Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Let's Hope "Some" Are Correct....

Some see GOP voting tsunami coming

October 30, 2012 | 4:52 pm Paul Bedard

Democrats more than Republicans are getting their most loyal supporters to vote early, but with polls showing a close race among those who have voted so far, concerns are being raised about a GOP tsunami on the actual Election Day, next Tuesday.

According to a GOP analysis of early voting and absentee ballot requests provided to Secrets, the Democrats are turning out their most reliable, or so-called "high propensity voters" than Republicans, leaving fewer for Election Day. The GOP is pushing weaker supporters to vote early, expecting high enthusiasm to drive their regular supporters to the polls next week.

"Democrats are cannibalizing their high-propensity voters in advance of election day to get stories that they are winning," said a GOP analyst. "But in effect they are stealing from Peter, or Election Day, to pay Paul, or early voting."

For example, in Ohio, the Democrats have turned out 43 percent of the most loyal supporters to vote, compared to just 27 percent of the GOP. In Iowa, the difference is 43 percent to 29 percent.

"Republicans will have more reliable voters available on Election Day and are spending our efforts turning out low propensity voters in the absentee and early voting periods," added the analysis.

Even with the difference in turnout of loyal supporters, Gallup finds that among early voters, Romney is beating Obama 52 percent to 45 percent, though some state totals show an Obama advantage. Plus in states like North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa, the GOP has seen huge requests for last-minute absentee ballots this month.

The Horror Facing America After This Halloween...

The Specter of Taxmageddon Rises

On this Halloween, a truly frightening specter is looming.

No amount of garlic, crosses, or exorcists can help us—only Congress and the President can chase this ghoul away.

It’s Taxmageddon.

A horrifying combination of expiring pro-growth tax policies from 2001 and 2003, the end of the once-temporary payroll tax cut, and just a few of Obamacare’s 18 new tax hikes, Taxmageddon will be the largest tax increase EVER to hit Americans. It’s nearly $500 billion in one year, starting January 1. That’s two months away.

The number $500 billion is rather large and abstract, so The Heritage Foundation has broken down the expected tax increases per person just for 2013:

Families with an average income of $70,662: tax increase of $4,138

Baby boomers with an average income of $95,099: tax increase of $4,223

Low-income workers with an average income of $24,757: tax increase of $1,207

Millennials with an average income of $23,917: tax increase of $1,099

Retirees with an average income of $42,553: tax increase of $857

>>> See the infographic.

And if that isn’t scary enough, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has forecasted another recession in the coming year. The last thing this country needs is another recession, after years of high unemployment and months of a sluggish, barely noticeable recovery.

The tax hikes will hit small businesses very hard—and not just any small businesses, but the ones that create jobs. As Heritage’s Curtis Dubay and Romina Boccia explain:

The businesses that would pay the higher tax rates proposed by President Obama earn almost all the income earned by small businesses that employ workers. According to President Obama’s own Treasury Department, these job creators earn 91 percent of the income earned by flow-through employer-businesses. These are the biggest, most successful small businesses. They employ more than half the private workforce, according to an Ernst and Young study. Raising their taxes would destroy more than 700,000 jobs.

There’s one way to address Taxmageddon—reverse it.

Why hasn’t Congress acted to prevent this? Simple: The House passed a bill that would prevent the largest share of Taxmageddon, but the Senate failed to finish the job.

It appears this job will fall to the next Congress now. When the new Congress takes office on January 3, 2013, after counting the electoral votes for the presidency, the first order of business should be to reverse Taxmageddon. The congressional leadership and the successful presidential candidate should make clear right after the election that reversing Taxmageddon will be their top priority, to reassure businesses and employees as soon as possible.

If this future Congress also fails to act, as the current Congress has, then trick-or-treaters for years to come will tremble at the telling of this tale—a Congress who, when economic darkness threatened, chose this cruel and mysterious route of making things worse.

Axelrod Can't Answer Questions About Independents....

Is there Still Time for Big October Surprise????

Gingrich: Senator told me networks may have White House emails commanding counterterrorism group to stand down on Benghazi rescue

1:07 AM 10/31/2012 Jeff Poor

On Tuesday night’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on the Fox News Channel, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that major news networks might have secret emails proving that the White House canceled plans to assist the besieged U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Gingrich said that the bombshell emails could be revealed within the next two days.

“There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,” Gingrich said. “But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”

After noting that the rumor, if true, would have a substantial impact on the presidential election, Gingrich pointed to another possible “October surprise” in the coming days.

“The other big story, I think, that is going to break is on corruption and extraordinary waste in the solar power grants and direct involvement by the Obama White House, including the president, in the solar panel grants involving billions of dollars, and I suspect that’s going to break Wednesday and Thursday of this week,” Gingrich added.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Boy Isn't This True....It's All About the State Run Media....

Obama Supporters don't know what they are talking about....Obama Supporters ACUTALLY Hate Obama's polities....

Obama supporters do not even know what policies Obama actually's Obama supporters speaking out against policies that Obama actually supports....just shows how DUMB Americans are on political issues....

Obama Supporters Slam ‘Romney’ Policies…Then Find Out They’re Actually Obama’s

Posted on October 27, 2012 at 4:57pm by Erica Ritz

Back in September, radio personality Howard Stern highlighted an often overlooked aspect of the average voter– namely, that they tend to feel strongly about the candidates they like and dislike, but know very little about what the candidates actually stand for.

In a new video by “We Are Change,” Luke Rudkowski went to New York City, where he told a number of self-described Obama voters that the president’s policies are actually being supported by Mitt Romney. Can you guess the reaction?

Romney was quickly called “crazy,” his policies deemed “unconstitutional” and “immoral.” The crowd seemed particularly disturbed by the expansion of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (which allows U.S. citizens to be detained without trial), and the proposed “Kill List.”

So what happened when Rudkowski had to tell the group that the policies they just eviscerated were actually being supported by their presidential pick?

To their credit, a number of the voters said they needed to look it up and do some more homework. Others refused to believe Rudkowski, while others spun 180 degrees almost immediately.

One girl concluded: “Well, I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a lot of other reasons I’m going to vote for Obama, and hearing that stuff honestly doesn’t change it…”

In the video’s description, “We Are Change” reiterated that their intention is not to support Mitt Romney, but to try to get an honest answer on certain issues.

Slate Magazine adds:

…two experiments are playing out at once. First: People are naturally inclined to oppose any policies if they believe those policies are held by the candidate they’re voting against. Second: How much attention have non-wonks paid to the kill list/disposition matrix? Almost none. How much of that is their fault? Well, how much sober coverage of the drone policy have they seen?

