Monday, September 24, 2012

The Media’s Wrong: Romney Really Paid 50% In Taxes!

Capitalism Institute ^ | Sep 21st, 2012 | Shaun Connell

Today has been incredibly disturbing for anyone who understands on a basic level how taxes work.

The NY Post, Marketwatch, The NY Times, and even the Wall-Street Journal have posted news stories about how Romney the evil robber baron has only paid “14%” in taxes. This is leading to outrage in the middle class, as people realize that’s a “lower number” than what they pay.

It’s also misleading. Romney’s overall tax rate is over 50%. The lower-sounding number is being used because it makes a great story — even if it only tells part of it. It’s surreal.

Fine. If no one else will respond to this media manipulation, I will. This is not an endorsement of Romney — Capitalism Institute will not endorse any candidate this year. But this absolutely is a defense of the notion that Romney is paying very high and overbearing taxes, just like everyone else. We hate all taxes, and support abolishing all income taxes.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

White House pressed on why Obama UN itinerary doesn't include meetings with world leaders!

FOXNEWS ^ | 09/24/12 | FOX

White House Press Secretary Liar Jay Carney faced pressure to explain Monday why President Obama has made no public plans to meet one on one with world leaders on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

Asked repeatedly at the briefing about the president's plans, Carney said that Obama likely would run into foreign leaders at a reception Monday evening and continues to stay in contact with them. He urged Americans to tune in to the president's U.N. speech on Tuesday.

"The president's obviously got a busy schedule. He has a busy schedule all the time," Carney said at one point.

But Carney did not appear to give a direct answer when asked why Obama was able to fit in 13 one-on-one meetings on the sidelines of last year's summit and none this year. Obama instead was letting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handle the meetings this year while he and first lady Michelle Obama were sitting down Monday for a taping of ABC's "The View" -- sparking criticism that he was putting the election campaign above such issues as Iran's quest for nuclear capability and the violent, deadly protests in the Middle East and North Africa.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Romney Campaign to Shift Strategy: What Will Next Four Years Look Like?

Big Government ^ | 24 Sep 2012, 10:38 AM PDT | Ben Shapiro

According to Mitt Romney adviser Ed Gillespie, the campaign will refocus its message this week to hone in on President Obama’s vulnerabilities in the Rust Belt, particularly in Ohio. “We are talking not only on the president’s performance over the past four years, but the cost of his policies going forward,” said Gillespie this morning. Romney would center his argument on “how four more years of the last four years is not going to be good for the American people.”
This is a strategy Romney should have embraced long ago. President Obama has failed entirely to say what he would do with a second term, other than “finish” what he started – which could mean anything from full-scale social engineering to implementing Obamacare to raising taxes. Romney should have been pointing out all along that the only indicator of what Obama will do for the next four years is what he has done the last four years.
Gillespie also said that Romney would hit Obama on trade policy, particularly with regard to China. Ohioans are generally less pro-free trade than other states around the country, since they have a heavy manufacturing base consistently undercut by foreign nations who use cheap labor and environmentally unfriendly working conditions, and who don’t tolerate private unions. “I think it’s clear that the message on China has resonated not only with the voters,” said Gillespie, “but you can tell with the response from the Obama campaign.”
It’s about time Romney embraced a campaign that has both strategy – broad overall messaging – and tactics. Targeting specific group will be necessary for him to swing particular states, especially battleground states that rely on small numbers of independents to swing for or against a candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

U.S. poised to hand over $197 million to San Jose solar panel startup!

Mercury News ^ | 9/24/12 | Nichola Groom - Reuters

LOS ANGELES -- A tiny San Jose solar company named SoloPower will flip the switch on production at a U.S. factory Thursday, a major step toward allowing it to tap a $197 million government loan guarantee awarded under the same controversial program that supported failed panel maker Solyndra.
SoloPower has initiated a strategy to differentiate it from struggling commodity players in the solar panel industry. Still, there are several similarities between SoloPower and Fremont-based Solyndra -- which became a lightning rod in the U.S. Presidential campaign this year after taking in more than $500 million in government loans and then filing for bankruptcy.
Like Solyndra, SoloPower is a Silicon Valley start-up and uses the same non-traditional raw material in its solar panels. And, like its now-defunct peer, SoloPower is one of just four U.S. panel manufacturers to clinch loan guarantees under the Department of Energy's $35 billion program to support emerging clean energy technologies. The DOE payments to SoloPower will come on top of the $56.5 million SoloPower has collected in loans, tax credits and incentives from the state of Oregon and the city of Portland, where its first factory will be located.
And, perhaps most importantly, SoloPower is entering the market at a time of cutthroat competition from cheaper solar products made in China.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Poll: Romney Beating Obama Among Middle Class Voters By 14 Point Margin!

