Halloween Scares

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Wanna know just how seriously out of whack Liberals are? Especially, the Global Warming alarmist/control freaks?

From the Huffington Post:

Here’s an idea: instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to corrupt our political process, what if the fossil fuel industry took all that money and put it towards Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts instead?

After all, while the fossil fuel industry didn’t directly cause Hurricane Sandy, they did help lay the foundation for it. By pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and blocking any serious political action to address the problem, the industry has already succeeded in heating the planet 1°C. That’s resulted in an atmosphere that is 4% wetter than it was in the 1970s, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, a mid-Atlantic that is 5°F warmer than average, and sea levels off the coast of New York City that are a foot-higher than they were a century ago. Yesterday, those factors combined to turn what could have been manageable-Hurricane-Sandy into devastating Frankenstorm-Sandy.

The industry isn’t just juicing up the weather on carbon steroids, they’re blocking any attempts to put the planet into rehab.

BIG OIL CAUSED HURRICANE SANDY! And they’ll do it again unless we crush them!

Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!

And this is no Halloween Mask. It’s just a Boo! We’re crazed liberals!

Yesterday Mitt Romney turned a previously scheduled campaign event in Ohio into a hurricane relief event. Romney asked supporters to bring canned goods and other supplies to help storm victims recover on the East Coast. He only spoke for ten minutes at the event and quickly jumped in to help load supplies. His campaign bus has been accepting hurricane relief donations since Monday in Northern Virginia. Sounds like a great idea right? Not according to MSNBC. Reporters and anchors at the far-left TV outlet were appalled at Romney’s efforts to give back to the community, after all, his charity and generosity doesn’t fit with their “Romney is an evil rich guy who doesn’t care about regular people” narrative.

And yes you heard them correctly, they are actually criticizing Romney for trying to help people.

“Romney donates goods against Red Cross Guidelines” is the Banner on MSNBC.

THAT EVIL,RICH BASTARD! How dare he donate to people in need! He’s just doing it to buy votes! He’s a Heartless meanie!

Aside: Virtually every headline in the “Politics” section of The Huffington Post are attacks on Romney’s alleged position on cutting or eliminating FEMA.

Fear and Smear. NO Disaster is too big or too small for Liberals to get up on their high horse and pontificate about how politically evil their opponents are and How you should vote for them because the other guy’s an asshole!

So EVEN Hurricane relief is political to the LEFT.

So as I have said previously, even making toast is a political maneuver for the Left. Everything is Political. Everything must be made political.

So they can take cheap political shots and childish personal attacks on you.

FEAR IS HOPE

FEAR IS EVERYTHING

So how long before it becomes “racist”??

JOBS UPDATE:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last Tuesday that employers issued 1,316 “mass layoff actions” (affecting 50 workers or more) in September; more than 122,000 workers were affected overall. USA Today financial reporter Matt Krantz wrote that “(m)uch of the recent layoff activity is connected to what’s been the slowest period of earnings growth since the third quarter of 2009.” Some necessary restructuring is underway in response to the stagnant European economy. But more and more U.S. businesses are putting the blame — bravely and squarely — right where it belongs: on the obstructionist policies and regulatory schemes of the blame-shifter-in-chief.

Last week, Ohio-based auto parts manufacturer Dana Holding Corp. warned employees of potential layoffs amid “looming concern” about the economy. President and CEO Roger Wood specifically mentioned the walloping burden of “increasing taxes on small businesses” and the need to “offset increased costs that are placed on us through new laws and regulations.”

Case in point: Obamacare. The mandate will cost Dana Holding Corp., which employs some 24,500 workers, “approximately $24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses.” As Ohio Watchdog blogger Maggie Thurber reported, the firm’s Toledo area corporate offices laid off seven white-collar employees last Friday; company insiders told her more were on the way. They are not alone.

On Tuesday, Consol Energy issued a federally mandated layoff disclosure announcing its “intent to idle its Miller Creek surface operations near Naugatuck, W.Va.” The move will affect the company’s Wiley Surface Mine, Wiley Creek Surface Mine, Minway Surface Mine, Minway Preparation Plant and Miller Creek Administration Group, all in Mingo County, W.Va. Despite state approval, cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and myriad other agencies, and a stellar safety record, Obama’s EPA dragged its feet on the permit approval process. The impasse has forced layoffs of 145 Consol Energy employees that will hit at the end of the year. They are not alone.

In August, Robert E. Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation in Ohio, blasted the White House anti-coal agenda for the layoffs and closure of his company’s mine. He told Obama water-carrying CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien that “the many regulations that (Obama) and his radical appointees and the U.S. EPA have put on the use of coal, there are dozens of them and collectively by his own energy administration, have closed 175 power plants.” As O’Brien barked at her guest about purported environmental objections, Murray explained that “we cannot get permits for these mines. They are delaying the issuance of permits. If you can’t get the permit, you can’t have the mine. … I created those jobs, and I put the investment in that mine. And when it came time to lay the people off, I went up personally and talked to every one of them myself to lay them off. It’s a human issue.”

And it’s an innovation issue, too. As I reported in February, Obamacare’s impending 2.3 percent medical device excise tax has already wrought havoc on the industry:

Stryker, a maker of artificial hips and knees based in Kalamazoo, Mich., is slashing 5 percent of its global workforce (an estimated 1,000 workers) this coming year to reduce costs related to Obamacare’s taxes and mandates.

Covidien, a N.Y.-based surgical supplies manufacturer, recently announced layoffs of 200 American workers and plans to move some of its plant work to Mexico and Costa Rica, in part because of the coming tax hit.

Mass.-based Zoll Medical Corp., which makes defibrillators and employs some 1,800 workers in the U.S. and around the world, says the medical device tax will cost the company between $5 million and $10 million a year.

This July, Indiana’s Cook Medical Inc. shelved plans to open five new plants because of the imminent medical device tax hit. They are not alone.

The heads of Koch Industries, Westgate Resorts and ASG Software Solutions have all separately informed their employees of prosperity-undermining Obama economic politics. Left-wing groups have lambasted the executives for exercising their political free speech.

But they have remained silent while the White House corruptocrats bribed federal defense contractors into delaying federally mandated layoff disclosures before the election. In a memo now being investigated on Capitol Hill, Obama promised to cover the legal fees of Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors if they ignored legal requirements to inform workers in advance about so-called sequestration cuts to the military’s budget scheduled to kick in next year.

Truth suppression is a time-honored Obama tactic, of course. Remember: The administration and its Democratic allies on Capitol Hill attempted to punish Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon and ATT in 2010 for disclosing how the costs of Obamacare taxes were hitting their bottom lines — even though they were simply following SEC disclosure requirements. The White House also tried to silence insurers who dared to inform their customers about how Obamacare was driving up premiums. Not this time.

The administration’s bully boys don’t have enough whitewash and duct tape to cover up the past, present and future devastation of the president and his economic demolition team. (Michelle Malkin)

But it’s all Bush’s Fault! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Cooling Out

“Anytime a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who were serving our country get killed, we have to figure out what happened and fix it,” he said, speaking with Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski in New Hampshire. “But I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.” (RCP)

Obama: “If four Americans get killed, it’s not OPTIMAL”

That’s why he said “act of terror” the day after (The talking point) and then blamed a film for weeks then switched to the State Department did it, then the CIA did it, and finally stop blaming me for lying about it, damn you! 🙂

That’s cleared that up. 🙂

Obama “Playing President” During Sandy, But Not For Benghazi

“Well, he says he’s not concerned about the impact on the elections,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about Obama and Hurricane Sandy on Monday’s broadcast of “Special Report” on FOX News. “I’m sure he’s very sincere on that. It is a little odd that he shows up in the briefing room, where he hasn’t shown up in the briefing room for about, what, a month and a half? On Libya, or for everything else for that matter. Then you get the photo-ops of him in the Situation Room deploying, I guess, the utility crews who will restore power all over America. Whereas you would think he might want to use the Situation Room and had convene high level people during the nine hours our people were under attack in Benghazi.”

“It’s hard to look at this, playing the president, playing the Commander in Chief in what’s a natural disaster that really doesn’t a lot of leadership from the White House,” Krauthammer said. “It’s up to the Governors mostly. The White House and the Governors release money, that’s about all that they do. And he’s really good at releasing money and pretending it’s not about politics. He wants to use this to show himself in command and I think he might actually be the beneficiary of the fact that all national attention is drawn away for three days. Romney clearly had the momentum, it slowed down but it was still heading in his direction. It’s not clear what happens when the country sort of wakes up out of this in three days and restarts attention on the campaign, whether the momentum will be gone or not. I mean, that’s an open question.”

“I think Charles is a little too hard on Obama. Frankly, it’s huge progress that he didn’t blame this hurricane on a video,” Jonah Goldberg, fellow “Special Report” panelist, joked.

“Or on George Bush,” Krauthammer shot back. (RCP)

YET. 🙂

The brilliant Thomas Sowell nails it: Confidence men know that their victim — “the mark” as he has been called — is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out — but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton’s own White House aides later called it “telling the truth slowly.”

By the time the whole truth came out, it was called “old news,” and the clever phrase now was that we should “move on.”

It was a successful “cooling out” of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.

We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year.

The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead.

About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there.

Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?

The White House knew the facts — but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of “cooling out” the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.

Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.

All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions and inactions of the Obama administration kept in the background. The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty — “cooling out” the voters — the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.

As the Obama administration’s video story began to slowly unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on “the fog of war” that initially obscures many events. But there was no such “fog of war” in this case. The Obama administration knew what was happening while it was happening.

They didn’t know all the details — and we may never know all the details — but they knew enough to know that this was no protest demonstration that got out of hand.

From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a “war on terror” or the terrorists’ war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders “workplace violence,” instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism.

The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists’ attack in Libya exposed that fraud — and required another fraud to try to “cool out” the voters until after election day.

AMEN!

NEXT TUESDAY- NOVEMBER IS HERE!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Abuse of Power

Another amoral, unethical, cross-the-line, vicious, win-at-any-cost even if we have to use children to do it ad From Obama:

A new video from the founders of a celebrated advertising agency features children “of the future” singing about the aftermath of a Mitt Romney presidency: A world where sick people are required to “just die,” the atmosphere is “frying,” gays can be “fixed” and “oil fills the sea.”

The children, who stare blankly at the camera throughout the video, even take pains to explicitly mention that they blame “mom and dad” for all those horrors.

Apocalypse Much? Over-The-Top Much?

You must let Government take over every aspect of your life, or else the Apocalypse will come.

Personally, I think it’s coming either way because of the all-or-nothing no compromise politics of the 21st Century, but at least if we get Obama out of the way it will be less of one.

But don’t worry, just like Hurricane Sandy, it will all be George W Bush’s fault! :

One Hurricane note I found particularly interesting (The Mount Holly, NJ Station):

IF YOU ARE RELUCTANT, THINK ABOUT YOUR LOVED ONES, THINK ABOUT THE EMERGENCY RESPONDERS WHO WILL BE UNABLE TO REACH YOU WHEN YOU MAKE THE PANICKED PHONE CALL TO BE RESCUED, THINK ABOUT THE RESCUE/RECOVERY TEAMS WHO WILL RESCUE YOU IF YOU ARE INJURED OR RECOVER YOUR REMAINS IF YOU DO NOT SURVIVE.

Narcissistic Eastern Shore Liberals think of someone but themselves. Parish the thought. They surely will.

And next year when their homeowners insurance rates go up because of the damage they’ll whine that they don’t want to pay for other people’s problems.

The cynical hilarity of it all will be lost on them.

LIBYA UPDATE

Obama is still trying to avoid answering anything substantive at all.

