Sunday, October 7, 2012


Fun with charts

Private vs Gov't

Name change

The Un-needed



The Winner!

Better Stage

Clint was right

Take us back...

Game Changer...BACON



Middle Class "Barry'd"

Joe Biden Microphone

White House Manipulating the Jobs Data... Unpossible?

Zerohedge ^ | 10/06/2012 | CrownThomas

ABC is reporting that the White House has told defense contractors to not issue layoff notices until after the election. They even went as far as to offer to pay for any legal fees associated with not giving employees proper notice - pardon, you will pay for any legal fees associated with the administration keeping the unemployment rate artificially low.

Two things:

1. Why aren't we hearing more about this from the mainstream media (rhetorical)?
2. Still think the jobs report yesterday was real?

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

O's Legacy? Unemployment Rate Now Meaningless (Stunning article predicts this many months ago)

American Thinker ^ | Dec 5, 2011 | C. Edmund Wright

Hope and Change apparently means that the Obama administration is counting on so many Americans giving up hope that the administration can now change the entire metric for measuring unemployment. When you analyze the most recent employment statistics, you have to conclude the strategy is working.

We all know that Barack Obama's legacy will be that of a wide swath of destruction across the economy and in fact all of American life. And one item you can add to that Obama ash heap will be the trust anyone has in any government statistics -- most notably the official unemployment rate. And as a result, Obama may be really hanging himself with these accelerating obfuscations.

For months, the administration has been monkeying with the unemployment figures to hide some of the trauma Obama has inflicted on the U.S. economy, but last week's shameful cooking of the jobs report took it to a whole new level. To hear the government tell it, our unemployment rate plummeted nearly half a point in just a month to a level of 8.6%. And it did this on the strength of 120 thousand new jobs.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Are you really better off now than you were four years ago?

Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier ^ | 10/7/12 | Dennis Clayson

Canada is getting rich; its GDP is about $1.4 trillion per year. This means that if Obama’s government took everything produced in Canada each year (a 100 percent tax on everything); he would still be running a $400 billion debt per year (more than a billion per day).
The average UNI professor would have to work for 61,000 years to pay for what Obama’s government adds to the national debt in one day!
One in seven Americans are now on food stamps. In 2008, the average median household income was $54,700/year. It has now dropped to $50,700. At the same time, prices are going up. Education, utility rates, food, gasoline, and almost everything else have risen in price.
You may wonder how Obama apologists can get away with the you-are-better-off claptrap. If the White House said that Elvis was alive and living in the Pentagon, and that Obama will be taken directly into heaven after he wins the election, the American press and the academicians would immediately begin a dialogue on the impact of Elvis on the election, and why Joe Biden would make a fantastic president after Obama has been raptured.
Then there are the chattering classes, a recent report found the following ratios in academics: Democrats to Republicans; 30 to 1 anthropology, 28 to 1 sociology, 10 to 1 history, 7 to 1 political science. Liberalism is now the state religion of the elite and there is no separation between church and state.
In fact, the great irony of modern American life is the aged social scientist, who still sees herself as an advocate for the masses, and the liberal students, who against all evidence, still fancy themselves as rebels against the establishment, when in fact they function as shills and cannon fodder for the national elite.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Teen Pot Use Linked to Decline in IQ (or why Obama really stunk in the debate!)

NBC News ^ | August 27th, 2012 | Tia Ghose

Teens who smoke marijuana see their IQs drop as adults, and deficits persist even after quitting, according to a new study.

"The findings are consistent with speculation that cannabis use in adolescence, when the brain is undergoing critical development, may have neurotoxic effects," study researcher Madeline Meier of Duke University said in a statement.

The study followed 1,037 New Zealand children for 25 years. Subjects took IQ tests at age 13, before any of them had smoked marijuana, and again at age 38. Throughout the study, participants also answered several surveys about their drug use.
Roughly 5 percent of the participants started using marijuana as teenagers. Those who smoked marijuana at least four times a week and used marijuana throughout their life saw their IQ drop an average of 8 points, the equivalent of going from an A to a B student. The drop was not explained by other drug use, years of education, schizophrenia or using marijuana in the day before the test.
People who eventually quit smoking pot still had lower IQs than they did at the start of the study.
Interestingly, people who picked up the habit as adults had no IQ drop, suggesting that marijuana may not be as harmful to the mature brain.
The findings are the first to associate intelligence declines with marijuana use. Past work linked low IQ and marijuana, but couldn't rule out the possibility that people who choose to smoke pot are inherently less smart than abstainers.
It's not clear why pot is bad for teen brains.
One possibility is that teenagers are more vulnerable to marijuana's effects on brain chemistry, said Susan Tapert, a neuropsychologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.
During adolescence, neural connections are pruned in the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex, critical regions for learning, memory and planning, Tapert said.
Those regions may also soak up the active ingredient in marijuana."A lot of the areas that are still developing during adolescent years happen to be the areas with high cannabis receptor density," Tapert told LiveScience.
But those who consistently smoke marijuana may simply make less intellectually stimulating choices at critical points in life.
"What people tend to do when they're under the influence is different than they would otherwise," Tapert said.
For instance, pot users may be less inclined to attend classes or do other activities that give the brain a workout. Getting off track early on can also limit future opportunities and thereby reduce IQ, she said.
Related: 10 Ways to Keep Your Mind Sharp
"Teens need to view cannabis as not an entirely benign compound, but as something that can impair your judgment and might not be great for your brain," Tapert said.
The study is detailed Aug. 27 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Obama Falls For His Own Spin ^ | 10/07/12 | CaroleL

