Just say “NO” to Watermelons

 Picture of watermelons for sale at the wholesale fruit market in Lima

Watermelon Environmentalists Cause Global Warming

UN Communists Hide In Global Warming Trojan Horse

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political

system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

Brett Stevens was both humorous and thought-provoking when he announced a while

back that “Liberalism Caused Global Warming.” I have political evidence that suggests

that he may have even had an empirical point. You see there are two types of

environmental activists. Honest ones believe that the government should assume greater

powers in order to prevent environmental pollution from doing terrible things to people

and places they care about. Dishonest environmental activists (AKA Watermelons*) just

believe the government should get more power over the lives and wallets of the citizenry.

The environment provides an excellent vehicle to usurp power and control the property

of other citizens.

United Nations Climate Chief Christiana Figueres is clearly a dishonest environmental

activist. She informs us that Communist China, the world’s leading source of CO2

pollution for several consecutive years since 2007, has the right type of governmental

system to fight Global Warming. This can only bring me back to questioning why

Christiana Figueres calls herself an environmentalist. If she wants to reduce the extent to

which human pollution could potentially warm the terrestrial climate, she should not

encourage the world emulate a nation that emits 25% of the world’s industrial CO2

pollution on an annual basis. Not only that, they get about 25% as much GDP per ton of

CO2 as the United States and about 13% as much GDP per ton of CO2 as Germany or

Japan.

To demonstrate just how wrong Christiana Figueres and her cohorts at the UN truly are,

we look at two pieces of data. The United States Government tracks CO2 pollution by

nation, by year at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. They are properly

diligent in making this data available to the public. The table below** displays the

world’s top 10 CO2 polluters by nation for 2010.

Rank Nation Metric Tons CO2
1 China 2259856
2 USA 1481608
3 India 547811
4 Russia 474714
5 Japan 319257
6 Germany 203268
7 Iran 155880
8 Korea 154777
9 Canada 136116
10 UK 134580

We then compare these pollution stats to how much economic output each of these

polluter nations produces. The World Bank tracks national GDPs by country by year.

The 2010 GDPs in Base Year USD $M for each top 10 CO2 polluter nation follows below.

Rank Nation GDP USD $M
1 USA 14,582,400
2 China 5,878,629
3 Japan 5,497,813
4 Germany 3,309,669
6 UK 2,246,079
9 India 1,729,010
10 Canada 1,574,052
11 Russia 1,479,819
14 Korea, Rep. 1,014,483
29 Iran 331,015

So to finish walking the dog on this analysis, we can take the GDP and divide it by the

polluter nation’s CO2 emissions***. This allows us to evaluate what trade-off we make

every time one of the top 10 CO2 polluters emits another ton. Lower dollar figures

indicate a greater environmental cost per dollar of GDP produced. It can also allow us to

run back-of-the-envelope experiments such as determining how much CO2 China or

Japan would have to emit to produce the US 2010 GDP. My own tabulation of this

experiment follows below.

Rank Nation $M GDP/Tons CO2 Tons CO2 to Produce US GDP
1 Japan 17.221 846,797.313
2 UK 16.690 873,744.598
3 Germany 16.282 895,598.709
4 Canada 11.564 1,261,011.681
5 USA 9.842 1,481,608.000
6 Korea 6.554 2,224,798.370
7 India 3.156 4,620,215.668
8 Russia 3.117 4,677,916.308
9 China 2.601 5,605,749.935
10 Iran 2.124 6,867,074.036

If Christiana Figueres were to arrive in New York and announce that the United States

had a lot to learn from other countries in reducing CO2 pollution per unit of wealth

produced, I would find her obnoxious but impossible to refute. She veers into the

self-serving Leftist stupid when she claims we should be learning it from the Communist

Chinese. The top 10 CO2 polluter nations produced about $37.5 Trillion in national

wealth. At the USA’s rate of CO2 pollution, these nations would have emitted 3.8 Million

Tons. At Japan’s rate, they would collectively emitted 2.2 Million Tons; at China’s

rate….14.5 million.

Pace Christiana Figueres; the United States needs to learn and do better on this issue.

Contra the dishonest, UN Watermelon Environmentalist, we sure don’t need to be

learning from a Communist dictatorship. If we accepted her prescription, and the UN

was truly correct about CO2 impacts on terrestrial climate, then Watermelon

Environmentalists would cause Global Warming.

*- Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside..
** – (HT:HTML.am) for the table source code.
***- We’ll call this our Dead Millibear Index (HT:Al Gore)

corruption

What’s Fair?

