unemployment data by the National Employment Law Project, while 60 percent of the jobs lost during the 2008-2009 financial crisis were in middle income occupations, the vast majority – 58 percent – of jobs created under President Obama are low-wage. Those jobs include “retail sales, food preparation, home health and customer service.”

“The recovery continues to be skewed toward low-wage jobs, reinforcing the rise in inequality and America’s deficit of good jobs,” said the author of the study, Annette Bernhardt. “While there’s understandably a lot of focus on getting employment back to pre-recession levels, the quality of jobs is rapidly emerging as a second front in the struggling recovery.”

Just half of US adults are currently middle class.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Thugs Rough Up Gallup For Polls They Don’t Like! ^ | 09/10/2010 | Dick Moris

The Obama Administration’s Justice Department announced, on August 22nd, that it was joining a lawsuit by a former Gallup employee and whistleblower against the Gallup Corporation for allegedly overcharging the government on polling work.

The announcement comes on the heels of a confrontation between Gallup staffers and Obama strategist David Axelrod in which he accused the company of using out of date sampling methods which, he said, generated polling data negative to the president.
The whistleblower’s lawsuit has been kicking around since 2009, but the Justice Department joined the suit only after the run-in between Axelrod and Gallup in April of this year.
In a scene right out of a typical authoritarian regime, Fox News reports that “employees at the venerable Gallup polling firm suggested they felt threatened by Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod when he questioned the methodology of a mid-April poll showing Mitt Romney leading the president – according to internal emails published Thursday.”
That poll that sent Axelrod ballistic showed Romney leading Obama 48-43 percent.
The Daily Caller published e mails that started when Axelrod sent a tweet to Gallup saying the tracking poll was “saddled with some methodological problems” and directing followers to a National Journal story in which a professor suggested outdated sampling.
According to the email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup,” the White House in addition asked that a Gallup staffer “come over and explain our methodology,” which was apparently perceived as a subtle threat.
Fox News reported that “a Gallup official said in an email he thought Axelrod’s pressure ‘sounds a little like a Godfather situation.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Democrats’ GM Fiction (No, "Government Motors" is NOT Thriving)

National Review ^ | 09/10/2012 | The Editors

The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.
The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.
Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills. Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.
The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.
Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.
Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.
At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.
The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)
We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.
The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.

Obama Doubled the Jobs Deficit : There are 86,000 fewer jobs today than when he took office

National Review ^ | 09/10/2012 | Bob Beauprez

President Obama has spun the latest jobs report in a desperate effort to keep his own job, stressing to voters that August saw modest job growth in the private sector. What the president won’t say is that the growth is measured only against the previous month’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and that 86,000 fewer jobs exist in America today than when he took office in January 2009. Moreover, whatever modest jobs growth the president can claim in recent months is dwarfed by the increase of the work-force population.
During the Obama administration, the jobs deficit has doubled — that is, the gap between the actual number of jobs and the number we would expect in a historically “normal” economy with the current size of the U.S. population.
Forget “forward.” Obamanomics has resulted in an economy that has been sliding downhill fast.
As the accompanying table based on Labor Department statistics indicates, the total age-eligible work-force population has increased by more than 8.8 million people since January 2009. Typically two-thirds of the age-eligible population enters the work force, so the increase in the work-force population for this period would normally be about 5.9 million. Obama likes to take credit for “creating” 4.5 million jobs since the economy hit bottom in late 2009 — a figure too low for the expanding age-eligible population and also deceptive, as the number of jobs created during the Obama administration has fallen short of the number of jobs lost. The real measure for any president leading an economic recovery is how quickly the economy returns to “normal” — how long it takes for the jobs deficit to be eliminated. The table clearly shows that, far from filling the jobs-deficit hole, Obama’s policies have only deepened it.
When Obama took office in January 2009, the jobs deficit was 5.5 million. The jobs deficit then worsened dramatically through the summer of 2011, eventually exceeding 11.2 million. The economy showed some life in late 2011 and early 2012 but then started sliding backward again with a series of dismal monthly economic reports. The disappointing September report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the jobs deficit has climbed again to 11.2 million — twice the deficit Obama inherited.
Defining a “normal” economy requires establishing benchmarks for the unemployment rate and for the labor-force participation rate (LPR). For a “normal” unemployment level, I used the estimate of 5.4 percent from the Congressional Budget Office. To calculate a benchmark LPR (percentage of the population employed or looking for a job), I averaged the monthly LPR for the nineteen years from January 1990 through December 2008. The average LPR for that period is 66.53 percent, which reflects economic peaks and valleys — the robust 1990s, for example, and the dot-com bust and 9/11 recession as well as the recovery and the crash of the George W. Bush years. Note that the 66.53 percent average LPR is a “modern era” calculation, incorporating the effect of increasing numbers of women in the work force.
Most telling about the Obama economy is that the LPR dropped to just 63.5 percent in the latest jobs report, matching a 31-year low, as another 368,000 workers dropped out of the work force in despair. While jobs in proportion to population have not increased, various other Labor Department statistics document “growth” in some categories that the president would like voters to ignore.
Today, after three and a half years of Obama’s non-recovery recovery, 495,000 more Americans are unemployed than when he took office. More than 8.4 million could work but aren’t looking for a job. The number of people, 6.957 million, who want a job but can’t find one has increased by more than a million. The number of workers, 8 million, who have settled for a part-time job because of the rotten economy remains stuck at twice the level we would see in a normal economy.
Obama cannot honestly claim that jobs have increased relative to the size of the population, nor can he say that his policies are returning the U.S. to a normal economy. We are sliding backward. In August 2009, Obama crowed from the Rose Garden that he had “rescued our economy from catastrophe” and that the recovery was on. Three years — and three failed “recovery summers” later — the Labor Department’s data tell a different and damning story.
Once again the question is before the voters: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The best answer President Obama can offer is that “it could have been worse.” That’s not good enough, and voters should not reward him for failing to deliver.
— Bob Beauprez, a former member of Congress from Colorado, is the author of A Return to Values: A Conservative Looks at His Party. He operates a buffalo-breeding ranch in the Colorado mountains.