Spin is nothing new in politics and sometimes it reaches the level of outright lying. When recently asked about campaign ads being "misleading" and "just not true," President Barack Obama admitted that "somebody could dispute how we are presenting things." No surprise there but what is surprising and exceedingly dangerous for Team Obama, is that they have started to believe their own presentations.

Even before the general election campaign began, the president's main strategy was to define his presumptive opponent as an out-of-touch, rich guy from Massachusetts who didn't earn his fortune. That was somewhat effective in firing up disappointed Democrats as it re-enforced a prejudice against both Republicans and wealthy people.

Of course there was always the risk that voters who had not yet made up their minds would listen to Governor Mitt Romney's message for themselves, but in politics you play the percentages and Team Obama was willing to lose some of those undecided voters in order to energize his base.

But here is where politics as usual morphed into self-delusion on the part of President Obama and his top political advisers. With the critical debates approaching, Team Obama chose a sparring partner that was a perfect match for their caricature of Mr. Romney but was nothing like the formidable opponent the president would actually face.

Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) is a rich guy from Massachusetts. He's tall, white, in his 60's, has held political office and has run for the presidency. But that's pretty much where any similarity to Governor Romney ends. While Mr. Romney earned his fortune by starting and running a very successful business that spawned many other successful businesses, Mr. Kerry got rich by marrying a wealthy woman. He then got richer by divorcing his first wife and marrying an even wealthier woman.

While Mr. Romney has executive experience in both business and government, Mr. Kerry has none in either sector. Mr. Romney's career has been called "stellar" even by Obama supporter and former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Kerry's career is best known for the fact that he was for something before he was against it.

While Mr. Romney has straight-forward plans for the country which he more than competently articulated in Wednesday's debate, Mr. Kerry is known for his "nuanced" approach to, well, everything.

Yet, in what has to be the worst case of political wishful thinking ever, Senator Kerry was chosen to prepare the president to debate Governor Romney. Some members of Team Obama are now blaming the senator for not challenging the president during their sparring sessions. But it’s unfair to blame a mouse for not becoming a lion on command.

No, the blame for President Obama's poor debate preparation definitely belongs to the president himself who somehow fell for his own spin and believed Governor Romney was Kerry-like. But the reason for the president's overall debate loss is still the indefensible result of his own policies.

Dear Negro Voters


All great magicians employ misdirection in creating miraculous illusions, leaving their audiences stunned and confused. President “Houdini’s” miraculous creation of 873,000 jobs in the month of September drove down the national unemployment rate from 8.1% to 7.8%, just as absentee voting begins. The trick left Republicans and economists equally befuddled, since the last time a similar monthly jobs increase appeared was June of 1983 when the economy was growing at an astronomical 9.3% annual rate. But looking behind Barack the Great’s smoke and mirrors reveals that the President’s highly controversial July suspension of the “workfare” requirements that welfare recipients must actually work to be counted as employed seems to have dramatically reduced the U.S. Labor Department’s unemployment rate.


Hunting Liberals

Game, set, match for Mitt Romney!

San Mateo Daily Journal ^ | October 6, 2012 | Dwight L Schwab

The term “cleaned his clock” took on a whole new meaning at Wednesday night’s first presidential debate.

An energized and textbook perfect Mitt Romney dominated a lethargic and tired-looking Barack Obama. To sum up the former governor’s performance, he outhustled, outfacted, outenergized and outinformed the incumbent. The lopsidedness of the verbal brawl was not lost on liberal ideologues such as Bill Maher and Chris Matthews who were quick to raise the white flag in round one of three televised debates this month.

It was as if Romney’s insomnia-inducing convention speech had never happened. The former governor commanded the stage focusing on economic issues and an easy-to-understand philosophy of limited government. He triumphantly mesmerized an estimated 60 million people as a pro-growth tax reformer. A president who would lower the rate and broaden the base in a revenue-neutral fashion.

Could it be he would actually create jobs and spur the economy? The nationwide sales presentation was a masterpiece from start to his effective close.

For many considering Romney for the first time, just maybe his ideas for tax reform could be a solution for which the country is looking. At intervals throughout the debate, Romney respectfully corrected the president on a number of issues including oil tax breaks, health care issues, job training programs in the federal government and even how Obamacare works.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Don’t Be Fooled, That Debate Was a Big Deal

Fox News ^ | October 5, 2012 | Chris Stirewalt

Mitt Romney beat the britches off of President Obama in their first debate, including the devastating sound bite “you’ve been president for four years.”

It was the most-watched debate in 20 years and was the most decisive victory by a challenger in at least that long, but to look at the news today, you might be tempted to think it really didn’t matter.
Another month of essentially flat job growth is being trumpeted as just the comeback the president needed, with reporters, addicted to the top-line unemployment rate, freaking out about the fact that the measure fell below 8 percent.

(Power Play will spare you another lecture on the irrelevancy of this measure in a stagnant economy. The number to watch to know how people are really doing is the larger measure of those unemployed, underemployed and those who have given up work, which held steady at 14.7 percent.)
Certainly the very presence of an avalanche of favorable, if misleading, economic headlines will give the president a boost. And he certainly needs one given his botch on Wednesday.
The most effective spin from Team Obama so far has been that this kind of thing happens all the time – that incumbents always have trouble in their first debates. Why, just look at Ronald Reagan in 1984 and George W. Bush in 2004, they were off their game, came back and won.
While the long-term spin from Obama and his campaign is that Romney is a liar and a phony who only won by taking advantage of an incumbent too tirelessly committed to honest politics and detailed answers, the most urgent matter is to get the establishment press to minimize the importance of the president’s loss...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Employment Report +114 [ less than working-age pop growth in survey- yet unemployment decreased! ] ^ | Oct 6 2012 |

Look what we have here!

The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care and in transportation and warehousing but changed little in most other major industries.
This is rather amusing; +114,000 is fewer than the working-age population growth in the household survey (206,000) and yet unemployment decreased.
The household survey's unadjusted numbers, however, show some rather interesting figures, none of which make sense. "Not in labor force" increased by 386,000 while "employed" increased by 775,000 a net change off "unemployed and looking" of well north of a million people!

Overall we're adding jobs, but not enough to cover the additions to the workforce. And while the unemployment rate decreased a big part of it came from those who gave up, which is a false number, but heh, who's counting, right?

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Debate mess: Blame Anybody But Obama?

Associated Posers ^ | 10-06-2012 | geronl

Debate Aftermath

(Associated Posers) – WASHINGTON DC – President Obama's supporters have blamed everything from the altitude in Denver to Jim Lehrer for his dismal performance at the first presidential debate against challenger Mitt Romney. For many Americans it was the first chance to see an unscripted Barack Obama and Mitt Romney without the media spin.
For his part Barack Obama declared he hadn't debated Mitt Romney at all “That wasn't the real Mitt Romney!”. Later his campaign released a statement saying that a Mitt Romney clone had been used, the evidence they said was “self evident”.
The supporters of President Obama have also blamed John Kerry, his debate coach for the bruising their guy took. Romney “cheated” some of them said pointing to possible poisonous fumes form Mitt Romney's handkerchief. Meanwhile Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter appeared on CNN and finally admitted that their main accusation in the first debate that Romney wanted a $5 trillion tax cut had been completely made up.
“Yes, we lied. So what? Can we move to the next topic please?”
Meanwhile David Axelrod begged the media to do a better job of protecting the President and attacking Mitt Romney saying “We can't do this alone, there is no way we can win this Mano-a-mano. We need the media to help us out”.
Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe says that John Kerry was just not up to keeping a lazy student interested in debate prep. “He couldn't keep his pupil in the seat. Turn his back and Barack Obama was visiting a hydro-electric dam somewhere. We thought being an older, white rich guy him and Mitt Romney would have a lot in common. We didn't take into account that John married money, twice, and Mitt earned his through capitalistic thievery”
James Carville pointed out several times on television “The President brought spitwads to a chainsaw fight. Clint Eastwood called him an empty chair and for some reason he set out to become one.”
Meanwhile top Democrat strategists agreed that the second debate must be about Mitt Romney and not the last four years. “The economy is in the crapper, we have the blow up in the middle east being called a bump in the road, we have Joe Biden and we have almost nothing positive to show for these last four years. It behooves our team and the media to make Mitt Romney the focus”
When asked if the Presidents' debate performance could be blamed on the President himself David Plouffe was adamant “Absolutely not. He has little to do with anything. Nobody expects Barack to lower himself like that, so we can't be disappointed if he doesn't.”
David Axelrod agreed “President Obama can't be blamed for anything. He is perfection personified and it was racist for you to ask such a question. Holding people responsible for their own actions is the old way of doing things, we are more enlightened now. No one on our side is ever going to blame Obama for anything he does. 65 million people saw that mess, now the media must convince people it never happened.”
New polls now give Mitt Romney a small advantage, a slight lead since the debate.

British Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards! (ObamaCare future)

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 06 Oct 2012 | Laura Donnelly

Forty-three hospital patients starved to death last year and 111 died of thirst while being treated on wards, new figures disclose today.
The death toll was disclosed by the Government amid mounting concern over the dignity of patients on NHS wards.
* as well as 43 people who starved to death, 287 people were recorded by doctors as being malnourished when they died in hospitals;
* there were 558 cases where doctors recorded that a patient had died in a state of severe dehydration in hospitals;
* 78 hospital and 39 care home patients were killed by bedsores, while a further 650 people who died had their presence noted on their death certificates;
The records, from the Office for National Statistics, follow a series of scandals of care of the elderly, with doctors forced to prescribe patients with drinking water or put them on drips to make sure they do not become severely dehydrated .
"These are people's mothers, fathers, and grandparents," she said. "It is hard enough to lose a loved one, but to find out that they died because they were not adequately fed or hydrated, is a trauma no family should have to bear."
It followed spot checks by NHS regulators, which found that half of 100 hospitals were failing basic standards to treat elderly with dignity, and ensure they were properly fed.
In many wards nurses were dumping meal trays in front of patients too weak to feed themselves and then taking them away again untouched.
The investigation found patients were left hungry, unwashed or given the wrong drugs because of the "casual indifference of staff".
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Polls Are Collapsing For Obama All Over The Place After The Debate!

Business Insider ^ | October 6, 2012 | Brett LoGiurato

Both national and swing-state polls are beginning to tighten in the presidential race between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. It's a signal that an expected Romney bump is starting to take shape after his consensus win in the first presidential debate on Wednesday.
Polls that track both national and swing state voting have shown nothing but bad news for the president over the last couple of days.
Here's a sampling of the national polls:
Gallup: Romney is starting to close in on Obama, trailing by only 3 points in the seven-day rolling average. And that average only reflects two days of surveys post-debate, so the full effect won't be known until next Wednesday.
Rasmussen: Rasmussen has had wild swings and tends to be Republican-leaning this election, but Romney holds a 2-point advantage here.
Reuters/Ipsos: Here, the race has tightened from a 6-point Obama lead pre-debate to only a 2-point lead on Friday. But Saturday didn't provide any further bounce for Romney in the online survey.

And in swing states:
Florida: Two polls — from Rasmussen and We Ask America — found Romney in the lead here on Friday by 2 and 3 points, respectively. Both polling firms tend to lean Republican.
Virginia: The same two firms — again, leaning Republican — found Romney with 1- and 3-point leads, respectively....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

2.4 million

Fat Cats


Trust me!

Tea Baggers?

Collective Barganing

Going to SHIT!


Doin' Fine

Good News

Media's Polls

Barone: Romney's debate win opens cracks in Obama fire wall!

The Washington Examiner ^ | October 6, 2012 | Michael Barone

Wednesday night's presidential debate in which Mitt Romney shellacked Barack Obama attracted the biggest audience since the debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan seven days before the 1980 election..
About 70 million Americans watched, a little more than half the 131 million voter turnout in 2008. That's an estimate, because the ratings companies don't count those watching on C-SPAN, PBS or the Internet.
Did the debates matter? The first state polls, conducted by Rasmussen and We Ask America on Thursday night, suggest the answer is yes.
Rasmussen reported that Romney was down 1 point in Ohio. We Ask America had him up 1 there.
Rasmussen had Romney up 1 in Virginia. We Ask America had him up 3. And in Florida, We Ask America had Romney up 3.
These states are important because the Obama campaign has spent millions on anti-Romney ads there, to build a fire wall blocking Romney from getting to a 270-vote majority in the Electoral College.
The arithmetic is fairly simple. The 28 states plus D.C. and one Nebraska congressional district that Obama carried in 2008 have 359 electoral votes this year. Subtract Indiana, which has fallen off the target list, and the Nebraska district, and he's down to 347.
Subtract also the 15 electoral votes of North Carolina, which Team Obama hoped to contest but where it hasn't been spending much money lately, and you're down to 332.
Obama's next three closest states were Florida, Ohio and Virginia, which together have 60 electoral votes. In every other state he carried, he ran ahead of his 53 percent share of the national vote.
Up to the debate, the tristate strategy seemed to be working. Obama carried Florida by 3 points in 2008, and the average of recent polls going into the debate showed him up 2 there.
Obama carried Ohio by 5 points and predebate polling had him up 5 (I've rounded off the percentages and rounded .5s to the lower integer). Obama carried Virginia by 7 points, and predebate polling had him up 3.
In contrast, predebate polls had Obama lagging further behind his 2008 showing in five other target states -- Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Wisconsin.
Not to worry, Obama strategists said. If we hold Florida, Ohio and Virginia, we've got 332 electoral votes, way more than 270. We can afford to lose the 35 electoral votes in those other five states.
But what if the fire wall doesn't hold? If the big three go for Romney, Obama is down to 272. If he loses one more state, he can join Al Gore on Current TV.
The Obama strategy didn't count on a debate performance like the one 70 million Americans watched Wednesday night.
As his dazed spin team pointed out, other incumbent presidents have stumbled in their first debates. But none ever had an instant poll report, as CNN's did, that the challenger won by a margin of 67 to 25 percent.
The fact is that for all his professions of bipartisan amity, Obama cannot bear to listen to tough questions or well-made counterarguments. He certainly hasn't had to in the 200-plus fundraisers he's attended.
On the split screen, we saw the same expression of irritation -- as if he smelled something really bad -- as we did when he faced tough questions from Fox News' Bret Baier, when he had to listen to Paul Ryan demolish his health care plan at the Blair House summit, when he was probed on his broken immigration promise by interviewers on Univision.
What we didn't see is the Obama who is supposedly fascinated by the details of public policy. Sans teleprompter, he repeated the talking points of his television ads, and, when Romney responded sharply, he had nothing to fall back on.
We saw the president who found it fitting to jet off to campaign in Las Vegas the day after the first murder of a U.S. ambassador in 33 years.
As you read this, you have more polling information than I do as I write. It's possible that the trend suggested by the Rasmussen and We Ask America results in Florida, Ohio and Virginia will not be confirmed by other polls. And there's a whole month till the election.
Obama will surely perform better in his next two debates. Romney may not perform as well. But the first numbers suggest the fire wall may be crumbling. We'll see if it holds.

Move Along

The American Media’s Last Chance for Redemption

Illionois Review ^ | October 6, 2012 | By John F. Di Leo

Nobody’s perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.

Even when those mistakes are conscious, there is always a chance to reverse them, if one catches oneself in time.

Take the wrong route; don’t be afraid to do a U-turn and correct the error. Wear the wrong necktie, dress right the next time to correct the impression. Make the wrong choice; don’t be afraid to make the right one next time.

The American news media, known collectively as “the MainStream Media” or MSM for decades now, has made a collective choice: most have been part and parcel of the Democratic Party, either admittedly or not, for generations.

They have acted as a cheering section for Democrat presidents and partisans, not only when it was contrary to their nation’s interest, but even when it was contrary to their own self-interest. Television ratings, newspaper circulation, and radio ad sales have long proven that blatant left-wing bias is the path to ruin of all but the niche outlets, but that hasn’t stopped them. They remain leftist; perhaps their consistency, at least, can be considered admirable.

But there have been moments when the leftist MSM, and even the Democratic Party itself, have stood up and acknowledged an error. It doesn’t happen often, but once in a while, lightning strikes....

....The veil was dropped on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, A.D., and everything changed. Without the press to snip only the best soundbites to share with their readers....

....By the end of the debate, Barack Obama looked like he was wishing he were back home in Indonesia, where at least he could have been eating dog instead of crow....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Almost Done!

"I Built That!"

Kick The Can

Oh Crap!

Let's regroup!

Obama's Plan: "I Eat Cake, You Gain Weight" ^ | October 7, 2012 | John Ransom

Ericynot wrote: No president has any control over the stock market, so you're just being paranoid. Moreover, you apparently don't pay much attention to that market because it's been climbing very steadily for the last 3 years. I think it's done about all it's going to do for a while and is more likely to fall before the election, especially if we get any bad news out of Europe or China, two other things over which the president has essentially no control. . -Saint Obama Performs another Miracle by Making Unemployment Recede

Dear Comrade Y,
Actually the stock market has really just retraced where it was in 2008, four years ago. To pick out three years and say “All is well” is rather short-sighted. Furthermore, while 2010 returns were around 13 percent after adjusting for inflation, 2011 was negative after adjusting for inflation.
As you rightly point out, the market this year could give back its gains of about 9 percent between now and the end of the year.
There is more than one way to measure return in the stock market, too. One statistically valid measure is by looking at dividends and dividend futures.
Dividend futures are abysmal right now.
See more John Ransom at:

Catch the "Real" Obama, the Night's Big Whiner

From our friends at Political Calculations:
What the dividend data for September 2012 indicates is that whatever negative situation is affecting the decision of U.S. public companies to act to reduce their dividend payments to investors, it is affecting more of them. The number of companies taking that action in September 2012 is well over the line that would suggest an oncoming recession.
It’s rather naïve for you- and intellectually dishonest- to suggest that on the one hand Obama can’t control what happens in the stock market, yet argue that Obama’s policies are good for the economy, while Romney’s would be bad.
You can’t have it both ways.
That said, I understand comrades always argue both sides of any issue: In this case, it’s that rich guys were doing well under Bush even though the stock market did poorly and Bush was responsible for both, while the stock market’s doing great under Obama and rich guys are finally going to cough up their fair share. The good stuff, whatever that may be, we owe all that to Obama and the bad stuff is still the Republicans’ fault.
Original2 wrote: The most interesting part of this huge, gigantic surge in part time jobs is that it largely occurred in the 20-to-24 year old demographic, which in every other September since we began collecting data, actually SHED jobs (because these 20-24 yo's go back to college in September in vast numbers). But this year, in spite of the fact jobs are incredibly scarce for the college-age, and that if you stop going to school you have to start paying on those college loans, and that if you continue in school at LEAST you can continue getting student money, HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of 20-24 year olds are finding wonderful part time employment. For. The. First. September. Ever.
Good work. -Saint Obama Performs another Miracle by Making Unemployment Recede
Dear Original,
No, no, no. Good work to you
Maria skrev: Obama fuskar som vanligt. Fd GE direktör James Welch som är en av de duktigaste affärsmän i världen har klart och tydligt avslöjat Obamas Chicago metoder dvs maffia metoder hur man skapar jobb som inte existerar. -Saint Obama Utför ett mirakel av Göra Arbetslöshet avta
Hej Maria,
Jag är från Chicago. Och det smärtar mig, som en tidigare Chicagoan att stanken av stadens korruption skulle sprida hela vägen till Sverige. Det finns troligtvis fler svenskar i Chicago än i de flesta städer utanför Stockholm.
Samtidigt är jag tacksam över att det socialistiska experimentet i Sverige kunde komma till ett slut. Vi kan nu föralltid använda den svenska ekonomi historian när vi jämnför socialism med en fri ekonomi.
Från vår bidragsgivare Daniel J Mitchell med Cato Institute:
Sverige har en mycket stor och dyr välfärdsstat, men det är faktiskt bli lite av en förebild för ekonomiska reformer. Jag har redan kommenterat landets imponerande skolval system och noterade att svenskarna delvis har privatiserat sina socialförsäkringssystem.
Tack, Maria, för allt du gör i frihetens sak.
Joy wrote: Thats bs! Anyone who would vote for Mitt Romney must have alzheimers or some form of memory loss...he's ran (and lost) in the last 4 presidential elections! If I were Mitt, I might have begun to think something might be wrong with my ideas or some other inconsequential reason for this perpetual losing streak....Ann Romney said Mitt does'nt lose.- Catch the "Real" Obama, the Night's Big Whiner
Dear Comrade Joy,
We all have memory loss? Because those of us voting for Romney know the facts?
Romney has run for president twice- not four times as you state.
I would not, however, ascribe your problems remembering Romney’s presidential campaign history to “alzheimers or some form of memory loss” or, even other organic causes.
Instead it’s just a typical example of how liberals can’t do basic math.
Scientists still aren’t sure if liberals were “born” this way or if it’s “learned” behavior.
The example of Elizabeth Warren, says that it’s not confined to math either.
Scientists have yet to produce any genetic material that would tie her to Native American ancestry, so they think, her “Nativeness” is a just learned behavior, like your math problems.
Some theorized that reading materials like the Huffington Post may rewire the brain. In the case of Warren, the rewiring could stem from answering over and over again the EEOC section:
Race (Check all that apply)
White – (Not Hispanic or Latino) A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa
[1] Black or African American – (Not Hispanic or Latino) A person having origins in any of the
black racial groups of Africa
[1] Asian – (Not Hispanic or Latino) A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China,
India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand and Vietnam.
[1] American Indian or Alaska Native – (Not Hispanic or Latino) A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South American (including Central American), and who maintain a tribal affiliation or community attachment
[1] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – (Not Hispanic or Latino) A person having
origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands
Doctor Roy wrote: Uh oh. Unemployment now below 8 per cent. Gas prices coming down. Doctor Roy is officially calling the race for Obama. Turn out the lights. The party's over. Well I get my orders directly from the head honcho hisself Soros. I may have to go on strike though since if I'm going to be kicking it around with you knuckleheads every day I'm going to need a big raise. - Catch the "Real" Obama, the Night's Big Whiner
Dear Comrade Doctor,
Yes, I’m sure the 600,000 people between the ages of 20-24 who suddenly got part time jobs last month are working the phones for Obama’s reelection bid.
Hey- Maybe you can ask Soros to donate to your strike fund too?
Jeffery286 wrote: The unions served a grand and noble purpose... in their day. They got better, safer working conditions, largely rid the nation of child labor and got workers better, more fair pay. - Kicked Out of County, Darth Union Strikes Back
Dear Comrade Jeff,
I’m tired of hearing that as an excuse for bad union behavior.
The truth is that many segments of society, including, labor, would have done better without unions.
Unions in fact were one of the worst abusers of African Americans in our country. Even today, Jim Crow laws passed with union support, like the Davis-Bacon Act, hurt minority communities.
“The Act was passed with the specific intent of preventing non-unionized black and immigrant laborers from competing with unionized white workers for scarce jobs during the Depression,” writes the Institute for Justice. “This invidious law continues to have devastating discriminatory effects, as minorities tend to be vastly underrepresented in highly unionized skilled trades, and over-represented in the pool of unskilled workers who would benefit, if the prevailing wage laws were abolished.”
When you add in union criminality and the government corruption they have engendered, they are a net negative.
Do you think that in our Republic, with democratically elected representatives, that workers could only secure rights through unions?
How have other groups, like women, made such strides without the government granting the National Organization for Women the monopoly power of representing women in all things womanly?
Unions are a relic from a time when organizing large bodies of people was cost prohibitive. That was only a fifty year period.
Ericynot wrote: Tax policy, unless extreme, does not drive investment except at the margins. Potential reward and risk drive investing. Right now I have money on the sidelines, not because I'm worried about paying too much in taxes if I make a good return, but because the economy is fragile and it's not at all clear what investments make sense. Therefore, I tend to stick these days with short term things that have limited upside, but also less downside risk. Once the election is past and -- hopefully -- the Eurozone stabilizes, maybe investors will be less nervous about committing money, but for now most markets (real estate, stocks, bonds, etc.) look pretty shaky to me. – Thomas Sowell’s Capital Gains Taxes
Dear Comrade Y,
That’s just foolish. What a crock of crap. Taxes always play a part in investment decisions, hence the behavioral changes when dealing with long-term and short-term capital gains.
When I heard Warren Buffet say that tax policy made no difference in investment decisions, I concluded that he should have died ten years ago. He could have been a legend. Instead he’ll spend the remainder of his life as a caricature of the white, guilty, liberal, rich guy.
Yatchsman388 wrote: That Maryland governor said it best, Romney's plan is "'eat cake, lose weight". -If You Want a Real Democrat, Vote for Republican Boustany
Dear Admiral Boat Snob,
Yes, you have been promoted.
I won’t agree that that adequately characterizes Romney’s plans. But what if it did?
Who wouldn’t want to eat cake and lose weight?
What’s Obama’s alternative?
“Eat no cake, gain weight!” or “All the calories, none of the taste!” or “I eat cake, you gain weight!”
Doctor Roy wrote: That's fine, Dan. You have conceded my main point that both sides have elected representatives that don't deserve to be there. That's all I'm looking for. -If You Want a Real Democrat, Vote for Republican Boustany
Dear Comrade Doctor,
And you have conceded my main point that the representatives on both sides of the asile who don’t deserve to be there, don’t deserve to be there because they act like Democrats.
DickK wrote: Dear Ransom, What does that tangle of words say? "France’s “No Limit” Tax Perfect for Zero" Would you kindly explain how you devised such code.- France’s “No Limit” Tax Perfect for Zero
Dear Comrade K,
I avoided the cheap shot.
France= Socialist country in Eurozone with largest government burden.
No Limit= no…limit…
Tax= Tax
“No Limit” Tax= unlimited taxation.
Perfect= Perfect, this is is implied, as in “Is Perfect.”
For Zero= both for the zero growth rate of the French economy and Barack Obama, who is commonly referred to as Zero. It’s kind of a play on words.
So…”France’s new policy of unlimited taxation is both great for the zero growth GDP France is experiencing and for Barack Obama, also known as Zero.”
But I have to turn that into a headline.
Nawlins72 wrote: Ransom learned his history from a conservative comic book, filled with mythology and nostalgia of things that never were. The "Greatest Generation" gave us ALL of the major social programs that are crushing the US today, and they cheered for it with glee, while voting for FDR FOUR TIMES!! But you go on praising them, John, while claiming their children are the "Entitlement Generation". Don't want to tarnish the script. - Freedom or Ruin
Dear Comrade Nawlins,
Well, the Greatest Generation may have made many mistakes. But their biggest mistake was not having the benefit of hindsight.
As William Manchester explained in his memoir of the war Goodbye Darkness, “Had we been told that practitioners of oral sodomy wanted to live together openly, with the approval of society, and insisted on being called ‘gay,’ we would have guffawed. That just wasn’t one of the rights we were fighting for.”
But they did fight, and they did make it through a tough depression without much of the whining we have going on today.
Even Roosevelt had grave reservations about the wisdom of Social Security. He originally opposed it.
And if you don’t know that you would do a lot better reading comics than you would revising history on the basis on whatever books you read.
KJQ wrote: Good article, John. The problem with this 'battle' is that we conservatives are outnumbered roughly 2-to-1, and the other side has the only "force multiplier" in the battle - the mainstream media, on their side. - Freedom or Ruin
Dear KJQ,
The force multiplier has been there since TV began to dominate in the 1960s.
The internet has effectively canceled that force multiplier advantage for the other side.
The difference today isn’t the force multiplier, but our awareness that it exists. And the ability to fight back against establishment press.
The greatest moment in the late history of the 20th Century was the divestiture of AT&T. Everything from cell phones, to the internet, to social media, to the Tea Party grew out of that one event.    