DC: Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore: ‘Obama wants to make everyone equally poor’

Economics writer Stephen Moore says President Barack Obama’s obsession with fairness will make everyone poor.

“Fairness is a good principle but should not be put ahead of growth,” Moore said in an interview with The Daily Caller about his new book, “Who’s the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America,” released Tuesday. “There’s nothing fair about making everyone poor.”

What’s wrong with fairness?

Fairness is a good principle but should not be put ahead of growth. There’s nothing fair about making everyone poor.

When the president talks about fairness, what does he mean? And what would the consequences of his conception of fairness be?

Obama wants to make everyone equally poor. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it.

What do you say to those who say that America boomed in the 1950s when the top tax rate was 90 percent, so therefore raising taxes on the rich won’t inhibit strong growth?

In the 1950s we were the only game in town and overall taxes were much lower. Now we are in a competitive world where everyone is cutting tax rates except for us. This is a reason businesses outsource jobs.

This is not a “Leave it to Beaver” fantasy 1950’s anymore. And Obama is not Ward Cleaver and Michelle is not June Cleaver.

But there is an Eddie Haskell, Timothy “The Tax Cheat” Geithner. He’s out front on the “tax fairness”.
But don’t worry, Obama is already leading from behind on this one too and all I want to do is hide BEHIND the sofa from the terror that awaits… 🙂

Thomas Sowell: If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore’s new book, “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?”, Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide.

The point here is not to ask where Stephen Moore was when we needed him. A more apt question might be:

Where was the whole economics profession when we needed it?

Where were the media?

For that matter, where were the Republicans?

Since “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” was published in October, there was little chance that it would affect this year’s election.

But this little gem of a book exposes, in plain language and with easily understood facts, the whole house of cards of assumptions, fallacies and falsehoods which constitute the liberal vision of the economy.

Yet that vision triumphed on election day, thanks to misinformation that was artfully presented and seldom challenged.

The title “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” is an obvious response to liberals’ claim that their policies are aimed at creating “fairness” by, among other things, making sure that “the rich” pay their “fair share” of taxes.

If you want a brief but thorough education on that, just read Chapter 4, which by itself is well worth the price of the book.

A couple of graphs on Pages 104 and 108 are enough to annihilate the argument about “tax cuts for the rich.”

Hidden Money

These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.

There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas.

At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes.

Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower.

Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.

This is not just a theory. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

That hard evidence is presented in clear and unmistakable terms in “Who’s The Fairest of Us All?”

Another surprising fact brought out in this book is that the Democrats and Republicans both took positions during the Kennedy administration that were the direct opposite of the positions they take today.

As Stephen Moore points out, “the Republicans almost universally opposed and the Democrats almost universally favored” the cuts in tax rates that President Kennedy proposed.

Such Republican Senate stalwarts as Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole voted against reducing the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. Democratic Congressman Wilbur Mills led the charge for lower tax rates.

Fear Of Facts

Unlike the Republicans today, John F. Kennedy had an answer when critics tried to portray his tax cut proposal as just a “tax cut for the rich.”

President Kennedy argued that it was a tax cut for the economy, that changed incentives meant a faster growing economy and that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”

If Republicans today cannot seem to come up with their own answer when critics cry out “tax cuts for the rich,” maybe they can just go back and read John F. Kennedy’s answer.

A truly optimistic person might even hope that media pundits would go back and check out the facts before arguing as if the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise tax rates on “the rich.”

If they are afraid that they would be stigmatized as conservatives if they favored cuts in tax rates, they might take heart from the fact that not only John F. Kennedy, but even John Maynard Keynes as well, argued that cutting tax rates could increase tax revenues and thereby help reduce the deficit.

Because so few people bother to check the facts, Barack Obama can get away with statements about how “tax cuts for the rich” have “cost” the government money that now needs to be recouped.

Such statements not only promote class warfare, to Obama’s benefit on election day, they also distract attention from his own runaway spending behind unprecedented trillion-dollar deficits.

http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Fairest-Them-All-Opportunity/dp/1594036845

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Redistribution

Now this is Redistribution:

An alarming data point from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee: More Americans are being added to food stamps than are finding jobs. The data is detailed in this chart, provided by the committee:

As the chart shows, between April-June 2012 (the most recent three month block for which government data is available), only 200,000 jobs have been created while 265,000 individuals have been added to the food stamp rolls. Additionally, in that time period, 246,000 workers were awarded disability.

Another chart shows that the last three month block is part of a larger trend. The chart, also from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, shows that “Workforce Shrinks Since January 2009 While Millions Sign Up For Disability And Food Stamps.”

