More bad news for Obama

Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia

The hip, transparent and social media-loving Obama administration is showing its analog roots. And maybe even some hypocrisy highlights.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS HAVE BANISHED ONE OF THE BEST POLITICAL REPORTERS IN THE COUNTRY FROM THE APPROVED POOL OF JOURNALISTS covering presidential visits to the Bay Area for using now-standard multimedia tools to gather the news.

The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci - who, like many contemporary reporters, has a phone with video capabilities on her at all times - PULLED OUT A SMALL VIDEO CAMERA LAST WEEK AND SHOT SOME PROTESTERS INTERRUPTING AN OBAMA FUNDRAISER AT THE ST. REGIS HOTEL.

She was part of a "print pool" - a limited number of journalists at an event who represent their bigger hoard colleagues - which White House press officials still refer to quaintly as "pen and pad" reporting…..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978#ixzz1Kty5fGY2

So this is Obama’s definition of transparency? She’s banned and other journalists were threatened if they reported the fact she had been banned.



Obama approval all time low: second straight week

President Barack Obama’s weekly approval rating remained at its all-time low for the second straight week, according to the Gallup poll.

IN THE WEEK OF APRIL 11-17 AND AGAIN IN THE WEEK OF APRIL 18-24, 43 PERCENT OF THE AMERICANS POLLED BY GALLUP SAID THEY APPROVED OF THE JOB OBAMA WAS DOING AS PRESIDENT.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-approval-remains-all-time-low-se

There’s still plenty of time until the next election, but do you see anything that demonstrates Obama is growing and getting better? It appears to be just the opposite.



Pennsylvania: Keystone for Democrats

If you're looking for ways to boil the 2012 presidential race down to its simplest form, here's one of the easiest: IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ENVISION ANY WAY BARACK OBAMA CAN WIN RE-ELECTION NEXT YEAR IF HE LOSES PENNSYLVANIA. No Keystone State, no second term. It really is that simple.

As of right now, THINGS ARE LOOKING DICEY FOR THE PRESIDENT IN PENNSYLVANIA. Two weeks ago, the Democratic polling firm PPP released a survey showing the president's job approval rating at just 42% among Pennsylvania voters.

Yesterday, Quinnipiac University confirmed PPP's findings with a survey of their own conducted in Pennsylvania last WEEK SHOWING AN IDENTICAL JOB RATING OF 42% FOR THE PRESIDENT - A NEW LOW FOR OBAMA SINCE TAKING OFFICE.

Worse still for the president, for the first time the Quinnipiac poll found A MAJORITY OF PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS SAYING THAT OBAMA DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE RE-ELECTED.

The numbers show a sharp decline in Obama's standing in the Keystone State over the last nine weeks - particularly among Independents. In the last Quinnpiac survey, taken in mid-February of this year, Independents approved of the job Obama was doing as president by a net 4-point margin, 50 to 46. TODAY THEY DISAPPROVE OF THE JOB HE'S DOING BY A NET 20-POINT MARGIN, 37 TO 57.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/29/the_keystone_to_obamas_re-election_109702.html


This is a disaster for the Democrats.



Americans Are Ready to Take On the Deficit


A

reader pointed out these remarkable numbers from a Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll conducted April 21-25. Respondents were asked whether they think the federal budget deficit is a major problem that must be addressed now; a major problem that should be addressed when the economy improves; or not much of a problem:

MAJOR PROBLEM THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW: 81%

Major problem that should be addressed when economy improves: 14%

Not much of a problem: 1%

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/04/028919.php

Again this is not good news if you are a partisan democrat. It appears fear mongering will not work against this as an issue.



Don’t Blame Speculators for Oil Prices

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=5344


Some interesting stats on how we can bring down oil prices now.



Paul Krugman’s name is mentioned at town hall to hearty laughter

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/04/leftwing-drone-cites-nobel-prize.html


What is truly remarkable is the amount of laughter when a liberal uses Krugman’s name to try and discredit a Freshman Republican representative at a town hall meeting.



Paul Ryan receives standing ovation

Paul Ryan received a standing ovation Thursday afternoon during the Q&A part of his meeting with constituents at a high school auditorium in a suburb of Milwaukee.

Ryan faced a larger number of hecklers at this event than previous ones, but they were just a sliver of the max capacity crowd. The vast majority of those present stood and applauded Ryan after one constituent rose to thank the congressman for producing his plan to rein in the federal budget

Paul Ryan received a standing ovation Thursday afternoon during the Q&A part of his meeting with constituents at a high school auditorium in a suburb of Milwaukee.

Ryan faced a larger number of hecklers at this event than previous ones, but they were just a sliver of the max capacity crowd. The vast majority of those present stood and applauded Ryan after one constituent rose to thank the congressman for producing his plan to rein in the federal budget

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-paul-ryan-gets-standing-ovation-town-hall-meeting_558453.html




The Birther Networks

...As it turns out, ONE WAS 35 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO HEAR ABOUT THE BIRTHER ISSUE ON CNN OR MSNBC THAN ON FOX NEWS DURING THE WEEK OF APRIL 11 THROUGH 17, when Obama was touting his budget. The cable network most often railed against as the birther-enabler was least likely - by far - to even mention the issue.....

