Thursday, September 30, 2010
Another Example of Tremendous Waste!
If you try to find waste and spending cut opportunities they are out there by the thousands and thousands....not to mention that we need to get a hold of government employees'/teachers' wages and benefits which are way above those of private industry and need to be adjusted down...that means attacking the unions, but it's got to happen (just like it has happened in private business over the past 10 years)...No question WASTE ABOUNDS!
Coburn Report Shows Billions in Education Budget Spent on 'School House Pork'
Published September 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Sen. Tom Coburn is seen at a news conference on Capitol Hill Dec. 19. (AP Photo)
What do mariachi classes, wine studies and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have in common?
They were all funded by federal Department of Education earmarks, according to an extensive new report released Thursday by Sen. Tom Coburn.
The Oklahoma Republican, in a study called "School House Pork," is urging the federal government to suspend these education "slush funds" after finding that lawmakers have secured 5,563 such earmarks, worth $2.3 billion over the past decade. While earmark advocates argue they're a way to ensure taxpayer money is going toward worthy projects, Coburn's report claims the recipients often were not "deserving or needy" of the extra funding.
Click here to read the study.
The programs were "created by Congress to improve the American educational system, but have been compromised by political interests and are overrun with education pork," the report says.
Coburn's study focuses on two Education Department funds -- the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education and the Fund for the Improvement of Education. He told Fox News the Congress is not focusing on priorities in allocating the money.
"We're in tough times and we're still doing this kind of stupid stuff," Coburn said Thursday. "Everybody's thinking we have to raise taxes, the first thing we need to do is cut back waste."
The report, claiming money often went to the schools with the best lobbyists, drew attention to dozens of questionable earmarks. Here are some of the highlights:
-- A Las Vegas school district received a $25,000 earmark in 2005 for a mariachi music program.
-- Jackson State University benefited from a $478,941 earmark to look at studying a school of osteopathic medicine. However, a local newspaper reported that the commissioner of higher education in Mississippi had "no intention" of opening one.
-- Central Washington University received $191,593 in 2008 for "curriculum development," which included a curriculum based on local wines.
-- Lawmakers secured more than $181 million in earmarks over the past decade for programs and projects that would bear their name. This included $1.9 million in 2008 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service; two earmarks over two years worth more than $19 million for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate; $2.4 million for the Lott Leadership Institute, named after former Sen. Trent Lott; and two earmarks worth $10 million for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center.
-- Fifteen earmarks worth $2.7 million went to zoos over the past decade. This included four earmarks totaling $1 million for the Philadelphia Zoo.
-- Several education earmarks funded local and national halls of fame. The National Baseball Hall of Fame got $450,000 in 2005, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame got $200,000 in 2002 and the National Aviation Hall of Fame got $400,000 in 2001 -- then another $200,000 earmark in 2005.
-- Lawmakers secured $273,000 for a program in Blue Springs, Mo., aimed at fighting Goth culture.
-- Through seven earmarks, more than $5 million went to the Andre Agassi College Prep Academy.
Coburn Report Shows Billions in Education Budget Spent on 'School House Pork'
Published September 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Sen. Tom Coburn is seen at a news conference on Capitol Hill Dec. 19. (AP Photo)
What do mariachi classes, wine studies and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have in common?
They were all funded by federal Department of Education earmarks, according to an extensive new report released Thursday by Sen. Tom Coburn.
The Oklahoma Republican, in a study called "School House Pork," is urging the federal government to suspend these education "slush funds" after finding that lawmakers have secured 5,563 such earmarks, worth $2.3 billion over the past decade. While earmark advocates argue they're a way to ensure taxpayer money is going toward worthy projects, Coburn's report claims the recipients often were not "deserving or needy" of the extra funding.
Click here to read the study.
The programs were "created by Congress to improve the American educational system, but have been compromised by political interests and are overrun with education pork," the report says.
Coburn's study focuses on two Education Department funds -- the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education and the Fund for the Improvement of Education. He told Fox News the Congress is not focusing on priorities in allocating the money.
"We're in tough times and we're still doing this kind of stupid stuff," Coburn said Thursday. "Everybody's thinking we have to raise taxes, the first thing we need to do is cut back waste."
The report, claiming money often went to the schools with the best lobbyists, drew attention to dozens of questionable earmarks. Here are some of the highlights:
-- A Las Vegas school district received a $25,000 earmark in 2005 for a mariachi music program.
-- Jackson State University benefited from a $478,941 earmark to look at studying a school of osteopathic medicine. However, a local newspaper reported that the commissioner of higher education in Mississippi had "no intention" of opening one.
-- Central Washington University received $191,593 in 2008 for "curriculum development," which included a curriculum based on local wines.
-- Lawmakers secured more than $181 million in earmarks over the past decade for programs and projects that would bear their name. This included $1.9 million in 2008 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service; two earmarks over two years worth more than $19 million for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate; $2.4 million for the Lott Leadership Institute, named after former Sen. Trent Lott; and two earmarks worth $10 million for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center.
-- Fifteen earmarks worth $2.7 million went to zoos over the past decade. This included four earmarks totaling $1 million for the Philadelphia Zoo.
-- Several education earmarks funded local and national halls of fame. The National Baseball Hall of Fame got $450,000 in 2005, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame got $200,000 in 2002 and the National Aviation Hall of Fame got $400,000 in 2001 -- then another $200,000 earmark in 2005.
-- Lawmakers secured $273,000 for a program in Blue Springs, Mo., aimed at fighting Goth culture.
-- Through seven earmarks, more than $5 million went to the Andre Agassi College Prep Academy.
What a Waste of Taxpayer Money!
If we are serious about reducing government spending and getting the deficits down and taxes down longer term, then we have to address assanine issues like this one...What a total waste of taxpayer money....If people can't read upper case letters, guess what..they can't read lower case letters....get rid of all the illegals that are here and you will help the situation...and require that reading and writing english is a basic if you are going to live in America...
Taxpayers to Pay $27M for Lowercase Street Signs in NYC
Published September 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com
New York City has begun the estimated $27.6 million process of swapping out street signs so they comply with new federal regulations.
The Federal Highway Administration is requiring the city's Department of Transportation to change uppercase letters to a combination of upper and lower, saying it will improve safety. The administration says studies show motorists find it easier to read lowercase signs.
The city has 250,000 street signs, and the new signs will cost $110 each. Officials say the city will have 11,000 changed by the end of this fiscal year, but already replaces about 8,000 signs a year due to wear and tear.
The new federal regulations also call for a change in font for street signs to a specially-designed typeface called Clearview.
Municipalities across the country are also expected to comply with the changes, and will have until 2018 to do so.
Taxpayers to Pay $27M for Lowercase Street Signs in NYC
Published September 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com
New York City has begun the estimated $27.6 million process of swapping out street signs so they comply with new federal regulations.
The Federal Highway Administration is requiring the city's Department of Transportation to change uppercase letters to a combination of upper and lower, saying it will improve safety. The administration says studies show motorists find it easier to read lowercase signs.
The city has 250,000 street signs, and the new signs will cost $110 each. Officials say the city will have 11,000 changed by the end of this fiscal year, but already replaces about 8,000 signs a year due to wear and tear.
The new federal regulations also call for a change in font for street signs to a specially-designed typeface called Clearview.
Municipalities across the country are also expected to comply with the changes, and will have until 2018 to do so.
American are ready for REAL CHANGE!
The move in American for Real Change continues!
Fox News Poll: Voters Use Midterm Elections to Send Message to White House
By Dana Blanton
Published September 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com
With the balance of power in Congress at stake, many voters plan to register dissatisfaction with a Democratic-controlled White House – making the midterm elections a referendum on President Obama.
A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that 41 percent will use their vote this year to express opposition to Obama's policies, compared to 34 percent who describe their vote as expressing support. The message is even clearer among the swing group of independent voters: by an 11 percentage-point margin, independents will cast their ballot to express opposition (41 percent) rather than support (30 percent) for Obama.
That's not surprising given the lack of support for some of the administration's policies. More voters favor rather than oppose repealing the new health care law (46-42 percent). That includes 24 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of independents who want the law repealed.
And by a wide 54-36 percent margin, voters favor legislation stopping the government from spending the hundreds of billions of dollars of unspent stimulus money.
While 57 percent say the Tea Party will not be a factor in their vote for Congress, fully 70 percent of voters support the "main issues the Tea Party has raised" -- calling for lower taxes, less government spending and less government regulation. That includes 49 percent of Democrats.
Those who will use their vote to make a statement on the Tea Party are more likely to cast their ballot as an expression of support for the movement rather than opposition (21-13 percent). It’s important to note the new poll finds just 13 percent consider themselves "part of" the Tea Party movement.
Almost all voters -- 86 percent -- say it feels like the country is still in a recession.
Nearly four in 10 (37 percent) say their family is worse off today compared to two years ago. Just over half (52 percent) say their situation hasn’t changed. Only 11 percent say they are better off today.
Meanwhile, Obama's job rating remains low. Currently 42 percent of voters approve, matching last week’s record low, and 49 percent disapprove. Two weeks ago the president’s rating hit a new low approval (42 percent) and record high disapproval (52 percent).
In addition, 46 percent think Obama is doing a good job "listening to the American people," down slightly from 49 percent in February. Forty-three percent think he’s doing a bad job listening. Yet the president fares better on this measure than those on Capitol Hill. Majorities think Democrats (59 percent) and Republicans in Congress (55 percent) are doing a bad job listening to the American people.
Overall, 72 percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing, including 56 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents and 89 percent of Republicans. Likewise, 67 percent agree that the federal government has gotten “totally out of control” and American voters need to clean house.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from September 28 to September 29. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Republicans Maintain Edge in 2010 Vote
More Republicans (78 percent) than Democrats (60 percent) are extremely or very interested in the upcoming election, and those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement are the most interested group of voters this year (89 percent). In addition, a larger number of Republicans (83 percent) than Democrats (71 percent) are "certain" they will vote in the upcoming election.
That turns into an advantage for the Republicans. With Election Day less than five weeks away, by a 44-38 percent margin, more voters say they would back the Republican candidate in their district than the Democratic candidate if voting today. In mid-September, Republicans also had a 6-point edge on this generic ballot question (46-40 percent).
Among those who are extremely or very interested in the election, the Republican edge increases to 15 points (51-36 percent).
Not only are more Republicans (89 percent) than Democrats (82 percent) backing their party’s candidate, but also Democrats (20 percent) are more than twice as likely as Republicans (9 percent) to say they "dread" voting this year.
Ninety-three percent of those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party, as well as 82 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of independents are “looking forward” to voting this year.
Clinton Preferred Over Obama on Campaign Trail
While 35 percent of voters say they would be more likely to support a candidate if Obama campaigns for them, nearly half -- 48 percent -- say they would be less likely to do so.
Among independents, the president would do even more harm. By a 29-point spread, independents would be less likely (48 percent) to vote for a candidate Obama backs rather than more likely (19 percent).
It's a similar story for First Lady Michelle Obama -- voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate if she campaigns for them by 16 points.
For former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the effect is about the same: by 19 points voters overall would be less likely to vote for a candidate she backs, and by 20-points independents would be less likely.
The most positive response was for former President Bill Clinton. Some 39 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate Clinton backed, while 40 percent say less likely. Even so, among independents, Clinton would do more harm than good: 25 percent say they would be more likely and 40 percent less likely.
Congress Should Vote on Tax Cuts before Election
Most voters -- 76 percent -- favor continuing the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year. That drops to 45 percent support for extending the tax cuts for all Americans, including those making $250,000 or more.
Still, 71 percent think raising taxes right now would be a "mistake" because it would hurt the economy. That’s more than three times as many as think raising taxes is a “necessity” because of the size of the federal deficit (19 percent).
Either way, a 65 percent majority thinks Congress should take action on the Bush tax cuts before the upcoming midterm elections so lawmakers can be held accountable for their vote. That includes more than 6 in 10 Democrats, Republicans and independents.
The Republicans New Pledge to America
Nearly half of voters (47 percent) say they are familiar with the Republican Party’s new “Pledge to America,” which was announced September 23.
Of those at least somewhat familiar with the new Pledge, many more have a favorable (46 percent) than an unfavorable (35 percent) impression of it. For 9 percent it is too soon to say.
Fox News Poll: Voters Use Midterm Elections to Send Message to White House
By Dana Blanton
Published September 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com
With the balance of power in Congress at stake, many voters plan to register dissatisfaction with a Democratic-controlled White House – making the midterm elections a referendum on President Obama.
A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that 41 percent will use their vote this year to express opposition to Obama's policies, compared to 34 percent who describe their vote as expressing support. The message is even clearer among the swing group of independent voters: by an 11 percentage-point margin, independents will cast their ballot to express opposition (41 percent) rather than support (30 percent) for Obama.
That's not surprising given the lack of support for some of the administration's policies. More voters favor rather than oppose repealing the new health care law (46-42 percent). That includes 24 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of independents who want the law repealed.
And by a wide 54-36 percent margin, voters favor legislation stopping the government from spending the hundreds of billions of dollars of unspent stimulus money.
While 57 percent say the Tea Party will not be a factor in their vote for Congress, fully 70 percent of voters support the "main issues the Tea Party has raised" -- calling for lower taxes, less government spending and less government regulation. That includes 49 percent of Democrats.
Those who will use their vote to make a statement on the Tea Party are more likely to cast their ballot as an expression of support for the movement rather than opposition (21-13 percent). It’s important to note the new poll finds just 13 percent consider themselves "part of" the Tea Party movement.
Almost all voters -- 86 percent -- say it feels like the country is still in a recession.
Nearly four in 10 (37 percent) say their family is worse off today compared to two years ago. Just over half (52 percent) say their situation hasn’t changed. Only 11 percent say they are better off today.
Meanwhile, Obama's job rating remains low. Currently 42 percent of voters approve, matching last week’s record low, and 49 percent disapprove. Two weeks ago the president’s rating hit a new low approval (42 percent) and record high disapproval (52 percent).
In addition, 46 percent think Obama is doing a good job "listening to the American people," down slightly from 49 percent in February. Forty-three percent think he’s doing a bad job listening. Yet the president fares better on this measure than those on Capitol Hill. Majorities think Democrats (59 percent) and Republicans in Congress (55 percent) are doing a bad job listening to the American people.
Overall, 72 percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing, including 56 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents and 89 percent of Republicans. Likewise, 67 percent agree that the federal government has gotten “totally out of control” and American voters need to clean house.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from September 28 to September 29. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Republicans Maintain Edge in 2010 Vote
More Republicans (78 percent) than Democrats (60 percent) are extremely or very interested in the upcoming election, and those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement are the most interested group of voters this year (89 percent). In addition, a larger number of Republicans (83 percent) than Democrats (71 percent) are "certain" they will vote in the upcoming election.
That turns into an advantage for the Republicans. With Election Day less than five weeks away, by a 44-38 percent margin, more voters say they would back the Republican candidate in their district than the Democratic candidate if voting today. In mid-September, Republicans also had a 6-point edge on this generic ballot question (46-40 percent).
Among those who are extremely or very interested in the election, the Republican edge increases to 15 points (51-36 percent).
Not only are more Republicans (89 percent) than Democrats (82 percent) backing their party’s candidate, but also Democrats (20 percent) are more than twice as likely as Republicans (9 percent) to say they "dread" voting this year.
Ninety-three percent of those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party, as well as 82 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of independents are “looking forward” to voting this year.
Clinton Preferred Over Obama on Campaign Trail
While 35 percent of voters say they would be more likely to support a candidate if Obama campaigns for them, nearly half -- 48 percent -- say they would be less likely to do so.
Among independents, the president would do even more harm. By a 29-point spread, independents would be less likely (48 percent) to vote for a candidate Obama backs rather than more likely (19 percent).
It's a similar story for First Lady Michelle Obama -- voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate if she campaigns for them by 16 points.
For former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the effect is about the same: by 19 points voters overall would be less likely to vote for a candidate she backs, and by 20-points independents would be less likely.
The most positive response was for former President Bill Clinton. Some 39 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate Clinton backed, while 40 percent say less likely. Even so, among independents, Clinton would do more harm than good: 25 percent say they would be more likely and 40 percent less likely.
Congress Should Vote on Tax Cuts before Election
Most voters -- 76 percent -- favor continuing the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year. That drops to 45 percent support for extending the tax cuts for all Americans, including those making $250,000 or more.
