Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Is There a Fix in for the Vice Presidential Debate?

Pajamas Media ^ | 10/10/2012 | Bryan Preston

Posted By Bryan Preston On October 10, 2012 @ 8:29 am In media,Politics | 52 Comments
The Daily Caller has a disturbing story up today. The outline goes like this: The moderator of Thursday's vice presidential debate is Martha Raddatz of ABC News. She is the network's senior foreign correspondent, and she is the sole moderator of the veep debate, which will center on foreign policy.
Raddatz has a connection with Barack Obama going all the way back to their days at Harvard. They worked on the Harvard Law Review together, and Obama attended her 1991 wedding. Fast forward to the present, and President Obama has appointed Raddatz's husband, Julius Genachowski, to the Federal Communications Commission. Genachowski is also an Obama campaign bundler, meaning that he is a major fundraiser for the president's re-election effort. That storyline alone raises questions of corruption and rewarding political supporters with powerful federal posts. Yet ABC insists that Raddatz has no conflict of interest in moderating the debate.
As if that all wasn't bad enough, the Caller raised all of this with ABC on Monday but the network stonewalled. It finally admitted Raddatz’s connections to Obama, but only after ABC went to Politico, the Daily Beast, and the Huffington Post to get some damage control printed on those liberal sites first.
Is this how an allegedly neutral news network should behave?
This is the kind of story a Jake Tapper would ordinarily raise in a White House press briefing, but whoops! Tapper works for ABC. And whoops! the Obama White House quietly scuttled press briefings a couple of weeks ago. The White House press corps didn’t even raise a fuss about that.
Thursday’s debate, as I mentioned earlier, is supposed to center on foreign policy. Right now the Obama administration is embroiled in what looks very much like a cover-up regarding the sacking in Benghazi. But Vice President Biden has, so far, managed to escape any scrutiny or questions about what happened in Benghazi and who knew what and when. Will moderator Martha Raddatz grill Biden about this very serious foreign policy question, or will she let him off the hook?
In the wake of last week’s presidential debate, many on the left assailed debate moderator Jim Lehrer for his performance as a way of distracting from President Obama’s weak showing. Raddatz surely knows this. Her husband’s status with the Obama campaign plus her own longstanding connection to the president himself suggests where her political sympathies lie. She has to know that if she aggressively questions Biden, she stands a strong chance of being ripped by the left as Lehrer was.
Her and her husband’s connections to Obama plus ABC’s behavior suggest that there is a fix in for Thursday’s vice presidential debate. If Raddatz does not press Biden hard about Libya, America will know that that debate was rigged to favor the Obama administration.

Actual AP Headline: 'Experts: Global Warming Means More Antarctic Ice'

News Busters ^ | October 10, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

For many years, climate realists have pointed to expanding ice in Antarctica as a counter to the claim that decreasing ice in the Arctic is necessarily proof of anthropogenic global warming.
The folks at the Associated Press on Wednesday came up with an unbelievable answer to that in an article unbelievably titled "Experts: Global Warming Means More Antarctic ice":
While the North Pole has been losing sea ice over the years, the water nearest the South Pole has been gaining it. Antarctic sea ice hit a record 7.51 million square miles in September. That happened just days after reports of the biggest loss of Arctic sea ice on record.
Climate change skeptics have seized on the Antarctic ice to argue that the globe isn't warming and that scientists are ignoring the southern continent because it's not convenient. But scientists say the skeptics are misinterpreting what's happening and why.
Shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic this time of year — both related to human activity — are probably behind the increase in ice, experts say.
Author Seth Borenstein then predictably cited scientists supporting this truly amazing concept that anthropogenic global warming can melt ice in one hemisphere while creating it in another.
Real Science's Steve Goddard said in an email, "It is the new kind of ice which is created by heat, rather than cold."
Yes, the climate alarmists have once again concocted a "Heads we win, tails you lose" scenario.
Read more:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ryan says he feels 'good' about debate versus Biden

nbcnews ^ | October 20, 2012 | Alex Moe

ST. PETERSBURG, FL – Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan says he feels “good” and is “looking forward” to the only VP debate of election, taking place in Kentucky in fewer than 36 hours.
“I am looking forward to giving people a very clear choice,” Ryan told reporters during a quick stop to Old Farmer’s Creamery. “Look, Joe Biden has been on this stage many times, this is my first time so sure it is a nervous situation because Joe Biden is one of the most experienced debaters we’ve had in modern politics. But the Achilles Heel he has is President Obama’s record and I am really looking forward to giving the American people a very clear choice. “
Ryan said he was not upset about what his running mate said Tuesday to the Des Moines Register editorial board. Romney told the newspaper “there’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”
“Look, no positions have changed, our position is very consistent,” Ryan responded.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Bret Baier's Benghazi timeline was a complete damning indictment of Obama Administration

