Ryan energizes the campaign

What’s New Today

Story # 1 and #2 are today’s signs of desperation by the Obama Administration.  #3 and #4 are stories of Paul Ryan.  It appears he’s making a difference already.  #5 looks at Medicare.  Expect to read a lot about it with lies and half-truths coming from the current administration. #6 is about the greens finally telling the truth.  They are opposed to any kind of energy.  

Today’s Thoughts

Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: Math.”

Democrats seem to be happy with Romney’s pick as they consider Ryan to be an extremist on budget issues.  Since when is balancing a budget and extremist view?

1.   Signs of Desperation

Email from Joe Biden:

“Starting now, we can expect even more wealthy, right-wing ideologues lining up to support the Romney-Ryan ticket” 

The people on the other side who are trying to buy this election are putting nasty, deceptive TV ads on the air right this very minute. They're not going away. They're getting worse.

If we don't do what we can to keep this close, right now at this crucial moment, we risk letting the other side run away with it.

"Keep this close?" I say. "They're posing as if they think they are already behind."…

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/08/starting-now-we-can-expect-even-more.html

They know they are in trouble.

2.  Signs of Desperation part 2

Romney did a great job responding to a heckler, then turned it on Obama telling him to get his campaign out of the gutter. Fantastic.

http://www.therightscoop.com/awesome-romney-responds-to-heckler-in-wisconsin-then-tells-obama-to-get-his-campaign-out-of-the-gutter/

It’s only a two minute video and worth watching.  It is exactly as the author characterized Romney’s response. 

3.  Ryan:  Inside Information

As they took their first steps together on the campaign trail today, it was revealed that Paul Ryan's path to becoming Mitt Romney's Republican vice-presidential running mate was steeped in secrecy, from an incognito trip to meet Romney to a furtive walk through the woods at his boyhood Wisconsin home.

The head of Romney's VP search process, longtime confidante Beth Myers, broke her silence on many details in a briefing with reporters inside a hangar at Dulles International Airport near Washington. Romney and Ryan themselves spoke to reporters briefly on their flight to North Carolina.

Almost a week ago, Ryan snuck through Chicago's O'Hare airport in a baseball cap and sunglasses and flew to New England. 

Myer's 19-year-old son picked up Ryan and drove him to a private meeting in his parents' dining room where the deal was sealed.

By Friday afternoon, Ryan was cutting through the Wisconsin woods behind his home to evade a reporter on the street out front, and heading to North Carolina. 

By night, he was eating Applebee's takeout at a nondescript chain hotel in that state and preparing for his big debut speech, according to Myers.

The search for VP was so confidential that background information on a short list of candidates, including several years of tax returns and other documents, were kept in a safe in a locked room at Romney's campaign headquarters and the few people allowed in were not permitted to make copies or take anything out….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187287/How-Paul-Ryan-donned-disguises-ate-Applebees-hid-VP-announcement.html#ixzz23OjgoaCA

A good start here as the decision, made last week, didn’t leak out.  

4.  Ryan energizes the Romney campaign

Newly minted vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan hit the stump this weekend with a level of energy that seemed to boost Mitt Romney’s entire campaign, giving the presumptive nominee a much-needed change in the narrative while adding another high-profile fundraiser and campaigner to deploy across the country.

It got off to an inauspicious start, though.

When Mr. Ryan was first introduced Saturday in Norfolk, Va., walking down the gangplank of the USS Wisconsin with the theme of the movie “Air Force One” playing in the background, Mr. Romney’s got a little ahead of himself, introducing Mr. Ryan as “the next president of the United States.”

Mr. Romney quickly corrected the slip-up, saying he had been known to make mistakes, “but I didn’t make one with this guy.”

Mr. Ryan showed a clear ability to connect with voters and infuse Mr. Romney’s campaign with, quite literally, a dash of youthful energy. At 42, Mr. Ryan is the same age as Mr. Romney’s eldest son, Tagg…

.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/12/ryan-pick-gives-romney-camp-a-jolt-of-energy/

Ryan brings a target of opportunity to the Democrats, but also a huge risk to them.  They are counting on the American public being ignorant of the problems with entitlements and how the Democrats and  President Obama has done absolutely nothing to address them.    

5.  Medicare:  It’s already ended as we know it

Liberals and Democrats these days like to believe that the Right and the Republican Party can be safely ignored. Obama and his allies argue that balance in media can be responsibly eschewed, because conservatives are inherently closed-minded, and the GOP, unlike the Democratic Party, is thoroughly unserious and dishonest.

I wonder if even the most strident and self-satisfied of these liberals -- to wit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman -- can maintain this self-serving posture when Joe Biden debates Paul Ryan this fall.

When Mitt Romney chose Ryan this weekend as his running mate, the liberal freak out was telling. Attacking the budgets Ryan authored, they have trotted out the hoary line that Ryan would "eliminate Medicare," and push grannie off a cliff.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina wrote that Ryan's "plan also would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors."

The "end Medicare as we know it" mantra highlights two ways in which it is the Democratic Party that is deeply unserious.

First, it echoes Obama's mendacity. Second, it reflects the party's irresponsible insistence on looking the other way while driving our government full speed toward the cliff of insolvency

.

Ryan's budget would not change anything about Medicare for people over age 54 or anyone younger who wants to go onto traditional Medicare. Ryan's plan, crafted with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden -- who earns gushing praise from self-styled wonks on the Left as a serious legislator (which he is) -- merely allows some people to opt instead for a voucherized version of Medicare.

So Democrats assert that Ryan-Wyden would "end Medicare as we know it," because any modification of any existing policy would "end" that policy "as we know it."

This slippery charge is Team Obama's standard rhetorical tack: Say something clearly misleading, but with one potential interpretation that could be construed as not a lie.

The Democratic alternative to Ryan's Medicare reform, meanwhile is, well, nothing…

http://washingtonexaminer.com/dem-demagoguery-on-ryan-reveals-lefts-shallowness/article/2504709#.UCiCQqDfWSo

Actually the response is not nothing.  Buried in Obamacare is the creation of the IPAB, a 15 member board that would have the power to reduce reimbursements on any and all Medicare covered procedures.  In fact, the IPAB and Obamacare have ended Medicare as we know it starting in 2014.  The Ryan Plan would affect new seniors going on to Medicare in 2024.  The two plans let you choose what you want to be insured against (Ryan) or lets a board choose what you will be insured against (Obamacare).  Add to this the fact that Obamacare relies on taking $500,000,000,000 out of Medicare to pay for the added people covered by Obamacare.

6.  Dedevelopment:  The Greens start to tell the real truth

…For years, the green argument was something like this: If only we can replace fossil fuels with cleaner, renewable energy sources, we can enjoy our current standard of living without endangering the environment. Now it appears some greens have advanced the argument to a brand new phase: It’s as if they’ve replaced a green energy policy with a no-energy policy.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/08/10/errant-greens-promote-no-energy-policy/

This is an example of where the left will take us.  Certainly Hope and Change ended up in recessions and despair.  Progressives have actually become Regressives. 

Dignity and the President

What’s new Today 

Story #1 is about Obama’s strutting his killing of Osama bin Laden.  Will he overplay his hand?  #2 looks at green energy and wonders if it is sustainable.  #3 looks at Elizabeth Warren’s Indian heritage.  #4 Occupy Wall Street bombers weren’t just looking at Cleveland.  #5 tells of a reward for Obama’s school grades.  #6 it appears the measures the environmentalists want to take to minimize global warming is bad for your health. 

Today’s thoughts

Harrison Schultz, a leader of the Occupy Wall Street movement, was asked what OWS had been up to in the recent months.  His reply: “We never left. We were just tired. I mean anarchy isn’t easy.”

Back when the OWS demonstrations began, a lot of Democrats embraced the movement.  They saw it as a distraction from the economy that would work to their benefit.  It was a distraction.  It isn’t to their benefit.  As time passes they are being shown to be thugs. 

Elizabeth Warren now insists she listed herself as a minority law professor in hope of making friends, not to get ahead. 

1.  Should Obama Spike the Ball?

A Year after SEAL Team Six took its heart-stopping tour of the bin Laden compound in Abbottabad and took out the world’s most evil man, we’re talking about who deserves the credit.

That didn’t really seem to be a subject of controversy a week ago, but it has become one now — and oddly, that’s due to the man who actually got the credit.

President Obama got it, and he should have gotten it. He made the call, he gets the credit and anyone who says he shouldn’t is blinded by unreasoning hatred.

Or maybe is annoyed by just how much President Obama is demanding that everybody give him the credit. ..

….But note this distinction: We’re talking here about Obama the politician, not Obama the president. Shnorring for credit is an understandable act for a politician. It’s a little discomfiting for a president.

Why is that?

It’s actually a leadership issue of a different kind from the decisiveness he showed in making the call last year. Even though he said he didn’t want to “spike the football,” spiking the football is fine — just so long as he makes it clear that he is America’s representative and that it’s America spiking the football, not just Barack Obama.

And what’s been missing over the past week is the appropriate show of humility — even if it is a false humility — of merely acting on the public’s behalf and with the public’s will.

More troubling, perhaps, is the implicit credit-grabbing here from others who work under him and take orders from him — whose numbers in this specific case probably reach into the thousands…

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/modest_proposal_for_bam_s63bLCHpLhzSHb3nZNT5YK#ixzz1tkE5vnUH

The biggest problem was he took what should be a positive ad about his biggest victory and he threw in the negative part of questioning whether Mitt Romney would have done this.  That was stupid on the Administrations part.  It dragged BHO down into the mud with the other Administration surrogates. 

2.   What Liberals actual know, but won’t admit

…Obama boasted that his $2.3 billion plan would “help close the clean-energy gap between America and other nations.” But other nations now move in the opposite direction. “Countries are cutting these programs because they realize they aren’t sustainable and they are obscenely expensive,” says the American Enterprise Institute’s Kenneth P. Green. In Spain, economists at La Universidad Rey Juan Carlos found that each “green” job cost more than $750,000.

Obama claims that if we “invest” more, we can “create millions of jobs — but only if we accelerate the “green transition.” What could make more sense? A little push from the smart politicians, and — voila! — an abundance of new jobs and a cleaner, sustainable environment. It’s the ultimate twofer. Except it’s an illusion, because governments do not “create” jobs.

“All the government can do is subsidize some industries while jacking up costs for others,” writes Green. “It is destroying jobs in the conventional energy sector — and most likely in other industrial sectors — through taxes and subsidies to new green companies that will use taxpayer dollars to undercut the competition. The subsidized jobs ‘created’ are, by definition, less efficient uses of capital than market-created jobs.”

In judging any government initiative, you can’t look just at the credit side of the ledger. Government is unable to give without first taking away. Inevitably, more is taken away because the government substitutes force for free exchange. Instead of a process driven by consumers weighing their preferences, we get one imposed by politicians’ grand social designs, what F.A. Hayek called “the fatal conceit.” The green schemes make energy cost more.

Of course, some who push “green jobs” want the price of energy to rise. Then we will live in smaller homes, drive less and burn fewer fossil fuels. But if the environmental lobby wants Americans to be poorer, it ought to come clean about that…

http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/keeping-nature-exactly-as-is-forever/

That is the problem and the actual conceit of what the left is doing.  They do want American’s to be poorer along with the rest of the world.  That is why some of the more honest extremists talk of dedeveloping America.

3.  Affirmative Action for Elizabeth Warren

The NYT reports that “officials involved” in hiring Elizabeth Warren “all said that she was hired because she was an outstanding teacher, and that her lineage was either not discussed or not a factor.”

What would you expect them to say?

“To suggest that she needed some special advantage to be hired here or anywhere is just silly,” said Jay Westbrook, chairman of business law at the University of Texas.

But you see, in faculty hiring, the question isn't whether this particular candidate is good enough. The question is why does this person with excellent credentials get selected from the pool of applicants who all have excellent credentials? Why did Warren move up the ranks of the law schools the way she did?

Her identification as a member of a minority group in the Association of American Law Schools directory would help. Why are the schools reticent about saying that they consider minority status a plus factor in hiring? Why aren't they out-and-proud about diversity?...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/05/nyt-reports-that-officials-involved-in.html

It appears the NYT is suffering from the “conservative” bias that considers affirmative action candidates not as “good” as non-affirmative action candidates.   

4.  Occupy Bombers targeted the Republican Convention too

Five self-proclaimed anarchists were arrested Monday after allegedly conspiring to blow up a bridge about 15 miles south of Cleveland. Based on statements in the affidavit, not only are the suspects linked to the Occupy movement, but one of them mentioned the Republican National Convention in Tampa as another possible target.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephen Anthony says, "The co-conspirators placed the inert IEDs at the base of a concrete support pillar and prepared to remotely detonate the devices."

But officials say their plan fizzled out after an undercover agent sold them two inoperable explosive devices.

Agent Anthony adds, "I want to stress, we all want to stress up here, that at no time during the course of the investigation was the public ever in danger."

What's troubling for many, though, is that two of the men -- 26-year-old Douglas Wright and 20-year-old Brandon Baxter -- also discussed timing and how to "make a good statement" at the Republican Convention in Tampa.

Tampa Police confirm there is a special transportation committee set up whose prime objective is to keep our roadways and bridges safe during the convention and Ken Jones, the president of the Republican National Convention Host Committee, told 10 News earlier this year, "While it may be a little nervous to most people what we know is going on out there, we know they're going to do their job to protect us at this event."…

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/253517/250/Did-alleged-bridge-bombers-also-target-the-RNC

There definitely is something wrong with the leftist’s brain that thinks violence is not only acceptable, but it is desirable. 

5.   $10K reward for Obama’s College Transcripts

The Daily Caller has identified the owner of a website that promised on Tuesday to pay $10,000 to anyone who can provide an authentic copy of President Barack Obama’s course transcripts from his days at Occidental College, Harvard University or Columbia University.

Although its one-page website is presented anonymously, conservative blogger Brooks Bayne confirmed to The Daily Caller that he is responsible for it.

Bayne told The DC that a group of eight people  – including some he called “recognizable” figures – are coordinating the effort to make Obama’s college transcripts public, Bayne told The Daily Caller. He declined to name any of them.

“We are doing this because we are tired of the media not doing their job,” he said. ”We are tired of the PR propaganda coming out of places like Media Matters, and we are tired of this administration stonewalling over things like Fast and Furious.”

“We are tired of a lot of things.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/01/10000-bounty-offered-online-for-obama-college-transcripts/#ixzz1tilLJ3yn

Not real news, but interesting considering the stink the left is making over Romney’s tax returns. 

6.   Global Warming Policies are bad for your health

Policies to reduce global warming may be doing more harm than good to public health in both developing and industrialised countries. This is the conclusion of a new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

In his report, Dr Indur Goklany, a leading expert on human health and climate change, shows that

• Global warming does not currently rank among the top public health threats

• The contribution of much-publicized 'Extreme Weather Events' to global mortality is negligible and declining.

• Poverty is a much larger public health threat than global warming

• Present climate policies are already adding to death and disease

• Focused adaptation to climate change and/or economic development would provide greater health benefits at lower costs than climate mitigation policies.

The report warns that exaggerating the impact of global warming on human health seriously risks misdirecting the world’s priorities and resources in combating poverty and improving public health.

“Climate policies that hinder or slow down economic development or increase the price of energy and food threaten to augment poverty and, as a result, increase net death and disease,” Dr Goklany said.

The increase in biofuel production between 2004 and 2010, for example, is estimated to have increased the population in absolute poverty in the developing world by over 35 million, leading to about 200,000 additional deaths in 2010 alone.

http://nation.foxnews.com/global-warming/2012/05/02/report-global-warming-policies-may-be-bad-your-health#ixzz1tiuNkwiJ

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

Obama electability and energy--neither look good for him

What’s new Today

Our #1 story talks about Obama’s chances for reelection.  I find he is toast.  As a student of history I know when there is an economic downturn, the party in the White House loses seats and the Presidency if it is still happening during a presidential election.  #2. Talks about Obama’s speech on energy and the falsehoods in it. #3 has a complementary story to that one with oil executives and what they have to say about Obama.  #4 has some shocking statistics of the cost of green jobs finance by the stimulus.  #5 tells you of what they are doing in green energy in Massachusetts.  And our final story #6 looks at the charge by the left that a law being considered in Virginia was the equivalent of rape to women wanting an abortion.  It appears there is more than a little exaggeration there. 

1.  Obama’s Actual Reelection Chance

Barack Obama is a lame-duck president already, but he probably doesn't realize it since he is surrounded by leftist zealots who insulate him from any contrary opinions and shielded by the partisan mainstream media. Obama's popularity began falling right after his election, and the percentage disapproving has exceeded those approving steadily since 2009. Each and every voting bloc that supported him in 2008 has eroded by at least 10 points -- even the African-American voters, with independents and young voters dropping by over 30 points. Approval on major issues (economy, budget, deficit, employment, etc.) has also eroded, with disapproval exceeding approval ratings across the board.

Despite approval ratings lower than any president's in recent history, the media push-polls are trying to sell us the idea that Obama is well liked and has a good chance to be re-elected, meanwhile ignoring any and all facts that do not support their partisan message. The good news is that there has been a mass awakening of the American people, who now realize that the mainstream media has a decided leftist tilt and that media polls can no longer be trusted…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_has_already_lost_and_he_doesnt_even_know_it.html#ixzz1nIB8LATd

The election will be a huge shock to the left.  I think they are beginning to believe the press. 

2.  The Five Biggest Whoppers in Obama’s Energy Speech

Energy: The White House billed President Obama's energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.

Obama's main message to struggling motorists was: It's not my fault, so stop whining. The speech only got worse from there, recycling excuses and myths that Obama's peddled for years. But there were some standout whoppers that deserve debunking. The five biggest:

"We're focused on production."

Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House….

"The U.S. consumes more than a fifth of the world's oil. But we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves."

Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that "we can't drill our way to lower gas prices." The argument goes that since the U.S. supply is limited, it won't ever make a difference to world prices.

It's bogus. New exploration and drilling technologies have uncovered vast amounts of recoverable oil…..

"Because of the investments we've made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled."

Fact: Production of renewable energy — biomass, wind, solar and the like — climbed just 12% between 2008 and 2011, according to the federal Energy Information Administration….

http://news.investors.com/article/602120/201202231855/obama-high-gas-price-myths.htm

When Obama claimed to have nearly doubled the use of clean renewable energy you know his off in fantasyland.  Do we really want to have good money follow bad? 

3.  Oil Executives complain about the Obama Administration

…"These have been the most difficult three years from a policy standpoint that I've ever seen in my career," Bruce Vincent, president of Houston oil and natural gas producer Swift Energy, told the Houston Chronicle.

"They've done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting," he added. "The Obama administration, unfortunately, has threatened this industry at every turn."

Vincent led the voices exposing White House press secretary Jay Carney's phony assertion Wednesday when asked about gas prices soaring above $4 per gallon.

Carney said President Obama had "put in place policies that will dramatically expand the amount of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, will expand the amount of exploration in Alaska, will expand the amount of natural gas production here in the U.S."

Really? "The administration has done everything BUT support drilling," said NAPE attendee and former Shell executive John Hofmeister. "We are on the verge of slipping into an energy abyss."

Shell has fought the administration to begin drilling in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska….

http://news.investors.com/article/602069/201202231805/energy-abyss-caused-by-obama-policies.htm

The truth and the Obama Administration are not close friends.  But you really can’t blame Obama.  If he told the truth no one would vote for him again. 

4.  Your Taxpayer Dollars at Work:  Crony Green-Job Edition

‘

A new Wall Street Journal investigative report shows that once again there are discrepancies between the number of jobs claimed to have been created by the stimulus money and the actual number of jobs created. In this case, the Journal looks at the jobs created with $10 billion spent on renewable-energy companies for building wind farms, solar projects, and other alternatives to oil and natural gas under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

On paper the program claims to have created 102,883 jobs. That’s too few jobs considering the $10.7 billion paid to 5,098 businesses for 31,540 projects according to the Department of Treasury. That’s also $97,197 per job.

But it gets worse, because these jobs probably aren’t real. This reported number of jobs is a product of formulas, mathematics models, and reports by recipients of the money rather than actual counting of jobs. For instance, the Congressional Research Service last year alerted Congress that the recipient reports were full of errors and it recommended “that any job creation estimate be viewed with skepticism.” CRS also noted that the market response to these new facilities was mixed to say the least.

Now here is some of what we know for sure about the wind-farm jobs:

● About 40 percent of the funding — roughly $4.3 billion — went to 36 wind farms. At the peak of employment, these firms employed 7,200 workers. But these were temporary jobs, as is almost always the case with stimulus money. Now these 36 farms employ 300 employees. If you do the math and calculate the cost per job, you may well fall off you chair.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291883/your-taxpayer-dollars-work-crony-green-jobs-edition-veronique-de-rugy

I’ve done the math so you don’t have to.  Using the peak numbers (7200) that comes to almost $600,000 per job ($597,222).  Using the current employees (300) that comes to over $14 million per job. 

5.  Wind Power in Massachusetts

…A proposed merger between two local utilities, NStar and Northeast Utilities of Connecticut, gave Patrick the opportunity to put together a clever plan. His administration approved the $17.5-billion deal on two conditions: the new utility company must purchase 27.5% of the output of Cape Wind, the controversial offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Secondly, the utility must freeze its rates for the next four years, and distribute a one-time rebate of $21 million to customers.

George Bachrach, the president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, wrote in the Globe: "The Patrick administration deserves great credit for negotiating the recent merger agreement with NStar that will both protect ratepayers and make Cape Wind a reality." A Boston Globe editorial titled "NStar deal, rise of Cape Wind will boost state’s economy” had similar praise.

It would appear that the state gets green energy to satisfy the Renewable Portfolio Standard, while utility customers (aka voters) get relief from higher utility bills. Everyone wins!

Er, not exactly.

To begin with, that $21-million rebate works out to a one-time payment of around $13. I'll try to not spend it all in one place.

Secondly, we are in the midst of a natural gas boom that promises to revolutionize America's energy picture. Natural gas prices have plummeted from near $5 per MMbtu last summer to around $2.60 per MMbtu. According to the EIA, the energy equivalent of $3 natural gas is $18 oil.

The Globe editorial admits:

Cape Wind power will likely be costlier than that from fossil fuels, and it looks even worse next to today's historically low natural gas prices. But fossil fuel prices are notoriously volatile; the deal will lock in predictable wind power rates for years.

It's true that locking in prices will protect consumers from volatility, but if the volatility stems from collapsing prices, this will benefit only utilities, not consumers…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/on_the_cusp_of_a_natural_gas_bonanza_massachusetts_bets_on_wind_power.html#ixzz1nI8rRC4N

As these last two stories demonstrate, wind power is not ready for prime time. 

6.  Abortion and Ultrasound

Over the last few weeks, an intense controversy has raged in Virginia, where Republicans have introduced a bill that requires -- among other things -- that women undergo an ultrasound prior to getting an abortion. The pro-abortion lobby has hysterically opposed the legislation (does their opposition ever take any other form?), going so far as to compare it to forcible rape.. Their point, to be charitable, is based on the fact that one form of ultrasound involves a more invasive probe than the over-the-abdomen method many people associate with the practice. The usual crowd of media dupes have carried water for the extremists, parroting various iterations of the "mandatory ultrasounds = rape" talking point. The problem? It's thoroughly bogus. Commentary's Alana Goodman has emerged as a one-woman debunking machine:

The complaints are the ultrasounds are needlessly invasive, not medically necessary, and would be forced on women seeking abortions, even if they don’t want them. This criticism misses one crucial point: Planned Parenthood policy already requires ultrasounds before abortion procedures. “That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”

According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women won’t consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to the group’s national standards. “...If she’s uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she’s not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure,” Schreiber told me.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/02/24/abortion_zealotry_on_display_in_virginia

Thursday: OWS, Income Inequality and the Reasons for Obama's second Stimulus

What’s new today

Our #1 story addresses the issue of income inequality.  It seems according to the article that it has been overstated by the left.  #2 tells of Obama’s bus trip through Virginia and notes who the crowds have gotten so much smaller than 2008.  We look at anti-Semitism with the OWS in #3.   Article #4 tells of Mark Steyn’s take on the Occupy Movement.  In #5 Harry Reid tells us why Obama’s job bill is directed at government workers.  It seems the private sector is doing fine.  #6 relates how the cost of green energy in Europe will double the cost of electricity and #7 is an update on an Obama Green Energy Scandal. 

1.   5 reasons why income inequality is a myth — and Occupy Wall Street is wrong

Sorry, the story just doesn’t hold together. According to left-wing think tanks, columnist and bloggers—and, of course, the Occupy Wall Street radicals—the top 1 percent have been exploiting the 99 percent for decades. The rich have been getting richer at the expense of the middle class and poor.

Really? Just think for a second: If inequality had really exploded during the past 30 to 40 years, why did American politics simultaneously move rightward toward a greater embrace of free-market capitalism? Shouldn’t just the opposite have happened as beleaguered workers united and demanded a vastly expanded social safety net and sharply higher taxes on the rich? What happened to presidents Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry? Even Barack Obama ran for president as a market friendly, third-way technocrat.

Nope, the story doesn’t hold together because THE FINANCIAL FACTS DON’T SUPPORT IT. And here’s why:

1. In a 2009 paper, Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon FOUND THE SUPPOSED SHARP RISE IN AMERICAN INEQUALITY TO BE “EXAGGERATED BOTH IN MAGNITUDE AND TIMING.” Here is the conundrum: Family income is supposed to rise right along with productivity. BUT MEDIAN REAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME—AS REPORTED BY THE CENSUS BUREAU—GREW JUST 0.49 PERCENT PER YEAR BETWEEN 1979 AND 2007 EVEN AS WORKER PRODUCTIVITY GREW FOUR TIMES FASTER AT 1.95 PERCENT PER YEAR. The wide gap between the two measures, if accurate, would suggest wealthy households rather than middle-class families grabbed most of the income gains from faster productivity.

But Gordon explained that this “compares apples with oranges, and then oranges with bananas.” When various statistical quirks are harmonized between the two economic measures, Gordon found middle-class income growth to be much faster and the “conceptually consistent gap between income and productivity growth is only 0.16 percent per year.” THAT’S BARELY ONE‐TENTH OF THE ORIGINAL GAP OF 1.46 PERCENT. IN OTHER WORDS, INCOME GAINS WERE SHARED FAIRLY EQUALLY….

… 5. Set all the numbers aside for a moment. If you’ve lived through the past four decades, DOES IT REALLY SEEM LIKE AMERICA IS NO BETTER OFF TODAY? It doesn’t to Jason Furman, the deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council. Here is Furman back in 2006: “Remember when even upper-middle class families worried about staying on a long distance call for too long? When flying was an expensive luxury? When only a minority of the population had central air conditioning, dishwashers, and color televisions? When no one had DVD players, iPods, or digital cameras? And when most Americans owned a car that broke down frequently, guzzled fuel, spewed foul smelling pollution, and didn’t have any of the now virtually standard items like air conditioning or tape/CD players?”…

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/5-reasons-why-income-inequality-is-a-myth-and-occupy-wall-street-is-wrong/

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15351

Another left wing myth that is false. 

2.  Obama fades in Virginia

President Barack Obama’s bus trip into the commonwealth on Tuesday drew hundreds of devoted followers — and cold shoulders from some high-profile Virginia Democrats.

Obama, midway through a three-day swing in largely rural areas of North Carolina and Virginia, continued to pitch a $35 billion fund that would allow localities to avoid teacher, firefighter and police layoffs.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66290.html#ixzz1bEIMPtKZ

The crowds are small and the enthusiasm diminished.  BHO needs to get used to it.

3.   Is OWS Anti-Semitic?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/10/simon-wiesenthal-center-issues-statement-on-ows-anti-semitism/

There certainly are elements of it.  Does it define the movement?  You be the judge. 

4.   OWS—A Pathetic Movement?

On Rush Limbaugh’s Wednesday show, FILL-IN HOST MARK STEYN SAID HE HAS LOW REGARD FOR OCCUPY WALL STREET — not necessarily because it is a left-wing movement, but, he explained, because it is an imported movement.

“I’m not sure how many people know this, but this whole thing — THIS IS THE MOST PATHETIC REVOLUTION IN HISTORY,” STEYN SAID. “[French revolutionary] Robespierre would have no time for these guys, Lenin would have no time for these guys, Mao would have no time for these guys — these big sloth demonstrations, the big sloth movement. It’s not even American — THIS WHOLE THING WAS COOKED UP BY THE VANCOUVER-BASED ADBUSTERS MEDIA FOUNDATION. THAT’S VANCOUVER AS IN VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, BY THE WAY. That’s as in Vancouver, British Columbia, Dominion of Canada. What has it come to? What has it come to? What is the state, the pitiful state of America’s rebellious youth when America’s rebellious youth have to basically be lame southern front men for what is essentially a Canadian rebellious youth movement. This is pathetic.”

But beyond origins of the Occupy Wall Street movement, STEYN RIPPED THE PROTESTERS FOR MIXING THEIR SIGNALS.

“This is disgraceful,” he said. “This Occupy Wall Street movement must be the dumbest revolution out. The problem with Occupy Wall Street, by the way, isn’t hard to figure out: IT’S GOT NO SOLUTION TO THESE THINGS EXCEPT MORE GOVERNMENT … THEY’RE ANARCHIST FOR MORE GOVERNMENT. They want to stick it to the man. On the one hand they want to urinate and defecate all over police cruisers, but on the other hand, they’re saying we need a bigger government budget. They’re sticking it to the man by asking the man to write them a bigger check. It’s the most pathetic revolution in history.”


http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/19/mark-steyn-occupy-wall-street-lame-pathetic-import-from-canada-video/#ixzz1bGuaDG7R

Mark Steyn is extremely witty.  He really brings the Occupy Movement down a couple of notches (and they were very high up on the notches to begin with). 

5.   Harry Reid’s gaffe:  That’s right he tells the truth

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.

“IT’S VERY CLEAR THAT PRIVATE-SECTOR JOBS HAVE BEEN DOING JUST FINE; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to “put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well …

that’s our priority.” HE SAID REPUBLICANS ARE CALLING THE BILL A “FAILURE” BECAUSE THEY ARE “USING A DIFFERENT BENCHMARK FOR SUCCESS THAN WE ARE.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/a-moment-of-candor-from-harry-reid.php

The last stimulus kept the state governments from laying people off, but it only delayed the actions that needed to be done.  Here’s another delay, but it doesn’t solve the problem.  So what's really behind Obama's and Reids plan?  Governmental Unions are big contributors to the Democratic Party.  By funding union jobs, they indirectly fund Democrat candidates in the upcoming election.

6.   EU Leak Shows Wind, Solar Energy to Double Power Bills

According to a leaked European Commission report on the future of energy in Europe, THE SLOW SWITCH TO GREENER SOURCES OF ENERGY IS GOING TO PUSH THE COST OF ELECTRICITY THROUGH THE ROOF. The FT has the story:  

Average electricity prices for households and businesses would rise “strongly up to 2020-2030” under all scenarios, the document says, and the highest prices would occur after 2030 if renewable sources of power, such as wind and solar, make up a large share of energy production. For example, AVERAGE PRICES FOR HOUSEHOLDS COULD JUMP BY MORE THAN 100 PER CENT BY 2050 IF THIS WERE THE CASE but only by 43 per cent under a scenario that assumed more nuclear power and carbon capture and storage were used.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/#post-15644

Here’s one of the many problems with green energy.  Not only is it not scientifically feasible to replace carbon based fuels at this time, trying to do so make energy prices skyrocket and living standards crash. 

7.   Obama Scandals Update:  SunPower altered press releases

It appears as though the Obama administration has been caught red-handed trying to cover up evidence in relation to the “green” loans programs that helped finance Solyndra. CNBC reports that A NUMBER OF PRESS RELEASES POSTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAVE BEEN RETROACTIVELY ALTERED TO REMOVE THE NAME A SOLAR COMPANY THOUGHT BY MANY TO BE THE NEXT “GREEN” FAILURE:

The changes occurred in two press releases from the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program --- the same program that has been the center of controversy surrounding the failed solar company Solyndra.

Both were changed to remove the name of a company that has received negative press attention in recent days, SunPower, and replace it with the name of another company, NRG Energy.

In the April case, the Department of Energy loan programs office announced in a press release on April 12 “conditional commitment” to a $1.187 billion loan guarantee to support the California Valley Solar Ranch project, which it said was “sponsored by SunPower Corporation.”

But that release was later changed on one website to say the project was “sponsored by NRG Energy.” The date on the release remained “April 12, 2011.”

The name substitution is not completely random. NRG recently FINALIZED ITS ACQUISITION OF THE CALIFORNIA VALLEY SOLAR RANCH PROJECT FROM SUNPOWER IN SEPTEMBER. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF THE PRESS RELEASE IN APRIL, SUNPOWER STILL CONTROLLED THE PROJECT.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280715/busted-doe-altered-solyndra-related-documents-andrew-stiles

This is not good news. It does sound like the administration doesn’t have a lot of faith in the project.