Obama's Playing SMALL Ball....He doesn't and can't address the Big Problems of America....Only Romney can....

Obama Continues to Lie to America...And More Obama Crony Capitalism while wasting YOUR tax Dollars....

Emails suggest White House involvement in loan to bankrupt Abound Solar

2:00 PM 10/27/2012 Michael Bastasch

Just one day after President Obama went on television saying that politics had nothing to do with the now bankrupt Abound Solar receiving a taxpayer-backed loan guarantee from the Energy Department, emails have surfaced that contradict these claims and suggest White House involvement in the company receiving the loan.

“And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics,” President Obama told KUSA’s Kyle Clark.

However, emails obtained by COMPLETECOLORADO.COM suggest that the White House was involved in the Energy Department awarding Abound Solar a $400 million loan gurantee, contradicting the President’s claim.

The emails also suggest that the loan guarantee was political payback to Democratic benefactor Pat Stryker.

In one email, DOE loan executive Jonathan Silver tells DOE credit advisor Jim McCrea that, “You better [let] him know the [White House] wants to move Abound forward,” referring to Treasury Advisor Ian Samuels who wasn’t moving fast enough on scheduling calls regarding Abound.

The second page of the email mentions the “…transaction pressure under which we are all now operating…” This email chain came just days before President Obama hailed government loan guarantees as a boon to Colorado’s economy in 2010.

Another email puts into question Abound’s market-readiness in regards to their plans with the DOE.

“I was talking with Technical today… re Abound and they still have major issues with the transaction,” wrote McCrea in the email. This email occurred just two months before the Abound loan was announced.

McCrea expressed his doubts about the solar industry in general the year before saying he didn’t “know how to pick winners.”

“All in all in the solar field, l think it is extremely easy to pick losers and l really do not know how to pick winners,” he wrote in a 2009 email.

Abound solar is currently under criminal investigation by the Weld County District Attorney’s Office in northern Colorado for securities fraud, consumer fraud, and financial misrepresentation, according to the Denver Post.

No criminal charges have been filed yet.

Congress has also launched an investigation into Abound Solar, sending secretary Energy Secretary Steven Chu a letter asking for the secretary to provide documents and information regarding what the Energy Department knew about Abound Solar’s actions while giving it taxpayer dollars.

“Recent reports and publicly available documents indicate that persistent technological problems contributed to Abound’s inability to remain commercially viable and ultimately, its bankruptcy,” said the letter to Chu.

“We need to know, did the Department of Energy — did they close on the loan when they knew there were technical problems with the product?” Republican Congressman Cory Gardner of Colorado said. “The fact that we have taxpayers on the hook for $70 million means that we, in Congress, have a responsibility to make sure nothing was done improperly.”

Abound Solar suffered from major technical problems well before they received the $400 million loan guarantee. A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation, using internal documentation and testimony from sources within Abound, revealed that the company was selling a faulty, underperforming product, and may have mislead lenders at one point in order to keep itself afloat.

“Our solar modules worked as long as you didn’t put them in the sun,” an internal source told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The company knew its panels were faulty prior to obtaining taxpayer dollars, according to sources, but kept pushing product out the door in order to meet Department of Energy goals required for their $400 million loan guarantee.

“The DOE hurt us more than anything,” another source told The DC News Foundation, speaking of DOE production and revenue metrics

I Voted Today!!!!

Voted Early today for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.....Wish I lived in Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire or Wisconsin...

Love living in Texas, but everyone knows it's going all the way for Romney...

Make certain you vote early if possible and make certain it's for Real Change...Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan...

It All Points To Obama as the One That Denied Help during the Benghazi Attack....

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

By Jennifer Griffin Published October 26, 2012

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.

"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."

The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Watch "Special Report Investigates: Benghazi -- New Revelations" on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.

Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?

On meeting Obama: “Could not look me in the eye … like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

6:18 PM, Oct 25, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).

“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”

Woods made clear that he isn't "mad," but that he wants to the "truth" to be told because he feels " abandoned."

Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have "come above [the area] and completely carpeted area," and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack.

"When I heard, you know, that there's a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don't go rescue them. Because every person in the military--their first response [would be], we're going to go rescue them. We need to find out who it was that gave that command--do not rescue them."

Everything Points to Obama....

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

6:05 PM, Oct 26, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Obama Once Again showing NO RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW.....and this time YOU the Taxpayer will Pay The Penalties....

Obama Administration Will Pay Companies to Violate the Law

The Obama Administration’s disregard for the law has struck again—and this time, it’s encouraging others to violate the law at taxpayer expense.

That’s worth saying again: The Obama Administration is encouraging people to violate a law, and promising that it will use taxpayer money to cover fines incurred from this action.

The law: The law in question is called the WARN Act, and it requires that federal contractors send employees layoff notices 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff.

The inconvenience: Massive defense spending cuts under sequestration are scheduled to hit on January 2, 2013. Defense contractors affected by the budget cuts would have to issue notice letters to employees by November 2 (four days before the election) to meet the January 2 start date for the spending cuts.

The penalty taxpayers would pay: Employers who violate the WARN Act are liable to their former employees for “back pay for each day of a violation” and “benefits under an employee benefit plan,” as well as a penalty of $500 for each day that notice has not been sent to the local government where the layoffs will occur.

As an example, Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens has said that 123,000 of his employees would receive layoff notices. If companies fail to meet the WARN Act’s deadline, lawsuits from employees could result—but the White House has provided a taxpayer-funded guarantee as a way to counter their fears of enormous litigation costs. This guarantee is not only unprecedented but also potentially unlawful.

This week, President Obama sent mixed signals about the fate of these budget cuts. He suggested at Monday's debate that sequestration wouldn't happen, but then days later indicated to an Iowa newspaper that it would.

It remains to be seen whether companies will take the Administration up on its offer. And government contractors who rely on this “guarantee” from the White House do so at their peril: If this Administration or a new Administration changes its mind and withdraws the guarantee, those contractors will have no cause of action against the government for the cost of WARN Act violations.

If this were a joke, the punchline would be that President Obama supported the WARN Act when he was a Senator—and even wanted to require that employers give more notice. In 2007, he argued that contractors should have to give 90 days’ notice.

Then-Senator Obama said:

American workers who have committed themselves to their employers expect in return to be treated with a modicum of respect and fairness. Failing to give workers fair warning…ignores their need to prepare for the transition.…Many of these workers support families that are living from paycheck to paycheck, squeezed by the demands of rising health care costs, the declining value of their homes, and wages that have been stagnant for decades. It adds insult to injury to close a plant without warning employees.

But this is no joke. This is the ultimate abuse of the President’s executive authority: inducing federal contractors to violate a federal law and promising to use taxpayer funds to reimburse them for any resulting liability that they incur for violating that law.

