Obama sinks further

What’s new today

Our #1 story The 99% Lie relates how the OWS movement is trying to portray themselves at the 99% united against the top 1%.  It’s class warfare at it worst. Our second story has an audio from Howard Stern as his people interview the OWS crowd.  #3 has statistics defining who the OWS protesters are. Far from representing the 99% of Americans who aren’t wealthy, they represent more the 20% of Americans who see themselves as liberals.  We find in story #4 that theft seems to be a problem in New York with the OWS camp.  #5 looks at how hope and change turns to hate and envy.  It appears there are only certain rich people we should hate.  Wolfe Blitzer tells us in our #6 story that the Democrats should be very concerned with the numbers he’s seeing.  #7 talks about the loss of hope on the left as Obama’s presidency appears more and more to be a disaster from their perspective.  Story 8 tells of how the media seems to have turned on Obama and how this year he’s getting a lot of negative press.  #9 details how despite having spent almost 16 trillion dollars on poverty, the poverty rate is as bad as it’s ever been.  Finally, #10 brings good news to conservatives as Fracking has gotten a clean bill of health. 

1.  The 99% Lie

…EVERY RADICAL LEFTIST SINCE MARX HAS CLAIMED TO REPRESENT THE REAL PEOPLE. Not even the trust-fund kids on Wall Street believe the 99% Lie. But Obama has now officially adopted it -- after stirring up the mobs via Axelrod's astroturfing rabble rousing.

OBAMA IS THEREFORE PUSHING THE DEMOCRATS OFF A CLIFF. Democrats running for election in moderately conservative America will have two unpalatable choices: RENOUNCE OBAMA AND POSSIBLY WIN, OR AGREE WITH OBAMA AND LOSE. If Obama stays the course, and he seems incapable of doing anything else, he will certainly split the Democrats for a generation to come.

Obama is a Leninist Marxist, a Third World Socialist. His ideology comes first, last and forever. Being part black comes far down the list of Obama's priorities, which is one reason why he does not care about black unemployment today.

Obama did not have to resort of mobs and the threat of riots --- the first US President ever to do so in American history. BUT HE DID, AND THAT WILL MEAN HIS INEVITABLE DEFEAT, AS GEORGE WILL HAS WRITTEN IN THE WASHINGTON POST….

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/the_99_lie.html

When the left accuses the TEA Party of being racists what they really mean is that it is racists to see through Obama and realize that he is a radical Marxist.

2.  Howard Stern Shows Idiocy Of #OccupyWallStreet Protesters

Listening to this is really discouraging.  It’s like a left wing version of Jay Walking. You listen and you wonder how these people survive.

http://www.breitbart.tv/howard-stern-takes-on-occupywallstreet/

3.   Who is OWS?

….Our research shows clearly that THE MOVEMENT DOESN'T REPRESENT UNEMPLOYED AMERICA AND IS NOT IDEOLOGICALLY DIVERSE. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that BELIEVES IN RADICAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND, IN SOME INSTANCES, VIOLENCE. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF DEMONSTRATORS SUPPORTED BARACK OBAMA IN 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and ONLY 48% SAY THEY WILL VOTE TO RE-ELECT HIM IN 2012, WHILE AT LEAST A QUARTER WON'T VOTE….

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is A DEEP COMMITMENT TO LEFT-WING POLICIES: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT SAY THAT GOVERNMENT HAS A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO GUARANTEE ALL CITIZENS ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, A COLLEGE EDUCATION, AND A SECURE RETIREMENT—no matter the cost. …

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

OWS is not a main street phenomenon, but rather a far left gathering.  Democrats embracing it will actually diminish their appeal to the center and this may in fact become the anti-TEA Party for its effect on the coming election.

4.  OWS: They Aren’t Only Radicals, There Are a Lot Of Thieves As Well

It’s a den of thieves!

OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTERS SAID YESTERDAY THAT PACKS OF BRAZEN CROOKS WITHIN THEIR RANKS HAVE BEEN ROBBING THEIR FELLOW DEMONSTRATORS BLIND, MAKING OFF WITH PRICEY CAMERAS, PHONES AND LAPTOPS -- AND EVEN A HEFTY BUNDLE OF DONATED CASH AND FOOD.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”…

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK#ixzz1b8gEvsZJ

Hmmm, I don’t remember this happening at TEA party rallies. 

5.  When Hope and Change becomes Hate and Envy

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have led increasingly successful efforts to pit Americans against one another through the politics of hate and envy. Attacking CEO salaries, the president — last year during his Midwest tour — said, "I DO THINK AT A CERTAIN POINT YOU'VE MADE ENOUGH MONEY."

Let's look at CEO salaries, but before doing so, let's look at other salary disparities between those at the bottom and those at the top. ACCORDING TO FORBES' CELEBRITY 100 LIST FOR 2010, OPRAH WINFREY EARNED $290 MILLION. EVEN IF HER MAKEUP PERSON OR CAMERAMAN EARNED $100,000, SHE EARNED THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE THAN THAT. Is that fair? Among other celebrities earning hundreds or thousands of times more than the people who work with them are Tyler Perry ($130 million), Jerry Bruckheimer ($113 million), Lady Gaga ($90 million) and Howard Stern ($76 million). According to Forbes, the top 10 celebrities, excluding athletes, earned an average salary of a little more than $100 million in 2010.

ACCORDING TO  SURVEY OF CEO COMPENSATION (NOVEMBER 2010), GREGORY MAFFEI, CEO OF LIBERTY MEDIA, EARNED $87 MILLION, Oracle's Lawrence Ellison ($68 million) and rounding out the top 10 CEOs was McKesson's John Hammergren, earning $24 million. It turns out that the TOP 10 CEOS HAVE AN AVERAGE SALARY OF $43 MILLION, WHICH PALES IN COMPARISON WITH AMERICA'S TOP 10 CELEBRITIES, WHO EARN AN AVERAGE SALARY OF $100 MILLION.

When you recognize that celebrities earn salaries that are some multiples of CEO salaries, you have to ask: WHY IS IT THAT RICH CEOS ARE DEMONIZED AND NOT CELEBRITIES? A clue might be found if you asked: Who's doing the demonizing?...

http://www.creators.com/conservative/walter-williams.html

Who is doing the demonizing?  The left of course and which side of the political spectrum are most celebrities on?  The left of course.

6.  Poll Numbers Should Alarm Democrats

THERE ARE SOME NUMBERS IN OUR NEW CNN-ORC INTERNATIONAL POLL THAT SHOULD SERIOUSLY WORRY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

Republicans are right now a lot more enthusiastic about voting in the next election than Democrats. Some 64% OF REPUBLICANS SAY THEY ARE EXTREMELY OR VERY ENTHUSIASTIC COMPARED TO ONLY 43% OF DEMOCRATS.

There were similar numbers in the 2010 mid-term elections and we know how well the Republicans did in Congress, including re-taking the majority in the House.

Democrats, by contrast, were much more enthusiastic in 2006 and 2008, and that certainly showed in the elections then.

But for the president, there may be an even more alarming number.

AMONG ALL VOTERS, 59% THINK THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES WILL FAIL COMPARED TO ONLY 36% WHO SAY THEY WILL SUCCEED.

IN 2010, 47% THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT’S POLICIES WOULD FAIL. AND BACK IN 2009, ONLY 32% THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT’S POLICIES WOULD FAIL.

You see the trend, and it’s not good for the president’s re-election prospects…

http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/17/blitzers-blog-poll-numbers-bad-for-obamas-reelection-prospects/?hpt=hp_bn3

A second term for Obama would be like the definition of the second marriage, that is, the triumph of Hope (and Change) over experience.