... the following breakdown of birther stories as a percentage of total coverage for each cable news channel:

- Fox News: 0.4 percent

- MSNBC: 9.2 percent

- CNN: 5 percent

MSNBC devoted 23 times as much airtime as Fox to cover the birther issue. CNN devoted 12.5 times as much. So, as mentioned above, one was 35.5 times more likely to see a birther story on Fox's competition than on FNC itself.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/04/28/study-msnbc-and-cnn-covered-birther-issue-far-more-fox-news#ixzz1Ku73Jt1b

Obama claimed that he had to give up his birth certificate because “this was a "distraction" from "real issues" and therefore "silliness.” It’s funny which network(s) fed their partisan viewers a steady diet of this silliness.



The Obama Lie that flamed the birther story

... For the last two years or more, many in THE BIRTHER COMMUNITY KNEW THAT OBAMA'S "MULTICULTURAL IDEAL" WAS BASED ON A LIE. Knowing that Obama was capable of lying about the first two years of his life, they had no reason to believe he was telling the truth about his birth, especially given the lengths he had gone to in order to protect his birth certificate.

FOR THEIR PART, THE MAJOR MEDIA -- ALMOST TO A PERSON -- WERE DOING EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO PROTECT THE LIE. This was unprecedented on the sunny side of the Iron Curtain. The birthers had absolutely no reason to believe the media….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_obama_lie_that_drove_the_b.html

An interesting look at Obama’s childhood compared to the story he told in his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. Sometimes the story isn’t really THE story.



Obama trying to make America Great!

The budget is out of control because of THE THING THAT OBAMA SAYS MAKES AMERICA GREAT: ENTITLEMENTS. Who knew that giving money to the shiftless and lazy is the way we are supposed to measure ourselves?

Apparently America is at the pinnacle of its greatness, because we are giving it all away. According to this report, 50% OF AMERICANS ARE RECEIVING ENTITLEMENTS, AND MORE SHOCKING IS THIS REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT AS MANY AS 62% OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE RECEIVING THEM. I can understand 10% of Americans receiving entitlements, because conservatives are sensitive to the plight of the underprivileged, despite the lies from the lunatic left. But 50% just helps me understand how many lazy leftoids there are -- you know, people who believe that they are entitled to our money

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obamas_brand_of_greatness_for.html

I was shocked by the fact that 62% of illegals are getting handouts.





















Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate: officials

US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.

"If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but IT'S AGREED UPON BY THE TORNADO COMMUNITY THAT IT'S NOT A REAL INCREASE," said Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.

But he said IT WOULD BE "A TERRIBLE MISTAKE" TO RELATE THE UP-TICK TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110428-tornadoes-whipped-wind-not-climate-officials

But of course the alarmists will relate this to climate change. You see them on the TV trying to connect tornadoes to climate change to prove a theory that is falling into disrepute.

Deficits and other things Obama isn't serious about

Barack the divider Obama

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? WE ASK BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSE TO PAUL RYAN'S BUDGET YESTERDAY—WITH ITS BLISTERING PARTISANSHIP AND MULTIPLE DISTORTIONS—WAS THE KIND PRESIDENTS USUALLY OUTSOURCE TO SOME JUNIOR LIEUTENANT. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate POLITICAL GOAL WAS TO INOCULATE THE WHITE HOUSE FROM CRITICISM that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, REPEATEDLY VILIFYING THEM AS ESSENTIALLY UN-AMERICAN

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

When you have the facts on your side argue the facts. When you have the law on your side argue the law. When you don’t have either on your side, pound the table. That’s what he did yesterday.




Obama dips in the polls

It could be gas prices, the budget debate, or simply the usual ups and downs of public opinion polling. But PRESIDENT OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING HAS DIPPED TO A FIVE-MONTH LOW IN GALLUP'S DAILY TRACKING POLL, reverting to post-midterm election lows.


The survey, a three-day rolling average conducted April 11-13, pegs Obama's approval at 42%, the lowest since Nov. 10-12. FOR ONLY THE 13TH TIME IN HIS TERM AND THE FIRST TIME SINCE LATE OCTOBER, HIS DISAPPROVAL RATING HAS REACHED 50%.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-approval-rating-gallup,0,7897019.story

It’s a wonder that he’s doing as well as he is.



The Mendacity of Barack Obama

Over my 45+ years in the business community, both domestic and international, I have dealt with an overwhelming variety of people of all races and political philosophies. Men and women who were thoroughly honest and many who had no concept of honor and integrity. Among them were those who would do or say anything to achieve their ends and do so with a straight face and an air of self-confidence that would deceive the most gullible. IT IS ONLY THROUGH PAINFUL EXPERIENCE THAT ONE IS FINALLY ABLE TO DEVELOP AN ANTENNA TO QUICKLY WEED OUT THOSE CHARLATANS.

While I have always been wary of and have written about his dishonesty, AFTER THE SPEECH THE PRESIDENT DELIVERED THE 13TH OF APRIL REGARDING THE FEDERAL BUDGET, ONE THAT WAS CHOCK FULL OF LIES, DECEIT, AND CRASS FEAR-MONGERING, it must be said that Barack Obama is the most dishonest, deceitful, and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_mendacity_of_barack_obama.html


Tough charges, but well thought out.



Fear and Loathing in the Revolutionary Guards

Will Muslim unrest shake the Iranian regime at its core?

IN AN ACT OF OPEN SUBORDINATION, DURING THE MARCH 10TH DEMONSTRATIONS IN TEHRAN, SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE IRAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC) SECURITY FORCES REFUSED TO SHOOT AT PROTESTERS ON THE STREETS. Arrested and jailed in Tehran’s infamous Evin prison for interrogation, they are still being interrogated as the Iranian regime’s authorities debate how to deal with them.

During the interrogations the regime’s intelligence sources have repeatedly warned the seven — identities still unknown — that THEY MUST REVEAL THE NAMES OF THE “LEADERS” OF THE ORGANIZATION(S) THEY ARE TAKING ORDERS FROM, as well as disclose the names of any other member of the IRGC and Basij forces working undercover.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fear-and-loathing-in-the-revolutionary-guards/

This might not lead anywhere, or this may be a huge story. Refusing to fire on the crowd is one of the actions that can lead to the downfall of a ruler. Here’s hoping.



Majority for cutting spending

Should taxes be raised to eat into huge federal deficits? Among the public, 62 percent say they favor cutting government services to sop up the red ink. Just 29 percent say raise taxes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_POLL_TAXES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


It seems the bulk of Americans understand the we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.



Who do you trust?

As an impoverished American — hey, buddy, you wanna try raising six kids on a freelance journalist’s income? — I look on in amusement at the self-described “Patriotic Millionaires” who insist that they should pay more taxes. I agree with Moe Lane: “Raise Your Own Damned Taxes.”

Contrary to all the class-warfare demagoguery pouring forth from Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself), CONSERVATIVES DO NOT OPPOSE TAX INCREASES BECAUSE WE ARE BEHOLDEN TO THE RICH. RATHER, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WEALTH DOES MORE GOOD WHEN IT IS INVESTED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, TO CREATE JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, OR SURRENDERED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS TAXES TO SUPPORT THE METASTATIC GROWTH OF A PESTIFEROUS BUREAUCRACY….

http://theothermccain.com/2011/04/14/no-poor-man-ever-gave-me-a-job/

In reality my title for this is what the real issue is. Progressives don’t trust the rich while conservatives don’t trust the government. Somehow to the left, people when they have money (also read that as power) are untrustworthy, but people who have power (read that a way to get money) are trustworthy.

Jobs, deficits and taxes

Are the job numbers real?

DECEPTION IS A DANGEROUS THING. You never really know when a lie may turn on you.

Take, for instance, the Labor Department's annual springtime boost in the faux jobs market. While it's nice that the government thinks there is an employment boom coming, this won't be a good development if that boom turns out to be imaginary yet still causes the Federal Reserve to prematurely tighten credit conditions.

Let's start from the beginning.

EARLY THIS MONTH LABOR REPORTED THAT 216,000 NEW JOBS WERE CREATED IN MARCH. It was better than Wall Street expected.

BUT THE FIGURE INCLUDED 117,000 JOBS THAT THE DEPARTMENT THINKS, BUT CAN'T PROVE, WERE CREATED BY NEWLY FORMED COMPANIES THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN EXIST. In fact, the department is getting so optimistic about the labor market that it increased this imaginary job count from just 81,000 in March, 2010.

As I've been telling you for months, THE SPRING ALWAYS CAUSES THE LABOR DEPARTMENT TO GOOSE ITS JOB-CREATION NUMBERS. And maybe sometime in the future this process will be warranted. But DURING 2009 AND 2010 THESE SPRINGTIME ASSUMPTIONS -- WHICH ARE OFFICIALLY CALLED THE BIRTH/DEATH MODEL BY LABOR -- LED TO MAJOR ERRORS IN THE ANNUAL JOB COUNT.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/faux_job_numbers_could_lead_to_real_3zKnIS84fd4XYOLbEK48GL#ixzz1JJc0qZ1S

These jobs numbers are going to come back and bite the Democrats. As actual new jobs are created, more people will come back into the job pool and you will see real progress being made even while the unemployment rate increases.



The Ryan Plan: A good plan

Ryan’s alternative to Medicare hardly seems as terrible as Paul Krugman makes out. Seniors would enter the health care world the rest of us live in, with co-payments, deductibles and managed care. EVENTUALLY, COST CONTROL WOULD REQUIRE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS ABOUT END-OF-LIFE CARE AND THE RATIONING OF HIGH-TECH TREATMENTS THAT HAVE LIMITED EFFICACY. But starting with a value of $15,000 per year, per senior—the amount government now spends on Medicare—RYAN’S VOUCHERS SHOULD PROVIDE EXCELLENT COVERAGE. His change would amount to a minor amendment to the social contract, not a fundamental revision of it.

Effectively constraining the growth of Medicare could make it possible for Democrats to do a lot else that’s important to them in the future. … Growing at more than 7 percent a year, MEDICARE IS PROJECTED TO EVENTUALLY CONSUME NEARLY ALL FEDERAL TAX REVENUES. It is crowding out everything else that Washington does or might want to do. Conversely, cutting Medicare’s growth rate to near the overall rate of the economy would do more than anything else to enable the kind of activist government liberals support—investment in kids, education, jobs, and infrastructure. …

http://www.slate.com/id/2290509

Rather than “death panels” this plan would allow the individual to decide when they didn’t think it was wise to continue heroic medicine. I expect to see Obama castigate this plan tomorrow night and try to scare seniors with his rhetoric.

Public Financing and Obama’s hypocrisy

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama didn't just ask for donations. His website asked donors to "declare their independence from a broken system by supporting the first presidential election truly funded by the people." At the time, NO ONE EXPECTED THAT BY "THE PEOPLE" HE MEANT A BUNCH OF MILLIONAIRES, BUT THIS IS THE CONCLUSION WE DRAW FROM OBAMA'S LATEST CAMPAIGN INITIATIVE. Politico reported last week that Obama, having raised three-quarters of a billion dollars in his 2008 race, IS NOW SEEKING OUT 400 ELITE CAMPAIGN CASH BUNDLERS TO RAISE $700,000 APIECE FOR HIS 2012 RE-ELECTION. If the plan succeeds, it will raise $280 million in seed money for his campaign, which will be plowed into raising more money on the Internet from old campaign lists. This guarantees that Obama will reject public funding in election 2012, just as he did in 2008.

OBAMA'S HYPOCRISY ON THIS ISSUE IS MANIFEST. He once declared he was "a big believer in public financing of campaigns," and even CHALLENGED HIS POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN OPPONENTS TO PLEDGE THEY WOULD ACCEPT FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS AND THE SPENDING LIMITS THAT COME WITH THEM. He also promised to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." BUT ONCE HE REALIZED HE COULD RAISE NEARLY A BILLION DOLLARS ON HIS OWN, THOSE PROMISES ALL WENT OUT THE WINDOW.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/04/examiner-editorial-fix-public-campaign-financing-ending-it#ixzz1JJk2ZSED

This should have been a huge warning sign for the supports of BHO. President Obama is not a pragmatist or a realist. He is an opportunist. Well he says he missing anonymity and with the 2012 election coming up, we have an opportunity to give him back his anonymity.



President Obama's two minds on the deficit

When it comes to deficit reduction and entitlement reform, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA HAS BEEN A MASTER OF MIXED SIGNALS, his critics say.

As a candidate, OBAMA PROMISED TO DEAL WITH THE EXPLODING DEFICIT – so committed to tackling the underlying issue of entitlement reform that HE TOLD THE WASHINGTON POST HE’D MAKE THE “HARD DECISIONS… UNDER MY WATCH” shortly before his inauguration almost 27 months ago.

But as president, such high-minded goals have run headlong into a tanking economy and more mundane political imperatives, like positioning himself for his 2012 re-election campaign…..

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52980.html#ixzz1JJlX0mYC


Yet another bit of hypocrisy.


A “People’s Budget” is proposed by Democrat Progressives

….The "People's Budget" is the liberals' answer to House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan's 2012 budget proposal, which is "leading us down a road to ruin," according to caucus co-chairmen Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison. THE "PEOPLE'S BUDGET," GRIJALVA AND ELLISON CLAIM, WOULD ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT IN JUST 10 YEARS (RYAN'S PLAN WOULD TAKE MORE THAN 25 YEARS) WHILE EXPANDING, NOT CUTTING, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND SOCIAL SECURITY. "This budget saves the American people from the recklessness of the Republican majority," Grijalva and Ellison write in a letter to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

How can such fiscal miracles be accomplished? By tax increases that would make even some top Democrats gasp. Perhaps the most extraordinary is the caucus plan to raise the Social Security tax to cover nearly all of a taxpayer's income. Right now, the tax is imposed on the first $106,000 of earnings. For people who make more than that, the caucus would tax a full 90 percent of income -- no matter how high it goes. The caucus would raise the Social Security tax that employers pay as well.

The caucus would create THREE NEW INDIVIDUAL TAX BRACKETS FOR THE HIGHEST INCOMES, topping out at 47 percent. It would also raise the capital gains tax, the estate tax and corporate taxes. It would create something called a "financial crisis responsibility fee" and a "financial speculation tax." And of course it would repeal the Bush tax cuts.

As if anyone needed reminding, THE "PEOPLE'S BUDGET" IS PROOF THAT THE LIBERAL IDEA OF BUDGET BALANCING IS TAX, TAX, TAX. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SPENDING CUTS, YOU'LL FIND JUST ONE REALLY BIG ONE: NATIONAL DEFENSE. The liberals would end "overseas contingency operations" -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- starting in 2013. They would save more money by "reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement, and research & development programs." In other words, they would gut the United States' ability to defend itself, today and long into the future.

What would the liberals spend money on? The "People's Budget" is essentially a newer and bigger stimulus bill. Grijalva and Ellison pledge TO "INVEST $1.45 TRILLION IN JOB CREATION, EARLY CHILDHOOD, K-12 AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, QUALITY CHILD CARE, ENERGY AND BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING, AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT," along with billions more for stimuluslike road and other transportation programs…..

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/04/liberals-plan-gut-defense-and-tax-tax-tax#ixzz1JJmxgRIR

This is a liberal nirvana and a conservative’s hell. Fortunately 42% of the population identify as conservative and only 20% identify themselves as liberals. It doesn’t stand a chance of being passed.