Weasel Zippers ^ | September 24, 2012

But… but… but… Obama’s a “working class hero” or something.
Via Washington Secrets:
Middle income Americans aren’t just abandoning President Obama, but believe that his vice president is less qualified than Republican running mate Rep. Paul Ryan to be president.
By margins of up to 22 percent for those earning $60,000-$75,000, likely voters polled by Rasmussen Reports feel that the Wisconsin congressman most known for penning the austere House GOP budget has the chops to be president more than Joe Biden, a long-time senator before becoming vice president three years ago.
The poll tracks the Politico-George Washington University Battleground Poll that found Mitt Romney leading President Obama among the middle class by 14 points, a shocker to some who believed that Romney’s wealthy background would be a turnoff to middle income workers.
Keep reading…

Attacks on Obama’s “bumps” comments are “desperate and offensive”! (Carney)

Hot Air ^ | 9/24/12 | Erika Johnsen
Posted on Monday, September 24, 2012 5:08:38 PM by Lakeshark
As Ed already recounted, President Obama’s 60 Minutes interview that aired last night is causing a wee bit of headache for the White House — his comments about four American deaths in Libya being a “bump in the road” and about Israel’s concerns over Iran being just “noise,” as you might imagine, haven’t been playing over too well. The Romney campaign quickly seized on the remarks as insensitive and inappropriate, via WaPo:

“His indication that developments in the Middle East represent bumps in the road is a very different view than I have,” the Republican candidate told ABC News. “I can’t imagine saying something like the assassination of ambassadors is a bump in the road.”
Of course people are going to grasp at phrases to find a political advantage — we’re in the middle of a neck-and-neck presidential election cycle, and besides, I’m sure Team Obama wouldn’t know anything about grasping at their opponents’ words to try and garner political advantage, would they? But words are also powerful things, and if I were on the president’s PR team, I would really recommend that he look for a different description for violence in the Middle East; not only does it make these things sound more trivial, but I can’t help thinking that what he really means is that these “bumps” are roughening the road toward his reelection more than any other ostensible goal.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ryan: Americans 'Giving Up Hope' in Economic Recovery!

National Journal ^ | 9/24/2012 | Rebecca Kaplan

In one of his harshest indictments to date of President Obama’s handling of the economy, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan told an audience on Monday that Americans “are beginning to give up hope” on the economic recovery.

During a town hall meeting, the first stop on a bus tour across Ohio, Ryan said, “People are beginning to give up hope. People are beginning to think that the American Dream’s not for them because of this stagnant economy. And when you take a look at what your government’s doing to you in every nook and cranny of America, it’s not good.”

Ryan also said that the Obama administration has threatened to veto a defense spending bill if Congress tries to reinstate funding for the nation’s only tank-manufacturing plant, located in Lima. The Pentagon has said it has enough of the vehicles and is trying halt production of tanks for several years, but Ohio legislators, including Republican Sen. Rob Portman and Rep. Jim Jordan — both of whom spoke before Ryan at the event — have lobbied to keep the plant open.
Ryan painted the decision as another example of what he called Obama’s determination to focus spending cuts on the military, which he said will weaken the nation’s defense.
“Look, Lima, I know you understand when … you have a president who has proposed again and again to shut down this tank factory — the only one we have — over a budget gimmick,” the Wisconsin lawmaker said. “If we keep doing this, if we keep showing that the only thing we want to do is gut our military, that projects weakness abroad. And by projecting weakness abroad, our adversaries are so much more tempted to test us, and our allies are so much less willing to trust us.”

Veterans retreating from Barack Obama!

Politico ^ | 9/24/2012 | DARREN SAMUELSOHN

President Barack Obama is trying hard to win veterans, but it looks like they’d prefer a new commander in chief.