7.  When Hope is Gone

In Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men, the author interviews John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, who analyzes the difference between his former boss and Barack Obama. "Clinton has an ability to synthesize competing positions, to command the room and arrive at ingenious versions of the middle ground, that's often invisible to others," Podesta said. Whereas OBAMA "DRAWS PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONE, BUT HE DOES IT SUBTLY, CHALLENGING THEM WITH HIS OPENNESS AND HIS COMMITMENT TO CHANGE. He ends up making them rise to the occasion. He doesn't just synthesize and sell a solution. He finds opportunities in the larger body of players to create circumstances where change can happen. He's creating a space where solutions can happen."…

…As a result, OBAMA ENTERED OFFICE WITH A MANDATE THAT HAD CIVIL LIBERTARIANS AND PROGRESSIVES AS HOPEFUL AS THEY'D EVER DARED TO BE. But having created a space where change could happen, he proceeded to adopt most policies of his predecessor, so much that Dick Cheney, thought by progressives to be one of the most radical national security officials in U.S. history, ultimately began praising him. RATHER THAN REVERSE THE EXCESSES OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM, OBAMA HAS NORMALIZED MOST OF THEM, a course that has made the Bush/Cheney approach into the bipartisan consensus, a normalized part of the governing establishment in Washington, D.C.

FOR OPPONENTS OF BUSH/CHENEYISM, THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY HAS BEEN A DISASTER..

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/barack-obama-a-failed-problem-solver/246774/

This helps to explain the results of the poll above.  No wonder the Democrats are not nearly as enthusiastic as the Republicans are to vote.

8.   Obama’s coverage Changes

Poor President Obama.

After years of free rides, a new study indicates he's finally coming out on the short end of the media stick.

The PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM OF THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER has completed a massive compilation and evaluation of campaign news stories published daily by more than 11,500 news outlets and thousands of blogs between May 2 and Oct. 9. Using techie and computer stuff, the study evaluated the coverage on the basis of negative, positive or neutral.

Somehow, despite all the conventional conservative wisdom to the contrary, OBAMA CAME OUT WITH BY FAR THE MOST NEGATIVE COVERAGE. It was relentlessly bad, the ongoing study says, better than four-to-one negative. IN NOT ONE OF THE 23 WEEKS COVERED DID OBAMA'S PRESS COVERAGE EXCEED 10% POSITIVE….

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/588416/201110180824/Barack-Obama-Pew-Center-media-coverage-Rick-Perry-Ron-Paul.htm

An interesting article which gives you the breakdown of positive vs negative stories by candidate, but contrary to 2008 Obama is faring the worst of any candidate.

9.   Poverty in America

…No doubt President Johnson and those who supported the War on Poverty believed this action would eliminate poverty. BUT DESPITE SPENDING ALMOST $16 TRILLION SINCE DECLARING WAR ON POVERTY — WHICH IS MORE THAN THE NATIONAL DEBT THAT HAS ACCUMULATED THROUGHOUT OUR 235-YEAR HISTORY — WELFARE PROGRAMS HAVE FAILED TO REDUCE POVERTY.

And SPENDING FOR THESE PROGRAMS IS PROJECTED TO COST TAXPAYERS $10.3 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE. President Barack Obama’s FY 2011 budget request, for example, INCREASED TOTAL WELFARE SPENDING TO $953 BILLION, A 42 PERCENT INCREASE OVER WELFARE SPENDING IN FY 2008.

Even if welfare programs were working, given the current budget and debt crises, this kind of spending cannot be sustained; it will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue unreformed.

A lesson we never seem to learn is that throwing money at a problem rarely fixes it. Think stimulus 2009. President Obama’s advisors told us that if we passed the $767 billion stimulus bill, that ultimately cost taxpayers $862 billion, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent and the economy would get a big boost. Guess what?

Throwing $16 trillion at poverty has not ended poverty; in fact, poverty has grown. And evidence strongly suggests that EFFORTS TO END IT HAVE ACTUALLY HURT MANY OF THE PEOPLE IT WAS INTENDED TO HELP. A recent report by the Heritage Foundation notes that “POVERTY IN AMERICA IS OVERWHELMINGLY LINKED TO THE ABSENCE OF FATHERS AND A LACK OF WORK, but welfare payments have had the destructive effects of eroding marriage and the work ethic in low-income communities. ...WHEN THE WAR ON POVERTY BEGAN, 7 PERCENT OF CHILDREN WERE BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK; TODAY, THE FIGURE IS OVER 40 PERCENT.”

Poverty will never be completely eliminated, but we can reduce it substantially if we stop punishing marriage, foster job creation and stop rewarding people for not working. Continuing to throw money at it will not solve the problem.

http://bdtonline.com/columns/x350485855/Despite-trillions-in-welfare-spending-poverty-increases-in-America

I’m reminded of the old joke where a man tells his doctor, “When I lift my arm above my head it hurts.”  And the Doctor says as the solution to the problem, “Don’t do that.”  It appears the remedy the left has to poverty is not only NOT working, but making it worse.

10.                   Fracking Gets a Clean Bill of Health

Back in April, anti-drilling Chicken Littles gleefully cackled and clucked about a massive “blowout” at a Pennsylvania natural-gas well and SPECULATED THAT “THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF FRACK FLUID” WERE POISONING WATER WELLS AND CONTAMINATING A TRIBUTARY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, which flows into Chesapeake Bay. The Maryland attorney general threatened to sue the drilling company, with New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, chiming in.

Well, there must be plenty of rejoicing over saved salamanders now that A REPORT HAS FOUND “NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT” FROM THE LUTHER TOWNSHIP, PA, GAS-WELL MALFUNCTION, which accidentally released well fluids.

The 179-page report, which was PREPARED BY SAIC, A FIRM THAT SPECIALIZES IN WORKING WITH GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, CONTAINS EXTENSIVE WATER-SAMPLING AND OTHER DATA COLLECTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. It shows no lasting effect on the environment as a result of a surface release of well fluids from Chesapeake Energy’s “Atgas” well site.

Chesapeake funded the study, which was conducted according to DEP protocols and accepted by the agency and presents the large set of data and technical tables. Based on the information gathered during the first two weeks after the incident, the review has produced several important conclusions. Most important: THE DISCHARGE OF WELL FLUID FROM THE EVENT CAUSED ONLY MINIMAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. The impacts that did occur were localized, of short duration and confined to surface waters surrounding the site. There was NO HARM TO A NEARBY UNNAMED TRIBUTARY OR ITS WATERSHED AND THE TOWANDA CREEK, AND THERE WAS NO EFFECT NOTED ABOUT NEARBY OR REGIONAL WATER WELLS.

This accident was among the most serious that can happen during the completion of an onshore shale-gas well. YET NOBODY WAS INJURED, THE PUBLIC WAS NEVER IN DANGER, AND THERE WAS NO LASTING IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, as the analysis shows…..

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fracking_gets_clean_bill_of_health_4fKUCwH7xxh4EjhKrn8HFI#ixzz1b8BSCB7B

The anti-fossil fuels cabal was counting on fracking being poison to the natural gas industry.  With fracking unlocking previously unattainable natural gas, America’s energy future is bright even as solar, wind and other “renewable” energy sources struggle to be even remotely competitive.  This in fact reminds me of the lefts’ argument against vaccinations and genetically modified foods.  It makes sense only to extremists. 

The flim-flam man

The worst President ever?

While the debt ceiling dance continues in Washington D.C. and the Republicans in the Senate are going wobbly, they need to understand they are dealing not only with an intransigent party in the White House but also someone that is the most incompetent president in modern history, and the worst steward of the American economy since the nation's founding.

THE OBAMA SYCOPHANTS OFTEN RESORT TO THE WHITE HOUSE PRE-PACKAGED LINE THAT OBAMA INHERITED THE WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, as a means of deflecting responsibility onto George Bush. Like so many of the emanations from this administration that too is a fabrication. As side-by-side comparison of circumstances inherited by Reagan and Obama is as follows:

…. The other Obama failures: UNEMPLOYMENT WAS AT 7.6%, TODAY 9.2% (IF CALCULATED AS IN THE EARLY 80'S THE RATE TODAY WOULD BE OVER 10.5%). Annual GDP growth will be between 1.5 and 1.75% in 2011. All current estimates conclude that the final year of Obama's term will show a GDP growth of less than 2.2% and unemployment still around 8.8 to 9.0%. BUT MOST DEVASTATING OF ALL, THE ANNUAL FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT HAS AVERAGED NEARLY 10% OF GDP (double the worst single year from 1947 to 2008).

Additionally, the financial crisis of 2008 had been mitigated by the actions of George W. Bush (TARP et al) prior to Obama assuming office and THE RECESSION WAS DECLARED OVER BY JUNE OF 2009, Just 5 months after inauguration. On the other hand the recession in play when Reagan became president was in its early stages and did not officially end until November 1982, 22 months after inauguration.

IT HAS BEEN DEBATED WHETHER JIMMY CARTER OR BARACK OBAMA IS THE EPITOME OF INCOMPETENCE IN MODERN U.S. HISTORY. While Carter made myriad mistakes and was in over his head, he did not put the country in an untenable position regarding its future. Obama has…..

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_worst_steward_of_the_economy_in_american_history.html

The only good thing about Obama is that he’s has probably put Democrats out of power for the next twenty years which is ironic since when he was elected the pundits were talking about the Republicans being out of power for that amount of time.


Being Poor In America—Progress Style

….Census asserts a family is "poor" if its reported "income" falls below specific thresholds. The THRESHOLD FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR WAS $22,350 IN 2011.

But WHEN THEY COUNT "INCOME," CENSUS OFFICIALS IGNORE MOST WELFARE PROGRAMS such as: food stamps, public housing, energy assistance, and the earned income tax credit.

LAST YEAR, GOVERNMENT SPENT $684 BILLION ON MEANS-TESTED AID PROGRAMS PROVIDING CASH, FOOD, HOUSING, AND MEDICAL CARE TO POOR AND LOW-INCOME AMERICANS. But census officials count only about 6 percent of this as income for purposes of measuring poverty.

No surprise that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that low-income Americans spend at least $1.87 for every dollar of income that the Census Bureau says they have.

This, then, is the Catch-22: THE LEFT INSISTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SPEND MORE AND MORE TO FIGHT POVERTY, ONLY TO IGNORE THAT SPENDING WHEN COUNTING THE POOR.

The same Catch-22 shapes the class warfare debate. The left shrieks about inequality -- the gap between the rich and poor. In response, the rich are heavily taxed and hundreds of billions in resources are transferred to the poor. But, amazingly, few of those transfers are counted when the government next measures inequality.

IT'S A RIGGED GAME THE TAXPAYER CAN NEVER WIN….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/catch_22_on_poverty_and_welfare.html


Its worse that you might think. If you net out what isn’t counted as income you get $643 billion in aid. And 1 in 7 Americans amount to about 43 million people. If you divide the two numbers you come up with $15,000 per person that isn’t being counted as income. So a poor family of four could have a net income of between $60,000 and $82,000 and still be considered poor. Of course these figures are overstated because some of that money goes to bureaucrats to administer the programs, but the debate should be about reality rather than appeals to emotions.

Peggy Noonan: No one is listening

…. That's all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it's not helping. HE'S BECOMING BOX-OFFICE POISON. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt ceiling crisis began. That fall, from 52% to 46%, exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. PUBLIC POLICY POLLING, A DEMOCRATIC FIRM, SAID THAT IF HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT TODAY HE'D LOSE, THAT HIS JOB NUMBERS ARE "WORSE THAN THEY APPEAR," and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.
And if you've watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. HE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE FINAGLING, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. IN 2½ YEARS, HE HAS REACHED THE POINT THAT TOOK GEORGE W. BUSH FIVE YEARS TO REACH: PEOPLE AREN'T LISTENING ANYMORE….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576460381949867902.html

How can you tell when Obama’s lying? Well you know the punch line for that question.


Allende: The Truth Finally Comes Out

Elected with just 36% of the vote in a split election, he believed he had a mandate to ram through a hard-core Marxist program of expropriation and indoctrination like that of his mentor, Cuba’s Fidel Castro.

In the process ALLENDE LEFT CHILE’S ECONOMY IN RUINS AND TRAMPLED THE RULE OF LAW so badly he brought his country to the brink of civil war. He was stopped only when the LEGISLATURE CHARGED HIM WITH 22 CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS and ordered Chile’s military to oust him.

As Chilean jets strafed La Moneda presidential palace Sept. 11, 1973, ALLENDE SHOT HIMSELF WITH A GOLD-PLATED SUBMACHINE GUN GIVEN HIM BY CASTRO.

At the request of Allende’s family, an official investigation in May exhumed the dead man’s body, conducted forensic tests and on Tuesday FOUND THAT, YES, ALLENDE TOOK HIS OWN LIFE. It was what his family always believed, consistent with the tone of his final speech and a family history of suicides.

But rather than listen to the family, THE GLOBAL LEFT USED ALLENDE’S DEATH FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, FALSELY CLAIMING HE WAS KILLED. They did it for one reason: to discredit America and Chile’s successful free-market reforms that stand in stark contrast to Allende’s socialist failures.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/579143/201107211904/The-Lefts-Big-Lie-On-Allende.htm

Whenever a leftist claims something, it is wise to wait to see what the real story is.


What the polls are saying

New analysis by Pew Foundation on voter identification finds that, not surprisingly, “the electorate’s partisan affiliations have shifted significantly since Obama won office nearly three years ago.”

One of the most notable shifts is the GOP gain among white voters, most specifically “the young and poor.”

“A SEVEN-POINT DEMOCRATIC ADVANTAGE AMONG WHITES UNDER AGE 30 THREE YEARS AGO HAS TURNED INTO AN 11-POINT GOP ADVANTAGE TODAY. AND A 15-POINT DEMOCRATIC ADVANTAGE AMONG WHITES EARNING LESS THAN $30,000 ANNUALLY HAS SWUNG TO A SLIM FOUR-POINT REPUBLICAN EDGE TODAY.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/study-democrats-losing-support-of-poor-whites.html

Everything is look good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats.

Poverty in America

Poverty in America

Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” IN RECENT YEARS, THE CENSUS HAS REPORTED THAT ONE IN SEVEN AMERICANS ARE POOR. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?

For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, THE POVERTY PULSE POLL TAKEN BY THE CATHOLIC CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASKED THE GENERAL PUBLIC: “HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE BEING POOR IN THE U.S.?” THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF RESPONSES FOCUSED ON HOMELESSNESS, HUNGER OR NOT BEING ABLE TO EAT PROPERLY, AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET BASIC NEEDS.[1] That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.

Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

AS SCHOLAR JAMES Q. WILSON HAS STATED, “THE POOREST AMERICANS TODAY LIVE A BETTER LIFE THAN ALL BUT THE RICHEST PERSONS A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker….

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

The chart at the left tells us globally what poverty in America is like and it appears to be a lot better than many would lead us to believe.

Obama says "willing to take spending down"

Something remarkable occurred in President Obama's press conference on Friday (July 15). It was so astonishing that I was not sure I had heard right, and had to wait until the press conference transcript was posted on the White House website to be sure. But there it is in the sixth paragraph. Here is the quote in full:
Now, what that would require would be some shared sacrifice and a balanced approach that says we're going to make significant cuts in domestic spending. AND I HAVE ALREADY SAID I AM WILLING TO TAKE DOWN DOMESTIC SPENDING TO THE LOWEST PERCENTAGE OF OUR OVERALL ECONOMY SINCE DWIGHT EISENHOWER.

I, at least, have never heard this before, but "before" is not really important; President Obama has said it now. Republican negotiators, the Tea Party, indeed the country must hold him to it. THIS IS THE ENTIRE GAME, THE ENTIRE PROBLEM, IN SPENDING AND THEREFORE THE DEBT CEILING QUESTION.
Spending has exploded to 25+% of GDP on president Obama's watch, six percentage points above where it "should" be at 19% of GDP! If the president is willing to take spending back to 19% of GDP, which is the level implied by the Eisenhower reference, the game is won.

THIS IS A STATEMENT THAT SPEAKER BOEHNER SHOULD GRAB ON TO AND HOLD ON TO FOR DEAR LIFE. EVERY DISCUSSION FROM NOW ON SHOULD BEGIN BY HOLDING THE PRESIDENT TO THIS DECLARATION. With this statement as the predicate for discussions, we can get a satisfactory agreement on the debt ceiling.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/an_astounding_turnabout_by_obama.html

What Obama has said (though I doubt he meant it) was that he is willing to decrease spending by 8.4 trillion dollars over 10 years. If he comes through with that, Republicans should agree to tax increases in the neighborhood of $2 trillion over 10 years.

Presidential flummery and questions left unasked

BRAVO, JAKE TAPPER.

Finally from a member of the increasingly supine White House press corps came a question that demanded of the president specificity as to his alleged willingness to "upset his base."
TAPPER ASKED THE PRESIDENT ON FRIDAY TO "TELL US ONE STRUCTURAL REFORM THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO MAKE TO ONE OF THESE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS THAT WOULD HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE DEFICIT?"

The president spoke a long time in response but PROVIDED NO SUCH SPECIFICITY ABOUT EVEN ONE SUCH REFORM, revealing again that the would-be Emperor of the Big Deal has no plan beyond a political operation to assign blame for any unpleasant consequences of a collision with the existing debt ceiling.

Tapper prefaced his excellent question with the not-so-excellent statement that "we have an idea of the taxes that you would like to see raised on corporations and on Americans in the top two tax brackets," and that really isn't true. WE ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE PRESIDENT'S TAX HIKE LIST AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SORT OF "REVENUES" HE THINKS THESE TAX HIKES WOULD BRING.

Most suspect that all of the president's tax agenda wouldn't raise anything close to the amount of money he implies it would, and the impact on economic growth of another round of tax hikes is never discussed by the president or pushed by the overwhelmingly left-of-center, recovering JournoList fraternity covering the debt crisis in detail.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/07/presidential-flummery-and-questions-left-unasked#ixzz1STOlnTCy

The question from the previous article is whether or not that comment is also just flummery.

The Daily Show: Unbiased?

It was contentious and dramatic. On Sunday, June 19, “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace grilled funnyman Jon Stewart on his obvious liberal bias and Stewart replied, “… THERE IS NOT A DESIGNED IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA ON MY PART TO AFFECT PARTISAN CHANGE ...”

The exchange got heated when Stewart held that line, telling Wallace, “You can’t understand, because of the world you live in, that there is not a designed, ideological agenda on my part to affect partisan change, because that’s the soup you swim in.”

Well, “designed” or not, Comedy Central’s “THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART” MOCKS THE RIGHT FAR MORE THAN IT DOES THE LEFT, AND A SURVEY OF THE 16 BROADCASTS SINCE THE WALLACE-STEWART RUN-IN PROVES IT.

CMI found that Stewart went after Republicans and Fox News (which he labels “conservative”) almost FOUR TIMES AS OFTEN AS LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS IN JUST TWO WEEKS OF SHOWS. However the next eight broadcasts proved that Stewart just couldn’t help but show his true, partisan colors.