As the chart shows, since January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, the net change jobs has been negative (-1.3 million), while 5.7 million workers and dependents have been awarded disability and a whopping 15.1 million have been added to the food stamp rolls.

“A total of 46,670,373 Americans are now on food stamps,” according to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. “The food stamp program has doubled in size since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001.”

And the government program isn’t cheap: “Spending on food stamps alone is projected to reach $770 billion over the next decade.” (Weekly Standard)

Round Two:

In remarks this morning to the Clinton Global Initiative, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed a radical idea: a global tax on elites around the world.

“One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country,” Clinton said to laughter from the audience. “You know I’m out of American politics, but – (applause) – it is a fact that around the world, the elites of every country are making money.”

Clinton continued her rift on the rich. “There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries.”

The secretary of state suggested that the rich around the world do not give back to their communities. “They don’t invest in public schools, in public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally,” said Clinton.

She continued, saying that it is up to foreign leaders to make the change. “And so it means for leaders telling powerful people things they don’t want to hear,” Clinton said.

“It means being transparent about budgets and revenues and bringing corruption to light. And when that happens, we shouldn’t punish countries for uncovering corruption. We should reward them for doing so. And it means putting in place regulations designed to attract and protect investment.”

Clinton’s boss, Barack Obama, has made raising taxes on the rich–at least, raising taxes on wealthy Americans–a centerpiece of his reelection campaign. (weekly standard)

Wanna know who the 1%er’s are Globally?

What for it… AMERICANS!!! 🙂

So the old double whammy!

Fascinating how that worked out!

An American Express/Harrison Group survey found:

According to the survey…

– 67% grew up in a middle class or poorer household.
– 85% made their wealth in their lifetime.
– 76% describe themselves as “Middle Class” at heart.
– 3% is the sum total of their assets that they inherited.

“This is the triumph of the Middle Class,” says Jim Taylor, Vice Chairman of the Harrison Group. “Even when older, the [One Percent] don’t lose the degree with which they see themselves as the repository of the Middle Class. That means hard work. That means the value of education. That means the value of family and luck.” (http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2012/05/07/who-are-the-one-percent/)

See also: http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/10/12/who-are-the-top-1-income-earners/

So the Liberal meme, especially about Romney, isn’t true. But if you had half a brain cell you knew that already. But believing it is heresy on the Left. The 1% aren’t just rich kids who inherited their money and robber baron assholes who exploited their employees like slave master in Ancient Egypt building the Pyramids.

But as I have said repeatedly, the truth doesn’t matter to Liberals. Perception does. Perception is reality. Reality is to be denied, debunked or discredited in their heads and they want it to be in yours.

Rich people are the root of all evil. Government is the Fountain of that’s Good.

Republicans are Evil. Democrats are Good.

Earning your own money- Evil. Earning someone elses money- Good.

It’s that simple. 🙂

P.s.

 

The National Business Group on Health this morning released their annual survey of employer health insurance policies.  The survey found that health insurance costs are expected to rise another 7% next year.  In addition, a majority (60%) of firms “plan to increase the percentage of the premium paid by employees in 2013,” while sizable numbers of firms plan to increase in-network deductibles (40%), out-of-network deductibles (33%), and/or out-of-pocket maximums (32%).

Candidate Obama repeatedly promised premiums would go down by $2,500 — and would go down that amount by this year.  Yet while candidate Obama promised that premiums would go DOWN by $2,500, they actually have gone UP by nearly as much — from $12,680 in 2008 to $15,073 in 2011.

What’s more, even though candidate Obama promised that “you will not have to change plans,” today’s survey found that the number of firms able to keep their pre-Obamacare coverage has decreased yet again.  Fully 57% of firms said they had no health plans with “grandfathered” (i.e., pre-Obamacare) status, and only about one-quarter (27%) were able to keep any portion of their coverage from before Obamacare’s passage – just two short years ago. (Freedom works)

But remember, if you live in reality of what is, you just wanna throw grandmas under the bus and off the cliff!

You have to live in Liberal fantasy land where they are always right no matter what reality says and everything is kumbuya utopia, or at least it will be once they completely and utterly crush you under their boots and make you do everything they want when they want because they want. 🙂

Oh, and it’s all Bush’s fault… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Helping the Poor

Obama administration officials have insisted that their decision to grant states waivers to redefine work requirements for welfare recipients would not “gut” the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. But a new report from the Congressional Research Service obtained by the Washington Examiner suggests that the administration’s suspension of a separate welfare work requirement has already helped explode the number of able-bodied Americans on food stamps.

In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010, according to the CRS report.

But I’m sure it’s Bush’s fault!