President Obama declined to answer directly whether a CIA annex was denied urgent requests for military assistance during the deadly attacks last month on U.S. outposts in Libya.

The president did not give a yes-or-no answer Friday when asked pointedly whether the Americans under attack in Benghazi, Libya, were denied requests for help during the attack.

The election has nothing to do with the four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened,” the president said in TV interview with an NBC affiliate in Colorado.

Why isn’t the election about this, Mr. Lead-From-Behind?

When asked again, Obama said, “The minute I found out what was going on, I gave three very clear directives — Number 1, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” 

<<CYNICAL ROTFL>> So that’s why he blamed it on a film for weeks and now refused to answer any questions with anything other than evasion!
Here’s Senator John McCain of Arizona on CBS’s Face the Nation:

You know, this administration is very good at touting and giving all the details like when they got Bin Laden. But now, we know that there were tapes, recordings inside the consulate during this fight, and they’ve gotten—they came—the F.B.I. finally got in and took those, and now they’re classified as “top secret.” Why would they be top secret? So the president went on various shows, despite what he said he said in the Rose Garden, about terrorist acts, he went on several programs, including “The View” including “Letterman” including before the U.N., where he continued to refer, days later, many days later, to this as a spontaneous demonstration because of a hateful video. We know that is patently false. What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?

McCain said for “literally days and days” the White House “told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever.”(WS)

And I’m no fan of McCain’s but he is right. And the Ministry of Truth and the President are blowing it off because they have something more important in mind – His re-coronation as The Emperor Who Has No Clothes.

But at least he does it in style:

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family. (DC)

It’s good to be the King.

NOVEMBER IS VERY CLOSE!

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Progress

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Fruits of Obama’s “better relations” and “destruction” of Al-Qaeda:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday.

In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

Criticizing the new Egyptian government — led by a president drawn from the Muslim Brotherhood — as corrupt, he said a battle is being waged in Egypt between a secular minority and Muslims seeking implementation of Shariah law. (france24)

Despite real-time video, emails to the White House and desperate cries for help, our defense secretary says we didn’t send rescue forces to our Benghazi consulate because we didn’t know what was going on.

In a statement bordering on the Kafkaesque, Leon Panetta told a news conference Thursday that four Americans, including our Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens, were left to die without a rescue attempt by nearby U.S. military forces because there’s “a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

That would seem to sum up the Obama administration’s assessment of and story line about the Middle East — it has no real-time clue about what’s going on. Osama bin Laden is dead, but Islamofascism is very much alive, and to send an ambassador and his diplomatic mission into harm’s way without so much as a Marine security detachment with bayonets is unconscionable.

Excuse us, Mr. Secretary, but your administration had a drone over the consulate on Sept. 11, and you and President Obama had a meeting that included Vice President Joe “Nobody Told Us” Biden in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. Washington time, a little more than an hour after the onset of the attack. There were at least 50 minutes of real-time video of the attack as the battle was sent streaming directly to the Situation Room in the White House.

Real-time emails were also pouring into the Situation Room detailing that 20 armed terrorists were attacking our Benghazi consulate, that Ambassador Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack. Most claims of responsibility for a terrorist attack come days after the event. This was, as they say, in “real-time.”

If indeed you had insufficient knowledge concerning the attack itself, you certainly had knowledge of the threat. Ambassador Stevens had been begging for even the most basic security, and all his requests for additional security were denied. And how about this little factoid: the Benghazi consulate was and is sovereign U.S. territory that you and President Obama had a responsibility and duty to defend. (IBD)

But the only thing they want to defend is Barack’s political ass.

A Famous  Quote from our Dear Leader:

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

An Even Better one for all of us:

“The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” — Plato

So If you want better, VOTE. If you want Obama out, VOTE. If you want Democrats defeated, VOTE.

It’s that simple. If you don’t vote, don’t Bitch.

I vote. I really bitch! 🙂

His ALL-IN (the shit) Energy Policy:

It’s not that Obama necessarily hates profits. What he’s really concerned about is where they end up.

“Greater profits,” he said in February 2011, “have to be shared by American workers.” So rather than letting profits accrue to those who earned them, the president wants them to be “shared” in a way that he approves.

Profit-loathing isn’t limited to the White House. It’s partywide. Democrats from top to bottom are agitated when corporations profit, especially oil companies.

This couldn’t have been more clear than when earlier this year, six House Democrats — Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) — proposed a Reasonable Profits Board that would levy a 50% to 100% tax on oil company earnings that exceeded a “reasonable profit” limit.

Former House speaker and current Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was not among those who put together the totalitarian-sounding Reasonable Profits Board. But she’s been known to spit out phrases such as “record profits,” “profiteering,” “highly profitable,” when describing oil companies’ earnings.

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Harry Reid, who still runs the Senate for the Democrats, has similar ill feelings toward health insurance companies.

In Reid’s mind, the “profit motive” of insurers has “almost destroyed our economy.” He’s complained — incorrectly — “they make more money than any other business in America today,” implying that there is something wrong with making more than everyone else and forgetting that some industry has to come out on top.

Unless, of course, we live in a nation in which the government uses its force to even all outcomes. Could it be that’s what the Democrats are really trying to achieve?

The Democrats’ war on profits is just as shameful at the grass-roots level. Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, discovered just how intense the animosity is when he spoke to Democrats at their convention this year in Charlotte, N.C. He was told that Washington should mandate “corporate losses,” ban corporate profits, “limit” corporate profits and put a “cap” on them.

Predictable. And so, unfortunately, was the response of a woman who initially said she didn’t know enough about banning corporate profits to offer an opinion, only to later say she would favor a ban if Obama approved of one. Why? Because, she gushed, “I will support anything my president wants to do.”

There is an ugly jealousy and spitefulness that runs deep and wide through today’s Democratic Party.

It shows in the desperation of the Obama re-election campaign. It’s supposed to be the party of peace and unity. But it’s become a party of division and disunity. (IBD)

I would add Disrespect, distraction, disgust, and Disharmony.

Ignorance is the Best Strategy

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The emails documented that within two hours of the attack, the State Department had told the Obama administration that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for this terrorist attack.

This is news because White House press secretary Jay Carney said on September 14: “We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack.” The emails show they did, in fact, have information suggesting a planned terrorist attack, yet President Obama and his spokesmen for days lied to the American people, falsely claiming it was a “spontaneous” attack spurred by a “video.”

ABC NEWS gave it 20 seconds.
25 seconds on “Good Morning America” and 20 seconds on “World News” Wednesday night.  “Good Morning America” skipped the story entirely on Thursday morning, but did commit nearly 2 minutes to the capture of a monkey in Florida. “World News” did not mention the emails on Thursday night.

The Ministry of Truth in action to suppress anything bad for their guy. And then they go digging for silly stories about the opposition. But don’t worry, they still they aren’t propagandists rather than “journalists”

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.” 

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. 

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. 

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down. 

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.” 

The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. (FOX)

Either way, it still proves this wasn’t about a video, but it was about the Obama Administration “I got Bin Laden” Bad ass “improving” relations in the area perception filters.

Then the CIA didn’t want to be thrown under the bus.

The CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” 

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

We should want to know. He doesn’t want anyone to care because he wants to be re-elected first, then he can appoint his “independent” commission (if re-elected) to study it for the next 4 years so that it’s utterly meaningless.

After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it’s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won’t be released until after the election, the president said, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.”

President Obama told KUSA-TV’s Kyle Clarke large that “we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice. So, we’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again but we’re also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”

Potential OCTOBER Surprise anyone? 🙂 (Bring the ones who did to drone justice so they can’t tell anyone it wasn’t “spontaneous” or related to a film). Coldly cynical. Coldly political. If he can manage it.

Clark pressed again.

“Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” he asked.

“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

Earlier today, Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin reported that CIA agents in the second U.S. compound in Benghazi were denied requests for help.

In response, CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.” (Jake Tapper)

Gee, I thought it was the fault of a film. He said so at the UN. And his flunkies said it for weeks afterwards. So that’s he’s idea of “finding out what happened?”

Fascinating.

But don’t worry, it’s political because Romney and Ryan keep bringing it up! 🙂

AND IN ECONOMIC NEWS:

the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

“According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795,” the Senate Budget Committee notes. “If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011.”  

This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. “If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350. (WS)

And yet poverty is going UP. Amazing how that works. 50 years of the War on Poverty and they still can’t get fixed by throwing money at it.

And we end with another Bidenism. Ah, Joe, you’re so funny…

“But you can’t erase what you’ve already done, they’ve voted to extend tax cuts for the very wealthy, giving a $500 trillion dollar tax-cut to 120,000 families.”

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

Second Term

The number of American workers collecting federal disability insurance benefits hit yet another record high in October, according to the

Social Security Administration. This month 8.8 million disabled workers are collecting benefits, up from the previous record of 8.7 million set in September.

In February 2009, the first full month after President Barack Obama took office, there were 7.4 million workers collecting federal disability insurance. Thus, so far in Obama’s term, the number of workers collecting disability has increased by 1.3 million. That works out to a net increase of about 30K per month, or an average increase of about 975 per day (KFYI)

Obama: “I don’t want your vote just because of what I have done; I want your vote because of what I’m going to do.”

But what he’s going to do is a horror show of unbelievable socialism. So ignore what I HAVE Done. Just HOPE I do better next time (though when I don’t it will STILL be Bush’s fault and/or The Republicans)

Have Faith. Ignore the Facts.

Proof Denies Faith, and without faith I am nothing” — Douglas Adams.

Obama in Florida: “When you elect a president, you’re counting on somebody you can trust to fight for you, who you can trust to do what they say they’re going to do, who can trust — that you can trust to make sure that when something unexpected happens, he or she is going to be thinking about your families, your future. Trust matters. And, Florida, you know me. You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say.”
It was the Film’s Fault! 🙂
It was George Bush’s Fault!
It’s was Corporate America’s Fault!
It’s Rich people’s Fault!
We are do better in the Middle East than ever before… 🙂

Anyone wondering why President Obama waited to reveal his second-term agenda should read his “plan.” It’s nothing but a stage prop full of recycled policies, failed ideas and stuff he ignored in his first term.

Even crediting Obama with putting forth a new plan is being too generous. All he really did was scrape together the handful of proposals he’d put up on his campaign website and add some nice photos and pretty graphics.

But since he’s waving around his 20-page, seven-point (two more than Romney’s!) plan at every campaign stop and acting like it’s a credible strategy to create jobs, we feel it deserves a careful reading. Here’s what we found.

• No credible tax reform plans. Obama says he’ll create a million manufacturing jobs in four years, first by reforming the corporate tax code.

We’re all for cutting the corporate tax rate and simplifying the code, but Obama had the chance to make this happen in his first term, after his own Economic Recovery Advisory Board urged such reforms back in August 2010.

Instead, he waited until February 2012 to put out a sketchy tax reform “framework.” And even that ignored many of the board’s recommendations.

Obama also says he’ll eliminate “tax deductions for companies shipping jobs overseas and use the savings to create new a tax credit for companies that bring jobs home.”

This is precisely what Sen. John Kerry proposed when he ran for president in 2004. In fact, Kerry’s economic adviser, Gene Sperling — who now heads Obama’s National Economic Council — used the same language back then, saying Kerry was committed to “eliminating tax incentives to move jobs overseas and using those funds to create incentives for new jobs and investment in the United States.”

The problem is that whenever anyone looks into this, they come to the same conclusion: There’s nothing there. A FactCheck.org report on Kerry’s plan in 2004 said off-shoring was “a minor problem that Kerry’s plan wouldn’t do much to fix.”

This year the same group pointed out that “there is no specific tax break for the sole purpose of relocating a U.S. job to another country.”