Bob Woodward Inadvertently Confirms Our Coming Economic Apocalypse

American Thinker ^ | 09/10/2012 | Monty Pelerin

Bob Woodward has yet another book coming out, and the consummate Washington insider provides us with a glimpse of what's in it. In doing so, he inadvertently confirms what so many internet pundits have been warning about -- an economic catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.

In the article in the Washington Post, Woodward describes the debt-ceiling confrontation between Congress and the President. It is likely that Mr. Woodward or most other political types do not recognize the admissions contained within the article. For these people, politics is a game of winners and losers. That is where the drama and excitement is.

For these folks, economics is a sideshow. To them, economics is to politics like the Toledo Mud Hens are to the New York Yankees. If the Mud Hens send someone to the majors, then these people consider how it might affect the Yankees' chances of winning the World Series. It is Woodward's fascination with the interplay of politics and politicians that dominates his article. The title of the article evidences this Beltway fixation:

Inside story of Obama's struggle to keep Congress from controlling outcome of debt ceiling crisis. The real story is missed. That is the admission of the hopeless condition of the US economy.

Anyone concerned with the impending economic collapse will find Woodward's account fascinating, although not for the reasons he intended. He stumbled into truth, important truth, and seems to have missed it entirely. What follows is an excerpt from the article with the italics added by me:

Another possible outcome, Geithner said, was perhaps worse. "Suppose we have an auction and no one shows up?"

The cascading impact would be unknowable.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

GM Is Losing Up To $49,000 Per Volt Sold!

Reuters via Business Insider ^ | 09/10/2012

* GM losing as much as $49,000 per Volt sold
* Cheap leases likely only exacerbate the losses
* GM still years away from break even on the car
* New plug-in competitors soon from Ford, Honda Sept 10 (Reuters) - General Motors Co sold a record number of Chevrolet Volt sedans in August - but that probably isn't a good thing for the automaker's bottom line.
Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.
Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce.
And while the loss per vehicle will shrink as more are built and sold, GM is still years away from making money on the Volt, which will soon face new competitors from Ford, Honda and others.
GM's basic problem is that "the Volt is over-engineered and over-priced," said Dennis Virag, president of the Michigan-based Automotive Consulting Group.
And in a sign that there may be a wider market problem, Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi have been struggling to sell their electric and hybrid vehicles, though Toyota's Prius range has been in increasing demand.
GM's quandary is how to increase sales volume so that it can spread its estimated $1.2-billion investment in the Volt over more vehicles while reducing manufacturing and component costs - which will be difficult to bring down until sales increase.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Fact Check: First Lady's False Fairy Tale of Struggle ^ | 9-5012 | Joel B Pollack

First Lady Michelle Obama’s pitch to voters relied on the premise that she and her husband understand what it is to struggle to make ends meet. She spoke movingly about their early years--about how a young Barack Obama drove a car that was “rusted out" and found his furniture “in a dumpster,” how they both came from families that had to “scrape by.”

Her fairy tale--however well-delivered--was one great, big, colorful lie.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Misrepresents Auto Bailout– GM DID Go Bankrupt!

National Legal & Policy Center ^ | September 10, 2012 | Mark Modica

We have heard the claims over and over again from the Obama campaign; the President "saved" General Motors and Mitt Romney said "let Detroit go bankrupt." The clear implication is that GM never went through the bankruptcy process that Romney suggested. Here's news for voters who didn't pay attention to how, exactly, Obama "saved" GM; $50 billion dollars of taxpayer money was given to GM to get them through a manipulated bankruptcy process. Replacing the word bankrupted with saved does not change the facts. And the fact is, GM DID go bankrupt.

The media has not questioned the clearest example of misrepresentation of facts by one of the presidential candidates. This one is not debatable, the court dockets exist. Not only did GM go bankrupt, but the Obama Administration used taxpayer money to manipulate the bankruptcy process and assure that political friends in the UAW received favorable treatment compared to non-union claims.