The CBO (The Congressional Budget Office) has released some bad news for President Obama and his signature Health Care law the Affordable Care Act.  The CBO has found that almost 6 million Americans, the majority of them in the middle class, will be hit with a tax penalty for failing to comply with the insurance mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act.

The number of 6 million is significantly higher than the first estimates released by Democrats when the bill was still being debated.  Critics are saying this is another example of how the President has broken promises in relation to his Health Care Initiative.

The CBO, a nonpartisan group of number crunchers that work for Congress, had originally estimated that less than 4 million Americans would be hit with the tax surcharge in 2016 when the law is fully implemented.

The cost of the penalty s around $1,200 per year per family.  Obama had campaigned on a promise to not raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 for a family of four.  The CBO estimates says that the vast majority of those that will be hit with the surcharge will make significantly less than that. (aka “middle class”)

Whoops, Did Obama do that again! 🙂

REDISTRIBUTION

Barack Obama back in 1998.

Addressing an audience at Loyola Chicago, Obama said he “believes” in redistribution:

I think that the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution — at least to a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.

But he’s “evolved”? 🙂

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

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

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler’s Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive experience that economists call “human capital.” When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro’s confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of “Forward,” but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good.

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 

Reality Is a Dish Best Served Cold

When asked yesterday whether she agreed or disagreed with one of the world’s top climate-change scientists that there had been no statistically significant global warming over the last fifteen years, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco would only say “that it is inappropriate to look at any particular short period of time to discern the long-term trend.”
 
In fact, Lubchenco twice avoided directly answering a yes-no question as to whether she agreed with the observation that there has been no statistically significant global warming over the last decade and a half. (CNS)

But in 1975, it was Global Cooling. I guess it all depends on the liberal definition of “short term” which means they can change it on a dime (because it became Global Warming well before 15 years after Cooling) but you can’t point out to them that they are wrong anyways.

Reality is not a liberals strong suit.

Environmental concerns have caused one high-ranking UN official to declare that “the West” does not need more cars, televisions, and other consumer luxuries.

United Nations Development Programme head Helen Clark told AFP in an interview: “So the issue is how to get human development that will see it continue to rise for the world’s poorest people and people in developing countries. Because frankly human development in the West – we don’t need more cars, more TV, whatever. Our needs are by and large satisfied, although the recession has put a lot of strains on that.”

Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand, also stressed the responsibility of richer countries to reduce their environmental footprint: “There is, in my opinion, a very heavy responsibility on the countries of the north to look at how they sustain their living standards with a much lower environmental footprint.”

Could that be with redistribution and environmental whacko regulations to strangle everyone?? 🙂

And if you think the Liberal Media will be fair to anyone or anything they don’t like, well, get a load of this…

Barack Obama’s adoring cheerleaders at NBC are back in the editing room distorting the truth, and, not surprisingly, Andrea Mitchell has the gall to make no apologies for it.

First it was their vile attempt to make George Zimmerman sound like a racist to gin up racial conflict, and now they’ve set their sights on Mitt Romney who they’re desperately trying to paint as an out-of-touch, silver spoon Republican wowed by Wawa sandwiches.

This is a brazen attempt by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell to create a modern “supermarket scanner” moment for Mitt Romney where one clearly does not exist. This “gaffe” is a complete fabrication deliberately perpetrated by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports. Her attempt to right this wrong by playing a few more seconds of video today is a slap in the face. Romney was making a valid point about the efficiency of private sector innovation. He was not amazed that he could order a sandwich with a touchscreen. His message is clear as day to anyone who watches the full video of his stump speech, and should sicken anyone who compares it to Mitchell’s sensational hatchet job.

And remember, she’s a “journalist” 🙂

Now comes the non-apology apology from a devout Liberal who doesn’t mean a word of it because she was proud of her hatchet job but has to keep up the pretense that she is a “journalist”.

She plays a few seconds after their cutesy cut BUT nothing before it! and then blows it off and just continues like it was nothing.

Because to a devout Liberal Obama hack it was nothing. It was beneath her to even do it. But the pretense has to be maintained.

Another “journalist”: “What the President’s got to do is say, ‘Hey, don’t forget about George W. Bush. Things got really, really bad under him.'” –NBC’s Meet The Press Host David Gregory.

Co-host Matt Lauer was skeptical: “I hear him saying that all the time….do you think that strategy works, the blame Bush strategy, or do people want you to take ownership of this economy at this stage?” Gregory was undeterred: “…they’ve got to prevail in providing context. Saying, ‘Look, it’s not about blaming the previous president, it’s that the hill was so high to climb. And we’re making some progress but the hole is still so deep.'”