Refusing to follow federal law has become the hallmark of this Administration, but the White House’s latest arrogant, unlawful ploy goes even further and may end up costing the American taxpayer a great deal of money.

This is a Hoot!.....You've Got to See It....

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Same Old Obama False Rhetoric....Planned Parenthood Doesn't Do Mammograms!!!....

Obama Just Lying Again!...

Today's Visuals....

Hypocritical Liberals....

MSNBC Host 'Lucky' to Get Paid Half as Much as Her Male Co-Host

12:10 PM, Oct 19, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

This morning, as MSNBC's Morning Joe came to an end, co-host Mika Brzezinski had some praise for colleagues and the company she works for. "We've been talking a lot this week about women and equal pay and all these issues," she said. "I have to say, in all seriousness, I'm very lucky to be working with you [co-host Joe Scarborough] and for a company [MSNBC] who has actually dealt with this problem transparently."

Which basically amounts to Brzezinski saying that she is "lucky" to get paid half as much as Joe Scarborough.

After all, according to the Daily Beast (whose editor, Tina Brown, is a frequent guest on the show), Scarborough makes a cool $4 million per year, while Brzezinski's salary is half as much, coming in at $2 million per year.

Brzezinski's colleague Andrea Mitchell made this point on air yesterday--that pay disparity exists at MSNBC. Politico reports:

During an interview Thursday, Mitt Romney senior adviser Barbara Comstock told Andrea Mitchell that “we know here at MSNBC the guys get paid more" — and the MSNBC host replied, “We certainly do.”

For Brzezinski's part, it's more than a bit odd that she would play down the problems at MSNBC now.

After all, her public dispute with MSNBC about pay equity has been well known. In fact, she's made it herself on her own show.

"We make less than our male counterparts," said Brzezinski last year. "I found out on this show that I made a lot less than Joe. 14 times less."

Yes. And while he was coming from primetime and he was worth a lot more, he's also the creator of the show, I was certainly not 14 times less worth than him. And it was my fault ultimately that I was in that position because I accepted a deal that wasn't right for me. And I didn't have the perception and confidence in myself to communicate that effectively. It took four tries with MSNBC president Phil Griffin who is, you know, a tough manager but doing the right thing for his company to get it right for myself.

Brzezinski says she almost left MSNBC over the pay disparity problem. And she wrote a book about overcoming gender discrimination in the workplace (though, again, she still reportedly makes half as much as her male counterpart).

But in an election year, perhaps playing down pay disparity at a liberal institution by extension makes liberal politicians look better. And Brzezinski's preference for Obama is beyond well established.

More Daniel Halper »

Friday, October 19, 2012

Romney Team on the Job Already to Help us Avoid the Fiscal Cliff....Obama's done NOTHING!....

Romney team prepares to address year-end 'fiscal cliff' if he's elected

Published October 19, 2012 Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney's transition team is quietly talking with government officials and Capitol Hill to develop a plan, if he's elected, to prevent massive cuts to the defense budget and extend tax rates first passed under President George W. Bush.

The Republican's goal is to put his own stamp on legislation to fix the so-called fiscal cliff well before his Jan. 20 inauguration. The tax rates are set to expire Jan. 1, and economists in both political parties say the reductions in spending combined with higher taxes would likely throw the country back into recession.

The economic policy planning is a major element of what's dubbed "The Readiness Project" inside the campaign.

Led by former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, Romney's transition team has been at work since summer preparing to choose Cabinet officials and build the new government if he's elected. The team has held events to raise private money, hired more staff in Washington, and moved into bigger, government-provided offices Sept. 4. Some of Romney's top campaign advisers, including former private equity colleague Bob White, are preparing to take on larger roles in the transition.

Looming over the standard transition discussions is the big policy fight on the horizon -- created by lawmakers trying to force a deal to reform entitlements and cut government spending -- and what role Romney should take if elected.

President Obama also faced significant, pressing policy problems and began grappling with them before the inauguration. The country's financial system was in crisis, work was beginning on an economic stimulus plan and U.S. automakers were still in trouble. In the early months of his term, Obama pushed a stimulus bill through Congress and restructured the auto companies in a bailout process that Bush had begun.

This time around, the newly inaugurated president would likely face the winter session of Congress with negotiations between lawmakers over the economy well under way. Congress created the fiscal cliff threat when it tied enormous defense and discretionary spending budget cuts to passing a broad deficit-reduction deal.

Romney's campaign refused to discuss its transition team's fiscal-cliff planning at length, with officials careful not to be perceived as preparing prematurely for an election far from decided. Republicans on Capitol Hill said transition officials have begun informal conversations with GOP leaders in the House, and lawmakers are paying close attention to Romney's public statements about how he wants to handle the fiscal cliff in the event he wins.

Romney has said that if elected, he wants Congress and Obama to put off any permanent solution until after the inauguration and has suggested he would be open to fixing the problems with a series of separate bills instead of one grand bargain.

"Let's have a year of runway, or even six months of runway after the new president is elected so that we can, we can have the tax reform and the military spending plans and the budget plans that are consistent with that individual's leadership and views," Romney has said.

Both Romney and Obama say they want to extend the lower tax rates for middle-class families. But Obama is opposed to extending those rates for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year and couples who earn more than $250,000.

"The president has long made clear he will veto an extension of tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans, wealthiest Americans," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.

Carney refused to say how Obama would attempt to approach the lame-duck session of Congress if Romney were to win the presidency.

Defense cuts are a second major issue. Both parties and the Pentagon say the cuts included in the automatic "sequester" are too severe and would impact national security. Congressional Republicans have said they don't want a temporary measure to prevent changes in defense spending, instead wanting to offer a permanent solution. Still, Republican officials said GOP lawmakers would likely be willing to implement a temporary solution if Romney were elected. That would allow Romney to deal with the cuts permanently next year.

Romney has made deficit reduction a centerpiece of his campaign. But he has repeatedly acknowledged that making them too quickly could risk harming the fragile economy.

Aside from the policy strategizing, Romney's transition team -- it's made up of businesspeople, longtime Romney supporters and a handful of former Bush administration officials -- has been drawing up lists of names for Cabinet posts.

Romney has a history of blending business and government. He did that as governor of Massachusetts, bringing in some former officials at his private equity firm, Bain Capital, to assist in running the state.

Leading the day-to-day transition team operations is Chris Liddell, the former chief financial officer of Microsoft and General Motors, who helped manage the automaker's finances when it was going through managed bankruptcy with the help of millions of dollars in government funds.

Romney's finance team also is involved in plotting the transition.