The evidence that union friends of Obama received favorable treatment is also irrefutable. In a normal bankruptcy, liabilities and creditors would be ranked with unsecured claims being treated equally (which wasn't done under the Obama manipulated bankruptcy) and negotiated through a "managed" process. THAT is what Mitt Romney suggested be done. And for the record, he never used the words "let Detroit go bankrupt," that was a title a paper that published a Romney op-ed piece gave it. President Obama was the one who carried out a plan that saw a GM bankruptcy process that became anything but normal as he appointed his Auto Task Force to assure that the UAW was well taken care of.

While GM bondholders who were supposed to have equal rights as unsecured creditors were thrown under the bus and given pennies on the dollar, the UAW had its jobs, pensions and benefits protected by Team Obama. In fact, GM still had over $100 billion of pension obligations on its books, of which about $20 billion were underfunded, when it exited bankruptcy. And Obama's Auto Task Force insisted that thousands of jobs at non-union dealerships be cut while using taxpayer money to preserve UAW jobs. So when you hear about jobs being saved, remember that it was only union jobs that were deemed important by Obama. And when you see how poorly GM stock has performed since its IPO (down about 35%) resulting in continued losses to taxpayers, remember that the reason is because the bankruptcy process was not carried out in a way to make GM as profitable as possible. It was done to protect political allies.

Nowhere is the evidence clearer that the UAW was favored over non-union parties as in the Delphi (GM's parts supplier) retiree case. It has recently come to light that the Obama Administration influenced GM when UAW retirees at Delphi had their pension benefits "topped off" with GM's taxpayer funds as nonunion retirees lost their benefits. Members of the Administration apparently lied under oath when they testified that Team Obama had nothing to do with the inequitable treatment of non-union retirees. Emails have been produced that show that was not the case. Congress is rightfully still investigating the blatant payoff to political friends.

Of course, the UAW has done its part to reciprocate by coming out to strongly support President Obama in his reelection bid. It is understandable that those parties that benefit from Obama's actions come out in support. The problem is, the rest of us non-favored, non-unionized taxpaying citizens are not so richly rewarded.

The bottom line is that the claims of saving millions of jobs in the auto industry in a noble quest to "save" GM are just false. The process could have been carried out in a much fairer way and GM could have now been in a much better position right now if over $100 billion dollars of UAW benefits were not deemed untouchable by the Obama Administration. And, for the record, GM employs about 77,000 people in America. The claims that the industry would have collapsed and millions of jobs lost if taxpayers didn't ante up to save the UAW are just more campaign deception.

I expect that the GM bankruptcy process will continue to be discussed, particularly at the presidential debates. The defense for the trampling of contract law that occurred during the process will be that there were no other bidders available to fund a managed, fairer bankruptcy. Bull. The reason no other bidders came forward was that once Obama's team took over the process, no bidder would be able qualify to make an offer for GM unless UAW assets were protected. A bidder would have had to top the Administration's taxpayer funded "purchase" price. No private entity could compete with the bottomless pockets of the government.

It is a shame that Mainstream Media allows the GM bankruptcy deception to proceed unquestioned. My hope is that the debates will help bring to light just how corrupt the GM bankruptcy was. The manner in which GM was "saved" is nothing to brag about, much less to run a presidential campaign upon. Unless you believe that bankrupting a major American corporation under a process that favors political friends using billions of taxpayer dollars is a worthy accomplishment.

Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.

Democrats have work where they didn’t expect it: getting Negros on board ^ | Sept 10, 2011 | By Emma Karlin, staff writer

The last time Negro ministers told their congregations NOT to vote for a Democrat was in 1908. In 1912, using lies and false promises of a “cabinet position” to W.E.B. Dubois the deeply racist Woodrow Wilson tricked him into being a Judas goat who would lead Blacks onto the Democrats’ plantation. Before that African American were Republicans.

Nevertheless, with Wilson’s first term they gradually became more and more Democrat. But that was then and this is now. Barack Obama has asked more and more of “his people” over his term in office.
They have had to endure rising unemployment, bottom rung schools, crime ridden neighborhoods and being pushed aside in favor of the Democrats’ “new best friends” the Hispanics.
Now Obama has asked them to put their Christian faith aside for his reelection. Obama has asked African Americans to accept homosexual marriage, something large numbers of Black people find repulsive, so HE can stay in the good graces of the Gay community.
When Obama had his most recent “evolution” as to where he stands on Gay “marriage” it alarmed and infuriated the African American community especially the Black clergy. Because of Obama, all over America Black ministers are being forced to either turn their back on the Bible and the spiritual wellbeing of their people or turn their backs on local Democrat controlled governments that fund the social programs they run from their pulpits.
Making things still worse is the fact that the Democrats have taken God out of their platform. God fearing African Americans are left to wonder if the Democrats even believe in God.
Some Black ministers are fighting back and saying “No!” to Obama’s re-election..
“… group of African Americans working to defeat Gay “marriage” and ..Obama who supports it....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Bumper Sticker

Woodward’s devastating account of Obama’s failed leadership!

Washington Examiner ^ | September 6, 2012 | Conn Carroll

Arrogant, aloof, and unprepared is how Bob Woodward portrays President Obama in his new book The Price of Politics, set to be released next week.

