Newt and Obama

What’s new today

Stories #1 thru #3 are about the new front runner in the Republican field, Newt Gingrich.  #1 tell us why Gingrich will get the nomination.  #2 has two videos with Newt testifying about Climate Change.  Finally #3 talks about the latest polls and Gingrich.  #4 relates how the Young Communist League has declared the need to reelect Barack Obama.  #5 tells of a White House official who seems to have some doubts about Obama’s chances of reelection. In #6 President Obama asks for more time to ‘fix’ America.  We then change types of stories and look at the difference between sophistication and clarity.  It seems some think nuance is better than explaining something clearly.  Or perhaps they simply want to pretend to know more than they do.  #7 discusses this. We move to foreign affairs in #8.  It appears Iran is under attack as they try to become a member of the nuclear club.  Are Iran and Israel already at war?  #9 is our final story regarding Obamacare.  We’ve passed it.  We now are seeing what is in it.  And it isn’t very good. 

1.   Why Newt will Win

…Gingrich is also a different kind of animal than any of the other contenders who’ve risen to the top slot. The people who supported him did so knowing he had baggage. Newt had affairs before he converted to Catholicism. Newt has also taken some positions in recent years that aren’t doctrinaire conservative. So, most of these people are unlikely to be swayed by pointing out Newt’s baggage or positions he took that they disagree with because that was baked in the cake from the beginning when they supported him.

Moreover, Newt is inoculated against charges that he’s not a conservative because of his accomplishments. This is the guy who led the first GOP takeover of Congress in 40 years. He came up with the Contract with America. He helped balance the budget, made welfare reform happen, and worked hand in glove with Reagan and Bush as they took the Soviet Union apart. Other than Ronald Reagan, no one has actually accomplished as much for conservatism in D.C. over the last 40 years as Newt Gingrich — and despite the complaints about his leadership, there certainly has been no one since who has even come close to filling his shoes in Congress.

Worse yet for Mitt, the “not electable” charge won’t hold against Newt either. Although polls this early don’t mean much, Rasmussen currently has Gingrich up 45% to 43% over Obama with likely voters. That should be good enough to convince people that at a minimum, Newt is as electable as Mitt….

http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/gop-2012-analysis-why-newts-likely-to-win/

Newt is an appealing candidate because he is so bright and articulate.  In addition, his dirty laundry has already been put out there so there won’t be much the Democrats will be able to sling without people thinking, so what else is new.  Finally the revelation by his daughter Jackie about what actually occurred when Newt visited his estranged wife at the hospital (she is alive and it was she who filed for divorce months before the visit) takes off the biggest negative.  In fact, Gingrich more than any other Republican is more or less bullet proof this election.   

2.  Newt on Climate Change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEOXI88lSw8&feature=player_embedded#!

Mixing it up with Representative Waxman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44fPSn7VxKs&feature=related

I especially liked when Newt lectures Waxman on not considering the American public the same as foreign dictators.  Slam dunk. 

3.   Gingrich Grabs Huge Lead in Florida

IN FLORIDA GINGRICH IS AT 47% TO 17% FOR ROMNEY, 15% for Herman Cain, 5% for Ron Paul, 4% for Michele Bachmann, 3% for Jon Huntsman, 2% for Rick Perry, 1% for Rick Santorum, and 0% for Gary Johnson....

In addition to his support for the nomination, Romney's personal popularity is down too. His Florida favorability was +43 (65/22) and it's declined 28 points to +15 (51/36)....

THE BIGGEST REASON FOR NEWT GINGRICH'S RISE IS THAT HE'S PICKED UP THE VOTERS OF HERMAN CAIN AND RICK PERRY AS THEIR CAMPAIGNS HAVE FALLEN APART. But these numbers make it pretty clear he's doing more than that- some of Mitt Romney's '25%' is starting to fall off and move toward Newt as well.

THE MAGNITUDE OF GINGRICH'S LEADS NOW IS AN INDICATION THAT HE'S APPEALING TO EVERY SEGMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN ELECTORATE. He's up with the Tea Party in both states (53% to 24% for Cain and 7% for Romney in Florida, 42% to 18% for Bachmann, 13% for Cain, 10% for Paul, and 5% for Romney in Montana.) But he's winning over party moderates as well (33% to 22% for Romney in Florida, 31% to 17% for Romney in Montana.) GINGRICH'S FAVORABILITY IN FLORIDA IS 72/21 AND IN MONTANA IT'S 65/23. YOU DON'T ATTAIN THOSE KINDS OF NUMBERS WITHOUT HAVING A LOT OF APPEAL TO EVERY FACTION IN THE PARTY….

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ppp-polls-florida-gingrich-47-romney-17_610806.html

This is a PPP poll (democrat poll).  There is no doubt that Gingrich appears to be the strongest candidate against Romney. 

4.  Young Communists in the USA declare for Obama

While addressing a gathering  the international communist front World Federation of Democratic Youth, in Lisbon Portugal, November 10, 2011, YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ORGANIZER LISA BERGMANN, BOASTED OF COMMUNIST LEADERSHIP IN THE US “OCCUPY” MOVEMENT AND THEIR DESIRE TO HARNESS THE MOVEMENT TO THE RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.



http://biggovernment.com/tloudon/2011/12/01/young-communist-boasts-of-communist-leadership-in-occupy-movement-links-to-re-election-of-obama/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29

So far Obama has been endorsed by the Young Communist League, the KKK, and the American Nazi Party.  I’m thinking we won’t see those endorsements in any of the Democratic ads in 2012. 

5.   W.H. Associate Director Doesn’t have Much Confidence Obama will be Reelected

President Obama “has been pretty clear” in his support for big-ticket items on the homosexual activist agenda – like trying to repeal the "so-called" federal Defense of Marriage Act -- according to a top White House liaison to the LGBT community.

But now, “IN WHATEVER TIME WE HAVE LEFT” IN OFFICE, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONCENTRATE ON LESSER-KNOWN ITEMS ON THE LGBT ACTIVIST AGENDa – including HIV/AIDS and helping homeless transgendered teens, Gautam Raghavan, associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, said Tuesday night.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-aide-obama-should-concentrate-transgender-issues-whatever-time-we-have-left

They have until January 20, 2012.  

6.   Change:  Obama asks for More Time

Barack Obama asked voters yesterday to keep believing in the 'hope and change' he promised in 2008, saying he needed more time to turn America around.

But the President admitted it was 'tempting to believe that change may not be as possible as we thought.'

His plea came as Occupy Wall Street protesters began to turn on him, with dozens of demonstrators calling for a stop to re-election politics and economic inequality.

At a series of fundraisers in New York, where he raised a reported $2.4million for his campaign and those of other Democrats, Mr Obama acknowledged frustration over the stalemate in Washington which has soured views of his leadership.

'It has been three wrenching years for this country,' said Mr Obama, who said he needed another term to fully address the economy, the environment and other issues….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068453/Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-turn-Obama-schmoozes-corporate-donors.html#ixzz1fIXWFbY9

What does the left mean?  We’ve had plenty of change.  We have increase the debt by over $4 trillion in less than three years.  We’ve raised unemployment to 9 plus percent for the past 30 months.  We’ve lent money to failed solar companies, armed Mexican drug cartels, shut down oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, delayed the building of a pipeline from Canada, and have sicced the EPA on coal burning generating stations.  And the reason it’s been three wrenching years for the country has to do with Barack Obama being the President.

7.   Warning:  If there’s ‘Nuanced,’ You’re Being Had

Clear speaking and clear writing are foundational to clear thinking. These concepts do not imply a crude command of language or understanding, but rather a solid command of thought. UNFORTUNATELY, CLARITY OF EXPRESSION IS TOO OFTEN CONFUSED WITH PRIMITIVENESS, AND OBSCURITY (OR EVEN GIBBERISH) IS TOO OFTEN CONFUSED WITH SOPHISTICATION (OR THE DREADED NUANCE). These confusions are especially common in liberals and so-called intellectuals….

….NUANCED. Nuance is the holy grail of liberals and intellectuals. IT IS ALSO MEANINGLESS, EXCEPT AS A WAY TO OBFUSCATE MUDDLED THINKING AND PUFF UP AN EGO. The only way to understand difficult material -- pardon me, nuanced material -- is THROUGH A LUCID UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS UNCLEAR OR COMPLEX. A beautiful example of how clear communication does not equate with a lack of polish or insight involves Richard Feynman, the greatest physicist of his time. He had a unique way of explaining complex phenomena.

Shortly after the Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986, mathematicians, engineers, researchers, and scientists of all stripes were tasked with looking into its causes. Feynman was among them. In a public demonstration, Feynman asked for a glass of ice water. HE DROPPED A PIECE OF RUBBER INTO THE GLASS, TOOK IT OUT, AND SHOWED HOW AT FREEZING TEMPERATURE, THE RUBBER LOST RESILIENCE. This un-nuanced demonstration -- no equations, no jargon, no blackboard -- illuminated to the general public and the struggling experts what had gone wrong (at least with the engineering) to cause the explosion.

S. Fred Singer's American Thinker articles about global warming are also excellent examples of how genuine nuance arises naturally from clearly described questions and conditions.

Even in literature, nuance arises from clarity. You might think that the line "Jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule" is poppycock (from Bob Dylan's song "Visions of Johanna"). But at least you know what the poppycock is. You may appreciate the nuances of Hamlet's dilemma, but to do so, you must first understand what is bothering him.

ERIC HOLDER'S INFAMOUS REMARKS ABOUT OUR NATION'S COWARDICE ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT PASSES FOR NUANCE IN THE LIBERAL POLITICAL REALM. (As a bonus, he even threw in a "many ways" reference.) "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards[.]" Without further exploration of that notion, he then called for a nuanced discussion of affirmative action. How can you hope to sip from the holy grail of nuance if you're busy defending yourself against an ugly, unfocused accusation? (For a hilarious exposé of nuance gone wild, read Alan Sokal's book, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science.)…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/warning_if_theres_nuance_youre_being_had.html#ixzz1fHKsVUAK

This is a good article of how the left tries to use obfuscation to confuse and put down their opponents.  In reality the nuances they talk about generally are simply facts they want to counter, but they can’t. 