• Nothing for small businesses. Obama proposes cutting taxes on small business who hire new workers or increase wages. But this idea has already been tried and repeatedly found wanting.

A 2010 Congressional Research Service report concluded that these kinds of tax breaks haven’t been “as effective in increasing employment as desired.”

Obama also says he will expand the small business health insurance tax break included in ObamaCare. The problem is, this temporary credit has already been a massive failure, attracting just 170,000 small firms where Obama had predicted up to 4 million.

• Bogus deficit cuts. Obama says he has a “balanced” plan to cut the projected 10-year deficit by $4 trillion, using $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes.

But Obama’s own budget, released in February 2012, proves his plan would do nothing of the sort.

That document shows Obama would shave just $2 trillion off the projected $8.7 trillion in deficits, and would do so almost entirely through tax hikes, with $20 in new revenue for every $1 in spending cuts.

• More failed energy policies. Obama’s new energy plan is little changed from his old one — more “clean energy,” more investment in “high-tech” batteries, more money spent on wind and solar, onerous fuel economy rules for cars, and a mandate that a certain percentage of electric power come from renewable energy.

But those policies resulted in tens of billions of tax dollars wasted on failed companies and higher energy prices. The only thing new in Obama’s energy proposals is that he’s now hiding his massively expensive commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

• Phony education reforms. Four years ago, Obama promised to make college tuition more affordable and community college “completely free.”

But even with all the federal grant money and tax breaks Obama’s piled on, net college costs climbed 14% in the past four years, and community college costs are basically unchanged. Now Obama says he’ll cut college tuition growth rates in half, but hasn’t offered any realistic way to do so.

Obama’s other big idea is to hire 100,000 math and science teachers. But when Democrats tried to get this done last year, they couldn’t even get a bill to the floor of either the House or Senate.

• ObamaCare, seriously? The fact that Obama felt the need to include ObamaCare in his seven-point plan for the future shows just how bereft he is of new ideas.

• No entitlement reforms. And, finally, Obama’s Medicare and Social Security reform ideas can be summed up in three words: Just say no.

Obama promises only to block Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform idea and fight against any plan that would let today’s young workers invest Social Security taxes in private investment accounts. But he has no plans of his own to save either program from bankruptcy.

Obama might think that brandishing a shiny document and talking vaguely about “Moving America Forward” and “The New Economic Patriotism” will be enough to keep voters in his camp, just as “Hope and Change” did four years ago.

We suspect there are a lot of voters out there who don’t want to be fooled again. (IBD)

But I suspect there are plenty of them.
BENGHAZI

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).

“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”

Well, you are peasant and he has to do this because he’s required to but you are beneath him, you know.
This was just a political annoyance that had to be swept away.

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

“We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”-Hillary Clinton previously told him.

MORE LIES

Obama: “That organization [Planned Parenthood] provides millions of women with cervical cancer screenings, mammograms.”

No they don’t.

But who cares if he’s lying, certainly not him, his sycophants, or the Ministry of Truth.

“In many ways, because of the actions we took early on, we’re actually ahead of pace in the typical recovery out of a recession like this,” Obama said.

BULLCRAP!

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/

In the 12 quarters since the Obama recovery started, real GDP has climbed 6.7%. That’s below even the GDP growth rate in the 12 quarters after the 1980 recession ended — despite the fact that there was the intervening deep and prolonged 1981-82 recession.

The picture isn’t any better when looking at job growth.

Obama often boasts that the economy has added 5.2 million private-sector jobs in the 31 months since employment bottomed out in February 2010. But that rate of job growth lags every previous recovery as well if, as Obama does, you start counting at the point where jobs bottomed out.

Bush oversaw 5.3 million new private-sector jobs in the 31 months after employment hit bottom in mid-2003. Under Reagan, private-sector jobs climbed 8.2 million during a comparable time period.

What’s more, Obama’s recovery has reclaimed only about half the jobs lost during the recession. That’s a far cry from prior recoveries, which saw the number of jobs exceed the previous peak by this point.

In fact, had job growth under Obama kept pace with the previous worst recovery since World War II, there would be nearly 6 million more people with jobs today.

To be fair, the president uses a qualifier in his quote, comparing his recovery to others “out of a recession like this.”

In the past, Obama has argued that recoveries from a financial crisis like the one that caused 2007-09 recession are invariably slow and painful.

In June, for example, Obama said that “this was not your normal recession.”

He added that “throughout history, it has typically taken countries up to 10 years to recover from financial crises of this magnitude. Today, the economies of many European countries still aren’t growing. And their unemployment rate averages around 11%.”

Obama points to the work of economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, who say that recoveries from financial crises tend to be protracted. Recently, the two wrotethat “if one compares U.S. output per capita and employment performance with those of other countries that suffered systemic financial crises in 2007-08, the U.S. performance is better than average.”

But the claim that financial crises always produce slow recoveries isn’t set in stone.

In fact, an October 2011 paper by the Atlanta Fed concluded that “U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007—2008.”

And a November 2011 paper by economists at Rutgers University and the Cleveland Fed concluded that while recessions tied to financial crises tend to be deeper than average, the recoveries also tend to be stronger than average.

Study co-author Michael Bardo noted that, based on these findings, “the slow recovery that we are experiencing from the recession that ended in July 2009 is an exception to the historical pattern.”(IBD)

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

The Sloth

Today is my 50th Birthday. So Happy Birthday to me, Mr President…

My New Bumper Sticker, Just for you! 🙂

Question: When Does anything not become Bush’s Fault?

Answer: When Romney Wins! Then it’s all HIS fault! 🙂

Addendum: If Obama wins, it’s all the “Congress’s” Fault (aka Republicans).

Oh Happy Days.

As I have gotten older and especially after my mom died 2 years ago mortality is much more on my mind.

Childhood heroes like Neil Armstrong start dropping like flies.

And even though I don’t have kids I wonder about the younger generations.

I am not consumed by “What’s in it for Me?!”

Hence, why I am a Tea Party Conservative. I want all this damn ridiculous overspending to stop because as Margret Thatcher once said (in paraphrase),”You eventually run out of other people’s money” and this game of borrowing money so you can spend it to kiss someone elses ass or  because you want to control everyone is just not going to work in the long run.

But these people aren’t thinking of the long run. Myopia is the watch word these days. 2 weeks from now when the election is over they will start running for 2014. And if Obama wins he’ll just be The King. 🙂

And “the people”, at least 47% of them will be looking for new handouts of “free” money or money taken from evil rich people who don’t need so why not give it to them. (because you don’t deserve it, perhaps?)

In my lifetime this country has gone from the self-reliant king of innovations to the sloth of an entitlement me-culture. And the most likely victims of this are much younger than I and have been raised by these people to be just like them.

But I still worry about them.

Unlike the Left. The supposed champions of these people. They just want to breed dependence and have done pretty awesome job of turning innovators into sloths.

Buy hey, sloths, vote for Democrats and that’s all that matters to them.

And as for the Republicans, well they too just want to be elected or re-elected and have bought the sloth and the sloth won. So they need to grow some balls.

And that’s the bottom line. Because, that’s what’s in it for them. 🙂

Oh, and by the way, that evil horse owning elitist witch who “never worked a day in her life” and has poor people to chew her food for her, Ann Romney is on Rachael Ray today, Check your Local Listings.

Now, I’m off to a Day long Marathon of Doctor Who!

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Presidential?

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

“Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely,” the official said. (reuters)

Then, at 6:07 p.m., State sent out another alert saying the embassy in Tripoli reported the Islamic military group “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty for Benghazi Attack”… “on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.” (CBS)

But don’t worry, it was all because of a film!

Obama, Hillary, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice amongst other didn’t lie (or try to cover up) or mislead  you for weeks.

It means that the administration’s repeated characterizations of the attack as “spontaneous”demonstrations in response to a YouTube video — for two full weeks thereafter — were knowingly, hideously false, misleading and incomplete.

But that’s Hillary’s Fault as we all know now, after all, she said a month later after lying about it herself for weeks so we can trust that conclusion. 🙂

VERY PRESIDENTIAL

If any reads this you know how much I pick on liberals fro being childish schoolyard bullies and snotty little kids. Well..

Obama: Now, we’ve come up with a name for this condition. It’s called Romnesia.  (Applause.)  

Audience: Romnesia!  Romnesia!  Romnesia!

 Obama: We had a severe outbreak last night.  (Applause.)  It was at least stage three Romnesia.  (Laughter and applause.)  And I just want to go over with you some of the symptoms, Delray, because I want to make sure nobody in the surrounding area catches it.  (Laughter.)  If you say that you love American cars during a debate, but you wrote an article titled, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” you might have Romnesia.  (Applause.)

“Romnesia” is Obama’s phrase he uses when alleging Romney once stood for something different than what the Republican now stands for.

Now this lie is not strictly true, but then again this is just meat to throw to the stupid masses who’d buy his class warfare diet anyhow.

But how Presidential is grade school snarky name calling??

GIVING THE BUSINESS

“In a campaign season marked by new lows in polarizing rhetoric, some of the most divisive has originated from the President and his allies — and has been aimed at successful people in the business sector,” the business leaders write. “These attacks are not getting us anywhere. They are really just political tricks to distract from the President’s own policy failures.”

The successful business leaders then explain how, in their opinion, Obama has been anti-business:

Consider for instance what the President hasn’t said. He has no solution for the staggering $16 trillion debt the nation carries — a burden his policies increase minute by minute. He won’t explain why the stimulus spending hasn’t produced the jobs recovery he predicted. His party has failed to produce a budget in nearly four years. He has no answer for investors who need fiscal stability before they can put money at risk.

Instead, his Administration has increased regulations on virtually every sector of the economy while the President maligns business achievement in his campaign stump speeches.

American free enterprise is not the problem. Free enterprise is the essence of opportunity. It employs tens of millions, generates tax revenue, and pays healthcare benefits for millions of families. It is the engine that drives new industries, products, services, and innovation.

So when the President and his aides pit Americans against one another, it is not only misguided, it is irresponsible. Americans deserve solutions, not political ploys.

Fair-minded people can differ on those solutions. But the President seems oblivious to the fact that dynamic, productive job growth comes not from government spending, but from the private sector.

And the business leaders ask the American people to consider Obama’s anti-business record before voting: “Before you vote on Election Day, think carefully about what kind of country we are creating for ourselves and coming generations. Will it be a country that demeans job-creating business owners by saying, ‘You didn’t build that?’

“Or will it be a country that protects free enterprise and allows everyone to pursue their highest aspirations?” (WS)

Thomas Sowell: It was a little much when President Obama said that he was “offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi, Libya. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first $1 trillion deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion-dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a “transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.

Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations — and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an “investigation” under way. An “on-going investigation” sounds so much better than “stonewalling” to get past election day.

But you can bet the rent money that this “investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.

The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of Sept. 11 were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, “in real time,” as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming “investigation” to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.

Fraud And Fiction

The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don’t need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.

The administration’s initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama’s much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.

To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating Obama’s supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that al-Qaida was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.

Bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the U.S. into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.

Nobody tried to depict President Franklin D. Roosevelt as some kind of hero for having simply authorized the killing of Yamamoto. In that case, the only hero who was publicized was the man who shot down the plane that Yamamoto was in.

Yet the killing of bin Laden has been depicted as some kind of act of courage by Obama. After bin Laden was located, why would any president not give the go-ahead to get him?

That took no courage at all. It would have been far more dangerous politically for Obama not to have given the go-ahead. Moreover, Obama hedged his bets by authorizing the admiral in charge of the operation to proceed only under various conditions.