The book recounts Obama’s troubled relationship with Congress, from his inauguration through last summer’s failed debt-limit negotiations, with Woodward concluding, “It is a fact that President Obama was handed a miserable, faltering economy and faced a recalcitrant Republican opposition. But presidents work their will — or should work their will — on important matters of national business. . . . Obama has not.”

Snippets of the book, as reported by The Washington Post, include:

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Long Live King Obama!

The Silent Majority ^ | 09-10-12 | J.D. Longstreet

As distasteful as it may be, I think we need to look at what we can expect if, heaven help us, Obama is reelected.

First we must understand that Obama has had his fill of the Congress of the United States. After all, the Congress is only the voice of the people of this country. So, what do THEY know, right? Nah. Congress is just another speed bump -- like the Constitution.
So, in my opinion, America should brace itself for a king-like President who will, in actuality, rule America by decree. Obama will simply forget Congress, except as a whipping boy, and he will issue Presidential Executive Order after Presidential Executive Order and will, for all intents and purposes, become the "Dictator of America."
Obama can order things done by Executive Order but the Congress holds the strings to the purse and if they don't like it, they can simply cut off funding, or see that no money is earmarked to finance all those "things" Obama will order done and created.
If the election ends with Romney winning the popular vote and Obama winning the electoral vote, things will be even worse. The divide between the President and the people of America will grow wider and deeper and ... bitter. The divide between Americans will become exponentially wider and more difficult to bridge. The little civility we have left will be tossed out the window. Americans can expect civil unrest to be the order of the day. The country could (possibly) become ungovernable in fairly short order. (One has to wonder if that explains the government's purchase of all that ammunition and spreading it around among various government agencies in diverse parts of the country. Are they expecting this??)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Coal: Obama's Kryptonite!

American Thinker ^ | September 10, 2012 | Jim Ellis

In a presidential election that appears headed for a photo finish, it may be coal that transforms itself into political black gold for Republican nominee Mitt Romney and into kryptonite for President Barack Obama. While the president's economic policies have devastated several industries, it is the coal producers who are strategically located and have the opportunity and ability to become a real force in this campaign.
The main reason behind the mineral's potential election-determining power is that most of the coal-producing voters reside in traditionally Democratic counties and precincts. Ohio and Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania, are potentially so electorally close that either candidate losing a significant share of his own party's vote could cost him that particular state and thereby the White House itself.
Therefore, the fundamental unanswered question is whether President Obama can neutralize some of his past actions in the critical energy-producing states. This becomes especially difficult when fully comprehending that Obama's Cap & Trade legislation has already proven itself politically lethal to Democrats.
We all know that Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, places that lie in a major domestic coal-producing region, are part of the group of swing states that will determine who occupies the White House after the November 6 election. Currently, polls suggest that the challenger is in position to convert Florida -- the single most important state for Romney, because he simply cannot replace its 29 electoral votes -- and North Carolina but is slightly behind in Virginia and Ohio. It's in the latter two states, and possibly wavering PA, where coal voters have the opportunity to play their decisive role.
You will remember that the president's very first major legislative initiative attempted to make Cap & Trade the law of the land. This so-called "energy equalization" concept is economically devastating to coal-producing regions, and...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Non-unionized Delphi retirees rally over 'theft of our pensions' caused by auto bailout!