While the government provides some support, campaigns are allowed to use leftover campaign money and raise an additional $5,000 per contributor for the transition.

Beyond the fiscal cliff discussions, Romney transition officials are weighing whether to allow registered federal lobbyists to take posts in the new government.

Obama placed restrictions on hiring lobbyists and has barred federally registered lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards, though he has issued waivers in some circumstances and hired lobbyists if they have been away from lobbying activities for a certain period of time. Romney is likely to lift at least some of those restrictions

The Plot around the Libya Tragedy Thickens and Gets Worse for Obama.....

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack

By James Rosen Published October 19, 2012

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents -- released Friday by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack -- slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 -- the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed -- the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled "sensitive," in which he noted "growing problems with security" in Benghazi and "growing frustration" on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as "too weak to keep the country secure."

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier with local militia commanders. These men boasted to Stevens of exercising "control" over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya's internal political jockeying, "they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi."

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled "sensitive," that he entitled "The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya." Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months' time, "Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape." He added, "The individual incidents have been organized," a function of "the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes."

"Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity," Stevens cabled. "What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks." His final comment on the two-page document was: "Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable."

By Sept. 4, Stevens' aides were reporting back to Washington on the "strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment" in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a "recent increase in violent incidents," including "attacks against western interests." "Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively deal with these key issues," Stevens wrote on June 25, "the violence is likely to continue and worsen."

After the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had "described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate."

"Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya," the ambassador wrote, adding that "the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities ..."

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department's denials of requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.

"I've been placed in a very difficult spot," said Eric A. Nordstrom, the regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a Feb. 12 email to a colleague, "when the ambassador (Gene Cretz, at that time) that I need to support Benghazi but can't direct MSD (a mobile security detachment) there and been advised that DS (Diplomatic Security) isn't going to provide more than 3 agents over the long term."

"DS is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi," wrote Karen Keshap, a State Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. "That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS (Department of State) personnel present. That often also means that outreach and reporting is non-existent."

Earlier that day, Feb. 11, a colleague of Keshap's, Shawn P. Crowley, had apologized to her and other officials in an email for "being a broken record" on the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi. Crowley added: "(T)omorrow Benghazi will be down to two (DS) agents. ... This will leave us unable to do any outreach to Libyan nationals ... and we will be extremely limited in the ability to obtain any useful information for reporting."

These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier from Nordstom. In a Feb. 1 memorandum, the officer warned that "Al-Qaida affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political turmoil in Libya. The U.S. Government remains concerned that such individuals and groups ... may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct attacks in the region."

By Feb. 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias enjoyed to "military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted, crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm)," as well as "AK-47s, heavy weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons."

In the days leading up to Sept. 11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women's rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: "For the first time since the revolution, I am scared."

The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. In a letter to President Obama, dated Oct. 19 and accompanied by the documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing inadequate security before Sept. 11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of the events on Sept. 11.

"Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador Stevens' own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador," the congressmen wrote. "For this administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11 anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief."

At the State Department briefing Friday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the Central Intelligence Agency had informed the Obama administration on Sept. 12 that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.

They've Hit the Bottom of the Barrel....Who would ever believe Asshole Kerry????

More of your Tax Dollars Being Wasted....This Time paying Workers to play video games and play cards.....

Your Tax Dollars under Obama are paying people to play card and video games all day long....more evidence of the massive waste that Obama has driven while supporting businesses that had NO CHANCE of success with your tax dollars...

Obama's Got to Go!

Taxpayer-backed battery maker’s employees pass time playing cards, video games

1:11 PM 10/19/2012 Michael Bastasch

Business is so slow at one taxpayer-funded electric vehicle battery maker that employees there are spending their time playing video games, board games and card games just to pass the time.

“There’s a whole bunch of people, a whole bunch, filling their time with card games and board games,” one current employee of LG Chem told Target 8 News.

“It’s really sad that all these people are sitting there and doing nothing, and it’s basically on taxpayer money,” said former LG Chem employee Nicole Merryman.

In 2010, President Barack Obama called the company “a symbol of where America is going,” but now workers at the $300 million lithium-ion battery plant in Holland, Michigan have so little work to do, that they have been spending hours each day playing “cards and board games, reading magazines or watching movies,” Target 8 reports.

According to employees, some workers do odd jobs around the building, like cleaning and maintenance. Others just hang out and play “video games, Texas hold-’em and Monopoly or doing Sudoku or crossword puzzles — all on company time.” Some employees also watch movies.

Some employees have quit or are looking for new jobs, while some others have begun to help local non-profits on company time.

“You can only do nothing for so long. There were days, sitting around all day doing nothing. … I didn’t play a whole lot of cards,” said one worker. “I bailed out of a sinking ship.”

The Korean-based LG Chem got a $151 million grant from the Department of Energy as part of the stimulus in order to employ 300 workers who would produce 15 million battery cells a year, mainly for the Chevrolet Volt.

However, sales of the Volt have been far below expectations and after nearly two years General Motors is still losing up to $49,000 on each Volt produced, according to Reuters.

Furthermore, GM has suspended production of the Volt at least twice this year due to low sales.

In March, GM announced it was suspending production of the Volt electric car for five weeks due to disappointing sales. 1,300 workers were idled at the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant.

In late August, GM announced it was temporarily suspending Volt production following weaker than expected annual sales. That month GM sold more than 2,800 Volts, making it their biggest sales month ever. This year GM has also tripled Volt sales from last year to more than 13,000.

However, this is far below GM’s goal of 35,000 to 40,000 Volts sold in 2012.

The Detroit plant where the Volts are made will be retooled to make the 2014 Chevy Impala.

The economic and environmental benefits touted by electric car proponents have also been called into question recently

A study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology found that electric cars are worse for the environment than conventional vehicles as factories that make them can emit more toxic waste than conventional car factories, especially if coal is used to produce the electricity used to charge “green” vehicles.

The CBO also found that even with generous subsidies, conventional cars still have a competitive advantage over electric ones.

In fact, the current maximum $7,500 electric car subsidy would need to be increased by 60 percent to make a plug-in hybrid car, like the Chevy Volt, competitive with an average fuel economy— 25 miles per gallon — conventional gas-powered car. That means a $12,000 subsidy for new plug-in hybrids.

Furthermore, the CBO analysis found that electric car tax credits will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and will have little to no effect on reducing gasoline consumption and lowering greenhouse gas emissions, at least in the short run — the ultimate goal of the tax credit.

LG Chem has spent $133 million so far, mostly on construction and equipment, according to Target 8, with around 40 percent going to foreign companies — mostly in Korea.