The Obama campaign had been hoping that veterans and their families — especially among the post-Sept. 11 generation that served in Iraq and Afghanistan — would be part of their path to victory: They’re a high turn-out demographic and concentrated in battleground states, with nearly 1 million each in North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, and 1.6 million in Florida.
But recent polls make clear that the president’s campaign is losing the battle. Even as Obama leads in Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia, Mitt Romney is up by double digits among veterans in those states. Nationwide, he’s got a commanding 20-percentage-point lead over Obama and has even overtaken the president with younger veterans.
“It’s no contest,” said Maurice Tamman, a Reuters data news editor who has polled on veterans and the presidential campaign.
Obama’s campaign has been trying to improve on a historical Democratic disadvantage on national security and among veterans by touting the killing of Osama bin Laden, ending Iraq combat operations and winding down the war in Afghanistan. They’ve also been talking up the administration’s attention to veterans’ benefits and efforts spearheaded by first lady Michelle Obama, hoping to appeal not just to the troops but to the spouses and other military family members who have coped with long separations and multiple deployments.
Instead, even as Obama has been gaining in the overall polls, several NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls conducted from Sept. 9-11 had Romney well ahead of Obama among veterans in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. And in Colorado, a poll released Sept. 16 by SurveyUSA and the Denver Post found both veterans and military families supporting Romney over Obama 53 percent to 39 percent in a survey that included third-party candidates.
Back in May, Obama had the lead among Afghanistan and Iraq veterans. But a Reuters/Ipsos poll from September says that’s evaporated, with Romney now up 48 percent to 34 percent.
Obama campaign aides said the slip in the polls needs to be considered alongside recent surveys showing the president ahead of Romney on questions regarding foreign policy, leadership and keeping the country safe from terrorist attacks. In the campaign’s final weeks, Obama will try to close the gap among veterans by pressing Romney over several foreign policy stumbles as well as a lack of specifics on his plans for troops.
Ryan Williams, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the Republican’s lead among veterans comes from their resistance to the looming potential defense cuts under the budget sequester, problems with Obama’s foreign policy positions and the backdrop of the stagnant economy that’s left the post-Sept. 11 generation of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with a difficult time finding work when they return home.
Obama’s veterans-outreach efforts have been “failing because voters understand that his defense cuts threaten our position as a global power, unemployment for returning veterans is at an unacceptable level, and the VA system is breaking under a backlog of disability claims that has doubled on his watch,” Williams said.
Ray Kelley, national legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said he expects Obama will have some success this fall with the post-Sept. 11 generation of veterans because of the Iraq War and his programs for returning troops. But older veterans — the majority conservative white males — will probably stick with Romney, and that’s despite Obama’s work on many of their issues.
“President Obama has done great things for vets. The budget nearly doubled the last four to five years. Services are better. There’s more access. But that isn’t necessarily translating,” Kelley said. “We still have veterans who are waiting for their disability claims. They’re feeling disenchanted and that somehow the current administration must be at fault even though it’s a long, systemic problem.”
“I think just [Romney’s] strong rhetoric: ‘We’re going to keep a strong national defense. We want to make sure troops have what they want.’ For some reason, that outweighs that the current administration has done a lot for veterans,” Kelley added.
Obama campaign spokeswoman Clo Ewing predicted that the president’s standing among veterans would improve by November, flagging a Zogby poll released Monday that puts Obama up 14 points with a small sample of active-duty military and their family members.
Ewing also knocked the Republican’s omission of the Afghanistan troops “during the most important speech of his career” at last month’s Republican National Convention in Tampa and swung at Romney for proposing a voucher program for veterans benefits. “Mitt Romney hasn’t shown he will stand up for the military family and veterans community,” she said.
Harry Prestanski, executive director of Ohio Veterans United, a group of mostly conservative veterans that endorsed Romney in August, said he was troubled by Romney’s omission of Afghanistan. But Romney’s promise to postpone historic budget cuts to the Pentagon matters more to him and many other veteran voters in Ohio, a state where about 100,000 jobs are connected to the defense industry.
“Those ring more true than to stand up there and say we recognize our veterans and our military,” Prestanski, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran, said. “I’d rather have them put in place programs that are going to protect our military today than beat our breast and say we did a good job for them.”
With both major party tickets without a veteran for the first time in nearly 80 years, Obama’s campaign is leaning on surrogates who have served. On a conference call organized by the Obama campaign last week, former Reps. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) and John Boccieri (D-Ohio), both Iraq War veterans, slammed Romney and Senate Republicans for blocking a bill aimed at helping returning troops get jobs as police officers, firefighters and park workers.
Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Beau, the Delaware attorney general and an Iraq War veteran, has also been criticizing Romney as he speaks to veterans in swing states like Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. At a recent event that included World War II veterans, Beau Biden told the group that under Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s House budget plan they would see their services diminished “at a moment of their lives when they need care the most.”
Obama’s campaign wants to increase turnout among younger veterans thanks to the repeal of the ban on gays in the military under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — the president issued a statement last Thursday marking the one-year anniversary of that decision — and also win over the recently enlisted who can benefit from the post-Sept. 11 GI Bill and other education and career placement benefits.
“You can’t think of the veteran community as one big monolith,” said Rob Diamond, the director of Veterans and Military Families for Obama and a former Navy officer. “It’s very diverse in terms of the generations, of the wars folks served in, where they live and the service they are a part of.”
Jay Leve, editor of SurveyUSA, said the Obama campaign hasn’t lost the veteran vote quite yet, noting that fast-developing news events around the world have the power to shake up the race among what’s typically a very patriotic audience.
“Events in the Middle East may trump Romney’s success to date with military families. If the entire region explodes, military families may gravitate to Obama as part of a rising tide of support for the existing commander in chief,” he wrote in an email. “Obama is the devil voters know.”
In the meantime, there’s a possible benefit for the Obama campaign to keep up the messaging to veterans even if the veterans aren’t responding as the campaign would like. Democrats note that it helps undercut long-standing GOP attacks that they are soft on national security while also helping Obama connect with broader segments of the general public, including independents, blue-collar white males and older women.
“Talking about vets appeals to everyone,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.

Going on The View 'Missed Opportunity for Obama to Meet With Some World Leaders' ^ | September 24, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

Criticism for President Obama's decision to go on ABC's The View Tuesday rather than meet traveling dignitaries in for the United Nations General Assembly came from a peculiar source Monday.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer said of this decision, "There potentially is a missed opportunity this week for the President of the United States to meet with some world leaders" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Wolf Blitzer: Going on The View 'Missed Opportunity for Obama to Meet With Some World Leaders'

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD: Can you weigh in on the fact that the President will not be holding bilateral meetings? He is leaving it to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while he does a taping of The View. A, do we get anything really accomplished in these bi-lats? Do we get real foreign policy accomplished in these bi-lats anyway? And B, are the optics just as important as the actual functioning of the bi-lats, whatever they do put on paper?

WOLF BLITZER: I think any time a president, a sitting President of the United States, meets with another world leader, important issues can be discussed, especially when they are sensitive, important issues, and usually around the time of the United Nations General Assembly. And I’ve covered these meetings for a long time. When a president goes up there, he uses the opportunity to have one-on-one meetings whether at where he is staying at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel or someplace else and they can get business done. In this particular case, coming only as you point out six weeks before an election, he’s got other issues on his agenda like getting reelected.
Going on The View, which is not just meeting with Whoopi Goldberg and a bunch of women on The View, he’s going to be speaking to millions of people who will be watching The View, and they determined that is an important thing for the President to do only six weeks before an election. Same reason why Mitt Romney the other day went on, you know, Kelly Ripa's show and appeared on that show. You know, he’s got important things he’s got to do too. He’s not a sitting president of the United States, but they want to speak to the American people and these are various venues where they have that opportunity to do so.
This seemed like a pretty weak analogy. A currently out of office presidential candidate has absolutely no responsibilities to the nation at this moment.
As such, Romney choosing to go on some television show is likely just keeping him from appearing on another television show or at a campaign stop.
By contrast, Obama is snubbing world leaders such as Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at a time of serious international insecurity, to go sit on a couch with a bunch of cackling hens that largely adore him.
But I digress:

BLITZER: So if he wants to do a television interview, The View or Kelly Ripa, or if he wants to come on my show, I’ll be happy to have him on my show. I do think that there potentially is a missed opportunity this week for the President of the United States to meet with some world leaders, but he's made the decision, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with those world leaders, not him. BANFIELD: And I think he'll be taking it on the chin for it, too, without question, by the critics.
Obama's critics? Outside of some people on Fox News, talk radio, and in the blogosphere, who might that be?

The Dangers of Spreading the Wealth

American Thinker ^ | Sept. 22, 2012 | Brad Lips

In this week's duel of "gotcha" recordings, Mitt Romney sounds callous toward those who have grown dependent on government programs. But President Obama may have more to fear from the latest reminder that he "believes in redistribution" of wealth.

After all, it was around this point in the 2008 campaign that a confident and cruising Obama campaign was put on the defensive after its candidate gave a revealing answer to a question posed by Joe (the Plumber) Wurzelbacher. "When you spread the wealth around," candidate Obama opined, "it's good for everybody."

Would a President Obama be as hostile to American free enterprise as those words suggested? We're nearly four years into the process of finding out. In retrospect, Americans would have been wise to look past his inspiring (but vague) calls for "hope and change" and study instead candidate Obama's economic philosophy. Recall that in a Democratic Party debate, Obama had expressed preference for hikes in capital gains tax rates "for purposes of fairness," even if the hike had the effect of reducing tax revenues.
Read more:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Fallacy of Wealth Redistribution ^ | 9/24/2012 | Thomas Sowell

The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.

Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.
In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.
How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

David Axelrod: “This is not the time” to have a plan to reform Social Security!

Hotair ^ | 09/24/2012 | Ed Morrissey

David Axelrod ran into a buzz saw this morning, and on MSNBC, of all places. Time's Mark Halperin asks a rather predictable question of Axelrod, noting that Barack Obama never mentioned Social Security reform in his 60 Minutes interview last night (and Steve Kroft apparently never asked about it, either). Where's the plan, Halperin asks --- and Axelrod makes not one but two huge gaffes in answering:


TIME’s MARK HALPERIN: “David, Social Security came up last night on ‘60 Minutes.’ Let me ask you in a second term, what is the president proposing to do to reform Social Security, save it for future generations, and will it involve lower benefits for anyone or higher taxes for anyone?”
OBAMA ADVISER DAVID AXELROD: “Well I think that there, too, Mark, the approach has to be a balanced one. We’ve had discussions in the past. And the question is, can you raise the cap some? Right now Social Security cuts off at a lower point. Can you raise the cap so people in the upper incomes are paying a little more into the program? And do you adjust the growth of the program. That’s a discussion worth having. But again we have to approach it in a balanced way. We’re not going to cut our way to prosperity. We’re not going to cut our way to more secure entitlement programs – Social Security and Medicare. We have to have a balance.”
HALPERIN: “So what is his proposal?”
AXELROD: “Mark, I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table — this is not the time. We’re not going to have that discussion right now unless the Congress wants to sit at a table and says okay we’re ready to move on a balanced approach to this. The reality of Social Security is this is a much less imminent problem than Medicare. We have extended the life of Medicare for close to a decade through the changes that we’ve made and Governor Romney wants to repeal. But Social Security is a more distant problem. One that needs a solution. But it isn’t as pressing as a Medicare issue.”
First, Axelrod insists that “this is not the time” to have a proposal to address the critical unfunded liabilities of Social Security. Really? Isn’t an election a time to discuss plans for the nation’s future, especially on pressing fiscal issues? Furthermore, Obama has been president for most of four years now, and Axelrod is all but admitting that Obama hasn’t got a plan at all on this issue. He’s tossing the issue back to Congress, and in his snotty way telling Mark Halperin that he doesn’t have any standing even to ask the question.
Next, Axelrod admits that Medicare is a bigger problem. That’s true, but that’s not been the position of the Obama administration. They keep claiming that ObamaCare has fixed the problem in the short term and bent the cost curve downward over the long term. Now Axelrod admits to reality, which is that ObamaCare didn’t help save Medicare at all — and that it’s on the same decade-long trajectory to collapse as it was when Obama took office.
What have we found out from today’s episode of Morning Joe? Obama has wasted four years while the entitlement collapse continued to pick up steam, and even after four years, he still doesn’t have a plan to address it.

Is this the funniest 'For Sale' sign ever? Owner puts house on market 'because the neighbor's an asshole'!

By Leon Watson

For homeowners trying to sell their properties themselves, the best advice is usually to keep it simple.
That's what the experts do when they put up for sale signs - but not these do-it-yourself realtors.
Instead, they've taken a more unconventional approach and included extra bits of information... like the neighbor is an 'asshole'.
Would this put you off? A seller reveals one small problem with the house - the neighbor
Would this put you off? A seller reveals one small problem with the house - the neighbor
This refreshingly honest placard appeared in New Jersey and is one of a collection of ill-advised for sale sign attempts by people trying to market their homes.
It proclaimed: 'House For Sale By Owner Because My Neighbor's An Asshole.'
An image of the sign was sent to the Dennis & Judi show on NJ 101.5 FM by a listener of the station, which then posted the photo on its website.

