Once Again Obama Cares About NO ONE But Himself.....He's still an arrogant, self absorbed eliteist.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Obama and Holder Covering Up Another Scandal....How Corrupt Can they Be?
Coverup and corruption to extreme within the Obama Administration and the Justice Department...
Obama Admin Seals Records of Murdered Border Patrol Agent Implicated in Fast and Furious
11:45 AM, Nov 30, 2011
And to think that Attorney General Eric Holder is getting testy about congressional calls for his resignation. After all, the Justice Department has nothing to hide, right?:
The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.
This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona’s Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.
Link via Judicial Watch. The murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent is related to the Justice Department willingly turning over thousands of guns to Mexican criminal gangs, and Obama administration is hiding information about his death from the public. Amazing.
Obama Admin Seals Records of Murdered Border Patrol Agent Implicated in Fast and Furious
11:45 AM, Nov 30, 2011
And to think that Attorney General Eric Holder is getting testy about congressional calls for his resignation. After all, the Justice Department has nothing to hide, right?:
The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.
This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona’s Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.
Link via Judicial Watch. The murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent is related to the Justice Department willingly turning over thousands of guns to Mexican criminal gangs, and Obama administration is hiding information about his death from the public. Amazing.
Newt Ahead of Obama in Presidential Race Poll....
Looks like Newt has some staying power....
2012 Presidential Matchups
National Poll: Gingrich 45% Obama 43%Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Newt Gingrich surge has moved him to the top of the polls in Iowa, big gains in New Hampshire and now a two-point edge over President Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week, Gingrich trailed the president by six. Two weeks ago, he was down by twelve. Earlier in the year, both Rick Perry and Herman Cain followed a similar path to take a slight lead over the president. However, in both cases, their time as frontrunners quickly came to an end. Neither man led the president more than a single time in a Rasmussen Reports poll. It remains to be seen whether Gingrich follows that path or is able to retain his status as the leading alternative to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Romney is the only GOP candidate who has been ahead of the president more than a single time. For most of the year, he and President Obama were essentially even. Currently, Romney trails Obama by six. While the president typically leads named Republicans, a generic Republican candidate consistently leads the president.
Romney leads in New Hampshire with 34% of the vote. Gingrich is in second, ten points back.
In Iowa, Gingrich is on top with Romney in second.
In both states, more than 70% of GOP caucus or primary voters see Romney and Gingrich as qualified to be president. No other candidate comes close.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republican voters nationwide have a favorable opinion of Romney and 65% say the same of Gingrich.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on November 28-29, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
LATEST MATCH-UP RESULTS CAN BE FOUND BY CLICKING HERE.
Obama
43%
Gingrich
45%
Nov 28-29, 2011
Obama
46%
Cain
36%
Nov 27, 2011
Obama
44%
Romney
38%
Nov 21-22, 2011
Obama
45%
Bachmann
33%
Nov 15-16, 2011
Obama
44%
Perry
35%
Nov 5-6, 2011
Obama
44%
Paul
35%
Oct 28-29, 2011
Obama
39%
Huntsman
32%
Oct 20-21, 2011
Obama
42%
Johnson
27%
Oct 4-5, 2011
Obama
45%
Santorum
34%
Oct 2-3, 2011
Gingrich has recently commented that the Occupy Wall Street protesters should take a bath and get a job. Voters nationwide are evenly divided on that perspective, but Republican voters strongly agree.
Gingrich currently attracts 79% of the Republican vote in a match-up against Obama. The former House Speaker also leads by 18 points among unaffiliated voters. The president is supported by 90% of Democrats.
Regardless of who wins the nomination, federal spending and debt will be important issues in the campaign. Voters overwhelmingly cite the economy as the top voting issue and believe that reducing government spending will help the economy. However, 81% of voters now say they don’t expect any significant spending cuts to be made before Election 2012.
2012 Presidential Matchups
National Poll: Gingrich 45% Obama 43%Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Newt Gingrich surge has moved him to the top of the polls in Iowa, big gains in New Hampshire and now a two-point edge over President Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week, Gingrich trailed the president by six. Two weeks ago, he was down by twelve. Earlier in the year, both Rick Perry and Herman Cain followed a similar path to take a slight lead over the president. However, in both cases, their time as frontrunners quickly came to an end. Neither man led the president more than a single time in a Rasmussen Reports poll. It remains to be seen whether Gingrich follows that path or is able to retain his status as the leading alternative to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Romney is the only GOP candidate who has been ahead of the president more than a single time. For most of the year, he and President Obama were essentially even. Currently, Romney trails Obama by six. While the president typically leads named Republicans, a generic Republican candidate consistently leads the president.