I can tell you what’s deep…The Bovine Fecal Matter and the media bias that’s a blackhole at NBC.

2011, David Gregory: “How does the President try to harness this anger, this sense of unfairness about the economy, about income inequality in this country, about the middle class stagnating for the past 30 years? That’s what the President wants to try to tap into here.”

So the Middle class was stagnating under Bill Clinton and the Democrats. Good to know. 🙂

Thomas Sowell: Many people may have voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because of his charisma. But anyone familiar with the disastrous track record of charismatic political leaders around the world in the 20th century should have run for the hills when they encountered a politician with charisma.

What is scarier than any particular political policy or issue is the widespread tendency to treat political issues as personal contests in talking points — competitive skill in fencing with words — rather than as serious attempts to find out what the facts are and what the options are.

For a long time, Democrats have gone to Washington to win at all costs, while too many Republicans went to Washington to compromise with Democrats. The rise of the Tea Party may change that.

Increasing numbers of people seem to have convinced themselves that they are entitled to a “fair share” of what someone else has earned. Whole nations now seem to think that they should be bailed out from the consequences of their own reckless spending by nations that lived within their means.

Wishful thinking is not idealism. It is self-indulgence at best and self-exaltation at worst. In either case, it is usually at the expense of others. In other words, it is the opposite of idealism.

So the “journalism” “crusader” is dead.

Governor Mike Huckabee (2009): I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.

Amen.

Victor Davis Hanson: Obama simply cannot run on 40 months of 8 percent–plus unemployment, a June 2009 recovery that sputtered, $5 trillion in new debt, serial $1 trillion–plus annual deficits, and dismal GDP growth. Few believe any more that what he and the Democratic Congress passed in the first two years of his administration worked — and fewer still that the Republicans are to blame in the last 17 months for stopping him from pursuing even more disastrous policies. He cannot turn instead to the advantages of Obamacare, a dynamic foreign policy, national-security sobriety, a scandal-free administration, or stellar presidential appointments. The furor over security leaks makes it harder to keep conjuring up the ghost of Osama bin Laden.
What then to expect if the race remains tight or Obama finds himself behind?1. There will be lots more “the dog ate my homework” excuses for the dismal economy. The troubles in the EU, the Japanese tsunami, the East Coast earthquake, ATM machines, Wall Street, inclement weather, the Republican Congress, the Tea Party, and George W. Bush have pretty much been exhausted. But there is always hurricane season, a Greek exit from the euro, or a Middle East flare-up. Expect sometime before October to hear that a new “they” upset the brilliant recovery and is to blame for the chronic economic lethargy. One of the strangest aspects of Obama’s rationalizations is their utter incoherence and illogic: He brags that America pumped more oil and gas under his watch, even as he did his best to stop just that on public lands; he brags that he put in fewer regulations than did Bush, even as he boasts that he reined in business; he brags that he had to borrow $5 trillion to grow government in order to save the country, even as he claims he reduced the size of government. Why does Obama try to take credit for things on Tuesday that he damned on Monday? Is his new campaign theme: Despite (rather than because of) Obama?

2. Mitt Romney is a tough target. If Obama once loudly admitted to abuse of coke, Romney quietly confesses to avoidance even of Coca-Cola. His personal life is blameless. His family seems the subject of a Norman Rockwell painting. And Romney has more or less succeeded at most things he has attempted. No matter, he is Mormon. Expect legions of Obama surrogates to focus on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, especially its supposed endemic racism, sexism, and homophobia. Religious bigotry is not especially liberal, but the race/class/gender agenda trumps all such qualms, and in any case Obama and his team have never claimed to be especially tolerant or fair-minded in using any means necessary to achieve noble ends. Whereas the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church were off the table in 2008, Mormonism will be very much on it by late summer.

3. We will read and hear about race 24/7. Racism is not an easy sell today, given that without tens of millions of white voters, Barack Obama would not have been elected. Nor is it easy to condemn America as racist when the white vote in 2008 was split far more evenly than were the 96 percent of African-American voters who preferred Barack Obama. Nonetheless, racial relations are at an all-time low. Almost weekly a member of the Congressional Black Caucus levels yet another bizarre charge of racism, and a Hollywood actor or singer blurts out something that would be deemed racially offensive were he not African-American; the polarization over the Trayvon Martin case threatens to overshadow the polarization over the O. J. Simpson trial; flash mobbing in the inner cities is as much daily fare on the uncensored Internet as it is absent from the network news; and both Barack Obama (the Skip Gates affair, the Trayvon Martin quip, the “punish our enemies” call, etc.) and Eric Holder (“cowards,” congressional oversight is racially motivated, “my people,” etc.) have made it a point to make race essential, not incidental, to their governance. If in 2008 liberals celebrated the election of Barack Obama as proof of a new postracial harmony, in 2012 a tight race will be cited as greater proof of a new ascendant racism. The idea that to elect Obama wins the nation racial exemption, and to defeat him earns condemnation, is illogical. No matter: By late fall, expect a desperate Obama administration to be dredging up the charge overtly, nonstop, and in person.