Still, 71 percent think raising taxes right now would be a "mistake" because it would hurt the economy. That’s more than three times as many as think raising taxes is a “necessity” because of the size of the federal deficit (19 percent).
Either way, a 65 percent majority thinks Congress should take action on the Bush tax cuts before the upcoming midterm elections so lawmakers can be held accountable for their vote. That includes more than 6 in 10 Democrats, Republicans and independents.
The Republicans New Pledge to America
Nearly half of voters (47 percent) say they are familiar with the Republican Party’s new “Pledge to America,” which was announced September 23.
Of those at least somewhat familiar with the new Pledge, many more have a favorable (46 percent) than an unfavorable (35 percent) impression of it. For 9 percent it is too soon to say.
Alan Grayson: Hates Children, Hates Seniors, Loves Satan
They ought to run this ad against Grayson...it's as truthful as any ad he is running and it points out what a disrespectful, lying idiot he really is.
Breitbart.tv » Alan Grayson: Hates Children, Hates Seniors, Loves Satan
Breitbart.tv » Alan Grayson: Hates Children, Hates Seniors, Loves Satan
Obama: Fox News ‘Destructive’, MSNBC ‘Invaluable’...This clip just shows how much Obama is a hypocrite!
This clip illustrates that Obama is a total hypocrite and has NO principles...whatever advantages him most at the time is what he will do with NO regard to the will of the American People!
Breitbart.tv » Obama: Fox News ‘Destructive’, MSNBC ‘Invaluable’
Breitbart.tv » Obama: Fox News ‘Destructive’, MSNBC ‘Invaluable’
Steny Hoyer....just like the rest of the Democrats!
Steny Hoyer is just like the rest of the Democrats....when in doubt blame it on the republicans...I am surprised he didn't blame it specifically on George Bush....he knows that these tax cuts will expire at the end of the year and he knows that if they are not ALL extended it will hurt small business folks, but like Obama and the rest of the democrats (except the 40 or so that are now joining Republicans) he really doesn't care about jobs or small business folks...
Alan Grayson is another Democrat Idiot!
Alan Grayson is an embarassment to America....how could self respecting Floridians ever support him for the House....he's offensive, he's a lier and he acts like he's insane!....He needs to go home in 33 Days....!
Grayson: Palin a 'half-baked Alaskan'
ALEX ISENSTADT | 9/30/10 12:22 PM EDT
Florida Rep. Alan Grayson is hoping to raise money by warning supporters about an enemy even more menacing than “Taliban Dan Webster” — Sarah Palin’s zombie horde.
In a rambling, pop-culture-laden new fundraising appeal out Thursday morning, Grayson slams Palin — whom he derides as a “half-baked Alaskan” and “Her Tweetness” — over her new endorsement of his GOP foe, Daniel Webster, on Palin’s Twitter account.
“What is it about Sarah Palin and Twitter?” Grayson writes. “Is Palin fond of tweeting because she can draft a tweet on her palm? Is it that 140 characters represents the maximum length of Sarah Palin's attention span?”
Grayson also claims that Palin is targeting him “like she was shooting a moose from a helicopter,” and manages to work in references to William Shatner and Conan O’Brien.
Grayson’s appeal is the latest in a string of provocative campaign pleas targeting Webster, his GOP opponent, as well as national Republicans. The freshman Democrat targets everyone from Palin to Fox News to former Vice President Dick Cheney on his campaign website.
Palin announced her support for Webster on her Twitter page late Wednesday, and excoriated Grayson for his controversial ad depicting Webster as anti-women and calling him “Taliban Dan Webster.” The ad has been widely criticized for its use of deceptive editing, making Webster appear to suggest wives should submit to their husbands.
“FL's Daniel Webster — keep moving forward w/positive,strong,sharp message of truth! (As opposed to opponent who disgraced himself w/that ad),” wrote Palin.
Palin went after Grayson again Thursday morning, writing on Twitter that, “Grayson's twisted campaign ad adds to "media distrust" problem; he blatantly lies in vile rant, but greedy media run it anyway w/no fact check,” and that “Florida deserves the best! No need 2 settle 4 such an odd, troubled character 2 represent your beautiful state. Take pride in Daniel Webster.”
Grayson fired back in his e-mail missive, writing that, “unlike Sarah Palin, I have a head and a heart. Because unlike Sarah Palin, I believe that I am my brother's keeper. And unlike Sarah Palin, I believe in the 3000-year-old imperative of every just society — to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, and heal the sick.”
Webster campaign manager Brian Graham called Grayson’s appeal “immature,” but declined to comment further.
Grayson has raised a mammoth $3.7 million so far this cycle, while Webster has taken in over $313,000.
Grayson: Palin a 'half-baked Alaskan'
ALEX ISENSTADT | 9/30/10 12:22 PM EDT
Florida Rep. Alan Grayson is hoping to raise money by warning supporters about an enemy even more menacing than “Taliban Dan Webster” — Sarah Palin’s zombie horde.
In a rambling, pop-culture-laden new fundraising appeal out Thursday morning, Grayson slams Palin — whom he derides as a “half-baked Alaskan” and “Her Tweetness” — over her new endorsement of his GOP foe, Daniel Webster, on Palin’s Twitter account.
“What is it about Sarah Palin and Twitter?” Grayson writes. “Is Palin fond of tweeting because she can draft a tweet on her palm? Is it that 140 characters represents the maximum length of Sarah Palin's attention span?”
Grayson also claims that Palin is targeting him “like she was shooting a moose from a helicopter,” and manages to work in references to William Shatner and Conan O’Brien.
Grayson’s appeal is the latest in a string of provocative campaign pleas targeting Webster, his GOP opponent, as well as national Republicans. The freshman Democrat targets everyone from Palin to Fox News to former Vice President Dick Cheney on his campaign website.
Palin announced her support for Webster on her Twitter page late Wednesday, and excoriated Grayson for his controversial ad depicting Webster as anti-women and calling him “Taliban Dan Webster.” The ad has been widely criticized for its use of deceptive editing, making Webster appear to suggest wives should submit to their husbands.
“FL's Daniel Webster — keep moving forward w/positive,strong,sharp message of truth! (As opposed to opponent who disgraced himself w/that ad),” wrote Palin.
Palin went after Grayson again Thursday morning, writing on Twitter that, “Grayson's twisted campaign ad adds to "media distrust" problem; he blatantly lies in vile rant, but greedy media run it anyway w/no fact check,” and that “Florida deserves the best! No need 2 settle 4 such an odd, troubled character 2 represent your beautiful state. Take pride in Daniel Webster.”
Grayson fired back in his e-mail missive, writing that, “unlike Sarah Palin, I have a head and a heart. Because unlike Sarah Palin, I believe that I am my brother's keeper. And unlike Sarah Palin, I believe in the 3000-year-old imperative of every just society — to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, and heal the sick.”
Webster campaign manager Brian Graham called Grayson’s appeal “immature,” but declined to comment further.
Grayson has raised a mammoth $3.7 million so far this cycle, while Webster has taken in over $313,000.
Another Broken Obama Promise....Another Obama Lie
Everyone said that this was going to happen...again another broken promise that Obama made during the Obamacare debate...he lied again!....this is what happens when the President and noone in the administration understands business....this is going to get very, very ugly very soon!
Report: McDonald's May Drop Health Care Plan
Published September 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com
McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators it's health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.
McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, raising speculation about the fate of those employees' health coverage.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.
While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.
Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of its premium revenue on medical care, the Wall Street Journal reported.
But McDonald's issued a statement Wednesday denying that it planned to drop coverage for its employees and defending its benefit plans.
"We've had the opportunity to speak with regulatory agencies directly to better understand the implications of the law and to share our point of view," Steve Russell, a senior vice president with the company, said in the statement. "Moving forward, we will continue to have an open dialogue with legislators as well as regulators."
McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims. Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.
Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.
Report: McDonald's May Drop Health Care Plan
Published September 30, 2010 | FoxNews.com
McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators it's health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.
McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, raising speculation about the fate of those employees' health coverage.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.
While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.
Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of its premium revenue on medical care, the Wall Street Journal reported.
But McDonald's issued a statement Wednesday denying that it planned to drop coverage for its employees and defending its benefit plans.
"We've had the opportunity to speak with regulatory agencies directly to better understand the implications of the law and to share our point of view," Steve Russell, a senior vice president with the company, said in the statement. "Moving forward, we will continue to have an open dialogue with legislators as well as regulators."
McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims. Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.
Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.
Dissenting Democrats - How do they REALLY feel!
Bipartisan support yesterday was good, but you have to wonder if any of these Democrats lose their elections in November if they would do the same the next time. Today it's a political ploy for them to help them get reelected. We will see what their true feelings are after the election!....But it was the Democrats as a party that voted to disregard their duty to give some certainty to the American People about next year's taxes....Again the Democrats act irresponsible....another reason to vote them out in 33 days on November 2nd.
The Bipartisan Fight Against the Obama Tax Hikes
At 20 minutes after midnight this morning, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) gaveled the House out of session, assuring that Congress will now adjourn until after the November elections without taking any action to stop the Obama tax hikes. Earlier in the day, 39 Democrats defied Speaker Pelosi and voted with the minority to keep the House in session until they could vote on the impending tax hikes. Speaker Pelosi, who rarely votes on day-to-day legislation, was forced to cast the tie breaking vote (210-209) on the adjournment resolution. To the members of the majority who broke ranks with Speaker Pelosi, the meaning of the vote was clear: a vote to adjourn was a vote to raise taxes. They voiced their displeasure after the vote:
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): "I think we should stay and deal with taxes. We should extend the tax cuts now. Before we adjourn. I get paid to be here. Let’s do our job."
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL): "I'm not ready to adjourn if there’s any work they expect us to do. We've got a lot of work to do, a lot of unfinished business, and I'm ready to take it on. That's my position. The vast majority of people in my district are saying 'Don’t raise taxes when the economy is in such a bad state, on anybody.'"
Rep. Zack Space (D-OH): "That's an issue we should be resolving before we go home. I think that small business, big business, individuals, have a right to expect some certainty. The longer we keep this open, the more uncertainty there is. Our economy is such that I don’t think we can afford that."
House Democrats are not the only ones willing to fight the Obama tax hikes. Yesterday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) explained to an audience at The Heritage Foundation why he was in favor of not raising any taxes until the economy shows stronger signs of recovery:
In my view, raising anyone's taxes, given our fragile economy would be a move in the wrong direction. Nebraskans I represent tell me they feel a lot of uncertainty about the future. Nebraska business owners do to. The possibility of tax increases is just one more reason that companies at home and across the country are holding on to cash and are hesitant to invest in new equipment, new production and new employees.
Sen. Nelson's speech yesterday was hosted by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis Director Bill Beach, whose recent study, Obama Tax Hikes: The Economic and Fiscal Effects, found that the Obama tax hikes would:
Destroy an average of 693,000 jobs every year through 2020.
Drain $726 billion from disposable income, $38 billion from personal savings and $33 billion from business investments.
Raise taxes on the 55% of all joint filers earning more than $250,000 who run small businesses that employ others.
Cost the average non-farm small-business owner $3,500 more in taxes.
Cost the 49% of all seniors with income below $250,000 $525 in additional dividend taxes.
Cost the 25% all seniors with income below $250,000 $742 in higher taxes.
The CDA is not alone in their verdict. A recent CNN survey of economists found that the most important thing Congress can do to help the economy is stop the Obama tax hikes. But now, thanks to the current majority in Congress, that will not happen.
At the beginning of his remarks yesterday, Sen. Nelson reminded the audience of Ben Franklin's wisdom that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Sen. Nelson then added: "And it was Will Rogers who amended that by saying the only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets." Hopefully the next Congress will prove Rogers wrong.
The Bipartisan Fight Against the Obama Tax Hikes
At 20 minutes after midnight this morning, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) gaveled the House out of session, assuring that Congress will now adjourn until after the November elections without taking any action to stop the Obama tax hikes. Earlier in the day, 39 Democrats defied Speaker Pelosi and voted with the minority to keep the House in session until they could vote on the impending tax hikes. Speaker Pelosi, who rarely votes on day-to-day legislation, was forced to cast the tie breaking vote (210-209) on the adjournment resolution. To the members of the majority who broke ranks with Speaker Pelosi, the meaning of the vote was clear: a vote to adjourn was a vote to raise taxes. They voiced their displeasure after the vote:
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): "I think we should stay and deal with taxes. We should extend the tax cuts now. Before we adjourn. I get paid to be here. Let’s do our job."
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL): "I'm not ready to adjourn if there’s any work they expect us to do. We've got a lot of work to do, a lot of unfinished business, and I'm ready to take it on. That's my position. The vast majority of people in my district are saying 'Don’t raise taxes when the economy is in such a bad state, on anybody.'"
Rep. Zack Space (D-OH): "That's an issue we should be resolving before we go home. I think that small business, big business, individuals, have a right to expect some certainty. The longer we keep this open, the more uncertainty there is. Our economy is such that I don’t think we can afford that."
House Democrats are not the only ones willing to fight the Obama tax hikes. Yesterday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) explained to an audience at The Heritage Foundation why he was in favor of not raising any taxes until the economy shows stronger signs of recovery:
In my view, raising anyone's taxes, given our fragile economy would be a move in the wrong direction. Nebraskans I represent tell me they feel a lot of uncertainty about the future. Nebraska business owners do to. The possibility of tax increases is just one more reason that companies at home and across the country are holding on to cash and are hesitant to invest in new equipment, new production and new employees.
Sen. Nelson's speech yesterday was hosted by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis Director Bill Beach, whose recent study, Obama Tax Hikes: The Economic and Fiscal Effects, found that the Obama tax hikes would:
Destroy an average of 693,000 jobs every year through 2020.
Drain $726 billion from disposable income, $38 billion from personal savings and $33 billion from business investments.
Raise taxes on the 55% of all joint filers earning more than $250,000 who run small businesses that employ others.
Cost the average non-farm small-business owner $3,500 more in taxes.
Cost the 49% of all seniors with income below $250,000 $525 in additional dividend taxes.
Cost the 25% all seniors with income below $250,000 $742 in higher taxes.
The CDA is not alone in their verdict. A recent CNN survey of economists found that the most important thing Congress can do to help the economy is stop the Obama tax hikes. But now, thanks to the current majority in Congress, that will not happen.
At the beginning of his remarks yesterday, Sen. Nelson reminded the audience of Ben Franklin's wisdom that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Sen. Nelson then added: "And it was Will Rogers who amended that by saying the only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets." Hopefully the next Congress will prove Rogers wrong.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Obama struggles to connect with America...Can't Answer the Tough Questions...
Obama gets asked the tough questions and has NO ANSWERS other than the same old worn out propaganda that isn't true, hasn't worked and certainly doesn't satisfy! Keep talking Barack...you will talk yourself out of office....the name of the game Barack is results and you have NONE!
Obama Aims to Reconnect With 'Town Hall' Meetings
Text By JONATHAN WEISMAN
DES MOINES, Iowa—President Barack Obama, meeting swing-state voters in a leafy backyard, struggled again Wednesday to answer the concerns of supporters once buoyed by the excitement of the presidential campaign, but now demoralized by economic struggle.
Mary Stier—attending the president's second of three small "town hall" meetings on a four-state swing this week—told the president of her 24-year-old son, who "campaigned fiercely" for Mr. Obama in 2008, graduated from Simpson College a year and a half ago and still is "struggling to find a job."
"They are losing their hope," she said in the backyard of Jeff Clubb, a social studies and religion teacher at a Des Moines Catholic school, and Sandy Clubb, the athletic director of Drake University.
The question, and the president's long answer about the depths of the Great Recession, mirrored the exchange Mr. Obama had last week with Velma Hart, a supporter who told him she was "exhausted" from defending him. Coming the morning after an ebullient political rally in Madison, Wis., it underscored the difficulty Democrats are having mobilizing the voters that propelled them to victory in 2008.
In the Wednesday session, a small businessman pressed the president to extend tax cuts for households and small businesses that earn more than $250,000.
"As the government gets more and more involved in business and more involved in taxes to pay for an awful lot of programs...you're sort of strangling the engine that does create the jobs," he said.
One woman questioned whether the Obama health-care plan would send the U.S. health-care system into a British-style system of rationing and delays. A man asked when the president would end costly wars abroad. Criticized over illegal immigrants getting health care, the president said, "It is very important that we have compassion as part of our national character."
