The Democrats who Cried "Terrorist"

Doorbell: A Viral Video

Here’s a video everyone should watch.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/doorbell.php


Florida Poll: Obama and Romney tied

President Barack Obama is losing support among Florida voters, especially among independents, a poll released Thursday shows.

Fifty percent of voters surveyed randomly by landline telephone between July 27-Aug. 2 by Quinnipiac (Conn.) University said Obama would not deserve a second term in the election were held today. However, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the only announced Republican candidate with enough support in the poll to give the president a strong challenge. Both men were favored by 44 percent of those questioned.

In a matchup against Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is expected to get into the race for the GOP presidential nomination, Obama was favored 44 percent to 39 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-debt-ceiling-fight-hurts-obama-florida-100410204.html

Obama has big problems. That 44% was all he got against Romney, but it also was all he could garner against Rick Perry who so far is not in the race.

Hypocrisy on the left

…I must say that after watching the recent debt ceiling debate, it is clear that THE LIBERAL LEFT HAS BECOME THE GOLD STANDARD FOR VIRTUOUS DIALOGUE.

How else can you characterize the eloquent description Bloomberg's left-wing writer MARGARET CARLSON GAVE OF CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, WHOM SHE GROWLED HAD, "STRAPPED EXPLOSIVES TO THE CAPITOL?" Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer challenged her by asking, "I thought that post-Tucson we weren't supposed to accuse our political opponents of being terrorists?" Carlson seemed bewildered by his query. After all, she had merely used the imagery of terrorism to describe her opponents...not actually called them terrorists.
Not that there would be anything wrong with that, of course. JUST ASK MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS, who publicly declared his belief that, "THE GOP HAS BECOME THE WAHHABIS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT." And moments after that astoundingly civil indictment of his political opposition, Matthews listened as his equally well-mannered liberal guest, JOAN WALSH OF SALON, ACCUSED TEA PARTIERS OF "HOSTAGE-TAKING" in the debt talks.

Now, you might think that Matthews, a man who once trashed conservatives for "ugly sounding talk" that demeans their opponents as "not just disagreeable, but evil," would chastise his guest for committing the same offense. Not quite. Instead he responded by affirming, "I agree. It's terrorism." And let's not forget, this would be the same Chris Matthews who soured the universally triumphant and unifying return of Congresswoman Giffords to the floor of the House JUST DAYS AGO WITH A PARTISAN CONDEMNATION OF THE "VIOLENT LEVEL OF THE RIGHT-WING." Physician, heal thyself!

But it's not just Matthews, Walsh and Carlson who have seemingly mastered the left-wing art of tolerantly tempestuous talk. Newsweek editor-in-chief TINA BROWN PUBLICLY STATED HER BELIEF THAT CONGRESSIONAL CONSERVATIVES ARE, "THE SUICIDE BOMBERS IN ALL OF THIS." And the liberal pen of distinguished New York Times columnist TOM FRIEDMAN REFERRED TO CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS AS THE, "HEZBOLLAH FACTION" OF THE PARTY, HELL BENT ON A "SUICIDE MISSION."

But perhaps the most telling examples of just how seriously committed the Democrat left is to sweetening the state of our political discourse come from their elected leaders. While Democrat Senator BOB MENENDEZ deserves congratulation for his delicate and respectful denunciation of the "TEA PARTY TYRANTS," the real prize for diplomatic dialogue goes to Democrat Representative MIKE DOYLE. According to Politico, this liberal healer complained in a two hour meeting with Vice President Joe Biden that, "WE HAVE NEGOTIATED WITH TERRORISTS. THIS SMALL GROUP OF TERRORISTS HAVE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SPEND ANY MONEY."…

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/the_civil_way_to_call_someone_a_terrorist.html

What's truly unbelieveable is that the left is so tone deaf, so out of touch with reality that they feel calling the TEA Party names will resonate with anyone other than extreme leftists. 

The One-Termer We've Been Waiting For

In February of 2009, President Obama went on the Today Show to discuss a variety of issues, including his plan to turn the economy around. When asked about the consequences of failure for his presidency, he replied with unusual frankness: "I WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.… IF I DON'T HAVE THIS DONE IN THREE YEARS, THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A ONE-TERM PROPOSITION." The January 2009 unemployment rate had just been released a few days before that interview was broadcast, and it stood at 7.6 percent. Now, more than two and a half years later, the rate stands at 9.2 percent. Moreover, unemployment has only dipped below 9 percent in two of the past 26 months. This is the longest run of such rates since the Great Depression. In other words, Obama's three years are nearly up and he most emphatically doesn't "have this done."

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/04/the-one-termer-weve-been-waiti

I believe Obama was more prophetic than he imagined at the time. One and done.

When Obama Hands You Lemons…

…the state enforcers won’t let you make lemonade.

Iain Murray wrote yesterday about THE SPATE OF LEMONADE-STAND CRACKDOWNS BY THIS ONCE GREAT REPUBLIC’S DEPRAVED REGULATORY CLASS. This is not a small thing. A LAND IN WHICH A CHILD REQUIRES HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS OF PERMITS TO SELL HOMEMADE LEMONADE IN HIS FRONT YARD IS, IN A PROFOUND SENSE, NO LONGER FREE: It is exactly the kind of micro-regulatory tyranny of which Tocqueville warned two centuries ago.

Guest-hosting for Rush a week or two back, I suggested en passant that we needed a children’s version of the Tea Party – a Lemonade Party. I see now that a concerned citizen is organizing a Lemonade Freedom Day for August 20th.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273642/when-obama-hands-you-lemons-mark-steyn


Yesterday I ran a story about how the Democrats are failing because people don’t trust government. It’s things like this that makes people shake their heads in disgust. It’s things like this that makes people laugh when liberals talk about a single payer system. It’s things like this that helps to give rise to the TEA Party.

Democrat Distances Himself from Obama

THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE SEEKING TO FILL THE CONGRESSIONAL SEAT VACATED BY RANDY EX-REP ANTHONY WEINER DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA TODAY — by refusing to say whether he backed the president’s re-election.
“I’m running myself right now. On Sept. 14, I’ll be happy to address the president’s election,” State Assemblyman David Weprin said following a press conference at Queens Borough Hall, where he was endorsed by a bevy of female elected leaders.