This meant that success would be credited to Obama and failure could be blamed on the admiral — who would join George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and other scapegoats for Obama’s failures.

NOVEMBER IS COMING

VERY VERY SOON!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

The Choice

“If you want peace, prepare for war.” — Ancient Roman wisdom

In 1938, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain was determined to keep peace between Great Britain and Germany. Dismayed by the carnage of World War I, Chamberlain (along with most of the opinion elite in England) sought peace with honor — but in any case peace.

Yes, Chamberlain had watched with growing anxiety as Germany, in defiance of treaties, rearmed, and as the Nazi party engaged in ever more brazen and violent repression of domestic opponents. Germany’s alliance with militarist Japan and fascist Spain (1936), followed by the Pact of Steel with fascist Italy, and the absorption of Austria in early 1938 increased Downing Street’s disquiet. Yet Chamberlain was determined that Hitler should comprehend Britain’s peaceful intentions.

Chamberlain pursued back-channel negotiations with Hitler throughout 1938, as the Führer fulminated about repression of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s aggressive intent was plain. But Britons, Chamberlain said, were not willing to risk war for “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.” Britain pressured the Czech government to make concessions to Germany. When Hitler increased his threats, Chamberlain implemented “Plan Z” — an offer to travel to Germany in person to negotiate with Hitler.

Hitler agreed, and Chamberlain met the dictator at his mountain retreat of Berchtesgaden. A week later, he returned to Germany for a second meeting. This time, Hitler kept his eager visitor waiting for half a day, and then backed away from the agreement he had made the previous week. Still, Hitler hinted that if the Sudetenland was handed over, he would have no other territorial claims in Europe. Chamberlain was excited by this, but upon his return home, he found that his cabinet was less so. Undaunted, he contacted Hitler a third time and requested an invitation to return to Germany.

At Munich, after laborious negotiations among many parties including the Czechs, French, and Italians, Chamberlain asked for a private meeting with Hitler. At their tête à tête, Chamberlain pulled from his pocket a three-paragraph codicil to the Munich agreement declaring that Britain and Germany would never go to war again. Hitler signed it happily. And Chamberlain returned home declaring that he had achieved “peace in our time.”

Chamberlain’s error, apart from believing that Hitler’s word could be trusted, was in assuming that telegraphing his peaceful intent would bring peace. In fact, when dealing with villains and aggressors, signaling peaceful intent is precisely the worst course. Far better to keep them uncertain and insecure.

From the first days of his presidency, President Obama has pursued a Chamberlainesque policy toward Iran. He began the relationship by assuming that the clerical regime’s hostility was directed at George W. Bush, not at America. Obama accordingly sent New Year’s greetings to the regime (though not to the people) expressing his hopes for a fresh start. He sought face-to-face negotiations with the mullahs. They scorned him. When thousands of Iranians took to the streets en masse following a stolen election, he kept silent, though some chanted “Obama Obama, you’re either with us or with them.” Obama’s silence spoke volumes, signaling his desire, above all else, for peace. In so doing, like Chamberlain, he conveyed weakness to an aggressor.

So it was no surprise when, after 18 months of failed courtship, Obama’s late embrace of sanctions led to a diplomatic dance. Each new round of sanctions (often vitiated by Obama-administration waivers) was accompanied by new offers of negotiation by the mullahs. In the seemingly endless P5-plus-1 talks, the Iranians would agree to limits on the enrichment of uranium at one moment only to deny that they had done so a month or a year later. Meanwhile, the centrifuges kept spinning.

Each new agreement to talk was treated by the Obama administration as a great victory — even when the chief of Iran’s nuclear program told the London Arabic newspaper Al Hayat that the regime consistently lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Now, with only two weeks to go before an election that could select a less congenial president (from Iran’s point of view), and with the Europeans considering a gasoline embargo on the regime, word leaks (though it is denied by the White House) about a possible secret agreement between Iran and the United States for post-election one-on-one negotiations.

It looks like one more delaying tactic by the mullahs. But it may look to Obama like “Plan Z.”(Mona Charen)

As some kind of “October surprise” it’s more trick than treat but Obama doesn’t understand which is which.

Election ’12: From Moscow to Caracas to Havana, something disturbing is happening: Dictators with long records of enmity toward the U.S. are endorsing Obama for president. What does that say about the Obama presidency?

Fresh from abusing Venezuela’s opposition after his own rigged re-election, Chavez declared, “If I were American, I would vote for Obama. He is my candidate.” It was his second direct endorsement of Obama in a week. After that, he spooled off his plans to impose socialism on his country.

Around the same time, Mariela Castro, daughter of Cuba’s ruling communist capo Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother, told CNN: “As a citizen of the world, I would like for (Obama) to win.”

She added: “Obama deserves a second chance and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects which I believe come from the heart.”

There was more of that appreciation of Obama’s heartwarmingness from Russia’s stoat-faced autocrat Vladimir Putin: “Obama is a genuine person who really wants to change much for the better,” he said, in what The Moscow Times said was “widely viewed as his most direct endorsement of Obama.”

That has since been followed by more of the same from that bastion of dictatorships in club form — the United Nations. Monday, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights warned Americans that a vote for Mitt Romney was “a vote for torture,” an indirect endorsement of Obama — or else.

There’ve been other indirect endorsements, too.

Earlier this year, The Gulf Times, a newspaper closely aligned with the autocratic rulers of Dubai, endorsed Obama, significant because the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is part, was found to be financing “Promised Land,” a Hollywood film starring Matt Damon with the mission to discourage fracking in the U.S., which would lessen U.S. consumption of Gulf oil.

And there have been de facto endorsements based on acts — from the evidence of Chinese cash coming into Obama’s campaign coffers through the China-domiciled Web site Obama.com — to the sudden declaration by Iran’s mullahs last weekend of “peace talks” soon to be held, but only if Americans vote for Obama.

One or two silly endorsements from movie stars or Honey Boo Boo are one thing.

But with this president, there’s a sustained and disturbing pattern of America’s enemies signaling preference for Obama over the alternative as U.S. president.

In the case of Chavez and the Castro oligarchs, it’s obvious enough that Obama governs in a way that resembles their own — increasing state employees and state dependency, ruling by decree, singling out companies for punishment, and engaging in a cult of personality where the state is replaced by the leader.

In the case of the Gulf states, there are ends that coincide with Obama’s domestic politics — ending fracking.

But in the case of some of America’s other dangerous foes — from Russia to China to Iran — the only answer to this odd phenomenon is a recognition that Obama is a weaker horse. He is therefore easier to corner or checkmate to achieve their own power ends — in the case of all — military and nuclear power.

From their point of view, it makes perfect sense. But it ought to be obvious to U.S. voters that this pattern of a weak America would be a disaster for the country and contrary to their own interests.

Does America really want perfect harmony with dictators who abuse their own people, threatening American allies such as Israel and Taiwan?

Frankly, it’s they who should be cornered by a strong U.S. president. That Obama hasn’t speaks volumes about his leadership. (IBD)

The debt that the U.S. government owes to foreign interests now equals approximately $47,495 for each household in the United States, according to the latest data released by the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau.The portion of the U.S. government’s foreign debt now owed to interests in Mainland China is about $10,090 per household. (KFYI)

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Addressing The Ball

President Barack Obama isn’t talking about it and neither is Mitt Romney. But come January, 163 million workers can expect to feel the pinch of a big tax increase regardless of who wins the election.

A temporary reduction in Social Security payroll taxes is due to expire at the end of the year and hardly anyone in Washington is pushing to extend it. Neither Obama nor Romney has proposed an extension, and it probably wouldn’t get through Congress anyway, with lawmakers in both parties down on the idea.

Even Republicans who have sworn off tax increases have little appetite to prevent one that will cost a typical worker about $1,000 a year, and two-earner family with six-figure incomes as much as $4,500. (KFYI)

And the Payroll tax holiday was a campaign gimmick 2 years ago. Hope you enjoyed your holiday because the bill is coming due. And no one in Washington cares enough to even address it.
Then there’s the news media:
KPHO, the local Phoenix CBS affiliate apparently on last Friday in the afternoon put up this graphic on screen…
But don’t worry, there’s no bias in the media!! They only invested time into creating this graphic and someone flipped the switch on it less than 3 weeks before the election.
OBAMACARE
A little-known section in the ObamaCare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the ObamaCare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads.  (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees.

In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.

The IRS regulations do not apply to seasonal or temporary workers, only to regular employees. (MRC)

But I’m sure this won’t hurt small businesses at all! 🙂

I guess you have to pass it to know why you hate it! 🙂

ILLEGAL DEPENDENTS

The Obama administration is waiving a law that requires it to deny visas and entry to non-citizens who arelikely at any time to become” a government dependent – and is ignoring requests for information regarding this move, Sen. Jeff Sessions said today.

Sen. Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, issued a statement after USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack missed the deadline to reply to oversight requests for data on expenditures for non-citizens on food stamps and information regarding the administration’s waiver of federal immigration law:

“Included in the oversight letter was a request for information about USDA’s contact with the Departments of State and Homeland Security regarding immigration law. Both DHS and DOS have effectively nullified the federal law that prohibits admission into the U.S. for those likely to become welfare reliant, further enabling USDA to surge non-citizen registration.”

“Such activities cannot be justified to the American people, which probably explains why the Administration has been unwilling to provide answers,” Sen. Sessions said.

According to section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which defines “Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission”:

“Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”

Sen. Sessions and three other senators had previously sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and State Department Secretary Hillary Clinton – which was also ignored – asking why the federal immigration law was not being followed.

Commenting on Napolitano’s and Clinton’s refusal to respond, Sen. Sessions said:

“Our initial assessment of State Department data on ‘public charge’ denials further indicates that eligibility standards are being waived.

“Given what we already know, and the otherwise inexplicable refusal for DHS to reply to such a simple inquiry, it necessarily suggests that the executive branch is trying to prevent the public from discovering its failure to follow U.S. immigration and welfare law.”

Editor’s Note: The USDA has been asked to comment on its failure to reply to the senator’s request, but has not yet done so. (CNS)

The Democrats need more dependents so they can scare them into voting for them.

And Obama has gotten nearly $3million dollars lately from sources that are not traceable, according to the FEC.

But don’t worry, the Democrats aren’t cheating!

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

Driving The Bus

You wanna know how nuts the Left can be?

I was on Huffington Post about Benghazi and the Libya attack. One ardent liberal said that no Ambassador was killed there (he was CIA, after all so not a real Ambassador- god know what he thought of the other 3 people killed, I didn’t ask) and that there were “no State Department personnel within 100 miles of Benghazi”.

How do you deal with people that have that level of irrational thinking?

You can’t. They are beyond hope. You just have to make sure the insane don’t have the keys to the bus because they WILL drive you over a cliff.

And that’s why the Left must be defeated. Or else.

LIBYA Film Update

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.

A White House official told CBS News that a “small group of reinforcements” was sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, but declined to say how many or what time they arrived.

And of course The Obama administration removed the highly trained team of security people just weeks before the attack against the recommendations of both Steven and some people at the State Department. Likely because it didn’t fit the liberal meme of how well they were doing on “defeating” Al-Qaeda. (which they aren’t it’s stronger now than ever in North Africa instead of the hinterlands of the mountains in Afghanistan/Pakistan).

Add to the controversy the fact that the last two Americans didn’t die until more than six hours into the attack, and the question of U.S. military help becomes very important.

Sending the military into another country can be a sensitive and delicate decision. CBS News has been told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did seek clearances from Libya to fly in their airspace, but the administration won’t say anything further about what was said or decided on that front.

But why would they need that for a “spontaneous demonstration” to a Film?