The president was pushed on the defensive, and said, Americans don't want tax increases totaling $700 billion but also complain that the country's budget deficit is too high.
Voters "say, 'cut government spending,' " Mr. Obama responded.
"Well most spending is for veterans, for education, for defense. Foreign aid is 1% of our budget. They say, 'Why don't you eliminate earmarks, all those pork projects that Congress wants to spend.' Even if I could end all those earmarks, that's 1% of budget. Finding $700 billion is not easy."
The final question was from a priest asking on behalf of an unemployed parishioner what the president's policies would do for him in the coming months. Mr. Obama said clean-energy initiatives hold some promise. "Some of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost just won't come back," Mr. Obama said.
The atmosphere of the event was all the more notable after a high-decibel political rally in Madison, Wis., Tuesday night that captured headlines and some of the excitement of the 2008 presidential campaign. Democrats have been urging Mr. Obama to try to excite the Democratic base, which they fear will stay home Nov. 2. That could lead to a rout that could cost Democrats control of at least one house of Congress.
Mr. Obama has three other major rallies planned, in Philadelphia, Las Vegas and Ohio. But White House officials say the backyard events are helping him reconnect with voters at a more intimate level. He held one in Albuquerque Tuesday and has another Wednesday afternoon in Richmond, Va.
Obama Aims to Reconnect With 'Town Hall' Meetings
Text By JONATHAN WEISMAN
DES MOINES, Iowa—President Barack Obama, meeting swing-state voters in a leafy backyard, struggled again Wednesday to answer the concerns of supporters once buoyed by the excitement of the presidential campaign, but now demoralized by economic struggle.
Mary Stier—attending the president's second of three small "town hall" meetings on a four-state swing this week—told the president of her 24-year-old son, who "campaigned fiercely" for Mr. Obama in 2008, graduated from Simpson College a year and a half ago and still is "struggling to find a job."
"They are losing their hope," she said in the backyard of Jeff Clubb, a social studies and religion teacher at a Des Moines Catholic school, and Sandy Clubb, the athletic director of Drake University.
The question, and the president's long answer about the depths of the Great Recession, mirrored the exchange Mr. Obama had last week with Velma Hart, a supporter who told him she was "exhausted" from defending him. Coming the morning after an ebullient political rally in Madison, Wis., it underscored the difficulty Democrats are having mobilizing the voters that propelled them to victory in 2008.
In the Wednesday session, a small businessman pressed the president to extend tax cuts for households and small businesses that earn more than $250,000.
"As the government gets more and more involved in business and more involved in taxes to pay for an awful lot of programs...you're sort of strangling the engine that does create the jobs," he said.
One woman questioned whether the Obama health-care plan would send the U.S. health-care system into a British-style system of rationing and delays. A man asked when the president would end costly wars abroad. Criticized over illegal immigrants getting health care, the president said, "It is very important that we have compassion as part of our national character."
The president was pushed on the defensive, and said, Americans don't want tax increases totaling $700 billion but also complain that the country's budget deficit is too high.
Voters "say, 'cut government spending,' " Mr. Obama responded.
"Well most spending is for veterans, for education, for defense. Foreign aid is 1% of our budget. They say, 'Why don't you eliminate earmarks, all those pork projects that Congress wants to spend.' Even if I could end all those earmarks, that's 1% of budget. Finding $700 billion is not easy."
The final question was from a priest asking on behalf of an unemployed parishioner what the president's policies would do for him in the coming months. Mr. Obama said clean-energy initiatives hold some promise. "Some of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost just won't come back," Mr. Obama said.
The atmosphere of the event was all the more notable after a high-decibel political rally in Madison, Wis., Tuesday night that captured headlines and some of the excitement of the 2008 presidential campaign. Democrats have been urging Mr. Obama to try to excite the Democratic base, which they fear will stay home Nov. 2. That could lead to a rout that could cost Democrats control of at least one house of Congress.
Mr. Obama has three other major rallies planned, in Philadelphia, Las Vegas and Ohio. But White House officials say the backyard events are helping him reconnect with voters at a more intimate level. He held one in Albuquerque Tuesday and has another Wednesday afternoon in Richmond, Va.
Vote Democrat if you want Abortions paid for with your tax dollars!
So if you want your tax dollars to fund abortions, vote Democrat!.....I'll continue to vote Republican....although I believe in a woman's right to chose, I don't want to pay for her abortion!
Obama, the Great Divider!
This statement from THE MAN that done more to divide this nation than anyone else in America....he's demonized business, republicans, wall street, insurance companies, doctors....he's divided America politically, racially, economically.....This statement is totally absurd coming from him!!!!.....The great divisions in this nation today are because of HIM!....but evidently he doesn't see that at all!...actually he doesn't see much of what has been happening in American over the past two years!
Alan Grayson’s ‘Taliban Dan’ Ad Under Scrutiny - How can anyone that as dishonest as Grayson be considered for ANY office?
Grayson is just totally dishonest and he doesn't deserve to win any election for anything including dog catcher.....this guy should be put in a mental hospital!
Breitbart.tv » Alan Grayson’s ‘Taliban Dan’ Ad Under Scrutiny
Breitbart.tv » Alan Grayson’s ‘Taliban Dan’ Ad Under Scrutiny
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Obama, Biden lecture their base.....I'm sure that's just want they want to hear!
IF I were a democrat this is just what I would want....a lecture from a failed President and Vice President....that would really piss me off!....These two guys have had TWO YEARS of total control and did nothing but pass legislation no one wanted and waste tons of taxpayer money.....Now they want to lecture their base? What a nerve!
Obama Administration Scolds Base, Urges Dems to 'Buck Up'
Published September 28, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is stepping up pressure on the Democratic base, lecturing the party faithful in a bid to shame them off the "sidelines" and hold down Republican gains this November.
President Obama and Vice President Biden both used unusually tough language this week to describe their own supporters. In an interview with Rolling Stone released Tuesday, Obama accused many of being apathetic, self-defeating pessimists and implored them to shake off the blues -- fast.
"It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election," he said. "The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining is just irresponsible."
Obama said progressives tend to see the glass "half-empty" and are applying that trademark bitterness toward the health care package because "it didn't have every bell and whistle that we wanted" like a government-run insurance option. But he urged the base to "wake up," recognize the legislation he's signed on everything from health care to financial regulation to student loans and consider the alternative -- Republican leadership that is "to the right" of former President George W. Bush.
"That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating," Obama said.
The interview was released after Biden used similar terms to account for the enthusiasm gap in the party. At a campaign stop for New Hampshire Democratic candidates Monday, he urged Democrats to "stop whining."
In an interview with MSNBC, Biden also traced voter "anger" in the Democratic base to disappointment over the scope of the health care package.
"Because there was no public option, some of them are so angry they say we're not going to participate. They should stop that," he said. "Those who don't get ... everything they wanted, it's time to just buck up here."
The bid to fire up the Democratic base, though, could backfire, given the tendency of Obama's advocates to push back when lectured.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs caused a firestorm when, in an August interview, he criticized "the professional left" and said they "ought to be drug tested." Gibbs later walked back his statement.
But the internal criticism stems from statistics that suggest Republicans, despite their own internal warfare in the primaries, are winning the ground game of drawing voters to the polls.
A new American University report showed 4 million more voters cast their ballots in the GOP primaries than in the Democratic primaries this year. A Rock the Vote poll released this month showed a 9-point enthusiasm gap between young Republicans and young Democrats, with more Republicans saying they're very likely to vote in November.
Obama will kick off a series of rallies aimed at young voters Tuesday with a get-out-the-vote address in the college town of Madison, Wis.
Obama, in his interview with Rolling Stone, echoed Biden.
"We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up," he said.
Obama Administration Scolds Base, Urges Dems to 'Buck Up'
Published September 28, 2010 | FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is stepping up pressure on the Democratic base, lecturing the party faithful in a bid to shame them off the "sidelines" and hold down Republican gains this November.
President Obama and Vice President Biden both used unusually tough language this week to describe their own supporters. In an interview with Rolling Stone released Tuesday, Obama accused many of being apathetic, self-defeating pessimists and implored them to shake off the blues -- fast.
"It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election," he said. "The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining is just irresponsible."
Obama said progressives tend to see the glass "half-empty" and are applying that trademark bitterness toward the health care package because "it didn't have every bell and whistle that we wanted" like a government-run insurance option. But he urged the base to "wake up," recognize the legislation he's signed on everything from health care to financial regulation to student loans and consider the alternative -- Republican leadership that is "to the right" of former President George W. Bush.
"That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating," Obama said.
The interview was released after Biden used similar terms to account for the enthusiasm gap in the party. At a campaign stop for New Hampshire Democratic candidates Monday, he urged Democrats to "stop whining."
In an interview with MSNBC, Biden also traced voter "anger" in the Democratic base to disappointment over the scope of the health care package.
"Because there was no public option, some of them are so angry they say we're not going to participate. They should stop that," he said. "Those who don't get ... everything they wanted, it's time to just buck up here."
The bid to fire up the Democratic base, though, could backfire, given the tendency of Obama's advocates to push back when lectured.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs caused a firestorm when, in an August interview, he criticized "the professional left" and said they "ought to be drug tested." Gibbs later walked back his statement.
But the internal criticism stems from statistics that suggest Republicans, despite their own internal warfare in the primaries, are winning the ground game of drawing voters to the polls.
A new American University report showed 4 million more voters cast their ballots in the GOP primaries than in the Democratic primaries this year. A Rock the Vote poll released this month showed a 9-point enthusiasm gap between young Republicans and young Democrats, with more Republicans saying they're very likely to vote in November.
Obama will kick off a series of rallies aimed at young voters Tuesday with a get-out-the-vote address in the college town of Madison, Wis.
Obama, in his interview with Rolling Stone, echoed Biden.
"We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up," he said.
Pelosi to Young People: Take Your Time Reaching Your Aspirations, Stay on Parents’ Health Insurance..Pelosi is a lying Idiot!
Day in Day out she becomes more idiotic....NONE of her Democrats are running on Obamacare because they know they would get run out of town!
Breitbart.tv » Pelosi to Young People: Take Your Time Reaching Your Aspirations, Stay on Parents’ Health Insurance
Breitbart.tv » Pelosi to Young People: Take Your Time Reaching Your Aspirations, Stay on Parents’ Health Insurance
Gov. Christie to Opponents of Education Reform: ‘I’m Coming’....You've got to LOVE THIS GUY!
You have got to love Chris Christie....We need a President like him and 49 other Governors like him....
Breitbart.tv » Gov. Christie to Opponents of Education Reform: ‘I’m Coming’
Breitbart.tv » Gov. Christie to Opponents of Education Reform: ‘I’m Coming’
Obama's Incompetence Has the Middle East Talks Breaking Down!
Obama's incompetence has the Middle East talks in the position they are in today...Amateurs don't make the best Presidents...and this one needs to GO!
A strikeout on settlements: Why Obama's diplomacy is flailing
Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 28th 2010, 4:00 AM
.
Every so often, the sayings of Casey Stengel come to mind. The longtime manager of the New York Yankees, accustomed to a Prussian professionalism, moved over to the astonishingly hapless New York Mets in 1962 and, surveying his new team, uttered an exasperated question: "Can't anybody here play this game?" What applied to those Mets applies now to the Obama administration. In the Middle East, it's no hits and plenty of errors.
The arena of the administration's incompetence is the issue of West Bank settlements. This is something of a misnomer since while some of the settlements are recklessly deep into the West Bank - Ariel (above), for instance - others are indistinguishable parts of Jerusalem. They are all, under international law, illegal. But some, regardless of legality, are going to stay. Even in the Middle East, common sense can play a role. The Jerusalem-area settlements are not going to be abandoned by Israel.
The settlements issue is complicated but not unsolvable. Settlements are how Zionists settled Israel - and the Israel that mattered most to some nationalists and Orthodox Jews is not that Miami manque on the coast, Tel Aviv, but the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria, the heart of biblical Israel.
As for the average Palestinian, settlements are a poke in the eye. The construction of each one means yet another piece of his land has gone over to the enemy and cannot be a part of a Palestinian state. It is an in-your-face reminder of impotency, of the inability to control life or fate - and of a baleful history that has seen nothing but defeat.
Given the highly emotional nature of the settlement issue, it made no sense for the administration - actually, President Obama himself - to promote an absolute moratorium on construction as the prerequisite for peace talks. The government of Benjamin Netanyahu complied, under extreme pressure, but only to a 10-month moratorium. For Netanyahu, this in itself was a major concession. He heads a right-wing coalition that takes settlements very seriously. Netanyahu had a choice: accede to Obama's terms and have his government collapse, or end the moratorium. On Sunday, with the 10 months being up, he chose the latter. We will see if the end of the moratorium means the end of peace talks. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has not yet ended negotiations. He's going to confer with his fellow Arab leaders. Obama ought to also confer with someone who knows the region.
Trouble is, many experts have told him that his emphasis on settlements was the wrong way to go. As late as last week, it was clear that Netanyahu would not ask his cabinet to extend the settlement freeze. Yet not only did the White House reject this warning, the President repeated his call for a freeze. "Our position on this issue is well-known," he told the UN General Assembly. "We believe that the moratorium should be extended." Well, it wasn't.
From the start, the President has taken a hard line against settlements, refusing to distinguish between an apartment in Jerusalem and a hilltop encampment in the West Bank. He seems not to understand their importance to some Jews. Certain right-wing Israelis have reacted with the same lack of empathy. One settlement leader, Gershon Mesika, called Obama by his middle name, Hussein - a juvenile attempt at insult.
The Obama approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem has been counterproductive. Either the Palestinians have to back down from their insistence that all settlements be frozen in place or Netanyahu has to back down from his pledge that any moratorium would be temporary. Either Abbas or Netanyahu has to lose credibility, and neither man can afford to.
Obama, too, has to husband his credibility. He foolishly demanded something Israel could not yet give. It was bad diplomacy, recalling neither Metternich nor Kissinger but the Ol' Perfessor and his question about the inept Mets. The answer, so far, is no.
A strikeout on settlements: Why Obama's diplomacy is flailing
Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 28th 2010, 4:00 AM
.
Every so often, the sayings of Casey Stengel come to mind. The longtime manager of the New York Yankees, accustomed to a Prussian professionalism, moved over to the astonishingly hapless New York Mets in 1962 and, surveying his new team, uttered an exasperated question: "Can't anybody here play this game?" What applied to those Mets applies now to the Obama administration. In the Middle East, it's no hits and plenty of errors.
The arena of the administration's incompetence is the issue of West Bank settlements. This is something of a misnomer since while some of the settlements are recklessly deep into the West Bank - Ariel (above), for instance - others are indistinguishable parts of Jerusalem. They are all, under international law, illegal. But some, regardless of legality, are going to stay. Even in the Middle East, common sense can play a role. The Jerusalem-area settlements are not going to be abandoned by Israel.
The settlements issue is complicated but not unsolvable. Settlements are how Zionists settled Israel - and the Israel that mattered most to some nationalists and Orthodox Jews is not that Miami manque on the coast, Tel Aviv, but the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria, the heart of biblical Israel.
As for the average Palestinian, settlements are a poke in the eye. The construction of each one means yet another piece of his land has gone over to the enemy and cannot be a part of a Palestinian state. It is an in-your-face reminder of impotency, of the inability to control life or fate - and of a baleful history that has seen nothing but defeat.
Given the highly emotional nature of the settlement issue, it made no sense for the administration - actually, President Obama himself - to promote an absolute moratorium on construction as the prerequisite for peace talks. The government of Benjamin Netanyahu complied, under extreme pressure, but only to a 10-month moratorium. For Netanyahu, this in itself was a major concession. He heads a right-wing coalition that takes settlements very seriously. Netanyahu had a choice: accede to Obama's terms and have his government collapse, or end the moratorium. On Sunday, with the 10 months being up, he chose the latter. We will see if the end of the moratorium means the end of peace talks. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has not yet ended negotiations. He's going to confer with his fellow Arab leaders. Obama ought to also confer with someone who knows the region.
Trouble is, many experts have told him that his emphasis on settlements was the wrong way to go. As late as last week, it was clear that Netanyahu would not ask his cabinet to extend the settlement freeze. Yet not only did the White House reject this warning, the President repeated his call for a freeze. "Our position on this issue is well-known," he told the UN General Assembly. "We believe that the moratorium should be extended." Well, it wasn't.