The special election to replace Weiner — who resigned in disgrace following a sexting scandal — will be held on Sept. 13.

“DON’T READ ANYTHING INTO IT,” Weprin insisted of his refusal to give fellow Democrat Obama a thumbs up.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weprin_distances_himself_from_obama_rguWfvuDY9YYSCCDyQrr0M#ixzz1U9LwFIvQ

Of course we shouldn’t read anything into it. It pretty much tells you all you need to know.

Wisconsin schools buck union to cut health costs

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker performs a ceremonial bill signing of the new budget law outside his office at the Wisconsin State Capitol on March 11, 2011 in Madison. THE NEW LAW HELPED THE HARTLAND-LAKESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT SAVE MONEY ON HEALTH CARE COSTS BY SWITCHING PROVIDERS.

The Hartland-Lakeside School District, about 30 miles west of Milwaukee in tiny Hartland, Wis., had a problem in its collective bargaining contract with the local teachers union.

The contract required the school district to purchase health insurance from a company called WEA Trust. THE CREATION OF WISCONSIN'S LARGEST TEACHERS UNION -- "WEA" STANDS FOR WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION -- WEA Trust made money when union officials used collective bargaining agreements to steer profitable business its way.

The problem for Hartland-Lakeside was that WEA TRUST WAS CHARGING SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER RATES THAN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD FIND ON THE OPEN MARKET. School officials knew that because they got a better deal from United HealthCare for coverage of nonunion employees. On more than one occasion, Superintendent Glenn Schilling asked WEA Trust why the rates were so high. "I could never get a definitive answer on that," says Schilling…

… That's where Wisconsin's new budget law came in. The law, bitterly opposed by organized labor in the state and across the nation, limits the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. And it just happens that the Hartland-Lakeside teachers' collective bargaining agreement expired on June 30. So now, FREED FROM THE EXPENSIVE WEA TRUST DEAL, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS CHANGED INSURERS.

"IT'S GOING TO SAVE US ABOUT $690,000 IN 2011-2012," says Schilling. Insurance costs that had been about $2.5 million a year will now be around $1.8 million. What union leaders said would be a catastrophe will in fact be a boon to teachers and students….
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/wisconsin-schools-buck-union-cut-health-costs#ixzz1U5qb4yMH

Let’s see. This money wasn’t going to the teachers or the students. It sound like crony featherbedding to me.


Global Warming and the Skeptical Public

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, MOST GO EVEN FURTHER TO SAY SOME SCIENTISTS FALSIFY DATA TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN BELIEFS.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone SURVEY OF AMERICAN ADULTS SHOWS THAT 69% SAY IT’S AT LEAST SOMEWHAT LIKELY THAT SOME SCIENTISTS HAVE FALSIFIED RESEARCH data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% WHO SAY THIS IS VERY LIKELY. TWENTY-TWO PERCENT (22%) DON’T THINK IT’S LIKELY SOME SCIENTISTS HAVE FALSIFIED GLOBAL WARMING DATA, INCLUDING JUST SIX PERCENT (6%) SAY IT’S NOT AT ALL LIKELY. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)
The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .

FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT (57%) BELIEVE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ON GLOBAL WARMING, UP FIVE POINTS FROM LATE 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren’t sure.

Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party feel stronger than Democrats THAT SOME SCIENTISTS HAVE FALSIFIED DATA TO SUPPORT THEIR GLOBAL WARMING THEORIES, BUT 51% OF DEMOCRATS ALSO AGREE….

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research


It appears while Al Gore and other warmists keep telling us the science is settled and the consensus is there, a real consensus has been found in the general public. They don’t trust what the scientists are telling us and feel they fudge their numbers.

Wednesday: 2012 election

Politics

Opiniongate: Another Obama Problem

As you've probably read or heard, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA JUST GOT CAUGHT OPINION-SHOPPING FOR A GOVERNMENT LAWYER WHO WOULD SIGN OFF ON LETTING HIM KEEP AMERICA'S MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN THE NATO WAR IN LIBYA GOING FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING TO GET CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.
Tsk-tsk.

Is this just a lawyers' lash-up -- the proverbial tempest in a teapot, yet another "inside-the Beltway scandal" -- or should Americans actually care about this? Another politician being two-faced? Give me a break.

In fact, the issue is an important one, one which involves the lives of thousands of American sailors and Marines who are, literally, within shooting distance of the danger zone.

OPINION-GATE CONSISTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S REJECTION OF LEGAL OPINIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHICH SAID MR. OBAMA COULDN'T DO WHAT HE WANTED, IN FAVOR OF ONE FROM THE LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHICH SAID HE COULD. Opinion-gate raises immediate questions of war and peace, the President's power as commander-in-chief and Congress' war-making power. In particularly, it spotlights the highly- controversial War Powers Resolution, which was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto by a Democratic Congress at the height of the Watergate Scandal.

The State Department opinion which Mr. Obama accepted says that he is not required to seek Congressional authorization for continuing to do what the United States military and covert services have been doing in Libya. The two opinions which he rejected -- from the legal officers which modern American presidents typically look to for such guidance -- say that he is required to do so….

….With Weinergate, the uptick in unemployment, the stock market drop, and now this, all in the same month, Christmas came early this year for conservatives. Republicans need to remember the advice of that great Democratic strategist, James Carville (aka "the Ragin' Cajun"): WHEN YOUR ENEMY IS DROWNING, THROW HIM A SAFE."

LOOKS LIKE MR. OBAMA ALREADY HAS ONE.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/is_another_shoe_yet_to_drop_in_opinion-gate.html

It just keeps getting murkier and murkier for the Obama reelection.


Is Obama's Libyan Attack Legal or Not?

Obama's being hassled because he's dropping bombs and bullets on Libyan targets without Congressional permission, A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION PER SOME REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. SOME ESTIMATES SAY THAT A YEAR OF IT WILL COST $160 B. Obama says it's within his powers because, though he can't declare war, this isn't war; IT'S A "KINETIC MILITARY ACTION," WHATEVER THAT MEANS.

