Friday, August 31, 2012

Busload of undocumented U.S. residents to protest at DNC!

The Charlotte Observer ^ | Tuesday, Jul. 31, 2012 | Carmen Cusido and Fred Clasen-Kelly

A busload of undocumented immigrants illegal aliens has departed for Charlotte, on its way to protest during the Democratic National Convention.

The occupants will risk deportation to demonstrate in Mecklenburg County, where sheriff’s deputies check the immigration status of people who are arrested. The group will join hundreds of other illegal immigrants who could march during the convention, protest organizers said.

Some 30 men and women left Sunday from Phoenix on a multistate tour that will cut through states such as Alabama and Georgia that have passed some of the nation’s toughest immigration laws. The bus will arrive in Charlotte just before the Democratic National Convention starts in September.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

A gold medal for Romney in Tampa!

Fox News ^ | August 31, 2012 | Wayne Allyn Root

Never underestimate your opponent. The guy everyone in the media was sure was “stiff, boring, and unlikeable” just pulled off the upset of the year…of the decade…maybe of the century. Mitt Romney used his experience at staging the Olympics to upstage and out-shine Barack Obama Thursday night in Tampa. To put it bluntly, he pulled off the impossible: Mitt out Obama-ed Obama!

How did Mitt do it? With stories. Mitt learned the most important lesson running the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah. The lesson is that Olympics aren’t about sports. They are about hundreds of compelling stories -- each of them bringing tears to your eyes. Each of them is really about God, faith, family and country.
The same lesson applies to politics. It isn’t about policies. It’s about riveting and compelling stories that connect with the American people. And Mitt learned well enough to earn a gold medal on Thursday night.
Mitt "out Obama-ed Obama" with a diversity no GOP convention has ever seen. A diversity that, to be honest let me flabbergasted.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Romney rocks Obama like a hurricane!

Flopping Aces ^ | 08-31-12 | DrJohn

I think it's likely over, but as Glenn would advise- don't get cocky.
Coming off a terrific Republican National Convention Mitt Romney decided to visit New Orleans, which is suffering the aftereffects of Hurricane Isaac.

LAKELAND, Fla. — In a last-minute change of plans, Mitt Romney will head to visit storm-affected areas in New Orleans today, skipping a previously scheduled joint rally with running mate Paul Ryan in the battleground state of Virginia this afternoon. A Romney aide told ABC News that Romney will “join Gov. Jindal and will meet with first responders, thank them for their work and see areas impacted by the storm in LaFitte, La.”
Jindal cancelled his plans earlier this week to attend the Republican National Convention after Hurricane Isaac moved up the Gulf Coast and wreaked damage across Louisiana. Two deaths have been reported in Louisiana as a result of the storm and widespread damage and flooding. The storm hit on the seven-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
Obama at first had no plans to visit New Orleans

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki told POLITICO earlier Friday that the president had no plans yet to visit the Gulf state and review damage from Hurricane Isaac, even though Mitt Romney announced plans to visit Friday.
But Romney sprung the trap

President Barack Obama was today forced to announce he will fly to storm-hit Louisiana on Monday – hours after Mitt Romney beat him to the punch by deciding to head there this afternoon. After it emerged that Obama was still taking time to fit in a campaign stop in Cleveland, Ohio before checking out how clean-up operations are proceeding in the Bayou state, the Obama campaign abruptly cancelled that event.
The White House scrambled and sputtered something about Obama having plans to visit New Orleans before Romney did but they were kept a national secret. Not even the campaign spokeswoman knew about them.

The First lady acknowledged the damage done to New Orleans by appearing on “Late Show with David Letterman,” “Dr. Oz,” and “Rachael Ray.” She did her part.

If you think Obama had plans to go to New Orleans you're goofy.

(Excerpt)


D.C. Insider | August 31, 2012 | GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

Here it is, folks!

Here's the revised and official schedule of events for the Democrat National Convention, to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, from Tuesday to Thursday, September 4th to September 6th, 2012.:

PLEASE NOTE: Race card, gender card, LGBT card or progressive, socialist, communist, fascist or Marxist sympathies or affiliation required for entry to this event (All employees of the major television networks granted immediate entry).

04:00 PM – Opening Flag Burning Ceremony

04:05 PM - 'The Word.. The Word.. The Word' - By Nancy Pelosi

04:06 PM – Singing of "God Damn America", led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright

04:10 PM – 'Pledge of Allegiance to Obama', led by The Obamabots:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of Sodomites to the degenerates for which it stands one Nation Under Sodomy with Liberty and Justice Only for Sodomites.

04:15 PM – 'I Hate America' Choir, led by Michelle Obama

04:30 PM – Tips on Dodging Sniper Fire – Hillary Clinton
04:45 PM – 'I am Woman', performed by Helen Reddy, Janet Napolitano, Sonia Sotomayor & Elena Kagan
05:00 PM – UFO Abduction Survival – Joe Biden
05:15 PM - Ceremonial Abortion Performed on Sandra Fluke by Planned Parenthood
05:30 PM – Eliot Spitzer & Anthony Weiner Speak on "Family Values" via Satellite
05:45 PM – Tribute to All 57 States, sponsored by Columbia University
06:00 PM – 'Best of Biden's Bloopers' - Joe Biden

06:45 PM - (Intermission)

07:00 PM - 'Best of Biden's Bloopers (Cont'd) - Joe Biden

08:00 PM - Document Forging, Identity Theft & Ghost Writing - Alex Okrent (Replaced by Bill Ayers)
08:30 PM – 'Rite of Arab Spring' (Crucifixion of Christians) performed by Muslim Brotherhood
09:00 PM – Bill Clinton Delivers Rousing Endorsement of Obama Girl
09:15 PM – Tribute Film to Freedom Fighters at GITMO – Michael Moore
09:45 PM – Personal Finance & Tax Seminar - Charlie Rangle & Timothy Geithner
10:00 PM – Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners in a "Nation of Cowards" - Eric Holder
10:30 PM – Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for Iraq & Afghanistan
11:00 PM – Obama Energy Plan Symposium & Tire Gauge Demonstration, performed by The Solyndras
11:15 PM – 'Free Gov. Blagojevich' rally
11:30 PM – Obama Accepts Tony and Latin Grammy Awards
11:45 PM – Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish – Obama Presiding
12:00 AM – Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher
12:01 AM – Obama Accepts Nomination for Lord and Savior
12:05 AM – Celestial Choirs Sing
03:00 AM – Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech (Big F'ing Deal)

On the seventh day God created man, on the eighth religion. On the ninth day the Devil said he’d organize it, turned and created the Democratic Party.

Biden to table of Greek men: “I’m Joe Bidenopoulos”

Hotair ^ | 08/31/2012 | AllahPundit

There are two categories of Biden idiocies, the ones that are genuinely offensive ("They gon' put y'all back in chains") and the ones that aren't really offensive but would certainly be treated that way if he was a Republican. This one is a category two, I think, although admittedly the line is fine. If he went up to a table of Italian men and called himself "Joe Bidini," that's probably okay. If he went up to a table of Jewish men and called himself "Joe Bidenstein," a little dodgier. If he went up to a table of Chinese men and called himself "Joe Wang," he'd be in trouble even though, let's face it, a lot of people would giggle.

I like to imagine him saying this in that funny Indian accent he sometimes uses:
Approaching a table of men he knew to be Greek, the VP said, “I’m Joe Bidenopoulos.”
“Ask George,” he said – unclear who George was, maybe someone at the table –“who’s the most Greek Irishman he’s ever known.” Sounded like Biden was suggesting he is.
He moved on to a table of three women, sitting down briefly, before moving on to one where two women were sitting.
“Let’s dance,” he said to one, named Jennifer, as she stood up right next to him. They posed for a photo before he turned to her tablemate, who was wearing scrubs, and asked, ‘Are you a nurse?” He then sat down and started speaking to her quietly, presumably about nurses.
Then, he posed with a group of restaurant staff and owners, and was talking about Greek food and rice pudding.
“Can I get some rice pudding to go?” he asked, just before the pool was ushered out at 1:05 p.m. Now holding in van.
Not sure how the pool reporter knew that Biden knew the men at the table were Greek. The story’s actually a lot funnier if you assume that he didn’t. But oh well. Kudos to whoever wrote this report for capturing the essence of the man. The “rice pudding” line really tops off his stream-of-consciousness doofishness perfectly.
Six days left until the liberal dream of Vice President Hillary officially dies, my friends. Tick tock.

Confirmed: Line-up of speakers at Democratic convention is simply terrible!

by Allahpundit

Ace wrote about this yesterday but I didn’t have time to look at the list until now. Go see for yourself. I went through it being as objective as I could about who might be interesting to watch as a young, impressive, highly touted leader of the future in the Rubio, Ryan, Christie, Jindal, Susana Martinez, Rand Paul, Brian Sandoval, Mia Love mold. Out of a list of 75 or so names, here’s what I’ve got — and I’m stretching even on some of these, just so that I’ve got something.

– Cory Booker, who hasn’t held statewide office;
– Julian Castro, who also hasn’t held statewide office but apparently is the best Democrats can do by way of a Rubio-esque Latino political rising star;
– Tammy Baldwin, who’s far left even by the standards of the House Democratic caucus and is highly likely to lose to Tommy Thompson in this year’s Wisconsin Senate race;
– Kamala Harris, the AG of California and certified union stooge, who’ll likely follow Jerry Brown as Democratic administrator of the state’s Greece-like fiscal disintegration
That’s basically it. I’m a little curious to see Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, just because he’s scrapped with Chris Christie a few times. And of course there’s Fauxcahontas, the great liberal hope of the future, who’s already 63 and has run a sufficiently dismal campaign that she’s trailing Scott Brown in the bluest of blue states. Beyond that, it’s nothing but no-names; exhausted party retreads a la Pelosi and Kerry; Charlie Crist and Linc Chafee for comic relief; and a few NARAL/Planned Parenthood types to remind America what’s really important with unemployment still stuck above eight percent. That’s what’s on tap this year from the Party of Youth and Fresh Ideas.
Exit question: Where’s Andrew Cuomo?

Republicans Endorse Platform Language to Dismantle Most of the Federal Government! ^ | August 30, 2012 | Daniel J. Mitchell

I wish the Republican Platform was binding.

Why? Because the GOP, for all intents and purposes, has just proposed to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, agencies, and departments.

More specifically, they endorsed the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means they put themselves on record in favor of getting rid of all federal spending and intervention that is inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited central government.

Here’s some of the story, as reported by The Hill,
All federal spending should be reviewed to ensure powers reserved for the states are not given to the federal government, according to the GOP platform approved Tuesday. The platform language is meant to ensure all federal spending meets the requirements of the 10th amendment, which prohibits state powers from being given to the feds. “We support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational inefficiencies, or abuse of power to determine whether they are performing functions that are better performed by the States,” the platform reads. “These functions, as appropriate, should be returned to the States in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

For those of you who don’t have your Cato Institute picket Constitutions handy, here’s what the 10th Amendment says.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the 10th Amendment is basically a back-up plan to re-emphasize that the federal government was prohibited from exercising power in any area other than what is specified in the enumerated powers section of Article I, Section VIII.
And if you look at those enumerated powers, that pretty much invalidates much of what happens in Washington.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that the Republican platform will have less impact on a potential Romney presidency than this blog. In other words, Republicans don’t intend to live up to this promise. Heck, they don’t even know that they have such a position. That’s why I included the asterisk in the title and must draw your attention to this fine print.
*Offer not good when GOP holds power.
But I suppose it’s good that they included this language in the platform, even if it’s merely empty political rhetoric
P.S. If they did abide by the 10th Amendment, it means that Obamacare also would be repealed.
P.P.S. Yes, this implies limits on democracy. Our Founding Fathers, contrary to E.J. Dionne’s superficial analysis, were opposed to untrammeled majoritarianism and wanted to make sure 51 percent of the people couldn’t vote to rape and pillage 49 percent of the people.

Feds fail to catch 117,000 collecting disability and unemployment! ^ | August 30, 2012 | Phillip Swarts

As many as 117,000 Americans simultaneously collect unemployment benefits and federal disability each year, a form of double-dipping that investigators say costs taxpayers $850 million annually and should be ended.

The reason for the double-spending, investigators at the Government Accountability Office reported this week, is good old-fashioned lack of communication.

Put simply, the Labor Department that funds unemployment benefits and the Social Security Administration that funds disability payments don't compare notes, leavings tens of thousands of Americans each month to collect two checks from a stretched-thin government treasury.

"The government is replacing a portion of their lost earnings not once, but twice. Reducing or eliminating this overlap and potential improper payments could offer substantial savings," GAO warned.
Those who take advantage can make out quite well. One double-dipper identified by the GAO, for instance, wracked up a handsome $62,000 in 2010 by tapping both programs simultaneously, even though it appears the person also held a job, investigators found. Another received $107,000 in overlapping payments between 2008 and 2011, despite working for construction companies, auditors found.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Romney Leads, Obama Follows (no way to run a country!) ^ | 08/31/12 | CaroleL

After almost a full term in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama still has no idea how to be an effective American president. A little over 2 months before he could even get the job, Republican nominee Mitt Romney proved that he knows how it's done.

Last night Mr. Romney accepted his party's nomination with the words "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family." Today he is providing a real world example of the difference between himself and the self-absorbed, ineffective incumbent by travelling to Lafitte, Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Isaac. Mr. Romney will be touring an emergency command center with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal seeing that families will get the help they need. Meanwhile President Obama is in Texas for what the White House says is official business but even the mainstream media is calling "an election-year reminder" that the Iraq War ended under his watch.

Over the holiday weekend our Candidate-in-Chief will be jetting around the country. On Saturday he'll be campaigning in Iowa, on Sunday in Colorado and on Monday in Ohio. Only after Governor Romney announced his Friday trip to storm-damaged Louisiana did the president's spokesman hastily announce that Mr. Obama will do the same...after his campaign stop on Monday.

In the past four years we have learned the painful lesson that President Obama is not a leader. Just hours after he officially became the GOP nominee we learned that Mitt Romney is such a strong leader that the current president of the United States will follow him.

Obama turning people away from liberalism and to the right!

BI ^ | 08/30/2012 | Eric Zeusse

Under President Obama, there has been an unprecedentedly sharp, and first-ever, switch, to preferring the Republican Party, over the Democratic Party. In fact, the damage that has been done to the Democratic brand during the Obama Presidency, going from a historically normal Democratic ratio of 1.38 in 2008, down 39% to the present abysmal .83, exceeds the Republican fall-offs under each of George W. Bush’s terms, which declined from the Republican ratio of 1.41 in 2000, down 18% to 1.16 in 2004, and then down yet another 31% to the unprecedented low .80 in 2008, which virtually doomed the campaign of Presidential candidate John McCain, and made Obama’s win almost inevitable.
The Democratic brand has thus suffered even more (down 39%) under Obama than the Republican brand suffered under either one of George W. Bush’s terms (-16%, then -31%).

Though George W. Bush did major harm to the Republican brand, Barack Obama is out-doing him, hurting even steeper the Democratic brand, which historically (until now) has always been higher-valued than the Republican brand, not just in these pre-convention polls, but for decades in Party-allegiance.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Accused Fort Hood shooter makes first statement in court!

By Jennifer Rizzo, CNN

Maj. Nidal Hasan has made a statement in court for the first time ever.
Maj. Nidal Hasan has made a statement in court for the first time ever.
  • Maj. Nidal Hasan explains to judge why he hasn't shaved his beard
  • Army regulations require Hasan to be clean-shaven
  • He says shaving violates his Muslim beliefs; judge finds him in contempt
(CNN) -- The Army psychiatrist accused of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting told the military judge his Muslim faith requires him to wear a beard, marking the first time Maj. Nidal Hasan has made a statement in court.
"Your honor, in the name of almighty Allah, I am a Muslim," Hasan said. "I believe that my religion requires me to wear a beard."
Hasan made the statement after the presiding judge, Col. Gregory Gross, asked why he was still in contempt of court -- in other words, why Hasan hadn't shaved his beard, which is against Army regulations.
"I am not trying to disrespect your authority as a military a judge. And I am not trying to disrupt the proceedings or the decorum of the court," he said. "When I stand before God I am individually responsible for my actions."
Gross has threatened to have Hasan forcibly shaved, previously citing the regulations and the right to ensure "that a military trial proceeds without a distracting and disruptive sideshow."
Hasan was found in contempt of court again Thursday, fined $1,000 and sent from the court to a trailer where Hasan watched the rest of the proceedings via closed circuit TV.
A hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, September 6, to discuss whether Hasan's religious claims would prevent him from being shaved.
Hasan's court martial was scheduled to start last week at Fort Hood, in Killeen, Texas, where he is accused of killing 13 people and wounding 32. The trial was delayed when Hasan's legal team petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals to prevent Gross from ordering Hasan's facial hair shaved.
The Court of Appeals found that Hasan's petition was "premature" because Gross had not yet issued a definitive order. If an official order was given, the appeals court said, Hasan could file another petition.
The beard issue surfaced in June, when Hasan, who remains in the Army while awaiting trial, appeared at a hearing with the beard. Gross postponed that hearing, then found Hasan in contempt of court at a July hearing, fined him $1,000 and warned him he would be shaved by force unless he got rid of the beard.
Hasan had been expected to enter a plea during a previous hearing, but the proceedings were halted by the appellate court. Hasan has previously expressed interest in pleading guilty, but military regulations bar a judge from accepting a guilty plea in a capital case.
Hasan is accused of opening fire at the post's processing center, where soldiers were preparing to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq, in November 2009.
He faces a possible death sentence if convicted. He was paralyzed from the waist down in the shooting, when police officers exchanged fire with him.
Hasan, a U.S.-born citizen of Palestinian descent, was a licensed psychiatrist who joined the Army in 1997. He had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan before the killings, but had been telling his family since 2001 that he wanted to get out of the military.
He is a Muslim who had told his family he had been taunted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Investigations that followed the killings found he had been communicating via e-mail with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-American radical cleric killed by a U.S. drone attack in 2011.
An FBI report in July found that a Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego that was investigating al-Awlaki passed two of the messages to another task force in the Washington area, where Hasan was living at the time. The report found those e-mails should have been given to the Pentagon, but the FBI saw no evidence of terrorist activities in his case, and believed the information in the e-mails was too sensitive to share. It noted that visiting extremist websites is not grounds for taking action.

Has Obama’s Loot-and-Plunder Theory Worked?

Natural Born Conservative ^ | August 30, 2012 | Larry Walker Jr

A 50-Year Retrospective
- By: Larry Walker, Jr. -
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill ::

Discussing his economic policies at a fundraiser in Oakland, California on July 23rd, Barack Obama, told supporters that, “We tried our plan, and it worked.” Yet, by the end of his first year in office, he had only managed to drag America, kicking and screaming, beyond the point of no return, as our National Debt, on a per capita (per person) basis, surpassed per capita Personal Income for the first time in more than 50 years (see chart above). As of June 30, 2012, after nearly four years of disservice to the nation, under the leadership of Barack Obama, every American now owes $7,958 more in federal government debt, on a per capita basis, than their personal income.
Per Capita National Debt to GDP
Equally alarming, as of June 30, 2012, the U.S. National Debt per capita reached a stunning 101.7% of Gross Domestic Product, an increase of 45.1% since the end of 2008. Looking back over the last half-century, no other President of the United States has done more to destroy our standard of living than Barack Obama. Now if that was his goal, then yes – it worked like a charm. However, this temporary condition will soon meet its demise.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within the United States. GDP per capita is considered an indicator of our nation’s standard of living. As of June 30, 2012, U.S. GDP per capita was equal to $49,672. The National Debt is the sum of all previously incurred annual federal deficits. Since deficits are financed by government borrowing, either from the public or from itself, the national debt is equal to all government debt outstanding. As of June 30, 2012, the U.S. National Debt per capita was equal to $50,502.
Thus, it may be stated that, as of June 30, 2012, the standard of living of the United States is negative. In other words, when taken as a whole, on a per capita basis, for the first time in more than a half-century, Americans now owe more in federal government debt than we produce. In effect, there isn’t anything left to address the growing mountain of state and local government, personal and business arrearages.
Granted that Barack Obama and a tiny remnant of gullible far-left loyalists have devised numerous excuses as justification for this atrocity, one way of accurately measuring the validity of such subterfuge is to simply compare the ratio of per capita National Debt to GDP over the last half-century. After all, it was Barack Obama who said of supply-side economics, a theory which has been deployed during most of the 1960’s through 2007, “We tried this trickle-down fairy dust before, and guess what -- it didn’t work then, it won’t work now... It’s not a plan to lower the deficit...” Well, let us test this hypothesis on a relative basis, and see just how well his loot-and-plunder theory stacks up.

A quick study of the chart above, Per Capita National Debt to GDP: 1960 through June 2012, tells the whole story.
Testing Obama’s Theory
  1. At the end of 1960 per capita National Debt to GDP was equal to 54.4%.
  2. John F. Kennedy’s Tax Reduction Act of 1964 was signed into Law by his successor Lyndon B. Johnson. Under the ensuing era of lower tax rates, by the end of 1981, per capita National Debt to GDP declined all the way to 31.9%.
  3. Ronald W. Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act went into effect in 1982, and even though government spending was higher than he would have liked, by the end of his term in 1988, per capita National Debt to GDP stood at just 51.0%.
  4. In 1993, Bill Clinton signed the Deficit Reduction Act, which turned out to be nothing more than a tax hike. By the end of 1996, per capita National Debt to GDP had increased to 66.7%.
  5. Then in 1997 the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. One of the things the 1997 bill did was lower the capital gains tax. It was actually the 1997 tax cut, not the 1993 Clinton tax hike, which produced the boom of the 1990’s. By the end of the year 2000, per capita National Debt to GDP declined to 57.0%.
  6. In 2001, George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. By the end of 2001, per capita National Debt to GDP decreased to 56.5%, and later increased slightly to 58.5% in 2002.
  7. The following year, George W. Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which provided the tax rates in effect today. By the end of 2007, per capita National Debt to GDP held at just 64.2%.
  8. In 2009, Barack H. Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, but was later revised to $831 billion. By the end of 2009, per capita National Debt to GDP increased to 85.2%.
  9. The following year, Barack H. Obama signed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which extended long-term unemployment benefits and cut the employee’s portion of the Social Security payroll taxes by 2.0%. By the end of 2010, per capita National Debt to GDP increased to 93.5%. By the end of 2011 the ratio had increased to 101.0%, and by June 30, 2012, per capita National Debt to GDP notched up by another seven tenths of a percent to 101.7%.
Ever since Barack Obama implemented his plan, America’s standard of living has gone straight down the tubes. And since he said, “We tried our plan, and it worked…,” we are forced to conclude that his goal was to destroy America’s standard of living. If for some reason this wasn’t his goal, then a more honest assessment would have been, ‘We tried our plan, and it failed.’
When Barack Obama said, “We tried this trickle-down fairy dust before. And guess what -- it didn’t work then, it won’t work now... It’s not a plan to lower the deficit..,” whose policies could he possibly have been referring to? A quick study of U.S. per capita National Debt to GDP ratios and per capita Personal Income to National Debt over the last 50 years leads to only one possible conclusion – his own.
Since per capita National Debt to GDP is at the highest ratio since the unsustainable heights attained during the second World War, and higher than at any time in the last half-century, and since Barack Obama has clocked the highest annual budget deficits in American history ($1,412.7 billion in 2009, $1,293.5 billion in 2010, $1,299.6 billion in 2011, and $1,326.9 billion in 2012), we can only conclude that his loot-and-plunder economic theory has achieved the worst results of any set of economic policies deployed by any American president, ever. The facts speak for themselves.
We tried Barack Obama’s loot-and-plunder theory, and it failed. And not only have Obama’s policies failed, but American’s are now worse off than at any time since the 1940’s. No one has managed our economy more recklessly than Barack H. Obama. Are you still a believer? Isn’t it high time we go back to what we know works, make some improvements, and implement some of the reforms proposed over the years, which were errantly pushed aside? Yes it’s time. And since Barack Obama has proved himself unwilling to bend to the will of the American people, it’s time we gave someone else the opportunity. It’s time to switch teams. It’s time to follow real leadership. It’s time for Romney-Ryan.
Table 7.1 Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars | Bureau of Economic Analysis
Debt to the Penny | Treasury Direct
Chart Data | Google Drive
Internal References:

2posted on Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:51:38 PMby GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

Romney Wants to End Federal Funding of Public TV (about time!)

Accuracy in Media - ^ | 08-30-2012 | Cliff Kincaid

In remarks certain not to endear him to the liberal media, Mitt Romney has told CBS News that federal subsidies for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) have to end. AIM has argued for years that the taxpayers should not be forced to underwrite the liberal programming on public television.
The headline, “Romney: I’d cut PBS, Obamacare, arts subsidies,” is running over a Romney interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley. Asked for specific budget cuts, Romney listed “the subsidy for PBS, the subsidy for Amtrak, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts” and “the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Humanities.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Rubio: Obama Trying Ideas People Came To America To Get Away From!

Real Clear Politics ^ | August 30, 2012

Transcript of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's speech as prepared for delivery at the Republican National Convention:

In 1980, I watched my first Republican convention with my grandfather.

He was born to a farming family in rural Cuba. Childhood polio left him permanently disabled. Because he couldn't work the farm, his family sent him to school, and he became the only one in the family who could read.

As a boy, I would sit on our porch and listen to his stories about history, politics and baseball while he puffed on one of his three daily Padron cigars.
I don't recall everything we talked about, but the one thing I remember, is the one thing he wanted me to never forget. The dreams he had when he was young became impossible to achieve.
But there was no limit to how far I could go, because I was an American.
For those of us who were born and raised in this country, it's easy to forget how special America is. But my grandfather understood how different America is from the rest of the world, because he knew what life was like outside America.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Financial crisis: the printing press has reached its limits

The Telegraph ^ | 8/30/2012 | Jeremy Warner

Central bankers may have averted outright disaster, but they are powerless to do more.
Few jamborees excite financial markets as much as the symposium of international central bankers which is held annually in late August at Jackson Hole in the Rockies.

Interest this year focuses around whether, with the American recovery again running out of steam, the US Federal Reserve is about to signal a further round of quantitative easing, marking the third such burst of money-printing in that country since the crisis began.

Yet it is also fair to say that the gathering no longer holds quite the same cachet it used to. Faith in central banks as guarantors of macro-economic stability has been shaken to breaking point by the events of recent years, a crisis which they utterly failed to see coming, still less were able to prevent.
The symposium has been further devalued by the fact that many of the top European central bankers, including Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, are still so busy fire-fighting that they have failed to show up.
If nothing else, the event serves to highlight that five years after the crisis began, monetary policy is still struggling to deliver meaningful solutions. Here in the UK, the Government has put its faith in a combination of “fiscal conservatism and monetary activism” to lift the economy out of its funk. In the event, government spending has hardly been checked at all, while monetary activism has failed to revive the economy as hoped. Output remains firmly stuck a full 4.3 per cent below its pre-crisis peak.
Central banks stand widely accused of having failed. Is this fair? Not entirely. Just as they were much too highly rated before the crisis hit, they have now become somewhat oversold. Part
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Mysterious Case of Obama’s Identity ^ | August 30, 2012 | Diana West

Why has the President spent millions to suppress his ID and who is he really?

As President Barack Obama completes four years in office and runs for re-election in November, a majority of Americans – 55% – believe he was born in the United States. However, 20% of Americans do not believe Obama was born in the US, while another 25% aren’t sure where he was born. Never before have so many Americans doubted the fundamental basis of their president’s identity. Why is this so?
On one level, the answer is easy given the absence of verifiable bona fides attesting to Obama’s life story, from every college record to every travel document, from every medical record to every legal writing to every law practice billing record to every record of his tenure as an Illinois state senator – and more. But the story has had to penetrate the American psyche in spite of a deep freeze on the topic in conventional channels. The Obama identity story, burning at the grass-roots-level for more than four years now, is consistently snuffed out and ignored by American journalists and the political class, from elected leaders to party officials. This silence is strictly non-partisan, and spans the political spectrum.
An investigation, undertaken by a so-called cold case posse working for Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona, has now concluded that not one but two Obama basic identity documents are, without a doubt, forgeries: 1) the computer file (pdf) of the 1961 birth certificate that appears on the White House website; and 2) the president’s 1980 military draft registration card released by the U.S. Selective Service Administration shortly before the 2008 election. These investigators maintain they can prove this in court.
The story of how they might do so is verboten, too. But somehow the saga doesn’t end up in George Orwell’s “memory hole”. This is due mainly to the irrepressible nature of the Internet.
It is here, for example, and not in the mainstream media, where, following the White House online release of Obama’s 1961 ”long-form” birth certificate on April 27, 2011, a small army of private individuals with varying degrees of technology expertise downloaded the document file and delved into the unexpectedly “unflattened” graphic composition “layers”. They submitted a series of computer forensics analyses to this online public square, arguing that the White House pdf had been fraudulently manipulated. Since that time, similar evidence has been methodically amassed and repeatedly tested under the auspices of Sheriff Arpaio’s cold case team.
Sheriff Arpaio formed this cold case posse after 250 local citizens asked him to determine whether Obama was eligible to appear on the Arizona presidential ballot in 2012.
On two occasions in 2012, the posse presented findings to the public. They concluded that the birth certificate on the White House website didn’t originate on a piece of paper but rather was created, or, more precisely, forged as an electronic file on a computer. As one Adobe expert and posse consultant put it: “The only time Obama’s long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu.”
At this point, the posse would like to turn over all of its evidence to Congress for a formal investigation. Like a hand grenade that could go off at any moment, however, such an investigation has no takers. And so the fuse burns on not one, but two potential constitutional crises.
One involves the biggest unsolved mystery in American history: If Arpaio’s findings are correct, who did it? The other potential crisis, while linked to the first, is much more transparent. The U.S. Constitution lays out three criteria for president and vice president. Article II, Section 1, requires that the president be at least 35 years of age, have lived 14 years in the United States, and be a “natural-born” citizen.
“Natural born” citizens are distinct from citizens who are native-born (born in the country) or naturalized. While native-born or naturalized citizen may hold any other office, only “natural born” citizens are eligible for the presidency, the idea being that America’s founders wanted to ensure that the chief executive had allegiance only to the American republic.
The Constitution doesn’t define “natural born”, but according to common law at the time and, later, the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case “Minor v. Happersett”, a “natural born” citizen is understood to be someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). “Minor” spelled out this definition and is thus the signal case. It is remarkable that in mid-2008, as Barack Obama was clinching the presidential nomination, references to the “Minor” case inexplicably disappeared from 25 related U.S. Supreme Court decisions archived at, a leading legal search engine popular with journalists and legal bloggers. Coincidence? When attorney and blogger Leo Donofrio, whose Obama eligibility challenge went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2008 (dismissed), discovered this apparent tampering in 2011, Justia called it a “programming error”. The blogosphere called it “Justiagate”. The media, of course, said nothing at all.
So where does this leave the president, the son of a white American teen mother and a black British subject from Kenya? (Kenya became independent in 1963.)
According to his own story, Baby Obama came into the world with dual American-British citizenship. At the same time, however, there is, to date, zero verifiable evidence to be found of his Hawaiian birth; meanwhile there is circumstantial evidence of alternative nativities. For example, the personal biography Obama’s former literary agent used to promote Obama described him as “born in Kenya”. This biography, written in 1991, remained on the agency website until April 2007 – two months after then-Senator Obama announced his presidential run.
Other oddities include a missing week of immigration cards tracking American arrivals into Hawaii from abroad that should be in the national archives. Obama’s birthday in August 1961 falls in this missing week. In light of unexplained facts such as these, in light of the Obama documents that remain sealed, it’s really not so hard to see where a foreign nativity story comes from – or at least why a number of Americans are confused.
Many have heard about the two 1961 newspapers that published announcements of Obama’s birth. Posse investigators discovered that foreign-born children were similarly announced as Hawaiian births in these same papers, while they also found a set of adopted twins who were several years old before their “birth” announcements appeared.
Further complicating Obama’s citizenship story is an undisputed school record from Jakarta which identifies young Obama as a citizen of Indonesia. With all of this in mind, it’s hard to stamp Obama “natural-born”. Still, no challenger to date has managed to convince an American court of this. Of course, almost every single case has been dismissed before trial.
Also worth noting is that almost every single case sought the same thing: the release of the Obama birth “long-form” birth certificate. This is the very document the White House website put on display in April 2011. Obama spent an estimated one to three million dollars to fight previous attempts to compel him to release this same document. What happened to make the president change his mind?
Two senior White House officials presided over the birth certificate’s unveiling at a pen-and-paper, off-camera, no audio-recording, press conference. One journalist in the pack pointed out, “some people are going to remain unconvinced”. He continued: “They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper. You could have typed anything in there. Will the actual birth certificate be on display or viewable at any …”
The White House transcript breaks off with the word: “(laughter)”.
Who will get the last laugh? Barack Obama? Sheriff Arpaio? The politicians who keep their heads down, or the citizens who take their Constitution seriously? Whoever laughs last, it seems safe to say that the Obama birth certificate is a very funny document.

Kiss My Ring!

Posted Image

Trickle-Up Economy

Posted Image

Careful Choosing!

Posted Image

Weed Causes Brain Damage!

Posted Image


Posted Image

Global B.S.

Posted Image

Betting on America

Posted Image

Just In Case!

Posted Image

His View

Posted Image

Enough Said!

Posted Image


Posted Image

The President

The Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words ^ | August 31, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

Thumper the Rabbit's parents always taught him, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." If the left's self-appointed Omniscient Diviners of True Meaning have their way, conservatives in the public square won't be left with anything at all to say. Ever.
It's a treacherous business exercising your freedom of speech in the age of Obama. As a public service, I present to you: "The 2012 Condensed Liberal Handbook of Racial Code Words." Decoder rings, activate!
--Angry. On the campaign trail this summer, President Obama has become -- in the words of the mainstream Associated Press -- more "aggressive." But don't you dare call him "angry." According to MSNBC host Toure, that's racist!
"You notice he said 'anger' twice," Toure fumed in response to a speech last week by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "He's really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man." Or maybe Romney is just accurately describing the singular temperament of the growling, finger-jabbing, failure-plagued demagogue-in-chief. It's about the past four years, not 400 years. Sheesh.
--Chicago. The Obamas and their core team of astroturfers, pay-for-play schemers and powerbrokers hail from the Windy City. This is a simple geographic fact. But in progressive of pallor Chris Matthews' world, it's an insidious dog whistle. The frothing cable TV host attacked Republicans this week who have the gall to remind voters of the ruthless Chicago way.
"(T)hey keep saying Chicago, by the way. Have you noticed?" Matthews sputtered. "That sends that message: This guy's helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods and screwing us in the 'burbs."
Actually, it's a pointed reminder that the radical redistribution politics of Chicago-on-the-Potomac have done little to alleviate the suffering of impoverished Americans in violence-plagued, job-hungry inner cities everywhere. Racist!
--Constitution. Fox News contributor Juan Williams, who proudly calls himself a "real reporter," has apparently added real telepathist to his curriculum vitae. Earlier this year, he read the minds of Republicans and conservatives whom he accuses of deep-seated bigotry when they show any public reverence for our founding principles, documents and leaders.
"The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message," Williams wrote. "References to a lack of respect for the 'Founding Fathers' and the 'Constitution' also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core 'old-fashioned American values.'"
So, if you ever find yourself wanting to hum the "Schoolhouse Rock" version of the Preamble, heed these three words: Stop the hate!
--Experienced. A significant population of American voters believes that qualifications actually matter when running for the highest office in the land. Chilling, isn't it? They might as well sport KKK hoods. In the judgment of one Basil Smikle of The Century Foundation, "experienced" is a dreaded "racial code word."
Intoned Smikle: "Experienced? Does it really mean the time that he spent in the Senate, or does it mean, 'Well, does that guy have the same kind of experience in life that I have?' ... What does inexperience really mean?"
Maybe it just means what critics meant it to mean: "Does this guy have experience beyond the measly 304 days he served when the U.S. Senate was in session before he announced his first presidential bid?" I know: Racist!
--Food Stamp President. At the dawn of the modern federal food stamp program, one in 50 Americans was enrolled. This year, one in seven Americans is on the food stamp rolls. The majority of them are white. Obama's loosening of eligibility requirements combined with the stagnant economy fueled the rise in dependency. "Food stamp president" is pithy shorthand for the very real entitlement explosion.
Democrats fumed when former GOP candidate Newt Gingrich bestowed the title on Obama and decried its purportedly racist implications. But who are the racists? As Gingrich scolded the aforementioned race troll Chris Matthews last week: "Why do you assume food stamp refers to blacks? What kind of racist thinking do you have? You're being a racist because you assume they're black!" Time to find a new code word.
--Golf. This one's a gobsmacker. Beltway barnacle Lawrence O'Donnell appeared on cable TV to decry Republicans who mention Obama's frequent golf outings. He singled out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's convention speech Wednesday night, which joked that Obama "was working to earn a spot on the PGA tour." The warped racial radar of pasty Lawrence O interpreted this golf joke as "Obama equals Tiger Woods equals RACISM."
Huh? "These people reach for every single possible racial double entendre they can find in every one of these speeches." O'Donnell expertly explained. "Things are getting lower and lower by the day," host Martin Bashir agreed.
I'd say this is all Greek to me. But that's probably racist, too.
--Holding down the fort. Obama's State Department diversity officer now advises us, based on admittedly dubious history, that "holding down the fort" is an anti-Native American idiom that has no place in U.S. discourse. Example: "I know you guys have been holding down the fort." Oops, that was Obama at a Tampa rally in 2008. Next...
--Kitchen cabinet. Radio talk-show host Mark Thompson jumped on Romney for using this phrase -- coined to describe Andrew Jackson's administration in the 1800s -- at the NAACP convention in July. Romney was referring to a close member of his staff during his tenure as Massachusetts governor.
"To talk about being in the kitchen and not talk about an African-American actually being in your cabinet is really not a good metaphor to use with African-Americans," Thompson blasted. Is it racist to ask: Huh?
--Obamacare. Left-wing Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky accused Romney of "race-baiting" by wielding the term "Obamacare." The Beltway shorthand for this behemoth federal spending program exposes Romney as a "spineless, disingenuous, supercilious, race-mongering pyromaniac" because it is a "heavily loaded word," Tomasky railed.
How then to explain the use of the Bull Connor-channeling epithet by none other than the Obama campaign, which peddles "I like Obamacare" T-shirts on its website? Logic is racist.
--Privileged. Stay with me here. Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart has a problem with Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry calling Obama "privileged." Spotlighting his elite education is tantamount to racial bigotry because it insinuates that "he took the place of someone else through affirmative action, that someone else being someone white."
And here I thought it was a simple description of an out-of-touch academic whose crony Chicago ties of all colors gifted him with access, money and power that the vast majority of Americans don't have.
--Professor. Several progressive black intellectuals excoriated 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin for this statement: "They know we're at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern."
"Professor," professor Charles Ogletree said, was code for "uppity." This translation service is available only to credentialed Ivy League eggheads. A saner criticism would be that Obama was never a professor of law, but an untenured lecturer. Racist? Tell that to Hillary Clinton, whose 2008 campaign made that very point.
--You people. Asked last month whether her husband would release more tax returns, Ann Romney told a pack of reporters: "We've given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how, you know, how we live our life."
A chorus of faux-ragers from the Huffington Post to NBC's Andrea Mitchell hammered Mrs. Romney for her double-whammy sandwich of elitism and racism. Apparently, "you people" is the verbal equivalent of putting black people back in chains. One little, teeny-tiny problem: ABC News admitted: "Our ruling after reviewing the original audio is that she did not include the 'you.'"
In other words, it was manufactured out of whole cloth. Give the dog-trombone media another black mark for ridiculous bias denial. "Black mark"? I know: Raaaaaaaaaaacist!

The Media's 'Fact Check' Smokescreen!

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 08/30/2012 | IBD Staff

Journalism: If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?
Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.
"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."
What's not true are Kessler's "facts.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Jay Carney, White House Press Jester and His Pack of Fools! ^ | August 31, 2012 | John Ransom

Obama promises that finally, the secret that all America has been waiting for from the White House will be released shortly.

“It will be out soon,” quotes the president as promising this week in a chat session on Reddit.

No, it’s not the Fast and Furious documents.
No, it’s not Obama’s college transcripts.
Nor even a federal budget that might garner, say, one (1) vote in either chamber of Congress.
No; instead the president continues to treat the country to a reality tour that trivializes the presidency, cheapens the office and makes the White House, perhaps, the most overvalued home since the Obamas’ shady real estate deal with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko.
“I can tell you from first hand experience, it is tasty,” explained president Irrelevant about the secret documents.
You see, president Distraction’s folks have launched a petition for the White House to release the national beer recipe.

Jay Carney, the White House Press Jester has tweeted about it- all while being paid by your tax dollars.
Gee, I wonder just why that economic plan isn’t working?
Yes; THAT plan.
The plan with the motto: “Jobs? Jobs? Let them drink beer.”
The petition, which really and truly is hosted on the White House web site, needs 25,000 signatures to go public. So far, 11,860 people have signed the petition. The signature requires you to give the your first and last name, your email and your zip code.
The president does promise that he “will not disclose, sell, rent, or exchange the email address you use to create your account to individuals or organizations outside the Executive Office of the President.”
Well thank goodness for that.
Hey wait: Define “outside the Executive Office of the President.”
Nothing says transparency like the light amber bubbles of a White House Honey Ale.
This explains the unexplainable award the White House got two years ago for transparency, the ceremony for which the press was not invited.
The award was for a secret, White House lite beer.
Here’s an item the clowns in the White House might have missed while they were clowning around for the Cooking Channel:
Unemployment claims still are hovering in recession territory at 374,000 new initial claims for the week, while last week‘s claims were once again revised upward.
And the sucking sound you hear in the economy is largely due to POLITICAL problems not economic ones.
It’s really impossible to overstate the responsibility the carnies (pun intended) in the White House share for the poor performance of the economy.
“When people get nervous about the macroeconomic environment, they slow down spending,” William Sullivan, president and chief executive officer of Agilent Technologies Inc. told Bloomberg.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Democrats refuse to cancel Jumah Jihad at the DNC

Atlas Shrugs ^ | August 29, 2012 | Pamela Geller

Once again the Demcorats prove that they are the party of the enemy, the traitor, the jihad. Despite public outcry, the jihadist Jumah will tale place at the DNC. The event has in its crosshairs the Patriot Act, the NYPD, the National Defense Authorization Act, and anti-Shariah sentiment.

"I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Barack Hussein Obama, page 261, The Audacity of Hope

A couple of weeks back, I posted about the Jumah jihad at the DNC, an event led by an imam who urged the overthrow of the "filthy" U.S. government and who was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade center bombings. Obama's DNC lists the assembly as an “official function." The group is hardly “mainstream,” being represented by Siraj Wahhaj, who will be the “Grand Imam” for the gathering.
Wahhaj and the co-leader of the Charlotte event, Jibril Hough, are both heavily involved in the separatist American Islamist movement. Many of the participants in the “Jumah at the DNC” will most likely represent radical networks that have long-time, but little-known, operations in the Charlotte region.
Eyewitness News asked Hough about his views on several topics, including the war on terror.
"American troops are actually the insurgents. It's not the people who live there. The people who live there are defending their country," Hough said.
Hough does not consider himself to be a supremacist, but believes Muslims have not received the credit they deserve.
"This is a fact: Muslims have visited America prior to Columbus. It was a Muslim who guided Columbus on his voyage to the new world," Hough said.
He insisted he is not a radical, and said his beliefs are shared by mainstream Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

“Chocolate may help reduce stroke risk in men”

Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 6:45AM BST 30 Aug 2012 | (Source: agencies)

Regularly indulging in chocolate may actually help men decrease their risk of having a stroke, according to a Swedish study.

Researchers writing in the journal Neurology found that of more than 37,000 men followed for a decade, those who ate the most chocolate—typically the equivalent of one-third of a cup of chocolate chips—had a 17 per cent lower risk of stroke than men who avoided chocolate.

The study is hardly the first to link chocolate to cardiovascular benefits, with several previous ones suggesting that chocolate fans have lower rates of certain risks for heart disease and stroke, like high blood pressure. …

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How 'The Shy Republican' Could Be Masking a Landslide

American Thinker ^ | August 30, 2012 | Adam Shaw

At time of writing, polls show the race for the presidency to be tight. General consensus seems to be that whoever wins, the 2012 election will be won by a bat squeak.

Yet to many, especially those of us on the right, it seems peculiar that Obama is still remotely in the race. With high unemployment, minimal GDP growth, a 100% increase in food stamp costs, and out-of-control spending, many conservatives are asking how just under half of the American population can possibly want more of the same.

While it is not possible now to get into the many reasons certain people will vote Democrat in November, I propose that all polls, not just left-leaning polls, may be being strongly misled by their data, and Romney/Ryan may actually have a huge lead not seen in polls.

It is my contention that this is due to a mix of the infamous Bradley effect and what is known in Britain as "the Shy Tory Factor," with both coming together to exaggerate just how popular Obama is in America.
The Bradley effect is a much-debated polling distortion that is easy to demonstrate but difficult to prove. The idea that when a black or minority candidate is on the ticket against a white candidate, certain voters may lie under pressure from a pollster, worried about being seen as a racist for choosing the white candidate over the minority, sounds highly plausible. The consequence, should the Bradley effect be in play, would be a skewed poll indicating that the minority candidate is in better political shape than his or her opponent.
Some argued that while it may have been a factor in the past, it was not a factor in the 2008 election, when Barack Obama was elected convincingly, just as polls predicted.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

$5 for gas should fuel Mitt Romney’s talk!

The Boston Herald ^ | August 30, 2012 | Howie Carr

TAMPA, Fla. — Here are some real estate signs I’ve seen in Hillsborough County in this fourth year of our economic “recovery.”
•     “No Reasonable Offer Refused.”
•     “Starting in the low 100’s.”
•     (This next one was hand-lettered, at an exit off the interstate) “Lots Dirt Cheap! 9K.”
You think the economy’s in tough shape in Boston, but it’s much worse down here, and in most of the rest of the country. And I hope Mitt talks a lot about it tonight in his prime-time speech. It’s still the economy, stupid.
Plus, likability is overrated. No matter what Mitt says or does tonight, it won’t please his critics. Reciting too many statistics in a speech is also deadly. Look at Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s snoozer Tuesday night. He mentioned numbers more than Rick Santorum mentioned hands. But here’s one number Mitt should definitely use.
On Jan. 20, 2009, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.89.
Now it’s close to four bucks.
That’s a number everybody can relate to. And it doesn’t matter how many times Comrade Chris Matthews says it’s racist to bring it up, and you know he will. Anything that makes MSNBC’s Sun King look bad — racist.
It’s hard to make yourself seem likable. If you’re really likable, it gets around through your friends, word of mouth. Yesterday morning, after his keynote speech the previous night, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie spoke to a breakfast meeting of the New Hampshire and Pennsylvania delegations.
He talked about how when he was being courted for an endorsement last fall, the Romneys came to visit him in New Jersey. Christie said his two older kids shook hands with the Romneys and went away. But the two younger ones, 8 and 11, stuck around, looking for attention from the new adults, and Mitt spent a few minutes with them, asking them questions and playing.
“You know how it usually is with a politician and a kid,” Christie said. “It’s, ‘Hello little girl, that’s a pretty ribbon in your hair. Now, where’s your mother?’ ”
Everybody chuckled. It’s too bad he didn’t use it in his prime-time speech. If Chris Christie says you’re an OK guy, you must be an OK guy, right?
So Mitt shouldn’t waste a lot of his time tonight trying to wear his heart on his sleeve. Likability isn’t what it used to be anyway. Michael Barone wrote yesterday how it’s become less important as fewer people watch TV news as regularly as they used to. If you’re not in somebody’s living room every night, it matters less if they “like” you.
But if he wants to lift one line from a very likable president, and a Republican to boot, here’s the one Mitt should resurrect this evening.
“Are you better or worse off than you were four years ago?”

Lib Dem emergency tax may force millions to reveal personal wealth - keep society "cohesive"!

Telegraph - UK ^ | August 29, 2012 | Robert Winnett

Millions of people would be forced to disclose the value of their homes, investments and assets under Liberal Democrat plans for an emergency tax on wealth.

The Deputy Prime Minister believes that the proposed tax, which would see an annual levy of about half a per cent on the value of a person’s total wealth, could raise billions of pounds to prevent deeper public spending cuts.

Experts warned that it would prove “impossible to administer” and other countries were abandoning similar taxes because of the complexities involved.
George Osborne said it might also “drive away wealth creators”. The Chancellor said: “I am clear the wealthy should pay more which is why in the recent budget I increased the tax on very expensive property transactions.
“But we also have to be careful as a country we don’t drive away the wealth creators and the businesses that are going to lead our economic recovery.”
Senior Tories described the tax plan as a “kite-flying exercise” by Mr Clegg which was highly unlikely to become government policy. The Lib Dem leader caused confusion when he said higher taxes on the rich were necessary if society was to “remain cohesive”.
Mr Clegg said: “If we want to remain cohesive and prosperous as a society, people of very considerable personal wealth have got to make a bit of an extra contribution.”
Tim Farron, the Lib Dem party president, said: “Income tax is one way of raising money. It’s probably more effective to do so by taxing wealth and assets. There are a range of things that can be done.”
He said the new taxes would involve Britons “opening their books” to HM Revenue and Customs.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Posted Image

We Tried Our Plan...

Posted Image

Vote Change

Posted Image

The Bitter Taste

Posted Image


Posted Image

He-Man Club

Posted Image


Posted Image

Obama is trying to kill me!

Posted Image


Posted Image

Chris Matthews and MSNBC Now Claim the Word 'Chicago' Is Racist!

Newsbusters ^ | August 30th 2012 | Rusty Weiss

Chris Matthews was on Hardball tonight covering the Republican National Convention with guests Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Hielemann of New York Magazine. In what is seemingly the natural progression of things these days with Matthews, the subject of the 'otherization' of the President was being discussed. Because, if you weren't aware already, Barack Obama is black, and any time a Republican chooses to discuss the failure that is his administration, the media will be there to quickly remind you that they only feel that way because of his skin color.

But tonight's episode of race-baiting with Chris Matthews was a bit odd in that the panelists somehow came to the conclusion that reminding people of the President's roots in Chicago politics is racist. In fact, simply saying Chicago is racist. (Video below).

Robinson sets the racial tone by saying (h/t The Right Newz):

"It's all part of this Barack Obama as 'other' sort of blanket campaign that has been waged by the Republican Party for some time now. It may be gaining some traction now, though I wonder why now as opposed to a bit closer to election."

Matthews then demonstrates his mind-numbing ability to take an idiotic statement, amplify it, and subsequently make it exponentially more idiotic coming from his mouth, when he said this:

"Yea, well let me ask you about that gentleman. What about now, is this constant barrage of assaults, saying the guy is basically playing an old game of demagoguery politics, where you take the money from the worker bees and give it to the poor people to buy votes. That's basically what they're charging him with. Old big-style, big-city machine of 50 years ago."

He added, "They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed? They keep saying Chicago. That's another thing that sends that message - this guy's helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the 'burbs."
Hielemann helpfully interpreted Matthews statement, presumably for those too challenged to understand basic words (or as we in the business refer to them - Hardball viewers), by making this jaw-dropping statement:
"There's a lot of black people in Chicago.".....contin at site:
Read more:

Why Ron Fournier Proves Mitt Romney Must Beat The Liberal Media, Not Woo Them

RedState ^ | August 30, 2012 | Erick Erickson

When Republicans talk about the liberal press, they should not just remember John Harris at the Politico, but also Ron Fournier of National Journal. If you want to know what the subtle racism of the liberal media looks like, consider Ron Fournier’s latest epiphany on how Mitt Romney’s welfare attacks on Obama are racist.

It takes one to know one I guess.

On the day the well respected by the press Yahoo! News Washington Bureau Chief David Chalain revealed his true colors only to see his media brethren rush to defend him after his firing (he lamented on a live mic that Romney had no problem partying as black people drowned), Ron Fournier was out accusing Mitt Romney of racism. Fournier is one of those members of the Gang of 500 that other members listen to and aspire to be.
According to Fournier, Mitt Romney’s ad saying, “You wouldn’t have to work” is a dog whistle that real means “Blacks wouldn’t have to work.” Doing no more extrapolation than Fournier did, what he is really saying is that if you are a Republican talking about welfare you are a racist.
What does it say about Ron Fournier that he hears the line about Mitt Romney’s ad and he himself translates it as “blacks wouldn’t have to work”? What is his presupposition about black people in his interpretation?
The fact is, Ron Fournier is a liberal. He does not like Mitt Romney. He does not like Republicans. And he hates the fact that Republicans and a sizable number of independent voters largely think he and his cohorts in the mainstream media are mostly full of crap. So to get around it, he and his cohorts have invented a liberal organization called Politifact, run by a sizable number of Democrats who had the mendacity to declare themselves independent voters before taking the job, that they can hide behind as an impartial arbiter of their crap claiming it is truth.
Consider his claims of racism about Mitt Romney and the GOP. He descends to “it’s Politifact, not me!”
>>>>Before explaining why these tactics work (and why Romney’s team knows, or should know, they are playing the race card), let’s quickly deal with this fact: The ad is wrong. As countless impartial fact-checkers have noted, the Obama administration memo cited by the Romney team actually gives states flexibility to find better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs.
Why ignore fact-checkers?<<<<
Only a liberal or an idiot could take the fact checkers seriously in this. As Conn Carroll noted, Ron Fournier willfully chooses to ignore that what the Obama Administration did was allow states to change the definition of work.
As J. P. Freire noted on twitter responding to Fournier, “So wait, Obama guts welfare reform, Republicans object, and their objection is playing the race card?” Fournier’s response? Hide behind the fact checkers the media set up to claim themselves right.
But what are the real facts? The Obama Administration did end welfare as we know it. It is objectively fact unless you are a fact checker or Ron Fournier.
Just consider the mind blowing leaps and bounds of Ron Fournier — he can take a line in a commercial and extrapolate that it is really about black people, but he cannot take a regulation from the Obama administration allowing states to change the definition of work and extrapolate that this is designed to get around the work requirements in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Again — only a liberal or an idiot could do that.
But Fournier would rather claim racism about Mitt Romney based on his own preconceptions about race and claim Romney is playing the race card — “coincidentally” at the same time the Democrats start pushing out the “GOP is playing the race card” meme — and hide behind “fact checkers” than intellectually admit he is wrong.
His column is horribly offensive and his unwillingness to do anything other than hide behind liberal fact checkers who didn’t really check the facts is pathetic for a person in his position.
To paraphrase Fournier, that leaves one inescapable conclusion: Ron Fournier is either recklessly ignorant of the facts, some of which he possesses – or he is lying about why (and how) he is playing the race card.
Ron Fournier’s actions show that as long as the media sets up phony fact checkers as arbiters of a truth they want that may not be, Mitt Romney must not just beat Barack Obama, but also beat the liberals in the media.

How Obama Succeeds By Failing

American Spectator ^ | 8/30/12 | Jeffrey Lord

Ryan on the American Tipping Point: it's the socialism, stupid.

"Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1967
Why did Obama fail?
Or has Obama actually succeeded?
The debt soars to $16 trillion. Millions are out of work to the tune of an 8.3% unemployment rate, with the CBO predicting it will keep on climbing to 9% by 2013 -- now only five short months away. One could go on, yipping and yapping about everything from the price of a gallon of gas (already headed north to four bucks a gallon, it spiked again Wednesday
from a nickel to as much as 14 cents in the wake of Hurricane Isaac) to the crony capitalism of Solyndra.
So the question isn't "has Obama failed"? No, the real question is:
Why did Obama fail? And in the world of socialists and progressives, isn't this failure a success?
And the second question? When will the GOP begin linking Obama's results to Obama's beliefs?
Let's return to the 2008 Democratic primary debates when then-Senator Obama was asked about raising taxes on capital gains. ABC's Charlie Gibson asked Obama:
Gibson: And in each instance, when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

One big election will be viewed as adults vs. children!

The Pierce County Herald ^ | August 29, 2012 | Ken Pazdernik

TO THE EDITOR: Now that Mitt Romney has selected his running mate, it is clear that this election will be viewed as the adults against the children.

One party wants everything for free and screams like little babies if someone dares to tell them that the country cannot afford to give them handouts. The other party wants to reduce the amount of entitlements in order to both save the country and to minimize the amount of debt that will be passed on to everyone’s children and grandchildren.

This election will also be about substance and class warfare. One party will talk most exclusively about national policies that are needed for the long-term survival of the nation. The other party will talk mostly about how terrible the most productive citizens in the country are and how all their hard work and ingenuity was really done by someone else.
One party has an aspiring socialist and a national embarrassment as their president and vice president. The other party has a successful businessman and the nation’s leading policy expert as their candidates.
When Sarah Palin ate Joe Biden’s lunch in the 2008 vice presidential debate, all the liberals said that Joe just had a bad day. Now it appears that Joe has a bad day every day. In 2008, all the liberals whined when Sarah Palin wasn’t ready to be president. In hindsight, Sarah Palin now looks like Winston Churchill compared to Joe Biden.
Moreover, if Sarah Palin would have been president, she would have been about five trillion dollars less expensive than President Obama and I am pretty sure Todd Palin would not have needed 21 personal assistants to take care of him. He would have taken care of himself and saved the taxpayers over two million dollars.
Please think before you vote in November.

War Room