Obama's solution vs American Needs

What’s new Today

Our #1 story shows us the USA is still a great country.  Americans are much more interested in growth and opportunity than in redistribution.  #2 talks about Iran and its saber rattling.  #3 looks at the story about Nancy Pelosi’s daughters comments that her mother wants to retire but her donors don’t want her to.  #4 is appropriate for the coming banning of the standard 100 watt light bulb. 

1.  Voters want Growth, Not Redistribution

"A 2008 election widely regarded as heralding a shift toward the more government-friendly public sentiment of the New Deal and Great Society eras seems to have yielded just the reverse."So writes William Galston, Brookings Institution scholar and deputy domestic adviser in the Clinton White House, in the New Republic. Galston, one of the smartest political and policy analysts around, has strong evidence for this conclusion.

He cites a recent Gallup poll showing that WHILE 82 PERCENT OF AMERICANS THINK IT'S EXTREMELY OR VERY IMPORTANT TO "GROW AND EXPAND THE ECONOMY" and 70 percent say it's similarly important to "increase equality of opportunity for people to get ahead," ONLY 46 PERCENT SAY IT'S IMPORTANT TO "REDUCE THE INCOME AND WEALTH GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR" and 54 percent say this is only somewhat or not important.

In addition, by a 52 to 45 percent margin, Americans see the gap between the rich and the poor as an acceptable part of the economic system rather than a problem that needs to be fixed. In 1998, during the high-tech economic boom, Americans took the opposite view by the same margin.

As Galston notes, these findings suggest that OBAMA'S MUCH PRAISED SPEECH AT OSAWATOMIE, KANSAS, DECRYING INEQUALITY, "MAY WELL REDUCE HIS CHANCES OF PREVAILING IN A CLOSE RACE." Class warfare politics, as I have noted, hasn't produced a Democratic presidential victory in a long, long time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/29/voters_want_growth_not_income_redistribution_112569.html

Obama and the left see the pie as fixed and therefore distribution is the only issue.  In fact, even though the rich have gotten richer over the past 30 years, so has everyone else. 

2.  Iran’s Threat to Close Straits of Hormuz

…Iran's navy does not have the size for a sustained physical blockade of the Strait, but DOES HAVE MINE-LAYING AND MISSILE CAPABILITY TO WREAK SOME HAVOC, ANALYSTS SAID.

"It wouldn't be a cakewalk" for Iran, said Caitlin Talmadge, a George Washington University professor who has written about the Strait of Hormuz. "IF TEHRAN REALLY WANTED TO CAUSE TROUBLE, IT COULD."

But the BAHRAIN-BASED U.S. FIFTH FLEET IS NEARBY AND KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON IRAN'S ACTIVITIES IN THE STRAIT. Mine-laying or missile activity would not go undetected and would likely generate a U.S. response.

The Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday that "any disruption will not be tolerated." That came after Iran's navy chief said closing the Strait of Hormuz "is really easy... or as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water." ..

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45813538

Iran would be fools to do this.  It would supply the rationale to bomb and take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities just before they become a nuclear power.  

3.   Pelosi is staying, but not for the Children’s Sake

Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told Big Government this week that her mother wants to leave Congress–and that she remains in Washington only at the behest of her campaign donors.

During a telephone interview, Ms. Pelosi–speaking from a friend’s home in New York City–described her mother’s predicament:

SHE WOULD RETIRE RIGHT NOW, IF THE DONORS SHE HAS DIDN’T WANT HER TO STAY SO BADLY. They know she wants to leave, though. They think she’s destined for the wilderness. She has very few days left. She’s 71, she wants to have a life, she’s done. It’s obligation, that’s all I’m saying.

http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/12/29/exclusive-nancy-pelosis-daughter-my-mom-wants-to-leave-congress/

What is the definition of a political gaffe?  It’s when a politician tells the truth.  Here it is a politician’s daughter.  Pelosi is staying for her “DONORS!!!!!”  She didn’t say for the children or even her constituents, but the people who donate money to her.  This does seem to coincide with Karl Rove’s prediction that she and Harry Reid will leave their leadership roles in 2012.

4.  Beating the Man

This is just too good.

Many of you know that in a few days the federal ban on conventional incandescent light bulbs will go into effect. And while House Republicans included a provision in a recent spending bill that will block funding for the ban's enforcement, it's said that it will have little effect; manufacturers have prepared for the new standards and will no doubt abide by the law. So does this mean we'll be forced to buy more expensive LED (light emitting diode) or CFL (compact fluorescent light) bulbs, the latter being those squiggly things said to be loaded with mercury? Not if we follow the lead of German businessman Siegfried Rotthaeuser.