Employees said they made 100,000 test battery cells or more, starting late last year, producing about 4,000 a week. That worked mostly stopped last December, employees say.

The Target 8 investigation has led the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, stimulus oversight agency, to take look into the issue.

Volt no jolt: LG Chem employees idle

The More the American People See Mitt Romney the More they Will Like Him....

For first time, Romney's favorability rating tops Obama's

October 19, 2012 | 8:20 am Paul Bedard

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has finally cleared what many aides have long seen as his biggest hurdle: A majority of voters now like him.

According to multiple polls, Romney's favorability rating has surged since the Republican National Convention and in most he equals or bests President Obama's favorables.

And late Thursday, the Pew Research Center, the poll that has been toughest on Romney's favorability, released results showing that Romney is ahead of Obama by a point, 50 percent to 49 percent. That is a stunning turnaround from March, when Obama's favorable rating in Pew was about twice Romney's, 55 percent to 29 percent.

Gallup also has Romney beating Obama on the favorability rating, 52 percent to 51 percent.

Even the liberal DailyKos/SEIU/PPP poll has Romney beating Obama on the fave rating, 49 percent to 46 percent.

Romney campaign officials attribute the change to the stories told about the candidate at the Republican convention in Tampa, and his commanding performance in the first presidential debate.

One more Direct, Straight Forward Romney Ad....Maybe the Biggest Reason we Need to Elect Mitt Romney....

Another Major Newspaper that Backed Obama in 2008 Now Backs Romney...

October 18, 2012, 10:46 pm2 Comments

Romney Receives Endorsement of Orlando Sentinel


ORLANDO, Fla. – Mitt Romney, who often grouses that he is simultaneously running against President Obama and the mainstream media, will be greeted upon his arrival in Florida on Friday by a headline with which he cannot quarrel: The Orlando Sentinel is endorsing him.

Four years after The Sentinel, central Florida’s largest newspaper, endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy for president, the newspaper’s editorial page said Mr. Romney is the better choice this time.

“We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years,” the editorial in Friday’s edition said. “For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race.”

A little more than two weeks before the election, newspaper endorsements are steadily trickling in across the country. Both campaigns have spent considerable time trying to win endorsements, particularly from newspapers in battleground states, like The Sentinel.

The Obama campaign has assigned top advisers to talk with editorial boards, trying to win endorsements from the newspapers that supported his candidacy in 2008. Mr. Romney has also been meeting with some editorial boards during campaign trips. The campaigns are bracing this weekend for several newspaper endorsements to be released in key states.

The recommendation of Mr. Romney by The Sentinel, whose readers live in a battleground area within a battleground state, stopped short of being a ringing endorsement. But the editorial page firmly declared that it was time for a change in the White House, arguing that Mr. Romney’s business experience and record of leadership prepared him for the Oval Office.

“Romney is not our ideal candidate for president,” the editorial said. “We’ve been turned off by his appeals to social conservatives and immigration extremists. Like most presidential hopefuls, including Obama four years ago, Romney faces a steep learning curve on foreign policy.”

He is expected to tout the endorsement on Friday when he arrives for a campaign visit in Daytona Beach. He will stay in Florida until Monday, when he meets Mr. Obama for the third presidential debate in Boca Raton.

Florida, with its 29 electoral votes, is the biggest battleground state in the nation. The editorial made clear that its endorsement was for one campaign cycle at a time.

“This is Romney’s time to lead, again,” the editorial said. “If he doesn’t produce results — even with a hostile Senate — we’ll be ready in 2016 to get behind someone else who will.”

Obama Keep Digging Himself in Deeper and Deeper....

Obama re-botches Libya response

By Chris Stirewalt Power Play Published October 19, 2012

"If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal. We are going to fix it. All of it."

-- President Obama on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" talking about the attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

More political hackery has been committed in service of the myth of "likability" than any other trope of recent years.

Wrongly believing that American voters are fools who cast their votes for commander in chief in the same way that they do for contestants on "American Idol," consultants, politicians and pundits have long worshiped at the altar of "likability."

And on Thursday, President Obama made himself a human sacrifice to the "likability" gods.

Obama has a serious problem on his hands. His administration failed to prevent a deadly attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Among those killed was the U.S. ambassador to the woe-begotten nation, the first ambassador killed since the Carter administration.

The attack by Al Qaeda affiliates not only undermined the president's re-election argument that with the killing of Usama bin Laden the jihadist group was "back on its heels" but occurred in a country where Obama had helped in the ouster and killing of the previous leader and helped install a new, Islamist government.

In the aftermath, the president sought to portray the raid as an unavoidable, spontaneous event triggered by a video clip deemed offensive by Muslims. The message was that the attack did not represent a lapse in security or a problem with the policy of nurturing the growth of Islamist political groups in the region, but because of the intolerance of Christian fundamentalists in America.

This, instead, compounded the problem as evidence mounted not only that the administration had ample warning of the deteriorating situation in Libya and security shortfalls but also when it was revealed that the attack was a premeditated raid. The failure to prevent the raid and the decision to blame American intolerance looked all the worse.

Obama's strategy for turning things around was to accuse Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of exploiting the deadly attack. In their second debate, Obama took great umbrage at Romney's criticism and any suggestion that he was not trying to find out how such a failure had occurred on his watch or that he was covering it up.

The president talked about being "the one who has to greet those coffins" and spoke of the solemnity of receiving the caskets of those killed in the Benghazi raid.

Umbrage would not have been enough to get Obama through Monday's foreign-policy debate, but it was a good start on getting out of the hole.

And then Obama went on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on Comedy Central. The show's sarcastic tone and liberal bent makes it a favorite among the young voters in the president's political base.

But the appearance was also very much about "likability," and an ongoing effort by both candidates to show that they are lovable, regular folks who like to laugh it up or discuss their favorite characters from reality television. Romney tries to do this less, probably because he is less adept at it. Obama, however, has gone whole hog.

The reason is that the conventional political wisdom is that the candidate deemed more "likable" in polls has triumphed in every recent presidential election. And believing that that "likability" is the cause of the victory, candidates and their consultants have pursued this intangible measure of affability like conquistadors searching for Incan gold.

Obama so often hypes his love of beer, as if to say that he's certainly the candidate Americans would rather have a beer with and if they do, he's got the suds. And, by the way, Mitt Romney is as dry as a cafeteria turkey sandwich.

But this is an election in which neither candidate is particularly warm or fuzzy. Obama tries to stay ahead by talking about sports and beer so often and by making so many TV appearances, but Ralph Kramden he ain't.

Americans may think of Obama and Romney as good fathers and conscientious leaders, but neither of them excels at being a "regular guy." Both went to prestigious prep schools, both went to Harvard Law School and both have led lives of privilege. Neither is someone with whom blue-collar voters have much in common.