Romney leads in New Hampshire with 34% of the vote. Gingrich is in second, ten points back.
In Iowa, Gingrich is on top with Romney in second.
In both states, more than 70% of GOP caucus or primary voters see Romney and Gingrich as qualified to be president. No other candidate comes close.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republican voters nationwide have a favorable opinion of Romney and 65% say the same of Gingrich.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on November 28-29, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
LATEST MATCH-UP RESULTS CAN BE FOUND BY CLICKING HERE.
Obama
43%
Gingrich
45%
Nov 28-29, 2011
Obama
46%
Cain
36%
Nov 27, 2011
Obama
44%
Romney
38%
Nov 21-22, 2011
Obama
45%
Bachmann
33%
Nov 15-16, 2011
Obama
44%
Perry
35%
Nov 5-6, 2011
Obama
44%
Paul
35%
Oct 28-29, 2011
Obama
39%
Huntsman
32%
Oct 20-21, 2011
Obama
42%
Johnson
27%
Oct 4-5, 2011
Obama
45%
Santorum
34%
Oct 2-3, 2011
Gingrich has recently commented that the Occupy Wall Street protesters should take a bath and get a job. Voters nationwide are evenly divided on that perspective, but Republican voters strongly agree.
Gingrich currently attracts 79% of the Republican vote in a match-up against Obama. The former House Speaker also leads by 18 points among unaffiliated voters. The president is supported by 90% of Democrats.
Regardless of who wins the nomination, federal spending and debt will be important issues in the campaign. Voters overwhelmingly cite the economy as the top voting issue and believe that reducing government spending will help the economy. However, 81% of voters now say they don’t expect any significant spending cuts to be made before Election 2012.
Obama has shown us where to NEVER Go Again!
If Obama has done ANY GOOD, it's to show America what path is NEVER WANTS TO TAKE AGAIN....
Victor Davis Hanson November 30, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Obama 101
Few presidents have dashed so many illusions as Obama.
In the last three years, the president has taught us a great deal about America, the world, and himself.
Before Obama, many Americans still believed in massive deficit spending, whether as an article of fairness, a means to economic growth, or just a lazy fallback position to justify an out-of-control federal government. But after the failure of a nearly $800 billion “stimulus” program — intended to keep unemployment under 8 percent — no one believes any more that an already indebted government will foster economic growth by taking on another $4 trillion in debt. In other words, “stimulus” is mostly a dead concept. The president — much as he advised a barnstorming President Bush in 2005 to cease pushing Social Security reform on a reluctant population — should give it up and junk the new $500 billion program euphemistically designated as a “jobs bill.” The U.S. government is already borrowing every three days what all of America spent on Black Friday.
Obama has also taught us that prominent government intervention into the private sector often makes things worse, and invites crony-capitalist corruption. Nearly three years into this administration, it is striking how seldom Barack Obama brags about Cash for Clunkers, the Chrysler and GM bailouts, or Solyndra. He either is quiet about them or sort of shrugs, as if to say, “Stuff happens.” Even creative bookkeeping cannot mask the fact that the auto-company bailouts (begun, to be sure, by the Bush administration, but made worse under Obama) will prove a huge drain on the Treasury. No one even attempts any more to convince us that we will like Obamacare once we read the legislation, or that it will save us costs in the long run, or that it will cheer up businesses so that they will invest and hire. All that was dreamland, 2009, and this is reality, 2011, when we hear only “It could have been worse.”
Obama has also taught us that a president’s name, his father’s religion, his ethnic background, loud denunciations of his predecessor, discomforting efforts to apologize, bow, and contextualize past American actions — none of that does anything to lead to greater peace in the world or security for the United States. And by the same token, George Bush’s drawl, Texas identification, and Christianity did not magically turn allies into neutrals and neutrals into enemies.
Israel, Britain, and Eastern Europe are not closer allies now than they were in 2008. Iran is still Iran — and may be even a more dangerous adversary after the failed Obama outreach. Putin’s Russia, despite “reset” (a word we no longer much hear), is still Putin’s Russia. China still despises the U.S., and feels in 2011 that it is in a far better position to act on its contempt than it was in 2009. North Korea never got the “hope and change” message. Europe is collapsing, reminding the world where the United States is headed if it does not change course. Outreach didn’t seem to do much for the Castro brothers, Hugo Chávez, or Daniel Ortega. We are helping Mexico to sue our own states, but that does not seem to persuade its leaders to keep their citizens home. Muslim Pakistan went from a duplicitous ally to a veritable enemy. The more we bragged about Turkey, the more we could feel it holds us in contempt. We hope that the Libyan rebels and the Cairo protesters are headed toward democracy, but we privately admit that they seem to have no more interest in establishing it than we have in promoting it. In other words, Professor Obama reminds future presidents that the world will transcend their rhetoric, their pretensions, and their heritage. Other nations always calibrate their relations with the United States either by their own perceived self-interest, or by centuries-old American values and power, or both.
Barack Obama has taught us a great deal about dealing with radical Islam, an ideology not predicated on what presidents do or say. There will be no shutting down of Guantanamo as promised, and no end to either renditions or preventive detentions and tribunals. Khalid Sheik Mohammed will never be tried, as promised, in a New York courtroom not far from the scene of his mass murdering. The so-called Ground Zero mosque — once so dear to sanctimonious members of the Obama administration — will never be built; either liberal New Yorkers will quietly prevent it, or the architects of the scheme will be exposed as financial as well as cultural con artists. Obama will never again give an interview to Al-Arabiya expanding on how his own heritage will ameliorate relations with Arabs. The Cairo speech will go down in history not as a landmark creative effort to win over Muslims, but, to the extent it is remembered, as one of the most ahistorical constructs in presidential history. The Obama legacy in the War on Terror is as Predator-in-Chief — boldly increasing targeted assassinations tenfold from the Bush era, on the theory that we more or less kill the right suspected terrorists; few civil libertarians care much, apparently because one of their own is doing it.
We have learned from Obama that the messianic presidency is a myth. Obama’s attempt to recreate Camelot has only reminded us that JFK’s presidency — tax cuts, Cold War saber-rattling, Vietnam intervention — was never Camelot. We shall see no more Latinate presidential sloganeering (“Vero Possumus”), no more rainbow posters. Gone are the faux-Greek columns, the speeches about seas receding and the planet cooling — now sources of embarrassment rather than nostalgia. Chancellor Merkel won’t want another Victory Column address from someone who ducked out on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Obama himself will not lecture crowds any longer about the dangers of their fainting when he speaks; Michelle will cease all the nonsense about “deign[ing] to enter the messy thing called politics” and finally acquiring pride in the U.S. when it nominated her husband. Even Chris Matthews’s leg has stopped tingling. There will be no more Newsweek comparisons of Obama to a god. Even the Nobel Prize committee will soon grasp that it tarnished its brand by equating fleeting celebrity with lasting achievement.
“Green” will never be quite the same after Obama. When Solyndra and its affiliated scandals are at last fully brought into the light of day, we will see the logical reification of Climategate I & II, Al Gore’s hucksterism, and Van Jones’s lunacy. How ironic that the more Obama tried to stop drilling in the West, offshore, and in Alaska, as well as stopping the Canadian pipeline, the more the American private sector kept finding oil and gas despite rather than because of the U.S. government. How further ironic that the one area that Obama felt was unnecessary for, or indeed antithetical to, America’s economic recovery — vast new gas and oil finds — will soon turn out to be America’s greatest boon in the last 20 years. While Obama and Energy Secretary Chu still insist on subsidizing money-losing wind and solar concerns, we are in the midst of a revolution that, within 20 years, will reduce or even end the trade deficit, help pay off the national debt, create millions of new jobs, and turn the Western Hemisphere into the new Persian Gulf. The American petroleum revolution can be delayed by Obama, but it cannot be stopped.
One lesson, however, has not fully sunk in and awaits final elucidation in the 2012 election: that of the Chicago style of Barack Obama’s politicking. In 2008 few of the true believers accepted that, in his first political race, in 1996, Barack Obama sued successfully to remove his opponents from the ballot. Or that in his race for the U.S. Senate eight years later, sealed divorced records for both his primary- and general-election opponents were mysteriously leaked by unnamed Chicagoans, leading to the implosions of both candidates’ campaigns. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in the history of public campaign financing to reject it, or that he was also the largest recipient of cash from Wall Street in general, and from BP and Goldman Sachs in particular. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in recent memory not to disclose either undergraduate records or even partial medical. Or that remarks like “typical white person,” the clingers speech, and the spread-the-wealth quip would soon prove to be characteristic rather than anomalous.
Few American presidents have dashed so many popular, deeply embedded illusions as has Barack Obama. And for that, we owe him a strange sort of thanks.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.
Victor Davis Hanson November 30, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Obama 101
Few presidents have dashed so many illusions as Obama.
In the last three years, the president has taught us a great deal about America, the world, and himself.
Before Obama, many Americans still believed in massive deficit spending, whether as an article of fairness, a means to economic growth, or just a lazy fallback position to justify an out-of-control federal government. But after the failure of a nearly $800 billion “stimulus” program — intended to keep unemployment under 8 percent — no one believes any more that an already indebted government will foster economic growth by taking on another $4 trillion in debt. In other words, “stimulus” is mostly a dead concept. The president — much as he advised a barnstorming President Bush in 2005 to cease pushing Social Security reform on a reluctant population — should give it up and junk the new $500 billion program euphemistically designated as a “jobs bill.” The U.S. government is already borrowing every three days what all of America spent on Black Friday.
Obama has also taught us that prominent government intervention into the private sector often makes things worse, and invites crony-capitalist corruption. Nearly three years into this administration, it is striking how seldom Barack Obama brags about Cash for Clunkers, the Chrysler and GM bailouts, or Solyndra. He either is quiet about them or sort of shrugs, as if to say, “Stuff happens.” Even creative bookkeeping cannot mask the fact that the auto-company bailouts (begun, to be sure, by the Bush administration, but made worse under Obama) will prove a huge drain on the Treasury. No one even attempts any more to convince us that we will like Obamacare once we read the legislation, or that it will save us costs in the long run, or that it will cheer up businesses so that they will invest and hire. All that was dreamland, 2009, and this is reality, 2011, when we hear only “It could have been worse.”
Obama has also taught us that a president’s name, his father’s religion, his ethnic background, loud denunciations of his predecessor, discomforting efforts to apologize, bow, and contextualize past American actions — none of that does anything to lead to greater peace in the world or security for the United States. And by the same token, George Bush’s drawl, Texas identification, and Christianity did not magically turn allies into neutrals and neutrals into enemies.
Israel, Britain, and Eastern Europe are not closer allies now than they were in 2008. Iran is still Iran — and may be even a more dangerous adversary after the failed Obama outreach. Putin’s Russia, despite “reset” (a word we no longer much hear), is still Putin’s Russia. China still despises the U.S., and feels in 2011 that it is in a far better position to act on its contempt than it was in 2009. North Korea never got the “hope and change” message. Europe is collapsing, reminding the world where the United States is headed if it does not change course. Outreach didn’t seem to do much for the Castro brothers, Hugo Chávez, or Daniel Ortega. We are helping Mexico to sue our own states, but that does not seem to persuade its leaders to keep their citizens home. Muslim Pakistan went from a duplicitous ally to a veritable enemy. The more we bragged about Turkey, the more we could feel it holds us in contempt. We hope that the Libyan rebels and the Cairo protesters are headed toward democracy, but we privately admit that they seem to have no more interest in establishing it than we have in promoting it. In other words, Professor Obama reminds future presidents that the world will transcend their rhetoric, their pretensions, and their heritage. Other nations always calibrate their relations with the United States either by their own perceived self-interest, or by centuries-old American values and power, or both.
Barack Obama has taught us a great deal about dealing with radical Islam, an ideology not predicated on what presidents do or say. There will be no shutting down of Guantanamo as promised, and no end to either renditions or preventive detentions and tribunals. Khalid Sheik Mohammed will never be tried, as promised, in a New York courtroom not far from the scene of his mass murdering. The so-called Ground Zero mosque — once so dear to sanctimonious members of the Obama administration — will never be built; either liberal New Yorkers will quietly prevent it, or the architects of the scheme will be exposed as financial as well as cultural con artists. Obama will never again give an interview to Al-Arabiya expanding on how his own heritage will ameliorate relations with Arabs. The Cairo speech will go down in history not as a landmark creative effort to win over Muslims, but, to the extent it is remembered, as one of the most ahistorical constructs in presidential history. The Obama legacy in the War on Terror is as Predator-in-Chief — boldly increasing targeted assassinations tenfold from the Bush era, on the theory that we more or less kill the right suspected terrorists; few civil libertarians care much, apparently because one of their own is doing it.
We have learned from Obama that the messianic presidency is a myth. Obama’s attempt to recreate Camelot has only reminded us that JFK’s presidency — tax cuts, Cold War saber-rattling, Vietnam intervention — was never Camelot. We shall see no more Latinate presidential sloganeering (“Vero Possumus”), no more rainbow posters. Gone are the faux-Greek columns, the speeches about seas receding and the planet cooling — now sources of embarrassment rather than nostalgia. Chancellor Merkel won’t want another Victory Column address from someone who ducked out on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Obama himself will not lecture crowds any longer about the dangers of their fainting when he speaks; Michelle will cease all the nonsense about “deign[ing] to enter the messy thing called politics” and finally acquiring pride in the U.S. when it nominated her husband. Even Chris Matthews’s leg has stopped tingling. There will be no more Newsweek comparisons of Obama to a god. Even the Nobel Prize committee will soon grasp that it tarnished its brand by equating fleeting celebrity with lasting achievement.
“Green” will never be quite the same after Obama. When Solyndra and its affiliated scandals are at last fully brought into the light of day, we will see the logical reification of Climategate I & II, Al Gore’s hucksterism, and Van Jones’s lunacy. How ironic that the more Obama tried to stop drilling in the West, offshore, and in Alaska, as well as stopping the Canadian pipeline, the more the American private sector kept finding oil and gas despite rather than because of the U.S. government. How further ironic that the one area that Obama felt was unnecessary for, or indeed antithetical to, America’s economic recovery — vast new gas and oil finds — will soon turn out to be America’s greatest boon in the last 20 years. While Obama and Energy Secretary Chu still insist on subsidizing money-losing wind and solar concerns, we are in the midst of a revolution that, within 20 years, will reduce or even end the trade deficit, help pay off the national debt, create millions of new jobs, and turn the Western Hemisphere into the new Persian Gulf. The American petroleum revolution can be delayed by Obama, but it cannot be stopped.
One lesson, however, has not fully sunk in and awaits final elucidation in the 2012 election: that of the Chicago style of Barack Obama’s politicking. In 2008 few of the true believers accepted that, in his first political race, in 1996, Barack Obama sued successfully to remove his opponents from the ballot. Or that in his race for the U.S. Senate eight years later, sealed divorced records for both his primary- and general-election opponents were mysteriously leaked by unnamed Chicagoans, leading to the implosions of both candidates’ campaigns. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in the history of public campaign financing to reject it, or that he was also the largest recipient of cash from Wall Street in general, and from BP and Goldman Sachs in particular. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in recent memory not to disclose either undergraduate records or even partial medical. Or that remarks like “typical white person,” the clingers speech, and the spread-the-wealth quip would soon prove to be characteristic rather than anomalous.
Few American presidents have dashed so many popular, deeply embedded illusions as has Barack Obama. And for that, we owe him a strange sort of thanks.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.
Obama....Killing American Jobs Again...
One more way Obama is killing jobs in America and making American Business more UNcompetitive in the global economy. Unions are a thing of the past and this kind of support for them only keeps America in tough economic times. Obama doesn't get it...all he cares about is the big bucks he gets from his Union Goon Buddies..Again what's best for America doesn't figure in here...It's all about what's best for Barack!
Stop Obama's Big Union Onslaught
What does it take to bring an airline to its knees? Uncompetitive union-negotiated labor contracts and a fundamental unwillingness to recognize that in a down economy, unions have a hard time raising wages without destroying jobs.
That was a lesson that unions refused to learn in the case of American Airlines, which yesterday announced that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the last large U.S. full-fare airline to seek court protection from creditors. American was forced to take that action when the airline pilots union refused to budge on its demands for massive signing bonuses and wage increases. The airline's competitors are flying high in profits after restructuring union contracts in their own bankruptcy proceedings.
Unions also didn't learn any lessons after taxpayers bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, and then-White House "auto-czar" Ron Bloom gave the UAW preferential treatment in the restructuring process despite their contracts being largely at fault.
And, this is a lesson that still has not penetrated the walls of the Obama White House. The President's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) want businesses to be unionized at all costs, even if it means harming both workers and the economy. They're trying to make it happen by ramming through measures that would help expand unionization in America.
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the Workplace Democracy and Fairness Act, introduced by Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN). The bill protects the right of workers to decide whether or not to unionize. That's a right that the NLRB would like to drastically weaken.
One tack the Obama NLRB is taking is implementing "snap elections" which Heritage labor expert James Sherk says are designed to prevent employees from making an informed choice about unionizing.
The policy shortens the election period from six weeks to as little as 10 days, depriving companies of their ability to explain to workers the darker side of unionization, including strike histories, dues increases, and union corruption. Meanwhile, union leaders would have months to try to sell workers on their side of the story through rose-colored glasses.