After the European Union banned conventional incandescent bulbs, Rotthaeuser's entrepreneurial spirit was sparked. He started selling another product: heatballs.

What's a heatball? According to this Teutonic Knight of Freedom and Light, it is a "small heating device" that compensates for the loss of heat a home experiences when conventional light bulbs are swapped for more energy efficient ones.

At his English-version website, Rotthaeuser points out the convenience of his invention, writing, "A HEATBALL® is not a light bulb, but fits into the same socket!"

He then touts the new product as "The most original invention since the electric light bulb!" and explains, "Although a heatball is technically very similar to a light bulb, it is a heater rather than a source of light." Elaborating, he also states, "By using heatballs, the heating effort of a normal house is effectively assisted. A heatball is a source of heat. Or do you use your toaster as a desk lamp?"

A businessman with a conscience, however, Rotthaeuser also believes in truth in advertising. He thus is forthcoming about a certain unintended byproduct of his heating element, writing, "During its use as a heater, HEATBALLS have an unavoidable emission of light in the visible spectrum." Pity that. But if heatballs are anything at all like incandescent light bulbs, they should be very efficient little space heaters, indeed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/upset_about_big_brothers_ban_on_incandescent_bulbs_buy_a_heatball.html#ixzz1i1iPsH6Z

Always good to warm your house in the winter time. 

More bad news for the Democrats

Something to think about

What’s new Today

Our #1 story brings us up to date on Fannie and Freddie and the financial meltdown.  #2 reviews how bad a year Obama has had.  #3 is an interesting look at the worst new regulations the federal government has come up with this year.  #4 looks at whether climate warmists actually believe what they are telling us.  Hint, they don’t.   And finally, #5 lays out 12 predictions about the politics in 2012 by Karl Rove. 

1.  Fannie and Freddie Update

…Summarized below are the original numbers we relied on, taken from Fannie and Freddie’s own data and from the views of bank regulators—and now supplemented with additional data from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent complaints against certain officers of Fannie and Freddie. Of particular interest are Fannie and Freddie’s non-prosecution agreements with the SEC, in which they agree with facts that confirm—and in many cases go beyond—our original research concerning the scope of the GSEs’ subprime and Alt-A exposure. These are facts, and Nocera and others who might wish it otherwise should become familiar with them.

For example, IN ITS NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT FREDDIE AGREED THAT AS OF JUNE 30, 2008, IT HAD $244 BILLION IN SUBPRIME LOANS, COMPRISING 14 PERCENT OF ITS CREDIT GUARANTY PORTFOLIO, RATHER THAN THE $6 BILLION IT HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED. Freddie also agreed that it had $541 billion in reduced documentation loans alone, vastly more than the $190 billion in previously disclosed Alt-A loans which Freddie had said included loans with reduced documentation.

While the SEC documents about $1.03 trillion in previously undisclosed subprime and Alt-A loans in Fannie and Freddie’s credit guaranty portfolios, an estimated $812.8 billion, or about 80 percent, were already accounted for in the totals of Fannie and Freddie subprime and Alt-A exposures included in Pinto’s Forensic Study and Wallison’s Dissent from the majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

THE SEC FINDINGS ADD $219 BILLION AND 1.43 MILLION LOANS TO OUR ORIGINAL FANNIE AND FREDDIE SUBPRIME AND ALT-A TOTALS, BRINGING THE COMBINED SUBPRIME AND ALT-A TOTAL TO $2.041 TRILLION and 13.37 million loans...

http://american.com/archive/2011/december/why-the-left-is-losing-the-argument-over-the-financial-crisis

The left continues to scream greed, but facts are facts.  Was greed involved?  Of course it was.  Would the crisis have hit if the government hadn’t been pushing subprime loans?  NO.

2.  Obama’s annus horribilis

President Obama has had the worst year of his presidency. Or, to be more precise, HIS PERFORMANCE THIS YEAR HAS BEEN THE WORST OF HIS PRESIDENCY. Pundits and pollsters will say that his “numbers are up,” but let’s look at what he’s done or not done.

If you can recall, back in February his State of the Union address was a bore-a-thon stocked with spending ideas (on everything from light rail to salmon), with only glancing reference to the debt. His grand proposal: Freeze discretionary spending at the astronomically high level he had presided over in his first two years.