But voters understand the perilous position of the nation on the economy, the federal debt, the mounting problems around the world and the deepening dysfunction of the government in Washington. The desperation is deepening for solutions and for a worldview big and broad enough to confront these difficult times for the republic.

But since "likability" is still considered a sacred aim of any politician, Obama made his appearance with Stewart. And in doing so, re-botched the Libya question.

Obama meant to correct Stewart and take the high ground when he used the host's word "optimal." Stewart was trying to get the president to admit that his administration has bungled the communications effort in the wake of the attack. Stewart was offering the president a way out -- to admit that he might have done a better job relating information to the public, even if he had handled the real issues right.

Since the president's most common admission of error is to say that he got the policy right but didn't pay enough attention to the politics, Stewart might reasonably have thought that Obama would grab the lifeline.

Instead, Obama tried to invoke the same umbrage that he did with Romney on Tuesday, and veered back to the deaths themselves. He was trying to gently chide Stewart for focusing on political messaging at a time of mourning.

And in that moment, Obama gave away his best defense on Libya. Having used the tactic with a friendly host on Comedy Central, how can Obama summon it again in the final presidential debate? The woeful word choice and the setting were a disaster.

All in the name of being "likable."

There is no good way to merge punch lines about his opponent and policy points about al Qaeda in Libya, but in pursuit of the electoral El Dorado of "likability," Obama tried and failed

Another Good Simple Romney Ad...

We're Not Only Not Fixed....We're Big Time Broken Thanks to Obama

A Great New Political Ad from Romney...Very Effective...!

It's Time to Get Barack Obama Out of the Way and Get U.S. Energy Production Back on Track....

Why We Aren't Producing Enough Domestic Energy

President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney had a heated exchange about energy in the most recent debate. The President repeated his refrain that oil and gas production is the highest it has been in eight years, but Romney was right to point out that this was driven by production on private and state lands.

The vast majority of America’s new oil and gas production is happening on private lands in states like North Dakota, Alaska and Texas. The environmental review and permitting process on federal lands, however, is burdensome and keeps resources untapped.

As Heritage’s Michael Sandoval has reported:

…oil production on federal lands has decreased between fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 by 11 percent. Natural gas production has decreased by 6 percent in the same one-year span. It is down nearly 27 percent from fiscal 2009. Meanwhile, oil and gas production have increased by 14 percent and 12 percent, respectively, on private and state-owned land.

How did North Dakota pass Alaska and California to become the second-largest producer of domestic crude oil? Answer: sensible state regulations, advancements in technology, and the ability to drill on private lands.

In addition to the much-heralded energy security that domestic energy could bring, these efforts produce jobs. North Dakota’s boom has put people to work. The state has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, at just 3 percent.

>>> Watch our video about the North Dakota oil boom

In contrast, regions where energy production has been restrained have suffered. Heritage energy expert Nicolas Loris explained the effects of halting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere:

The official moratorium and de facto moratorium as a result of a molasses-like permitting process reduced planned capital and operating investments by $18.3 billion and cost the Gulf more than 162,000 jobs in just the past two years. Federal production in the West has experienced a similar fate: The Administration’s delays on permitting oil and gas projects public lands are preventing economic activity. In Utah and Wyoming, for instance, projects held up by the National Environmental Policy Act process are preventing the creation 64,805 jobs, $4.3 billion in wages, and $14.9 billion in economic impact every year.

The most recent battle is taking place over uranium mining. The federal government banned uranium mining on more than 1 million acres of federal land in Arizona. Virginia lawmakers are considering doing the same in their own state, but the land in question is privately owned. That means the state legislature, not federal bureaucrats, will decide whether the mining moves forward.

In a new paper, Heritage’s Jack Spencer and Katie Tubb reveal that “studies show that the net economic benefit of construction and operations will yield almost $5 billion for Virginians over the life of the mine—around 35 years.” The site is “the nation’s largest known deposit of uranium, and the seventh largest in the world. At current uranium prices, the deposit is valued at approximately $6 billion and is enough to fuel each of America’s 104 nuclear reactors for two years.”

Spencer and Tubb note that it isn’t the state legislature’s responsibility to decide whether mining is a good idea: “The job of the Assembly should not be to ban or promote mining, but rather to set strong regulations that protect public health and safety. Then, given those regulations, private investors can determine whether the mining is worth pursuing.”

While the federal government makes energy production difficult or impossible on federal lands—as it has done under the Obama Administration—private lands can provide much-needed energy resources and economic revitalization. All government needs to do is get out of the way.

It's Good To See Doctors Making Their Feelings on Obamacare Known...especially in Ohio...

Ohio doctor running newspaper ads criticizing Obamacare ahead of election

2:56 AM 10/19/2012 Alex Pappas

A medical doctor in the crucial swing state of Ohio is publishing a 2,000-word letter slamming President Barack Obama’s health care law as full-page ads in local newspapers ahead of the presidential election.

Dr. Farid Naffah, a gastroenterologist in Warren, Ohio, wrote “The Risks and Perils of Obamacare” letter that has run both twice in the Tribune Chronicle and once in the Youngstown Vindicator in Ohio over the last week.

In a Thursday interview with The Daily Caller, Naffah said it’s possible he’ll continue to run the letter as full page ads in Ohio newspapers before the election.

The names of more than 40 doctors are listed as supportive of the letter, which states that Obamacare “is an administrative and fiscal disaster, bringing higher health care costs, a severe physician shortage and the rationing of medical services.”

“The people know us here,” Naffah told TheDC.

“We are the physicians of the community,” Naffah said. “When people look at an article like this, the first thing they look at is who signed it. And when people see our names, they recognize them. People tend to trust their doctors.”

After writing the letter, Naffah said he faxed a copy of it to various physicians. In just two days, he had 42 signatures, he said.

Since the letter ran, Naffah said more doctors have asked if he could add their names to the essay. Therefore, he said, he may run the advertisement again before the election.

“If the Affordable Care Act is not socialized medicine it will of necessity lead to it, by the exercise of regulatory mechanisms and fiscal pressure,” Naffah writes in the essay.

“Medicine will no longer be a liberal profession,” he argues, “but a government job, where your physician’s desire to excel in the delivery of care will cede its place to the fulfillment of government imposed requirements, the adherence to imperious rules and the fear of retribution.”

In the letter, the doctor argues that, “If all you know about Obamacare is that it will provide insurance to 32 million Americans who don’t have it; that patients with pre-existing conditions may not be excluded from coverage; that certain screening procedures are offered without co-payments, and that children may remain on their parents’ plan until the age of twenty-six, you would have no reason to fear or oppose it.”

“Sadly, that is exactly where the Obama White House wants you to be: in sheer ignorance of the innumerable provisions that make up the 2,700 pages of the law,” he writes.

Dr Naffah on Obamacare

Dr Naffah on Obamacare

We Need Mitt Romney in Office as President NOW!

In my opinion Obama never took this Libya tragedy seriously...he was and continues to be too involved in his own reelection campaign...he sees this as an inconvenient interruption to his campaigning and fundraising......just look at what he did when the tragedy happened.....he was awakened at night to be told of the attack and went back to sleep (even though state dept employees were watching the attack in real time)...tne next day when he learned about the 4 deaths instead of meeting with all his state dept/security team he ran off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser....

Now he addresses this tragedy as "not optimal"....he still doesn't get the importance of a terror attack and four American deaths on the anniversary of 9/11...

Does he address the American People on this issue???? no....Does he go before the press to answer questions??? does go on Comedy Central, the 'Daily Show' and on Letterman....both softball comedy/entertainment shows....why because it fits with his celebrity persona....

What a loser Barack Obama is....America will see through this bad behavior and the fact he has walked away from his job responsibilities as President since Labor Day of 2011....

Obama understatement on ‘Daily Show’: US response to deaths in Libya ‘not optimal’

6:39 PM 10/18/2012 Neil Munro

President Barack Obama told comedian Jon Stewart Thursday that the way his administration handled the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya was “not optimal.”

The understatement came during Obama’s election-trail conversation on Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” which is built on sardonic and flippant humor.

“Here’s what I’ll say: If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it,” Obama said during the show’s Oct. 18 taping, according to press pool reporters from The Washington post and the Los Angeles Times who were along for the interview.

In what may be a policy shift, Obama hinted at a concession that the Benghazi attackers were linked to al-Qaida. “It’s true that al-Qaida is still active, at least sort of remnants of it are staging in other parts of North Africa and the Middle East,” he told Stewart, who is a supporter of Obama.

Stewart gently quizzed Obama about his reaction to the Sept. 11 assault on the Benghazi facility, which killed ambassador Chris Stevens, an aide and two guards.

Obama’s “not optimal” comment came after Stewart nudged him to acknowledge a management problem in his administration prior to the attack.

“Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within. Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page,” Stewart asked.

When Stewart later asked the president about “confusion in the administration” following the Benghazi attack, Obama retorted that “we weren’t confused about the fact that four Americans had been killed,” according to a press pool report.

“I wasn’t confused about the fact that we needed to ramp up diplomatic security around the world. … I wasn’t confused about the fact that we had to investigate exactly what happened so it gets fixed. … I wasn’t confused about the fact that we’re going to hunt down whoever did it,” he insisted.

Obama did not comment on the criticism that he has sought to obscure his policy failures by blaming the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya on a surprise protest.

During the weeks immediately following the attack, Obama’s aides suggested the attack was caused by a protest against a California-made YouTube video that mocked the Muslim prophet Mohammed, rather than being a planned attack by a militant jihadi group.

State Department officials have since said there was no protest prior to the attack.

Obama’s aides admitted Sept. 19 that the attack was a terror strike, but continue to insist the video may have provided part of the militants’ motivation.

Gov. Mitt Romney and other GOP advocates say Obama is using the claim about the video to distract attention from the growing power of Islamist and jihadi groups amid his Muslim outreach policy’s failures.

That policy was announced in Obama’s 2009 “new beginning” speech in Cairo, Egypt.

Obama’s acknowledgment to Stewart of al-Qaida groups’ activity in North Africa may reflect revised intelligence estimates, a new White House assessment or an election-trail concession to GOP criticisms.

During the “Daily Show” interview, Obama also blamed intelligence agencies and his deputies for the White House’s discordant response to the Benghazi attack.

“Every piece of information that we get, as we got it, we laid it out to the American people. The picture eventually gets fully filled in,” he said.

“The government is a big operation and any given time something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what’s broken and you fix it,” he said.

Obama also cited a need to comply with “international law” when he was asked how he protects national security.

“We’ve gone after al-Qaida and its leadership. … Sometimes you’ve got to make some tough calls,” he replied, “but you can do so in a way that’s consistent with international law and with American law.”

In other comments, Obama said he still wants to close the Guantanamo prison and blamed Congress for blocking him.

“I still want to close Guantanamo. We haven’t been able to get that through Congress,” he claimed.

When Stewart asked him to explain his national security policy, Obama responded that “whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency, the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes [first], and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans,” he insisted.

“And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency.”

Today's visuals....

this time Obama has LIED himself into a corner in front of the entire nation..

The Momentum continues to be with Romney...

It becomes more and more evident that Obama has WASTED of ton or ouf Taxpayer money....

Another DOE-Backed Solar Company Goes Bankrupt

Lachlan Markay October 18, 2012 at 9:28 am

A solar company that got a multi-million-dollar grant from the Department of Energy earlier this year announced Wednesday that it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the second taxpayer-backed green energy company to file for bankruptcy this week.

Satcon Technology Corp. announced the decision in a Wednesday news release. “This has been a difficult time for Satcon,” president and CEO Steve Rhoades said. “After careful consideration of available alternatives, the Company’s Board of Directors determined that the Chapter 11 filings were a necessary and prudent step, allowing the Company to continue to operate while giving us the opportunity to reorganize with a stronger balance sheet and capital structure.”

Satcon received a $3 million DOE grant in January to develop “a compact, lightweight power conversion device that is capable of taking utility-scale solar power and outputting it directly into the electric utility grid at distribution voltage levels—eliminating the need for large transformers.”

“If successful,” noted DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E) at the time, “Satcon would simplify the solar power conversion process and significantly reduce the cost of operating, installing, and siting a PV power system—helping to facilitate their widespread use.”

ARPA-E also stated that the grant “could create jobs for system installers, technicians, and salespeople.”

Satcon has also received smaller federal payments for various solar initiatives at DOE. The company manufactures power conversion devices for solar energy, though it does not manufacture the solar panels themselves.

Satcon is the second DOE-backed green energy company to declare bankruptcy this week. As Scribe’s Michael Sandoval reported on Tuesday, electric vehicle battery manufacturer A123 Systems filed for Chapter 11 despite receiving a $249 million DOE grant.

A123 and Satcon mark the latest in a long line of taxpayer-funded green energy failures. Heritage’s Ashe Schow lays out the full list in a new report on the Foundry.

36 Companies in total have failed or are failing currently...what a total waste of taxpayer dollars....

President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

Ashe Schow October 18, 2012 at 8:25 am

It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
1.Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($69 million)*
5.AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
6.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
7.SunPower ($1.5 billion)
8.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
9.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
10.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
11.Amonix ($5.9 million)
12.National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
13.Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
14.Abound Solar ($374 million)*
15.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
16.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
17.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
18.Schneider Electric ($86 million)
19.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
20.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
21.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
22.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
23.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
24.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
25.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
26.Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
27.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
28.LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
29.UniSolar ($100 million)*
30.Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
31.GreenVolts ($500,000)
32.Vestas ($50 million)
33.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
34.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
35.Navistar ($10 million)
36.Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Great Ad....A Must See!

Biden is either insane or senile....and put dirty Harry Reid in that same category....

Biden: ‘How Many of You Know Someone who Served in Iraq or Iran?’

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff October 18, 2012 3:55 pm Vice President Joe Biden asked supporters Thursday at a Nevada campaign event, “How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?”

Biden was joined at the event by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and embattled Senate candidate Rep. Shelley Berkley. At Biden’s question, Reid raised his hand.

At the event, Biden also said that when it comes to the Young Guns – a group of younger Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan — the “bullets are aimed at you.”

Obama is AS Guilty, If Not More Guilty than Clinton was With Monica Lewinsky.........

The Great Gaffe at Hofstra will come back to Haunt Obama on Monday Night....

October 18, 2012 3:30 P.M.

The Great Gaffe at Hofstra
Obama’s bluster and non-response on the Libya question will come back to haunt him.

By Charles Krauthammer

Fight night at Hofstra. The two boxers, confined within a ring of spectators — circling, feinting, taunting, staring each other down — come several times, by my reckoning, no more than one provocation away from actual fisticuffs, of the kind that on occasion so delightfully break out in the Taiwanese parliament. Think of it: The Secret Service storming the ring, pinning Mitt Romney to the canvas as Candy Crowley administers the ten count.

The actual outcome was somewhat more pedestrian. President Obama gained a narrow victory on points, as borne out by several flash polls. The margin was small, paling in comparison to Romney’s 52-point victory in the first debate.

At Hofstra, Obama emerged from his previous coma to score enough jabs to outweigh Romney’s haymaker, his dazzling takedown of the Obama record when answering a disappointed 2008 Obama voter.

That one answer might account for the fact that in two early flash polls Romney beat Obama on the economy by 18 points in one poll, 31 in the other. That being the overriding issue, the debate is likely to have minimal effect on the dynamics of the race.

The one thing Obama’s performance did do is re-energize his demoralized base — the media, in particular. But at a price.

The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romney’s biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obama’s answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument, Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would “mislead” the country on Libya.

This bluster — unchallenged by Romney — helped Obama slither out of the Libya question unscathed. Unfortunately for Obama, there is one more debate — next week — entirely on foreign policy. The burning issue will be Libya and the scandalous parade of fictions told by this administration to explain away the debacle.

No one misled? His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others.

The video? A complete irrelevance. It was a coordinated, sophisticated terror attack, encouraged, if anything, by Osama bin Laden’s successor, giving orders from Pakistan to avenge the death of a Libyan jihadist.

Not wishing to admit that we had just been attacked by al-Qaeda affiliates perhaps answering to the successor of a man on whose grave Obama and the Democrats have been dancing for months, the administration relentlessly advanced the mob/video tale to distract from the truth.

And it wasn’t just his minions who misled the nation. A week after the attack, the president himself, asked by David Letterman about the ambassador’s murder, said it started with a video. False again.

Romney will be ready Monday.

You are offended by this accusation, Mr. President? The country is offended that your press secretary, your U.N. ambassador, and you yourself have repeatedly misled the nation about the origin and nature of the Benghazi attack.

The problem wasn’t the video, the problem was policies for which you say you now accept responsibility. Then accept it, Mr. President. You were asked in the last debate why more security was denied our people in Libya despite the fact that they begged for it. You never answered that question, Mr. President. Or will you blame your Secretary of State?

Esprit de l’escalier (“wit of the staircase”) is the French term for the devastating riposte that one should have given at dinner, but comes up with only on the way out at the bottom of the staircase. It’s Romney’s fortune that he’s invited to one more dinner. If he gets it right this time, Obama’s narrow victory in debate number two, salvaged by the mock umbrage that anyone could accuse him of misleading, will cost him dearly.

It was a huge gaffe. It is indelibly on the record. It will prove a very expensive expedient.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.

Another Obama partisan that would do ANYTHING to get him reelected...Gov Brown needs to fire him.....

Calif. official whose agency under-reported unemployment stats was Obama campaign donor

10:15 PM 10/18/2012 Gregg Re

Marty Morgenstern, the secretary of the California agency that substantially under-reported unemployment claims last week, contributed to President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign, The Daily Caller has learned.

On Oct. 11, the federal government reported that weekly jobless claims were down significantly, suggesting a dramatic national increase in economic growth. But within hours, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that one major state had failed to fully document jobless claims.

Speculation among market watchers and economists initially focused on California, but the state’s Employment Development Department strongly denied that it had failed to properly document the data.

“Reports that California failed to fully report data to the U.S. Department of Labor, as required, are incorrect and irresponsible,” California Employment Development Department director Pam Harris said in a statement last week. “The California Employment Development Department, which administers the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program in the state, has reported all UI claims data and submitted the data on time.”

But early Thursday, the federal government revealed that California had, in fact, under-reported jobless data, skewing the national jobless claims results.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Morgenstern to lead the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in 2011. The state agency oversees the Employment Development Department.

According to campaign disclosure records, Morgenstern donated $4,600 — the maximum amount allowed by law — to the 2008 Obama camapaign, beginning with a $1,000 contribution to Obama for America in February 2008. Morgenstern followed up that donation with a $1,300 contribution in June, and then a $2,300 payout in early September.

On all three disclosures, Morgenstern indicated that he was either ”not employed” or “retired.”

According to the Sacramento Business Journal, however, Morgenstern was employed since 2003 as a consultant for the liberal University of California education system

Interesting Fact...

Today I went out on Galveston Island looking for DVD "2016 Obama's America" which was released on 10/16....

I could not find it on the shelves in Walmart so I inquired with a sales clerk...she said we "can't find it".....I thought that was very odd since having been in the retail business and knowing how new releases are prioritized it seemed very strange that they would not be able to "find it"

I then went to Target and again I couldn't find it on the shelf. I was told in Target that they didn't get it...again that sounded strange. The clerk looked it up on her handheld devise and told me that one of their stores 20 miles away had a few but they had sold through ....

Maybe it's me, but could there be an effort on the part of stores/store clerks to keep this video from the shelves until after the election...

Check out the situation in your area and let me know what you find out...