4. We should look for new furor against the “system” in direct proportion to the praise heaped on it in 2008 for being redeemed. The polls, if unfavorable, will be described as innately biased. The uncivil Rush Limbaugh, talk radio generally, Fox News, and tea-party bloggers, we will be lectured, are subversive, peddle hate, foment violence, and should be silenced. Whereas David Brooks, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley were recommended reading in 2008, given their balanced and fair-minded critiques of George W. Bush and their appreciation of Barack Obama, in 2012 we will learn that they are right-wing attack dogs for losing their enthusiasm for the first-class mind and temperament of Barack Obama. Whereas a Pat Buchanan on MSNBC railing against Bush’s war and McCain’s neocon advisers was a reminder of how the libertarian Right has positive affinities with the liberal Left, in 2012 such a paleocon “racist” must be kept off the airwaves. Voter-registration laws and voter-ID requirements, remember, are designed to exclude the oppressed and must be relaxed. Advertising has warped American politics. Super PACs are Romney conspiracies. If big Wall Street money went for Obama in 2008 and thereby won investment banking and the stock market exemption from charges of greed and corruption, in 2012 investors may swing to Romney and thereby incite calls to rein in “big money” and furious op-eds about the toxic mix of politics and cash. If Romney outraises Obama, we will hear again the calls for public campaign financing, which were ignored when a cash-flush Obama renounced public financing in 2008. In 2008, academics, foundation people, the Hollywood crowd, journalists, and liberal politicians confessed that they had fallen in love again with an America that had proved it was not hopeless after all; in 2012, America may prove unsalvageable, with thousands vowing to move to Canada.

5. Suddenly around October the world will become absolutely unsafe. In these dangerous times, Americans must forget their differences, come together, and embrace a bipartisan unity — given that it may be necessary, after all, to hit the Iranian nuclear facilities, since we’ll have learned that the bomb may be a reality by, say, mid-November. Just as we have been reminded that Barack Obama has saved us by his brave decisions to use double agents in Yemen, computer viruses in Iran, Seal Team Six in Pakistan, and philosophically guided Predator assassination hits, so too a strike against Iran may suddenly be of vital national-security interest, though keenly lamented by a Nobel laureate nose-deep in Thomas Aquinas. Cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline delighted greens; the war on the war on women pleased feminists; gays are now on board after Barack Obama decided he really did favor gay marriage; Latinos got nearly a million illegal aliens exempted from immigration law. And yet all those partisan gifts have not yet resulted in a 50 percent approval rating or a lead over Mitt Romney. Something more dramatic is needed, given that there are only so many Obama heroics that can be cobbled together and leaked from classified sources.

We do not know who is going to win the 2012 election, only that it will be closer than the 2008 one — and if Obama keeps it up at his present rate he may destroy the Democratic party for a generation. There is no longer an incumbent George Bush to blame. Romney is a feistier candidate than was John McCain. Fundraising is no longer lopsided. The novelty of the first African-American president has become passé. And “hope and change” has been replaced by a concrete record of three and a half years. Given those realities, if his being an unknown quantity was a reason to vote for Barack Obama in 2008, his being all too familiar will be cause for rejecting him in 2012.

Unless the “journalist” persuade you that what they are selling is reality. It just doesn’t happen to be ACTUAL reality. And their “facts” are more laced with arsenic for those who disagree with their almighty selves than punch from Charles Manson.

The Ministry of Truth is on 24/7/365 full frontal assault mode. And they are proud of themselves.

Remember that.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Brian Farrington

 

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Stakes Are Raised

Who cares if we don’t have a budget — let’s spend more! President Obama has decided to raise the debt ceiling once more, and forget about needing Congressional approval. Thanks to the agreement reached in August, it’s still going up.

President Obama formally notified Congress on Thursday of his intent to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion, two weeks after he had postponed the requestto give lawmakers more time to consider the action.

Congress will have had 15 days to say no before the nation’s debt ceiling automatically is raised from $15.2 trillion to $16.4 trillion.

In a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama wrote that ”further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments.”