The next few months were spent bashing the only man to author a serious budget plan and put real Medicare reform on the table. HE NOT ONLY REBUFFED REP. PAUL RYAN’S PROPOSALS BUT INVITED HIM TO A SPEECH, PUT HIM IN THE FIRST ROW AND THEN DELIVERED A HYPER-PARTISAN ATTACK, accusing the Republicans of taking Pell grants from college kids so fat cats could get a break on corporate jets.

Throughout the spring and summer the president failed to present his own entitlement reform plans. He caved on the continuing resolution and on the debt ceiling deal,  upsetting the left because he hadn’t hiked taxes on the rich. In the fall it was time for his taxpayer-paid bus tour on which he bashed Republicans using some of the most egregious language of his presidency. (ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT, THE GOP WANTS YOU TO BREATHE DIRTY AIR AND WON’T PUT COUNTRY ABOVE PARTY.) His own “jobs” bill was a feeble retread of his stimulus plan. It was largely ignored, save the payroll tax cut. The president insisted on a two-month deal to embarrass the GOP. We passed the $15 trillion mark on the debt. Unemployment remains at historically high levels.

IT WAS A YEAR OF SHOCKING IRRESPONSIBILITY AND DEMAGOGUERY. He denounced the Ryan-Wyden Medicare plan as he had Ryan’s original Medicare reform plan. He let the Simpson-Bowles debt reduction plan wither on the vine. He lifted not a finger to make use of the supercommittee he had agreed to create. He put forth no tax reform plan. If there has been a more slothful performance in and hyper-partisan use of the Oval Office in recent years I am hard-pressed to recall it. Frankly, Congress should run against the do-nothing president….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-annus-horribilis/2011/12/28/gIQADk0RMP_blog.html

Obama is shockingly unqualified to be President.  He is lazy and has let the American public down on both sides of the aisle. 

3.  Top 10 Worst Federal Rules of 2011

Hindsight is supposed to be 20/20, but looking back on the past 12 months, it’s tough to see any sense in many of the Administration’s regulatory missteps. Of course, there are bound to be a few howlers WHEN GOVERNMENT CHURNS OUT MORE THAN 3,500 RULES IN A YEAR, including dozens unleashed by Obamacare, Dodd–Frank, and the perpetually errant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But by any standard, 2011 brought forth a remarkable number and variety of regulatory blunders.

Fair warning: Our Top 10 list may prove fatal to any bit of faith in government as a “fixer,” if faith somehow has managed to survive despite all evidence to the contrary. In any event, it should steel our resolve to fight the Leviathan in the coming year.

1. THE DIM BULBS RULE….

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/28/top-10-worst-federal-rules-of-2011/

Read them all.  It will reinforce that one of the biggest lies in America is the statement, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

 

4.   Do Warmists Really Believe in Global Warming?

…You can’t necessarily tell what people are truly committed to from what they say. However, you can always tell what they are truly committed to by how they negotiate. IF SOMEONE REALLY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING, THEY WILL REACT TO A SUGGESTION BY ENGAGING IT. THEY WILL “WORK WITH” THE SUGGESTION, TRYING TO SEE HOW IT CAN HELP THEM DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT TO DO. If someone says that they want to do something but they really have some other agenda, they will respond to a suggestion with an instant, “Yes, but…”

The climate change crowd has been frantically “yes, butting” geoengineering, which involves using technology to control the climate directly. Their efforts in this regard would be hilarious if the stakes in terms of money and freedom were not so high.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT EVEN IF “CLIMATE CHANGE” IS HAPPENING, AND EVEN IF IT IS A BAD THING, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE REVERSED BY REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS. Despite decades of climate change conferences, protocols, and agreements, fossil fuel use has been rising rapidly as people all over the world have adopted free market economics as a way of escaping poverty. So, IF ANYTHING AT ALL IS GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, IT WILL HAVE TO BE DONE BY “GEOENGINEERING”.

Geoengineering is a far more logical response to “global warming” than are efforts to curb CO2 emissions. First of all, geoengineering does not require that our assumption that it is man-made CO2 emissions that are causing the problem be correct. IT WOULD WORK REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS “REALLY” CAUSING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES TO RISE. Second, THERE ARE GEOENGINEERING APPROACHES THAT COULD COOL THE EARTH AT A COST OF A FEW BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR, RATHER THAN TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR. And, third, geoengineering does not require that the people of the world surrender their personal and economic freedom.

Given that geoengineering has the potential to actually do something about the climate change “problem”, the reaction of the climate change crowd to it has been illuminating. THEY HAVE GONE ALL-OUT TO STOP GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS FROM BEING CONDUCTED, and they are doing everything they can to prevent geoengineering from even being discussed.