8.   Iran Under Attack?

I THINK WE CAN OFFICIALLY SAY THAT A STATE OF WAR EXISTS BETWEEN IRAN AND ISRAEL. The Iranians are still denying anything happened at their uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan while the Israelis aren't even trying to hide their involvement.

Satellite imagery seen by The Times confirmed that a blast that rocked the city of Isfahan on Monday struck the uranium enrichment facility there, despite denials by Tehran.

THE IMAGES CLEARLY SHOWED BILLOWING SMOKE AND DESTRUCTION, NEGATING IRANIAN CLAIMS YESTERDAY THAT NO SUCH EXPLOSION HAD TAKEN PLACE. Israeli intelligence officials told The Times that there was "no doubt" that the blast struck the nuclear facilities at Isfahan and that it was "no accident".

[...]

On Monday, Isfahan residents reported a blast that shook tower blocks in the city at about 2.40pm and seeing a cloud of smoke rising over the nuclear facility on the edge of the city.

"THIS CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE FACILITIES IN ISFAHAN, PARTICULARLY TO THE ELEMENTS WE BELIEVE WERE INVOLVED IN STORAGE OF RAW MATERIALS," SAID ONE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE SOURCE.

He would not confirm or deny Israel's involvement in the blast, instead saying that there were "many different parties looking to sabotage, stop or coerce Iran into stopping its nuclear weapons program"….

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/israel_refuses_to_deny_responsibility_for_isfahan_blast.html#ixzz1fHPHTsQs

While the West sleeps, someone is taking action. 

9.   Obamacare:  We Have to Pass the Bill to Find Out What’s In It.

….In contrast to mandatory screening for terrorists, THE GOVERNMENT IS ACTIVELY DISCOURAGING AMERICANS FROM REGULAR SCREENING FOR COMMON FORMS OF CANCER. The federal government’s U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently declared that men should not undergo routine screening for prostate cancer with the PSA blood test — currently considered part of prudent preventive health care for men over age 50 by many primary care physicians and the American Cancer Society. In 2009, the USPSTF similarly recommended restricting screening mammography to women over 50 (and only at 2 year intervals), despite the proven medical benefits of the current practice of screening women starting at age 40 at yearly intervals.

After years of arguing that regular cancer screening saves lives, the government now warns that such routine screening creates unnecessary emotional distress, leads to further risky invasive tests, and raises overall health costs. Regardless of the scientific merits of these claims, blogger Glenn Reynolds notes that many skeptical Americans fear that the government’s real agenda is to save money at the expense of their health. UNDER OBAMACARE LEGISLATION, THE USPSTF WILL SET THE DE FACTO STANDARDS FOR WHAT PREVENTIVE SERVICES WILL OR WILL NOT BE COVERED BY GOVERNMENT INSURANCE (and most private health insurance), thus affecting millions of Americans….

 http://pjmedia.com/blog/screening-for-terrorists-vs-screening-for-cancer/
The more we find out, the worse it looks. 

All things Obama

Time for a Regulation Time Out

Last year, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to a company that sells packaged walnuts. Believe it or not, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CLAIMED THE WALNUTS WERE BEING MARKETED AS A DRUG. So Washington ordered the company to stop telling consumers about the health benefits of walnuts.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule on fossil-fuel emissions from boilers that—by the EPA's own admission—would cost the private sector billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. THE OWNER OF A SMALL BUSINESS IN MAINE TOLD ME THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO SCRAP A NEW, $300,000 WOOD WASTE BOILER HE RECENTLY INSTALLED.

No wonder America's employers dread what is coming next out of Washington. Our country cannot afford regulations run amok at a time when no net new jobs are created and unemployment remains above 9%. But at least we're safe from health claims about walnuts.

America's overregulation problem is only getting worse. RIGHT NOW, FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE AT WORK ON MORE THAN 4,200 RULES, 845 OF WHICH AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES, the engine of job creation in our country. MORE THAN 100 ARE MAJOR RULES, WITH AN ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MORE THAN $100 MILLION EACH.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583082888335542.html

When you give people jobs writing regulations, they will write regulations.  When you run out of things that should be regulated, they will find things that CAN be regulated.

Did Massive Government Spending during World War II end the Depression?

…Perhaps ironically, one of the most powerful challenges to any Keynesian diagnosis of economic ailments also focuses on inadequate investment spending, but from a wholly different perspective. That challenge is today most closely associated with the economist Robert Higgs.

Higgs' careful look at the data on the Great Depression and World War II convinced him that (1) A U.S. ECONOMY PRODUCING GENUINE PROSPERITY WASN'T RESTORED UNTIL 1946, AND (2) INVESTORS HUNKERED DOWN, ESPECIALLY FROM 1935-40, BECAUSE NEW DEAL REGULATIONS -- along with President Franklin Roosevelt's increasingly vocal hostility to enterprise and successful risk-takers -- created too much uncertainty about how government would treat profits and wealth accumulation.