On September 11—the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed—the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

· Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

· By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

· In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”

From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.

If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is. What’s the “Religion of Peace” got to do to wake this administration the heck up? Destroy one of Obama’s favorite golf courses?

Oh, BTW: Missing from the extensive documents is any mention of a YouTube video ticking these “peaceful protestors” off. (Doug Giles)

I wonder how  Moderator and Liberal Bob Schieffer will try and cover that up for the President during the debate tomorrow night?

I know I’ll probably be watching the Food Network to prevent me from damaging my big screen TV with my shoe.

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 

 

Cattle Drive

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Excellent Program

And now the Stupid, uneducated, clueless morons vote:

Liberals do breed their cattle stupid don’t they??

And just think these morons were High school graduates!

I bet they couldn’t find Ohio on a marked map!

This is the kind of cattle the Obama team likes to herd because you just feed them their cud and the moo and shit for more.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The liberal cattle would without batting an eye. They are far too uneducated to care.

To ignorant to know they are stupid. But above all, too arrogant and sure of their own vast superiority to care that they are morons being led down the primrose path.

Lawrence Kudlow: (he was thinking along the same line I was. That Obama is just going to reply on the stupid,the uneducated, the illegal, and government dependent to win- everyone else can go screw themselves).

With the unprecedented budget explosion of means-tested, welfare-related entitlements, does Team Obama think it can buy the election?

It’s a cynical question. But I wouldn’t put it past that cynical bunch.

Remember Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt’s close aid? It was Hopkins who argued tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. Sound familiar?

And if I’m not mistaken, the high-tax, anti-rich, big-spending, redistributionist FDR is one of Barack Obama’s idols.

So let’s take a look at some of the recent budget-explosion data points:

According to Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, means-tested welfare programs soared to over $1 trillion last year.

The federal government accounted for $750 billion of that, while $250 billion came from the states, which leveraged federal payments into even larger expenses.

Between 2008 and 2011, federal welfare payments have jumped 32%. Food stamps have surged, with 71% more spending on the program in 2011 compared with 2008.

Health payments, principally Medicaid, have climbed 37%.

By the way, it’s not just the deep recession and weak recovery that’s driving up these programs. It’s a substantial eligibility expansion, which started under George W. Bush, but has gone much further under President Obama.

In a larger budget context, reporter Jeffrey H. Anderson uses a Treasury Department study to chronicle the 7-Eleven presidency.

In fiscal year 2012, ending Sept. 30, the government spent nearly $11 for every $7 of revenues taken in. The exact figures are $2.5 trillion in tax revenues and $3.5 trillion in spending. In other words, it spent 44% more than it had coming in.

Previous fiscal years look even worse: The government spent 56% more than revenues in fiscal year 2011 and 60% more in fiscal year 2010.

All in all, according to Anderson, the government under the Obama administration received $6.8 trillion in taxes and spent $10.7 trillion — 56% more than it had available.

What’s going on here is fiscal profligacy on the grandest scale in American history. And there are consequences.

Massive amounts of capital are being drained from the private sector and transferred to the government. This is one reason why American businesses have gone on a virtual capital-investment strike.

Small businesses, in particular, can’t get the capital being drained by Uncle Sam.

After four years of trillion-dollar deficits, both businesses and individuals have held back investment because they fear massive tax increases are on the way.

If I were a business I would think Obama is definitively after me.

That’s a big reason why the so-called recovery has been so weak.

In addition, in our new entitlement nation, growing government dependency is ruining the very moral fiber and backbone of America’s traditional work ethic. Increasingly, the feds are paying more to not work, rather than providing after-tax incentives to go back to work.

Mitt Romney has taken a lot of flak for raising the issue of growing government dependency.

But however inartfully he may have expressed his view, his basic story is correct. The sheer volume of spending going on in this country is bringing us ever closer to bankruptcy.

And consider this: The spending explosion for means-tested welfare programs is outpacing spending on Social Security and Medicare, which are themselves veering toward bankruptcy.

I may be too cynical about Obama trying to buy the election with this entitlement explosion. Perhaps. But Obama wants to raise taxes in order to spend more on government unions and entitlement programs. It is redistribution, but it could be vote-buying, too.

And what better than a herd of morons and dependents who will do whatever you say and are too dumb to understand they are being reamed?
Talk about a liberal bloodsuckers utopia.
Fat, dumb and “happy” cattle. All you have to do is feed them class warfare and give them some government cud and they’ll do whatever you want and believe whatever you tell them.
Drug addicts getting a fix. As long as you supply them with their fix they are only to happy to vote for more.
Like lambs to the slaughter.
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Did I Build That?

OBAMA EMBRACED BY CATHOLICS!

ROMNEY DINES WITH RICH PEOPLE!
ROTFL! 🙂

The Latest Benghazi screw up by Obama: “If four Americans get killed, it’s not OPTIMAL”

“Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.”(Daily Mail)

That’s why they knew within hours that it was terrorist attack but refused to say it for weeks and let others give totally false information and he, himself, has refused to say “terrorist attack” to this day.
Oh, and the ‘The left is already saying that the ‘not optimal’ quote has been taken out of context; they were saying that Stewart used the word ‘optimal’ first.

So it must be Jon Stewart’s Fault!

I guess Obama didn’t build that! 🙂
But he did build this:
In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been.  Here’s the upshot:  Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95).  That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.
In fiscal year 2012(which ended on September 30), the federal government acquired $2.449 trillion in tax revenue and other receipts.  It spent $3.538 trillion — 44 percent more than it had available to spend.  The resulting deficit was $1.089 trillion.In fiscal year 2011, the federal government acquired $2.303 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts.  It spent $3.603 trillion — 56 percent more than it had available to spend.  The resulting deficit was $1.3 trillion.But, as well all know by now, that was Bush’s fault. He forced them to spend the money like some Puppet Master behind the scenes or a drug addict who blames his pimp for his addiction. Either way, it’s all BS, but that’s the left for you.

Federal welfare spending has grown by 32 percent over the past four years, fattened by President Obama’s stimulus spending and swelled by a growing number of Americans whose recession-depleted incomes now qualify them for public assistance, according to numbers released Thursday.

Federal spending on more than 80 low-income assistance programs reached $746 billion in 2011, and state spending on those programs brought the total to $1.03 trillion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Budget Committee.

That makes welfare the single biggest chunk of federal spending — topping Social Security and basic defense spending.

And this doesn’t even include Entitlement Spending (Social Security, etc)!!
Jonah Goldberg:  “Now Gov. 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.” — President Obama in an ad released Sept. 27. This is Obama’s core message. In one way or another, he says it all the time. It’s his kicker on the stump. You cannot watch an interview with the president or one of his subalterns without hearing it. 

And yet, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a TV interviewer, host or pundit ask, “What are you talking about?” 

Finally, the Washington Post’s “fact-checker,” Glenn Kessler, (not exactly a darling of the political right) tackled it recently. He found that it’s a lie, giving it three “Pinocchios” out of four. He also found that the Obama campaign has virtually no citations to back up the claim. The supporting material for the ad quoted above cites a single column by the Post’s liberal blogger, 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.” 

Klein is right. So is Kessler. “It is time for the Obama campaign to retire this talking point,” Kessler concluded, “no matter how much it seems to resonate with voters.” He would have given it the full four Pinocchios save for the fact that Obama occasionally throws in “deregulation” along with “tax cuts” as part of the explanation. In its defense, the Obama camp says it means all of Bush’s policies, not just the tax cuts it harps on almost exclusively — never mind that even Obama admits Bush issued more regulations than he did. 

The question of what caused the crisis is obviously still controversial (though, Kessler notes, the official inquiry makes no mention of Bush’s tax cuts). But a consensus seems to be forming around the following narrative: The federal government, out of an abundance of concern for the plight of the poor and middle class, made it too easy to buy a home. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, set unrealistic affordable-housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. President Clinton used those goals to expand access to mortgages to low-income borrowers. Then President George W. Bush, with the approval of Congress, expanded the practice, until way too many low-income or otherwise underqualified Americans owned mortgages they couldn’t afford.

A mixture of greed, idealism, cynicism and stupidity led to the practice of bundling those iffy mortgages into financial instruments that Wall Street didn’t know how to handle and regulators didn’t know how to regulate. As Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) put it in 2003, he wanted to “to roll the dice a bit” on regulating subprime mortgages. When the Washington-abetted housing boom went bust, regulators demanded immediate markdowns of mortgage-backed securities, which required financial institutions to sell them, creating a fire-sale atmosphere that fueled the panic even more. The Federal Reserve responded by letting money tighten in a way it hadn’t since the 1930s. 

Some Obama defenders will say that Bush’s deficits made it harder to deal with the crisis. That seems reasonable, even if it’s a red herring in the debate about what caused the crisis. And Obama’s record on deficits hardly gives him much standing. 

I once thought that Obama’s relentless Bush-blaming was simply a mix of political expediency and gracelessness. But the truth is more complicated. Liberals have smartly, albeit cynically, laid the case that Bush was Herbert Hoover in order to make the claim that Obama is Franklin D. Roosevelt. For this to work, Hoover must be remembered as a do-nothing free-market guy. But Hoover was no such thing. He nearly tripled government spending in response to the Depression. FDR used Hoover’s spending as a baseline for his own, even as he dishonestly decried Hoover’s passivity. 

Obama has done largely the same thing. The first bailouts of the crisis were supported by Obama but launched by Bush. The same goes for the first stimulus. Obama simply tripled down on all that while claiming he was breaking with Bush. 

Or maybe I have that all wrong. Maybe we could get some clarity by asking the president, “What are you talking about?”

But it’s much pithier, especially for your class warrior base to give the Chicken McNuggets battle cry of “Bush did it”.
Much simpler for your mindless drones to comprehend.
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Balance

“I want your vote. I want your vote. I am not too proud to beg; I want you to vote. And the good news is, you can vote in Ohio, right now. Find out where at vote.barackobama.com. If you live nearby, you can vote just a few blocks away,” President Obama said at a campaign event in Ohio this evening.

Yeah, he’s got to get all the Illegal aliens in Ohio to go there so they can swing that state for him.

After all, having to prove who you are is “racist” and “discriminatory” so what’s a little voter fraud…

Not very Presidential.

President Obama often talks about the need for a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, by which he means tax hikes in addition to spending cuts.

At the recent presidential debate, for example, he said, “We’ve got to reduce our deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way. Asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more along with cuts.”

The only problem with this approach is that the massive projected deficits over the next 10 years aren’t the result of too few taxes. They are entirely the result of too much spending.

Here’s the proof.

According to the latest budget forecast from the Congressional Budget Office, even if every expiring tax cut were kept in place permanently — including all the Bush tax cuts, and various other expiring cuts from last year and this year — and even if the alternative minimum tax were permanently indexed to inflation, federal revenues would still rise to 18.6% of GDP by 2022.

To put that figure in perspective, between 1948 and 2008, federal taxes averaged 18% of GDP.

What’s more, despite countless changes to the tax code — which included raising the top rate to 90%, then lowering it to 28%, then raising it and lowering it again — taxes as a share of GDP have rarely deviated much from that average.

So, even if all the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, federal taxes would end up slightly higher as a share of GDP than the historic average.

The CBO report also makes clear that it’s out-of-control federal spending that’s driving the deficits.

According to that report, the federal spending as a share of GDP is on track to steadily rise over the next decade and beyond, reaching 22.3% of GDP by 2022.

That’s significantly higher than the 1948-2008 average, and much higher than it’s been under previous Democratic presidents. In President Clinton’s last year in office, for example, federal spending consumed just 18.2% of GDP.