From the start, the President has taken a hard line against settlements, refusing to distinguish between an apartment in Jerusalem and a hilltop encampment in the West Bank. He seems not to understand their importance to some Jews. Certain right-wing Israelis have reacted with the same lack of empathy. One settlement leader, Gershon Mesika, called Obama by his middle name, Hussein - a juvenile attempt at insult.
The Obama approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem has been counterproductive. Either the Palestinians have to back down from their insistence that all settlements be frozen in place or Netanyahu has to back down from his pledge that any moratorium would be temporary. Either Abbas or Netanyahu has to lose credibility, and neither man can afford to.
Obama, too, has to husband his credibility. He foolishly demanded something Israel could not yet give. It was bad diplomacy, recalling neither Metternich nor Kissinger but the Ol' Perfessor and his question about the inept Mets. The answer, so far, is no.
ANOTHER Obama buddy, Andy Stern investigated by the FBI!
Obama's buddy Andy Stern being investigated by the FBI....another corrupt friend of Obama's....this guy ought to be gangster for the folks he hangs out with....what an embarassment for the United States....but knowing Obama he'll just get Eric Holder to dismiss any charges against Stern if they are filed since he and Holder don't believe the law applies to them or their friends.....just look at the New Black Panthers Case for an example!
FBI Investigating Ex-SEIU President Andy Stern
Published September 28, 2010 | Associated Press
The FBI and the U.S. Labor Department are investigating prominent labor leader Andy Stern in their probe of corruption at the Service Employees International Union, according to two people who have been interviewed by federal agents.
The two organized labor officials met with federal agents this summer to answer questions about a six-figure book contract that Stern landed in 2006 and his role in approving money to pay the salary of an SEIU leader in California who allegedly performed no work.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation.
The FBI and the Labor Department's office of inspector general declined to comment for the record.
The disclosure about the federal inquiry of Stern -- who abruptly resigned as president of the 2.2-million member SEIU in April -- comes just weeks ahead of contentious congressional elections in which the union is spending an estimated $44 million to support its favored Democratic candidates.
The SEIU has been plagued with several financial scandals since 2008, when the Los Angeles Times reported that Tyrone Freeman, head of the union's largest California local, misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars from the union. The union ousted Freeman and demanded that he return the money. No federal charges have been filed against him, but SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said the union has been cooperating with the FBI.
Stern left his post two years before the end of his term, saying he wanted to focus more on his personal life. He remains a member of President Barack Obama's deficit commission and a highly influential figure in the White House, where he was one of the most frequent visitors last year. He is also a research fellow at Georgetown University and a paid consultant for the SEIU.
Ringuette said she is unaware of any federal scrutiny of Stern. Ringuette rejected the notion that there was anything improper about the book deal or how the union paid its officials. She said similar unsubstantiated accusations have been floated for years by disgruntled former SEIU leaders and conservative bloggers.
One person who spoke to federal agents twice, in May and June, said they asked about a 2006 contract in which Stern received a $175,000 advance from Simon & Schuster to write the book "A Country That Works." The SEIU and its locals bought thousands of copies of the book after it was published. The union also paid thousands to fact-check and promote the book, but Stern pocketed the advance.
Ringuette said the SEIU's executive board fully vetted and approved the project. The board told local unions that purchasing Stern's book "is a truly voluntary decision on the part of those who make it, and no adverse impact will result for anyone or any entity who refrains from purchasing or promoting the book," according to documents obtained by the AP. The board also instructed locals to make sure any book purchases were authorized by the local's constitution and bylaws.
Ringuette said the Simon & Schuster contract "did not require the purchase of a single book by SEIU." Stern also received no royalties from book sales to the union.
Federal officials are also asking questions about how Stern and union officials approved payments to Alejandro Stephens, former president of the SEIU local that represents Los Angeles County government workers, according to the people who were interviewed.
The FBI has been investigating Stephens for more than a year. Earlier this month, he was sentenced in federal court this month to four months in jail and three months' home confinement after pleading guilty to stealing $52,000 from a voter outreach program.
Stern has not been linked to any of the charges resulting in Stephens' guilty plea. But federal agents are seeking details about the time in 2007 when Stephens' local was merged into a larger SEIU local and he lost his post as president. The SEIU offered Stephens a generous severance package and a new job as a $75,000-a-year consultant to the SEIU California State Council.
Ringuette said the union arranged for Stephens to perform consulting work for the council and agreed to reimburse the council for his annual salary. But she said the union later discovered Stephens wasn't actually doing any work.
Federal law prohibits labor unions from creating what amounts to "no-show" jobs that pay someone for work they do not perform.
Stephens' attorney, Roger Rosen, said his client has not cooperated with federal officials and has no plans to in the future.
FBI Investigating Ex-SEIU President Andy Stern
Published September 28, 2010 | Associated Press
The FBI and the U.S. Labor Department are investigating prominent labor leader Andy Stern in their probe of corruption at the Service Employees International Union, according to two people who have been interviewed by federal agents.
The two organized labor officials met with federal agents this summer to answer questions about a six-figure book contract that Stern landed in 2006 and his role in approving money to pay the salary of an SEIU leader in California who allegedly performed no work.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation.
The FBI and the Labor Department's office of inspector general declined to comment for the record.
The disclosure about the federal inquiry of Stern -- who abruptly resigned as president of the 2.2-million member SEIU in April -- comes just weeks ahead of contentious congressional elections in which the union is spending an estimated $44 million to support its favored Democratic candidates.
The SEIU has been plagued with several financial scandals since 2008, when the Los Angeles Times reported that Tyrone Freeman, head of the union's largest California local, misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars from the union. The union ousted Freeman and demanded that he return the money. No federal charges have been filed against him, but SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said the union has been cooperating with the FBI.
Stern left his post two years before the end of his term, saying he wanted to focus more on his personal life. He remains a member of President Barack Obama's deficit commission and a highly influential figure in the White House, where he was one of the most frequent visitors last year. He is also a research fellow at Georgetown University and a paid consultant for the SEIU.
Ringuette said she is unaware of any federal scrutiny of Stern. Ringuette rejected the notion that there was anything improper about the book deal or how the union paid its officials. She said similar unsubstantiated accusations have been floated for years by disgruntled former SEIU leaders and conservative bloggers.
One person who spoke to federal agents twice, in May and June, said they asked about a 2006 contract in which Stern received a $175,000 advance from Simon & Schuster to write the book "A Country That Works." The SEIU and its locals bought thousands of copies of the book after it was published. The union also paid thousands to fact-check and promote the book, but Stern pocketed the advance.
Ringuette said the SEIU's executive board fully vetted and approved the project. The board told local unions that purchasing Stern's book "is a truly voluntary decision on the part of those who make it, and no adverse impact will result for anyone or any entity who refrains from purchasing or promoting the book," according to documents obtained by the AP. The board also instructed locals to make sure any book purchases were authorized by the local's constitution and bylaws.
Ringuette said the Simon & Schuster contract "did not require the purchase of a single book by SEIU." Stern also received no royalties from book sales to the union.
Federal officials are also asking questions about how Stern and union officials approved payments to Alejandro Stephens, former president of the SEIU local that represents Los Angeles County government workers, according to the people who were interviewed.
The FBI has been investigating Stephens for more than a year. Earlier this month, he was sentenced in federal court this month to four months in jail and three months' home confinement after pleading guilty to stealing $52,000 from a voter outreach program.
Stern has not been linked to any of the charges resulting in Stephens' guilty plea. But federal agents are seeking details about the time in 2007 when Stephens' local was merged into a larger SEIU local and he lost his post as president. The SEIU offered Stephens a generous severance package and a new job as a $75,000-a-year consultant to the SEIU California State Council.
Ringuette said the union arranged for Stephens to perform consulting work for the council and agreed to reimburse the council for his annual salary. But she said the union later discovered Stephens wasn't actually doing any work.
Federal law prohibits labor unions from creating what amounts to "no-show" jobs that pay someone for work they do not perform.
Stephens' attorney, Roger Rosen, said his client has not cooperated with federal officials and has no plans to in the future.
Education....Another back handed Obama Power Grab!
Education....another area where Obama is grabbing federal power and control by dangling money in front of states in exchange for following national standards and national control. Another power grab being done WITHOUT congressional approval in back room deal type approaches. This President and this Administration has to GO!November 2nd is just days away...we can start to giving control of the House and Senate to Conservative Republican who will give the states back the rights they were intended by the founding fathers. From today's Heritage Foundation release!
P.S. Obama runs the education system in American, but his kids go to private school....not good enough for his kids, but good enough for everyone else's kids....another elitist position!
Education Reform's Kryptonite
A quality education in America shouldn't come down to a lottery ball. But that's exactly how life plays out for many low-income families seeking an alternative to failing public schools. With limited enrollment at charter schools and private schools financially out of reach, they are left with little choice but to play the odds in hopes of a brighter future.
"It's heartbreaking," President Obama said about a scene in the new Waiting for Superman documentary. "And when you see these parents in the film, you are reminded that -- I don't care what people's income levels are, you know, their stake in their kids, their wanting desperately to make sure their kids are able to succeed is so powerful, and it's obviously difficult to watch to see these kids who know that this school's going to give them a better chance, that that should depend on the bounce of a ball."
How can Obama possibly call this "heartbreaking" when one of his first acts as President was to snatch winning lottery spots from Washington, D.C. school children? Specifically, Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent letters to 216 low-income families informing them that he was taking back the $7,500 in scholarship money that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program had previously awarded them. Yesterday on NBC's TODAY Show, Obama admitted that daughters Sasha and Malia deserve better than D.C. public schools -- that's the reason he sends them to a tony private school with other Washington elites. So then why is Obama blocking other kids from the same opportunity?
It would've been the logical follow-up question for Matt Lauer to ask. But just like the rest of NBC's Education Nation series, Lauer let Obama off easy. The network appears content to give Duncan and union boss Randi Weingarten a platform to promote the same failed policies that got America into this mess.
There are other troubling aspects of Obama's education agenda besides his assault on school choice. One of the most alarming is the concentration of power taking place in Washington with national standards. The Common Core State Standards, as they're officially known, were developed by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. Ultimately they will centralize control with federal bureaucrats. Congress had no say in the matter.
Duncan calls this the "quiet revolution" in education. The goal is to quietly increase federal control, while reducing the role of states, localities and individuals. The Race to the Top competition, with $4.3 billion in economic stimulus money, was a convenient way to go about it. Unions played a powerful role. In fact, one of the criteria for winning a federal grant was securing teachers' union support. Some states lost out for this reason. Others didn't even bother to compete because of clashes with union bosses.
Obama boasted to Lauer that his Race to the Top program was "probably the most powerful tool we've seen for reform in a couple of decades." Of course, he neglected to mention that some states are opting out of his grand experiment, recognizing it as a facade for failed government solutions and a stealth ploy for more power.
Obama, it seems, is a pseudo-reformer when it comes to our nation's schools.
Fortunately, some states have just said no. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has led the opposition to national standards. He makes a powerful and principled case for protecting local control and preserving federalism. Perry spoke exclusively to Heritage about the issue (click here to watch):
Texas already has some of the best standards, best curriculum. Education Week ranked us rather high in those categories. So, we know what works for our children. And the fact is that Washington's Race to the Top, with their national standards, and their national testing -- yet to be worked out, of course -- we think would be devastating to the young people in the state of Texas.
Equally troubling for Perry is the process by which the Obama administration has persuaded states to support its education agenda. By dangling money before cash-starved states, many governors jumped at the chance to compete for Race to the Top grants. Perry wasn't enticed. "Why would we trade our ability to educate our children for some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., for, frankly, a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things?"
Perry might be the most vocal, but he's not alone. After the first round of Race to the Top concluded, nine states had reconsidered and, for a variety of reasons, chose not to participate in the second round of competition. States with high standards -- notably Massachusetts and Virginia -- have expressed concern about moving backward. Still, it's an uphill battle. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have already adopted the Common Core State Standards.
Obama's revolution is indeed happening quietly, which is all the more reason to sound the alarm. Parents have the most to lose by ceding local control over education to Washington. Now is the time to do something about it.
P.S. Obama runs the education system in American, but his kids go to private school....not good enough for his kids, but good enough for everyone else's kids....another elitist position!
Education Reform's Kryptonite
A quality education in America shouldn't come down to a lottery ball. But that's exactly how life plays out for many low-income families seeking an alternative to failing public schools. With limited enrollment at charter schools and private schools financially out of reach, they are left with little choice but to play the odds in hopes of a brighter future.
"It's heartbreaking," President Obama said about a scene in the new Waiting for Superman documentary. "And when you see these parents in the film, you are reminded that -- I don't care what people's income levels are, you know, their stake in their kids, their wanting desperately to make sure their kids are able to succeed is so powerful, and it's obviously difficult to watch to see these kids who know that this school's going to give them a better chance, that that should depend on the bounce of a ball."
How can Obama possibly call this "heartbreaking" when one of his first acts as President was to snatch winning lottery spots from Washington, D.C. school children? Specifically, Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent letters to 216 low-income families informing them that he was taking back the $7,500 in scholarship money that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program had previously awarded them. Yesterday on NBC's TODAY Show, Obama admitted that daughters Sasha and Malia deserve better than D.C. public schools -- that's the reason he sends them to a tony private school with other Washington elites. So then why is Obama blocking other kids from the same opportunity?
It would've been the logical follow-up question for Matt Lauer to ask. But just like the rest of NBC's Education Nation series, Lauer let Obama off easy. The network appears content to give Duncan and union boss Randi Weingarten a platform to promote the same failed policies that got America into this mess.
There are other troubling aspects of Obama's education agenda besides his assault on school choice. One of the most alarming is the concentration of power taking place in Washington with national standards. The Common Core State Standards, as they're officially known, were developed by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. Ultimately they will centralize control with federal bureaucrats. Congress had no say in the matter.
Duncan calls this the "quiet revolution" in education. The goal is to quietly increase federal control, while reducing the role of states, localities and individuals. The Race to the Top competition, with $4.3 billion in economic stimulus money, was a convenient way to go about it. Unions played a powerful role. In fact, one of the criteria for winning a federal grant was securing teachers' union support. Some states lost out for this reason. Others didn't even bother to compete because of clashes with union bosses.
Obama boasted to Lauer that his Race to the Top program was "probably the most powerful tool we've seen for reform in a couple of decades." Of course, he neglected to mention that some states are opting out of his grand experiment, recognizing it as a facade for failed government solutions and a stealth ploy for more power.
Obama, it seems, is a pseudo-reformer when it comes to our nation's schools.
Fortunately, some states have just said no. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has led the opposition to national standards. He makes a powerful and principled case for protecting local control and preserving federalism. Perry spoke exclusively to Heritage about the issue (click here to watch):
Texas already has some of the best standards, best curriculum. Education Week ranked us rather high in those categories. So, we know what works for our children. And the fact is that Washington's Race to the Top, with their national standards, and their national testing -- yet to be worked out, of course -- we think would be devastating to the young people in the state of Texas.
Equally troubling for Perry is the process by which the Obama administration has persuaded states to support its education agenda. By dangling money before cash-starved states, many governors jumped at the chance to compete for Race to the Top grants. Perry wasn't enticed. "Why would we trade our ability to educate our children for some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., for, frankly, a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things?"
Perry might be the most vocal, but he's not alone. After the first round of Race to the Top concluded, nine states had reconsidered and, for a variety of reasons, chose not to participate in the second round of competition. States with high standards -- notably Massachusetts and Virginia -- have expressed concern about moving backward. Still, it's an uphill battle. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have already adopted the Common Core State Standards.
Obama's revolution is indeed happening quietly, which is all the more reason to sound the alarm. Parents have the most to lose by ceding local control over education to Washington. Now is the time to do something about it.
"When you're holding a hammer...(Everything looks like a nail)"
Great New Song...."When you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail"...It puts November 2nd into clear prospective.....Give it a listen!
Monday, September 27, 2010
Ahmadinejad meets with Obama buddies - Louis Farrakhan and New Black Panthers !
Ahmadinejad meets with Louis Farrakhan and the New Black Panthers while in New York....Does't it bother you that Obama is close with Farrakhan and his Justice Department is protecting the New Black Panthers....Seems like our President is sleeping with the enemy???
A'jad monster's ball
By BRAD HAMILTON Posted: 3:40 AM, September 26, 2010
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's six nights in New York featured a secret sit-down with militant minister Louis Farrakhan, heckling in a hotel bar, and a fear of being rubbed out that bordered on paranoia.
The president shared a hush-hush meal with Farrakhan and members of the New Black Panther Party Tuesday at the Warwick Hotel on West 54th Street.
The meeting of the podium smackers took place in a banquet room, where the fiery leaders presumably exchanged theories on what's wrong with the world.
ABC; AP; EPA
DID HE LOSE HIS LUGGAGE? As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad carried out his UN smarm offensive, he wore the same suit and shirt for six days.
On Thursday night, Sudanese diplomats trying to get in to see Ahmadinejad at the Hilton Manhattan East, on 42nd Street, squared off with security and a pushing match ensued. Two well-dressed women in their 40s came in, sat at the hotel bar and ordered drinks.
One of them caught the attention of the president's security detail, which had set up a station in the hotel lobby. She was soon surrounded by eight angry Iranians, who ordered her to leave. She refused.
A manager tried to calm things down. Suddenly, the woman stood up and pointed at the Iranians, yelling, "You stoned my sister! You're murderers!"
Paranoia was on parade at the Hilton the moment the president checked in on Saturday, Sept. 18. His team took six floors to themselves in the hotel's south tower, overlooking Tudor City, about 90 rooms in all. More than 20 were just for security.
Still, Ahmadinejad, who wore the same tacky suit and shirt all week, took every precaution. He never set foot in the lobby. Bulletproof glass was installed over room windows. When he left for meetings at the Iranian Mission, on Third Avenue, or the United Nations, he departed by an employee entrance, the path covered in a white tent -- a veritable tunnel to his vehicle. His head was covered with a white cloth. No one saw him on the street.
The entourage dined in but not on room service. Meals -- mostly lamb, shish kebabs, spiced ground meat and basmati rice -- were prepared by a Persian restaurant and carried in by Secret Service agents.
A source said the spicy grub made "the whole hotel stink like hell."
A'jad monster's ball
By BRAD HAMILTON Posted: 3:40 AM, September 26, 2010
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's six nights in New York featured a secret sit-down with militant minister Louis Farrakhan, heckling in a hotel bar, and a fear of being rubbed out that bordered on paranoia.
The president shared a hush-hush meal with Farrakhan and members of the New Black Panther Party Tuesday at the Warwick Hotel on West 54th Street.
The meeting of the podium smackers took place in a banquet room, where the fiery leaders presumably exchanged theories on what's wrong with the world.
ABC; AP; EPA
DID HE LOSE HIS LUGGAGE? As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad carried out his UN smarm offensive, he wore the same suit and shirt for six days.
On Thursday night, Sudanese diplomats trying to get in to see Ahmadinejad at the Hilton Manhattan East, on 42nd Street, squared off with security and a pushing match ensued. Two well-dressed women in their 40s came in, sat at the hotel bar and ordered drinks.
One of them caught the attention of the president's security detail, which had set up a station in the hotel lobby. She was soon surrounded by eight angry Iranians, who ordered her to leave. She refused.
A manager tried to calm things down. Suddenly, the woman stood up and pointed at the Iranians, yelling, "You stoned my sister! You're murderers!"
Paranoia was on parade at the Hilton the moment the president checked in on Saturday, Sept. 18. His team took six floors to themselves in the hotel's south tower, overlooking Tudor City, about 90 rooms in all. More than 20 were just for security.
Still, Ahmadinejad, who wore the same tacky suit and shirt all week, took every precaution. He never set foot in the lobby. Bulletproof glass was installed over room windows. When he left for meetings at the Iranian Mission, on Third Avenue, or the United Nations, he departed by an employee entrance, the path covered in a white tent -- a veritable tunnel to his vehicle. His head was covered with a white cloth. No one saw him on the street.
The entourage dined in but not on room service. Meals -- mostly lamb, shish kebabs, spiced ground meat and basmati rice -- were prepared by a Persian restaurant and carried in by Secret Service agents.
A source said the spicy grub made "the whole hotel stink like hell."
Senate Race in November is very Important!
Republicans really need to win all three of these seats to protect America against this lame duck Congress....
Senate Power Could Shift This Year
Published September 27, 2010 | The Wall Street Journal
Sept. 15: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada speaks on Capitol Hill.
At least three Senate victors could be seated immediately after the November elections, raising the possibility that Democrats could see their majority cut for the end of the year as Congress deals with several key pieces of legislation.
Lawmakers are typically seated in January. But deaths, a resignation and a series of Democrats taking jobs in the Obama administration forced six states to fill Senate vacancies through appointment since 2008, including those created by the president and vice president.
Terms for three of those appointed senators—from Illinois, West Virginia and Delaware—expire after elections Nov. 2.
State laws require replacements to be seated immediately, and Republicans are seen as having a shot at winning in Illinois and West Virginia. The GOP candidate in Delaware, tea-party-backed Christine O'Donnell, is trailing Democratic nominee Chris Coons by double digits in recent polls.
In Colorado, where the election is considered a toss-up, Republicans also intend to push for a speedy appointment.
The possibility of early seating has created a window for candidates such as Republican John Raese in West Virginia, who tells voters he could stop a last-ditch spending effort in the lame-duck session—the period between the election and installation of a new Congress. Mr. Raese is running for Senate against the state's Democratic governor, Joe Manchin.
"John is certainly going to Washington to oppose legislation," said Mr. Raese's campaign manager, Jim Dornan. Mr. Dornan said Mr. Raese would try to help pass legislation in the next Congress.
Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican congressman running for President Barack Obama's old Senate seat in Illinois, has created a separate website for the issue, saveusfromthelameduck.com. He mentions it "pretty much everywhere he goes," his spokeswoman said.
Senate Power Could Shift This Year
Published September 27, 2010 | The Wall Street Journal
Sept. 15: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada speaks on Capitol Hill.
At least three Senate victors could be seated immediately after the November elections, raising the possibility that Democrats could see their majority cut for the end of the year as Congress deals with several key pieces of legislation.
Lawmakers are typically seated in January. But deaths, a resignation and a series of Democrats taking jobs in the Obama administration forced six states to fill Senate vacancies through appointment since 2008, including those created by the president and vice president.
Terms for three of those appointed senators—from Illinois, West Virginia and Delaware—expire after elections Nov. 2.
State laws require replacements to be seated immediately, and Republicans are seen as having a shot at winning in Illinois and West Virginia. The GOP candidate in Delaware, tea-party-backed Christine O'Donnell, is trailing Democratic nominee Chris Coons by double digits in recent polls.
In Colorado, where the election is considered a toss-up, Republicans also intend to push for a speedy appointment.
The possibility of early seating has created a window for candidates such as Republican John Raese in West Virginia, who tells voters he could stop a last-ditch spending effort in the lame-duck session—the period between the election and installation of a new Congress. Mr. Raese is running for Senate against the state's Democratic governor, Joe Manchin.
"John is certainly going to Washington to oppose legislation," said Mr. Raese's campaign manager, Jim Dornan. Mr. Dornan said Mr. Raese would try to help pass legislation in the next Congress.
Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican congressman running for President Barack Obama's old Senate seat in Illinois, has created a separate website for the issue, saveusfromthelameduck.com. He mentions it "pretty much everywhere he goes," his spokeswoman said.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Obama....Keeping America Less Safe!
An interesting and I think accurate view of Obama's comments about America being able to absorb another terrorist attack like 9-11 and be stronger for it....To me it shows he's really not totally committed to keeping American safe going forward! I certainly do NOT feel safer since he has taken office.....Do YOU?
OBAMA: WE CAN "ABSORB" ANOTHER 9-11
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on September 22, 2010
Obama's essentially European world outlook has no better illustration than his comment to Bob Woodward during a July, 2010 interview that "we can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever...we absorbed it and we are stronger."
The essence of the differences between the European and American view of terrorism is the deeply felt, but often unstated opinion on the Continent that terrorism is normal and that it would be a mistake to over-react to it. In the United States, terrorism cuts very, very deeply into our national psyche. But in Europe, its often just one of those things.
After all, Europe has seen a lot worse than the relatively naive American public has ever had to witness. The last serious bloodshed on American soil came in the Civil War. The Pearl Harbor and 9-11 attacks stand out as landmarks in our history precisely because we have shed so little American blood with the boundaries of the United States. Britain lost 50,000 people in the blitz during World War II. France lost about one-quarter of its military age men in World War I. Germany saw seven million die in World War II (not counting the German Jews the Nazis killed). Next to these horrific casualties, 2400 dead at Pearl Harbor and 3,000 lost on 9-11 pale by comparison.
Basically, Europeans say to America "get over it. Grow up. Welcome to reality." But Americans refuse to accept the idea that random death and massive violence are inevitable concomitants of the modern world. We demand that government emphatically reject this as a norm and move heaven and earth to stop it from happening.
The President of the United State is supposed to reflect American views and priorities, but he so clearly indicated how the European view shapes his thinking in the Woodward interview.
The practical consequences of such an outlook are profoundly disturbing.
Obama told Woodward that "we'll do everything we can to prevent" another 9/11, but his confidence that we could "absorb" an attack, clearly implies that he won't. If preventing an attack on the scale of 9/11 or greater is the absolute priority it was for George W. Bush, we will indeed do "everything we can" to stop it. But if it is something we can "absorb" preventing an attack is but one of a number of competing priorities. The Obama worldview also demands that we avoid racial profiling, protect the civil liberties even of non-citizens who are not in the country, and limit interrogation techniques well short of torture. If a president has a basic confidence that 9/11 could be "absorbed", these competing priorities are likely to loom large in his thinking and attenuate his efforts.
His comments also indicate a total lack of realization of the escalating nature of terror attacks. In 1993, we lost a few people when terrorists hit the Trade Center. By 2001, they had refined their techniques and demolished the buildings and killed 3,000. The next attack is not likely to be "another 9/11." It is far more probable that it would be a dirty bomb or even a nuclear device or some other weapon of mass destruction, dwarfing the casualties of 9/11. These things escalate.
And, unless we realize that they do, we are not likely to really do all we can to stop it. If the stakes are the total obliteration of New York City, we will obviously do more to stop the attack than if they are "merely" another 9/11. And Obama's view that the threat we face is of the order of magnitude of 9/11 indicates a blindness to the danger we face.
Finally, the Obama comments indicate a cold and inhuman view of the likelihood of 3,000 new deaths. He says we can "absorb" such mayhem. Can the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands and children of the dead "absorb" the attack as easily? Obama's comments remind one of the notion of acceptable casualties in warfare. This is World War I thinking at its worst. Americans do not count on "absorbing" an attack of this magnitude. We see it as a unique horror to be avoided at all costs.
But Obama, like Mao calculating how many Chinese he could afford to lose in a nuclear exchange, seems to focus on how much we can "absorb" as a nation. This is chilling stuff indeed.
OBAMA: WE CAN "ABSORB" ANOTHER 9-11
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on September 22, 2010
Obama's essentially European world outlook has no better illustration than his comment to Bob Woodward during a July, 2010 interview that "we can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever...we absorbed it and we are stronger."
The essence of the differences between the European and American view of terrorism is the deeply felt, but often unstated opinion on the Continent that terrorism is normal and that it would be a mistake to over-react to it. In the United States, terrorism cuts very, very deeply into our national psyche. But in Europe, its often just one of those things.
After all, Europe has seen a lot worse than the relatively naive American public has ever had to witness. The last serious bloodshed on American soil came in the Civil War. The Pearl Harbor and 9-11 attacks stand out as landmarks in our history precisely because we have shed so little American blood with the boundaries of the United States. Britain lost 50,000 people in the blitz during World War II. France lost about one-quarter of its military age men in World War I. Germany saw seven million die in World War II (not counting the German Jews the Nazis killed). Next to these horrific casualties, 2400 dead at Pearl Harbor and 3,000 lost on 9-11 pale by comparison.
Basically, Europeans say to America "get over it. Grow up. Welcome to reality." But Americans refuse to accept the idea that random death and massive violence are inevitable concomitants of the modern world. We demand that government emphatically reject this as a norm and move heaven and earth to stop it from happening.
The President of the United State is supposed to reflect American views and priorities, but he so clearly indicated how the European view shapes his thinking in the Woodward interview.
The practical consequences of such an outlook are profoundly disturbing.
Obama told Woodward that "we'll do everything we can to prevent" another 9/11, but his confidence that we could "absorb" an attack, clearly implies that he won't. If preventing an attack on the scale of 9/11 or greater is the absolute priority it was for George W. Bush, we will indeed do "everything we can" to stop it. But if it is something we can "absorb" preventing an attack is but one of a number of competing priorities. The Obama worldview also demands that we avoid racial profiling, protect the civil liberties even of non-citizens who are not in the country, and limit interrogation techniques well short of torture. If a president has a basic confidence that 9/11 could be "absorbed", these competing priorities are likely to loom large in his thinking and attenuate his efforts.
His comments also indicate a total lack of realization of the escalating nature of terror attacks. In 1993, we lost a few people when terrorists hit the Trade Center. By 2001, they had refined their techniques and demolished the buildings and killed 3,000. The next attack is not likely to be "another 9/11." It is far more probable that it would be a dirty bomb or even a nuclear device or some other weapon of mass destruction, dwarfing the casualties of 9/11. These things escalate.
And, unless we realize that they do, we are not likely to really do all we can to stop it. If the stakes are the total obliteration of New York City, we will obviously do more to stop the attack than if they are "merely" another 9/11. And Obama's view that the threat we face is of the order of magnitude of 9/11 indicates a blindness to the danger we face.
Finally, the Obama comments indicate a cold and inhuman view of the likelihood of 3,000 new deaths. He says we can "absorb" such mayhem. Can the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands and children of the dead "absorb" the attack as easily? Obama's comments remind one of the notion of acceptable casualties in warfare. This is World War I thinking at its worst. Americans do not count on "absorbing" an attack of this magnitude. We see it as a unique horror to be avoided at all costs.
But Obama, like Mao calculating how many Chinese he could afford to lose in a nuclear exchange, seems to focus on how much we can "absorb" as a nation. This is chilling stuff indeed.
Grayson Needs to be Beaten in November!
ANY person that would vote for Grayson is absolutely NUTS....I would vote for ANYONE over that creep....he's offensive....he lies....and he certainly has NO PLACE in the United States House....If I were Republicans I would give the republican challenger all the money he needs to make certain Grayson is soundly defeated. I cannot believe any sane voter would vote for him! He's the embodyment of everything thats wrong with the Democrat party.
Grayson compares foe to Taliban
Two weeks after hammering Webster as a military draft dodger, Grayson is portraying his challenger in a new ad as “Taliban Dan Webster” – a religious fundamentalist opposed to women's rights who, over the span of his nearly three-decade career in the Florida state Senate and state House, opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. The spot even goes so far as to suggest that Webster believes women should be submissive to their husbands.
“Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us,” says an announcer in the 30-second ad, which says that Webster “wants to make divorce illegal,” that he “voted to deny abused women health care.”
The spot also claims that Wesbter “tried to prohibit alimony to an ‘adulterous wife’ but not an adulterous husband,’” and that he “wants to force women to stay in abusive marriages.”
The ad also features footage of Webster saying, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husband.”
The spot concludes, “Taliban Dan Webster: Hands off our body – and our laws.”
Webster’s campaign did not respond to several requests for comment Sunday.
Andy Sere, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in an e-mail message: "Equating a respected statesman like Dan Webster with the terrorists who killed thousands of Americans is beyond low, even for Alan Grayson."
Grayson has put his $1.3 million war chest to use, hitting their airwaves heavily since Webster emerged as the victor in a crowded GOP primary in late August. Even before Grayson began accusing Webster of dodging the Vietnam draft, the Democrat had been airing spots slamming his opponent, a former state Senate majority leader, for using $32,000 of taxpayer funds on a spiral staircase for his office.
Grayson’s hard-hitting approach has come under scrutiny: Last week a Florida military veterans group complained that the Democrat was wrongly implying in one of his ads that the organization had endorsed the Democrat’s bid.
Webster, who has a little over $100,000 in his campaign bank account, has been far quieter on the airwaves in the race in Florida's 8th District. He began a mostly positive spot last week focusing on reducing the nation’s deficit.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42728.html#ixzz10ffZbDnH
Grayson compares foe to Taliban
Two weeks after hammering Webster as a military draft dodger, Grayson is portraying his challenger in a new ad as “Taliban Dan Webster” – a religious fundamentalist opposed to women's rights who, over the span of his nearly three-decade career in the Florida state Senate and state House, opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. The spot even goes so far as to suggest that Webster believes women should be submissive to their husbands.
“Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us,” says an announcer in the 30-second ad, which says that Webster “wants to make divorce illegal,” that he “voted to deny abused women health care.”
The spot also claims that Wesbter “tried to prohibit alimony to an ‘adulterous wife’ but not an adulterous husband,’” and that he “wants to force women to stay in abusive marriages.”
The ad also features footage of Webster saying, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husband.”
The spot concludes, “Taliban Dan Webster: Hands off our body – and our laws.”
Webster’s campaign did not respond to several requests for comment Sunday.
Andy Sere, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in an e-mail message: "Equating a respected statesman like Dan Webster with the terrorists who killed thousands of Americans is beyond low, even for Alan Grayson."
Grayson has put his $1.3 million war chest to use, hitting their airwaves heavily since Webster emerged as the victor in a crowded GOP primary in late August. Even before Grayson began accusing Webster of dodging the Vietnam draft, the Democrat had been airing spots slamming his opponent, a former state Senate majority leader, for using $32,000 of taxpayer funds on a spiral staircase for his office.
Grayson’s hard-hitting approach has come under scrutiny: Last week a Florida military veterans group complained that the Democrat was wrongly implying in one of his ads that the organization had endorsed the Democrat’s bid.
Webster, who has a little over $100,000 in his campaign bank account, has been far quieter on the airwaves in the race in Florida's 8th District. He began a mostly positive spot last week focusing on reducing the nation’s deficit.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42728.html#ixzz10ffZbDnH
A week on the road with the people Obama warned you about | The REAL people in America are Standing Up for Freedom...
An interesting article about the real middle America....the one that will not reelect the Democrats in November!
A week on the road with the people Obama warned you about | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
A week on the road with the people Obama warned you about | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
American is changing.....Big-time
The move that's taking place in America this year is bigger than the Republican or Democrat party.....It's a move to more conservative values, with fiscal responsibility, with more accountability and adherance to the Constitution!
Rubio, Buck: Political Scorekeepers Miss Point of Tea Parties
Published September 26, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck and Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio on Sunday said labeling candidates as "Tea Party" members is the only way political pundits can figure out how to make heads or tails of the growing popularity behind the organic movement.
The two Republican candidates said they are not running from the label, even if it's a misnomer.
"I don't think anybody can make that claim about themselves because, to do that, you'd have -- you'd have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Tea Party movement is," Rubio said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I think the biggest mistake being made by those that follow politics is they're trying to understand what's happening across our country through a traditional political lens, you know, how you would view the Republican Party or the Democrat Party," Rubio said.
"Republicans are every bit as much to blame for where we are right now as Democrats, but we have to find some discipline from outside of Washington, D.C., and impose it on our Congress and executive branch," said Buck, who appeared separately on the same show as Rubio.
Buck said he is among a group of candidates elected to run for office by voters frustrated with Washington, D.C.
"I think there are similarities, there are some difference across the country," he said. Among the similarities, Buck said, is a "firm belief that the Constitution should govern our role in Washington, D.C."
In addition, he said, none of the candidates elected to run against Washington's business-as-usual approach want to become part of the establishment. What they prefer instead, Buck said, is reduce spending, promote a balanced budget amendment and limit their time in Washington.
"I think the widespread sentiment is that we don't want to change America; we want to fix the things that are wrong in America, and the Tea Party movement is an expression of that sentiment," Rubio added.
But that approach has Buck and Rubio defending policy positions they say have been twisted by their opponents during this campaign season.
For instance, Buck, who is running against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet for the seat previously held by now-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said he does not want to flat-out privatize veterans hospitals, nor does he want to limit access to traditional birth control.
"There was a state amendment on personhood. I have said that I am in favor of personhood as a concept," Buck said, referring to Amendment 62 on the Colorado ballot that would grant citizenship rights to Americans at the "beginning of biological development."
Critics of the amendment say it could block some forms of birth control and fertility treatments, not just abortion.
"I have said over and over again, and it has been reported over and over again, that I am not in favor of banning any common forms of birth control in Colorado or in the United States," Buck said.
As for veterans hospitals, Buck said if the government could get improved quality and care for veterans by "outsourcing" some of its functions like running a Veterans Administration hospital, he would support that.
"I think that we'd have to look at the cost. And the cost can't come out of the veterans' pockets. The cost would have to come out of the government if there was a cost involved in that outsourcing," Buck said. "But I think that the private sector runs operations like hospitals and other operations better than the government."
As for Social Security, Rubio said he does not want to privatize it nor has it outlived its usefulness. But the Florida Republican Party candidate who's running in a three-way race against now-independent Gov. Charlie Crist and Florida Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek said the system has to change so that future beneficiaries are not left out in the cold.
"We want to keep it how it is for current beneficiaries because these are folks that have paid into the system, given certain assurances of what the system is going to look like," Rubio said. "Younger workers like myself, people 39 years of age like I am -- we're going to have to accept that there's going to be some changes to Social Security."
Rubio suggested changing the way benefits are indexed or allowing the retirement age to fluctuate as possible alterations to prevent Social Security from going bankrupt.
"But again, that's for younger workers like myself who have 20 or 30 years to prepare for this. People that are on the system now, or let's say 10 years from retirement or 12 years from retirement, these folks can't all of a sudden make a change to adjust for it."
Rubio, who's running an average 10.6 points above his competitors, according to RealClearPolitics, added that attacks on his personal budget management demonstrate the desperation of his political foes.
"You know what they call debt? A mortgage. ... The vast majority of Americans watching this program would be shocked to learn that buying a home with a mortgage is somehow irresponsible," Rubio said.
Sal Russo, founder of the Tea Party Express, said his movement is "laser-focused" on the economy, which explains why economically conservative candidates are labeled as "Tea Party" candidates.
"We've turned the political system on its head. And what's done that is that millions of Americans, who, many of them, had been sitting out the political process, have gotten involved in the campaigns," Russo said, also appearing on "Face the Nation."
"What people want to do is send a message to Washington that we have to get off this fiscal insanity merry-go-round."
Russo said that independence is a trait that also characterizes those who would be labeled "Tea Party" candidates. He argued that Ronald Reagan would've lived up to that definition.
"It reminds me back of, you know, the 1980 campaign, when, as you know, the Carter White House was rejoicing that they got Ronald Reagan, who would be so easy to beat," Russo said, arguing that many establishment Republicans supported independent John Anderson as the key to defeating Carter.
"Not only did Reagan win a majority against Carter and Anderson, but we elected 12 new Republican senators, and those 12 senators provided crucial votes for the Reagan economic policies for the next six years," he said.
Rubio, Buck: Political Scorekeepers Miss Point of Tea Parties
Published September 26, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck and Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio on Sunday said labeling candidates as "Tea Party" members is the only way political pundits can figure out how to make heads or tails of the growing popularity behind the organic movement.
The two Republican candidates said they are not running from the label, even if it's a misnomer.
"I don't think anybody can make that claim about themselves because, to do that, you'd have -- you'd have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Tea Party movement is," Rubio said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I think the biggest mistake being made by those that follow politics is they're trying to understand what's happening across our country through a traditional political lens, you know, how you would view the Republican Party or the Democrat Party," Rubio said.
"Republicans are every bit as much to blame for where we are right now as Democrats, but we have to find some discipline from outside of Washington, D.C., and impose it on our Congress and executive branch," said Buck, who appeared separately on the same show as Rubio.
Buck said he is among a group of candidates elected to run for office by voters frustrated with Washington, D.C.
"I think there are similarities, there are some difference across the country," he said. Among the similarities, Buck said, is a "firm belief that the Constitution should govern our role in Washington, D.C."
In addition, he said, none of the candidates elected to run against Washington's business-as-usual approach want to become part of the establishment. What they prefer instead, Buck said, is reduce spending, promote a balanced budget amendment and limit their time in Washington.
"I think the widespread sentiment is that we don't want to change America; we want to fix the things that are wrong in America, and the Tea Party movement is an expression of that sentiment," Rubio added.
But that approach has Buck and Rubio defending policy positions they say have been twisted by their opponents during this campaign season.
For instance, Buck, who is running against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet for the seat previously held by now-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said he does not want to flat-out privatize veterans hospitals, nor does he want to limit access to traditional birth control.
"There was a state amendment on personhood. I have said that I am in favor of personhood as a concept," Buck said, referring to Amendment 62 on the Colorado ballot that would grant citizenship rights to Americans at the "beginning of biological development."
Critics of the amendment say it could block some forms of birth control and fertility treatments, not just abortion.
"I have said over and over again, and it has been reported over and over again, that I am not in favor of banning any common forms of birth control in Colorado or in the United States," Buck said.
As for veterans hospitals, Buck said if the government could get improved quality and care for veterans by "outsourcing" some of its functions like running a Veterans Administration hospital, he would support that.
"I think that we'd have to look at the cost. And the cost can't come out of the veterans' pockets. The cost would have to come out of the government if there was a cost involved in that outsourcing," Buck said. "But I think that the private sector runs operations like hospitals and other operations better than the government."
As for Social Security, Rubio said he does not want to privatize it nor has it outlived its usefulness. But the Florida Republican Party candidate who's running in a three-way race against now-independent Gov. Charlie Crist and Florida Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek said the system has to change so that future beneficiaries are not left out in the cold.
"We want to keep it how it is for current beneficiaries because these are folks that have paid into the system, given certain assurances of what the system is going to look like," Rubio said. "Younger workers like myself, people 39 years of age like I am -- we're going to have to accept that there's going to be some changes to Social Security."
Rubio suggested changing the way benefits are indexed or allowing the retirement age to fluctuate as possible alterations to prevent Social Security from going bankrupt.
"But again, that's for younger workers like myself who have 20 or 30 years to prepare for this. People that are on the system now, or let's say 10 years from retirement or 12 years from retirement, these folks can't all of a sudden make a change to adjust for it."
Rubio, who's running an average 10.6 points above his competitors, according to RealClearPolitics, added that attacks on his personal budget management demonstrate the desperation of his political foes.
"You know what they call debt? A mortgage. ... The vast majority of Americans watching this program would be shocked to learn that buying a home with a mortgage is somehow irresponsible," Rubio said.
Sal Russo, founder of the Tea Party Express, said his movement is "laser-focused" on the economy, which explains why economically conservative candidates are labeled as "Tea Party" candidates.
"We've turned the political system on its head. And what's done that is that millions of Americans, who, many of them, had been sitting out the political process, have gotten involved in the campaigns," Russo said, also appearing on "Face the Nation."
"What people want to do is send a message to Washington that we have to get off this fiscal insanity merry-go-round."
Russo said that independence is a trait that also characterizes those who would be labeled "Tea Party" candidates. He argued that Ronald Reagan would've lived up to that definition.
"It reminds me back of, you know, the 1980 campaign, when, as you know, the Carter White House was rejoicing that they got Ronald Reagan, who would be so easy to beat," Russo said, arguing that many establishment Republicans supported independent John Anderson as the key to defeating Carter.
"Not only did Reagan win a majority against Carter and Anderson, but we elected 12 new Republican senators, and those 12 senators provided crucial votes for the Reagan economic policies for the next six years," he said.
Steny Hoyer ....Colbert was an "embarassment"
At very LEAST he's smarter than his boss "Princess" Pelosi....
House leader: Stephen Colbert was an ‘embarrassment’
By The Associated Press | Published: 10:04 AM 09/26/2010 | Updated: 10:11 AM 09/26/2010
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House’s No. 2 Democratic leader says comedian Stephen Colbert’s testimony last week on immigration was “inappropriate” and “an embarrassment.”
Colbert was invited to appear before the House Judiciary Committee by Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California. But other Democrats weren’t happy about her decision.
The committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., asked Colbert to leave the room at the beginning of the hearing because Colbert has no expertise in farm labor issues or immigration policy.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland tells “Fox News Sunday” he thought the episode was more of an embarrassment to Colbert than to the House. But, he added, “I think it was inappropriate” that he testified.
House leader: Stephen Colbert was an ‘embarrassment’
By The Associated Press | Published: 10:04 AM 09/26/2010 | Updated: 10:11 AM 09/26/2010
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House’s No. 2 Democratic leader says comedian Stephen Colbert’s testimony last week on immigration was “inappropriate” and “an embarrassment.”
Colbert was invited to appear before the House Judiciary Committee by Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California. But other Democrats weren’t happy about her decision.
The committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., asked Colbert to leave the room at the beginning of the hearing because Colbert has no expertise in farm labor issues or immigration policy.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland tells “Fox News Sunday” he thought the episode was more of an embarrassment to Colbert than to the House. But, he added, “I think it was inappropriate” that he testified.
Kerry "tax evader" Kerry says Americans are Stupid!
Here's another Democrat Elitist, John "tax evader" Kerry saying essentially that Americans are STUPID!.....What he doesn't realize is that there are more of us that are INFORMED today than ever and that's what's going to take the Democrat party out on November 2nd....They Just Do Not Get It...and certain don't want to take any responsiblity for going against the will of the American People time after time after time!
John Kerry: Democrats’ woes stem from uninformed voters
By Hillary Chabot - Boston Herald | Published: 7:16 AM 09/26/2010 | Updated: 9:24 AM 09/26/2010
A testy U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.
“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.
…
“I think a lot of the anger today – while it’s appropriate because Washington is broken – is not directed at the right people,” he said.
John Kerry: Democrats’ woes stem from uninformed voters
By Hillary Chabot - Boston Herald | Published: 7:16 AM 09/26/2010 | Updated: 9:24 AM 09/26/2010
A testy U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.
“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.
…
“I think a lot of the anger today – while it’s appropriate because Washington is broken – is not directed at the right people,” he said.
When all else fails and you have absolutely NOTHING to run on....Sling Dirt!
This is what happens when the Democrats have absolutely NOTHING to run on...they've defied the will of the American People for 19 months now...they've done every underhanded, dirty, corrupt trick they could muster just to pass their bad legislation...there have corrupt back room deals, congressmen bought off, arms twisted and NOW THEY ARE THROWING DIRT AT THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES....TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!! Who thinks we trust them????
Democrats' strategy: Start slinging
Negative advertisements have hit the airwaves early as Democratic candidates fight to preserve the party's congressional majority.
By JEFF ZELENY, New York Times
Last update: September 25, 2010 - 6:31 PM
Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their congressional majority.
Opposition research and attack advertising are deployed in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the past two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups.
As they struggle to break through with economic messages, many Democrats are deploying the fruits of a yearlong investigation into the business and personal histories of Republican candidates in an effort to plant doubts about them and avoid having races become a national referendum on the performance of President Obama and his party.
In Ohio, Rep. Betty Sutton calls her Republican rival, Tom Ganley, a "dishonest used-car salesman" who has been sued more than 400 times for fraud, discrimination, lying to customers about repairs, overcharging them and endangering their safety. She warns voters, "You've heard the old saying, buyer beware!"
In Arizona, Rep. Harry Mitchell accused his opponent David Schweikert of being "a predatory real estate speculator who snatched up nearly 300 foreclosed homes, been cited for neglect and evicted a homeowner on the verge of saving his house, just to make a buck."
In New York, Rep. Michael Arcuri introduces his Republican challenger, Richard Hanna, as a millionaire who "got rich while his construction company overcharged taxpayers thousands, was sued three times for injuries caused by faulty construction and was cited 12 times for health and safety violations."
Negative ads can be successful, whether or not they are fair and fully accurate, particularly if they lure an opponent into responding or if they define a political newcomer before he can define himself. But they also carry risks, especially in a year when voters are frustrated about the economy and impatient with politics as usual.
"Our strongest piece of opposition research on Democrats is their voting records," said Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "While character assassination seems to be the strategy for Democrats this year, the American people are supporting Republican candidates because they are providing an alternative."
A debate has broken out among some Democratic officials about the effectiveness -- or wisdom -- of running such pointedly negative advertisements with five weeks remaining in the campaign.
But party strategists said candidates did not have the luxury of waiting until the final stretch to go negative, particularly if the goal is to localize the races.
"When you're talking about whether an individual really belongs in Congress, you're not talking about the national issues," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant who creates television advertising for several candidates in the party.
He added: "Anytime you get personal in campaign advertising, there's always a risk that it goes too far to be credible or it backfires altogether. That risk is typically mitigated by research that's done in advance to determine the correct tone and what will make the ad credible."