Daily Caller ^ | September 10, 2012 | Matthew Boyle

DAYTON, Ohio — From the bed of a Ford pickup truck outside a now-dilapidated former Delphi auto parts plant here, Mary Miller called for transparency from President Barack Obama over the “theft of our pensions.”
Miller, a self-described “divorced mother of four young adults,” and about 200 Delphi salaried retirees gathered at the shuttered auto plant in Dayton last Thursday morning to ask President Obama to right the wrongs they believe his administration inflicted upon them during the 2009 auto industry bailout.
The Obama administration terminated the pensions, health care and life insurance of more than 20,000 Delphi retirees during that bailout. Internal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) emails The Daily Caller published on Aug. 7 show the Obama White House and Treasury Department have consistently misrepresented the decision-making process behind the backroom deal. (RELATED: Emails: Geithner, Treasury drove cutoff of non-union Delphi workers’ pensions)
The emails demonstrate that White House and Treasury officials were behind the pension terminations and that Secretary Tim Geithner and his Treasury Department were the driving force pushing them. The emails also contradict sworn testimony in which several Obama administration figures have said the decision to terminate the pensions came from the PBGC.
The PBGC is a federal government agency that handles private-sector pension benefits issues. Its charter calls for independent representation of pension beneficiaries’ interests. Federal law is clear: The PBGC is the only government entity that may initiate termination of a pension or move toward doing so.
Last week, right before the Dayton rally where hundreds gathered to call for fair treatment and justice, TheDC published additional emails showing those same senior Obama officials’ actions enriched their former firms and may have resulted in personal financial windfalls in the process. (RELATED: Emails: Obama officials enriched former firms, possibly themselves with auto bailout)
The message from the rally on the day of Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention was clear: The 20,000 disaffected Delphi pensioners believe the president should fix what he did to them now or they will work to make sure he loses his re-election effort.
Miller and the others here don’t want to play political games, but they feel ignored by Washington. And precious few politicians — Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner, for instance, who attended the rally — have weighed in publicly on the controversy. That leaves Miller stumping like a candidate for public office, arguing for the pensions she and her fellow retirees earned with the sweat of their brows.
The plant behind Miller was once a thriving cog in American industry. Now its windows are shattered and stained. Graffiti is sprayed over the outer concrete walls. The rust on the chain-link fences around the building has almost rotted through the iron. The parking lot where many of the hundreds of protesting Delphi pensioners used to park their cars every day before work is now a jungle of weeds growing through age-old pavement cracks.
Some of the weeds have grown so high that the former autoworkers had to drive their cars around them just to get in.
The plant was destined to close, though. Market changes during the 2000s made it an unnecessary expense, and no one here blames the president for that.
Saving jobs is someone else’s fight. This protest is about retirees’ pensions.
Miller said that she once worked at a similar plant nearby.
“I worked at Delphi’s Needmore Road operation as a human resources manager in 2008 when the plant was permanently closed,” she said. “I lost my job and I was forced to retire.”
Tom Rose, another salaried Delphi retiree, told The Daily Caller this plant is one of seven that once thrived in Dayton.
“Six of them are closed,” said Rose, “and the seventh one only has 200 people working at it.”
When she was forced into retirement, Miller thought she had the pension she worked her whole life to earn to fall back on. Even so, she went on to start her own business to supplement it.
“I am now a certified personal coach,” she said. “I started my own business … in 2009. Being just 57, I knew I needed to start a new career to earn additional money to support myself and my family.”
The recession made it “challenging” for Miller to get her business off the ground, but what really hurt her was the “decision by her president’s Auto Task Force to top off the pensions of union members” — but not hers and those of the other salaried Delphi retirees.
When the dust settled on the auto bailout, the 20,000 discontinued pensions all belonged to non-unionized retirees. The Obama administration is notably close — both politically and financially — to organized labor. Coincidence or not, the result left a sour taste in the mouths of those left out in the cold.
Hundreds of them cheered as Miller said the Obama administration’s moves that ended up “throw[ing] the Delphi salaried retirees and our families to the wolves” were a “stunning abuse of power.”
“I worked for 22 years for GM and then nine more for Delphi to earn my pension,” she said.
“For me and my fellow retirees, the burden of trying to figure out how to make ends meet gets heavier every day, as we struggle to pay our bills without the pension dollars we worked so long and hard to earn.”
Miller believes Obama has failed to represent Americans who didn’t have union bosses arguing on their behalf.
“Rather than being a president to all people, President Obama decided to let his henchmen exclude from justice those who weren’t politically connected enough to him,” she said, to booming applause.
“Mr. President,” she said, speaking as if the president could hear her from some nearby invisible chair, “the Delphi salaried retirees are members of the same middle class you talk so much about wanting to help. Your actions have crippled us financially at a time in our lives when we can’t recoup the losses you have chosen to inflict upon us.”
“President Obama, you have had three years to fix this grave injustice,” she went on. “But neither you nor anyone who works for you has lifted a finger to remedy this unjust financial burden you chose to permanently place on our shoulders.”
“Is this still America?”
The rally felt like a small-town America tea party rally, its grassroots character reminiscent of the 2010 wave that swept Republicans into control of Congress. Former autoworkers held signs bashing President Obama with his own words.
“Hope” and “change” were punch lines to the Delphi veterans, many of whom say they voted for Obama in 2008.
One pensionless protester who used to deliver intra-company mail held a sign rapping Hollywood actress Betty White for supporting Obama.
Rally-goers brought folding lawn chairs out to the vacant lot where a parked Ford pickup truck served as a makeshift stage.
As Miller hopped down from the truck bed, fellow Delphi retiree Mike McCurdy hopped on it to speak his mind. McCurdy reminded the crowd that he and his peers “used to be” members of the “strong middle class” that built Dayton and other rust belt cities. The Obama administration, he said, took away their pensions and their livelihoods.
“It takes a strong middle class to really build a strong community — and we’d like to get that back,” he said.
“And it just didn’t happen in Dayton, Ohio. It happened in Defiance, Ohio. It happened in Sandusky, Ohio. It happened in Warren, Ohio. It happened in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati and Youngstown. We can take pride in what we did to help this community, this state, and I guess you could say ‘We did build it!’”
“Now we have a president and an administration that wants to take credit for the auto bailout and all the jobs at General Motors that were saved, or he claims,” McCurdy continued. “But it’s the same president that disavows any responsibility or any role in what happened to us.”
“Well, Mr. President,” McCurdy said, “you can’t have it both ways.”
Indeed, communities across Ohio are hurting. In Warren, for instance, Democratic mayor William Franklin recently took President Obama to task on how this decision-making process cost his city, by some estimates, more than 1,500 jobs and more than $58 million in annual revenue.
“This is not about politics. Our economy in this area of Ohio has been struggling through one of the worst recessions in history. Jobs have been lost, homes foreclosed, bankruptcies — of both corporate and personal natures — have occurred, and businesses have closed,” the Democratic mayor wrote in an August newspaper op-ed.
“The economic losses associated with the treatment of the Delphi Salaried Retirees has added to the pain in the city of Warren,” Franklin wrote. “The good news is, should the Delphi salaried retirees regain their pensions, the economic impact of that would be felt in the city of Warren almost immediately, and it would continue for years to come.”
McCurdy jumped off the truck, and Rose – the brains behind the rally — leapt up for his turn. He said this was the first political rally he has ever organized.
“This is not management versus union,” Rose told the assembled crowd. “It’s right versus wrong. All we have ever asked for is fair and equitable treatment.”
Rose told rally-goers some of the more intimate details of the Delphi scandal. He explained how the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (SIGTARP) is investigating what happened, who made the key decisions and why. The crowd cheered when Rose said it took Republican Ohio Rep. Mike Turner, who was at the rally, and the “threat of subpoenas” from the House oversight committee to get several former Obama administration officials to agree to even talk to SIGTARP about what happened.
At the eleventh hour before a House hearing in July, former White House auto czar Ron Bloom and former Treasury officials Matt Feldman and Harry Wilson cracked. They agreed to stop stonewalling investigators.
They had for years refused to sit down with SIGTARP Christy Romero to discuss their roles in the process that terminated so many nonunion retirees’ pensions. Since Romero doesn’t have subpoena power and can’t compel testimony, she asked Congress to help force the officials to talk.
Before the hearing started, all three agreed to interviews with her. (RELATED: Former Obama auto czar, Treasury officials break in eleventh hour after years of stonewalling on GM bailout)
The “truth is starting to emerge,” Rose said.
“The DSRA [Delphi Salaried Retirees Association] has presented a solution to the Obama administration that will fully fund our pension plans with zero taxpayer dollars,” Rose said to cheers from the crowd.
“Hope and change? President Obama, I hope that you have the integrity to change this injustice created by your administration because if you don’t fix this, we will,” the one-time autoworker said.
Rep. Turner spoke next.
“I want you to know: You are the middle class,” Turner said to the crowd.
“When the president talks about protecting the middle class, protecting health care and protecting pensions, he not only let you down, he showed what he really means. And what he really means is [he’d do that] for some. You had just as much rights as everyone else. Your pensions were protected by contracts, by assets and by the laws of this country. The fact that your pensions were taken in a back-door deal in the White House is absolutely wrong.”
Turner expects to get the Delphi workers’ pensions restored.
“The fact that Tim Geithner was on every side of this deal, that conflicts of interest were raging and the fact that you were put on the table and someone made a deal with your pensions is wrong and we’re going to get those pensions back,” Turner said.