Obama had sought to make the request at the end of last month, when the Treasury came within $100 billion of its borrowing limit. However, with Congress on recess, lawmakers from both parties asked the president to hold off. The House is out of session until Jan. 17, and the Senate until Jan. 23.

Since then Treasury officials have used special revenue and accounting measures to maintain the nation’s solvency. Yet the White House cast the delay as a technicality, saying there is no chance the limit will not be increased, even if Republican lawmakers attempt to object.

Hey, what’s another trillion? Chump change at this point.(townhall.com)

When in Debt Spend Even More!

Yet the White House cast the <previous> delay as a technicality, saying there is no chance the limit will not be increased, even if Republican lawmakers attempt to object.

Under an agreement reached in August, Congress and the White House moved to raise the debt limit in three increments while also implementing $2.4 trillion in budget cuts. The deal, however, also gave Congress the option of voting to block each of the debt-ceiling increases by passing a “resolution of disapproval.”

Even if such a resolution were passed, Obama could veto it, and he could be overridden only by a two-thirds supermajority in each chamber.

In September, when the first debt-limit hike was scheduled to take effect, the Republican-led House passed a disapproval resolution, but the Democrat-controlled Senate blocked it and the debt ceiling was raised

White House officials said they do not expect the Senate to support a disapproval resolution this time even if the House passes one again. (WP)

Democrat Control anyone?

Oh right, it’s a “do nothing” Congress and everything is their fault…

Obama said, “Everything that we fought for is now at stake in this election.”

Very true. Liberal Socialism is on the line.

I just wish it was a firing line. But I’m not sure the Republicans aren’t the Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight! 😦

Under any of these possibilities, the fact remains that he is hellbent on accelerating his present course, not reversing it, on dictating, not working within his constitutional constraints, much less building a bipartisan consensus.

Hubris and defiance are his trademarks, not humility. He said, “If you’re willing to work even harder in this election than you did in the last election, I promise you, change will come.”

And considering the “change” we already have I pity the fool who wants more of it.

He has repeatedly indicated that he is frustrated with the process of republican government and that he would be much more comfortable as a dictator.

Just consider how brazenly Obama has pursued his unpopular agenda even while facing re-election. Think how he joked about having made a hollow promise of shovel-ready jobs when there is no such thing and how he is unchastened by the colossal waste of Solyndra and pursuing more of the same. Consider how he cavalierly refuses to account for his promise to keep unemployment capped at 8 percent and how he assured us, on his honor, that his designated stimulus cop, Vice President Joe Biden, wouldn’t allow a dollar of waste to go unpunished in his stimulus plan. Chew on his refusal to listen to the public when it resoundingly rejected Obamacare, rebuffing his agenda in the U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts and again in the 2010 congressional elections. Ponder his petty partisanship, bullying, demonizing and class warfare and his frequent invocation of the race card. Can you conceive of how he’d act as a four-year lame duck?

You all surely heard Obama, thinking he was speaking only to friends, boast that he was for a single-payer plan but that it might take 15 years to implement it. Remember this when his supporters tell you Obamacare won’t degenerate into socialized medicine. Those waivers he unilaterally issued to buy off companies now won’t be available next time around when the full force of Obamacare rains down its dark waters.

Think about his Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will have 15 bureaucrats once Obamacare is up and running, when he won’t have to worry about 2016. Before you pooh-pooh this, you’d better do your research on his health care mentors’ (e.g., Tom Daschle, Donald Berwick) philosophy about the macabre rationing of health care for the aged.

So, call me an alarmist if you will, but I think it’s almost irrational not to be very concerned about an Obama second term. Even if you don’t subscribe to some of the horror scenarios of death panels and the like, how about his intention to continue to press forward with his radical green agenda despite the fact that it won’t work to reduce global temperatures and despite the public’s opposition to it?

More importantly, how about his absolute refusal to restructure entitlements or his refusal to lead his party’s Senate to pass a budget after 1,000 days? Or his insistence on another stimulus package when unemployment — even using the distorted metrics the administration is now using — is still at 8.5 percent and it would add another half-trillion dollars to the national debt?

By rights, Obama shouldn’t get 10 percent of the vote in November. Even those who want to punish the “wealthy” should understand that once you completely gnaw off the hand that feeds you, you will starve, too.(David Limbaugh)

The record of President Obama’s first three years in office is in, and nothing that happens now can go back and change that. What that record shows is that President Obama, with his throwback, old-fashioned, 1970s Keynesian economics, has put America through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

The recession started in December, 2007. Go to the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org <file://localhost/owa/redir.aspx>) to see the complete history of America’s recessions. What that history reveals is that before this last recession, since the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months.

