Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Democrats Have No Plan To Create Jobs

Townhall.com ^ | September 11, 2012 | Phyllis Schlafly

The bounce expected from Barack Obama's Democratic Convention speech collapsed the following day under the reality check that the current unemployment figure is 8.1 percent. And 40.7 percent of those people have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.
Those numbers tell only a small part of Obama's failure to deliver on his promises. The real unemployment figure is closer to 19 percent. The official count doesn't include the 8 million unemployed who have given up and stopped looking for a job, the people who have had to settle for part-time work, those who had to take lower-paying jobs that are well below their qualifications or the 11 million who are out of the workforce collecting Social Security disability checks.
The plight of young Americans is even worse. For 18- to 29-year-olds, the unemployment rate is 12.7 percent.
The majority of jobs lost during our current depression were well-paying jobs, while the majority of jobs that Obama brags about increasing are lower-paying jobs.
The National Employment Law Project reports that occupations in construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13, accounted for 60 percent of job losses and only 22 percent of job growth. Meanwhile, 58 percent of the job growth Obama bragged about was lower-paying jobs with hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83.
The jobs with the fastest growth were retail sales, where the median wage is $10.97 an hour, and food preparation jobs that pay $9.04 per hour. Some of these jobs are taken by entry-level workers, but many others are taken by older Americans who were laid off from well-paying jobs.
A Labor Day weekend report also came from the Department of Agriculture, which showed us that 46,670,373 Americans are now receiving food stamps at an annual cost to the taxpayers of $71.8 billion. Do we really believe that more than 46 million Americans would go hungry without a government handout?
One of Obama's much talked about solutions for the jobs problem is to send more kids to college. But most recent college graduates cannot get jobs that require a college degree or justify the enormous debt they incur in order to attend college.
The jobs aren't there that justify either individual or taxpayer debt to increase college attendance. The Labor Department predicts that, of the top 10 occupations expected to provide the most jobs between now and 2020, three will require no more than a high school education and five others won't even require a high school diploma.
Even those jobs would be welcomed by unemployed Americans, but many of those fastest growing jobs are taken by immigrants, legal and illegal. Obama's refusal to enforce the laws against illegal aliens, his prosecution of states trying to do what his administration is failing to do, plus his illegal order to give work permits to 1.7 million young illegal aliens add up to a direct attack on the job opportunities of millions of Americans.
Those who say we can just concentrate on fiscal issues and ignore social issues are refusing to face the reality that federal spending is driven by social issues, especially the low marriage rate and the high illegitimacy rate. The Census Bureau reports that the poverty rate of single-parent households is 27.3 percent, but the poverty rate of married couples is only 6.2 percent.
The current depression has not only changed the kind of jobs that people take, but it is changing the American character from self-reliance to dependence on government. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, there were no entitlements. Americans didn't look to government for handouts and they grew up to become the Greatest Generation.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement payments in 1960 amounted to $24 billion (in current dollars), but by 2010, they had climbed to $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. In 1960, entitlement payments were well-below one-third of federal government expenditures, which is about the same proportion as in 1940. But now, entitlements amount to two-thirds of federal spending and all other government functions have been reduced to one-third.
America is now a very different country from what it used to be. That enormous growth of entitlements over the last 50 years has transformed not only the purpose of government, but also the American character. Barack Obama has taken us across a landmark threshold.
Many Americans now feel no shame in milking the taxpayers, and some seem to agree with Obama that "government is the only thing we all belong to." It doesn't seem to bother them that their handouts are financed by borrowing from Communist China, leaving a colossal debt to hang around the necks of our children and grandchildren.
Obama's expensive stimulus plan failed, and now he offers no plan to create more jobs or build individual independence and self-reliance. We hope for a change in November.

Drive-By Media Uses Phony Polls to Concoct False Notion of Obama's Inevitability

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | September 11, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: Did I not tell you yesterday, did I not make the case yesterday, and today it's borne out to be true. All of this inevitability of Barack Obama is manufactured. It started in The Politico, with two guys named John Harris and Jim VandeHei. They're the ones who got this whole ballgame running on, "Obama's inevitable. Obama got the great bounce." And, folks, it's all phony. There's nothing to it. Even the CNN poll that's out that's got Obama up six. It's a joke of a poll. The Democrat sample in this poll is absolutely unbelievably high. It is a joke of a poll. In fact, there's one aspect to this poll nobody's reporting. Of course they're not going to report this. In the CNN poll that has Obama up six, Romney is leading Obama in independents by 14.



Now, I'm just going to tell you something. If that holds up, and if on election day Romney wins independents by 14, we're looking at a landslide. It's not even going to be close. Well, I won't say close, but it's going to be big. If in a poll that CNN reports Obama is plus six but Romney is up 14 in independents, what does it tell you about the rest of the sample?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Folks, I told you yesterday, and I'm not trying to be falsely optimistic here by any stretch of the imagination. That doesn't get anybody anywhere. I have never been a false optimist. I've never been an optimist for the sake of it. But I'm telling you it's all manufactured. The Obama bounce for the most part is gone. I don't believe there ever was one. I think the polls were jockeyed and manufactured and made to look like it. This CNN poll, like I said, was released yesterday, shows Obama plus six. But it is so skewed. In fact, an analysis of this poll was done by a guy named Dean Chambers at the Examiner, and he says that it's doubly skewed. It massively under-samples independents and over-samples Democrats.

The CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll reports Obama at 52; Romney at 46. Unskewed the data reveals a 53 to 45 percent lead for Romney. If the poll were honest, Romney would be plus eight in the CNN poll. Not making that up. This new CNN poll, unlike many other analyzed, not only oversamples the Democrat voters, it massively under-samples independents, which produces a result that's more favorable to Obama. "This survey's sample includes 397 registered Republicans and 441 registered Democrats. But the survey included a total of 822 registered voters, leaving only 37 independent voters at most." Thirty-seven independent voters out of 822. That is a massive under-sampling. And in those 37, Romney's up 14. It's stunning.



"Among the Democrats survey, 97 percent favored Obama while three percent support Romney. The Republican surveys chose Romney by a 96 percent to two percent margin. Those margins display a high degree of party loyalty in each party for its candidate, which is plausible in a campaign like this one where both sides are focusing heavily on boosting turnout among their base. Independents, who are massively under-sampled in this survey, support Romney by a 54 percent to 40 percent margin." And it may be one of the reasons they're under-sampled. By the way, Romney with independents. This is pretty common, 14, 15, we see this from poll to poll to poll, and if anybody is being skewed by the polls, it's us. It's the consumer. This is journalistic malpractice what's going on here.

Like I say, I am not trying to be falsely optimistic and build you up for no reason. That would be cruel. I wouldn't do that. Folks, they're shooting their whole wad here, and they can't get Obama to 50%. They can't get Obama significantly ahead of Romney no matter what they do (unless they skew the poll like CNN), and there's not another poll out there that shows Obama plus six. Even ABC/Washington Post has come back to earth: "Among Likely Voters, Obama-Romney Close."

The convention bounce is over.

There wasn't a convention bounce.

Rasmussen Reports: "Partisan trends among voters, based on tens of thousands of voters, surveyed showed the voting electorate made up of 35.4% Republicans, 30% Democrats, 30.5% independent." If you use that... That's Rasmussen's report of partisan trends. If you use that as your sample, you would have Romney plus eight in the CNN poll, not Obama plus six. Yet we've got the audio coming up. Wolf Blitzer is out there having an orgasm on the air reporting this poll.

It was a bigger orgasm than when he was reporting about Bush plummeting and falling into the 30s. In the ABC/Washington Post poll, all of a sudden things are tighter now. But even this poll of likely voters samples Democrats by over 6%. The sample here is 33% Democrat, 27% Republican, 36% independent. Does anybody really believe that 27% of the turnout on November 6th is going to be Republicans? Does anybody really believe that? Does anybody really believe 6% more Democrats are going to vote on election day than Republicans?

Does anybody really believe that? Nobody believes that. Yet this is what they're polling. Every poll shows the Republicans with much higher voter enthusiasm. So the real news here, even in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, would be much better for Romney. This poll also claims that "when all voters are asked to compare the two contenders on a series of issues and attributes. On 15 items, Obama has significant leads on eight, Romney on zero."



We're supposed to believe this? We're supposed to believe that in a poll that Romney is only one point behind, nobody thinks of Romney as superior on any of 15 issues? I'm telling you, it is an all-out effort on the part of the Drive-By Media to concoct what is a false reality and a false narrative, which essentially is the inevitability of Barack Obama. If I had to give it a title, that's what they're doing. It's also meant to dispirit you and to hopefully suppress your vote. However, there's a problem lurking out there.

And it's the Bob Woodruff book, or Woodward. (Well, I knew a guy named Woodruff!) The Bob Woodward book doesn't make Obama look competent, good, or even present. (Details coming up.) Yeah, they're also trying to keep you from giving any money to Romney. Obama's back in Iowa. What in the world is Obama doing in Iowa? What is he doing in Iowa? The unemployment rate in Iowa is 5.3%. It's not catastrophic. What is he doing in Iowa? What was he doing here in Palm Beach County?

I'm telling you, folks: This inevitability, they're dreaming it. The conservative blogosphere has been wringing its hands for the last week. "How in the world can this election even be close?" That's what hey're asking themselves. A lot of people are asking themselves that, and the reason they're asking themselves that is because they read these skewed, phony, artificial poll results. It's only on the basis of these polls that anybody thinks the race is close.

That's the only reason. When you go in and you're able to dissect the poll and discredit the poll, then that takes the question off the table. Now, I am not saying it's over. I don't want anybody to assume here that I think it's over the other way, that Romney's inevitable. We're still going to have to show up and work hard. I think the Romney campaign's going to have to make some changes. They're going to have to go ideological. They cannot continue on this "Obama Mr. Nice Guy" business.

They just can't do it. It isn't going to work. Romney's going to need a mandate if he wins. A mandate can't be tied up in "Obama's a nice guy, just misguided" or any of that. I'm not saying go out and say Obama's a bad guy, but he's got to be tied to this economy. His policies, his ideas, his ideology. "Liberalism" is still a dirty word in this country. Use it! Don't let them get away with "progressive." It's liberal.

That's what they are, and Obama needs to be tied to this dismal economic so-called recovery. He needs to be tied to the economy. And he also needs to be tied to what's in our future if he wins. One of the latest theories... See what you think of this. One of the latest theories to explain why the race is close, is that a lot of people (close to 50% of all Americans) receive some sort of government check. They get some benefit, welfare, what have you. Add it up, it's 50%.

Further, the argument goes that a lot of people have burned through their 99 weeks of unemployment and now have found out they can go on Social Security disability and continue to get paid. Therefore the theory is that rather than have that statistic just roil the American people into saying, "Gosh what's happened to our country?" that will lead to more voters for Obama because those people want the checks to continue to come. Which takes us down to the argument that we've always wondered:

Where are we as a country?

Have we lost the country?

In other words, the way I phrased it the other day: We can handle four years of Obama but we can't handle four more years of the people who would elect him. I don't think we've lost the country in that regard. But some do, and that's the theory to explain why the growing welfare rolls benefit Obama. And there's another argument out there that the rich... This is sort of a dovetail argument about why people like Gates and Buffett run around talking about tax increases and they're not paying enough.

The reason they do that is to inoculate themselves against any criticism and keep people away from their money. If you're Bill Gates and you're running around saying, "Yeah, I don't think I'm paying enough taxes," then the people who want to take your money will leave you alone because you "understand" that you're a rich guy and you're not paying enough. But if you're talking about tax cuts and so forth, you become the enemy and people want your money more.

Well, remember when we -- not discovered, but -- made the point that the Catholic Church got sucked into the Democrat Party long ago because they associated welfare with charity? Well, there are a lot of (apparently, so goes the theory) highly achieved people who look at high taxes and big government as charity and support it for that reason because it gives them cover, too. All of this is part of this game of Barack Obama inevitability designed to suppress your vote and depress your spirits. Don't let it happen!
END TRANSCRIPT

Biased Media Smothers News of Romney's Commanding Lead With Independents

http://www.breitbart.com ^ | 11 Sep 2012 | John Nolte

Even as the most recent polls show Obama's convention bounce fading (as expected), that doesn’t mean our dishonest and corrupt media is going to crawl off the bandwagon they crafted over the weekend proclaiming Obama's win as inevitable.
The Narrative is the Narrative is the Narrative, and this phony story of Inevitability was the only cannon shot our corrupt and dishonest media could fire that would smother the news of Obama's lousy convention speech, his delegates booing God and Israel, and the worst jobs report in two years.
So a few polls come out documenting a run-of the-mill bounce and BOOM, CRASH, BANG, SMACK -- the election's over!
Except, you know, it's not.
Damn the American voter for still wanting to vote, right John Harris and Jim VandeHei?
Even as the media overplays polls showing a convention bounce and rig their own polls to keep that narrative alive another couple of days, what we're seeing in these very same polls proclaiming Romney dead is that he's leading among the all-important independents by double digits.
You would think that with all the focus the corrupt media places on the vaunted independent voter that the news of Romney winning them by double digits would be pretty big news. But if you think that, you're obviously under the mistaken impression our media is anything other than a shilling machine determined to win Obama a second term.
But here you go…. Straight from BNN…. NEWS THE CORRUPT MEDIA CAN'T USE:
Today's Washington Post/ABC News poll has Romney leading by 11 points among independents.
Last night's CNN poll shows Romney up 14 among independents.
You might ask yourself how in the world Romney could be losing (according to the corrupt media and their intentionally skewed polls) when he has a commanding lead with independent voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Breaking: Obama Turns Down Meeting with Israeli PM


Bryan Preston


Haaretz reports:
The White House declined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request on Tuesday to meet U.S. President Barack Obama during a UN conference in New York at the end of the month.
An official in Jerusalem said that the prime minister’s office sent the White House a message stating that although Netanyahu will spend only two and a half days on U.S. soil, he is interested in meeting Obama and is willing to travel to the U.S. capital specifically for that purpose. The official added that the White House rejected the request and said that at this time Obama’s schedule does not allow for a meeting.
The White House’s response marks a new low in relations between Netanyahu and Obama, underscored by the fact that this is the first time Netanyahu will visit the U.S. as prime minister without meeting the president.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak reportedly tried smoothing things over, but Bibi is having none of it.
“The world tells Israel ‘wait, there’s still time’. And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel,” Netanyahu told reporters on Tuesday.
“Now if Iran knows that there is no red line. If Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it’s doing. It’s continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs,” he said.
Relations between the US and Israel have been strained during the entire Obama term. Obama’s call for Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders was widely seen as a slap to our ally. Obama’s support for ousting the late Hosni Mubarak from the Egyptian presidency paved the way for what now looks like an Islamist takeover in Cairo, endangering the longstanding peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
President Obama also has not visited Israel during his presidency. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney visited Israel in July 2012.

Update: President Obama may not have time to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel, but today he had time to meet with some other notable figures.
President Obama continues reaching out to non-traditional media to spread the campaign word, appearing this morning on 106.7 FM with DJ Laz AKA “the pimp with the limp,” who tweeted that he was getting “REAL Answers from @BarackObama.”




O Say Nay

Obama Campaign Accuses Dinesh D’Souza Of Pushing “Conspiratorial Fear-Mongering” With Hit Doc


Weasel Zippers ^ | September 11, 2012


If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.
Via Hollywood Reporter:
Perhaps the president was hoping 2016: Obama’s America would come and go unnoticed like so many other political documentaries. But seven weeks after its opening, the film is still going strong, promptingBarack Obama to finally respond, which he has done through a lengthy entry at his campaign’s website that calls the movie “a deliberate distortion” of his “record and world view.”
The entry at BarackObama.com quotes from several negative reviews of the film and claims Dinesh D’Souza, who stars in the film based on his book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, has a “long history of attempting to add a veneer of intellectual respectability to fringe theories, conspiratorial fear-mongering and flat-out falsehoods.”
The entry is dated Sept. 5, just ahead of the weekend in which 2016: Obama’s America became the second most popular political documentary in history, behind only Fahrenheit 9/11, and the sixth most popular documentary of any kind. The movie has earned $26 million domestically since opening July 13.
Among the movie’s inaccuracies, according to BarackObama.com, are the following:
“D’Souza falsely claimed that President Obama said he didn’t believe in American Exceptionalism …”
“D’Souza falsely asserted that President Obama funded $2 billion in Brazilian oil exploration even though numerous fact checkers and reporters have noted that President Obama had nothing to do with the loan.”
Keep reading…

Rise in Health-Care Premiums Outpacing Inflation, Wages (As predicted, Obamacare a dismal failure)

fox news ^ | 9/11/2012 | reuters

U.S. health insurance premiums have climbed faster than wages and inflation this year, and look poised to accelerate in 2013, adding to voter concerns about soaring healthcare costs ahead of November elections for the White House and Congress.

A study released on Tuesday showed that premiums for employer-sponsored health plans, which cover about 149 million Americans, grew a modest 4 percent to $15,745 in 2012. It was a substantially slower rate of growth than in past years, including 2011, when premiums jumped 9 percent.

But the study's authors at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, said higher costs still took a bigger bite from the income of middle-class employees, whose wages advanced only 1.7 percent, as employers shifted more healthcare costs to their workers.

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

Daddy, Why do they hate us?

  by Tenacious 1

"Daddy why do they Hate Us?"

"Sweetie, they hate us because we allow you to go to school. They hate us because your Mother drives a vehicle, in public without a scarf over her head...."

This was how the conversation started with my daughter last evening as we studied for Social Studies test about American Indians and watched some 9/11 tribute on TV. I was explaining the cultural divide that caused the violence between colonists/Americans and native Indians.
Native Indians didn't have written language. They couldn't read and had many different spoken languages. They constantly fought with other tribes over territories that had no signs, treaties or known boundaries. Different tribes often, unkowingly claimed the same territories as their own and fought over them. 1,500 Native Indians might claim thousands of square miles as their territory without having anyway for anyone to know where it was. Settlers come along and unkowningly build houses and farms on those lands and were sometimes slaughtered by Indians without knowing why. So the explanation of military outposts, treaties and the development of Indian Reservations went. The root cause was a cultural divide that left no equitable compromise. There was nobody to blame for the settlers "stealing" the Indian's land. We offered them money but they couldn't eat it, plant it or wear it and that confused us. They just wanted to keep their land and for settlers to stop having kids and moving into their territories. We didn't have enough in common to negotiate a compromise with them and technology won over the primative Indians."
That's when she inexplicably asked the question, "Why do those people hate Americans today (pointing to Muslim terrorist flying planes into buildings)?"
I told her:
"Hon, it's the same reason I just explained to you about the American Indians. They hate us and want to kill us because we are so different than they are. There is nothing of common value that we share on which to start a compromise.
They want us to be Muslim and follow their laws. The basis of everything they want goes against everything our country was founded upon. We believe in freedom and equality for all, including religion. They believe our government should force all people to be Muslim and worship Alah. They don't want Mom to be able to drive a vehicle or be by herself in public. They don't think you should go to school. They want you and your mother to always sit in the back seat and wear sheets over your face and body. They don't want you to be able to vote. And they think it should be illegal to eat pork.
Since they are willing to kill any American as part of their religion and belief, we had to go kill them in their own country. They proved that they are dangerous and could kill innocent Americans, women and children alike in our own country. We had to go do something about it and are still working to protect ourselves today."
She is pretty smart and says, "Is that why Iran wants to kill Israel too?" to which I said, "Yes. Basically that is it."
We went back to studying after she paused, looked at me and said, "People will always be at war somewhere in the world won't they."
I am proud of my daughter and deeply saddened at this thought. That such a young mind comes to the harsh realization of the human condition at such an early age is demoralizing. If only we had more American's as wise as this 5th grader.

It's the Republican Party, Stupid!

Tea Party Tribune ^ | 2012-09-11 11:05:51 | mrcurmudgeon


By Mr. Curmudgeon:
Republican talk radio is not happy with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's performance. In particular, Laura Ingraham. And like most Republican Party boosters, she chalks it up to Romney's campaign advisers.
"If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down. Start new with new people, because this is a gimme election, or at least it should be.
"I keep going back to the millions and millions of dollars that are paid to these political consultants. Election after election, we hire people who've lost previous campaigns, who've run campaigns that have failed, who have message campaigns where the message fell flat, and they keep getting re-hired.
"If you're Mitt Romney, with all of your expertise, and all of your knowledge about how the economy works, and you're in this, and you have one shot ... Man, this is going to be the first line of your obituary - you won or you lost. It's all on the line for the country and it's all on the line for you."
Ingraham is too kind. It's easy to blame the help. It's a lot harder to blame the candidate. Back in the day, "message campaigns" emanated from candidates and not consultants. Lincoln hated slavery; Reagan hated the despotism of Marxism. Both of these ideas were unpopular with a number of Americans in their day.
Meanwhile, radio host Mark Levin is equally frustrated. "I should not have to play clips of Milton Friedman for Mitt Romney to explain his problem with his position on minimum wage. I should not have to argue with Mitt Romney's appointed hacks to explain the problem with RomneyCare. I shouldn't have to explain to Mitt Romney why he shouldn't feel guilty about his wealth and that he can explain to the American people more broadly why we want wealth creation in this country.
"Because only that way can we lower unemployment. Only that way can we save the housing market. Only that way, through capitalism, wealth creation, productivity, can the American dream be returned.
"Now if I can explain this in literally 3 minutes, why can't he?"
Reacting to MSNBC host Chris Matthew's claim that an Obama win this November means the end of conservatism, radio host Rush Limbaugh said, "Nope, if Obama wins, it's the end of the Republican Party. There's going to be a third party that's going to be orientated towards conservatism - or Rand Paul thinks libertarianism.
"If Obama wins, the Republican Party will try to maneuver things so conservatives get blamed. The only problem is right now, Romney is not running a conservative campaign."
The Democratic Party once had its conservative, moderate and liberal wings. That's all over. Obama's Saul Alinsky influence has transformed it into a leftist, authoritarian movement. The collectivist rants televised from their convention stage last week proved the point.
The Republican National Convention was equally disappointing. Speaker after speaker insisted that the Republican Party does not exist to bury Progressivism but to save it.
America's major political parties are two wings, left and center, of the same political ideology - Progressivism. It's a misnomer, therefore, to say the rise of a constitutional, small-government party represents a third player. In reality, it would restore America's traditional two-party system.
That means the Tea Party has two paths standing before it: If Romney wins, it must re-double its efforts to change the GOP by unseating Progressive-leaning Republicans in the House and Senate. These two bodies are where GOP candidates for president hail from. Second, if Romney loses, rendering the Republican Party irrelevant, networking with libertarian and other liberty-centered groups should begin in earnest, with an eye toward the establishment of a small-government political party.
It's time Republican talk-radio hosts stop blaming political consultants. If Republican candidates are devoid of conservative ideas, it's because the party hierarchy discourages them. The problem IS the Republican Party.
Change it or dump it.

Reagan vs. Obama – August Jobs Report Leaves Americans Still Waiting on Recovery!

ATR ^ | 2012-09-10 | Kyle Pomerleau

It was only fitting that the jobs report was released the day after the president took the stage at the DNC convention. With no hesitation, he proclaimed that only he could produce a plan that “will lead to new jobs, more opportunity, and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation.” But the next morning we were reminded, once again, what a failure his policies have been. Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the monthly job report that stated America had only created an additional 96,000 jobs in the month of August. Even with these less-than-stellar numbers, the unemployment rate managed to decline by a tenth of a percentage point to 8.1 percent, but only with the help of 368,000 more Americans dropping out of the labor force entirely.

It is clear that the tax-and-spend policies of Barack Obama have not produced the results that his lofty rhetoric claimed.
At the same point in the Reagan Presidency, after a deep recession, the unemployment rate had dropped to 7.5 percent from a high of nearly 11 percent 25 months prior. Obama, on the other hand, has only managed 8.1 percent unemployment rate from a high of 10 percent in 35 months.
Also, at this point in Reagan’s presidency, the economy had added a greater number of jobs each month. At this point, he had added 4.078 million jobs to the American economy Whereas Obama has lost a total of 1 million jobs at the same point during his term.
However, the disparity is even greater if we see what each president’s job numbers are using the end of their recessions as a starting point. Reagan had created a whopping 9.923 million jobs to Obama’s 2.797 million.
During this same period in the Reagan recovery, the economy was consistently adding more jobs. Reagan added 168,000 jobs per month, 72,000 more jobs than Obama’s current anemic recovery.
Obama’s continued poor performance makes it even more apparent that his policies have failed. The results of low-tax, pro-growth policies of Reagan are in stark contrast with the policies of big government from Obama. As more time goes on, the picture becomes ever-clearer: Obama’s big-spending and high taxes have failed the American people. No matter how many lofty speeches he makes, his policies will never work.
Read more: http://atr.org/reagan-vs-obama-august-jobs-report-a7171#ixzz26BeOxypB

Obama's Next Big Bounce May Be Out Of Office (we can PRAY!)

Investors Business Daily ^ | 09/11/2012 | PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

The bounce expected from Barack Obama's Democratic Convention speech collapsed the following day under the reality check that the current unemployment figure is 8.1%. And 40.7% of those people have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Those numbers tell only a small part of Obama's failure to deliver on his promises. The real unemployment figure is closer to 19%. The official count doesn't include the 8 million unemployed who have given up and stopped looking for a job, the people who have had to settle for part-time work, those who had to take lower-paying jobs that are well below their qualifications or the 11 million who are out of the workforce collecting Social Security disability checks.

The plight of young Americans is even worse. For 18- to 29-year-olds, the unemployment rate is 12.7%.
The majority of jobs lost during our current depression were well-paying jobs, while the majority of jobs that Obama brags about increasing are lower-paying jobs.
The National Employment Law Project reports that occupations in construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13, accounted for 60% of job losses and only 22% of job growth. Meanwhile, 58% of the job growth Obama bragged about was lower-paying jobs with hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83.
The jobs with the fastest growth were retail sales, where the median wage is $10.97 an hour, and food-preparation jobs that pay $9.04 per hour. Some of these jobs are taken by entry-level workers, but many others are taken by older Americans who were laid off from well-paying jobs.
A Labor Day weekend report also came from the Department of Agriculture, which showed us that 46,670,373 Americans are now receiving food stamps at an annual cost to the taxpayers of $71.8 billion.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Beware Obama's Second-Term Agenda

Investor's Business Daily ^ | September 11, 2012 | IBD Editorial Staff

Election 2012: Even after President Obama's long-winded acceptance speech, Americans still don't know what he plans to do if he gets another term. That's only because he doesn't want you to know.

Speaking at the Democratic National Convention, Obama opened by saying Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan aren't offering details because "they don't want you to know their plan." But he went on to tell voters nothing of his own plan for a second term other than that it will be "bold, persistent experimentation."

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

The times that try men's souls are here now, not in the history books!

Coach is Right ^ | 9/11/2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

There is a clear and present danger facing us and it is the possibility of the re-election of Barack Obama which would give him a chance to finish the job he started upon taking office. That job is the destruction of the United States of America – our America.

Obama is a tough and formidable enemy who is surrounded by a gang of thugs who want to bleed the life out of our nation. Their lust for power has blinded them to the consequences of what they are doing, but at this late date their motives mean nothing; it’s their actions that have us in such extreme danger.
It has often been said that all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing. Will you sit passively and merely watch as they destroy your future and the futures of your children and grandchildren? If you see no reason to fight for your own freedoms how can you expect to...

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

A First!

Posted Image

You Will Feel It!

Posted Image

Incomplete is not a grade!

Posted Image

What's not to believe?

Posted Image

What 16T Debt?

Posted Image

A Ride Home!

Posted Image

Nice to see...

Posted Image

Confirmed

Posted Image

DNC Speaker

Posted Image

Oh, Shut Up!

Posted Image

Monarchy

Posted Image

Reavealing

Posted Image

Positive Reason

Posted Image

Fluke Dispenser

Posted Image

Nutty Speakers

Posted Image

Buck Stops!

Posted Image

Fireball Obama!

Posted Image

Sickness Bag!

Posted Image

Just Think!

Posted Image

Figures. Chicago Teacher’s Union President Linked to Former Communist Party Chief and Barack Obama!

Gateway Pundit ^ | 9/10/12 | Jim Hoft

More Hope and Change… Mike Klonsky, an Obama supporter and former associate of the radicals who formed the terrorist group the Weatherman, received a $175,000 grant from the William Ayers/Barack Obama-led Annenberg Challenge to run the Small Schools Workshop.

Klonsky belonged to the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and was best friends with friends William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who later became famous for their acts of terrorism. Later he started a blog on the Obama website:

Between 1979 and 1981, Communist Party chairman and Obama supporter Mike Klonsky was repeatedly feted with state-dinner-level visits to Beijing.
And get this… Klonsky reportedly shared offices on the same floor with Barack Obama and Bill Ayers at the University of Illinois, Chicago campus.
So it should come as no surprise that Mike Klonsky, the former Communist Party leader, is a huge supporter of Karen Lewis, head of the Chicago Teachers’ Union. Chicago teachers went on strike today for the first time in 25 years despite the fact that the average teacher salary in Chicago is $74,839 a year.
Michelle Malkin has more on the Chicago education mob.
Obama served with Weather Underground terrorist and neighbor Bill Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge education initiative. Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in Bill Ayers’ pedagogical philosophy. Obama served as the program’s first chairman of the board, while Ayers steered its curricular policy. The two oversaw grants to welfare rights enterprise ACORN and to avowed communist Michael Klonsky – a close pal of Ayers and member of the militant Students for a Democratic Society. SDS served as a precursor to the violent Weather Underground organization.
As investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz reported, Klonsky and Ayers teamed up on the so-called “small schools movement” to steer schoolchildren away from core academics to left-wing politicking on issues of “inequity, war, and violence.”
You just can’t make this stuff up.

Election 2012: Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance


Townhall.com ^ | September 11, 2012 | Chuck Norris

I believe freedom is worth fighting for. I am committed to protecting the freedoms our forefathers guaranteed to us in our Constitution. There are many politicians who disagree with me, although they are loath to admit it, but their true colors show in voting records on critical legislation. And part of what makes America great is that every two years, we, too, cast our votes, rendering judgment on whether lawmakers have fulfilled their promises. And every four years, as in 2012, our opportunity extends to the highest office in the land.

Less than 60 days remains before Election Day. I don't need to tell you how important this election is to the future of our country. The stakes are high, and that's why I proudly serve as honorary chairman of Trigger The Vote, the National Rifle Association's nonpartisan campaign to register voters who support the Second Amendment. As a proud gun owner and defender of our Constitution, I am working within the system to make sure my voice is heard in Washington.
In the past several years, we have achieved great victories. In two rulings, the Heller decision and the McDonald decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that all American citizens, in every state and municipality, have the right to legally possess a firearm. Those decisions were a tremendous accomplishment, and they finally ratified what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they drafted the Second Amendment.
So those who wish to deny our freedoms have been vanquished, and all is settled, right?
Wrong. There's a storm brewing on the horizon. Those who want to restrict our freedom have not surrendered. In truth, they are counting on this election to make their move. They are playing the long game, looking down the road to a day when one or more vacancies on the Supreme Court could upset the current balance.
The Heller and McDonald decisions were decided by razor-thin 5-4 votes in the Supreme Court. Those who want to overturn these decisions are betting on at least one of the nine Supreme Court justices to retire or otherwise leave service during the next four years. Some pundits have suggested that the number of Supreme Court vacancies filled by the next president could be as many as three.
Like all Supreme Court decisions, Heller and McDonald are not set in stone. If the balance on the court is shifted, a new challenge quickly can be mounted in the lower federal courts, eventually making it to the Supreme Court. Our freedoms hang in the balance by the thin gossamer thread of a single vote. If that vote turns, the victories we worked so hard to solidify could be reversed.
The threat is present not only at the Supreme Court but also throughout our federal judiciary. Right now, dozens of cases already are winding their way through federal courts to implement the Supreme Court's rulings in Heller and McDonald. Those rulings were somewhat general in tone, and now their specific impact on existing gun laws is being defined through these cases.
The president also nominates judges for all levels of the federal bench. That is why we need to make sure we have a president whose nominees for any court -- including the Supreme Court -- will support the original meaning of our Constitution.
Every plan needs a backup, and this one is no different. We also need to make sure we have a U.S. Senate that is supportive of our fundamental freedoms, because the Senate votes to confirm new judges and justices. Several of the key Senate races are in highly competitive "battleground" states, and they may tip the balance of power in this country. If you live in these states, it's important to make your voice heard.
And that's why I am urging Second Amendment supporters nationwide to register to vote. If you're already registered, you probably know someone who isn't. Share the stakes of this election with that person, and urge him or her to join the rolls of informed voters. We've made it easy on our website; all the tools to register are at http://www.TriggerTheVote.org . After all, when it comes to defending yourself and your family, can we really afford to gamble here?
I've spent my entire life standing up for what is right and seeking justice. I sleep better at night knowing that I have registered and exercised my right to vote. I urge everyone who is eligible to vote to do so. Let's make sure that the future of our country is in the hands of those who cherish freedom.
(Don't forget: "Last Ounce of Courage," the first theatrical motion picture to be awarded with my "Chuck Norris Seal of Approval," opens nationwide Sept. 14, coinciding with the 9/11 commemoration of Patriot Day. Visit http://www.LastOunceTheMovie.com for more information, including where it is showing in your area.)

The Chevy Volt: Another Obama Green Investment Loses a Billion

Townhall.com ^ | September 11, 2012 | John Ransom

This is getting redundant.

If you want investment losses for tax purposes, Barack Obama is your guy.

Now, if the country could only figure out how to write off the five trillion dollars we’ve lost during his presidency. As the man said: A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon were talking about Barack Obama.

Readers of my column know that there are few things that I dislike more than the Chevy Volt. I don’t like the inflated claims that government-corporate elites make about it; I don’t like that it costs more than a normal car to keep it driving; I don’t like that European journalists gave it the automotive equivalent of the Nobel prize for engineering; I don’t like that it catches fire; or that the Volt’s voltage puts first responders at danger at accident scenes because engineers didn’t think about safety for first responders.
No, instead they only considered Obama’s desire to put one million electric vehicles on the road no matter what the cost.
Today, I’m very pleased to announce that I have a new reason to dislike the Volt.
And it’s probably the best reason of all.
The Chevy Volt costs close to $90,000 to manufacture while it retails for $40,000 according to information gathered by Reuters.
“Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid,” writes Reuters, “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,” the wire service says. “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.”
Ok. So here’s the math that GM (GM) faces on the Volt: 10,666 Volts were sold in the first seven months of 2012. At an average loss of $49,000 per vehicle that’s a loss of $522,634,000.
A $523 million dollar loss on a car that won’t sell 20,000 units in 2012?
To put this in perspective, the company has probably shaved at least $4 billion off its market value by squandering money on the Volt. Right now the company is trading at about 8.31 times it’s earning. Assuming GM didn’t produce the Volt at all and just held on to the cash savings, the $523 million in cash multiplied by the market value of 8.31 times earnings comes out to $4,343,088,540 in lost value for the shareholders.
Those shareholders are you and me.
It would be cheaper for the company to quietly ask potential Volt buyers if they would take a $40,000 check just to go away.
Two weeks ago GM was bragging that Volts were selling at a record pace. Now it appears that it may be years and years and years before the company makes money selling the Volt’s old technology as something new.
“We’re really seeing momentum continuing to build,” Michelle Malcho, a GM spokesman told the press a few weeks back according to the Detroit Free Press. “As people see their neighbors have one and as they start to understand the technology and are able to drive it, they put it into their consideration.”
Can we stop the momentum please? Like so many of Obama’s plans, the momentum in this one is killing the company.
So far the company has lost over one billion dollars by it’s investment in the Volt.
“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” says Reuters, “which will be difficult to bring down until sales increase.”
And why doesn’t it surprise me that so many of those neighbors reside in California?
“Californians are buying one-third of GM’s supply of Volts,” reports Freep.com, “but Malcho said other markets are showing strength too. Michigan is one of the vehicle’s strongest regions.”
Great news: Assuming those Michigan sales are largely in the Detroit area, we can safely say that “robust” Volt sales are coming from areas of the country that seem to have a terminal case of financial mismanagement.
Because did I tell you that while Obama made a gift of most of the money and tax breaks he has given General Motors, the company still owes American taxpayers at least $25 billion that Obama converted into shares of the company?
That’s true. But that not the worst of it.
The shares are trading so low that selling now at current market prices would bring a loss of $14 billion, according to bailoutcost.com.
The $523 million the company lost on production of the Chevy Volt in the first seven months equals losses of $896 million over the whole year.
That money would make a heck of a dividend to American taxpayers, wouldn’t it?
Oh, that’s right.
It’s the Obama policy on investments: No dividends, no refunds and no exchanges for you.
Only losses.

Chicago Teacher's Strike Defines Election Issues

The American Thinker ^ | September 11, 2012 | Matthew Holzmann

Members of the Chicago Teacher's Union have gone on strike, shutting down the third largest school district in the country with over 404,000 students now in disarray.
Chicago's teachers have the highest average salary in the country at $76,000/year and according to the Mayor's office, the financial side of the $400 Million deal is done. 4%/year raises have been agreed to, taking them to $88,900/year by 2016.

The Mayor's office stated that:

"The two remaining stumbling blocks involve re-hiring laid off teachers from schools that get shut down or shaken up and a new teacher evaluation process that the union says puts far too much weight on student test scores."

So while 404,000 students are missing school, the real issues are accountability and union job protection.
Chicago is not really different from Wisconsin, but while it is only 90 miles away, it is a universe away in its political realities. The city has seen the same economic straits as most large cities in the country and yet at a time when everyone else is cutting back and trying to get by, the Chicago Teacher's Union, who have already been financially sated, wants more control with less accountability.
....Whether it is for gross misconduct by teachers or for regular evaluations and student testing, the union expects to remain unaccountable. In Chicago, standardized test results are destroyed almost immediately after the tests are scored. They have it down in Chicago. No Atlanta scandals there........
...Chicago's teacher union is symbolic of much of what has gone wrong in our country. Self-interest, cronyism, corruption and sloth when our children need the best we have to offer, are completely and utterly unacceptable. The Chicago strike defines what is wrong while the Wisconsin reforms point to a possible solution....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Barack Obama Vs. Mitt Romney: 10 Big Differences Going "Forward"

Townhall.com ^ | September 11, 2012 | John Hawkins

Forward is not a destination. If you'd asked Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or their supporters if they were taking their nations forward, they'd have undoubtedly said "yes." Mussolini? Forward. Napoleon? Forward. Genghis Khan? Forward. Of course, Churchill, Thatcher, and Reagan would have said "forward" as well. So, that's why it's important to ask what difference it would make if we go forward for four years under Mitt Romney as opposed to going forward for another four years under Barack Obama.
1) Mitt Romney would try to reduce tax rates for the wealthy and corporations to spur economic growth. On the other hand, Barack Obama is likely to try to raise taxes not just on the rich and corporations, but on the middle class. He really wouldn't have much choice. Despite the class warfare rhetoric you're hearing, there is far more money that can be confiscated from the vast middle class than there is to be plundered from the relatively thin ranks of the wealthy. If you believe tax increases are the answer, then you go after the middle class for the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: "because that's where the money is."
2) Barack Obama has run trillion dollar plus deficits every year he's been in office and given that everything he wants to do comes with a large price tag attached, there's no reason to think the next four years would be any different than the last four years. At a minimum, that would mean further downgrades of our nation's credit rating, but it's possible it could precipitate a full-on Greek style financial crisis if investors conclude their money isn't safe here. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be under tremendous pressure from his right to reduce the deficit and a further credit downgrade on his watch would be a devastating political blow that he'd be highly motivated to avoid. Romney wouldn't have it easy since Obama would be leaving him a full-on budgetary disaster to deal with, but he'd have little choice other than to make cuts if he wants to be reelected in 2016.
3) Barack Obama has made encouraging dependence part of his electoral strategy. The more Americans that are dependent on the government for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and welfare, the more votes he believes the Democrats will get. In order to swell the welfare rolls, he’s no longer demanding that welfare recipients work for their handout. Mitt Romney opposes that change and would put the work requirements back into welfare.
4) If Barack Obama is reelected, we should expect no serious attempts at entitlement reform in the next four years. That's very problematic because nobody wants to cut a deal that impacts current retirees which means any change will impact people 55 and younger. So every year we wait, we end up with more Americans in an unsustainable system. The longer we go without making a change, the more likely it becomes that we'll be forced, under financial duress of the sort Greece is facing, to dramatically cut benefits for people who already rely on the program. Of course, there are no guarantees Mitt Romney could reach a deal with Democrats in Congress, but he will at least try to make it happen. Barack Obama won’t.
5) The Supreme Court currently has four doctrinaire liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), three conservative originalist justices (Alito, Thomas, Scalia) and two right leaning moderates (Roberts, Kennedy). Four of the justices, Ginsburg (79), Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73) are over 70. Given the ideological split of the SCOTUS and the ages of the judges, the next President may have an opportunity to create a historic shift on the Court. Replacing a single justice with an ideological opposite could be a decisive factor on cases from Roe v. Wade to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
6) We currently have a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens who haven't committed a felony in the United States. All they have to do is claim that they went to school here and they're automatically released without verification. If that continues for another four years, millions more illegals will pour into the United States and Obama will encourage them to settle in for the long haul. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be likely to continue to improve border security and deport illegal aliens who are captured. In fact, his supporters during the primary, like Ann Coulter, were touting him as the toughest GOP candidate on illegal immigration.
7) Obama has taken over the student loan program, frittered away billions in bad loans to companies like Solyndra, and proudly proclaims his partial takeover of GM and Chevrolet to be a success despite the fact the taxpayers lost 25 billion on the deal. If Barack Obama is reelected, expect more government takeovers and bailouts. In fact, Dodd-Frank, which Obama supports and Romney opposes, has bank bailouts built into the law. If Romney can, he will repeal Dodd-Frank, he won't be interested in any more government takeovers of industry, and the Tea Partiers in his base would so adamantly oppose any more bailouts that going down that path would probably make him unelectable.
8) The housing market was terrible when Barack Obama came into office and not only has he done little to improve the situation for people who currently own homes, the root causes of the crash are still in place. The government is still demanding that loans be given to people who can't afford them. Fannie and Freddie are still handling 90% of all new mortgages. Mitt Romney will make it easier for people with good credit to get homes, will stop applying pressure to give loans to poor risks, and will force Freddie and Fannie to slowly and responsibly reduce the number of home mortgages they're covering so that if, God forbid, there's another crash one day, taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill.
9) If Barack Obama is reelected, Obamacare will go into effect in 2014 and many companies will stop offering insurance, it will be harder to find a doctor, the quality of medical care will drop, costs will explode, and death panels, along with the IRS, will become permanently involved in your health care. If Mitt Romney is elected, this won't happen. Romney would also try to push through a replacement plan for Obamacare, but chances are Democrats would block it.
10) At some point, you have to expect that the natural vitality of the economy will reassert itself no matter who's in the White House. However, it is also entirely possible that the hostile, unpredictable business environment created by the Obama Administration could keep the economy just as stagnant for the next four years as it has been for the last four. Romney's pro-business administration along with his attempts to cut taxes and regulations will encourage growth and put Americans back to work. What would we rather have? Four years of hate, demonization, and class warfare aimed at small business owners because they'll never be able to do their "fair share" in Barack Obama's eyes or would we rather have a growing, thriving economy again?