Whether he was poking fun at Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for her perceived Waterloo/John Wayne gaffe or calling Fox News a “lying dynasty,” Stewart’s ever-present bias comes awfully close to that of an “ideological, partisan activist.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/erin-r-brown/2011/07/18/numbers-dont-lie-daily-shows-stewart-hammers-right-nearly-4-times-more#ixzz1STGM6W51

If I know my liberals they would say it’s because the right deserves to be mocked four times as much as liberals.

Bill Maher: Liberal hatred on display

From everything I’ve read, the only factor remaining in Governor Palin’s decision-making process about a 2012 presidential run is the impact the campaign would have on her family — which is why I think Bill Maher went here:

Now, I’m not saying that sexism doesn’t exist and isn’t real. And we can’t, but we can’t throw around the word “sexist” just to stop people like me from pointing out that Michele Bachmann, now running second for the Republican presidential nomination, isn’t a dangerous nincompoop. And when I point out that SARAH PALIN IS A VAINGLORIOUS BRAGGART, A LIAR, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, AND THE LEADER OF A STRANGE FAMILY OF INBRED WEIRDOS STRAIGHT OUT OF “THE HILLS HAVE EYES,” THAT’S NOT SEXIST. I’M SAYING IT BECAUSE IT’S TRUE, NOT BECAUSE IT’S TRUE OF A WOMAN.

Really, Bill, this is “true?” Who has it in them to look at this photo of Tripp and Trig Palin, two beautiful and perfect children, and make jokes about “inbred weirdos?”

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/07/18/did-anyone-notice-bill-maher-trashing-sarah-palins-children-as-family-of-inbred-weirdos/

Maher’s slant is bigoted and misogynistic despite the rationalization he’s only saying it because it’s true. What self-delusional idiocy.

Climate change

Hints that CLOUD experiment supports cosmic ray climate impact

I have been following the results of the all the experments that infer cosmic rays have an implact on the earth climate ever since reading Chilling Stars by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark. The book was about his research into the effects that cosmic rays have on cloud formation and resulting inpact on climate change. Chilling Stars co-author was Nigel Calder.
HERE IS THE LATEST FROM CALDER ON THE STATUS OF THE CLOUD EXPERIMENT THAT WAS TO PROVE OR DISPROVE SVENSMARK'S THERORY ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN COSMIC RAYS AND THE EARTHS CLIMATE.
…Although still very busy with other work, I keep looking out for results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, which is testing Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays help to make clouds. They are due for publication this summer. All I have just now is a startling remark by Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, in an interview by Welt Online a few days ago.

Here is a tidied-up Google Translate version of the relevant exchange.
Welt Online: The results of the so-called CLOUD experiment, exploring the formation of clouds, are awaited with great excitement. COULD THESE RESULTS STILL BE IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?

Heuer: This is indeed a matter of understanding better the formation of clouds. In nature there are many parameters at work – including temperature, humidity, impurities and also cosmic radiation. IN THE EXPERIMENT, CLOUD INVESTIGATES THE INFLUENCE OF COSMIC RAYS ON CLOUD FORMATION, USING RADIATION [MEANING PARTICLES] COMING FROM THE ACCELERATOR. And in an experimental chamber one can study, under controlled conditions, how the formation of droplets depends on the radiation and particulate matter. The results will be published shortly. I HAVE ASKED THE COLLEAGUES TO PRESENT THE RESULTS CLEARLY, BUT NOT TO INTERPRET THEM. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. ONE HAS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT COSMIC RADIATION IS ONLY ONE OF MANY PARAMETERS….

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2011/07/hints-that-cloud-experiment-supports-cosmic-ray-climate-impact-.html

This is important. It may represent another nail in the global warming canard. The statement, “one has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters” certainly looks as if they have found that cosmic rays indeed seed cloud formation.