Republicans Must Offer Alternative to Democrat Moral Bankruptcy ^ | September 10, 2012 | Star Parker

Maybe Democrats have some slick salesmen, like Bill Clinton and our current president, who can sell you swampland and have you convinced that you’ve bought choice beachfront property.
But the omission of any mention of God and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from the Democratic Party platform, which were in it in 2008, and then the almost failed attempt to add them after the fact, showed the clear truth about the 2012 Democratic Party.
It took three boisterous floor votes to add these principles to the platform and listening to the ayes and nays in the third vote, it is questionable that they actually got the two thirds that were needed.
The omission of these key principles from the Democratic platform was the party equivalent of what journalist Michael Kinsley calls a political gaffe – when a politician inadvertently says what he really believes.
Democrat party operatives panicked when they realized that the platform, as initially drafted, showed today’s Democrats exactly for who they are – the home base for the nihilism, radical moral relativism, and welfare statism that defines today’s far left.
But the Democrats are the party of the entertainment industry. They know how to create fiction and appeal to fantasies.
So the party of the radical left brands Republicans as extremists.
The United States is still a religious nation.
According to a 2010 Gallup poll , 43 percent of Americans attend church regularly. However, just 39 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of liberals do.
The alignment of the culture of the Democratic Party with that of bankrupt European welfare states provides a powerful hint where they are taking this country.
In a Pew Research Center survey last year, 50 percent of Americans said religion is “very important”, compared to 22 percent in Spain, 21% in Germany, 17 percent in Great Britain, and 13 percent in France.
Of the 50 percent of Americans who said religion is very important, 67 percent were conservative and 29 percent liberal.
Regarding Israel, in a Gallup poll done this year, 61 percent of all Americans - 78 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Democrats - said their sympathies lie with the Israelis rather than the Palestinians.
Back in 1965 , when President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, 30 percent of federal spending consisted of payments to individuals. Today it’s almost 70 percent.
At the beginning of the Johnson presidency in 1965, 24 percent of black babies and 3 percent of white babies were born to unwed mothers. Today 73 percent of black babies and 29 percent of white babies are born out of wedlock.
More than half of births today to women under 30 are outside of marriage.
Unfunded liabilities of Medicare, plus those of Social Security, are $63 trillion according to their trustees’ latest report. But underlying the fiscal bankruptcy is a moral bankruptcy.
But you wouldn’t know it, listening to la la land Democrat liberals.
Not only are we killing the goose that lays the eggs, but with 50 percent of Americans now living in a household getting government benefits, we’re losing perspective that you even need a goose to get eggs.
God-fearing, family and church centered American values created the American prosperity that opened the door to entitlement programs.
Now Democrats brand those traditional American values as cruel and “on your own.”
If you think debt, government dependence, broken families, and moral relativism is the path to a strong and prosperous America, sign on with the Democrats.
But Republicans need to do a better job embracing and articulating the alternative.
Republicans need to step up to the plate and start talking about our nation’s real crisis – our moral crisis. The nation’s searching middle class will understand the truth when they hear it.
But they need to hear it.


Posted Image

Incomplete Chair!

Posted Image


Posted Image

Bill Clinton

Posted Image

You Bet!

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Running Away?

Posted Image

We are the kind...

Posted Image


Posted Image

Leading the Parade!

Posted Image

Better off?

Posted Image

One of the 57 States!

Posted Image

Nancy (over the cliff)

Posted Image

Empty Chairs

Posted Image

Food Stamp Clock

Posted Image

Who Needs GOD?

Posted Image

Magic of 2008 Eludes Obama After Flat Convention! ^ | September 10, 2012 | Michael Barone

The consensus on Barack Obama's acceptance speech Thursday night, and in effect on the Democratic National Convention as a whole, is that it was a bust.
One reason may be optics. Obama was scheduled to deliver the speech in a stadium seating 64,000 people. But on Wednesday, after Charlotte, N.C., had been pummeled by periodic rainstorms all week, organizers moved the event to the convention hall.
The last two stadium acceptance speeches, in 2008 and 1960, were delivered in Denver and Los Angeles, where it seldom rains in the summer. That's not true of Charlotte -- or of Tampa, Fla., where Republicans took a risk by scheduling their convention at the start of hurricane season.
So Obama spoke at the same podium as Bill Clinton had the night before. The comparison was not flattering to the 44th president.
Clinton was animated, loose, constantly ad libbing, varying his gestures and expression. Obama seemed more mechanical, less fluent. The contrast with the videos shown earlier of his campaigning in 2008 was not helpful.
And, perhaps unexpectedly, John Kerry and Joe Biden delivered more interesting speeches before Obama spoke.
Kerry effectively exploited Mitt Romney's inexperience in foreign policy and his omission of a tribute to the troops during the GOP convention. Biden painted a picture of Obama decisively making difficult decisions 30 paces from his own office.
The major problem with Obama's speech, however, was content: It was the same old, same old. Just as he didn't pivot on policy after his party's thumping in the 2010 elections, so he didn't pivot from his accomplishments in his first term to what different things he hoped to accomplish in a second.
He said he would pursue certain "goals" in a second term. But the goals were vague -- invest in the economy with the money we're no longer spending on war -- and in many cases rehashes of things he has said before. And there was not even the vaguest description of how specific policies might achieve these goals.
In his peroration, Obama made appeals to different core Democratic constituencies, like those made repeatedly by other speakers in Charlotte, sometimes even after 10:00 Eastern time, when the broadcast networks began their coverage.
The delegates roared again and again at endorsements of access to contraceptives (actually, free contraceptives), same-sex marriage and non-deportation of young illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions. Requiring picture identification at the polls was described as similar to beating up blacks trying to vote 50 years ago.
Young people, single women, gays and lesbians, blacks and Hispanics came out in large numbers and swelled Obama's majority in 2008. He needs them to turn out heavily again. The Obama brain trust could only hope that these people followed the lengthy proceedings at the 5,000 "watch parties" organized by the Democratic Party or by the constituent groups themselves.
But the evidence from polls, and the fact that the Democrats felt they had to make these appeals, suggests that enthusiasm for Obama, except among African-Americans, is lagging behind 2008. Did the convention and Obama's speech rekindle the spark of his first presidential campaign? It doesn't seem likely.
The Democratic Party throughout its history has been a coalition of disparate groups that, at their strongest, add up to a majority. But when the party has to rally them with appeals that turn off moderates and independents, it's hard to get to 50 percent.
Especially when you make unforced errors, like writing a platform that didn't mention God or Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and then having the oversight corrected to resounding boos on the floor.
Polls tell us that the Obama Democrats were at the cusp between victory and defeat after Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan and before the two conventions began.
Polls next week will tell us where the race is now. Pundits are looking for bounces, but polls conducted over weekends, and especially over the holiday weekend that separated the two conventions, are problematic.
Two events after the Democratic convention threaten to undermine any positive bounce.
One is the unemployment numbers released Friday morning. The unemployment rate is down to 8.1 percent but only because the labor force is shrinking. Fifty-somethings are going on disability, and twenty-somethings are living with their parents.
The other is the devastating portrait of Obama in Bob Woodward's latest book. "Presidents work their will -- or should work their will -- on important matters of national business," Woodward writes. "Obama has not."

Detroit Area Police Officer Shot and Killed [Chicago, Phillie, Detroit...Obama's cities in chaos] ^ | September 10, 2012

The West Bloomfield Police Department is mourning the loss of one of their own this morning.
According to media reports, the West Bloomfield Police Officer was shot and killed early this morning. West Bloomfield is located about 40 minutes northwest of Detroit.

Authorities are at a home where a man has barricaded himself inside with a gun. There is a bomb squad there as well. This could be related to the shooting.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obamacare shock: College insurance prices soar!

The Examiner ^ | 8/29/2012 | Paul Bedard

The future frightening payoffs of college loans are taking a backseat to the immediate and soaring costs of health insurance students are getting slapped with as they return to school this fall, all thanks to Obamacare.
Because of a rule in the Affordable Care Act that lifts caps on policy payoffs, the cheap insurance policies typically healthy students previously got are skyrocketing, some over 1,000 percent. The reason: Without payoff caps, insurance firms are boosting prices to cover their potential losses.
One example: a late July email to incoming students from Guilford College of Greensboro, N.C. revealed a jump from $668 to $1,179, a 75 percent jump. The reason stated: "Our student health insurance policy premium has been substantially increased due to changes required by federal regulations issued on March 16, 2012 under the Affordable Care Act."
The issue is brewing here in Tampa where students are pressuring political leaders to address it. "We're trying to make the conservative national leaders in Tampa focus on this issue," said Ron Meyer, spokesman for Young America's Foundation. "It's time for conservative leaders to start talking about Obamacare's hurt on college campuses."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Americans -- you gotta let Obama go! ^ | September 10, 2012 | Lurita Doan

President Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was scary.

What Americans heard is a thinly disguised plan to continue with an effort to further the addiction of American voters to government subsidies, aid and handouts. Every person in the nation should already understand that our government has made promises that it cannot afford to honor. Yet, our president, incredibly, advances ideas that would expand entitlements at the very time when a rising debt and 4 years of shameful $1 trillion dollar annual deficits have eroded American prosperity.

Mr. Obama’s only plan, it seems, is to continue looting the savings from those most responsible and levy new and confiscatory taxes on the job creators and entrepreneurs. Obama's is an economic plan that cannot work and whose only aim is to create a dependent nation of guaranteed Democrat voters for the future who are incapable of functioning autonomously from big government.

Barack Obama spoke as if the past four years, and five trillion dollars of federal spending that yielded nothing save bigger debt, bigger class divisions and bigger government, had not occurred. Meanwhile, joblessness continues. Obama made no mention of the fact that more and more of our fellow Americans have become so discouraged that they have stopped looking for work.

Instead, Mr. Obama went back in time and dipped into the approximately 500 campaign promises made in 2008. Of course, few of these 500 promises were kept, but that made no difference as glib promises were dusted off and trotted back out.

In his 2012 speech, Obama has made no promises that he had not made four years earlier. He offered no roadmap for how his promise of a "better path" would be achieved. He clearly didn't think he needed to do so. With almost 50% of Americans having already drunk the federal subsidies and entitlement "kool-aid", Obama seems to believe he needs only to promise more of the same and guarantee that the government entitlements will continue to grow and to flow to guarantee his re-election. That assumption, too, is scary.

But perhaps, the scariest assumption that permeated Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC convention was Obama's apparent belief that Americans are idiots who will continue to believe him, idiots who are incapable of putting the interests of the nation and of future generations ahead of a self-serving desire to have the government provide increasing entitlements, funded by a nonexistent entity.

Barack Obama was right about one thing -- our nation is facing "a choice between two different paths for America. A choice between two fundamentally different visions of the future." The president's speech showed clearly the differences between his basic philosophies and the GOP candidate, Mitt Romney: Romney is for Big Tent, Obama is for Big Government.

Obama's vision leads our country on the path to serfdom fostering greater dependence on an ever-increasing government that ultimately destroys individual freedom. Romney believes that freedom is the gift that the government can give its citizens and that the private sector, responding to supply and demand can create a vibrant economy, as long as heavy-handed government is limited and bound by the constitutions fetters. Romney understands that, both at home and abroad, economies are complicated entities and that any government's attempt to control the free market will result in disaster.

Obama believes that people are inherently selfish and that unless the government steps in, charity will not flow to those less fortunate. He is, quite simply, the last true believer in the role of Big Government. Romney, in sharp contrast, knows that Americans are the most generous people in the history of the world, giving over $300 billion dollars to charities each year. Romney knows that the greatest good can come when communities address problems directly. Romney also knows that the best solution for a failed economy is work, and that simply extending unemployment benefits, food stamps and issuing waivers so that the unemployed have no obligation to look for work only creates more dependency on government.

Mr. Obama believes that he can say anything, do anything and that he will not be held accountable because many Americans are more afraid of the inevitable false charges from a well-oiled machine that will call them "racists". He simply cannot accept the fact that his policies have failed. And so, Obama goes on in a curious way, reprising old, false promises to narrow groups of constituents whom he hopes to bribe, one more time, for a vote with money and benefits that can only be paid for by future generations.

Most successful businesses know that a good rule of thumb is to underpromise and overdeliver. Barack Obama has spent four years overpromising and never delivering anything of value.

Romney, meanwhile, is calling for austerity, clearly identifiable budgetary priorities, strong defense and shared sacrifice that shows a willingness to make the future a secure and thriving place for our children's children.

A historic choice indeed.

As Clint Eastwood, so succinctly said, Americans -- you gotta let Obama go.