The "regime uncertainty" -- described by Higgs as "a pervasive uncertainty among investors about the security of their property rights in their capital and its prospective returns" -- unleashed by actual and threatened New Deal interventions made private innovation and entrepreneurial effort simply too unattractive. So PRIVATE INVESTMENT SPENDING LARGELY GROUND TO A HALT DURING FDR'S REIGN.

The "Great" was thus put into the Great Depression.

Regime uncertainty - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_757981.html#ixzz1Z3y4Sh57

It appears that FDR’s death may have had more to do with the ending of the Depression than did the massive government spending. 

Eight Questions for Protectionists

An excellent article.  Here were my favorite four questions of the eight asked. 

1. DO YOU THINK POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU’RE ALLOWED TO BUY?

As Walter Williams has explained, this is a simple matter of freedom and liberty. If you want to give the political elite the authority to tell you whether you can buy foreign-produced goods, you have opened the door to endless mischief.

2. IF TRADE BARRIERS BETWEEN NATIONS ARE GOOD, THEN SHOULDN’T WE HAVE TRADE BARRIERS BETWEEN STATES? OR CITIES?

This is a very straightforward challenge. If protectionism is good, then it shouldn’t be limited to national borders….

6. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, BY CREATING THE ABILITY TO OFFER SPECIAL FAVORS TO SELECTED INDUSTRIES, PROTECTIONISM CREATES ENORMOUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR CORRUPTION?

Most protectionism in America is the result of organized interest groups and POWERFUL UNIONS trying to prop up inefficient practices. And they only achieve their goals by getting in bed with the Washington crowd in a process that is good for the CORRUPT NEXUS OF INTEREST GROUPS-LOBBYISTS-POLITICIANS-BUREAUCRATS….

8. CAN YOU POINT TO NATIONS THAT HAVE PROSPERED WITH PROTECTIONISM, PARTICULARLY WHEN COMPARED TO SIMILAR NATIONS WITH FREE TRADE?

Some people will be tempted to say that the United States was a successful economy in the 1800s when tariffs financed a significant share of the federal government. That’s largely true, BUT THE NATION’S RISING PROSPERITY SURELY WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE HAD NO INCOME TAX, A TINY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND VERY LITTLE REGULATION. And I can’t resist pointing out that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff didn’t exactly lead to good results.

We also had internal free trade, as explained in this excellent short video on the benefits of free trade, narrated by Don Boudreaux of George Mason University and produced by the Institute for Humane Studies

http://freedomandprosperity.org/2011/blog/eight-questions-for-protectionists/

I’ve seen many of the arguments mentioned here put forth by those on the left.  These are excellent questions that will allow you to answer their charges.  FYI, here’s some information on Smoot-Hawley

Another Reason Liberal Hate Fox News

The Fox News Channel beat out local television and CNN as Americans' number one source of television news on national and international issues, according to a survey published Thursday by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press.

In the survey, which was conducted July 20-24, Pew asked 1,501 American adults whether they got most of their television news on national and international issues from local television, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, or if television was not a main source of news for them.

FOX CAME OUT ON TOP WITH 19 PERCENT SAYING THEY GOT MOST OF THEIR TV NEWS THERE. THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY LOCAL TELEVISION AT 16 PERCENT, CNN AT 15 PERCENT, NBC AT 10 PERCENT, ABC AT 8 PERCENT, CBS AT 7 PERCENT, AND MSNBC AT 6 PERCENT….

http://nation.foxnews.com/fox-news/2011/09/23/pew-fox-news-channel-america-s-no1-source-tv-news#ixzz1Z45TWCER

The biggest problem for liberals with Fox is that they don’t like what Fox covers.

 

Michio Kaku Comments on the CERN particle experiment

…Reputations may rise and fall. But in the end, this is a victory for science. NO THEORY IS CARVED IN STONE. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. IN SCIENCE, 100 AUTHORITIES COUNT FOR NOTHING. EXPERIMENT COUNTS FOR EVERYTHING.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903703604576588662498620624.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I’m a big fan of Dr. Kaku and this is an excellent piece.  The last statement is an important one when you want to say there is a consensus or that the science is settled. 

Global Warming Update

In a fresh challenge to claims that there is scientific "consensus" on climate change, PROF IVAR GIAEVER HAS RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, WHERE HIS PEERS HAD ELECTED HIM A FELLOW TO HONOUR HIS WORK.

The society, which has 48,000 members, has adopted a policy statement which states: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring."

But Prof Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, told The Sunday Telegraph. "INCONTROVERTIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC WORD. NOTHING IS INCONTROVERTIBLE IN SCIENCE."

The US-based Norwegian physicist, who is the chief technology officer at Applied Biophysics Inc and a retired academic at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the oldest technological university in the English-speaking world, added: "GLOBAL WARMING HAS BECOME THE NEW RELIGION."…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Professor Gaiever’s resignation is a big deal as is Michio Kaku’s quote above. 

Yale Paper on Climate Change

.....Professor Dan M. Kahan and his team surveyed 1540 US adults and determined THAT PEOPLE WITH MORE EDUCATION IN NATURAL SCIENCES AND MATHEMATICS TEND TO BE MORE SKEPTICAL OF AGW CLIMATE SCIENCE. Of course this means that people will less education are more apt to be duped by it.

Surprised? Here’s an excerpt of the study’s abstract (emphasis added):

The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. ON THE WHOLE, THE MOST SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE AND NUMERATE SUBJECTS WERE SLIGHTLY LESS LIKELY, NOT MORE, TO SEE CLIMATE CHANGE AS A SERIOUS THREAT THAN the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.....

http://notrickszone.com/2011/09/26/yale-paper-shows-that-climate-science-skeptics-are-more-scientifically-educated/

In other words, the more you know, the more likely you are to doubt that climate change is a serious threat which is the opposite what the warmist love to charge. 

Thursday: Obama, spending, and the debt

Politics
Bankers Say Supporting Obama Is "Bad For Business" And Embarrassing

IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED THAT WALL STREET WAS DEEPLY OFFENDED BY OBAMA'S "FAT CAT" COMMENTS AFTER HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT, so much so, that longtime Democratic supporters have shifted their support to the GOP for the next election.

In fact, some Wall Streeters even alleged that at an even more basic level, Obama just doesn't like rich people.

But apparently the disdain for Bam on the Street may be mostly appearances.
According to Andrew Ross Sorkin at Dealbook,

While MANY OF THE BIGGEST NAME FINANCIERS FEEL THAT THEY CAN’T PUBLICLY SUPPORT MR. OBAMA through campaign contributions the way they did in 2008 — “it would be bad for business,” one brand-name chief executive of a major bank acknowledged — SOME STILL PLAN TO VOTE FOR HIM….

http://www.businessinsider.com/bankers-actually-do-support-obama-theyre-just-too-embarassed-to-do-it-publicly-2011-6#ixzz1QevR9Zp2

Stupidity knows no bounds. There should be a new book written, “What’s the Matter with Wall Street?”

Poll Numbers Continue Alarming Trend for Obama

As Alana wrote earlier today, according to the latest McClatchy-Marist poll:

• ONLY 37 PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS APPROVE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY, HIS LOWEST RATING EVER.

• By nearly 2-1 (61 percent v. 32 percent) voters disapprove of how he’s handling the federal budget deficit.

• Fifty-eight percent of voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, comprising 60 percent of independents, 31 percent of Democrats and 91 percent of Republicans.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/28/poll-numbers-continue-alarming-trend-for-obama/

This is actually worse for Obama than it seems. Pollsters always add, but people still approve of him personally. We won’t vote for him to be a friend, but someone responsible for the economy as President. This points to a big loss next year.

Morning Examiner: Obama’s debt deal desperation

The Gang of Biden is dead. President Obama has met with one Republican leader once on the debt limit. And that meeting produced nothing. Meanwhile there are only 24 working days until financial Armageddon supposedly begins on August 2nd. THE WHITE HOUSE IS GETTING DESPERATE.

THEY APPEAR TO HAVE REALIZED THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE 100 PERCENT SERIOUS WHEN THEY SAY THEY WILL NOT PASS ANY DEBT-LIMIT HIKE THAT INCLUDES ANY TAX HIKES. But Obama's base would be demoralized if he failed to win tax hikes. So the White House needs a game changer. Two possibilities have emerged.

From the White House, National Journal’s MARC AMBINDER REPORTS THAT OBAMA BELIEVES HE CAN GET THE REPUBLICANS TO CAVE ON TAXES IF HE FIRST LETS THE BOND MARKETS PANIC IN LATE-JULY. Obama then hopes that Wall Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will force Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to compromise, like he did on the FY 2011 budget deal earlier this year.

Outside the White House, more and more prominent Democrats are questioning whether the debt limit is even constitutional. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., became the latest Democrat to raise the argument yesterday. IF THERE IS NO DEBT DEAL, AND BOND MARKETS DO PANIC, WHAT IS STOPPING OBAMA FROM JUST ORDERING TREASURY SECRETARY TIM GEITHNER TO ISSUE MORE DEBT? IF OBAMA CAN JUST IGNORE THE WAR POWERS ACT, WHY NOT THE DEBT LIMIT TOO?...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/morning-examiner-obama-s-debt-deal-desperation#ixzz1Qfe7IWih


Obama and the Democrats are in trouble. The debt is leverage that the Republicans have over a Democrat Senate and an extremist executive. I’m looking for something that the democrats will howl at.

Team Obama nervous

IT’S BEEN A ROUGH JUNE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. Instead of being able to run a campaign taking credit for economic improvement, President Obama will, according to the latest forecasts, be trying to win four more years amid a grim economy next year. THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION TEAM, ONCE HOPING TO RUN ON A “MORNING IN AMERICA” THEME NOW DOESN’T HAVE THAT LUXURY. No wonder, the president’s advisers over the past month have been making moves that suggest they’re awfully concerned about his prospects:

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/nerves-show-on-team-obama-20110628

This one is well worth your time to read it. It talks about the four corners of the Obama reelection strategy and the holes they are trying to fill.


Obama: Do you want the good story or the bad one?

First the good one

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA SAYS IT WOULD DEFY COMMON SENSE FOR BOEING CO. TO HAVE TO SHUT DOWN A NEW AIRCRAFT PLANT OR LAY OFF WORKERS AS A RESULT OF A LABOR DISPUTE WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

Obama says companies need to have the freedom to relocate work, though they must follow the law when doing so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-us-companies-like-boeing-need-freedom-to-relocate-within-us/2011/06/29/AGwD3pqH_story.html

The left is quick to condemn companies moving jobs overseas, but here we have a case of a company wanting to keep jobs in America although in a right to work state. It would seem the NLRB should remember this before they do stupid things.

And now the bad one

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the AFGHANISTAN DECISION PRESIDENT OBAMA ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK WAS NOT AMONG THE RANGE OF OPTIONS THE MILITARY PROVIDED TO THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”

Allen: “It was not.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/general-reveals-obama-ignored-militarys-advice-afghanistan_575902.html

The question here is not whether Obama had the right to override the military’s options, but was it wise to do so. It appears this was a political decision rather than a military one.

Michele Bachmann from a liberal perspective

The Michele Bachmann surge (confirmed most recently by the latest PPP poll) suggests the question is not whether Bachmann is a legitimate contender for the Republican nomination but what it will take to stop her from winning. AS I'LL EXPLAIN, I DO THINK BACHMANN CAN BE STOPPED. BUT THE GENERAL ADVANCE OF CONSERVATISM WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OVER THE LAST THREE DECADES HAS BEEN A REPEATED PATTERN OF THE UNTHINKABLE BECOMING THINKABLE, and the trend has sharply accelerated over the last two years. Moderation simply lacks any legitimacy within the GOP. It exists, but -- UNLIKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WHERE MODERATION IS A FREQUENT BOAST -- it's undertaken almost entirely in secret. Since Barack Obama's inauguration, virtually every quarrel within the Republican Party between moderates and maximalist partisans has been resolved in favor of the latter. Bachmann has positioned herself as a mainstream, serious figure who has also outflanked the other as-yet announced candidates. They will have a hard time attacking her without seeming to attack conservatism itself.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/90963/how-stop-bachmann

I wanted to quote this article because of the underlying assumptions. The author talks about conservatism overwhelming moderation in the Republican Party vs. the Democratic Party where it is a “frequent boast.” Moderation has absolutely no power in the Democrat Party. If it did, the Democrats wouldn’t have lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives. But from the left’s viewpoint, what is actually a moderate position seems far to the right.

Chokegate: The left responds to Ann Althouse

I want you to see the kind of thing that passes for mainstream media commentary in this town:

In one narrative, Bradley rushed Prosser with her fists up and Prosser managed to touch her neck while defending himself. It is, my colleagues in the press now say, a classic “he said/she said” controversy. No, it's not. IT IS A CONTROVERSY ONLY IF PROSSER'S HANDS WERE NOWHERE NEAR BRADLEY'S NECK. I MEAN, COME ON!

There follows a tirade about what we teach our sons about violence against women, as if, in a face to face physical encounter, the man is always wrong. SO, AS A WOMAN IN THE WORK PLACE, CAN I GET RIGHT UP IN ANY MAN'S FACE, GET AS ANGRY AS I WANT, SHAKE MY FIST RIGHT BY HIS BIG OLD GLASSES, AND THE MOMENT HE FLINCHES, IF HIS HAND TOUCHES ME, I GET TO SHOUT "VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN" and he's the one who's screwed? As a feminist, I would just love to have power like that. That's sarcasm, I hope you're not too far gone to realize….

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/local-journalist-bill-wineke-demagogues.html

It’s funny how your ideology will determine who you want to believe that will lead you to create a scenario where that person will be in the right or the other person will be in the wrong.


California passes austerity budget

The Legislature passed an austerity budget Tuesday night that would CUT FROM UNIVERSITIES, COURTS AND THE POOR, SHUTTER 70 PARKS AND THREATEN SCHOOLS BUT WOULD NOT — BY OFFICIALS' OWN ADMISSION — RESTORE CALIFORNIA'S LONG-TERM FINANCIAL HEALTH.
The UC and Cal State systems would face about a 23% funding cut, among the steepest in the proposal. Cash grants for the needy would fall, a program to help thousands of teen mothers get an education would be suspended and hundreds of millions of dollars would be siphoned from mental health programs.

The state park closures would be the first ever. Courts would face what the state's chief justice has described as crippling reductions.

In an optimistic forecast, LAWMAKERS BUILT IN AN EXTRA $4 BILLION OF REVENUE. If all that cash does not materialize, K-12 schools — which had so far survived negotiations relatively unscathed — would face a cutback equal to shortening the academic year by seven days….

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20110629,0,1794731.story

Eventually reality comes even to the Golden State. When will it come to Washington?

Economic Freedom and Prosperity

…. Blogger Glenn Reynolds recently highlighted numerous examples of the media’s increasingly frequent use of “unexpected” to describe bad economic news. Unemployment “unexpectedly” rose despite federal “stimulus.” Home sales “unexpectedly” fell despite taxpayer bailouts. ER visits unexpectedly rose in Massachusetts despite RomneyCare. Similarly, the Pundit Press blog has rounded-up dozens of examples of such “unexpected” developments since January 2011.
However, the fact that such GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS NECESSARILY STIFLE ECONOMIC PROGRESS IS NOT NEWS. Volumes have been written on this topic. The “natural laboratories” of East Germany vs. West Germany, North Korea vs. South Korea, and communist China vs. Hong Kong amply illustrated the principle that whenever government forcibly thwarted people from furthering their happiness and their lives, the result was misery and death.
The same phenomenon can be observed in the natural laboratories within the United States. ECONOMIST MARK PERRY HAS DESCRIBED HOW BUSINESSES ARE LEAVING CALIFORNIA IN “RECORD NUMBERS” FOR STATES LIKE TEXAS THAT OFFER GREATER FREEDOM FROM BURDENSOME REGULATIONS. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas.
Similarly, when the Mercatus Center released its 2011 Index of Economic and Personal Freedom ranking all 50 U.S. states, THEY NOTED TWO INTERESTING FACTS. FIRST, ECONOMIC FREEDOM CORRELATED WITH INCOME GROWTH. SECOND, AMERICANS “VOTED WITH THEIR FEET” AND MOVED FROM STATES WITH LESS FREEDOM TO STATES WITH MORE FREEDOM…

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-the-unexpected-keeps-happening/

And which party is the party of economic freedom? Which party is the party of economic regulation? Progressivism is based on the idea that wise people running things will do better than an economy where everyone has the freedom to buy and sell as they choose.


Unions off Target

Confronted with an unwelcome intrusion, employees at A TARGET STORE IN NEW YORK REJECTED UNIONIZATION AND DEALT A BLOW TO THE GRAND PLANS OF THE UFCW.

That average Americans continue to stand against these job-killing, profit-leaching forces is most encouraging. But make no mistake, the fight is far from over.

LABOR UNIONS ARE IN DECLINE AND DESPERATE. Today, union membership is under 12% of the U.S. workforce -- it was over 20% in the 1980's. Among retail unions, like the United Food and Commercial Workers International (UFCW), membership has also undergone sizeable erosion, down over 40% nationwide since 1983….

….At the Target store in Valley Stream, NY, the UFCW's efforts to unionize workers was supposed to be a harbinger of things to come -- a national comeback if you will. BUT OVER 60% OF EMPLOYEES VOTED DOWN THE MEASURE. As one worker put it, "what do I need a union to fight for me for?" Good question….

…Predictably, and on cue, the UFCW SOUGHT TO INVALIDATE THE ELECTION RESULTS. IN FACT, THE UNION CALLED ON THEIR COMRADES AT THE NLRB TO INVESTIGATE TARGET FOR ILLEGALITY, SUPPOSEDLY FOR EMPLOYING FEAR, INTIMIDATION, AND THREATS AGAINST WORKERS. How typical of union thugs..…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/a_union_off-target.html

Unions are a dying institution in the private sector in America.
Global Warming

Al Gore, Free Speech and Climate Change

….GLOBAL WARMING IS A LOSING ISSUE. The failure of the UN’s climate conference in Bonn earlier this month shows waning appetite for the issue on an international scale. A new survey commissioned by Yale and George Mason Universities finds THAT LESS THAN HALF OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTE TO PLANETARY WARMING AND JUST 39 PERCENT AGREED THAT “MOST SCIENTISTS THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING.” Pew’s annual “top policy priorities” poll RANKS GLOBAL WARMING 21ST OUT OF 22 ISSUES IN IMPORTANCE, BEATING OUT OBESITY but trailing such off-the-radar topics as transportation and lobbyists. When unemployment rates exceed nine percent and national debt approaches annual GDP, citizens tend to focus on concrete rather than amorphous issues. IN HARD TIMES, WE WANT THE NEWS, NOT THE WEATHER.

AL GORE BLAMES ANOTHER CULPRIT FOR HIS CAUSE’S DEMISE, NAMELY, FREE SPEECH. The Nobel Prize winner writes in Rolling Stone that “the ‘conversation of democracy’ has become so deeply dysfunctional that our ability to make intelligent collective decisions has been seriously impaired.” It’s not just that the public square has become a dangerous place for global warming, but that skeptics of anthropocentric global warming have put their money where their mouths are. “POLLUTERS AND IDEOLOGUES ARE TRAMPLING ALL OVER THE ‘RULES’ OF DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE,” GORE COMPLAINS….

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/29/al-gore-in-denial/

Gore and the rest of the Progressives are dangerous to our liberty and our country. They see dissent as something that is dangerous and should not be tolerated. They know what is true and if you disagree with them you are trampling all over the “rules” of democratic discourse. Their solution is to end democratic discourse.

Science

Cancer Surges In Body Scanner Operators; TSA Launches Cover-Up

Fearful of provoking further public resistance to naked airport body scanners, THE TSA HAS BEEN CAUGHT COVERING UP A SURGE IN CASES OF TSA WORKERS DEVELOPING CANCER as a result of their close proximity to radiation-firing devices, perhaps the most shocking revelation to emerge from the LATEST FOIA DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER.

After Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, THE TSA SOUGHT TO DOWNPLAY THE MATTER AND REFUSED TO ISSUE EMPLOYEES WITH DOSIMETERS TO MEASURE LEVELS OF EXPOSURE.

The documents indicate how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”

“The Department, rather than acting on it, or explaining its position seems to have just dismissed. I don’t think that’s the way most other agencies would have acted in a similar situation if they were confronted with that question,” EPIC’s Marc Rotenberg said….

http://www.infowars.com/cancer-surges-in-body-scanner-operators-tsa-launches-cover-up/

This sounds a bit over the top to me. Exposure to radiation normally takes much longer to cause cancer than we find here. But forewarned is forearmed and in checking out EPIC they appear to be a legitimate foundation.

Monday: Stewart blasts Fox while NBC gets the Pledge wrong.

Politics

Stewart blast Fox News viewers

Jon Stewart appeared in his first Sunday morning news show interview ever with Chris Wallace, and unlike his often entertaining and jovial encounters with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, this confrontation was a bit more heated. WALLACE OPENED THE SEGMENT SUGGESTING TO STEWART “YOU LOVE TO TAKE SHOTS AT FOX NEWS” and from there Wallace was determined to get Stewart to admit that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. Yet STEWART REFUSED TO BELIEVE THAT ANYONE IN THE MEDIA IS AS “RELENTLESSLY ACTIVIST” AS FOX NEWS…

…. We also learned from the interview that Stewart is disappointed with President Obama and that he even voted for President George Bush in 1988. Yet the most surprising moment may have been when STEWART GOT UNCHARACTERISTICALLY REALLY ANGRY, DECLARING THAT VIEWERS OF FOX NEWS ARE THE “MOST CONSISTENTLY MISINFORMED…..”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-on-fox-news-sunday-medias-bias-is-not-liberal-its-towards-sensationalism-and-laziness/

Stewart is serving the Kool Aide for the left here. I wonder if you asked Fox News viewers vs. CBS/NBC/ABC viewers some questions that question their beliefs system how they would do. For instance, how many would argue that the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes. Or that the Oil Companies are getting tax subsidies. Or that all the signs of global warming are accelerating and it’s coming even faster than in the past. And most would probably tell you Obamacare will lower the deficit.


Meanwhile NBC proves it is the most misinformed Network on TV

NBC on Sunday decided to cut the words "under God" from the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance that accompanied the beginning of its coverage of the U.S. Open Golf Championship.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

Seconds later, the Pledge was repeated with even more words omitted:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, with liberty and justice for all.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/06/19/nbc-omits-under-god-pledge-allegiance#ixzz1PlWNArEk

Being old enough to remember the original pledge before Under God was added, I can help NBC out.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

A message for John Stewart, ignorance is a gift the liberals keep giving.

Climate
Climate Change is still dead

In case you missed it – and judging by the COMPLETE LACK OF COVERAGE ON THE CABLE NEWS NETWORKS YOU MAY VERY WELL HAVE – THERE WAS YET ANOTHER CLIMATE CONFERENCE HELD THIS WEEK IN BONN, GERMANY. But rather than the usual singing in the round of Bob Dylan tunes and boisterous plans to alter the world, there was a decidedly depressed tone to the discussions. It’s not that they’ve suddenly begun to question their previously held beliefs concerning anthropogenic global warming, (AGW) but rather A GRIM REALIZATION THAT MOST OF THE NATIONS INVOLVED ARE A BIT TOO BUSY MAKING SURE THEIR ECONOMIES DON’T COLLAPSE TO DUMP A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR GDP INTO CARBON EMISSION CONTROL.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/18/climate-conference-faces-brush-with-reality/

Nor should they. In the past 15 years 25% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has been released with a .05 degree DROP in temperature.


High court blocks states' climate change lawsuit


THE SUPREME COURT BLOCKED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT MONDAY BY STATES AND CONSERVATION GROUPS TRYING TO FORCE CUTS IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM POWER PLANTS.

The court said that the authority to seek reductions in emissions rests with the Environmental Protection Agency, not the courts. The ruling was 8-0.

EPA says it will decide by next year whether to order utilities to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. The lawsuit targeted the five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States, four private companies and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_climate_change

CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s plant food and absolutely necessary for life. In fact when astronomers scan distant planets they look for CO2 as a possible harbinger of life.

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).