So far, many Republican candidates are defending themselves but not taking the bait by starting their own offensives. A review of television advertisements presented since Labor Day showed that the Republicans were basing theirs almost entirely on the records of Democrats on health care, the economic stimulus package and the first vote the Democrats cast when Congress convened in 2009: for making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, who leads the Republican recruitment effort in the House, said he warned candidates to conduct their own research before deciding to run so they were not surprised by anything dug up by Democrats.
Democrats' strategy: Start slinging
Negative advertisements have hit the airwaves early as Democratic candidates fight to preserve the party's congressional majority.
By JEFF ZELENY, New York Times
Last update: September 25, 2010 - 6:31 PM
Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their congressional majority.
Opposition research and attack advertising are deployed in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the past two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups.
As they struggle to break through with economic messages, many Democrats are deploying the fruits of a yearlong investigation into the business and personal histories of Republican candidates in an effort to plant doubts about them and avoid having races become a national referendum on the performance of President Obama and his party.
In Ohio, Rep. Betty Sutton calls her Republican rival, Tom Ganley, a "dishonest used-car salesman" who has been sued more than 400 times for fraud, discrimination, lying to customers about repairs, overcharging them and endangering their safety. She warns voters, "You've heard the old saying, buyer beware!"
In Arizona, Rep. Harry Mitchell accused his opponent David Schweikert of being "a predatory real estate speculator who snatched up nearly 300 foreclosed homes, been cited for neglect and evicted a homeowner on the verge of saving his house, just to make a buck."
In New York, Rep. Michael Arcuri introduces his Republican challenger, Richard Hanna, as a millionaire who "got rich while his construction company overcharged taxpayers thousands, was sued three times for injuries caused by faulty construction and was cited 12 times for health and safety violations."
Negative ads can be successful, whether or not they are fair and fully accurate, particularly if they lure an opponent into responding or if they define a political newcomer before he can define himself. But they also carry risks, especially in a year when voters are frustrated about the economy and impatient with politics as usual.
"Our strongest piece of opposition research on Democrats is their voting records," said Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "While character assassination seems to be the strategy for Democrats this year, the American people are supporting Republican candidates because they are providing an alternative."
A debate has broken out among some Democratic officials about the effectiveness -- or wisdom -- of running such pointedly negative advertisements with five weeks remaining in the campaign.
But party strategists said candidates did not have the luxury of waiting until the final stretch to go negative, particularly if the goal is to localize the races.
"When you're talking about whether an individual really belongs in Congress, you're not talking about the national issues," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant who creates television advertising for several candidates in the party.
He added: "Anytime you get personal in campaign advertising, there's always a risk that it goes too far to be credible or it backfires altogether. That risk is typically mitigated by research that's done in advance to determine the correct tone and what will make the ad credible."
So far, many Republican candidates are defending themselves but not taking the bait by starting their own offensives. A review of television advertisements presented since Labor Day showed that the Republicans were basing theirs almost entirely on the records of Democrats on health care, the economic stimulus package and the first vote the Democrats cast when Congress convened in 2009: for making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, who leads the Republican recruitment effort in the House, said he warned candidates to conduct their own research before deciding to run so they were not surprised by anything dug up by Democrats.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Per this Economist...Obama's Stimulus did exactly the opposite of what he should have done!
An Interesting Perspective on what Obama created with his stimulus and the current economic position of the U.S. vs Canada and Europe....
Obama Stimulus Made Economic Crisis Worse, `Black Swan' Author Taleb Says
By Frederic Tomesco - Sep 25, 2010 9:36 AM CT
U.S. President Barack Obama and his administration weakened the country’s economy by seeking to foster growth instead of paying down the federal debt, said Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of “The Black Swan.”
“Obama did exactly the opposite of what should have been done,” Taleb said yesterday in Montreal in a speech as part of Canada’s Salon Speakers series. “He surrounded himself with people who exacerbated the problem. You have a person who has cancer and instead of removing the cancer, you give him tranquilizers. When you give tranquilizers to a cancer patient, they feel better but the cancer gets worse.”
Today, Taleb said, “total debt is higher than it was in 2008 and unemployment is worse.”
Obama this month proposed a package of $180 billion in business tax breaks and infrastructure outlays to boost spending and job growth. That would come on top of the $814 billion stimulus measure enacted last year. The U.S. government’s total outstanding debt is about $13.5 trillion, according to U.S. Treasury Department figures.
Obama, 49, inherited what the National Bureau of Economic Research said this week was the deepest U.S. recession since the Great Depression. Even after the stimulus measure and other government actions, the U.S. unemployment rate is 9.6 percent.
Governments globally need to cut debt and avoid bailing out struggling companies because that’s the only way they can shield their economies from the negative consequences of erroneous budget forecasts, Taleb said.
Errant Forecasts
“Today there is a dependency on people who have never been able to forecast anything,” Taleb said. “What kind of system is insulated from forecasting errors? A system where debts are low and companies are allowed to die young when they are fragile. Companies always end up dying one day anyway.”
Taleb, a native of Lebanon who gave his speech in French to an audience of Quebec business people, said Canada’s fiscal situation makes the country a safer investment than its southern neighbor.
Canada has the lowest ratio of net debt to gross domestic product among the Group of Seven industrialized countries and will keep that distinction until at least 2014, the country’s finance department said in March. Canada’s ratio, 24 percent in 2007, will rise to about 30 percent by 2014. The U.S. ratio, now above 40 percent, will top 80 percent in four years, the department said, citing IMF data.
“I am bullish on Canada,” he told the audience. “I prefer Canada to the U.S. or even Europe.”
Mortgage Interest
Canada’s economy also benefits from the fact that homeowners, unlike their U.S. neighbors, can’t take mortgage interest as a tax deduction, Taleb said. That removes the incentive to take on too much debt, he said.
“The first thing to do if you want to solve the mortgage problem in the U.S. is to stop making these interest payments deductible,” he said. “Has someone dared to talk about this in Washington? No, because the U.S. homebuilders’ lobby is hyperactive and doesn’t want people to talk about this.”
Taleb also criticized banks and securities firms, saying they don’t adequately warn clients of the risks they run when they invest their retirement savings in the stock market.
‘Have Fun’
“People should use financial markets to have fun, but not as a depository of value,” Taleb said. “Investors have been deceived. People were told that markets go up regularly, but if you look at the last 10 years that’s not been the case. The risks are always greater than what people are told.”
Asked by an audience member if returns such as those posted by Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chief Executive Officer Warren Buffett -- who amassed the world’s third-biggest personal fortune through decades of stock picks and takeovers -- are the product of luck or talent, Taleb said both played a part.
If given a choice between investing with Buffett and billionaire investor George Soros, Taleb also said he would probably pick the latter.
“I am not saying Buffett isn’t as good as Soros,” he said. “I am saying that the probability Soros’s returns come from randomness is much smaller because he did almost everything: he bought currencies, he sold currencies, he did arbitrages. He made a lot more decisions. Buffett followed a strategy to buy companies that had a certain earnings profile, and it worked for him. There is a lot more luck involved in this strategy.”
Soros gained fame in the 1990s when he reportedly made $1 billion correctly betting against the British pound.
Taleb’s 2007 best-seller, “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable,” argues that history is littered with rare, high-impact events. The black-swan theory stems from the ancient misconception that all swans were white.
A former trader, Taleb teaches risk engineering at New York University and advises Universa Investments LP, a Santa Monica, California-based fund that bets on extreme market moves.
Obama Stimulus Made Economic Crisis Worse, `Black Swan' Author Taleb Says
By Frederic Tomesco - Sep 25, 2010 9:36 AM CT
U.S. President Barack Obama and his administration weakened the country’s economy by seeking to foster growth instead of paying down the federal debt, said Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of “The Black Swan.”
“Obama did exactly the opposite of what should have been done,” Taleb said yesterday in Montreal in a speech as part of Canada’s Salon Speakers series. “He surrounded himself with people who exacerbated the problem. You have a person who has cancer and instead of removing the cancer, you give him tranquilizers. When you give tranquilizers to a cancer patient, they feel better but the cancer gets worse.”
Today, Taleb said, “total debt is higher than it was in 2008 and unemployment is worse.”
Obama this month proposed a package of $180 billion in business tax breaks and infrastructure outlays to boost spending and job growth. That would come on top of the $814 billion stimulus measure enacted last year. The U.S. government’s total outstanding debt is about $13.5 trillion, according to U.S. Treasury Department figures.
Obama, 49, inherited what the National Bureau of Economic Research said this week was the deepest U.S. recession since the Great Depression. Even after the stimulus measure and other government actions, the U.S. unemployment rate is 9.6 percent.
Governments globally need to cut debt and avoid bailing out struggling companies because that’s the only way they can shield their economies from the negative consequences of erroneous budget forecasts, Taleb said.
Errant Forecasts
“Today there is a dependency on people who have never been able to forecast anything,” Taleb said. “What kind of system is insulated from forecasting errors? A system where debts are low and companies are allowed to die young when they are fragile. Companies always end up dying one day anyway.”
Taleb, a native of Lebanon who gave his speech in French to an audience of Quebec business people, said Canada’s fiscal situation makes the country a safer investment than its southern neighbor.
Canada has the lowest ratio of net debt to gross domestic product among the Group of Seven industrialized countries and will keep that distinction until at least 2014, the country’s finance department said in March. Canada’s ratio, 24 percent in 2007, will rise to about 30 percent by 2014. The U.S. ratio, now above 40 percent, will top 80 percent in four years, the department said, citing IMF data.
“I am bullish on Canada,” he told the audience. “I prefer Canada to the U.S. or even Europe.”
Mortgage Interest
Canada’s economy also benefits from the fact that homeowners, unlike their U.S. neighbors, can’t take mortgage interest as a tax deduction, Taleb said. That removes the incentive to take on too much debt, he said.
“The first thing to do if you want to solve the mortgage problem in the U.S. is to stop making these interest payments deductible,” he said. “Has someone dared to talk about this in Washington? No, because the U.S. homebuilders’ lobby is hyperactive and doesn’t want people to talk about this.”
Taleb also criticized banks and securities firms, saying they don’t adequately warn clients of the risks they run when they invest their retirement savings in the stock market.
‘Have Fun’
“People should use financial markets to have fun, but not as a depository of value,” Taleb said. “Investors have been deceived. People were told that markets go up regularly, but if you look at the last 10 years that’s not been the case. The risks are always greater than what people are told.”
Asked by an audience member if returns such as those posted by Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chief Executive Officer Warren Buffett -- who amassed the world’s third-biggest personal fortune through decades of stock picks and takeovers -- are the product of luck or talent, Taleb said both played a part.
If given a choice between investing with Buffett and billionaire investor George Soros, Taleb also said he would probably pick the latter.
“I am not saying Buffett isn’t as good as Soros,” he said. “I am saying that the probability Soros’s returns come from randomness is much smaller because he did almost everything: he bought currencies, he sold currencies, he did arbitrages. He made a lot more decisions. Buffett followed a strategy to buy companies that had a certain earnings profile, and it worked for him. There is a lot more luck involved in this strategy.”
Soros gained fame in the 1990s when he reportedly made $1 billion correctly betting against the British pound.
Taleb’s 2007 best-seller, “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable,” argues that history is littered with rare, high-impact events. The black-swan theory stems from the ancient misconception that all swans were white.
A former trader, Taleb teaches risk engineering at New York University and advises Universa Investments LP, a Santa Monica, California-based fund that bets on extreme market moves.
Braney Frank Needs to Lose!
After Pelosi and Reid lose this time the next one I want to see lose is certainly Barney Frank....That would be really SWEET!
Rep. Frank Denies Clinton Stop Indicates Weakness
Published September 25, 2010 | Associated Press
When it was announced that former President Bill Clinton would make a campaign appearance for U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, more than a few eyebrows went up.
Sure, it's a year when incumbents of every political stripe are squirming. And the fast-talking, sharp-witted Massachusetts Democrat certainly has his share of detractors, particularly after two years that put the House Financial Services Committee chairman at the center of Washington's efforts to grapple with the financial meltdown.
But could the former president's visit to the 4th Congressional District on Sunday indicate that Democrats consider Frank -- who has faced few serious challenges in his three decades in Congress -- vulnerable in November?
"I'm not sure how you can see it as anything other than a sign of weakness that he's bringing in Bill Clinton," declared Sean Bielat, Frank's 35-year-old Republican opponent.
But Frank bristles at the notion that Clinton's visit reflects an unusual degree of concern and says he is only doing what politicians running for office are expected to do.
"I'm frankly surprised at the question, 'Why are you campaigning?"' he said in an interview. "Am I supposed to not campaign? Or am I supposed to campaign ineffectively?"
Clinton was to appear Sunday at a campaign rally in Taunton, a small city in the southern portion of the district where Republican Scott Brown tallied 57 percent of the vote in January's special election to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Brown's upset victory energized the GOP and gave the party hope that it could further dent the previously all-Democratic congressional delegation in Massachusetts.
The 4th district stretches from the affluent Boston suburbs of Newton and Wellesley to the working-class cities of Taunton, New Bedford and Fall River. While registered Democrats heavily outnumber registered Republicans, more than half the district's voters are independent with no party affiliation.
Frank, 70, defeated a Republican opponent by a better than 2-1 margin in 2008 and did not have a GOP foe in the three previous elections. His toughest race was probably in 1982, when he won a second term by defeating Republican Rep. Margaret Heckler after redistricting forced the two incumbents to face off.
Frank said he became a target of the far right after being named chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee in 2007. Those attacks have prompted him to campaign harder in the last two elections, he acknowledged.
Frank shepherded through the House the Wall Street bailout and later one of the most far-reaching financial regulatory reform laws in the nation's history.
"There are some very rich people in the country who are very angry at me over the financial reform bill, so I have to be prepared to defend myself," he said.
Famous for both his pointed one-liners and self-deprecating humor -- his biography is titled "The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman" -- critics have also pointed to Frank's brusque manner and suggest he's grown arrogant and lost touch with constituents.
Making his first run for political office, Bielat is a U.S. Marine Corps Reservist and former manager at iRobot Corp. A native of Rochester, N.Y., where he was a registered Democrat, he became a Massachusetts resident in 2007. It was then that he registered as a Republican after becoming disillusioned with the policies of the Democratic Party, he said.
While readily conceding his lack of name recognition and a huge fundraising disadvantage to Frank, Bielat claims his campaign's own private polling puts him within striking distance. If that were not the case, he believes Clinton would not be expending his own limited campaigning time on this race.
"Look at all the seats the Democrats have to defend right now. If I was the DNC (Democratic National Committee), unless I was worried about this seat in particular, I wouldn't waste one of this guy's days on an allegedly strong incumbent who can raise so much money," said Bielat, who plans to hold an outdoor rally in Taunton during the Clinton event.
The former president was also helping other Democrats in New England on Sunday. He was set to appear at a rally for U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal in New Haven, Conn., and attend a fundraiser for former DNC chairman Steve Grossman, who is running for Massachusetts treasurer.
"Every good politician runs scared," said Boston College political science professor Marc Landy, who believes Frank is right to campaign aggressively.
Landy said Frank is facing a talented opponent for the first time in years and must be mindful of Brown's success in January. Still, he expects the incumbent to prevail.
"Barney has one big advantage: He has loyal followers, he has people in his district who love him," Landy said.
Rep. Frank Denies Clinton Stop Indicates Weakness
Published September 25, 2010 | Associated Press
When it was announced that former President Bill Clinton would make a campaign appearance for U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, more than a few eyebrows went up.
Sure, it's a year when incumbents of every political stripe are squirming. And the fast-talking, sharp-witted Massachusetts Democrat certainly has his share of detractors, particularly after two years that put the House Financial Services Committee chairman at the center of Washington's efforts to grapple with the financial meltdown.
But could the former president's visit to the 4th Congressional District on Sunday indicate that Democrats consider Frank -- who has faced few serious challenges in his three decades in Congress -- vulnerable in November?
"I'm not sure how you can see it as anything other than a sign of weakness that he's bringing in Bill Clinton," declared Sean Bielat, Frank's 35-year-old Republican opponent.
But Frank bristles at the notion that Clinton's visit reflects an unusual degree of concern and says he is only doing what politicians running for office are expected to do.
"I'm frankly surprised at the question, 'Why are you campaigning?"' he said in an interview. "Am I supposed to not campaign? Or am I supposed to campaign ineffectively?"
Clinton was to appear Sunday at a campaign rally in Taunton, a small city in the southern portion of the district where Republican Scott Brown tallied 57 percent of the vote in January's special election to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Brown's upset victory energized the GOP and gave the party hope that it could further dent the previously all-Democratic congressional delegation in Massachusetts.
The 4th district stretches from the affluent Boston suburbs of Newton and Wellesley to the working-class cities of Taunton, New Bedford and Fall River. While registered Democrats heavily outnumber registered Republicans, more than half the district's voters are independent with no party affiliation.
Frank, 70, defeated a Republican opponent by a better than 2-1 margin in 2008 and did not have a GOP foe in the three previous elections. His toughest race was probably in 1982, when he won a second term by defeating Republican Rep. Margaret Heckler after redistricting forced the two incumbents to face off.
Frank said he became a target of the far right after being named chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee in 2007. Those attacks have prompted him to campaign harder in the last two elections, he acknowledged.
Frank shepherded through the House the Wall Street bailout and later one of the most far-reaching financial regulatory reform laws in the nation's history.
"There are some very rich people in the country who are very angry at me over the financial reform bill, so I have to be prepared to defend myself," he said.
Famous for both his pointed one-liners and self-deprecating humor -- his biography is titled "The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman" -- critics have also pointed to Frank's brusque manner and suggest he's grown arrogant and lost touch with constituents.
Making his first run for political office, Bielat is a U.S. Marine Corps Reservist and former manager at iRobot Corp. A native of Rochester, N.Y., where he was a registered Democrat, he became a Massachusetts resident in 2007. It was then that he registered as a Republican after becoming disillusioned with the policies of the Democratic Party, he said.
While readily conceding his lack of name recognition and a huge fundraising disadvantage to Frank, Bielat claims his campaign's own private polling puts him within striking distance. If that were not the case, he believes Clinton would not be expending his own limited campaigning time on this race.
"Look at all the seats the Democrats have to defend right now. If I was the DNC (Democratic National Committee), unless I was worried about this seat in particular, I wouldn't waste one of this guy's days on an allegedly strong incumbent who can raise so much money," said Bielat, who plans to hold an outdoor rally in Taunton during the Clinton event.
The former president was also helping other Democrats in New England on Sunday. He was set to appear at a rally for U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal in New Haven, Conn., and attend a fundraiser for former DNC chairman Steve Grossman, who is running for Massachusetts treasurer.
"Every good politician runs scared," said Boston College political science professor Marc Landy, who believes Frank is right to campaign aggressively.
Landy said Frank is facing a talented opponent for the first time in years and must be mindful of Brown's success in January. Still, he expects the incumbent to prevail.
"Barney has one big advantage: He has loyal followers, he has people in his district who love him," Landy said.
Democrats see Immigration as ONLY a political football!
The Democrats think Immigration is nothing but a political football....the care less about what the American People want or what's good for American than they do about trying to get something/anything done so they might get reelected....Obama promised action on Immigration in the first year of his presidency, but didn't even mention it...now it's the 11th hour and he and his regime are hell bent to just get something done to get reelected.....And they don't even take the subject seriously by their having Steven Colbert yuck up a Congressional Hearing yesterday....What an Embarassment!
Obama's Incremental Approach to Immigration Overhaul Falls Short of Expectations
Published September 25, 2010
Sen. Harry Reid failed to get enough votes for the DREAM Act while Stephen Colbert delivered a performance that overshadowed AGJobs bill he supports. (AP)
With comprehensive immigration overhaul off the table, President Obama and his Democratic allies have tried smaller proposals to provide illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship or permanent legal residency -- a strategy that is now being called into question after two efforts fell flat this week.
First, Democrats failed to muster enough votes in the Senate to pass the DREAM Act, which would allow hundreds of thousands of young people to legally remain in the U.S.
Then comedian Stephen Colbert tried to bring attention to the AGJobs bill, which would legalize about 2 million undocumented migrant laborers who have worked on farms for at least two years, by testifying in front of a House panel at the request of Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif..
But Colbert's joke-filled testimony overshadowed the bill, which has languished in Congress for years, as lawmakers argued over whether his performance was appropriate.
With midterm elections just over a month away, the chances of any kind of immigration reform passing this year grows slimmer by the day, disappointing many immigration advocates who reluctantly embraced an incremental approach to reform.
Democrats, who are bracing for disastrous electoral defeats, fear Hispanic voters will stay home in November because of the inaction.
The Hispanic community has criticized President Obama for failing to keep his promise to tackle immigration reform in the first year of his presidency. In April, Obama said Congress lacked the "appetite" to take on immigration, essentially removing it from the legislative agenda.
But some lawmakers aren't ready to throw in the towel yet on immigration.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J, vowed earlier this month to unveil a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill before the November elections.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., told the Hill newspaper that he's confident that Senate will take another shot at passing the DREAM Act, pointing to a Senate rule that allows the bill, with two days' notice, to be brought to the chamber's floor for consideration at any time.
"I'm really really hopeful," he told the newspaper. "Their clear intent is to give it another try. When? That's up to them."
Democrats attached the DREAM Act as an amendment to a defense spending bill that Republicans blocked along with two Democrats.
The DREAM Act allows young people to become legal U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military. It applies to those who were under 16 when they arrived in the U.S., have been in the country at least five years and have a diploma from a U.S. high school or the equivalent.
The Obama administration has deferred the deportation of some of the young people while the politics of the bill played out, drawing heavy criticism from some Republicans.
The administration is also, under a new policy, halting deportation proceedings for up to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who are married or related to a U.S. citizen or a legal resident who has filed a petition on their behalf. Illegal immigrants with criminal convictions do not qualify under the plan. Critics have called the new policy a free pass for illegals.
Obama's Incremental Approach to Immigration Overhaul Falls Short of Expectations
Published September 25, 2010
Sen. Harry Reid failed to get enough votes for the DREAM Act while Stephen Colbert delivered a performance that overshadowed AGJobs bill he supports. (AP)
With comprehensive immigration overhaul off the table, President Obama and his Democratic allies have tried smaller proposals to provide illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship or permanent legal residency -- a strategy that is now being called into question after two efforts fell flat this week.
First, Democrats failed to muster enough votes in the Senate to pass the DREAM Act, which would allow hundreds of thousands of young people to legally remain in the U.S.
Then comedian Stephen Colbert tried to bring attention to the AGJobs bill, which would legalize about 2 million undocumented migrant laborers who have worked on farms for at least two years, by testifying in front of a House panel at the request of Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif..
But Colbert's joke-filled testimony overshadowed the bill, which has languished in Congress for years, as lawmakers argued over whether his performance was appropriate.
With midterm elections just over a month away, the chances of any kind of immigration reform passing this year grows slimmer by the day, disappointing many immigration advocates who reluctantly embraced an incremental approach to reform.
Democrats, who are bracing for disastrous electoral defeats, fear Hispanic voters will stay home in November because of the inaction.
The Hispanic community has criticized President Obama for failing to keep his promise to tackle immigration reform in the first year of his presidency. In April, Obama said Congress lacked the "appetite" to take on immigration, essentially removing it from the legislative agenda.
But some lawmakers aren't ready to throw in the towel yet on immigration.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J, vowed earlier this month to unveil a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill before the November elections.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., told the Hill newspaper that he's confident that Senate will take another shot at passing the DREAM Act, pointing to a Senate rule that allows the bill, with two days' notice, to be brought to the chamber's floor for consideration at any time.
"I'm really really hopeful," he told the newspaper. "Their clear intent is to give it another try. When? That's up to them."
Democrats attached the DREAM Act as an amendment to a defense spending bill that Republicans blocked along with two Democrats.
The DREAM Act allows young people to become legal U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military. It applies to those who were under 16 when they arrived in the U.S., have been in the country at least five years and have a diploma from a U.S. high school or the equivalent.
The Obama administration has deferred the deportation of some of the young people while the politics of the bill played out, drawing heavy criticism from some Republicans.
The administration is also, under a new policy, halting deportation proceedings for up to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who are married or related to a U.S. citizen or a legal resident who has filed a petition on their behalf. Illegal immigrants with criminal convictions do not qualify under the plan. Critics have called the new policy a free pass for illegals.
Breitbart Nails Maher on ObamaCare Support: ‘So You’re Officially Not a Libertarian Anymore’
Bill Maher agrees he's a European Socialist...maybe that's why he make NO SENSE!
Breitbart.tv » Breitbart Nails Maher on ObamaCare Support: ‘So You’re Officially Not a Libertarian Anymore’
Breitbart.tv » Breitbart Nails Maher on ObamaCare Support: ‘So You’re Officially Not a Libertarian Anymore’
Friday, September 24, 2010
November Is Coming - Great video...well worth watching....
Only 39 days til election day when we can start taking back America!
Breitbart.tv » November Is Coming
Breitbart.tv » November Is Coming
Obama's ratings go down, down, down
And Obama's ratings go down, down, down....
CNN Poll: Obama at all time low
By Alexander Mooney - CNN | Published: 4:12 PM 09/24/2010
(CNN) – President Barack Obama is contending with the lowest approval rating of his 20-month presidency, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll finds.
The president’s approval rating now stands at 42 percent – an all time low in CNN polling and 8 points lower than where Obama was only three weeks ago. Moreover, 56 percent of all Americans think the president has fallen short of their expectations.
CNN Poll: Obama at all time low
By Alexander Mooney - CNN | Published: 4:12 PM 09/24/2010
(CNN) – President Barack Obama is contending with the lowest approval rating of his 20-month presidency, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll finds.
The president’s approval rating now stands at 42 percent – an all time low in CNN polling and 8 points lower than where Obama was only three weeks ago. Moreover, 56 percent of all Americans think the president has fallen short of their expectations.
Pelosi is an IDIOT!
What can you say other than Pelosi is an IDIOT!
Nancy Pelosi glad Stephen Colbert came to testify
Asked about whether the comedian’s appearance before a House panel Friday morning was appropriate, Pelosi said she hadn’t seen it but applauded him for testifying before Congress.
“Of course I think it’s appropriate. He's an American, right? He came before the committee. He has a point of view. He can bring attention to an important issue like immigration. I think it's great.”
Colbert didn’t have glowing words for Congress, though. Appearing in character before the Judiciary committee’s subcommittee on immigration to talk about farmworker rights, he told the panel, “I trust that all of you will work together in the best interest of the American people, as usual” and also mocked members for not reading bills.
Colbert also went on to make a series of lewd remarks, discussing his colonoscopy, while making off-color comments about a Brazilian bikini wax and “Mexicans” slicing tomatoes.
Nancy Pelosi glad Stephen Colbert came to testify
Asked about whether the comedian’s appearance before a House panel Friday morning was appropriate, Pelosi said she hadn’t seen it but applauded him for testifying before Congress.
“Of course I think it’s appropriate. He's an American, right? He came before the committee. He has a point of view. He can bring attention to an important issue like immigration. I think it's great.”
Colbert didn’t have glowing words for Congress, though. Appearing in character before the Judiciary committee’s subcommittee on immigration to talk about farmworker rights, he told the panel, “I trust that all of you will work together in the best interest of the American people, as usual” and also mocked members for not reading bills.
Colbert also went on to make a series of lewd remarks, discussing his colonoscopy, while making off-color comments about a Brazilian bikini wax and “Mexicans” slicing tomatoes.
More Corruption from Acorn Spinoff
More corruption from the Democrat backed Acorn spinoff.....How much of this do we have to see before we do NO business with these guys ever again!
Politics
Government Report Cites ACORN Offshoot for 'Ineligible' Payments, Grant Problems
Published September 24, 2010
An official report released this week says an ACORN offshoot group cannot properly account for how it has spent millions of federal dollars and recommends that the group repay the government and be put on standby mode until it cleans up its act.
The report from the inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development reviewed how ACORN Housing Corporation -- now called Affordable Housing Centers of America -- has spent federal grant money over the past two decades. The report described the group's book-keeping as "problematic and unsupported," and claimed that more than $65,000 in "ineligible" salary expenses were charged to a federal grant last year, including costs for six employees after they were terminated.
The report said more than $19 million from HUD went to the organization since 1995, and that about 80 percent of the $3.25 million received between 2008 and 2009 went toward salaries.
"For continued approval as a HUD-approved housing counseling agency and for future awards consideration, AHC must bring its operations into full compliance with applicable laws," the IG report said, recommending that it be placed on "inactive" status by the federal housing department.
The study is the latest blow to the beleaguered low-income advocacy group ACORN and its offshoots. After Congress voted to cut funding to the main organization following the release of undercover videos that showed its workers appearing to help a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute, the organization's affiliates and chapters have been reorganizing under different names.
ACORN Housing Corporation, which was formed in 1985 by ACORN organizers, changed its name this year to Affordable Housing Centers of America.
The IG report recommended that the organization reimburse the government for the $65,000 in "ineligible" expenses -- and either provide support for other salary costs or reimburse that money as well.
A memo released Sept. 7 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development agreed that the group should either "provide documentation" to support its expenses or reimburse the government.
The department "will evaluate if inactive 'status' is warranted," the memo said.
In response, a representative for Affordable Housing Centers of America wrote in a Sept. 10 letter to the inspector general's office that "almost all" personnel records unavailable during the audit "have now been located." The response also said the group instituted an "electronic time-keeping system" to record how grant money is applied -- a reform that "satisfies" one of the recommendations in the report.
The response said the organization "does not dispute" that expenses for terminated employees, as well as expenses for prior-year costs, were "erroneously charged" to the federal government.
However, Affordable Housing Centers of America argued that it should not have to repay the money because the group "incurred substantial other allowable costs" last year that it did not charge to Washington.
"Importantly, none of the findings suggest that funds were misused or that counseling work was not performed," the response said, adding that the group will work "constructively" to improve its operation.
The inspector general study was requested by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"It doesn't matter if it's $10 or $10,000 -- there is no acceptable amount of abuse or mismanagement that the federal government should tolerate when it comes to the taxpayers' dollars," Issa said in a written statement.
Politics
Government Report Cites ACORN Offshoot for 'Ineligible' Payments, Grant Problems
Published September 24, 2010
An official report released this week says an ACORN offshoot group cannot properly account for how it has spent millions of federal dollars and recommends that the group repay the government and be put on standby mode until it cleans up its act.
The report from the inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development reviewed how ACORN Housing Corporation -- now called Affordable Housing Centers of America -- has spent federal grant money over the past two decades. The report described the group's book-keeping as "problematic and unsupported," and claimed that more than $65,000 in "ineligible" salary expenses were charged to a federal grant last year, including costs for six employees after they were terminated.
The report said more than $19 million from HUD went to the organization since 1995, and that about 80 percent of the $3.25 million received between 2008 and 2009 went toward salaries.
"For continued approval as a HUD-approved housing counseling agency and for future awards consideration, AHC must bring its operations into full compliance with applicable laws," the IG report said, recommending that it be placed on "inactive" status by the federal housing department.
The study is the latest blow to the beleaguered low-income advocacy group ACORN and its offshoots. After Congress voted to cut funding to the main organization following the release of undercover videos that showed its workers appearing to help a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute, the organization's affiliates and chapters have been reorganizing under different names.
ACORN Housing Corporation, which was formed in 1985 by ACORN organizers, changed its name this year to Affordable Housing Centers of America.
The IG report recommended that the organization reimburse the government for the $65,000 in "ineligible" expenses -- and either provide support for other salary costs or reimburse that money as well.
A memo released Sept. 7 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development agreed that the group should either "provide documentation" to support its expenses or reimburse the government.
The department "will evaluate if inactive 'status' is warranted," the memo said.
In response, a representative for Affordable Housing Centers of America wrote in a Sept. 10 letter to the inspector general's office that "almost all" personnel records unavailable during the audit "have now been located." The response also said the group instituted an "electronic time-keeping system" to record how grant money is applied -- a reform that "satisfies" one of the recommendations in the report.
The response said the organization "does not dispute" that expenses for terminated employees, as well as expenses for prior-year costs, were "erroneously charged" to the federal government.
However, Affordable Housing Centers of America argued that it should not have to repay the money because the group "incurred substantial other allowable costs" last year that it did not charge to Washington.
"Importantly, none of the findings suggest that funds were misused or that counseling work was not performed," the response said, adding that the group will work "constructively" to improve its operation.
The inspector general study was requested by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"It doesn't matter if it's $10 or $10,000 -- there is no acceptable amount of abuse or mismanagement that the federal government should tolerate when it comes to the taxpayers' dollars," Issa said in a written statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)