He goes on to say that ground troops aren't exchanging fire, which adds to the non-warishness. But Libyans bombed or rocketed to death from the sky are still dead. It's not clear that the dead Libyans would appreciate the neat distinction. The Libyans themselves are pretty clearly having a civil war; OBAMA IS KILLING MORE OF THE FOLKS ON ONE SIDE THAN HE IS THOSE ON THE OTHER, THOUGH HE HASN'T DISCRIMINATED ENTIRELY. Apparently, it can be hard to tell which side he's shooting at from the air. That they are having a war seems to be clear to the Libyans even if it isn't clear to Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/is_obamas_libyan_attack_legal_or_not.html

If you are a student of history and you are familiar with the miracle at Dunkirk, you know that the German’s stopped the war for a brief period and went to “Kinetic Military Action” as Herman Goering wanted to destroy the British at Dunkirk with his Luftwaffe.


Our Reactionary President

Barack Obama is the most reactionary president in the recent history of the United States. OBAMA SEEMS INTENT ON TURNING BACK THE CLOCK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF THE 1960S AND 1970S, WHEN RIGID POLITICAL ORTHODOXY, NOT AN OPEN MIND, ONCE GUIDED GOVERNMENT.

Take the economy. The 1980s implosion of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union proved that state control of the means of production guaranteed poverty and worse. The current insolvent and fragmenting European Union, and the stagnant economics of the exploding Middle East, remind us that state socialism does not work.

Why, then, would Obama, in horse-and-buggy fashion, go back to SUCH FOSSILIZED CONCEPTS AS ABSORBING THE NATION'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INCREASING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN THE ECONOMY BY TAKING OVER AUTOMOBILE CORPORATIONS, borrowing $5 trillion to spend on new entitlements, or proposing an array of much higher taxes -- all in a vain effort to ensure an equality of result?

Almost every key indicator of the current economy -- unemployment, deficits, housing, energy -- argues THAT OBAMA'S REACTIONARY ALL-POWERFUL STATIST APPROACH HAS ONLY MADE THINGS FAR WORSE….

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/16/our_reactionary_president_110229.html

What in the world will he run on?  "It could have been worse," isn't a real winning slogan.
President Barack Obama's Complete List of Historic Firsts

Yes, he's historic, alright.

• First President to ABROGATE BANKRUPTCY LAW to Turn Over Control


• First President to VIOLATE THE WAR POWERS ACT

• First President to ORCHESTRATE THE SALE OF MURDER WEAPONS TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS

• First President to be HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

• First President to DEFY A FEDERAL JUDGE'S COURT ORDER TO CEASE IMPLEMENTING THE 'HEALTH CARE REFORM' LAW

• First President to REQUIRE ALL AMERICANS TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT FROM A THIRD PARTY

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/06/president-barack-obamas-complete-list.html

Keep reading and you’ll get another 10 firsts.

10 Reasons Obama will be a one term President

Less than two months ago, buzzing from the president’s gutsy call to eliminate Osama bin Laden, liberal pontificators had practically sworn in Barack Obama for his second term. “For the GOP the sands are rushing through the hourglass,” Roger Simon wrote in a column whose title had wondered whether the president was “invincible.” He claimed that with Geronimo KIA, “the Republican field has been fried like an egg.” In reality, the president’s short-term popularity boost had fried the long-term judgment of his supporters.

THE REASONS TO BELIEVE OBAMA A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT ARE MANY AND WELL-GROUNDED.

10. The Declaration of Independents

CANDIDATE OBAMA ATTRACTED INDEPENDENTS. PRESIDENT OBAMA REPULSES THEM. The president entered office with the approval of 62 percent of independents. The latest Gallup poll shows support of just 42 percent of independents. …

9. A Redder America
Barack Obama faces a redder electoral map than he did in 2008. The 2012 presidential election is more than a year away, but THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS ALREADY SHIFTED TWELVE VOTES AWAY FROM BLUE STATES AND TOWARD RED STATES….

8. The Issues Have Changed

Gallup’s “Monthly Most Important Problem” survey is a problem for the president. What is troubling the American people? Over the first five months of 2011, Americans point to the ECONOMY (29%), UNEMPLOYMENT (26%), THE DEFICIT (13%), AND GOVERNMENT (11%)….

7. The Blank Canvass Isn’t Anymore

….Unpopular ObamaCare, a sedative stimulus, ineptness in the face of the BP oil spill, and defiance of Congress in starting a third Middle Eastern war have all painted a presidential picture that HAS CALCIFIED CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION, ALIENATED MODERATES, AND DISILLUSIONED LIBERAL SUPPORTERS.

6. Demoralized Liberals

Left-wing activist Ralph Nader encourages a primary challenge. Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich sues the administration over Libya. Netroots conference goers boo White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer….

5. Energized Conservatives

…. It showed in 2010, when Republicans added 63 House seats, seven Senate seats, and six governors. NOTHING INVIGORATES A PARTY’S BASE LIKE AN AGGRESSIVE IDEOLOGUE OF THE OPPOSING PARTY OCCUPYING THE WHITE HOUSE. THE GOP CLEARLY HAS THE MOMENTUM HEADING INTO 2012….

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44311

Keep reading as it will make you feel good.

What the 2012 election will be all about

…WHEN THE ECONOMY IS STRONG, ELECTIONS CAN TURN ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES. But when the economy is poor, elections are seldom about anything else. The 1980 race was illustrative.

Though the Carter/Reagan race is remembered now as a landslide for Ronald Reagan, the contours of the victory were not apparent during the campaign. AS LATE AS OCTOBER 29, GALLUP HAD THE RACE AS A DEAD HEAT, with Reagan at 44 percent and President Carter at 43 (it was a three-man race). Other polling showed larger margins for Reagan but nothing like the 10-point margin of victory he achieved. At the time, the contest was perceived as close.

It was after the first and only debate, a week before Election Day, that voters definitively moved into Reagan's column. At the time, inflation was running at 13.5 percent, unemployment was 7 percent and interest rates were 21 percent. American hostages remained in Tehran. Carter's approval ratings hovered in the 30s during the final year of his tenure.

Why wasn't Carter perceived as hopelessly weak? Perhaps BECAUSE AS BAD AS THINGS WERE, VOTERS NEEDED TO BE CONFIDENT ABOUT THE CHALLENGER'S FITNESS. CARTER HAD SUCCEEDED TO SOME DEGREE IN FRIGHTENING VOTERS ABOUT REAGAN'S (YOU GUESSED IT) RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM. Reagan's reassuring debate performance allayed those fears. And Reagan's summation drilled to the heart of voters' concerns. Ask yourself, Reagan advised, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

The economy today is in some respects worse than it was in 1980. Barring a catastrophe, little else will matter in 2012. ANY CREDIBLE REPUBLICAN CAN DEFEAT OBAMA -- WHICH IS WHY AXELROD IS ALREADY SMEARING AS "EXTREMIST" A PERSON WHOSE NAME HE DOES NOT KNOW.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/21/here_come_the_extremists_110289.html

I remember the 1980 election and it being called close just a week before it. I found it hard to believe it would be close since Carter was so clearly incompetent. In the coming election I expect much the same.

22% would not vote for a Mormon for President

Though the vast majority of Americans say they would vote for their party's nominee for president in 2012 if that person happens to be a Mormon, 22% say they would not, a figure largely unchanged since 1967.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx

The delicious part is that it is the left that appear to be the bigger bigots when it comes to religious intolerance. While 80% of Republicans would vote for a Mormon, only 71% of Democrats would do so (45% higher level of religious bigotry). So much for the goodness of the left.

The Clarence Thomas Rules

WHEN IT COMES TO MEDIA COVERAGE OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, THE RULES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF OTHER JUDICIAL FIGURES. Yesterday’s front page feature in the Sunday New York Times about Thomas and his various associations with rich people is the sort of thing that one simply cannot imagine being written or published about anyone else on the high court.

THE PIECE IS A 2,800-WORD INSINUATION ABOUT ETHICAL VIOLATIONS THAT ARE NEVER SPELLED OUT. Reporter Mike McIntire was sent out on a fishing expedition looking for juicy material about this liberal bête noire and clearly came up empty. But instead of spiking the story, the Times (whose new editor Jill Abramson’s career was made via slanders of Thomas) printed it anyway.

The worst allegation in the piece is that Thomas may have helped persuade a wealthy donor to contribute to the building of a museum about the culture of poor Gullah-speaking African-Americans along the Georgia coast where the jurist grew up. Federal judges aren’t supposed to do fundraising even for charity but the code has never applied to the Supreme Court and even if it did, McIntire has no real proof of Thomas conducting an “ask” for the Pin Point museum….

….But you don’t have to be an investigative reporter to understand the motivation behind this article. AS A BLACK CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN, LIBERALS HAVE ALWAYS TREATED THOMAS AS TRAITOR TO HIS RACE. Others may agree to disagree but Thomas is the sort of person about whom anything can be said. It is true that he may not have been the most qualified person in the land at the time of his appointment but the same can be said of a number of his liberal colleagues on the court. But, unlike other judges, his personal destruction has always been the goal of the political left….

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/20/the-clarence-thomas-rules/

Conservative women, blacks, etc. are worse than traitors to the left, they are heretics. As such they are subject to extreme forms of racism and sexism by the left.

Science

Science and the Smear Merchants

Professor Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California in San Diego, claims to be a science historian. One can readily demonstrate that she is neither a credible scientist nor a credible historian; the best evidence is right there in her recent book, "MERCHANTS OF DOUBT: HOW A HANDFUL OF SCIENTISTS OBSCURED THE TRUTH ON ISSUES FROM TOBACCO SMOKE TO GLOBAL WARMING," coauthored with Eric Conway. HER SCIENCE IS FAULTY; HER HISTORICAL PROCEDURES ARE THOROUGHLY UNPROFESSIONAL. She is, however, an accomplished polemicist, who has found time for world lecture tours, promoting her book and her ideological views, while being paid by the citizens of California. Her book tries to smear four senior physicists -- of whom I am the only surviving one. I view it as my obligation to defend the reputations of my late colleagues and good friends against her libelous charges.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/science_and_smear_merchants.html

This is a devastating indictment of Oreskes. Oreskes is the person who started the “settled science” claim of AGW proponents when she did a study which examining the abstracts of some 900 published papers found almost none questioning AGW. Unfortunately, she missed more than 11,000 papers (she overlooked more than 92% of the papers available) through an incorrect Internet search. She published a discreet "Correction"; yet she has never retracted her ideologically based claim about consensus. This woman appears to be the Kitty Kelly of Climate Science.

EPA masquerading propaganda as facts

….“The difference in air quality between 1990 and 2020 was then used to project improvements in health and the environment. This result was compared to A SECOND SCENARIO IN WHICH THE SCOPE AND STRINGENCY OF REGULATORY CONTROLS REMAINED FIXED AT THEIR 1990 LEVELS—I.E., PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1990 AMENDMENTS—WHILE ALLOWING FOR INCREASED EMISSIONS FROM ECONOMIC AND POPULATION GROWTH,” she wrote.

“The researchers acknowledge that ‘there is no way to validate’ their forecast of air quality conditions for the non-CAA scenario, effectively rendering the comparison between regulation and non-regulation meaningless,” argued Katz.

“GIVEN THESE AND OTHER UNCERTAINTIES THAT PLAGUE THE REPORT, THE FINDINGS AMOUNT TO LITTLE MORE THAN ‘GUESSTIMATES,’ Katz said. “Rather than document that the benefits of regulation roundly trump regulatory costs, the EPA’s report raises serious questions about the agency’s politicization of science.”….

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-masquerading-propaganda-facts-suppor

The EPA should go into infomercials. You’ve seen the ads where someone is selling a spice rack. The person they show has so many spices and when they try to find one, they fall out of the cupboard and on to the floor. Their spice rack eliminates all that. The EPA is spice racking us.


Genetic Basis for Crime: A New Look

IT WAS LESS THAN 20 YEARS AGO THAT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH ABRUPTLY WITHDREW FUNDS FOR A CONFERENCE ON GENETICS AND CRIME AFTER OUTRAGED COMPLAINTS THAT THE IDEA SMACKED OF EUGENICS. The president of the Association of Black Psychologists at the time declared that such research was in itself “A BLATANT FORM OF STEREOTYPING AND RACISM.”

The tainted history of using biology to explain criminal behavior has pushed criminologists to reject or ignore genetics and CONCENTRATE ON SOCIAL CAUSES: MISERABLE POVERTY, CORROSIVE ADDICTIONS, GUNS. Now that the human genome has been sequenced, and scientists are studying the genetics of areas as varied as alcoholism and party affiliation, criminologists are cautiously returning to the subject. A small cadre of experts is exploring how genes might heighten the risk of committing a crime and whether such a trait can be inherited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/arts/genetics-and-crime-at-institute-of-justice-conference.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=genetic%20crime&st=cse

It appears they need to look at something else. Their theory about guns seems to have proven wrong as places where guns have been readily available, the crime rate has fallen. The article is very interesting though and I recommend you read it.

The War Against Girls

SINCE THE LATE 1970S, 163 MILLION FEMALE BABIES HAVE BEEN ABORTED BY PARENTS SEEKING SONS

….WHAT IS CAUSING THE SKEWED RATIO: ABORTION. IF THE MALE NUMBER IN THE SEX RATIO IS ABOVE 106, IT MEANS THAT COUPLES ARE HAVING ABORTIONS WHEN THEY FIND OUT THE MOTHER IS CARRYING A GIRL. By Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html

Does a woman’s right to choose also include her right to contribute to genocide against her own sex?

Wednesday: Obama's reality

Politics
Obama wants credit

President Obama told supporters at a fundraiser in Miami Monday night that HE DESERVES CREDIT FOR CLEANING UP THE MESS HE INHERITED.

“My job over these first two years has frankly been to clean up a big mess,” Mr. Obama said at a $10,000-per-ticket event at a gated mansion in Miami Beach. “WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE SURE WE YANKED AN ECONOMY OUT OF WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION.”

The president spoke to guests on a tented lawn with a view of the Miami skyline at the $5.9 million home of former Samsonite CEO Steve Green, former ambassador to Singapore in the Clinton administration.

“WE STABILIZED THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM,” the president said. “WE MADE SURE THAT WE ENDED ONE WAR AND STARTED PUTTING ANOTHER WAR ON A PATH WHERE WE COULD START BRING MORE TROOPS HOME. WE RESTORED A SENSE AROUND THE WORLD OF WHAT AMERICAN VALUES AND IDEALS WERE ALL about. We had to address an auto industry that was on the verge of liquidation. We had to get the economy moving again and we had to get jobs created again.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/13/obama-says-he-wants-credit-cleaning-big-mess/

Obama may appear delusional, but as neuroscientist Earl Miller explains, "The brain is very good at deluding itself."  This reminds me of a contractor who was going to do a job for you on your home in three weeks for $20,000.  Three months later everything is a mess and the bill in now $200,000 and he wants credit for what he's done so far. 

Michelle and the Kids Okay with Obama being a one term President

President Barack Obama says his wife and daughters aren't "invested" in him being president and would have been fine had he decided against running for re-election. But he says they believe in what he's doing for the country.

Asked about his family's reaction to his wanting another term, Obama said: "Michelle and the kids are wonderful in that if I said, `You know, guys, I want to do something different,' They'd be fine. THEY'RE NOT INVESTED IN DADDY BEING PRESIDENT OR MY HUSBAND BEING PRESIDENT."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/politics/2011/06/obama-my-family-would-be-fine-just-1-term#ixzz1PG9Qfchg

This is probably a good thing since there are a lot of wives and kids who will be bitterly disappointed if Obama is elected again. 

A glimpse of things to come?

A low-dollar fundraiser here Monday felt like a throwback to the 2008 campaign.

There was the same old soundtrack – including “City of Blinding Lights” by U2, the president’s 2008 anthem -- the enthusiastic organizers and the abundant appeals for supporters to rally behind President Obama.

THE ONE MISSING ELEMENT? OVERFLOWING CROWDS.

Granted, it was a fundraiser, not a free rally. But the empty seats were hard to miss.

THE TOP LEVEL OF THE 2,200-SEAT CONCERT HALL AT THE ADRIENNE ARSHT CENTER FOR PERFORMING ARTS WAS ENTIRELY EMPTY, AS WERE THE SEATS ALONG THE SIDE OF THE SECOND AND THIRD LEVELS.

"The expectation was 900," a Democratic official said, and more than 980 tickets were sold.

TICKETS FOR THE GEN 44 EVENT STARTED AT $44, THE OFFICIAL SAID.

"This is going to be a very tough fight," said Alonzo Mourning, the former Miami Heat player, who spoke ahead of the president. Once Obama took the stage, a protester interrupted him at one point, repeatedly yelling: "Keep your promise, stop AIDS now." But THE PROTESTER WAS QUICKLY DROWNED OUT BY THE AUDIENCE CHANTING, "OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA."

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0611/empty_seats_108717af-a6fd-4c08-b970-fe9b3eb2e4c4.html

What struck me about this story was that when a heckler was there, the crowd chanted “Obama, Obama, Obama…” I’ve been to Tea Party Rallies and what you hear there is “USA, USA, USA…”

2008 Supporters haven’t fared well under Obama

Barack Obama benefited from strong support among a number of demographic groups during his 2008 presidential campaign. In an economic sense, AFTER TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS OF HIS PRESIDENCY, THOSE SAME GROUPS WHICH SHOWED HIM THE GREATEST SUPPORT HAVE SUFFERED DISPROPORTIONATELY MORE THAN OTHERS IN THE UNITED STATES….

African Americans
….When Obama took office in January 2009, the nation's unemployment rate stood at 7.6%. For AFRICAN-AMERICANS, AS A GROUP, THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WAS 12.6%.

Fast forward two-and-a-half years and, according to the latest data released for May 2011, the nation's unemployment rate is 9.1%. THE PRESENT RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR BLACKS IS 16.2%.

College/Young Professionals
… Exit poll data from 2008 show Obama enjoyed a 66% APPROVAL RATING FOR THE 18-29 YEAR-OLD demographic group.

Unfortunately for this group, economic opportunities have become more and more scarce during Obama's presidency. According to a recent report from the Economic Policy Institute, for calendar year 2010, THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR WORKERS 16-24 YEARS OF AGE AVERAGED 18.4% VERSES A RATE OF 9.6% FOR THE OVERALL POPULATION….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/hows_that_hope_and_change_working_out_for_obama_supporters.html

Will Obama be able to recreate the magic that swept him into office? Is the pope Muslim?

What does the Obama voter look like?

Looking at the latest polls from Gallup here is the group Obama is popular with (over 50% approval): an unmarried nonwhite Eastern liberal democrat under the age of 49 with a postgraduate degree who seldom or never goes to church.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx


Republican Debate

Overall, I was impressed. The talking heads keep chattering about a "weak" GOP field, but I didn't perceive weakness tonight. I saw a panel of strong, passionate communicators, and a number of credible alternatives to our current president and his disastrous policies. My quick, early take on each contender:

Bachmann - A STRONG PERFORMANCE. She came across as informed, polished, and personally invested in many of the issues that conservatives care about. I'm not sure why she chose to officially announce her candidacy during the first question, rather than her introductory comments, but that's a small quibble. Many conservatives will be very pleased that she is in, especially after tonight.

Cain - DELIVERED A FEW GOOD LINES, but was not nearly as strong as he was during his en fuego showing in South Carolina. His refusal to get into any specifics on foreign policy is troubling.

Gingrich - SEEMED UNFAZED BY HIS RECENT STAFFING, ER, ISSUES, and did a reasonably good job. Newt often comes across as professorial and long-winded, and lived up to those expectations again. He also gave another muddled, unconvincing answer on his infamous potshots at the Paul Ryan plan.

Paul - ADHERED TO HIS ISOLATIONIST, LIBERTARIAN POLICY PREFERENCES, and seemed less angry than he often does. Got the biggest laugh of the night when he was asked to name one economic policy President Obama has gotten right. His response: "That's a tough question!"

Pawlenty - Unlike his South Carolina triumph, T-PAW STUMBLED OUT OF THE GATE TONIGHT. He recovered with solid answers on national security and abortion, but not before he appeared weak and unwilling to really challenge Mitt Romney on the Massachusetts health program. If you're going to coin the term "Obamneycare" (which I think could be very effective), you need to own it. He didn't tonight.

Romney - TONIGHT'S WINNER, IN MY BOOK. He looked and sounded like he deserves the front-runner label. Poised and informed. He breezed through the Romneycare non-gauntlet virtually unscathed, which is a shame. If the rest of the pack wants to dislodge him from front-runner status, they're going to have to aggressively challenge him on this issue. The former Governor appeared to be in full command, and even had the awareness to sneak in the Bruins score (good news for the crowd), a savvy move in front of a New England audience.

Santorum - AN IMPROVEMENT OVER HIS RIGID, STILTED SOUTH CAROLINA SHOWING. He gave several good answers (separation of church and state, foreign policy come to mind), but I wouldn't call this a breakout performance -- which, as a perceived second-tier candidate, he's going to need…..

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/06/13/a_weak_field__not_tonight_a_post-debate_analysis

Just starting, but it appears to be a good start.

Bachman is in

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MINN.) ANNOUNCED DURING MONDAY EVENING'S PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE THAT SHE'D FILED PAPERWORK TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

"I filed today my paperwork to run for president of the United States … I wanted you to be the first to know," she said.

She added she would make a formal announcement at a later time
.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/166221-bachmann-files-to-run-for-president

Not really news, but it is official now.

Palin disappoints her Foes again

ANALYSIS OF THE FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR'S 24,000+ PAGES OF EMAILS FROM 2006 TO 2008 SHOWS SHE WRITES AT AN EIGHTH GRADE LEVEL, ACCORDING TO AOL WEIRD NEWS.

That's better than many major CEOs.

In comparison, Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address scored a grade level of 9.1 on the same scale, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s seminal 'I Have a Dream' speech scored an 8.8 on the scale.

One of two experts who analysed Mrs Palin's emails, JOHN KATZMAN, TOLD AOL: 'I'M A CENTRIST DEMOCRAT, AND WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SUPPORT MY HUNCH THAT MS.S PALIN IS ILLITERATE.

'However, the emails say something else. Ms. Palin writes emails on her Blackberry at a grade level of 8.5.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003144/Sarah-Palins-emails-written-8th-grade-level--better-CEOs.html#ixzz1PFRvtXbN

It appears she’s not only not illiterate, but actually smart.

Economics

Economics explained so even leftists can understand

Economics is too hard for liberals and many others. Who can tell from deficits and multipliers, after all? So it is time to dumb economics down, and make it simple enough for a baby to understand. "Economics for Babies." This could be a publishing sensation to equal the Dummies phenomenon. Here is how it works.

Drill, Baby, Drill. Our liberal friends are convinced, because their tame climate scientists have told them so, that conventional energy sources are either doomed, as in Peak Oil, or evil, as in coal and nuclear energy. IT'S A PITY THAT HORIZONTAL FRACTURING IS MAKING MONKEYS OUT OF THE PEAK OIL CHAPPIES. The only way to approach energy is to let the Rockefellers and the Fricks and the Texans and the Albertans and the North Dakotans go for it. If they make a mess -- and they will -- then we will make 'em clean it up.

Cut, Baby, Cut. Our liberal friends are convinced that, given sufficiently rigorous policy analysis and sufficiently inspired political leadership, they can design and build the bridge to the future with government programs. BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT GOVERNMENT SPENDING, ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING, IS A WASTE, STARTING WITH THE PENTAGON AND DEFENSE SPENDING. …

Grow, Baby, Grow. Our liberal friends are convinced that government must invest in the infrastructure to build "public goods." That is the rationale behind President Obama's crazed push for fast trains, clean green energy, and the rest of the liberal crony capitalist agenda…. …POLITICIANS ARE EXPERTS IN WINNING ELECTIONS, AND BUSINESSMEN ARE EXPERTS IN GROWING THE ECONOMY. POLITICIANS SHOULD STICK TO POLITICS, AND LET BUSINESSMEN GET ON WITH BUSINESS. Come on liberals: we all know how to grow the economy. You do it will low tax rates on people and low taxes on jobs.

Debt, Baby, Debt. What is it about the national debt? Under Alexander Hamilton the US national debt ignited an economic boom. UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA IT HAS SENT THE ECONOMY ON A RECOVERY TO NOWHERE.….

….Real economics is pretty simple. A baby could understand it. THE REASON IT'S GOTTEN SO COMPLICATED IS THAT POLITICIANS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO GAME THE ECONOMY TO BUY VOTES. Spend, Baby, Spend!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/economics_for_babies.html

This one is worth reading.

Obamacare

Why ObamaCare Is Losing in the Courts

When we first articulated ObamaCare's fundamental constitutional flaws in these pages nearly two years ago, our objections were met with derision by the law's defenders. Those who have been following the unfolding litigation are no longer laughing.

Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are poised to render decisions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the coming months. Despite hundreds of briefing pages and numerous oral arguments, GOVERNMENT LAWYERS HAVE YET TO ADDRESS THE LAW'S MOST BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY. Only a "general police power"—the right to enact laws alleged to be in the public interest without regard to interstate commerce or some other federal legislative authority—can support the law's centerpiece, the "individual mandate" that all Americans purchase health insurance. THE CONSTITUTION DENIES THAT POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, RESERVING IT TO THE STATES ALONE.

In enacting the individual mandate, Congress purported to rely on its power to regulate interstate commerce and, in the process, reach individuals who are already engaged in that commerce. BUT THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE DOES NOT REGULATE COMMERCE, INTERSTATE OR OTHERWISE. IT SIMPLY DECREES THAT ALL AMERICANS, UNLESS SPECIALLY EXEMPTED, MUST HAVE A CONGRESSIONALLY PRESCRIBED LEVEL OF HEALTH-INSURANCE COVERAGE REGARDLESS OF ANY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN WHICH THEY MAY BE ENGAGED. Requiring individuals to act simply because they exist is the defining aspect of the general police power that Congress lack,

The GOVERNMENT'S LAWYERS, RECOGNIZING THIS FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY, HAVE TRIED TO REWRITE THE LAW SO THAT IT CAN WITHSTAND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY. They have claimed that THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS A TAX, DESPITE COMMON SENSE, judicial precedent, and numerous statements to the contrary by the law's sponsors and President Obama. They have also argued that OBAMACARE DOES NOT ACTUALLY IMPOSE A MANDATE ON INACTIVE CITIZENS, BUT RATHER REGULATES HOW INDIVIDUALS WILL PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE. As Solicitor General Neal Katyal recently put it, THE MANDATE IS "ABOUT FAILURE TO PAY, NOT FAILURE TO BUY." This is plainly wrong. The law requires that everyone have health insurance—without regard to whether or how they buy or pay for medical services…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576383443814815916.html

Failure to pay???? Talk about digging deep.

Immigration

Immigration and the Welfare State

CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERTARIAN CRITICS OF IMMIGRATION LIKE TO CITE MILTON FRIEDMAN’S OBSERVATION THAT “[Y]OU CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVE FREE IMMIGRATION AND A WELFARE STATE,” which co-blogger Ken Anderson recently endorsed. The fear is that, given relatively open borders, immigrants from poor countries will flock to wealthy ones and undermine their economies by consuming huge amounts of welfare benefits.

I am a great admirer of Friedman and his scholarship. But he was not an expert on immigration, and, as far as I can tell, he never systematically studied the evidence on the impact of immigration on political support for the welfare state. THAT EVIDENCE OVERWHELMINGLY SHOWS THAT ETHNIC HETEROGENEITY GREATLY REDUCES SUPPORT FOR WELFARE STATE SPENDING because voters are less willing to support welfare programs if they believe that a large percentage of the money is going to members of a different racial or ethnic group.

I cite some of the relevant studies in a recent article in the International Affairs Forum on Immigration (pg. 43). THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THIS EFFECT HOLDS TRUE EVEN IN A STRONGLY LEFT-WING COUNTRY LIKE SWEDEN. This book by political scientists Donald Kinder and Cindy Kam presents the evidence for the United States (and to, a lesser, extent several European countries). HISTORICALLY, THE GREATER ETHNIC DIVERSITY OF THE US IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY WE HAVE A SMALLER WELFARE STATE THAN MOST EUROPEAN NATIONS; the evidence on that point is summarized in a well-known study by Edward Glaeser and Alberto Alesina. Because PEOPLE ARE MOST LIKELY TO SUPPORT WELFARE PROGRAMS WHEN THE MONEY GOES TO RECIPIENTS WHO ARE “LIKE US,” IMMIGRATION ACTUALLY UNDERMINES THE WELFARE STATE RATHER THAN REINFORCES IT. ….

http://volokh.com/2011/06/12/immigration-and-the-welfare-state/

An interesting look at a very perplexing problem.

Government Regulations

Drug shortages

Currently there are about 246 drugs that are in short supply, a record high. These shortages are not just a result of accident, error or unusual circumstance, the number of drugs in short supply has risen steadily since 2006. The shortages arise from a combination of systematic factors, among them the policies of the FDA. THE FDA HAS INADVERTENTLY CAUSED DRUGS LONG-USED IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE MARKET AND ITS “GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE” RULES HAVE GUMMED UP THE DRUG PRODUCTION PROCESS AND RAISED COSTS.

Here, for example, is an analysis from the summary report on drug shortages by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP).

“Several drug shortages (e.g., concentrated morphine sulfate solution, levothyroxine injection) HAVE BEEN PRECIPITATED BY ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED ACTION BY THE FDA AS PART OF THE UNAPPROVED DRUGS INITIATIVE, which is designed to increase enforcement against drugs that lack FDA approval to be marketed in the United States. (These drugs are commonly called PRE-1938 DRUGS, REFERRING TO THEIR AVAILABILITY PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT OF THAT YEAR.) Some participants noted that THE COST AND COMPLEXITY OF COMPLETING A NEW DRUG APPLICATION (NDA) FOR THOSE UNAPPROVED DRUGS IS A DISINCENTIVE FOR ENTERING OR MAINTAINING A MARKET PRESENCE. Other regulatory barriers include the time for FDA review of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) and supplemental applications, which are required for changes to FDA-approved drug products (e.g., change in source for active pharmaceutical ingredients API, change in manufacturer). Manufacturers described this approval process as lengthy and unpredictable, which limits their ability to develop reliable production schedules.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269583/fda-and-drug-shortages-veronique-de-rugy

Hmmm, so we have drugs that are 73 years old or more and the FDA want to qualify them now? And it’s causing shortages. This is stupidity at its most bureaucratic.

Climate

Are we headed to a mini-Ice Age?

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as HEAVYWEIGHT US SOLAR PHYSICISTS ANNOUNCE THAT THE SUN APPEARS TO BE HEADED INTO A LENGTHY SPELL OF LOW ACTIVITY, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.

The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour ALL INDICATE THAT A PERIOD OF UNUSUALLY LOW SOLAR ACTIVITY MAY BE ABOUT TO BEGIN….

…"If we are right," summarises Hill, "this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

The relationship of sunspots and climate has been well established for centuries. A lot of sunspots leads to warmer weather, better crops, and prosperity. A low number of sunspots lead to colder weather, shorter growing seasons, and less prosperity. Even the Farmer’s Almanac admits that sunspots are part of the formula they use to predict the weather since 1818 (with 80-85 percent accuracy).

Done in one: Why Obama will be an expresident in less than two years.

Why Obama will be a one term President

The president can hold as many town halls as he wants. He can attack Republicans to his heart’s content. He may be, as his supporters insist, hyper-rational, the very model of the complex, nuanced thinker, perhaps even “the smartest guy ever to become president.” He can be charming on Oprah. He can do lots of things. BUT ONE THING HE CANNOT DO IS ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. AND IF THE ECONOMY REMAINS FLAT ON ITS BACK—IF THINGS DON’T PICK UP SIGNIFICANTLY BETWEEN NOW AND THE SUMMER OF 2012—THEN THE ODDS ARE QUITE HIGH THAT WE’RE LOOKING AT A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/28/how-smartest-president-ever-becomes-one-term-president/


Read it to get all the particulars that represent what his actions have gotten us. Obama is a disaster as a president.



Stagflation comes to Obamaland

Call it the "excuses recovery." President Obama and his administration have been warning for the last week that THE JUST ANNOUNCED FIRST QUARTER GDP GROWTH RATE OF 1.8 PERCENT WOULD BE WEAK, AND THEY HAVE BEEN QUICK TO BLAME IT ON THE RECENT SPIKE PRICES IN OIL. The problem is that this whole recovery has been anemic, not just one or two slow quarters of economic growth.

SEVEN QUARTERS INTO THE OBAMA RECOVERY, GDP GROWTH HAS AVERAGED AN ANNUAL RATE OF ONLY 2.8 PERCENT. IN CONTRAST, SINCE 1970, THE FIRST SEVEN QUARTERS OF PREVIOUS RECOVERIES AVERAGED 4.6 PERCENT. The poor growth rate is especially surprising since the preceding recession was so severe, there should have been ample room for high growth as the unemployed returned to work. For example, the REAGAN RECOVERY FOLLOWED A SIMILARLY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND SAW THE ECONOMY GROW AT AN AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF 7 PERCENT.

The slight decrease in unemployment – currently at 8.8 percent -- has been touted as good news. Yet that slight drop has largely been the result of job-seekers giving up looking for work and leaving the labor force. ON TOP OF THAT, THE NEW JOBS THAT HAVE OPENED UP HAVE PRIMARILY BEEN TEMPORARY JOBS, THE NUMBER OF PERMANENT JOBS HAS ACTUALLY FALLEN.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/29/recovery-obama-offers-excuses-solutions/

I’ve seen liberal tout 3 quarters of growth,decreased unemployment, etc as reason Obama would win reelection. It just isn’t so.



Chris Christie Addresses Harvard on Education

Addressing the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Askwith Forum on Friday afternoon, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie chose two audience members from the front row, asked them their first names, and, casting them in the roles of two teachers being evaluated at the end of the year, as the school principal, addressed them something like this.

New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, April 28, 2011

“ROBERT, YOU HAVE BEEN ONE OF OUR BEST TEACHERS THIS YEAR. You are always here long before the morning bell and long after the afternoon bell. Your lesson plans are continually updated and innovative. Not only do your students love you, but by every measure we have your students are excelling. Parents call me and tell me how great you are at teaching their children and at communicating to them how their children are doing. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU A 4% RAISE.”

“NOW PAMELA, YOU ARE A LOST CAUSE. Pamela, we have all been disappointed again this year with your performance. You show up every day with the bell and you leave every day with the bell. Your lesson plans haven’t changed in years and your teaching shows it. Your students complain and the parents of your students complain all the time. Furthermore, the performance of your students is systematically well below average. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU A 4% RAISE.”

AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH EDUCATION IN NEW JERSEY.

Compounding that problem, Christie said, as he so often has, that the teachers unions in New Jersey are “a political thuggery operation” that PUTS THE INTERESTS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND THEMSELVES, THE UNION LEADERS, FAR ABOVE THE INTERESTS OF THE STUDENTS – if the students interests are ever considered at all.

Christie pointed out that 31 of New Jersey’s 500 plus school districts, THE WORST URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS, RECEIVE STATE AND FEDERAL SUPPORT TO THE TUNE OF $16,000 PER PUPIL PER YEAR, while the remaining 500 or so districts receive state and federal support of $2,900 per pupil per year. THE COST OF EDUCATING THESE URBAN SCHOOL STUDENTS COMES OUT TO SOMETHING OVER $33,000 PER PUPIL PER YEAR. (By comparison, the average cost of educating a pupil per year in Massachusetts is around $13,000).

http://www.mikestopa.com/2011/04/chris-christie-teaches-at-harvard/

Money isn’t the problem in failing schools and throwing more money at it isn't the solution.