When President Obama entered office in January, 2009, the recession was already in its 13th month. His responsibility was to manage a timely, robust recovery to get America back on track again. Based on the historical record, that recovery was imminent, within a couple of months or so. Despite widespread fear, nothing fundamental had changed to deprive America of the long term, world-leading prosperity it had enjoyed going back 300 years.

Supposedly a forward looking progressive, Obama proved to be America’s first backward looking regressive. His first act was to increase federal borrowing, the national debt and the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars to finance a supposed “stimulus” package, based on the discredited Keynesian theory left for dead 30 years ago holding that increased government spending, deficits and debt are what promote economic growth and recovery. That theory arose in the 1930s as the answer to the Great Depression, which, of course, never worked.

Unemployment actually rose after June, 2009, and did not fall back down below that level until 18 months later in December, 2010. Instead of a recovery, America has suffered the longest period of unemployment near 9% or above since the Great Depression, under President Obama’s public policy malpractice. Even today, 49 months after the recession started, the U6 unemployment rate counting the unemployed, underemployed and discouraged workers is still 15.2%. And that doesn’t include all the workers who have fled the workforce under Obama’s economic oppression. The unemployment rate with the full measure of discouraged workers is reported at http://www.shadowstats.com <file://localhost/owa/redir.aspx> as about 23%, which is depression level unemployment.

Under President Obama, America has suffered the longest period with so many in such long-term unemployment since the Great Depression.

Going to be a fun year. Enjoy Friday the 13th! 🙂

 

Tonight’s Preview

Wanna Hear what Teleprompter One will tell the Great Speech Maker tonight?

Wanna Hear the latest speech that is supposed to be “policy” or “leadership” but is just more words and obfuscations?

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Well, there you have it. It just won’t be that straight forward. But it will be Tax and Spend, Redistribution and  More Government and Union Jobs. It will just be hidden under another layer of Orwellian Bullshit and The Mainstream Media’s Frenzy of Giddiness and Awe.

But it will still be ideological bullshit.

It’s not like he can step outside of his ideology.

Oh, I’m sure it will be soaring and emotional  and “heartfelt”.

But it will be a massive snow job the likes of which would cause an ice age.

And if you don’t buy the bullshit, you’re just a heartless, right wing, terrorist/extremist/racist. 🙂

So, no worries. 🙂

After an $830 billion “economic recovery” plan, two auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, mortgage bailouts and at least two subsequent jobs programs, Obama wants to convince the country that just a little bit more stimulus is what the economy needs to finally get back on track.

But wait a minute. Since Obama took office, the government has run up $4 trillion in deficits. And even before his newest stimulus package, he’s on track to add another $973 billion next year.

Unless Keynes’ was wrong, shouldn’t all that have superturbocharged the economy by now? We’re not talking about a little bit of extra spending, but record amounts.

So far, Obama has run deficits that are more than twice as large as any president since Truman. And by the end of his first term, he will have borrowed more money than the federal government spent over the nation’s first 200 years.

Yet all we’ve gotten in return for this epochal level of allegedly stimulative deficit spending is the country’s worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

Worse, the specific ideas Obama will apparently propose — more money for infrastructure, another extension to this year’s payroll tax cut, an unemployment benefits extension and tax credits to encourage hiring the unemployed — have all been tried since he took office, and all have failed to move the needle on jobs.

But if you bang your Rigidly Ideological Head against this wall, eventually you will break the wall!

Simple really. 🙂

Spending on roads has been a particularly expensive flop. Last summer, Obama was so sure the huge amount of highway stimulus money getting paid out over those months would create jobs that he dubbed it “Recovery Summer.” Instead, the economy lost a net 329,000 jobs.

And when the payroll tax cut went into effect in January, Vice President Biden assured that the $112 billion put into workers’ pockets would end up “spurring growth and creating jobs.” So far, GDP growth has all but stalled, and there are 104,000 more unemployed.

Nor did the tax credits have any noticeable effect, with most of the money given away to companies that would have made the same hiring decisions anyway.

How much more time will it take for Obama to realize his economic policies have failed? The answer so far appears to be “Just a little bit more.”

At least until 2013 when he no longer has to run for election so katie-bar-the-door will the real Obama please stand up!

Imagine what Obama could do without being in perpetual Campaign Mode?

Be Afraid. Be Very, Very Afraid!!

But tonight, you’ll just get the Chicago Community Orginizer Soaring Rhetoric Speech # 504. It will sound like 503…502…501…500…499…
It will be like mythical Chinese Food, an hour later even he won’t remember what he said.

The same old ugly pig will have a new shade of Orwellian Lipstick on.

Enjoy.

Are ready for some football! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne