Obama's Middle East Story falling apart

AAA loving Obama

Barack Obama Campaign Factoids 

From Jake Tapper's Political Punch:  With 60 days to go before Election Day, here’s a look at President Obama’s re-election campaign by the numbers:

Total Estimated AF1 Domestic Flight Miles in 2012:  121,000

Total Bus Tours in 2012: 2

Overnights at Home in Chicago in 2012:  7

Visits to Chicago Campaign HQ: 2

 Total Re-Election Fundraisers Attended in 2012:  139

Total Re-Election Fundraisers in First Term:  209  (record-breaking; compares to 86 for George W. Bush)

Are the Democrats scared to death?

I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. And Mitt Romney is reminding me an awful lot of Ronald Reagan.

The MSM and the democrats “do protest too much, me thinks.”  The more you hear about how well Obama is doing the more you need to discount his chances.  They are desperately trying to keep his voters from being discouraged.  And when friends of Ronald Reagan say things like this, it almost over for Obama.

Obama’s Welfare Waivers

I’m still looking for the plank in the Democratic party platform that endorses work-based welfare reform. It must be there somewhere. If you can find it, let me know. … P.S.: You would think Obama’s convention speech would also have been a good place to quickly and forcefully rebut the GOP charge that he wants to eviscerate welfare work requirements. I can’t find that passage either.

 … Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has told Buzzfeed reporters that “Obama had asked him to make two modifications to [Clinton's convention] speech — one on Medicare and one on welfare — but wouldn’t specify what they were.” Hmm ….

4) Glenn Kessler, WaPo fact-checker,  gave Clinton two “Pinocchios” for claiming that the new Obama”requirement was for more work, not less.”  I would have given him four. Clinton is relying on Secretary Sebelius “20%” requirement that is a) bogus  and b) was added by the Obama administration in an apparent damage-control move after the “waiver” memo was issued. But Kessler’s analysis is more even-handed than anything Romney’s gotten out of the Checkretariat so far. 

Good News!  Obama believes in the First Amendment

President Barack Obama used Air Force One to conduct a policy loop-de-loop Wednesday, asserting in a CBS interview that he supports Americans’ right to criticize Islam, following almost 18 hours of determined condemnation from Team Romney and damaging news from Egypt and Libya.

“We believe in the First Amendment,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft during an interview arranged days earlier.

After many in the in the Obama Administration condemned the film makers and even gave out the name of the filmmaker (putting his life in jeopardy) while MSNBC commentators called for the filmmaker to be put on trial as an accessory to murder, it’s nice to see the President still believes we have free speech. 

In the meantime, Google has declined the White House’s request to review the film with the idea of removing it from YouTube.  It will stay up.  

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/google_defies_government_refuses_to_remove_controversial_anti-islam_video_on_youtube.html

Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost

The liberation that Obama hailed so heartily last year, and which he seemed so eager to endorse and validate, has nakedly revealed its hatred for the United States and its determination to kill Americans. Obama’s priorities and methods have paved the way for the violence and will be unable to contain it; and the disaster of his approach to foreign policy could not be more obvious. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden is unequivocal about this, stating that the protests which resulted in the death of the American ambassador and his colleagues were the result of Obama’s decision to intervene in the Libyan revolt without a “deep appreciation” for what would follow.

Jay Carney:  Those aren’t our chickens

Even the media isn’t buying Jay Carney’s explanation of what causing the violence in the Middle East.  This isn’t about a movie, but rather something bigger.  And apparently Barack Obama’s prediction that Muslim attitudes towards America would soften once he was president appears to be another sign of Obama’s Hubris. 

It was retaliation, not a movie

The consulate in Benghazi was an interim facility, with only a standard door lock for security, and worse, Ambassador Stevens was traveling with only a light security detail, rather than in the heavily armed convoys our diplomats in the region usually employ.  The attack on the Benghazi was no mere target of opportunity spurred by reaction to the “Innocence of Muslims” film; the film is just a pretext.  The killing of Amb. Stevens was a premeditated hit, planned and carried out as retaliation for the recent drone strike that killed the number two Al Qaida operative in Afghanistan recently. 

Maureen Dowd deserts Obama

What’s New Today

Story #1 tells how you can lose your First Amendment Rights (of course it’s in Chicago).  #2 show us in her latest column, that Maureen Dowd appears to be deserting the One.  #3 gives you the numbers of Obama’s presidency that will defeat him in November.  #4 Bad Omens in Wisconsin for the Democrats and the Unions.  #5 has a new poll showing the American public finds BHO more extreme than Mitt Romney.  #6.Bob Shrum says Obama will lose if it is a referendum on his record.  

Today’s Thoughts

Why is it that Liberals want the government to provide more and more, yet once the government provides it, there are strings attached.  Want government healthcare?  You need to behave a certain way then.  Bloomberg in NYC is just an example of what awaits us at the end of the government rainbow. 

The word from the Republican Party in Wisconsin, don’t get cocky.  Well know Tuesday evening.

1.  They told me if I voted for John McCain, My First Amendment Rights could be terminated…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDaUD6H6srE&feature=player_embedded

And they were right, but only in Chicago.

2.  When you’ve lost Maureen Dowd…

ON Friday night, the nation’s capital was under a tornado watch. And that was the best thing that happened to the White House all week. 

As the president was being slapped by Mitt Romney for being too weak on national security, he was being rapped by a Times editorial for being too aggressive on national security.

A Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane revealed that the liberal law professor who campaigned against torture and the Iraq war now personally makes the final decisions on the “kill list,” targets for drone strikes. “A unilateral campaign of death is untenable,” the editorial asserted. 

On Thursday, Bill Clinton once more telegraphed that he considers Obama a lightweight who should not have bested his wife. Bluntly contradicting the Obama campaign theme that Romney is a heartless corporate raider, Clinton told CNN that the Republican’s record at Bain was “sterling.”

Covering a humorous W. at the unveiling of his portrait, the White House press actually seemed nostalgic for the president who bollixed up Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina and the economy — a sure sign that the Obama magic is flagging. 

On Friday, an ugly job market report led to the stock market’s worst day of the year. As the recovery flat-lined, the president conceded to a crowd at a Honeywell factory in Golden Valley, Minn., that “our economy is still facing some serious headwinds” and getting sucked further into Europe’s sinkhole. In depressing imagery for the start of the summer campaign, cable channels carried the red Dow arrow pointing down while Obama spoke; the Dow wiped out all of its 2012 gains. 

The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters. His campaign is offering Obama 2012 car magnets for a donation of $10; cat collars reading “I Meow for Michelle” for $12; an Obama grill spatula for $40, and discounted hoodies and T-shirts. How the mighty have fallen….

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/dowd-dreaming-of-a-superhero.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Basically Obama isn’t working.  Obama was a long shot that the left fell in love with and which the right has seen perform much as we expected.  And it’s not Bush’s fault or the Republican House or whoever else Obama is blaming now.  He simply wasn’t up to the task.

3.  Obama’s real record

…By that standard, the nation unequivocally lost jobs in the first 39 months of the Obama presidency: with 142,287,000 working in May, 2012 (the most recent statistics available) compared with 143,338,000 at the end of December, 2008—the last employment numbers announced under President George W. Bush. 

Moreover, these job losses occurred at a time of rapid population growth, with more than 8,100,000 new American residents (through both birth and immigration) over the same period. This explains the more dramatic increase of those listed by the government as “unemployed” (from 11,108,000 to 12,720,000) and the even more notable rise among those “not in the labor force” (from 80,588,000 all the way to 87,958,000).

With 342,000 Americans in April alone giving up on the search for a job, the overall percentage of work-age population either employed or looking for work dropped in April to 63.6 percent—the lowest level since December, 1981, in the darkest days of the disastrous Carter-Reagan recession. The slight uptick in labor force participation in May—0.2 percent—hardly removed the sting from disastrous numbers for the overall job market.

In other words, statistics strongly support the common perception that jobs remain fiendishly difficult to find, despite the administration’s happy talk about a burgeoning recovery. The president may not qualify as the catastrophic job killer of GOP caricature, but he can hardly claim the gleaming mantle of a robust job creator.

Nor can he plausibly pass himself off as a champion of tight-fisted spending restraint while throwing down a challenge to skeptical Republicans in another crucial issue of the campaign. At a May 24 campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, the president declared that “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years.”

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler fact-checked this claim and bestowed on the commander-in-chief the coveted “Three Pinocchios” designation.

Again, a quick check of numbers at the White House’s own website gives the lie to Obama claims of cutting deficits and bringing the budget under control: the last budget signed by George W. Bush and passed by the Democratic Congress (for fiscal year 2008) amounted to $2.77 trillion with a deficit of $459 billion. The next year’s budget (signed by Obama and again authorized by the Pelosi-Reid Congress) included a great deal of “emergency spending” for the Obama Stimulus Package and reached $3.52 trillion with a deficit of 1.4 trillion. In other words, deficit spending more than tripled in Obama’s first year as president, and it’s remained at comparably crippling levels ever since…

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/03/numbers-reveal-truth-about-obama-economic-success-claims-and-gop-condemnation.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fpolitics+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics%29

Obama said if he didn’t solve this problem in three years he would be a one term president.  That may be the most truthful comment he has made in the last four years. 

4.  Wisconsin’s recall:  Another bad sign for the Democrats

Just four days out from the Wisconsin's historic gubernatorial recall election, former president Bill Clinton and Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett could only draw a small crowd to a rally Friday on Barrett's home turf.

As the Associated Press notes, the crowd numbered only in the "hundreds," a sign of the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans that has appeared in some polls. Overcast weather and the short notice of the event (it was announced just yesterday) may have depressed turnout. But a sitting mayor of a Democratic city and a popular former Democratic president still should have been able to draw more than hundreds of people on Friday if Barrett supporters were fired up and ready to go. Congressman Paul Ryan has been known to draw hundreds of people to some of his town hall meetings in the Milwaukee exurbs.
Before Clinton's 18-minute speech, rally-goers were treated to a poem and song, "Hit the Road Scott,”  by Rep. Gwen Moore. "This guy is 65-years old and he's getting hit on by porn stars," one rally-goer could be heard gushing over Clinton in anticipation of his arrival. "This guy is a god."

 After being introduced by Barrett, Clinton spoke in vague generalities of the need for "creative cooperation" and "shared sacrifice." Clinton said Barrett showed he could balance the budget in Milwaukee through "shared sacrifice" without "breaking the unions." (In fact, the Milwaukee unions wouldn't budge during negotiations last year, and Barrett had to wait for Walker's collective bargaining reforms to take effect in order to exact millions of dollars of concessions from the unions.)…

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fewer-1000-people-show-bill-clinton-tom-barrett-rally-milwaukee_646392.html

A Tea Party rally in Racine, Wisconsin in the meantime drew 4,000.

5.  The Extremist in this race….

According to a new Rasmussen poll, Americans think that Mitt Romney is more moderate than Barack Obama. A survey of likely voters shows that 52% believe Romney’s views are “mainstream,” with 30% thinking they are “extreme”; by contrast, 45% of likely voters see President Obama’s views as “mainstream,” with 45% saying they’re “extreme.”

Interestingly, when it comes to the politics of the candidates, the gap is less substantial; Romney is considered more mainstream on his politics by a 48%-44% margin. Romney leads Obama overall by the same margin.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/03/Poll-Obama-Romney-mainstream

Extremist is the word Liberals use for any and all Republicans running for office.  Yet time and again we find that the country is right of center while the Democrats are to the left and in many cases the far left.  They are the extremist.

6.  If it’s a referendum I don’t think Obama could win

BOB SHRUM: I think we ought to just face reality here. If you did what I think the governor is suggesting, maybe he’s not, and you just let this be a referendum, I don’t think the president could win. The truth of the matter is, he may have created over 4.3 million jobs, he may have saved General Motors, but the country is still not back to where it needs to be. So this needs to be a choice election. People have to have that choice, and if they have the choice, I think the president’s going to be fine. Look, take Bain Capital, everybody got all excited about Bain Capital. And I know some Democrats in the party are pretty close to the financial industry. Two kinds of private equity– some buy up companies and build them up, others buy up marginal companies, load them up with debt, take out giant fees, the company goes down and the employees lose their job. Ampad, bought by Bain Capital—Bain put in $1 for every $20 it took out. The company went down and Romney and his partners made $100 million. I did the Kennedy campaign in Massachusetts in 1994 against Mitt Romney. That is a very powerful argument.

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/06/03/democrat-admits-if-election-referendum-obama-i-dont-think-president-could-win

Whether Shrum wants to admit it or not, it’s a referendum.  It always is with a president running for reelection.

The future is happening now

Why I’m a Chris Christie fan

As Mr. Chrisie recounted it: “You can imagine how that was received by 7,500 firefighters. As I walked into the room and was introduced. I WAS BOOED LUSTILY. I MADE MY WAY UP TO THE STAGE, THEY BOOED SOME MORE. . . . SO I SAID, ‘COME ON, YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT,’ AND THEY DID!”


HE CRUMPLED UP HIS PREPARED REMARKS AND THREW THEM ON THE FLOOR. He told them, “Here’s the deal: I understand you’re angry, and I understand you’re frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed.” And, he said, they were right: “FOR 20 YEARS, GOVERNORS HAVE COME INTO THIS ROOM AND LIED TO YOU, PROMISED YOU BENEFITS THAT THEY HAD NO WAY OF PAYING FOR, making promises they knew they couldn’t keep, and just hoping that they wouldn’t be the man or women left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here’s what I don’t understand. WHY ARE YOU BOOING THE FIRST GUY WHO CAME IN HERE AND TOLD YOU THE TRUTH?”


He told them there was no political advantage in being truthful: “The way we used to think about politics and, unfortunately, the way I FEAR THEY’RE THINKING ABOUT POLITICS STILL IN WASHINGTON” INVOLVES “THE OLD PLAYBOOK [WHICH] SAYS, “LIE, DECEIVE, OBFUSCATE AND MAKE IT TO THE NEXT ELECTION.” He’d seen a study that said New Jersey’s pensions may go bankrupt by 2020. A friend told him not to worry, he won’t be governor then. “That’s the way politics has been practiced in our country for too long. . . . So I said to those firefighters, ‘YOU MAY HATE ME NOW, BUT 15 YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A PENSION TO COLLECT BECAUSE OF WHAT I DID, YOU’LL BE LOOKING FOR MY ADDRESS ON THE INTERNET SO YOU CAN SEND ME A THANK-YOU NOTE.’“

http://peggynoonan.com/


Big, bold and honest is the way you describe Chris Christie and may I add Presidential.



Poll: Most Americans Don’t support Public employee unions

CLARUS' NATIONWIDE STUDY FOUND THAT 64 PERCENT OF AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK STATE WORKERS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO JOIN LABOR UNIONS.

Another 29 percent believe that d government employees should be represented by unions that bargain for higher pay, benefits and pensions.

The survey also uncovered a deep divide along party lines-- Republicans and independents strongly oppose unionization for government employee. Indeed, ONLY 10 PERCENT OF REPUBLICANS AND 23 PERCENT OF INDEPENDENTS SUPPORT The right of public employees to be represented by unions.

Contrarily, 49 PERCENT OF DEMOCRATS THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNIONIZE

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/114185/20110218/unions.htm


This is not good for the democrats as they rally behind the unions.



WHO GOVERNS WISCONSIN?

THE FIGHT FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE NOW CENTRES UPON WISCONSIN. On one side are Governor Scott Walker, the Wisconsin Republican majorities in the legislature, and the majority of Wisconsinites who voted them into office. On the other side are the public sector unions for whom governance is, at bottom, a racket – and their Democratic allies.

This fight began when Governor Walker decided to deal with Wisconsin's state budget deficit, projected at $3.6bn over the coming two years, BY ADDRESSING ROOT CAUSES: NOT THROUGH TAX HIKES OR STATE WORKER LAYOFFS, BUT BY TACKLING THE EXCESSIVE POWERS AND BENEFITS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. With this done, sensible budgeting and prioritisation is possible – not with an eye toward union demands, but to the actual needs of Wisconsinites.

THE STRIKING THING ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSALS IS THEIR MILDNESS. Indeed, private sector workers – that is, the overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites and Americans both – would be fortunate to have such terms. WISCONSIN PUBLIC SECTOR UNION MEMBERS ARE TO BE ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE 5.8% OF THEIR SALARIES TO PENSIONS, AND 12% TO THEIR HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS. They furthermore will retain collective bargaining rights only on matters of salary, but lose them for benefits and perks. These would be regarded as fairly ordinary terms of employment engagement for most Americans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/18/us-unions-wisconsin


What is amazing is that the Democrats are so quick to want to raise taxes on people earning more money, unless they support the Democratic Party. Here we have a privileged groups of primarily Democrats who the state is asking to “pay their fair share” and the answer seems to be a resounding, “Hell no.”



Even Joe Klein comes out against the Wisconsin Protesters

...An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. IN A DEMOCRACY, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO ELECTIONS AND NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNIONS, ARE EXEMPT from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. We hold elections to decide those basic parameters. And IT SEEMS TO ME THAT GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER'S BASIC REQUESTS ARE MODEST ONES--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. When I covered local government in New York 30 years ago, the school janitors (then paid a robust $60,000 plus per year) had negotiated the "right" to mop the cafeteria floors only once a week....

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/18/wisconsin-the-hemlock-revolution/#ixzz1EP9aFYED


This is a losing issue if you are a democrat and Joe Klein comes out against your position.



Makes you wonder

A reader asks a good question about news coverage of events in Wisconsin:

BTW...IN NO MSM COVERAGE I HAVE SEEN IS THERE ANY NOTE THAT THE CROWD IS "PREDOMINANTLY WHITE".... WHY IS THAT?

Heh. We all remember how liberal news coverage of tea party rallies rarely failed to note that they were "predominantly white." Somehow, that is no longer a salient fact when the same outlets cover illegal sick-outs by Wisconsin teachers. Why would that be?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028403.php


Actually from the pictures I’ve seen the correct term would be “overwhelmingly white.” I guess they must be racists.



New Press Secretary but old lies

White House press secretary JAY CARNEY SAYS THE RECOVERY ACT ADDED SEVERAL MILLION JOBS AND LOWERED THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. ACCORDING TO CARNEY, THE "GOALS" OF THE STIMULUS PACKAGE "HAVE BEEN MET."



A reporter asked Carney why unemployment is at 9% and not 7%, the percentage projected if the stimulus worked. Carney dismissed the question. "WE'VE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT WE DON'T WANT TO RELITIGATE THE BATTLES OF THE PAST," Carney told the reporter.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/17/whs_jay_carney_stimulus_goals_have_been_met.html


I guess $854 billion doesn’t buy as much as it once did.


Stripping Most Institutional Media of Constitutional Protection?

SEVERAL WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATORS HAVE PROPOSED A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD “URGE[] CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION for the states’ consideration which provides THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PERSONS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES or any of its jurisdictional subdivisions.” It’s pretty clear from context that they mean corporations aren’t supposed to have constitutional rights, and that they are asking for the amendment because THEY WANT TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED.

But of course the proposed amendment, to the extent it STRIPS BUSINESS CORPORATIONS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, WOULD ALSO STRIP MEDIA CORPORATIONS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. It would also strip nonprofit corporations — such as the ACLU, NRA, etc. — of First Amendment rights. And it would let government take corporate property without just compensation, and more.

Now I don’t know whether the state legislators actually want this to happen, and actually want THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE POWER TO, SAY, CENSOR THE NEW YORK TIMES (or the Seattle Times). But that’s precisely what they are asking for

.

http://volokh.com/2011/02/18/stripping-most-institutional-media-of-constitutional-protection/

I’m sure that isn’t what the people who proposed this wanted. However, that is what they are in essence proposing. Sometimes I don't think liberals are very bright. 


Dr. Berwick and Mr. Hide

In Robert Louis Stevenson's famous novella about the duality of human nature, a minor character describes Mr. Hyde thus: "THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIS APPEARANCE; SOMETHING DISPLEASING, SOMETHING DOWN-RIGHT DETESTABLE. I NEVER SAW A MAN I SO DISLIKED." It is difficult to avoid similar feelings of revulsion watching the C-SPAN video of Dr. Donald Berwick's alter ego testifying at the February 10 hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee. His disingenuous opening remarks, evasive answers, and transparent contempt for congressional oversight revealed Obama's recess-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) as a grotesque changeling. GONE WERE THE BOLD STATEMENTS ABOUT RATIONING, BRITAIN'S SOCIALIZED MEDICAL SYSTEM, AND THE PERILS OF THE MARKET. The celebrated visionary, Dr. Donald Berwick, has been completely subsumed in the sly apparatchik, Mr. Hide.

The Dr. Berwick with whom we have become all too familiar was a vocal advocate of health care rationing. IN A 2009 INTERVIEW FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY HEALTHCARE, HE GUSHED WITH ENTHUSIASM FOR THE HEAVY-HANDED RATIONING REGIME OF GREAT BRITAIN'S NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH & CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (NICE) and advised his interlocutor that "THE DECISION IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL RATION CARE; THE DECISION IS WHETHER WE WILL RATION WITH OUR EYES OPEN." When the good doctor's alter ego appeared before the Ways and Means Committee, however, he told a different story. Mr. Hide, it seems, has always been a vehement opponent of rationing. When asked by Tom Price, M.D. (R-GA) about the above-quoted remark and a variety of similar public statements, he stunned the committee with the following answer: "I ABHOR RATIONING…. MY ENTIRE LIFE HAS BEEN SPENT FIGHTING RATIONING

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/18/dr-berwick-and-mr-hide


It is no wonder Obama didn’t want him to go through the conformation process. He is either a fool or a liar.





Whatever happened to the romance between the environmental lobby and natural gas?

After years of basking in a green glow as the cleanest fossil fuel and a favorite short-term choice to replace cheap-but-dirty coal, GAS NOW FINDS ITSELF UNDER ATTACK FROM ENVIRONMENTALISTS, filmmakers and congressional Democrats — and even from some scientists who raise doubts about whether its total emissions are as climate-friendly as commonly believed.

Case in point: the Sierra Club, whose former executive director, Carl Pope, has spoken warmly in recent years about gas as an alternative to coal in power plants. NOW, THE GROUP IS CONSIDERING CALLING FOR NATURAL GAS TO BE PHASED OUT BY 2050 — about 20 years after it wants coal eliminated.

While the group said it hasn’t changed its mind about gas vs. coal, Deputy Executive Director Bruce Hamilton says he and other Sierra Club leaders are “trying to be clearer in our communication. ... WE WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT NATURAL GAS IS NOT A CLEAN FUEL AND IT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP BEFORE IT CAN BE AN ACCEPTABLE FUEL.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259945/green-double-cross-begins-steven-f-hayward


I recommend you read this article and go on to the comments. It is very entertaining. For instance the second one listed (when I looked at them was)


A friend of mine once told me of environmentalists:


"The environmentalist can't take yes for an answer".



The Role of Fannie and Freddie in the Economic crisis

How unwilling is President Obama to truly rein in the growth of government? Consider his refusal to do anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Oh, Obama last week -- more than two years after the two mortgage giants were seized and placed into a federal conservatorship -- issued "recommendations" that would supposedly wind down the twins over a decade.

Mind you, FANNIE AND FREDDIE HAVE COST THE TAXPAYERS $160 BILLION IN DIRECT SUBSIDIES since they were taken over in August 2008. The country would be better off if they shut down today. ….

…THE HOUSING BUBBLE AND CRISIS NEVER WOULD HAVE OCCURRED ABSENT GOVERNMENT PRESSURE. Congress, acting through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, pushed Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions of dollars worth of subprime loans in order to make "housing more affordable." Meanwhile, regulators bullied banks to make loans to minority borrowers who couldn't afford to pay them back.

IN 1996, HUD SET AN EXPLICIT TARGET, COMMANDING THAT 42 PERCENT OF THE LOANS BOUGHT BY FANNIE AND FREDDIE BE TO PEOPLE WITH INCOMES BELOW THE AREA'S MEDIAN. THAT TARGET ROSE TO 50 PERCENT BEFORE CLINTON LEFT OFFICE -- AND WAS PUSHED EVEN HIGHER IN THE BUSH YEARS. ….

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_housing_menace_djbi0v0oAavvUVucvzuVcN#ixzz1EJjUB3Mk


The Democrats want to blame a lack of government oversight on the financial crisis, but as Ronald Reagan said in the 1980s “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.”


From Pro-abortion to Pro Life

She is a former Planned Parenthood clinic director. She has a new book, with an important story.

….JOHNSON: THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE ABORTION INDUSTRY DESIRES TO HELP WOMEN IN THEIR TIME OF NEED AND CRISIS BY PROVIDING NOT ONLY REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, BUT ABORTION SERVICES IF A WOMAN IS NOT READY, or not in a position financially or emotionally, or not stable enough to bring a child into her life. THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT HAS THE SAME DESIRE TO HELP WOMEN IN THEIR TIME OF NEED AND CRISIS BUT LOOKS BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THE WOMAN AND CONSIDERS THE LIFE OF THE CHILD and the woman’s family as well. The abortion industry provides a “quick fix” and focuses more on the immediate effects of the crisis, while the pro-life movement focuses on the long-term effects of the woman’s choice and the reality of what is best for the woman, rather than providing an “out.”…

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260084/meet-abby-johnson-kathryn-jean-lopez


This is an interesting interview and seems to represent both sides of the debate well. I thought I would post it because it shows a respectful disagreement. It’s probably something we could use more of. I recommend reading it.