California in the Balance

We calibrate California’s decline by its myriad of paradoxes. THE NATION’S HIGHEST BUNDLE OF GAS, SALES, AND INCOME TAXES CANNOT CLOSE THE NATION’S LARGEST ANNUAL DEFICIT AT $25 BILLION. TEST SCORES ARE AT THE COUNTRY’S NEAR BOTTOM; TEACHERS’ SALARIES AT THE VERY TOP. Scores of the affluent are leaving each week; scores of the indigent are arriving. The nation’s most richly endowed state is also the most regulated; the most liberal of our residents are also the most ready to practice apartheid in their Bel Air or Palo Alto enclaves.

We now see highway patrolmen and city police, in the manner of South American law enforcement, out in force. Everywhere they are monitoring, watching, ticketing — no warnings, no margins of error — DESPERATE TO EARN TRAFFIC FINES THAT MIGHT FEED THE STATE THAT FEEDS THEM. I could go on. But you get the picture that we are living on the fumes of a rich state that our forefathers brilliantly exploited, and now there is not much energy left in the fading exhaust to keep us going.

I see CALIFORNIA IN TERMS NOW OF THE RAZOR’S EDGE WITH DISASTER NOT FAR IN EITHER DIRECTION. A postmodern affluent lifestyle hangs in the balance here without a margin of error....

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-razors-edge/

California demonstrates the ills of liberalism. It is the state most like the EU’s PIGGS where people turn down tax increases but want to continue the benefits California has given them. In fact, that is the attitude the left is trying to instill in the rest of the country. Fortunately we aren’t there yet.



Ideological intransigence

IN THE END, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WAS THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO BLINK ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Another way of saying it is this: THE PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN SEE PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S FEDERAL FUNDING CUT.

According to press accounts leaked by Democratic aides, House Speaker John Boehner argued for the funding cut late into the evening. THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED, “NOPE, ZERO.” He then said, “John, this is it.” Mr. Boehner accepted the budget deal without that cut.

A Republican aide confirmed more or less the same account to me. He said it was “chilling” to see how inflexible Mr. Obama was. You might call it ideological.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/264468/re-culture-life-win-thanks-house-kathryn-jean-lopez

You can only have a fight over an ideological position if both sides have an ideological position.



Now Elections don’t matter

From Nancy Pelosi’s speech at Tufts University

To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now -- perhaps in another question I'll go into them, if you want. BUT THE FACT IS THAT ELECTIONS SHOULDN'T MATTER AS MUCH AS THEY DO...But when it comes to a place where there doesn't seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nancy-pelosi-elections-shouldnt-matter-much-they-do_557307.html

It appears elections only matter if you are a liberal and you win. All you have to do is to look at what is happening around the country. In Wisconsin you had all the Democrat Senators flee from the state to keep last November’s election from counting. And here we have the ex-SOTH proclaim that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do. It also seems to me that Pelosi is calling for the congress to be more conservative and to not change the status quo.



Liberalism: Black America’s greatest enemy

…. In the 1950s when racism truly was a problem for blacks in America, MOST BLACK KIDS GREW UP IN TWO PARENT HOMES. TODAY, AFTER 60 YEARS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRAT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, MOST BLACK KIDS ARE GROWING UP IN FATHERLESS HOMES. No matter how you slice it, something is seriously wrong in the black community. And it has nothing to do with white folks nor Republicans.



These fatherless black boys make babies and join gangs. Typical of liberal screwed up thinking, I HEARD A PHD ON TV SAY, "THERE IS NOTHING A FATHER CAN TEACH HIS SON WHICH THE CHILD CANNOT LEARN FROM HIS SINGLE MOTHER." I thought, "Good lord, this woman went to college to learn this crap!" Newsflash libs: males crave male bonding and leadership. Why do you think they join gangs? This is not rocket science!...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/liberalism_black_americas_grea.html


This was from a black journalist who sees the truth.



T Boone Pickens makes his case

…..Hence the allure of natural gas: Pickens claims the U.S. HAS NATURAL GAS RESERVES EQUIVALENT TO THREE TIMES THAT OF SAUDI ARABIA’S KNOWN 260 BILLION-BARREL OIL RESERVE when you use a Barrel of Oil Equivalent (BOE) comparison.

– Using BOE, NATURAL GAS, AT ITS CURRENT PRICE, WOULD BE ABOUT $1.50 PER GALLON CHEAPER THAN DIESEL FUEL.

– Using BOE, natural gas emits 30% less carbon

Boone Pickens wants to convert America’s 140,000-unit fleet of 18-wheel truckers to run on natural gas. Pickens says the cost of converting the next-generation fleet of 18-wheelers would be about $60,000 per vehicle – or roughly $9 billion for the entire 140,000 fleet. Where will that money come from?....

http://blogs.forbes.com/richkarlgaard/2011/04/11/what-i-learned-about-natural-gas-from-boone-pickens/

America is awash in fossil fuels and natural gas is one of the best. But it seems to environmentalists, nothing really works other than solar and wind power. Natural gas and nuclear are the real choices if you want to decrease the amount of carbon we are putting in the air.

Chronicles of Failed Doomsaying

Gregg Easterbrook, author of one of the better books on the environment over the last 20 years (1995's A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism) COINED WHAT HE CALLED "EASTERBROOK'S LAW OF DOOMSAYING"--"PREDICT DREADFUL EVENTS WHOSE ARRIVAL IMPENDS NO SOONER THAN 5 YEARS HENCE, NO LATER THAN 10. THAT TIME WINDOW IS NEAR ENOUGH TO CAUSE WORRY, FAR ENOUGH OFF THAT WHEN IT ACTUALLY ROLLS AROUND EVERYONE WILL HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT YOU PREDICTED."

But in the age of Google, it is easier to go back and check on these serial blunders. So as Britain was paralyzed with huge snowstorm a few months ago a number of folks went back and dredged up the climate campaign's predictions that winter snowfalls in Britain would soon (as in, by now) be a thing of historical memory.

Yesterday, GAVIN ATKINS OF ASIAN CORRESPONDENT.COM NOTES THAT JUST A FEW YEARS AGO THE UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME PREDICTED THERE WOULD BE 50 MILLION CLIMATE REFUGEES BY THE YEAR 2010. And so Atkins sensibly asks, um. . . WHERE ARE THEY? He noted we have census figures for THE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS MOST VULNERABLE, SUCH AS THE TUVALU ISLANDS, AND FINDS IN EVERY CASE THAT POPULATION IS STILL GROWING.

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2011/04/chronicles-of-failed-doomsaying.php

Making predictions is tough work especially if it’s about the future.

Fannie and Freddie are still a threat

Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie and Their Pimps

 

 

Too much Fed credit encouraged too much building, so prices ballooned past their economic values on the effluvium of degenerating derivatives. Now, we have foreclosures, upside-down homeowners, devalued and disappeared mortgage-makers, failed and failing banks, and a cesspool of phony investment values camouflaged by a carpet of Federal fun dollars now owed by the taxpayers. How come?


Because Congress pimped out the home mortgage industry and the Fed financed the business. First, Congress; we'll leave Fed credit faucet Greenspan's enabling for another time. GO BACK TO 1977 AND SEE PASSAGE OF THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT (CRA) BY COMPASSIONATE LEGISLATORS USING OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY TO HELP POOR FOLKS WHO COULDN'T AFFORD TO BUY HOMES.


Go way back in 1950, and people thought lenders were entitled to repayment and shouldn't lend to folks who couldn't repay. Mortgage lenders demanded good credit for loans in slums where credit was risky and property wasn't worth foreclosing; they outlined those areas on their maps, calling it redlining an area.


PROGRESSIVES CALLED IT PUNISHING THE POOR. THEY FELT POOR PEOPLE WITH BAD CREDIT WERE AS MUCH ENTITLED TO HOME OWNERSHIP AS ANYBODY. Earlier public housing was often trashed by residents; the hope was they wouldn't trash what they own….

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/fannie_freddie_ginnie_and_thei.html

 

When something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is. In this case liberals were helping poor people with homeownership and not doing too badly for themselves and their backers. In the end, the taxpayer was left with the bill.

 

 

 

Republicans win this round of the Budget debate

 

IT WAS half sad, half funny. After weeks of failing to reach an agreement on a budget, after getting the country all worked up about a shutdown, the speaker of the House and Senate majority leader and President took to the airwaves late Friday night to herald their great achievement in cutting $38 billion, calling it a historic compromise.

 

DEMOCRATS - WHO NOT LONG AGO WERE WARNING US THAT SIGNIFICANT NEAR-TERM BUDGET CUTS WOULD COST JOBS - PRETENDED IT WAS SOME KIND OF VICTORY FOR THEM.

 

WRONG. THIS BUDGET DEAL IS A MAJOR WIN FOR THE REPUBLICANS. Like the President's concession on extending the Bush tax cuts for top-income earners, it's confirmation that the GOP currently controls the terms of this debate.

 

They promised they'd get billions in cuts this year, and that's precisely what they delivered.

 

Democrats never offered a clear alternative to the unsweetened tea.

 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/04/10/2011-04-10_gop_wins___will_again_if_dems_dont_get_a_plan.html

 

This was simply a preview of what’s to come. The Ryan plan calls for cutting almost $6 trillion over the next 10 years and you can’t do that without cutting sacred cows.

 

 

 

Libya Speech: Obama explains it all to you



Where is the word Victory?

 Obama’s fundamentally dishonest speech

President Obama gave an impassioned, sometimes eloquent, defense of his policies in Libya tonight. But when it came to justifying the limited goals of the military mission, HIS SPEECH WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST.  OBAMA PRESENTED HIMSELF AS STANDING BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES — those on the one hand, who want to do nothing in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe, and those on the other who want to invade Libya the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq…..

… This is a straw man, and the president knows it. No serious person is arguing that we should “repeat in Libya” what we did in Iraq….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/a-fundamentally-dishonest-speech/2011/03/28/AFC0NfrB_blog.html


This appears to be the technique Obama loves using. He is always setting up a straw man argument so he can knock it down.

Obama Still Murky on Libya

PRESIDENT OBAMA JUST GAVE A WEIRD SPEECH. Part George W. Bush, part trademark Obama — filled with his characteristic split-the-difference, straw-man (“some say, others say”), false-choice tropes.

His support for those “yearning for freedom all around the world” was the sort of interventionist foreign policy that a Senator Obama — if his past reaction to the removal of Saddam Hussein is any indication — WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF SENDING BOMBERS OVER AN ARAB MUSLIM OIL-EXPORTING COUNTRY. Since SADDAM WAS A FAR GREATER MONSTER (gassing thousands is far worse than turning off the water to neighborhoods) than the monsters that Obama now wishes to slay, I think he has confused rather than enlightened his audience.

THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE CONGRESS. Is he going to ever ask its approval? And if not, why the repeated emphasis on asking others such as the Arab League or the UN for their approval — given that their representatives, unlike ours, are largely not elected?

IN A SPEECH DEDICATED TO CLARIFYING OUR POLICY, IT LEFT IT EVEN MORE MURKY. WHAT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE, AND WHAT IS IT NOW? Obama asserted that “We have stopped his deadly advance.” But is that the aim — the status quo, and a sort of permanent safe zone for rebels in accordance with UN directives? Or are we going beyond that to eliminate Qaddafi, who is the source of the problem? THE PRESIDENT NOW SAYS HE WON’T OVERTHROW QADDAFI BY FORCE, BUT THAT IS WHAT HE HOPES, IN FACT, WILL HAPPEN as a result of our military presence:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263273/obama-still-murky-libya-victor-davis-hanson

Honesty doesn’t seem to be Obama’s strong suit.



Obama’s Libya speech

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPEECH OFFERED MORE FOR NEO-CONSERVATIVES TO CHEER THAN IT DID FOR LIBERALS. But at the heart of his speech and of his Libya policy is a fundamental and UNRESOLVED CONTRADICTION….

…. THAT LAST SENTENCE IS THE PERFECT ENCAPSULATION OF BUSH’S FREEDOM AGENDA. But Obama then runs into trouble. Obama can’t bring himself to embrace the view of those conservatives, you know the ones who pushed to liberate Iraq. (“Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”) Moreover, he won’t, he told us in no uncertain terms — despite all the interests he outlined — use our military to remove Moammar Gaddafi. And THIS IS WHERE HE BECAME, FRANKLY, INCOHERENT. Why aren’t we using our military? Ah, the price of multilateralism…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-libya-speech/2011/03/04/AFOOTDrB_blog.html

Actually for all his anti-Bush rhetoric and his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama seems to be more of a warrior than Bush was. No wonder his message was incoherent.


In fact, if you dissect Obama’s argument, we find that removing Saddam was too costly and removing Milosevic took too long, but I, Barack Hussein Obama, will get rid of this dictator wholesale!!!



White House says Libya decision based on 'best interests'

NO SENSE OF PRECEDENT GUIDED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S DECISION TO INTERVENE IN LIBYA, administration officials said Monday.

"We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," said Denis McDonough, the administration's deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. "WE MAKE THEM BASED ON HOW WE CAN BEST ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS IN THE REGION."

McDonough was speaking hours before President Obama’s speech Monday night on Libya. He explained that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region

Makes you wonder if we are trading blood for oil. Nah, that couldn’t be the case since Obama is in office.



His lips were moving, but nothing was really said

….IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME. In his last remarks before hostilities commenced, Obama announced that he was sending Secretary Clinton to Geneva for consultations with our allies. Tonight Obama announced: "Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations."

OBAMA IDENTIFIED NO AMERICAN INTEREST AT ISSUE IN OUR LIBYAN VENTURE. Obama did say that it was not in the American national interest to permit Qaddafi's intended massacre of Libyans in Benghazi ("It was not in our national interest to let that happen"), but one could just as well say that it was not in the American national interest to prevent it either. HIS ASSERTION IS A VACUOUS VERBAL FORMULATION. He's moving his lips, but he's not saying anything. There may be an American national interest involved, even if not a vital one, as Secretary Gates asserts, BUT IT PLAYS NO ROLE IN OBAMA'S STATED RATIONALE…

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028704.php

While attacking Libya may be the “right and humanitarian” thing to do, it certainly isn’t the “smart” thing to do or even the “logical” thing to do.

Obama vs Bush

“We believe that people across the Middle East and across the world are weary of poverty, weary of oppression, and YEARN TO BE FREE. And all who know that hope, all who will work and sacrifice for freedom, HAVE A FRIEND IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” – George W. Bush in 2006

“We welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because WHEREVER PEOPLE LONG TO BE FREE, THEY WILL FIND A FRIEND IN THE UNITED STATES.” – Obama 3/28/2011.

Perhaps we should change Barack Obama’s name to Barack W. Obama.



Reid vows to stop any tinkering with Social Security

ANY LAWMAKER WHO SO MUCH AS THINKS ABOUT TINKERING WITH SOCIAL SECURITY ANYTIME IN THE NEXT DECADE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH HARRY REID (AND A FEW OF HIS FRIENDS) FIRST.

A handful of liberal Democratic senators pushed back against calls from Republicans and even fellow Democrats to reform the national pension system during a rally on Capitol Hill Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada joined Sens. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, and Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, at a “Hands Off Social Security” rally where all of them insisted that Social Security — THE NATION’S LARGEST PROGRAM THAT COSTS ABOUT $700 BILLION A YEAR — adds nothing to the deficit or debt.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/29/reid-vows-to-stand-in-the-way-of-any-efforts-to-reform-social-security/#ixzz1HzEbtJeN

Reid has shown that he and the democrats aren’t serious about deficit reform and that they plan to use this issue politically. It might work, but it might not as well. The democrats are playing a dangerous game of “chicken” with our country.



Obama votes “Present” on deficit

There’s a well-worn aphorism in politics that getting U.S. senators to agree on anything is as easy as herding cats. In today’s bitterly partisan atmosphere, that maxim is especially apt. So when 64 SENATORS SIGNED A LETTER RECENTLY THAT URGED PRESIDENT OBAMA TO GET INVOLVED ON DEVELOPING A “COMPREHENSIVE” DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE, IT APPEARED TO BE A BIG DEAL.

But even though Obama has expressed grave concern about the country’s ocean of red ink, HE HAS REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE SENATORS’ LETTER, HIS FISCAL COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR $4 TRILLION OF DEFICIT REDUCTION IN THE COMING DECADE, OR EMBRACE ANY OTHER APPROACH.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/03/29/Senators-Toss-Budget-Ball-to-Obama-Who-Fumbles.aspx

If anyone has any sense of Presidential leadership, this should help dispel them. We must address the deficit and it appears Obama, Reid, and Pelosi (the democratic leadership) refuse to.



NPR Ekes Out A Surplus and Hosts Make Out Like Bandits

NPR, which has been under attack after video footage from James O’Keefe showed a now former network executive saying that NPR would be just fine without federal funding, is going to run a surplus or “modest margin,” this year.

Daily Finance reports on the network’s financial turnaround:

AS A WHOLE, NPR — AS IS COMMON FOR A NONPROFIT — USUALLY RUNS A DEFICIT. According to audited financial statements, NPR’s revenue ran a $8.3 million deficit in the 2010 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30. Revenues rose to $184.3 million from $148.7 million a year earlier, while expenses jumped to $192.5 last year from $166.6 million in 2009. But after cutting staff and scaling back benefits in 2008, NPR EXPECTS TO MAKE A “MODEST MARGIN” THIS YEAR, ACCORDING TO SPOKESWOMAN DANA DAVIS REHM.

This would normally be good news, except that NPR IS LOCKED IN A BATTLE OVER FUTURE GOVERNMENT FUNDING, RUNNING A SURPLUS SHOWS GOOD FISCAL MANAGEMENT BUT MAY ALSO LEND CREDENCE TO THE IDEA THAT THEY DON’T NEED MORE TAXPAYER MONEY.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/npr-ekes-out-a-surplus-and-hosts-make-out-like-bandits/


Makes sense to me. In an age of Obama sized deficits, NPR must be allowed to fend for itself.



Voting With Their Feet

The latest published data from the 2010 census show how people are moving from place to place within the United States. In general, PEOPLE ARE VOTING WITH THEIR FEET AGAINST PLACES WHERE THE LIBERAL, WELFARE-STATE POLICIES FAVORED BY THE INTELLIGENTSIA ARE MOST DEEPLY ENTRENCHED.

When you break it down by race and ethnicity, it is all too painfully clear what is happening. BOTH WHITES AND BLACKS ARE LEAVING CALIFORNIA, THE POSTER STATE FOR THE LIBERAL, WELFARE-STATE AND NANNY-STATE PHILOSOPHY….

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/29/voting_with_their_feet_109369.html

This phenomenon has mixed messages. The red states they are fleeing to are picking up congressional seats, but will they bring the liberal policies they are fleeing with them? Will they “Californicate” Texas, etc?

AT&T merger could swell ranks of union that backs Democrats

The merger of AT&T and T-Mobile COULD SWELL THE RANKS OF A UNION WITH CLOSE TIES TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Analysts predict that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to try to block AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. But in certain districts, the merger could carry political costs for GOP candidates.

That's because thousands of T-Mobile USA's employees — who are not unionized — will become part of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) if AT&T is permitted to buy up the company. CWA almost uniformly endorses Democrats.

"CWA IS VERY INFLUENTIAL IN CERTAIN STATES, AND THIS MIGHT INCREASE THEIR POLITICAL MUSCLE IN CERTAIN PLACES WHERE THEY ARE POWERFUL, LIKE NEW JERSEY," said Daniel DiSalvo, a political science professor at the City College of New York.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/152221-atat-merger-could-hurt-republican-candidates

It easy to see this merger should get quick approval by a Democrat administration. I guess all corporations are equal in Obama’s eyes, but some are more equal than others.

Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout

Rex Weyler announces to Patrick Moore that he is about to come out publicly with a critique of Patrick’s new book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.

RW: You portray yourself as “sensible” and disparage all non-corporate environmentalists, but you don’t act scientific. You employ rhetorical devices such as: “There is no alarm about climate change,” since “the climate is always changing….”

PM: I hardly think Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, is a corporate environmentalist, more of a loveable hippie with a big brain. Do you think Bjorn Lomborg is “corporate”. I DON’T AGREE WITH EITHER BRAND OR LOMBORG ON EVERYTHING BUT AT LEAST THEY CAUSE ME TO THINK RATHER THAN PEOPLE WHO REPEAT A MEMORIZED PARTY-LINE. I also admire James Lovelock even though I find him enigmatic. All three of these environmentalists that I admire are non-corporate. Which “corporate environmentalists” am I allegedly admiring?

I believe I am sensible and have been all my life, as in common sense. But I suppose that is a matter of opinion….

http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/moore-weyler-exchange/

An interesting conversation (debate?) that highlights the differences between the environalarmists and those who take a more sensible approach.