Climate change proponents recently mounted a desperate effort to stop an experiment in Britain designed to spray 40 gallons of pure water into the upper atmosphere (the so-called SPICE project). Thus far, they have managed to delay the test, and THEY ARE ARGUING THAT EVEN IF THE EXPERIMENT GOES AHEAD, THE RESULTS SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC.

The Progressives are well aware that their opposition to geoengineering experiments exposes their entire game, which is all about money, power, and central-planning control of people’s lives, and has nothing to do with concern about the earth. Unfortunately (for them), they have no choice. Geoengineering solutions might actually work, but they do not require that Progressives be given taxpayer money to hold lavish conferences in lovely places like Durban, South Africa…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/12/28/even-the-warmists-dont-believe-in-global-warming/2/

Progressives like to charge anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the AGW hypothesis doesn’t believe in science.  In reality, Progressives don’t believe in liberty. They believe in philosopher kings who rule in the interest of the masses. 

5.   Karl Rove’s Predictions for 2012

As New Year's approaches, here are a baker's dozen predictions for 2012.

• REPUBLICANS WILL KEEP THE U.S. HOUSE, albeit with their 25-seat majority slightly reduced. In the 10 presidential re-elections since 1936, the party in control of the White House has added House seats in seven contests and lost them in three. The average gain has been 12 seats. The largest pickup was 24 seats in 1944—but President Barack Obama is no FDR, despite what he said in his recent "60 Minutes" interview.

• REPUBLICANS WILL TAKE THE U.S. SENATE. Of the 23 Democratic seats up in 2012, there are at least five vulnerable incumbents (Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania): The GOP takes two or three of these. With the announcement on Tuesday that Nebraska's Ben Nelson will retire, there are now seven open Democratic seats (Connecticut, Hawaii, North Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia, Wisconsin): The GOP takes three or four. Even if Republicans lose one of the 10 seats they have up, they will have a net pickup of four to six seats, for a majority of 51 to 53.

… After failing to win the GOP presidential nomination, RON PAUL WILL NOT RUN AS A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE because that would put his son, Rand Paul, in an untenable position: Does the Republican senator from Kentucky support his father and effectively re-elect Mr. Obama, or back his party and defeat him?...

… The economic recovery will continue to be anemic, leaving both unemployment and concerns about whether the president is up to the job high on Election Day. Because of this, MR. OBAMA WILL LOSE AS HIS MARGINS DROP AMONG FIVE GROUPS ESSENTIAL TO HIS 2008 VICTORY—INDEPENDENTS, WOMEN, LATINOS, YOUNG PEOPLE AND JEWS. While he will win a majority from at least three of these groups, he won't win them by as much as he did last time…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203391104577124880807529116.html

Predictions are always fun to read.  Enjoy this article. 

Politicians

What’s new Today

Our #1 story exposes the truth about crony political capitalism where the politicians get to write the rules and then use the loopholes they’ve written to get rich.  #2 reminds us of a 2008 promise by Obama to reduce the deficit while #3 talks about all the scandals in the Obama Administration that the liberal media tries to ignore. Article #4 looks at the buildup of Democrats who have decided not to run again and what they signifies.  Finally #5 looks at how the age old statement, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” has landed us with more and more fat people. 

1.  Polrony Capitalism (Politician Capitalism)

… The customary watchdogs having remained asleep, we need to rely on independents. Chief among these in Peter Schweizer, whose latest book Throw Them All Out (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011) gives us the clearest picture we've yet had of the activities of the new crony class….

….Though Schweizer makes an honest attempt to remain bipartisan, THE BOOK IS DOMINATED BY MEMBERS OF A CERTAIN POLITICAL PARTY THE NAME OF WHICH I WILL NOT MENTION BUT WHICH IS RUN BY POLITICIANS NAMED KERRY, DURBIN, AND PELOSI AMONG OTHERS.

JOHN KERRY specializes in using advance information on upcoming bills to make investments, which Schweizer correctly characterizes as a form of insider trading. During the ObamaCare debate of 2009 Kerry invested $200,000 in the healthcare company ResMed, the value of which shot up over 70%, a tidy little windfall even to a man married into one of the richest families in the United States. At the same time, ObamaCare cut Medicare reimbursements, so Kerry dumped all his shares in United Health, a medical insurance company deeply dependent on Medicare. Kerry, it seems, didn't have to pass the bill to know what was in it.

(JOHN BOEHNER also played this little game, though not a shiftily as Kerry, actually waiting until the debate was over to purchase, in December 2009, stock in several large health-related companies.)

DICK DURBIN attended the now-famous September 2008 meetings in which Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke warned members of Congress of imminent and universal financial collapse. He immediately unloaded large chunks of his stock holdings. A natural reaction; he was a little panicky at the time. You'd do it too.

"WE DESPISE PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES WHO BET ON THEIR OWN GAMES." SCHWEIZER TELLS US. "WHY DON'T WE FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT POLITICIANS WHO BET ON THE OUTCOME OF LEGISLATION?"

Another tool of corruption is the IPO (which, according to Schweizer, means "Invest in Politicians Often"). Companies about to go public invite certain strategically-placed politicians to make the first purchases in the offering, before the stockbrokers or anyone else. You can't really call it a payoff.

NANCY PELOSI is a particularly avid IPO fan. She and her husband made an incredibly large purchase of the Visa IPO amounting to 10% of their stock portfolio, raking off nearly a 50% profit on the original purchase in only two days. (Nancy Pelosi also had a station built on a light rail line in San Francisco near one of her office buildings. Real estate manipulation is yet another tool of the privileged class.)…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/throw_em_all_outand_good_riddance.html#ixzz1hpR33PkU

Crony Capitalism is a problem but Politician Capitalism is worse.  It’s easy to use loopholes when you get to write them. 

2.  Obama:  Three years ago promised a Net Spending  Cut

During the 3rd presidential debate, President Obama said "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments. NOW, WHAT I'VE DONE THROUGHOUT THIS CAMPAIGN IS TO PROPOSE A NET SPENDING CUT."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOZpJ4rSITo

You can watch what BHO had to say about it at the link provided. 

 

3.   The Year in Obama Scandals -- and Scandal Deniers

With 2011 drawing to a close, it is time to account. As an early-and-often chronicler of Chicago-on-the-Potomac, I am amazed at the stubborn and clingy persistence of President Barack Obama's snowblowers in the media. SEE NO SCANDAL, HEAR NO SCANDAL, SPEAK NO SCANDAL.

Dartmouth College professor Brendan Nyhan asserted in May — while Operation Fast and Furious subpoenas were flying on Capitol Hill — that "one of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals." Conveniently, he defines scandal as a "widespread elite perception of wrongdoing."

So as long as left-wing Ivy League scribes refuse to perceive something to be a scandal — never mind the actual suffering endured by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, whose death came at the hands of a Mexican cartel thug wielding a Fast and Furious gun walked across the southern border under Attorney General Eric Holder's watch — there is no scandal!

Self-serving much?

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum likewise proclaimed: "Obama's presidency has so far been almost completely free of scandal."

This after the year kicked off in January with the departure of lying eco-radical czar Carol Browner. IN BACKROOM NEGOTIATIONS, SHE INFAMOUSLY BULLIED AUTO EXECS TO "PUT NOTHING IN WRITING, EVER." THE PREVIOUS FALL, THE WHITE HOUSE'S OWN OIL SPILL PANEL HAD SINGLED OUT BROWNER FOR MISLEADING THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S DRACONIAN DRILLING MORATORIUM AND "CONTRIBUTING TO THE PERCEPTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S FINDINGS WERE MORE EXACT THAN THEY ACTUALLY WERE."

The Interior Department inspector general and federal judges likewise blasted drilling ban book-cooking by Browner and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who falsely rewrote the White House drilling ban report to doctor the Obama-appointed panel's own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict….

http://www.creators.com/conservative/michelle-malkin.html

The Obama Administration is a scandal. 

4.  The Democratic Nine

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) caused a bit of a stir when he announced he was not seeking re-election. Frank, a high-visibility member of Congress for more than 30 years, is in one of the safest Democratic districts in the nation. Yet he is not alone: there are several other Barney Franks fleeing the 112th Congress. EIGHT OTHER VETERAN HOUSE DEMOCRATS WHO RESIDE IN SAFE CONGRESSIONAL SEATS ARE THROWING IN THE TOWEL.

The problem isn’t merely in the House. Just this week, U.S. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska announced he won’t seek re-election this coming November.  NELSON IS ONE OF SEVEN SENATE DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE DECIDED TO “VOLUNTARILY” RETIRE AHEAD OF THE 2012 ELECTIONS. This is a repeat of the 2010 elections when a flood of Democrats decided to retire rather than face certain defeat.

The retirement of rank-and-file Democrats is an especially bad sign for the Democrats if they have any hope of retaking the U.S. House. THE NINE HOUSE RETIREMENTS ARE EVEN MORE NOTABLE BECAUSE EACH RANKS HIGH IN SENIORITY FOR KEY HOUSE COMMITTEES — if the House returned to Democratic rule, they would be in line to assume chairmanships. Chairmanships are great perks, offering hideaway offices in the Capitol building and less restrained power and authority. Voluntarily walking away from Hill leadership is uncommon: House members can sit for twenty years on the Hill and never get close to a chairmanship.

To Democratic Party faithful, the nine retiring congressmen present a dramatic picture of the HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT DEMOCRATS ARE FACING AS THE 2012 ELECTION BEGINS. Some of the retirees had easily won re-election with 60-70% majorities. Their stampede for the exit is yet another admission that THE DEMOCRATS FACE A POTENTIAL “WAVE” ELECTION, AND OF COURSE, IT PORTENDS CONSIDERABLE TROUBLE FOR BARACK OBAMA….

http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-just-barney-eight-veteran-house-dems-retiring/

There’s a lot of news recently about Obama’s rise in the polls.  While he has risen in the polls from the low forties to the mid-forties,  it still is a bad sign for the Democrats.  Right now the Republicans and the Democrats are putting out ads against the Republicans.  When the election gets nearer, those ads will be split.

5.  More Bad Advice from Uncle Sam

…THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S (USDA) DIETARY GUIDELINES ARE THE GOLD STANDARD FOR HEALTHY EATING, ACCORDING TO MOST EXPERTS. The problem is that these recommendations promote a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet based on grains like bread and rice. These kinds of foods consist almost entirely of carbohydrates. When you digest carbohydrates, they are converted into sugar in your bloodstream, the same sugar found in ice cream, soda, potato chips, and all the other junk foods most people would recognize as unhealthy. Since high blood sugar is toxic, your body produces a hormone called insulin to bring it down to a reasonable level. The trouble with this, however, is that insulin brings down your blood sugar by converting it to fat and sending it into your fat cells to be stored. There are many problems with this process.

When people eat a high-carbohydrate diet like this, not only do they unintentionally avoid the fats and proteins their BODIES NEED TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, BUT THEY “STARVE AT THE CELLULAR LEVEL,” AS DR. MICHAEL EADES PUTS IT, BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE EATING IS STORED AS FAT AND DOESN'T PROVIDE THE ENERGY THEY NEED. The result over time is a steady increase in body weight. And as health writer and documentary film maker Tom Naughton explains, it shouldn't be surprising that “... THE RISE IN OBESITY BEGAN AROUND THE SAME TIME THE SO-CALLED EXPERTS BEGAN TELLING EVERYONE TO CUT BACK ON FAT AND EAT MORE CARBOHYDRATES.”

Human evolution offers some interesting insights as well. While many experts today express skepticism when writers like Eades or Naughton suggest that low-carbohydrate diets can improve our health, those are the sorts of diets humans have maintained for most of our existence. And like the increase in obesity, rates of heart disease didn't shoot up until the push in the middle of the 20^th century to remove saturated fat from our diets; the reason being that HUMANS HAVE NOT EVOLVED TO THRIVE ON GRAINS.

Overeating, little exercise, and poor parenting certainly have a role in all this, but in light of the above information, that role is not as significant as we have been told. PEOPLE OVER-EAT NOT BECAUSE THEY LACK SELF CONTROL, BUT BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN TOLD TO EAT A DIET THAT PROMOTES HUNGER…

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3051/how-the-government-has-caused-america-s-obesity-problem

I blame PETA as well.  But this gives you a good idea of why Mom was right when she told us to eat everything in moderation.    

For or against Newt

What’s new Today

Our #1 story explains why the Republican establishment is against Gingrich.  #2 is a meme on why Gingrich isn’t a strong candidate.  #3 puts Obama’s recovery in perspective.  #4 is another warning regarding China.  Finally in #5 we learn just how much of a scandal Solyndra really was. 

1.  Why the Republican Establishment is Against Gingrich

Bob Woodward had a lengthy article yesterday in The Washington Post, In his debut in Washington’s power struggles, Gingrich three a bomb.

The article CONCERNS NEWT’S REFUSAL AS REPUBLICAN WHIP TO GO ALONG WITH GEORGE H.W. BUSH’S 1990 DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS TO RAISE TAXES.

The deal, which breached Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge, was one of the worst political mistakes in memory. NEWT’S PUBLIC OPPOSITION IS ONE OF THE REASONS THE REPUBLICAN OLD-TIME ESTABLISHMENT, LIKE JOHN SUNUNU, HATE NEWT SO INTENSELY.

After a lengthy interview on Dec. 11, 1992, [Newt] sent a reporter a memo trying to explain the budget communications problem. It is a classic of Gingrich paradox.

“I was telling precisely the truth but by Washington standards I was lying,” he wrote. “They were lying but by Washington standards they were telling the truth. I thought I was being very precise in setting standards, they thought I was outlining a negotiating position. I knew I could and would walk. They knew I had to stay.” …

Gingrich had been warned about this moment. HE SAID THAT A GROUP OF SENIOR REPUBLICANS WHO HAD SERVED IN PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS TOLD HIM HE WOULD HAVE TO CAVE IN WHEN A DEAL WAS STRUCK.

“They all said, ‘Well [the White House and the congressional Democrats] will in the end cut a deal and they will in the end call you in a room and they will tell you, you have to agree.’ And I said, ‘Boys, there’s not a chance in hell I’m going to agree . . .’ And they all said, ‘Yes, you will, you just don’t understand, yes, you will.’ ”

He didn’t.

Supporters of the Bush tax deal blamed Newt for initially indicating he would go along and then refusing to do so. But the evidence in the article is not clear, documenting that Newt insisted on time for consideration before making a commitment.

Call this whole story a parable of what is wrong with the Republican Party. PEOPLE WHO CUT DEALS WHICH SELL OUT OUR PRINCIPLES ARE DEEMED REASONABLE, WHILE THOSE REFUSE TO CUT DEALS ARE CALLED BOMB THROWERS. That’s the term Bush used in endorsing Romney in an oblique swipe at Newt….

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/they-were-wrong-in-1990-and-they-are-wrong-now/

People need to read up on Newt.  There are so many stories out about him that simply aren’t true and what is put forth as eliminating him as a serious contender actually helps him with people looking for someone who can help correct what is wrong with this country.

2.  Why Newt Shouldn’t be the Nominee

Ask Republicans to explain the appeal of nominating Newt Gingrich to take on President Obama and it won't be long before you're reminded of the former House speaker's intellectual and rhetorical acumen. Indeed, some Republicans become downright giddy when speaking about the prospect of Gingrich debating Obama.

It's hard to blame them. After a decade of inarticulate and reticent standard bearers, and amid a field of much the same, Republicans see in Gingrich a learned and eloquent debater able and unafraid to take it directly to the supposedly golden-tongued Orator-in-Chief.

Gingrich, many Republicans believe, would make the presidential debates something to look forward to for the first time since Reagan.

Gingrich knows that his ability to talk is his chief asset and has invited Obama to debate him in seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debates should he secure the Republican nomination. "I will concede in advance that he can use a teleprompter," Gingrich said mockingly of Obama when he proposed the debates in early December.

BUT BEFORE REPUBLICANS CONCLUDE THAT AS THEIR NOMINEE GINGRICH WOULD BE ABLE TO DEBATE HIS WAY TO THE OVAL OFFICE, THEY SHOULD TAKE A MOMENT TO REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED THE LAST TIME OBAMA SQUARED OFF AGAINST A SMART AND ELOQUENT, BUT BOMBASTIC, POMPOUS AND EGOMANIACAL REPUBLICAN…

… These words describe almost perfectly the intellectual and rhetorical bearing and style of Newt Gingrich. Only they weren't written about Gingrich. THEY ARE BARACK OBAMA'S WORDS -- FROMTHE AUDACITY OF HOPE -- ABOUT FORMER AMBASSADOR ALAN KEYES, OBAMA'S REPUBLICAN OPPONENT IN THE 2004 ELECTION FOR ILLINOIS' OPEN SENATE SEAT.

I was struck by two things as I recently watched old footage of the 2004 Obama-Keyes debates. First, Keyes comes across as a better debater than Obama. He seems more polished, smarter, and more confident than Obama. Keyes' verbal fluency makes Obama's use of verbal fillers and stutters, his repeated words and incomplete and restarted sentences, all the more noticeable…

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/27/the-keyesian-trap/print

An interesting look at Gingrich’s primary strength, but it is flawed by a number of things.  The comparison of Gingrich to Keyes is incomplete.  Keyes had never lived in Illinois when he ran against Obama.  He was accused of being a carpetbagger and that in and by itself doomed his candidacy from the beginning.  Second, Obama wasn’t running as an incumbent with a high disapproval rating in that election.  And third, the economy is a lodestone around Obama’s neck in 2012. 

3.  Meanwhile Obama Spins

….The jobs numbers for December are not yet released and the stats for October and November will be revised once or twice. But at the current stage, the economy gained 1,445,000 jobs in 2011; the most since 2006 when a smaller economy gained two million-plus jobs, yet the Republicans still lost both Houses of Congress that year.

THE 1.44 MILLION JOBS GAINED IN 2011 IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE ALMOST ONE MILLION JOBS GAINED IN 2010, and is way better than the millions of jobs lost in the preceding two years. However, the job losses were not destined to continue forever. Moreover, 8.2 (YES, EIGHT POINT TWO) MILLION NET JOBS WERE GAINED IN THE 29 MONTHS FOLLOWING THE STEEP AND LONG 1981-1982 RECESSION, AND 2.58 MILLION JOBS WERE GAINED FOLLOWING THE SHORT AND LIGHT RECESSION THAT ENDED MARCH 1991. These numbers surpass the poor 1.21 million net jobs gained in the 29 months following the last recession. (The picture is worse if placed in the context of population and economic sizes of then versus now.)

Yes, President Obama can argue that he had a steep and long recession, but so did Reagan, yet he produced 285,517 jobs per month in the same period that Obama produced only 41,896 jobs per month. More shocking: President Ford created 171,368 jobs per month in the nineteen months after the long 1974-1975 recession through October of 1976; the month before he lost reelection….

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/obamas_post_recession_job_record_in_historical_context.html#ixzz1hjTlgyPY

Get ready for a lot of these kinds of figures being repeated for you by the Republicans as the 2012 election gets closer.  Reality for Obama bites.

4.  The Turn of China

The financial and credit crisis can now be considered truly global. China has joined the list of nations whose banks and thus, government are in trouble.

Well, now we learn that as the global insolvency wave finally moves to China, A BANKRUPTCY IS NOW CALLED SOMETHING EVEN LESS SCARY: "DEFERRED LOAN PAYMENTS" (and also explains why suddenly Japan is going to have to bail China out and buy its bonds, because somehow when China fails, it is the turn of the country that started the whole deflationary collapse to step to the plate). After all, who in their right mind would want to scare the public that the entire world is now broke. Certainly not SWIFT.  And certainly not that paragon of 8%+ annual growth, where NO MATTER HOW MANY LAYERS OF LIPSTICK ARE APPLIED, THE PIGGYNESS OF IT ALL IS SHINING THROUGH EVER MORE ACUTELY. Because here are the facts, from China Daily, and they speaks for themselves: "China's biggest provincial borrowers are DEFERRING PAYMENT ON THEIR LOANS just two months after the country's regulator said some local government companies would be allowed to do so....Hunan Provincial Expressway Construction Group is DELAYING PAYMENT ON 3.11 BILLION YUAN IN INTEREST, documents governing the securities show this month. GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO, THE SECOND-LARGEST DEBTOR, IS FOLLOWING SUIT. So are two others among the biggest 11 debtors, FOR A TOTAL OF 30.16 BILLION YUAN, according to bond prospectuses from 55 local authorities that have raised money in capital markets SINCE THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER." So not even two months in and companies are already becoming serial defaulters, pardon, "loan payment deferrers?" And China is supposed to bail out the world? Ironically, in a world in which can kicking is now an art form, China will show everyone just how it is done, by effectively upturning the capital structure and saying that paying interest is, well, optional. In the immortal words of the comrade from Georgia, "no coupon, no problem."

Now it's China's turn to kick the can down the road hoping against hope that a solution will present itself in the future….

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/the_turn_of_china.html#ixzz1hjRZG0ow

China has a lot of problems which generally we don’t hear much about.  But China is not the savior of Europe and the socialistic practices that we and the rest of the West have grown to rely on.

5.  Obama Scandal:  Solyndra Update

The Solyndra scandal continues to fester and haunt the Obama Administration, as even some of the most ardent supporters of the Administration have become harsh critics. The following statement is particularly profound considering that among the multitude of reliably liberal outlets in the mainstream media, few are more dependable champions of the liberal Democrats and their agenda than the Washington Post.

“Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal ­e-mails.”

Politics, in fact, trumped the stated objectives of job creation and the supposedly “greater good” of green energy at every turn.

THE WASHINGTON POST REVIEW OF THE SOLYNDRA SCANDAL CONCLUDED THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS CONTINUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICAL “OPTICS” AND RE-ELECTION CONSEQUENCES RATHER THAN GOOD GOVERNMENT POLICY….

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/12/27/wash_post_solyndra_was_all_about_politics_not_policy

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.  Obama is a Chicago politician.