Could This Be Like Nixon In 1972? ^ | October 7, 2012 | Austin Hill

President Richard Nixon won a second term in the White House, by being the avenger of left-wing cultural chaos.
Will challenger Mitt Romney win a first term as President, because he provides a similar alternative?
This year’s election will mark the fortieth anniversary of another historic contest. In November of 1972 President Richard Nixon defeated his opponent George McGovern in the Electoral College by a landslide margin of 49 states to 1. Setting the U.S. presidential record for the widest margin of victory among the popular vote, Nixon received nearly 18 million more votes than McGovern.
While Nixon is most often remembered for his downfall and near-impeachment following his second inauguration, his re-election victory – and the cultural conditions that led up to it – was nonetheless dramatic. And in an age where overwhelming majorities believe that America is “heading in the wrong direction,” it’s worth noting how concerns of “right and wrong” shook the election of 40 years ago – and how these concerns might play out this year.
During Nixon’s first term, a great awakening began among a broad sector of the American population. After decades of having been disengaged from politics and public policy debates, and without much in the way of formal organization, millions of faith-based Americans—at that time mostly white, middle-class, Protestant and evangelical Christians—had become increasingly alarmed at the cultural trends and growing civil unrest of the late 1960's and early 1970's.
The challenges to marriage and Judeo-Christian sexual norms posed by the so-called “sexual revolution;” the youthful rebellion against societal authority structures brought about by the so-called “hippie” culture; and the Vietnam War protests by the first generation of American youth who thought it was something less than “honorable” to fight on behalf of the country—all these developments and others proved to be quite unnerving to these millions of Americans.
In the midst of this upheaval, Nixon delivered an important address to the nation during his first term in office, on November 3, 1969. In the speech, Nixon famously made reference to a so-called “silent majority” of Americans—people who supposedly agreed with him on issues of culture, “law and order,” and his desire to fight back against Communism, even though the views of this “silent majority” were largely ignored by political, media, and academic elites.
In using the “silent majority” language, Nixon sought to politically awaken and unify this huge chunk of the American population that had little or no voice in American media and who often did not vote. This sector of American society was very real, and very frustrated by what they believed was a degradation of America and its institutions. Nixon successfully conveyed that he understood those frustrations, and the bond he created with the “silent majority” helped bring about his landslide re-election.
So does today’s cultural upheaval compare to that of 40 years ago? There’s no doubt that the United States of 2012 is quite different from the country Nixon served.
In 1972 the nation’s population was slightly over 200 million, while today there are over 314 million of us. In 1972 over 80% of the American population was White and of European descent. Today, according to some demographic reports, Whites make up as little as 74% of the population, while there is universal agreement that this majority is rapidly eroding.
In 1972 roughly 90% of Americans identified themselves as Christian. Today that figure is approximately 73%, as other religions, and a preference for no religious affiliation at all, become more prevalent.
So the United States of 2012 is more racially and ideologically pluralistic than was Nixon’s America. Yet concerns about the degradation of America are as prevalent today as they were in 1972. And while the radicalized influences that sought to upend the foundations of America were playing out on college campuses and in local communities across the country forty years ago, today they are in the White House, itself, and Americans sense the dangers that this poses.
Despite his promises of unifying America, President Barack Obama has exacerbated our divisions and violated many of our common understandings of right and wrong. When Arizona and Alabama sought two years ago to clarify the rule of law as it regards legal and illegal immigration, our President sided with the U.N., China, the dictator of Venezuela and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in opposing these two states, and then punished the residents there with costly federal lawsuits.
When South Carolina and Florida pursued voter ID laws so as to prevent non-citizens from voting, President Obama sued them to prevent the laws from being implemented. When Ohio sought to streamline early voting for military service personnel, President Obama sued Ohio to stop the troops from voting.
President Obama praises government employees, but calls private business owners “greedy.” As his policies have expanded government dependency, removed the work requirement for welfare, decreased the workforce participation rate and run-up over $5 trillion in deficit spending, he insists that he is moving our country “forward.”
Mr. Obama has undercut our nation’s ally Israel in the Middle East, but calls militant Islamists in the region our “friends” – even as they kill American civilians, military personnel, and a U.S. Ambassador (Christopher Stevens). And while his predecessor oversaw the construction of an offshore detention center (Guantanamo Bay) in which to detain and interrogate foreign terror suspects, President Obama has sought to welcome those very dangerous characters into the domestic U.S. and grant them access to American courts.
Indeed, we are surrounded by left-wing cultural chaos. What was once wrong is now right, and right is now wrong, in Obama’s America. If Mitt Romney can continue to convince America that he is as keenly aware of America’s degradation as millions of the rest of us are, he may find a majority of us standing with him in November.