However, this New Jersey homeowner is not the first to try radical tactics in the hopes of garnering attention for a property.
Another one revealed: 'Husband left us for a 22-year-old. House for sale by scorned, slightly bitter, newly single owner.'
It was put up by Ellie Zober, an Oregon woman who found out her husband was cheating on her.
Old joke: This sign in Texas appears to be put up be someone who thinks they're about to die
Old joke: This sign in Texas appears to be put up be someone who thinks they're about to die
Tempting: This sign was put up by Ellie Zober, an Oregon woman who found out her husband was cheating on her
Tempting: This sign was put up by Ellie Zober, an Oregon woman who found out her husband was cheating on her

For rent: A flat with a chicken included in the price - it's a barg-hen
For rent: A flat with a chicken included in the price - it's a barg-hen
'I've gotten calls from Sweden and Scotland and Ireland and a man from Japan called to buy the house,' she told ABC News Radio.
The family is trying to avoid foreclosure and admits the sign is purely for exposure, although the story is also true.
Unsurprisingly, Real estate agents don't exactly encourage the DIY approach.
Judy Moore of Re/Max Landmark Realtors told U.S. News : 'You wouldn't go to an amateur to perform an operation on someone. It just doesn't make sense.'
Health hazard: Buying a house can have many pitfalls, like asbestos
Health hazard: Buying a house can have many pitfalls, like asbestos

A homeowner thought this ironic take on a real estate sign would be funny, saying: 'STD, making sure it's yours.'
A homeowner thought this ironic take on a real estate sign would be funny, saying: 'STD, making sure it's yours.'

This homeowners insists he is not 'stupid or desperate' to sell his home. It appears he is
This homeowners insists he is not 'stupid or desperate' to sell his home. It appears he is
This house is not haunted - or at least the person selling it insists
This house is not haunted - or at least the person selling it insists

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Posted Image

Stop Trying!

Posted Image

Red Line

Posted Image

Team Obama

Posted Image


Posted Image

Look Over There!

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

The Shrine

Posted Image


Posted Image

I'm So Upset...

Posted Image

Obama Base

Posted Image

Nobel Peace Prize

Posted Image

Offends Democrats

Posted Image

Telling The Truth!

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Whining Teachers

Posted Image

American President!

Posted Image

Libya Security

Posted Image


Posted Image

Free to express!

Posted Image

Not Working

Posted Image

The Second Iceberg

Posted Image

Supporting Unions!

Posted Image

Size Matters!

Posted Image

Take off the gloves!

Posted Image

Our Leader!

Posted Image

Just Wait...

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

But First...

Posted Image


Posted Image

Kissing Obama's Ass

Posted Image

Obama's AARP Speech Broke My BS Detector

The American Spectator ^ | 9/24/12 | David Catron

President Obama spoke via satellite to the AARP "Life@50+" convention last Friday morning and I was foolish enough to turn on my patented BS Detector during the event. Unlike the "fact checkers" employed by the MSM, its special BUNK software was written such that it could recognize White House talking points and separate such input from actual facts. It turns out, however, to have had a fatal design flaw. Although I had successfully tested it on several pathological liars, and even a couple of lawyers, it simply didn't have the capacity to process the volume of BS contained in a typical Obama speech. The machine was a smoking hulk by the time the President finished answering the final question from the AARP audience.
I probably should have turned it off after observing its reaction to Obama's first claim about Obamacare's positive effect on Medicare: "We've added years to the life of the program by getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies that weren't making people healthier …" This preposterous assertion, an attempt to put a positive spin on Obamacare's $200 billion in cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage (MA) program, caused the device to whistle, buzz, and hop around like R2D2 on steroids. And when the President made the additional claim that, "over the next 10 years, we expect the average Medicare beneficiary to save nearly $5,000 as a result of this law," the machine began to make an odd whimpering noise.
It should have been no surprise that the device responded thus to Obama's Medicare Advantage lie. As David Hogberg reports at Investor's Business Daily, "ObamaCare imposes major cuts on the popular
(Excerpt) Read more at ...