Yet, while President Obama talks about cutting spending as part of a balanced plan, his budget would actually accelerate this spending trend, adding $1.1 trillion to the pile over the next decade, according to the CBO. By 2022, federal outlays under Obama’s budget would equal almost 23% of GDP.

As a result, even though Obama wants to raise taxes as a share of GDP to historically high levels, his plan would still produce $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

So what if, instead, federal spending were held to 20% of GDP, which is the goal set by Mitt Romney?In that case, you could keep all the Bush tax cuts in place, and still produce deficits half the size of Obama’s.

That approach would also be more in sync with what the public has repeatedly told pollsters it wants.

A Rasmussen poll taken in May, for example, found that 64% preferred smaller government and lower taxes. And a July IBD/TIPP poll found that just 38% favored “a bigger government providing more services”.

The only real question is how to bring federal spending back in line.

As it stands, entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and others — are growing faster than the economy, which means that, left on autopilot, the federal government will chew up an increasing share of the economy year after year.

The problem is Democrats will fiercely attack any proposed changes to these programs.

ObamaCare cuts $716 billion in proposed Medicare spending, but uses that to pay for new spending on subsidized insurance exchanges and other parts of the law.

If entitlement growth isn’t checked, then discretionary programs — which include such things as education, highways, justice, the environment and national defense — would have to be cut more deeply. Yet, here, too, special interest groups fight any cutbacks, no matter how small.

The bottom line is that unless lawmakers want to force taxes up to levels never before seen in the U.S., they have no choice but to get serious about cutting federal spending back down to size. (IBD)

AMEN!
But they haven’t the balls to do it. The Special Interest Groups, Lobbyists, and Unions will go ape crazy if they do.
So the Drug Addicts run the asylum.
So we have to flush them out one at a time.
At least we can get rid of the worst offender in November.
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Recovery

“He’s lied about everything. He lied to get elected in 2008, that’s why I voted for him. I bought his bull. And he’s lied about everything, he hasn’t come through on anything. And he’s been bullshitting the public,” one member of the focus group said run by Frank Luntz.

Amen to that.

Obama lied about “terrorist attack”. He even Had Ministry of Truth’s Candy Crowley back him up and then later disavow it.

He lied about Planned Parenthood on Mammograms.

but it’s not like anyone on the Left or in The Ministry of Truth cares.

But the Liberals and the liberal  media will love the attack dog mentality of Obama though because, after all, they are so vastly superior to these unruly peasants and this evil lying rich white guy!

Obama, with both the benefit and the burden of a record to run on, had a more nuanced message.

“The commitments I’ve made, I’ve kept,” he said. “And those that I haven’t been able to keep, it’s not for lack of trying and we’re going to get it done in a second term.”

The DREAM Act.

More Tax Increases.

More Socialism.

More ObamaCare.

More Domestic Drones.

More Government Control of Everything.

“Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan,” the president argued. “He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules.” (AP)

Oh, and more class warfare and division.

Oh, and more fun from one of yesterday’s featured speakers: Louis Farrakhan- the Nation of Islam:

On Sunday, in a speech he delivered at Bojangles’ Coliseum in Charlotte, North Carolina, the fiery faith leader issued yet another warning to the audience of 6,000, telling them that “every plague that is written in the Koran is going to come to pass in America.”

A Washington, D.C., hip-hop station host asked Michelle to “in your words, tell us what you think the state of the union is in right now?”

Her answer: “I mean, we are seeing right now that we are in the midst of a huge recovery. Right? Because of what this president has done.”

We wholeheartedly agree with the first lady that the current state of the economy is the result of “what this president has done.”

But to call Obama’s recovery — which started just five months after he took office and is now in its 40th month — “huge” shows just how detached from reality the White House has become.

Obama’s policies have produced a smaller economic recovery than any since World War II. This recovery is so small that only half the jobs lost in the recession have been recouped. It’s so small that there are almost half a million more long-term unemployed today than in June 2009, and millions have dropped out of the labor force altogether.

The Obama recovery is so small that median household incomes have been steadily falling since it started, and there are 11 million more people on food stamps and 2.7 million more mired in poverty.

Indeed, had Obama’s recovery merely been average, there would be about 8 million more people with jobs today, and the GDP would be $1.2 trillion bigger.

If you want to see what a really huge recovery looks like, take a look at the one President Reagan oversaw. He entered office in January 1981 amid an economy mired in malaise, with inflation out of control, unemployment high and rising, a decade-long energy crisis and sky-high interest rates.

And in July 1981, just one year after the previous downturn ended, the economy fell into another recession that lasted almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months) and sent the unemployment rate higher than the one Obama inherited.

But Reagan’s combination of permanent, across-the-board tax cuts, deregulation and domestic spending restraint helped produce a massive recovery.

Obama, in contrast, has gone in almost precisely the opposite direction — temporary, targeted tax cuts; huge new spending; vast new regulations — and he threatens more of the same, plus a $1 trillion tax hike, if he were to get a second term.

We hope Mrs. Obama will pardon us for saying this, but after seeing what “this president has done” to the economy, we can only hope he doesn’t get the chance to do any more. (IBD)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

More Fun Stuff

Not since the days of slavery have there been so many people who feel entitled to what other people have produced as there are in the modern welfare state, whether in Western Europe or on this side of the Atlantic.

Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama’s claims about “creating jobs” with one plain and inescapable fact — “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.” Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost.

How are children supposed to learn to act like adults, when so much of what they see on television shows adults acting like children?  (Thomas Sowell)

A new chart from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee details the fact that, since January 2009, for every person added to the labor force, 10 have been added to those not in the labor force. Here’s a chart showing the dwindling labor force:

The labor force consists of all people aged 16 and over either employed or actively seeking work. It does not include discouraged workers, people who have retired, or those on welfare or disability who are no longer looking for work. The ‘not in the labor force’ group is defined as the total civilian non-institutional population minus the labor force.”

Since January 2009, the labor force has grown by 0.54 percent, or 827,000 people (from 154,236,000 to 155,063,000). Those not in the labor force grew by 10.2 percent during the same period (8,208,000 people), from 80,502,000 to 88,710,000. In other words, for every one person added to the labor force of the United States since January 2009, the size of the U.S. population not in the labor force grew by 10 people.
Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, comments: “The essential point of this chart is not simply how many people are employed or unemployed, but to illustrate that more and more people are simply not part of the U.S. labor force. This confirms that we are on the wrong track. It is unsustainable to have such a large and growing number of people who are not part of the productive economy. This is not a political argument, but a description of the underlying instability in our economy that has so many Americans worried about the future. The question is what can we do to reverse these trends and start moving in the right direction.”(Weekly Standard)
************

If you truly believe in the brotherhood of man, then you must believe that blacks are just as capable of being racists as whites are.

One of the most foolish, and most dangerous, things one can do is to take love for granted, instead of nurturing it and safeguarding it as the prize jewel of one’s life.

Whenever you hear people talking about “a living Constitution,” almost invariably they are people who are in the process of slowly killing it by “interpreting” its restrictions on government out of existence.

Do either Barack Obama or his followers have any idea how many countries during the 20th century set out to “spread the wealth” — and ended up spreading poverty instead? At some point, you have to turn from rhetoric, theories and ideologies to facts.

I am so old that I can remember when liberals were liberal — instead of being intolerant of anything and anybody that is not politically correct. (Thomas Sowell)

“Mr. President, you’ve got to realize you’re fighting for your presidential life,” the leader of the Nation of Islam told an estimated gathering of 6,000 at Bojangles’ Coliseum. “You’re fighting for your vision of the Democratic Party and the country.”

Then Farrakhan spent two hours hammering at racial – some critics will call them racist – themes.

To begin, the highly controversial Farrakhan accused Republicans of having “overt” racist motives in their opposition to Obama, the country’s first black president. He attacked a political process that he says is controlled by monied interests and wants “to keep America white.”

“You aren’t going to win any more white votes by being kind and gracious,” he said. “Be a little black.”

…accusing the Republicans of using a strategy to defeat Obama “so overtly hateful and racist in nature that it has polarized America on the basis of race.”He also addressed an audience largely absent from the event: white America.

“What have I done that you could hate me so?” he said.

He then answered his own question with harsh words that had the arena on its feet: “You can’t buy me, and you can’t make me into your n—–.” (Mcclatchy)

Tolerance and Love from the Far Left. 🙂

********

THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH
The question to be asked of people in the media, and that they should ask themselves, should be: “Is your first loyalty to your audience or to your ideology?” The same question should be asked of educators, especially those who see themselves as “agents of social change,” even though that is not the job description under which they have been hired and paid. (Thomas Sowell)
***********
LIBYA
After a month of Obfuscation, Hillary has decided to throw herself on the sacrificial pyre (whether she was pushed or not is a question)
“I take responsibility,” Clinton said during a visit to Peru. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”
The good little soldier who tries to commit sepuku for her boss.
But then what are all those Security and Threat assessment meeting that Obama was supposedly getting about then? Hmmm…

Her remarks drew a quick response from three Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including ranking member John McCain.

Clinton’s statement of responsibility was “a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever,” the Arizona senator said in a joint broadside with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, “The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there.” (CNN)

* Top Pentagon officials declared the assault a terrorist attack on “Day One.” Doing so enabled them to expedite any response to the attack (Yahoo! News).

* U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials understood right away that the attacks were planned for the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 (THE WEEKLY STANDARD).

* Within 24 hours of the attack, “U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda-affiliated operatives were behind the attack and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers” (Daily Beast).

* In telephone intercepts of phone calls involving members of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked group in Libya, members “bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador” (Daily Beast).

* U.S. counterterrorism officials had repeatedly warned about the growth of al Qaeda affiliate groups in Libya and noted in particular their relationship to al Qaeda’s central leadership in Pakistan (THE WEEKLY STANDARD).

The attack was, in fact, planned. It did involve al Qaeda-linked terrorists. It was not a copycat of the protests in Cairo, Egypt. Indeed, there was no protest outside the consulate in Benghazi at all. The U.S. compound was not well secured. The two ex-Navy SEALs killed in the attack were not there to protect the ambassador, and they were not, obviously, joined by several colleagues also providing security. The date of the attack was not coincidental. And the anti-Islam YouTube video at the center of the administration’s public relations effort had nothing to do with the assault that took the lives of four Americans.

This, more than anything, is the problem with the administration’s response. It wasn’t that they failed to provide enough information to the public, but that they provided incorrect information and did so long after it was clear to many in the intelligence community that the political narrative was false.

There are two possible explanations. Either the information widely available to intelligence professionals was not shared with those speaking on behalf of the president. Or those Obama administration officials had the accurate information and chose not to provide it.

If intelligence professionals had immediately concluded that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the YouTube video, why did top administration figures point to it as the trigger? 

If the Pentagon knew on “Day One” that the attacks were planned, why was U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice still denying this four days later?

If counterterrorism officials had determined that the killings were the result of a terrorist attack, why did State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuse to acknowledge that during her briefing on September 17?

If intelligence officials knew on September 11 that the attack took place that day for a reason, why did White House press secretary Jay Carney still pretend otherwise eight days later?

Some of the misleading information provided to the public could not possibly have been a result of incomplete or evolving intelligence. The information about security for the ambassador and the compound, for instance, would have been readily available to administration officials from the beginning. And yet when Susan Rice appeared on five political talk shows on September 16, she erroneously claimed that the two ex-Navy SEALs killed in the attack were, along with several colleagues, providing security. They were not. Why did she say this?

These questions, and many others, deserve answers. And soon. (weekly standard)

But there’s an election in less than a month and then a lame duck session so nothing is going to be done. By design?

And above all, it’s Hillary’s fault!
The Commander-In-Chief and His Vice President  have the Sargent Schultz defense, “I know nothing!”

And that’s why you should re-elect them.
Hey, he killed Bin-Laden… 🙂
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The Sky isn’t Falling!

This will annoy the faithful of the Religion of Global Warming.  But as Douglas Adams once said, “For Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing” so the faithful will carry on because it is much more about the religion now than the science. The science was justifying the religion and they will still use it and abuse it but it’s a religion now and faith is more powerful than science.

And this all it comes from the Holy site, the Met Office in Great Britain. And they did it in typically liberal style, a weekend document dump.

UK Daily Mail: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

global temperature changes

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

But THEY HAVE BEEN DOING JUST THAT THEMSELVES. The whole Global Warming scam has been based on these short time periods and then predictions of doom for all mankind in the future  if we didn’t cow-tow to their control over everything. The Sky was falling! The Sky was Falling!

Well, maybe not…

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Just like your religion. But that won’t stop you now.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Because that is what the religion dictates. Science is about facts, not religious doctrines.

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees  Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own  carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts. 

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

So it’s about greed. Pure and simple. Your own pet projects for your own pet money. How basically and base capitalist can you get from socialists. 🙂
It’s about their government largesse. Their “interest group”. Their money.
Their greed.

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and  b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

So the religious would say it’s BECAUSE they have been pushing so hard (and failing but that’s not a part of a religious argument) that we need to continue to do so or else doom itself will breath down all our necks.

Sounds very religious doesn’t it? 🙂

Not that there has been any  coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year.

In American terms that is about $160. So if your energy bill is is higher because of greenie religious fervor from the left, is that not a “middle class” hike in costs? Aren’t the greenies hurting the poor with their religious obsession?

Solyndra, First Solar and other  BILLIONS of dollars wasted on fear and intimidation.

This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it  is being imposed for only one  reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But at this point the science doesn’t back up the fear campaign and thus should that not be questioned?

Or is that Heresy? 🙂

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

But the religion must live on! After all, their is a “consensus” that it is happening according to the religious Left. 🙂

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom  line: the “no upward trend” has to  continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the  models’ gloomy predictions:  ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to  wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

Meanwhile, his Met Office  colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and  models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.

Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature  of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

HERESY! BURN THE HERETIC!

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.

But rather than science, the faithful will turn to the warmth of their religion for comfort against the heretics in their midst.

But is it man or nature? The Politics of Fear and Control?

Fear and Control, sounds familiar somehow…Obam…something…:)

 

A Bitter Pill

1. Biden repeated the false talking points — as did moderator Martha Raddatz (!) — about the Romney Medicare plan exposing seniors to higher costs. In fact, the Romney plan is explicitly designed to ensure that seniors are not exposed to any additional costs.

2. Biden repeated the false talking points about Obamacare’s $716 billion in Medicare cuts not being real cuts, because they allegedly don’t cut “benefits.” Indeed, the ratio of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts to “new benefits” is 15 to 1.

3. Biden claimed that Democratic senator Ron Wyden opposes the Wyden-Ryan Medicare reform plan. Wyden opposes the House GOP budget, because it repeals Obamacare and block-grants Medicaid, but rest assured that Wyden still supports the Wyden-Ryan plan. And that plan is actually to the right of Romney’s plan, because Wyden-Ryan contains a hard cap on Medicare spending growth (GDP + 1 percent) whereas Romney’s plan contains no growth cap.

4. Biden claimed that having the government directly negotiate drug prices under Medicare Part D would save taxpayers “$156 billion right off the bat.” In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a change “would have a negligible effect on drug spending.”

5. Biden claimed that Paul Ryan’s House budgets would “knock 19 million people off of Medicare.” This is an entirely made-up figure. Not a single person would lose their Medicare coverage under Ryan’s budgets, and not a single person would under Romney’s plan either.

6. Biden repeated the long-debunked claim that Romney seeks a “$5 trillion tax cut,” when in fact Romney’s tax proposal is designed to be revenue-neutral. Furthermore, Biden claimed that there is a study from AEI supporting his claims. “The American Enterprise Institute study [says that] taxes will go up on the middle class,” claimed Biden. There is no such study. Two AEI scholars, Matt Jensen and Alex Brill, have in fact made the opposite case. (NRO)

The Obama health law creates two new entitlements for people under age 65: Subsidies to buy private health plans, and a vast expansion of Medicaid.  To pay for these two new entitlements, this law raises taxes by over half a trillion dollars, and then takes well over half a trillion dollars out of future funding for Medicare.  So seniors pay over half the cost of these new entitlements.  Cuts to Medicare pay for over half the cost of this Obama health care law.  It’s like robbing Grandma to “spread the wealth.”

Based on the data from Medicare’s own actuaries, every single year Medicare will have less money to spend on a senior than before this law was passed.  For example, in 2019, Medicare will have $1,431 less to spend, per senior, than if the law hadn’t passed.  But averages obscure the real impact, understate the real impact, because, in a given year, only about one of out of every five seniors, 22%, go to the hospital.  So, for the senior who needs care that year, the impact is far greater—between $5,000 and $6,000 less in resources to care for that person.

Obama: “Don’t worry, I’m only cutting payments to providers, I’m not cutting benefits for seniors.” 

And the Republicans, specifically want to “end medicare” (see link at the bottom).

Don’t be bamboozled!  It’s a trick.  It’s an illusion.  The fact is that Medicare already pays less than the actual cost of care to a hospital—91 cents for every dollar of care delivered.  So when the payments to hospitals are cut, it’s not going to trim hospital profit margins—they’re already in the negative!  It’s going to force hospitals to deliver less care.(AIM)

On Oct. 1, the Obama administration started awarding bonus points to hospitals that spend the least on elderly patients. It will result in fewer knee replacements, hip replacements, angioplasty, bypass surgery and cataract operations.

These are the five procedures that have transformed aging for older Americans. They used to languish in wheelchairs and nursing homes due to arthritis, cataracts and heart disease. Now they lead active lives.

But the Obama administration is undoing that progress. By cutting $716 billion from future Medicare funding over the next decade and rewarding the hospitals that spend the least on seniors, the Obama health law will make these procedures hard to get and less safe.

The Obama health law creates two new entitlements for people under age 65 — subsidies to buy private health plans and a vast expansion of Medicaid. More than half the cost of these entitlements is paid for by cutting what hospitals, doctors, hospice care, home care and Advantage plans are paid to care for seniors.

Just Take A Pill

Astoundingly, doctors will be paid less to treat a senior than to treat someone on Medicaid, and only about one-third of what a doctor will be paid to treat a patient with private insurance.

On July 13, 2011, Richard Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, warned Congress that seniors will have difficulty finding doctors and hospitals to accept Medicare. Doctors who do continue to take it will not want to spend time doing procedures such as knee replacements when the pay is so low. Yet the law bars them from providing care their patients need for an extra fee. You’re trapped.

President Obama seems to think too many seniors are getting these procedures. At a town hall debate in 2009, he told a woman “maybe you’re better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.”

Science proves the president is wrong. Knee replacements, for example, not only relieve pain but also save lives. Seniors with severe osteoarthritis who opt for knee replacement are less apt to succumb to heart failure and have a 50% higher chance of being alive five years later than arthritic seniors who don’t undergo the procedure, according to peer-reviewed scientific research.

Yet Foster warned Congress that 15% of hospitals may stop treating seniors once the Obama-Care cuts go into effect. The rest will have to lower the standard of care. Hospitals will have $247 billion less over the next decade to care for the same number of seniors as if the health law had not been enacted.

Obama claims his Medicare cuts will knock out waste and excessive profits. Untrue. Medicare already pays hospitals less than the actual cost of caring for a senior, on average 91 cents for every dollar of care. No profit there. Pushing down rates will force hospitals to spread nursing staff thinner.

Elderly patients will have a worse chance of surviving their stay and going home. When Medicare reduced payment rates to hospitals as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, hospitals incurring the largest cuts laid off nurses.

Rewarding Skimpy Care

Eventually, patients at these hospitals had a 6% to 8% worse chance of surviving a heart attack, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research report (March 2011).

In addition to the across-the-board cuts, the Obama administration will now impose a new measure on hospitals: “Medicare spending per beneficiary.” Hospitals that spend the least on seniors get bonus points, and higher-spending hospitals get demerits.

Hospitals will even be penalized for care consumed up to 30 days after patients are discharged, for example, for outpatient physical therapy following a hip or knee replacement.

There are ways to control Medicare spending, such as inching up the eligibility age or asking well-off seniors to pay more. Forcing hospitals to skimp on care is deadly.

Research sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (Annals of Internal Medicine, February 2011) shows that heart attack patients at the lowest-spending hospitals are 19% more likely to die than patients of the same age at higher-spending hospitals. Yet the Obama health law pushes all hospitals to imitate the lowest spending ones.

Ignore the political rhetoric and look at the scientific evidence. The Medicare cuts in the Obama health law will end Medicare as we’ve known it and doom seniors to painful aging and shorter lives.

And to that: The Politifact Lie of the Year 2011:

So who really wants granny thrown off a cliff?
It’s man behind the curtain. The showman out front. The Hypnotist’s misdirection.
That’s who.

War of Words

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Vice President Joe Biden accused Rep. Paul Ryan of putting two wars on the “credit card,” and then suggested he voted against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

So did Sen. Hillary Clinton, by the way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

Cut it anyway you want to Joe, YOU LIED. 🙂

But don’t expect anyone from The Ministry of Truth or the Left to care. They are too busy trying to cover up The Libyan debacle.

Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials.

But pressed on the administration reaction throughout this past MONTH and whether they were wrong“I think that’s an editorial judgment that you’re making.”Jay Carney White House Mouthpiece.

So they threw the State Department and the Intelligence community under the bus and back up over them repeatedly.

Now that’s accountability, responsibility and above all, transparency!! 🙂

US deficit tops $1 trillion for fourth year
But don’t worry, that’s Bush’s Fault and the solution is to tax the rich! 🙂
And Biden and Company are still lying about ObamaCare and Medicare:
Double-counting ObamaCare’s $716 billion Medicare cut to make it seem to be Medicare savings.
Biden claimed “no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise … has to either refer contraception” or “pay for contraception” or “be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.”As the Catholic bishops noted, “This is not a fact. The (HHS mandate) contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain ‘religious employers,'” but it does not include Catholic hospitals like the ones Biden mentioned, or other religious charities that serve all.Catholic and non-Catholic institutions “will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage” that includes “sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients,” which they will have to pay for.It’s nearly a century since that young kid pleaded “Say it ain’t so, Joe” to Shoeless Joe Jackson during the Black Sox scandal. Our clownish vice president, Joe Biden, can’t ever seem to say anything that’s so.(IBD)Back to Libya…

Mark Steyn: ‘The entire reason that this has become the political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.” — Stephanie Cutter, White House Deputy Campaign MouthpieceThus, Stephanie Cutter (She also of the It’s a Romney $5 Trillion tax cut-no it’s not-yes it is), President Obama’s deputy campaign manager, speaking on CNN about an armed attack on the 9/11 anniversary that left a U.S. consulate a smoking ruin and killed four diplomatic staff, including the first American ambassador to be murdered in a third of a century. To discuss this event is apparently to “politicize” it and to distract from the real issues the American people are concerned about. For example, Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki, speaking on board Air Force One on Thursday: “There’s only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane.”She’s right! The United States is the first nation in history whose democracy has evolved to the point where its leader is provided with a wide-body transatlantic jet in order to campaign on the vital issue of public funding for sock puppets. Sure, Caligula put his horse in the senate, but it was a real horse. At Ohio State University, the rapper will.i.am introduced the president by playing the Sesame Street theme tune, which oddly enough seems more apt presidential-walk-on music for the Obama era than “Hail to the Chief.” Obviously, Miss Cutter is right: A healthy mature democracy should spend its quadrennial election on critical issues like the Republican party’s war on puppets rather than attempting to “politicize” the debate by dragging in stuff like foreign policy, national security, the economy, and other obscure peripheral subjects. But, alas, it was her boss who chose to “politicize” a security fiasco and national humiliation in Benghazi. At 8:30 p.m., when Ambassador Stevens strolled outside the gate and bid his Turkish guest good night, the streets were calm and quiet. At 9:40 p.m., an armed assault on the compound began, well planned and executed by men not only armed with mortars but capable of firing them to lethal purpose — a rare combination among the excitable mobs of the Middle East. There was no demonstration against an Islamophobic movie that just got a little out of hand. Indeed, there was no movie protest at all. Instead, a U.S. consulate was destroyed and four of its personnel were murdered in one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facility.This was confirmed by testimony to Congress a few days ago, although you could have read as much in my column of four weeks ago. Nevertheless, for most of those four weeks, the president of the United States, the secretary of state, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and others have persistently attributed the Benghazi debacle to an obscure YouTube video — even though they knew that the two events had nothing to do with each other by no later than the crack of dawn Eastern time on September 12, by which point the consulate’s survivors had landed safely in Tripoli.

To “politicize” means “to give a political character to.” It is a reductive term, capturing the peculiarly shrunken horizons of politics: “Gee, they nuked Israel. D’you think that will hurt us in Florida?” So media outlets fret that Benghazi could be “bad” for Obama — by which they mean he might be hitting the six-figure lecture circuit four years ahead of schedule. But for Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods, it’s real bad. They’re dead, over, gonesville. Given that Obama and Secretary Clinton refer to Stevens pneumatically as “Chris,” as if they’ve known him since third grade, why would they dishonor the sacrifice of their close personal friend by peddling an utterly false narrative as to why he died? You want “politicization”? Secretary Clinton linked the YouTube video to the murder of her colleagues even as the four caskets lay alongside her at Andrews Air Force Base — even though she had known for days that it had nothing to do with it. It’s weird enough that politicians now give campaign speeches to returning coffins. But to conscript your “friend”’s corpse as a straight man for some third-rate electoral opportunism is surely as shriveled and worthless as “politicization” gets.

In the vice-presidential debate, asked why the White House spent weeks falsely blaming it on the video, Joe Biden took time off between big toothy smirks to reply: “Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community.” That too is false. He also denied that the government of which he is nominally second-in-command had ever received a request for additional security. At the risk of “politicizing” things, this statement would appear also to be untrue.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Liberals…. 🙂

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Attitude Adjustment

” Liberal: a power worshipper without power. “– George Orwell. But when they have power? You get contempt.

What I have to say about last night’s debate is that it Biden’s contempt was obvious and very predictable. Liberals are always going on about disrespecting them (disagreeing with them) but that’s because that’s all they know themselves. So the fact that Biden had complete contempt for his opponent and showed him no respect is not out of character, it was expected.

Doesn’t this just remind you of “The Shining”??
Here’s JOE!

So beside their total contempt for you disagreeing with them they have to make sure everyone thinks you’re evil to boot. Can’t have people finding out that it’s YOU (the liberal) who is the actual problem. So they have to divert it.

Peggy Noonan’s take was probably the most spot-on analysis I’ve seen anywhere.  A key excerpt:

Another way to say it is the old man tried to patronize the kid and the kid stood his ground. The old man pushed, and the kid pushed back. Last week Mr. Obama was weirdly passive. Last night Mr. Biden was weirdly aggressive, if that is the right word for someone who grimaces, laughs derisively, interrupts, hectors, rolls his eyes, browbeats and attempts to bully. He meant to dominate, to seem strong and no-nonsense. Sometimes he did—he had his moments. But he was also disrespectful and full of bluster. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy!” he snapped at one point. It was an echo of Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, in 1988. But Mr. Quayle, who had compared himself to Kennedy, had invited the insult. Mr. Ryan had not. It came from nowhere. Did Mr. Biden look good? No, he looked mean and second-rate. He meant to undercut Mr. Ryan, but he undercut himself. His grimaces and laughter were reminiscent of Al Gore’s sighs in 2000—theatrical, off-putting and in the end self-indicting. Mr. Ryan was generally earnest, fluid, somewhat wonky, confident. He occasionally teetered on the edge of glibness and sometimes fell off.

And since liberals are that smug, arrogant and condescending they will cheer this performance as sticking it to the little shit and putting him in his place.

Liberal want you to “respect” them, but they have no respect for you. That’s because it ain’t respect they want. It’s fear. You must fear them.

FEAR IS HOPE!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

And what better fear than “racism”.

“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.” — Mary Frances Berry, the liberal former Chairwoman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights

“Liberals claim Republicans speak in racist code words for the simple reason that Republicans aren’t saying anything that’s objectively racist.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama

Sadly, liberals have made convincing black Americans that everyone hates them except the Democrats a central part of their political strategy. Although racism has always existed and will always exist, it’s worth noting that the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation is the Democrats, not the Republicans. So, while you’ll occasionally run across a racist Republican, just as you’ll occasionally run across a racist from any group in America, there is, and never has been, any pervasive racism in the Republican Party. Since finding racism is at the core of the Democrats’ appeal to black Americans, this means that Democrats have to create a lot of racist remarks out of thin air. After all, it’s a lot easier to cry “racism” than it is to defend Barack Obama’s habitual incompetence in dealing with the economy, jobs, debt, foreign policy, gas prices, bailouts, and health care along with all the other issues the American people expect the President to be involved in.

10) Accusing Obama of saying something untrue:Witness a July 23 column published at the Christian Science Monitor website by Charlton McIlwain and Stephen M. Caliendo in which our helpful liberal guides explain that, “in the presidential election, it’s not a matter of whether racism will appear in campaign messaging, but when”…

Caliendo and McIlwain claim that “A recent ad from the Romney campaign, for instance, has the effect of presenting the untrustworthiness stereotype, calling Obama’s statements “not true,” and “misleading.” Then the ad goes a step beyond, by saying, “but that’s Barack Obama,” that is, the kind of person who misleads and says things that are not true.”

They explain that”charges of criminality, untrustworthiness, and the like are standard attacks on white candidates, there is no stereotype associating whites, as a group, with criminality, untrustworthiness, freeloading, or laziness, so the potential effect is not the same.”

…Caliendo and McIlwain also claim “in the same ad mentioned in question No. 1, while featuring the image of a smiling Obama, the announcer says, he also attacked Hillary Clinton with vicious lies.” This provides the opportunity to make the association: Obama, who is black, with “lying,” not to mention the descriptors “attacked” and “viciousness,” which also conjure the association with stereotypes of black aggression.”

And then there’s the corollary: It’s never there fault anyways, it’s always yours. (and undoubtedly racist if you keep going on about it long enough):

If we (Democrats) make an assertion it’s always True, even if it’s False. And if you make an assertion it’s always false even it’s true.

During the vice presidential debate tonight, when pressed about the lack of security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack on 9/11,Vice President Joe Biden said, “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

This blatantly false. But After the debate, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter said she “didn’t catch the exchange” when Biden made the false comments. So it didn’t happen.

It didn’t happen because she says she didn’t see it.  And it’s your fault for pressing her on it anyhow as she said the day before:

“In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.”– Stephanie Cutter.

So the only reason that the Libya Terrorist attacks is still in the news is not because the Obama Administration failed miserably and 4 people were murdered and the incompetence of the administration was laid bare, it’s because Romney and Ryan want to continue talking about it for political gain!

Much like Bain (for Democrats) but the difference is, if they want to talk about it, it’s relevant. If you want to talk to them about something they did, it’s irrelevant.

After all Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in effect  Just Because Facts Were Wrong, Doesn’t Mean They Were False!

Remind you of the Dan Rather, Bush Military mess- ‘Just because the documents were fake doesn’t mean the info was wrong’. Because it was THEIR assertion and since they are never wrong…

” Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. “–George Orwell

And the Film did it and the only reason you want to still talk about it is because of politics is a pure example of it.

9) Angry: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.

8) Saying “We own this country….It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.”: Watching Eastwood act out his fantasy of standing over the president and lecturing him like he was an errant schoolboy in need of correction brought forth all the unsavory aspects of modern conservatism Romney desperately wanted to spend last night minimizing. Romney wanted to paint a picture of a conservative movement that has room at the table for the voices of people of color and women. Eastwood looked out at the crowd and said, to wild applause, “I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we—we own this country.” Despite the incoherent, bumbling aspects of his speech, this sentiment—that we, not they, own this country—came across loud and clear. And with that, all of Romney’s hard work putting together a list of speakers that screamed “diversity” and “milquetoast” collapsed, and all before the candidate himself had a chance to speak. — Amanda Marcotte7) White liberals voting against Obama:Electoral racism in its most naked, egregious and aggressive form is the unwillingness of white Americans to vote for a black candidate regardless of the candidate’s qualifications, ideology or party. This form of racism was a standard feature of American politics for much of the twentieth century. So far, Barack Obama has been involved in two elections that suggest that such racism is no longer operative. His re-election bid, however, may indicate that a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it.

…Still, electoral racism cannot be reduced solely to its most egregious, explicit form. It has proved more enduring and baffling than these results can capture. The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors. — Melissa Harris-Perry

6) Breadbasket: “Ryan just called Florida ‘the breadbasket of the South’ … phrase has Civil War origins. Florida a major supplier food to the Confederacy.” — CNN’s Peter Hamby5) 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?

4) Mitt Romney mentioning his sons:…”I’ve got 5 boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it,” Romney said.

…”Yet there [Obama] was, giving a presentation devoid of substance, vision, principle, or even basic coherence. He didn’t show a spark of anger, even when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his ‘five boys’ used to tell,” Kevin Baker wrote at Harper’s.

“How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that! Mitt, at long last, has secured his base,” he added.

3) Calling Barack Obama “Cool” and/or opposing him in any way:Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, argued that President Obama has struggled during his first term due to racially-motivated opposition from conservatives who dislike having a black president.

…She said that “a lot” of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word “cool” in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS superPAC.

“There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses,” Rye said. “And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren’t asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that’s the number one person they’d love to have a beer with. So, if that’s not cool I don’t know what is.

She added that “even ‘cool,’ the term ‘cool,’ could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance].”

2) Golf:“For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems, he hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He has been working to earn a spot on the PGA Tour,” Sen. (Mitch) McConnell said.

…“Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there. He is trying to align to Tiger Woods and surely, the — lifestyle of Tiger Woods with Barack Obama,” said MSNBC host (of course) Lawrence O’Donnell.

…“Martin, there are many, many, many rhetorical choices you can make at any point in any speech to make whatever point up you want to make. If he wanted to make the point that you just suggested and I think he does want to make that point, they had a menu of a minimum of ten different kinds of images that they could have raised,” O’Donnell argued.

“And I promise you, the speech writers went through, rejecting three or four before they land order that one. That’s the one they want for a very deliberate reason. That — there’s — these people reach for every single possible racial double entendre they can find in every one of these speeches,” he added.

1) Chicago:Chris Matthews: 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.

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.

John Hielemann: There’s a lot of black people in Chicago.

And never question us because we are always right. We are vastly superior to you mere peasants so just have respect for your betters and just shut the hell up and do as your told.

And we all know you don’t want to be racist, now do you?

Vote for Obama, show that you’re not a Racist! 🙂

” If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. “– George Orwell’

” Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. “– George Orwell

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel