Sunday, September 23, 2012

Obama permanently out to lunch!

Red State ^ | September 22, 2012 | Dan Spencer

When even the media is starting to point out that the incumbent president is too busy campaigning for re-election to govern, you know you have a problem.

Yet that’s precisely what the Associated Press noticed in a new report this morning. The first line: “It’s awfully quiet at the White House these days.”

Sure, when you have a president who spends most of his time on the trail spinning rhetoric and fundraising for his campaign coffers, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will tend to be “awfully quiet.” This might explain why while our Libyan ambassador is dead and our embassies are under repeated siege, the White House still appears to know next to nothing about what went down in Benghazi. Even top Senate Republicans are fuming today that they are learning more details from the New York Times than from closed-door State Department briefing. Unemployment is rising in half of the states, and US industrial production is falling at the sharpest rate in three years, and our President is focused on hard-hitting interviews with radio hosts like Pimp with the Limp. On David Letterman, he casually admitted that he doesn’t know what the national debt is, and that it’s not a pressing concern.
Obama said this week that he has learned you “can’t change Washington from the inside.” Apparently his solution is to go AWOL. It’s definitely not going to change from his campaign re-election HQ in Chicago.
The good news is that every day Americans are not stupid. We notice when our leader is out to lunch. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are talking to voters, discussing real issues, with no spin. Yesterday, Paul Ryan spoke to the AARP about the urgent need to repeal ObamaCare. He was booed (no surprise there considering that AARP is set to profit handsomely from the legislation). Standing up to special interests, that is real leadership, and miles above what we’ve been getting from the White House lately.
The main street media, also known as the biased media wing of the Democrats’ party, can and will do their best to hide this contrast from the American people. That might be why Gallup has reported that trust in the media has reached a depressing but unsurprising low. But real leadership is not something that can be hidden from the voters, and failures in leadership cannot be easily brushed away.

Obama campaign adviser: The President doesn’t need to meet with foreign leaders face-to-face because he has a phone!


Francesca Chambers


Obama campaign adviser and former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended President Barack Obama’s decision to not to meet with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu or any other world leaders during their upcoming visits to the United States for the United Nations general assembly meeting, saying that the United States President doesn’t need to meet face-to-face with foreign leaders – phone calls are sufficient.
Gibbs made the comments on Fox News Sunday in response to criticisms from host Chris Wallace that the President was making time in his schedule for “The View” and “The View” host Whoppi Goldberg during the trip to New York, but not for foreign leaders.
“Chris, they have telephones in the White House.” Gibbs said, adding that since the September 11 strikes on US embassies in Libya and Egypt President Obama has spoken on the phone with both the Libyan and Egyptian Presidents. “We don’t need a meeting in Washington just to confer with leaders.”
He tried to turn the tables on Wallace, saying that if Obama was doing an interview with him instead of the ladies of “The View,” Wallace would “probably have no problem with that.” (Wallace used that opportunity to point out that the President hasn’t even done an interview with him, “but that’s not the point.”)
The former Obama administration official said that he has “no problem” with the President’s decision not to meet with foreign leaders in lieu of appearing on “The View” because he will still be “actively involved” in the conference.
By actively involved, Gibbs means the President will merely be giving a speech during the international affair, Wallace pointed out.
Gibbs explained that even though the President himself would not be meeting with world leaders, other qualified administration officials would be taking meetings on his behalf.
“Well, look Chris, I think that we have schedules, leaders have schedules, and in many cases those schedules aren’t going to overlap,” Gibbs claimed. “But understand that Ambassador Rice will be seeing many people and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be seeing people.”
He also tried to put the incident in a broader context, saying that,”This isn’t just about one meeting on one particular day in New York. The President’s actively involved and engaged in the most dangerous place in the world every single day of the week.”

...................