Wow, Bret Baier just presented a well documented timeline on the Obama Administration's disgusting behavior regarding the death of our Ambassador and others in Libya.
It was positively devastating!
He notes that the State Department had already concluded that there were absolutely NO protests outside the embassy and the attack was a coordinated terrorist attack. Then, AFTER THAT, Hillary stood next to the Ambassador's dead body and denounced the stupid YouTube video that she KNEW had nothing to do with it.
Then AFTER THAT, Obama went on David Letterman to condemn this completely irrelevant video.
Then Susan Rice went on five separate Sunday morning talk shows and repeatedly stated that it was NOT a terrorist attack, but protests about the video that got out of hand.
This was FIVE freaking days after the State Department and the White House knew this was a lie.
Clips of various FoxNews reports about the lack of protests, or various politicians stating that they had been informed unequivocally that it was a coordinated terrorist attack days before the Obama Administration continued to sell their pack of lies.
If the report becomes available on the Fox website, email links to everybody you know, especially fence sitters. It's not a lot of new information, but presented in such a manner as to form a completely devastating indictement of the Administration.
What an absolute disgrace!
Baier also notes that the NY Times, for days, never mentioned terrorism or al Qaeda after the foreign press and Fox News had been reporting the proven connections.
Contrary to the image they have of themselves, daily NY Times readers are among the worst informed people on earth.

New O’Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping activist vote twice!

Daily Caller ^ | 10/10/2012 | Matthew Boyle

Videographer James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas caught an official for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign helping who she thought was an Obama supporter set herself up to vote more than once in November.

Stephanie Caballero is the regional field director for Obama’s Organizing For America in Houston, Texas. Federal Election Commission documents show, according to Project Veritas, that Caballero is a “salaried employee of the DNC [Democratic National Committee].”

Caballero is caught on camera helping the young woman try to vote in Florida and Texas in the upcoming election.

Read more:

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Flunks Economics 101, Turns Desperate and Dishonest! ^ | October 10, 2012 | Donald Lambro

WASHINGTON - Finally, a pollster asked voters the one question that matters in this presidential election: Does Barack Obama know how to fix the economy?

When the Pew Research Center asked that question in the days following Mitt Romney's strong performance in last week's presidential debate, a majority of the voters answered, no.
The central failure of Obama's presidency centers on his demonstrated inability to restore the economy to full health and vigor after trillions of dollars in job stimulus spending that created few jobs but added $5 trillion to the federal debt.
Pew put the question to likely voters this way: Do you agree or disagree with the criticism that "Obama doesn't know how to turn the economy around?"
A 54 percent majority agreed that he didn't know how to rebuild our economy while 44 percent diehard supporters disagreed.
While Romney voters were nearly unanimous with this dim view of Obama's questionable capabilities, 11 percent of Obama voters "share this view," Pew reported Monday.
Notably, a sizable share of swing voters, by a margin of 54 percent to 39 percent, agreed Obama does not know how to strengthen the economy and get it back on track.
The Pew poll, and other post-debate surveys, found that Romney's performance in the debate erased Obama's lead and dramatically changed the way voters perceived his Republican challenger.
A whopping 66 percent of voters said Romney turned in a far better performance than Obama in Wednesday's debate, compared to 20 percent who said that about Obama.
Romney "is now better regarded on most personal dimensions and on most issues than he was in September," Pew said. He "is seen as the candidate who has new ideas and is viewed as better able than Obama to improve the jobs situation and reduce the budget deficit."
If there was any question of Obama's incompetence on economic policy, it was reconfirmed in Friday's weak jobs report. The economy added 114,000 jobs in September, fewer than the 142,000 jobs in August, and fewer still than the jobs created in July.
While the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent, it did not indicate the economy was suddenly getting stronger or growing at a faster rate. A chief reason behind the rate's decline was the number of self-employed jumped dramatically, says business economist Peter Morici at the University of Maryland.
"With the economy growing so slowly, many of these [newly self- employed Americans] are likely workers laid off during the economic collapse who have established home-based businesses," Morici writes in his latest analysis.
The paramount reason the unemployment rate has fallen from its 10 percent peak in October 2009 "has been accomplished through a significant drop in the percentage of adults participating in the labor force -- either working or looking for work," Morici said.
If the labor participation rate were the same today, as it was four years ago, the real unemployment rate would be 10 percent.
The truth is the economy has dramatically slowed down in the past year and Obama doesn't have a plan at present to turn it around anytime soon. The jobs plan he proposed earlier this year was a rehash of his 2009 plan to spend more money on public works infrastructure and temporary tax credits. The plan was dismissed even by his own party in the Senate.
Obama is running on the fictitious claim the economy is moving "forward," when our chief economic measurement -- the gross domestic product -- shows GDP's been falling backward since January.
GDP grew at 2.0 percent in the first quarter of this year, then declined to 1.7 percent in the second quarter which was revised down to 1.3 percent at the end of September as consumers pulled back on spending, and factory orders fell. The third quarter growth rate is likely to be somewhere north of 1 percent.
Obama is still telling voters in his stump speeches that factory jobs are coming back under his economic policies, but manufacturing lost 16,000 jobs last month after falling by 22,000 jobs in August.
Who's being dishonest now?
"Even at 7.8 percent, the joblessness rate remains high by any historical standard. And it could be years before the economy returns to full employment," the Washington Post reported Saturday.
The economy's precipitous decline has shaken Obama's high command and there's a tone of desperation and even dishonesty in the president's speeches and TV ads.
"Now Governor Romney believes that with even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy, and fewer regulations on Wall Street, all of us will prosper. In other words, he'd double down on the same trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place," says a new Obama TV spot.
But the notion that the Bush tax cuts "led" to the 2008 financial crisis doesn't hold water. When the Post's Fact Checker Glenn Kessler sought the source for this claim, the Obama campaign pointed to a column by the Post's liberal economic writer Ezra Klein who told Kessler, "I am absolutely not saying the Bush tax cuts led to the financial crisis. To my knowledge, there's no evidence of that."
Kessler gave the Obama ad three Pinocchios, saying "the president really stretches the limits here."
But dishonesty permeates Obama's economic claims from beginning to end. While he touts last month's 114,000 jobs, as he has previous small job gains, the truth is these are very weak gains and nowhere near turnaround levels.
The economy would have to produce over 375,000 jobs a month for three years to reduce the employment rate to a more normal range of about 6 percent. That's not going to happen under his anti-job policies.
"This is not what a real recovery looks like," Romney said after the unemployment report came out. He should know because turnarounds were what he did for a living throughout his successful business investment career.
This is what failure looks like when the president doesn't know what he's doing.

Medicaid Plan Shows that Obama’s an Enemy of the Poor ^ | October 10, 2012 | Peter Ferara

As in so much else, Progressives hold an outdated conception of the debate over entitlements. They conceive it as the Left supporting generous entitlements for seniors and the poor with no questions asked, no obligations expected, versus the right supporting no safety net at all, let private charity handle it, and if some of the poor have to starve, and some of the sick suffer or die without health care, because private charity is inadequate, so be it.

But modern, free market conservatives have built on Hayek's recognition that social safety nets are not inconsistent with free markets, and just reflect modern social responsibility. Free market conservatives today are advancing fundamental entitlement reforms that would actually serve seniors and the poor far better than today's outdated entitlement programs based on old fashioned, 19th century, tax and spend conceptions. These free market safety nets would be based on market competition, incentives, and individual choice. They would rely primarily on modern capital and labor markets to achieve their goals far more effectively. Their incentives would promote productive behavior that contributes to rather than detracts from economic growth and prosperity for all.
A case in point is Medicaid, the national entitlement program for the poor, to ensure that no one suffers without essential health care due to lack of money. That was one focus of the Presidential debate between Obama and Romney this week, in which Romney again thoroughly flummoxed an uninformed Obama, lost deep in the last century. That program is also a central component of the entitlement problem threatening to bankrupt the nation.
Financing for the program is shared with the states under a federal formula, with the Feds paying about 60% of the costs on average. That is a matching federal formula, with the feds sending more federal money to a state the more the state spends on the program. President Obama's budget projects federal Medicaid costs to total nearly $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years alone, just for this one program, with annual costs soaring by 127% over that time to nearly $600 billion by 2022.
The state costs would run roughly an additional two-thirds more. The National Association of State Budget Officers reports that states already spend more on Medicaid than anything else - even K-12 education programs. The federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that total federal and state costs just for Medicaid alone will be over $800 billion by 2019.
Because of the false genius of Obamacare, 85 million Americans will soon be on Medicaid, growing to nearly 100 million by 2021, according to CBO, up from roughly 60 million today. That, of course, is contributing greatly to the exploding costs of the program.
Yet, Medicaid pays doctors and hospitals only 60% or less of costs for their health services to the poor. Consequently, the poor on Medicaid face grave difficulties in obtaining timely and essential health care, and suffer worse health outcomes as a result. Scott Gottlieb of the New York University School of Medicine writes in a March 10, 2011 commentary in the Wall Street Journal ("Medicaid Is Worse Than No Coverage at All"), "In some states, they've cut reimbursements to providers so low that beneficiaries can't find doctors willing to accept Medicaid." As a result, Gottlieb adds, "Dozens of recent medical studies show that Medicaid patients suffer for it. In some cases, they'd do just as well without health insurance."
The deathly problem was illustrated by the case of 12 year old Deamonte Driver, from a poor Maryland family on Medicaid. When Deamonte complained of a toothache, his mother tried to find a dentist who would take Medicaid. But only 900 out of 5,500 dentists in Maryland do. By the time she found one, and got the boy to the appointment, his tooth had abscessed, and the infection had spread to his brain. Now she needed to find a brain specialist who took Medicaid. Before she could find one, the boy was rushed to Children's Hospital for emergency surgery. He called his mother from his hospital room one night to say, "Make sure you pray before you go to sleep." In the morning, he was dead.
Romney and Ryan propose to address Medicaid by extending to the program the enormously successful 1996 welfare reforms of the old, New Deal, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. That reform returned the share of federal spending on AFDC to each state in the form of a "block grant" to be used in a new welfare program redesigned by the state based on mandatory work for the able bodied. Like Medicaid, federal funding for AFDC previously was based on a matching formula, with the federal government giving more to each state the more it spent on the program, effectively paying the states to spend more. The key to the 1996 reforms was that the block grants to each state were finite, not matching, so the federal funding did not vary with the amount the state spent. If a state's new program cost more, the state had to pay the extra costs itself. If the program cost less, the state could keep the savings. The reformed program was renamed Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
The reform was shockingly successful, exceeding even the predictions of its most ardent supporters. The old AFDC rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide, even more in states that pushed work most aggressively, as those formerly on the program went to work, or married someone who worked.
As a result, in real dollars total federal and state spending on TANF by 2006 was down 31% from AFDC spending in 1995, and down by more than half of what it would have been under prior trends. At the same time, because of the resulting increased work by former welfare dependents, the incomes of the families formerly on the program rose by 25%, and poverty among those families plummeted.
CBO scores extending these same reforms to Medicaid as saving $800 billion over 10 years. President Obama's response to this proposal in the debate was, "Governor Romney talked about Medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but effectively this means a 30 percent cut in the primary program that provides help for seniors in nursing homes, for kids who are with disabilities."
But it would not be accurate to say these 1996 reforms "cut AFDC by 50%." They reformed AFDC, benefiting the poor enormously, while saving taxpayers 50%. Similarly, it would not be accurate to say that extending these same reforms to Medicaid involves cutting Medicaid by $800 billion. It would reform Medicaid, benefiting the poor even more than the AFDC reforms, while saving taxpayers $800 billion over the first 10 years.
What the states could do under Romney's proposed reforms is shown by the example of Rhode Island, which received a broad waiver from federal Medicaid requirements in return for a fixed cap on federal financing for 5 years. The state turned to managed care, competitive bidding by health care providers, and comprehensive case management by private insurers for those on Medicaid. It shifted more long term care out of nursing homes to home and community-based care.
The Lewin Group, a top health care consulting firm, studied the reforms and concluded that they were "highly effective in controlling Medicaid costs" while improving "access to more appropriate services." Indeed, the state's costs were reduced by nearly 30% in the first 18 months alone. Yet the poor enjoyed assigned health providers to ensure they received essential care.
Alternatively, states could serve the poor by using the program to provide public assistance through Medicaid that would help the poor to pay for the private health insurance of their choice in the marketplace. Such premium support would free the poor from the Medicaid ghetto, enabling them to obtain the same health care as the middle class, because they would be able to buy the same health insurance in the market. Such market health insurance has to pay the doctors and hospitals sufficiently to enable those with that insurance to obtain timely, effective health care, or their insurance would have no customers. This would be an enormous gain for the poor. It would mean no more Deamonte Drivers.
Instead, President Obama's mad, mindless expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare would just make access to health care for the poor served by the program even more difficult, as tens of millions more swamp the offices of doctors and hospitals seeking care, when those doctors and hospitals don't want to, and financially can't, serve them for what Medicaid pays.
Obama's response to this Romney/Ryan Medicaid reform shows that Obama is ideologically rigid, and resistant to new ideas that present new, far more effective means for addressing the nation's problems from the past, old fashioned means. It shows that Obama is not open to entitlement reform that involves any significant reduction in spending, and in a second term will just seek to increase taxes to finance the still further enormous runup in federal spending due to runaway entitlements.

Advantage Ryan ^ | October 10, 2012 | Bob Barr

My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.

John Adams, First Vice President of the United States, 1793

Since our nation’s first vice president took his oath of office in 1789, the office in which John Adams labored under the shadow of George Washington has been much maligned. Despite the scorn that has been heaped upon this second highest office in the land, 14 of its alumni have gone on to become presidents; and every four years there recurs a mad scramble in both major political parties to secure the number two spot on the national ticket. Every quadrennial since 1976, the vice presidential contest has enjoyed its own national debate; usually sandwiched between the first and second of three debates between the nominees at the top of their party’s tickets.
This year is no different. The current vice president, former Senator Joe Biden, who debated Republican nominee Sarah Palin four years ago, had to endure weeks of speculation that he would be jettisoned for a second four-year term in favor of Hillary Clinton. Biden eventually emerged for a repeat. On the Republican side of the aisle, eventual nominee Mitt Romney and his advisors considered a lengthy dance card of possible running mates, before deciding on Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan shortly before the start of the GOP convention in Tampa.
Biden and Ryan are set to go the distance in a vice presidential debate tomorrow night at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. While vice presidential debates, like junior proms, never quite capture the excitement of the real thing, they have from time to time seriously wounded participants.
The first three vice presidential debates, in 1976, 1980 and 1984 quickly faded into the mist that surrounds most candidacies for that office. However, the 1988 bout between Democrat Lloyd Bentsen and Republican Dan Quayle – in which Bentsen belittled his opponent by asserting he was “no Jack Kennedy” – provided history’s first truly memorable one-liner birthed in a vice presidential debate. Bentsen’s condescending jab, and Quayle’s tepid response helped cement the latter’s reputation as an ineffective leader. Whether deserved or not., the incident hung over Quayle throughout his four-year tenure as vice president and his unsuccessful run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000.
Despite the lasting impact of Bentsen’s verbal decimation of Quayle in that 1988 debate, Bentsen and his running mate, Michael Dukakis, were overwhelmed in both the popular and electoral vote the next month.
Four years later, the vice presidential debate had far less lasting impact. The 1992 cycle is perhaps best remembered as the last time third-party or independent candidates were permitted by the two major parties to participate in the debates. Independent candidate Ross Perot fared well in his debates against incumbent George H.W. Bush and the eventual winner, Bill Clinton. However, Perot’s running made, retired Navy Admiral and Medal of Honor winner James Stockdale, fared decidedly less well. Stockdale was so painfully and obviously in over his head during his debate with Al Gore and Quayle, that his “15 minutes of fame” on October 13, 1992 did little more than propel him from obscurity to oblivion.
The most recent vice presidential debate – between Biden and Palin in 2008 – is best known for its lack of substance (the word “Constitution” was used only once, and then only in passing). The most memorable exchange was Palin’s opening gambit to call her Democrat opponent “Joe.” The debate never really progressed beyond that.
It is not likely the upcoming Biden-Ryan bout will suffer the same fate as these predecessors. Both candidates are energetic and experienced public speakers. While Ryan is clearly the younger of the two, Biden has been successful in projecting an image of energy and vitality. And, even though Ryan often is labeled a “policy wonk” because of his well-known love for and understanding of complex economic and budgetary programs, he has consistently demonstrated an ability to reach out to voters from across the demographic and educational spectra.
Biden has never been confused with being an intellectual or a “wonk.” Still, when not tripping over an ill-timed or poorly-considered one-liner, the Vice President has exhibited remarkable staying power over a lengthy career, and still carries strong appeal with traditional Democratic Party voter blocs.
The real difference in this vice presidential debate, however, will be the deep reservoir of Ryan’s knowledge of domestic budgetary, tax and entitlement programs; versus Biden’s broad but shallow familiarity with federal policies and programs. Importantly, Biden’s words often outpace his thoughts – a defect not exhibited by Ryan.
Biden may be an experienced puncher in the ring, but Ryan’s more methodical and strategically-designed style gives him a significant advantage. In the end, while Biden almost certainly will not put his Party’s core constituencies into apoplectic fits like President Obama did with his lackluster performance in the first presidential debate, his shallow grasp of the issues and his cavalier, almost condescending attitude, will prevent him from reaching those all-important undecided voters. Undecided and independent voters are much more likely to be swayed by Ryan’s substance and sincerity.
Advantage – Ryan.

Big Birds

Mr. Tinkle

Posted Image

Denver or Bust!

Posted Image

Not MY fault!

Posted Image

"your time is up"

Posted Image


Posted Image

Jim Lehrer's fault

Posted Image


Posted Image

Without Teleprompter

Posted Image

Obama Owns the Tax Increases!

 by sr4402

After Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for 2012, he now owns the Federal tax increase in 2013. 

But not only that, but he lowered the Social Security taxes for 2012, but has not for 2013, so he owns that increase as well. Beyond even that, he added costly rules to America health insurance, that of free surgery (Sterilizations) increasing Health Insurance Premiums even further.

So President Obama (and the Senate Democrats) own the 50% Federal tax increase on the working poor and the 30% Social Security tax increase upon all Americans. It goes without saying that he owns the increased Healthcare Insurance premiums from what he admitted in the last presidential debates as "Obamacare".

But the real question is whether Americans will recognize this before the election and punish him and the Democrats for it.

Missing in Action: Stimulus Sheriff Joe Biden ^ | October 10, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

Remember when President Obama bragged about Joe Biden's fiscal discipline cred in 2009? "To you, he's Mr. Vice President, but around the White House, we call him the Sheriff," Obama warned government employees. "Because if you're misusing taxpayer money, you'll have to answer to him."
Fast-forward to 2012. Call in the search teams. Since being appointed the nation's stimulus spending cop, Sheriff Joe has taken a permanent donut break. He's AWOL on oversight. In fact, he's been bubble-wrapped, boxed and kept completely out of sight. The garrulous gaffe machine hasn't sat down for a national media interview in five months.
The Democrats' trillion-dollar "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," however, keeps piling up waste, failure, fraud and debt. Who benefited most? Big government cronies.
According to Investor's Business Daily this week, a new analysis by Ohio State University economics professor Bill Dupor reported that "(m)ore than three-quarters of the jobs created or saved by President Obama's economic stimulus in the first year were in government."
Dupor and another colleague had earlier concluded that the porkulus was a predictable jobs-killer that crowded out non-government jobs with make-work public jobs and programs. Indeed, the massive wealth redistribution scheme "destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs" by siphoning tax dollars "to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment."
Will this Keynesian wreckage come up during Thursday night's vice presidential debate? It should be a centerpiece of domestic policy discussion. Nowhere is the gulf between Obama/Biden rhetoric and reality on jobs wider.
Remember: Obama's Ivy League eggheads behind the stimulus promised that "(m)ore than 90 percent of the jobs created are likely to be in the private sector." These are the same feckless economic advisers who infamously vowed that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent -- and that unemployment would drop below 6 percent sometime this year.
Sheriff Joe rebuked the "naysayers" who decried the behemoth stimulus program's waste, fraud and abuse. "You know what? They were wrong," he crowed.
But Biden was radio silent about the nearly 4,000 stimulus recipients who received $24 billion in Recovery Act funds -- while owing more than $750 million in unpaid corporate, payroll and other taxes. (Cash for Tax Cheats, anyone?)
He had nothing to say about the $6 billion in stimulus energy credits for homeowners that went to nearly a third of credit-claimers who had no record of homeownership, including minors and prisoners.
And the $530 million dumped into the profligate Detroit public schools for laptops and other computer equipment that have had little, if any, measurable academic benefits.
And the whopping $6.7 million cost per job under the $50 billion stimulus-funded green energy loan program -- which funded politically connected but now bankrupt solar firms Solyndra ($535 million), Abound Solar ($400 million), Beacon Power ($43 million), A123 ($250 million) and Ener1 ($119 million).
And the $1 million in stimulus cash that went to Big Bird and Sesame Street "to promote healthy eating," which created a theoretical "1.47" jobs. (As Sean Higgins of The Examiner noted, "(T)hat comes out to about $726,000 per job created.")
And the hundreds of millions in stimulus money steered to General Services Administrations junkets in Las Vegas and Hawaii, ghost congressional districts, dead people, infrastructure to nowhere and ubiquitous stimulus propaganda road signs stamped with the shovel-ready logo.
Of course, there's no example of unfettered stimulus squandering more fitting than the one named after Keystone Fiscal Kop Joe Biden himself. Government-funded Amtrak's Wilmington, Del., station raked in $20 million in "recovery" money after heavy personal lobbying by the state's most prominent customer and cheerleader. In return, the station (which came in $6 million over budget, according to The Washington Times) renamed its facility after Biden.
Bloated costs. Crony political narcissism. Glaring conflicts of interest. Monumental waste. This is the Obama/Biden stimulus legacy bequeathed to our children and their grandchildren. Sheriff Joe and his plundering boss need to be run out of town on a rail.

A Modest Proposal For Our Big Bird-Brained President

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 10/09/2012 | IBD Staff

Subsidies: With the economy faltering and Middle East unrest rising, President Obama acts as though the biggest issue facing the country is Mitt Romney's alleged threat to "Sesame Street." We have an idea for him.

According to a recent tally, Obama brought up either Big Bird or Elmo 13 times in speeches since last week's debate, in which Romney promised to end federal support for PBS and NPR.

That compares with zero mentions of how he plans to revive the economy, and no references to Libya. And he's now running an ad featuring Big Bird.
If Obama is going to treat the Americans like children, why doesn't he just go all the way and announce that, if re-elected, he'll name Muppets to Cabinet posts in a second term? They couldn't be any worse than those he has in those positions now.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

VP Debate Moderator Martha Raddatz Hosted President Obama at Wedding, Never Told Public!

Newsbusters ^ | 10/8/2012 | By Matthew Sheffield

The liberal media/politician/bureaucrat revolving door spins so rapidly, sometimes it's hard to keep pace. Today we learn via the Daily Caller that the moderator for tomorrow's vice presidential debate, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz, hosted President Obama as a guest at her 1991 wedding to the man who would later become Obama's FCC commissioner, Julius Genachowski.

That's shocking enough in its own right but things are further compounded by the fact that ABC News, home of veteran Democratic adviser George Stephanopolous, has long known about this conflict of interest and did nothing about it. Even worse, the network has actively tried to prevent the public from learning of it.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Universal Studios shocking show defames Romney, praises Obama! ^ | October, 10, 2012 | Marla Knowles

Florida voters need to know about the appalling attempts by Universal Studios in Orlando to influence the November election in favor of President Obama. Since the park hosts more than 6 million visitors a year, about 500,000 per month -- maybe double that during Halloween Horror Nights throughout October -- this isn’t a campaign to be taken lightly.

I went to Halloween Horror Nights last weekend and was shocked that Universal was using its amusement park as a political platform to reach the masses in favor of Obama and to slam Republican contender Mitt Romney in a show called “Bill and Ted’s Adventure.”

We went to the show thinking it was going to be centered on a movie by the same name. We had no idea its premise had an election theme. But at first, we thought it was going to be OK, since it was Bill and Ted who were running for election. Instead, though, the “show” turned into a 40-minute campaign rally for Obama, defaming Romney.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama's Foreign Policy - Stick His Head In The Sand!

Political Realities ^ | 10/10/12 | LD Jackson

For the past several days, I have thought a lot about the foreign policy tact being taken by the Obama administration. Those of you who have read my ramblings for any length of time will know how much I distrust militant Islam. I believe they can not be trusted to do the right thing. In fact, the only thing they can be trusted on is their determination to use violence to spread their ideology and twisted version of religion. I would challenge anyone to dispute that with real facts. It can not be done.
Since the killing of Osam bin Laden, President Barack Obama has touted his successes in foreign policy. To be sure, that was an accomplishment. It's terrible to say the killing of another human being is an achievement, but the man needed to be brought to justice. Anyone who thought bin Laden could have been captured alive is more than a little naive. Obama has told us how he has made us safer. He has ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan. To hear him tell it, al-Qaeda is rocking on its heels, about to go down for the count. We have prevailed, etc., etc., etc. Actually, I'm not so sure that is the case. There is every indication that the Islamic militants are simply biding their time. Waiting for us to leave, before they begin anew their push for Islamic supremacy, using violence as their tool of choice.
I'm not the only one who is questioning Obama's achievements. Of all people, a member of the media is talking about how those achievements are not so much. Of course, Lara Logan may have a different perspective than the rest of us. She has covered the Middle East for CBS for some time and to say she has been in the thick of the fight is putting it mildly. She suffered a violent sexual assault as the result of her being in the wrong place at the wrong time and who knows what other excuses were used to justify her rape. She is pulling no punches.
(Hot Air) Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They’re coming back. “I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban. …
“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”
Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports.
She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”
Looking at the history of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I would say this. We would be wise to heed the words of Lara Logan. Both of these groups have proven they can not be trusted to pursue peace in a real and meaningful way. They may play along for a while, if they believe they can gain an advantage, but when the truth boils out, they will still insist on their extreme ideology ruling and will not hesitate to use violence to make sure that happens. Lara Logan isn't the only person asking questions about the approach to foreign policy President Obama has taken. Representative Allen West takes a very direct tone when talking about what Obama has done wrong. We all know West says what he thinks and lets the chips fall where they may. This written opinion piece is no different.
(Human Events) President Barack Obama has built a foreign policy on trying to appease and make friends with America’s enemies, rather than facing them head on with strength and clear consequences for their actions. The president’s approach, marked by his belief that he could transition from a community organizer to a global organizer, has been an utter failure. The president has diminished our nation’s international influence and stature, and most egregiously, has put the lives of all Americans in peril. In the days since the attacks on our embassies and consulates on the 11th of September, we have seen a president and his administration demur, deflect, and mislead the American people. Vice President Joe Biden says on the campaign trail that “GM is alive, and Osama is dead.” Tragically, so is our Ambassador to Libya.
President Obama’s community organizer roots have given him a naïve assumption. He believes he can get everyone in one room and with time, they will all eventually get along. Anyone who studies history and understands the global threat America faces today, understands that in order for “peace, love and happiness,” not only do all parties involved need to be willing to try, but they actually have to have the same goal.
Allen West calls Obama's foreign policy dangerous. I have to agree. I have watched this policy unfold over a period of almost four years and the danger that lurks as a result is troubling. Instead of standing up for what we believe, we have equivocated and backpedaled away from what is right. There is nothing I dislike more than a bully and that is what Islamic extremism is. No matter if it is the Taliban or al-Qaeda, it is a bully. The only thing a bully understands is strength. The only way to stop a bully is to show them what will happen if they continue with their violent attempts to push their ideology onto the rest of us. The only thing Obama seems willing to do is to stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong. The only thing that is likely to accomplish is to get our heads, and other prominent parts of our bodies, blown off by the bully. It's time we pulled our heads out of the sand and let the bully know enough is enough. Giving Barack Obama another four years to work his magic isn't the way to do that. Looking the other way hasn't worked and that isn't going to change. It's time to let someone who knows enough to listen to the people who do know about these things have a chance to pull us out of the fire.

Huge Pile of Horse Manure Dumped At Democratic Headquarters (Warren County Ohio)

WKRC ^ | 10/9/12 | WKRC

Volunteers at the Warren County Democratic headquarters say they are shocked and disappointed by a political prank played on them early Tuesday morning.
Someone dumped a pile of horse manure in the parking lot of the headquarters building on U.S. 42, just north of Lebanon.
Warren County Democratic chair Beth Goldenfield tells Local 12 that the pile was dumped in the parking lot, blocking the entrance to the building, sometime between 10 p.m. Monday and 9 a.m. Tuesday. A report was filed by the party with the Warren County sheriff's department.
Goldenfield says no one has claimed responsibility for the prank. She says this election cycle has been "very contentious", and says an unprecedented number of party signs have been stolen leading up to today's incident. Goldenfield goes on to say, "It's really unfortunate that people can't have respectful disagreements... We're not going to be discouraged by it. It's just very disappointing. It will probably motivate our people even more but it's also a very disrespectful thing to do."
The building does have security cameras. Goldenfield says the building landlord cleaned up the mess, and the party will not have to pay for the cleanup.