Francesca Chambers About Francesca Chambers
Francesca is the Editor of Red Alert Politics - an online publication written by and for young conservatives. Red Alert Politics is a product of Clarity Media Group, the parent company of The Washington Examiner and The Weekly Standard. She is also a contributor to The Examiner's Campaign 2012 coverage and its Beltway Confidential Blog
Francesca is a veteran of several political campaigns. She has also worked in new media at The Leadership Institute, at the Republican National Committee and on Capitol Hill. She has been featured as a speaker at Leadership Institute and the Cato Institute and she is a regular guest on the "Big Picture" with Thom Hartmann on Russia Today and on "Powers to the People" with Tony Powers on S.C. FOX affiliate WNRR.
Francesca graduated from the University of Kansas with BAs in Political Science and Journalism. At KU she was an editor of the University Daily Kansan and an active member of Student Senate.

The commander in chief is AWOL.


This is important:

More than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is more than the combined total of the nine years before. Thirty have died in August.

The commander in chief is AWOL. Not a peep, although he ordered the White House flag flown at half mast for the Sihks that were killed. There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president. It has taken on a dangerous tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war. Obama has had 4 years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men and women in uniform.

But, there is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a massive get out the vote drive against this president. Not just current active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all other prior service members. This is no small special interest group, but many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of the November election if they all respond. The million military retirees in Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all show up at the polls.

It might not keep another one hundred U.S. troops from dying between now and November, but a turn out to vote by the military against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who just lets our soldiers die.

Bravo, Ann Romney! ("Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring.")

Richochet ^ | September 22, 2012 | Dave Carter

I don't know Ann Romney. I don't know Lee Cary, from the American Thinker, either, but I should like to buy them both dinner to thank them for making an important point yesterday, and it needs to be emphasized.

Asked about some of the more counterproductive criticisms made by Republicans, Mrs. Romney replied, "Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring." My thoughts exactly.

Constructive criticism is one thing, but handing ammunition to the opposition is uncalled for. Part of the problem is that I really like some of the people making these remarks, but I wonder if they understand the stratospheric stakes in this election. To observe that Governor's Romney's remarks about the 47 percent of people who pay no income taxes were inexact or haphazardly framed is one thing. But to say, as The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol (whom I admire tremendously) did, that the Governor's comments were "stupid and arrogant," helps the cause not one bit. Instead, Twitter lit up with one liberal after another using the quote against the Republican nominee. Peggy Noonan, whose work I positively adore, picked up a rhetorical tire iron and went to work on Romney: "It's time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It's not big, it's not brave, it's not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It's always been too small for the moment." Well, isn't that just ducky. If General Custer had been afflicted with support like this from his own side, the Indians could have taken the day off. With pay.

In his latest "G-File," the always brilliant, funny and trenchant Jonah Goldberg reminds us that it was the Tea Party and activist base of the Republican party that were most resistant to Governor Romney during the primaries, while the Republican party establishment admonished us repeatedly to please shut up and get behind the man. Now that he's the party nominee, we've rallied to him not because he's morphed into the second coming of Ronald Reagan, but because we understand that this election is for the whole enchilada. Put very simply, if Obamacare isn't repealed, if the debt isn't addressed, if America keeps sitting on her thumbs while her embassies burn, if Iran gets the bomb,…. that's all she wrote. And so the base is working its heart out to send Obama and his comrades packing,….and now the establishment types who told us to get behind Romney, are taking a tire iron to his kneecaps. "Unlike activists," writes Jonah, "it really is my job to say what I think." He immediately adds, however, that, "Still, I think the base might have the wiser take on all this. Win now, argue later." I couldn't agree more, Jonah.
Here's the thing. No candidate is perfect. Romney has areas that he could shore up, certainly. And it is not our place to sacrifice principle in support of any candidate. Encouraging him to take it to Obama in a certain fashion, or offering information that could prove useful to the campaign makes perfect sense to this observer. And if stronger admonishments are in order, perhaps utilizing private channels would be an option. But for heaven's sake, do we have to send gift-wrapped ammunition to Obama and his acolytes in the media?
Jonah is right in another respect. These people get paid to give their opinions. I get paid to move freight and operate outside the climate controlled comfort of media suites. However, I have been blessed beyond measure to offer my thoughts on Ricochet. So in the event that my opinions might coincide on some level with those of the professional punditry, here they are:
* It is my opinion that Barack Obama must be summarily thrown out of office, and that he should take every one of his little czars and minions with him.
* It is my opinion that Democrats in the House and Senate must be shown the door as well.
* It is my opinion that in all likelihood, this is our last chance to preserve America as it was intended by the Founders.
* It is my opinion that if Obamacare is not pulled up by the roots, it will sprout encroachments into the most personal aspects of our lives that will destroy every last vestige of meaningful individual liberty.
* It is my opinion that Mitt Romney is the only realistic alternative we have to the wholesale destruction of our country by an elite who disdains us, disdains our Constitution, and holds in utter contempt the moral and philosophical foundation of our country.
* It is my opinion that if we fail to defeat Obama, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will curse us and utter our names in contempt, and rightly so, because we let their liberty slip through our fingers while we nitpicked and sniped at each other.
* It is my opinion that we're better than that. It is my opinion that we are as equal to the challenge now as our parents and grandparents were in another time. Our heritage is freedom, our gift to those who follow is more of it, not less.
* It is my opinion that it is time to focus our fire on those who seek to shred the Constitution and enslave a great nation to the whims and predilections of a ruling elite.
There, does that help give the pros something to write about? Happy to help, folks. Now, if you'll kindly excuse me, I have to get back behind the wheel.

Romney Was Right!

The American Thinker ^ | September 23, 2012 | Chuck Boyer

In life, there are groups of self-made winners and groups of self-made losers. When picked upon by the winners, the losers, often at a loss as to know how to defend their indefensible choices simply answer, "so?"

Which brings us to the question: How do you explain that about half the country says they are prepared to settle for re-electing a proven loser?

They support him because if a winner were to win the White House, say the next Teddy Roosevelt, it would surely upset the status quo-including removing fatalism as a defense for not trying. It would mean change-real change. And change upsets people. The very idea of it upsets them more than the abstract, but very real, treasury figures showing the onrush of tsunami size debt and default with no high ground to retreat to.
Electing a winner would mean that value producing, competitive private sector jobs would become available, and that personal accountability might become fashionable again.
But there is more to it than that. There is the post-1960s Hollywood anti-hero; the narrow kind of personality who is seen as a victim fighting against a world out to get him. In this fashion, about half the country identifies with Obama, a put-upon guy trying to do the best he can in a world full of monster Republicans.
Obama, who has played people for suckers all his life, built his campaign on this image to cover his losing record:
George Bush is responsible for all the problems I can't solve. The Republicans won't let me do what I need to do to change the country Mitt Romney (who created more permanent private sector jobs than Obama's trillion dollar stimulus) fired people. Do we want a President who actually fired people?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Americans Are Sick of Media's Pro-Obama Bias


U.S.News & World Repor ^ | 9/21/12 | MARY KATE CARY




This just in from the Gallup organization: Americans' distrust of the media has just hit a new record, with six in 10 Americans saying they have "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly." Forty percent say they have a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of trust, and I assume this is the same crowd who approve of the job Congress is doing. Where do they find these people?

Gallup says the 20-point difference between positive and negative views of the media is "by far" the highest Gallup has seen since it began asking the question in the 1990s. Among those who trust the media, 58 percent identify themselves as Democrats; 26 percent as Republicans; and most interestingly, 31 percent as independents. That means 69 percent of independents don't trust the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the implications of that:
[See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.]
This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.
On the NBC News homepage for politics, there is a chart looking the number of mentions of each candidate on social media: As of yesterday, 30 percent who state an intention to vote for a candidate on social media sites intend to vote for Obama; 38 percent intend to vote for Romney. There have been nearly 33,000 opinions expressed about Obama: Of those, 40 percent are positive, 60 percent negative. Regarding Romney, 21,500 opinions have been posted: 51 percent positive, 49 percent negative. If these numbers are accurate, it tells me this: People aren't agreeing with what they're seeing and hearing from the mainstream media. And they feel strongly enough to post something online about it.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]
I feel the same way—I've gotten to the point where I tune out much of the political coverage because it makes my blood pressure so high. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. On that same homepage at NBC News, here are the headlines for today:
  1. Romney paid 14.1 percent effective tax rate in 2011
  2. Obama's battleground advantage grows
  3. Obama hits Romney on 47 percent: 'I don't see a lot of victims'
  4. Ryan gets boos at AARP conference
  5. Polls: Obama ahead in Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin
  6. Obama swipes at Romney over '47 percent' comments
[Take the U.S. News Poll: Did Mitt Romney Release Enough of His Tax Returns?]
And yet we know that Romney also gave away $4 million last year to charity; that there are just as many polls showing Romney within the margin of error as show Obama ahead; and that Ryan was also applauded at the AARP conference—but there is no mention of those in the headlines. Apparently NBC feels we need to be reminded twice that Obama disagrees with Romney's '47 percent' comment.
Really? Only six in 10 have a problem with this?

Allen West: “Bin Laden Being Dead is Not Foreign Policy”

Townhall.com ^ | September 23, 2012 | Daniel Doherty

This clip is a few days old but worth watching in its entirety. Appearing on “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren Thursday night, Congressman Allen West (R-FL) explained why “it’s insane” for the Obama administration to base their entire foreign policy on the death of Osama bin Laden. Take a look:


Allen West It's insane for Obama to promote killing Bin Laden as basis for his entire foreign Policy

CNN's Blitzer: Letterman Better for Obama Than Israel

Breitbart ^ | 9/23/12 | Warner Todd Huston

As the Middle East erupts in flames and as his foreign policy scheme is burned up with it, President Obama refused a meeting with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu and instead went on the David Letterman show. One might think the President's neglect of his duty was a bad thing, but apparently it was perfectly fine with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
On Sept. 19, during an America's Choice 2012 segment on CNN's Newsroom, Wolf Blitzer was full of words of understanding for Obama's choice of Letterman over Israel's Prime Minister. It just made good sense, Blitzer imagined, for Obama to ignore his duties as America's director of foreign policy in order to go on a late-night comedy show.
Apparently Blitzer understood perfectly that getting votes should take precedence over foreign policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

What Mitt Should Do - NOW

Leibowitz's Canticle ^ | September 23, 2012 | Leibowitz

The Romney campaign and Republican National Committee have more money than God, too much to waste to continue doing things the way they've always done. Now is the time to step out in a way that not only gets his message out over the heads of the Obama media but also draws an enormous amount of attention. Now is the time to swing for the fences.
How? Spend a handful of those millions on hand to buy 30 minutes of simultaneous airtime on all three (or four or five) of the major broadcast networks. Do it now, before the debates. That will maximize the audience and the impact. It will change the dynamic of the debates and the relative standing of the candidates.
Romney is in a position to assume the leader's position in the campaign. The timing is perfect, as Mr. Obama has been stumbling through issues and events.
In one fell swoop, Mr. Romney can:
Get his message across to 40-50 million voters, unfiltered by the media; Propagate an impression of leadership; Suck all the attention in the world into his campaign, leaving his opponent with nothing to do for several days but carp an be negative; By selectively emphasizing the issues he'd most like to highlight, facilitate the echoing Internet buzz leading into the debates. Potentially set the agenda for the debates themselves.
This one act can have a far greater effect than all the 30- or 60 second commercials in the world. It has the potential for turning the entire election on its head.
It would seem every bit as forward-leaning as his selection of Paul Ryan. For an even larger impact, consider asking Mr Ryan to co-present.

A 'blameless' Obama scolds Congress

BizPac Review ^ | September 23, 2012 | Michael Dorstewitz

In his Saturday radio and Internet address, President Barack Obama excoriated House Republicans for commencing their scheduled recess at a time when there were numerous bills to be voted on that allegedly would have buttressed the economy.

“Last week, without much fanfare, members of the House of Representatives banged a gavel, turned out the lights and rushed home, declaring their work finished for now,” Obama began. “If that frustrates you, it should, because their work isn’t finished.

“When they skipped town, members of Congress left a whole bunch of proposals sitting on the table. These ideas have been around for months. The American people want to see them passed.”

In what can only be described as the pot calling the kettle black, Obama said, “But apparently some members of Congress are more worried about their jobs and their paychecks this campaign season than they are about yours.”

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

Housing and the Three Waves of the Tax Tsunami – The Biggest Increase in Taxes in American History!

Confounded Interest ^ | 09/23/2012 | Confounded Interest

There has been numerous headwinds to a housing (and commercial real estate) recovery. One is doggedly slow economic growth. Another is doggedly high unemployment rates. But there is another headwind that is not talked about for housing and real estate in general: taxmageddon or the upcoming single largest tax increase in American history.
Simply put, housing consumption will be reduced in Federal taxes increase. But this is occurring just as housing is beginning to stabilize in many parts of the country.
Americans for Tax Reform provide a nice summary of the tax tsunami that is about to hit (unless Congress and the Administration stop it). And the tsunami will be devastating.
First Wave of Tax Tsunami: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for small business owners, families, and investors (later re-upped by President Obama and Democrat Congress in 2010). The following tax hikes will occur on January 1, 2013:
Personal income tax rates will rise on January 1, 2013. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent . The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.
Second Wave of Tax Tsunami: Obamacare Tax Hikes
Third Wave of Tax Tsunami: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
Between the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the implementation of Obamacare taxes, American households will have LESS to spend on consumption and savings, and that includes housing. We can safely say that housing consumption will not increase when this tsunami hits.
Perhaps this is why The Fed decided to go on a MBS buying binge known as QE3. We have a fiscal disaster looming with massive tax increases so The Fed feels it has to compensate by buying billions of agency MBS.
(Excerpt) Read more at confoundedinterest.wordpress.com ...

Free Barack: Elect Romney (Let’s all jump on the free Burlap Insane Obayma bandwagon!)

The American Thinker ^ | September 23, 2012 | Clarice Feldman

It is increasingly obvious that Obama wants to get out of the White House, not just to take vacations,visit Letterman, and go golfing, but to be free of the responsibilities of the office of President itself,and those horrid media types are doing everything in their power to make him stay where he is. It's time to free Barack.

This week...Obama got free of the phalanx of media guards--the gang Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal,calls "Pack Journalism" and faced actual questioning on Univision,instead of the yentas on The View,Entertainment Tonight,"Pimp With the Limp" and such,and he made clear what I've suspected for a long time: He wants out of the Presidency. Yes,you heard me--he wants O.U.T.
"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside....You can only change it from the outside."

.....There's plenty of evidence that his passive aggression is behind much of his failure in office....refusing to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu in favor or a joke fest on Letterman where he claims not to even know the extent of the national debt? Going off to a fundraiser in Vegas as our embassies burn and a dead or dying Ambassador is being hauled through the streets of Benghazi?
....... He is resisting our demands that he adequately perform the job of the Chief Executive,dodging all responsibility,blaming others for his failures. In short,he is intentionally refusing to perform his job.
Personally,I am not sure he ever was even minimally suited for the job.
...So...Why didn't he just throw in the towel and head off to the links in Oahu before the nomination and campaign?...it seems to me is that the pack journalists keep smothering his cries for help (mistakes and disengagement) and won't let him out.
...Let's start with David Corn...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

NEW OBAMA ADMIN CLAIM: MARINES COULDN'T HAVE STOPPED CONSULATE ASSAULT!

Bretbart News ^ | 21 Sept 2012 | John Sexton

First Romney, then the You Tube clip, now the Marines are to blame? The Obama administration's shifting claims on what took place in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11 became more defiant yesterday when unnamed officials suggested that no amount of security would have mattered in Libya, not even a detachment of US Marines. This came on the same day the administration also admitted the assault was a terror attack not a protest gone wrong. ...

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


Sic 'em!

Thomas Sowell: ‘Barack Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter’

Daily Caller ^ | September 21, 2012 | Jeff Poor

Some conservatives will readily admit that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has his share of flaws as a candidate. But he is still much more preferable than the alternative, President Barack Obama, according to Hoover Institution scholar-in-residence Thomas Sowell.

“I don’t think Mitt Romney is going to be sparking riots against the American embassies around the world,” Sowell, the author of “Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded Edition,” said said in an appearance on Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto” on Thursday. “[I]t’s not a question of whether they love you or not. The question is whether they respect you. You know, I’m sure the Iranians did not love Ronald Reagan. But the fact is they’ve made it their business to get those hostages loose before Ronald Reagan took the oath of office — in fact, hours before Ronald Reagan took the oath of office.”
Responding to Romney’s much-publicized 47-percent remarks about those living off the government last week, Sowell said you want to make that point with your policy proposals and not necessarily just rhetoric, as Reagan managed to in the 1980s.

“Undoubtedly, I think that’s one of the reasons they don’t come out and say what they want to say,” Sowell said. “I don’t think there’s anything callous about wanting able-bodied men to work. You know, what I think is truly callous is having a system and a set of policies that, in fact, hurts the poor. I mean, most — you mentioned Reagan. Now, I came across an old real copy of The New York Times, which had the front page headlines that the black-white income difference had narrowed slightly during the 1980s. Now, that’s the Reagan administration. More recently, the black-white income difference has widened greatly under Barack Obama. And yet, Reagan is never regarded as being someone who’s for the poor or for what not. And Obama is.”
“So the real question is not what is — how does he talk, how does he come across,” Sowell continued. “The question is what do his policies do to people? And I think, for example, minimum wages — I was shocked to hear Romney say he’d be for it. Minimum wages have done enormous damage to young blacks. If you back to the mid-1940s, the unemployment rate among black teenagers was a fraction of what it is has been — it was a fraction in 1949, which was a recession year, of what it has been and even in the most prosperous years since then.”
“And the difference was that in 1949, the minimum wage law had not been upgraded since 1938. So for all practical purposes, it had been destroyed by inflation. Once you start reinstating the minimum wage with increases, then you begin to get to 20, 30, 40 percent unemployment rate among black teenagers. But in the late 40s, there were years when a black 16-year-olds had unemployment rates under 10 percent. Now, the question is not whether you’re empathizing or not. The question is whether your policies are ruining people.”
Cavuto later asked Sowell if he thought Obama is like Reagan’s 1980 opponent, little-loved former President Jimmy Carter.
“I think Barack Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter,” Sowell said. “Carter had many foolish policies internationally as well as domestically. But I think Obama has outdone him in both respects.”


That has to hurt in so many ways.
The ignominious Jimmy Carter, without question, not that long ago the worst president in modern history, undoubtedly one of the worst presidents ever, his name synonymous with utter failure, his presidency a legacy of ineptitude, incompetence, repercussions of which resonate today over thirty years later to exponential negative effect. Jimmy Carter mid-wife to the number one sponsor of global terror, the outlaw terror state of Iran, wily, cunning, a motley crew of meddling murderers having leveraged their modest geopolitical means far beyond their otherwise limited resources, bent on wreaking havoc, death, destruction on the global stage without compunction or conscience, the worst, the very worst yet to come. Nothing could be more emasculating, degrading politically, personally, than to be impugned as being worse than Jimmy Carter, nothing, up until only a few years ago would have anyone conceive of a president whose legacy could somehow possibly be worse than Carter's.

Who Feeds You?

Students First!

You were here...

The facts, just the facts!

Green Economy