The NLRB is set to vote on the new rule today, but it's possible that their efforts could be forestalled if the lone Republican on the board resigns or withholds participation in the vote, depriving the NLRB of the quorum it needs to issue regulations.
Their earlier gambit -- known as "micro unions" -- redefines who gets to vote on unionizing a particular workplace. Instead of workers with a shared "community of interest" forming a single bargaining unit and voting together on unionizing (think cashiers, shelf-stockers, and greeters at a grocery store), now the Obama NLRB has allowed unions to form cherry-picked bargaining units of their supporters. Sherk explains how the new rule would impact workers:
If most workers at a store oppose unionizing, but a union has majority support among the cashiers, it can now form a union of just the cashiers. The shelf-stockers and greeters would not get a vote.
Unionizing brings risks to the entire workplace. The Obama NLRB has allowed unions to selectively disenfranchise the workers who do not want to take that risk.
All of this is occurring despite the fact that only one in 10 non-union workers say they want to unionize. What's more, unionized companies invest less, are less competitive, and create fewer jobs than non-union companies. Given these facts, it's no surprise that union membership has shrunk to just 7 percent in the private sector. Likewise, though, it's not surprising that the Obama NLRB is digging in and trying to foist unionization on all companies while it still can.
Kline's bill attempts to prevent that from happening by guaranteeing that union elections are not held until workers have at least 35 days to hear from both sides, ensuring that employers have at least 14 days to find legal counsel before any legal proceedings begin, preventing unions from cherry-picking which workers can vote, and protecting privacy by letting workers decide which contact information to release to union organizers.
Kline says, "It's very clear to me that we're seeing the rights of employers and employees under attack." And he's right. Workers have a right to organize unions, but they should have a right not to organize them as well. Reforms like the ones Kline is proposing help protect that right.
Stop Obama's Big Union Onslaught
What does it take to bring an airline to its knees? Uncompetitive union-negotiated labor contracts and a fundamental unwillingness to recognize that in a down economy, unions have a hard time raising wages without destroying jobs.
That was a lesson that unions refused to learn in the case of American Airlines, which yesterday announced that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the last large U.S. full-fare airline to seek court protection from creditors. American was forced to take that action when the airline pilots union refused to budge on its demands for massive signing bonuses and wage increases. The airline's competitors are flying high in profits after restructuring union contracts in their own bankruptcy proceedings.
Unions also didn't learn any lessons after taxpayers bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, and then-White House "auto-czar" Ron Bloom gave the UAW preferential treatment in the restructuring process despite their contracts being largely at fault.
And, this is a lesson that still has not penetrated the walls of the Obama White House. The President's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) want businesses to be unionized at all costs, even if it means harming both workers and the economy. They're trying to make it happen by ramming through measures that would help expand unionization in America.
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the Workplace Democracy and Fairness Act, introduced by Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN). The bill protects the right of workers to decide whether or not to unionize. That's a right that the NLRB would like to drastically weaken.
One tack the Obama NLRB is taking is implementing "snap elections" which Heritage labor expert James Sherk says are designed to prevent employees from making an informed choice about unionizing.
The policy shortens the election period from six weeks to as little as 10 days, depriving companies of their ability to explain to workers the darker side of unionization, including strike histories, dues increases, and union corruption. Meanwhile, union leaders would have months to try to sell workers on their side of the story through rose-colored glasses.
The NLRB is set to vote on the new rule today, but it's possible that their efforts could be forestalled if the lone Republican on the board resigns or withholds participation in the vote, depriving the NLRB of the quorum it needs to issue regulations.
Their earlier gambit -- known as "micro unions" -- redefines who gets to vote on unionizing a particular workplace. Instead of workers with a shared "community of interest" forming a single bargaining unit and voting together on unionizing (think cashiers, shelf-stockers, and greeters at a grocery store), now the Obama NLRB has allowed unions to form cherry-picked bargaining units of their supporters. Sherk explains how the new rule would impact workers:
If most workers at a store oppose unionizing, but a union has majority support among the cashiers, it can now form a union of just the cashiers. The shelf-stockers and greeters would not get a vote.
Unionizing brings risks to the entire workplace. The Obama NLRB has allowed unions to selectively disenfranchise the workers who do not want to take that risk.
All of this is occurring despite the fact that only one in 10 non-union workers say they want to unionize. What's more, unionized companies invest less, are less competitive, and create fewer jobs than non-union companies. Given these facts, it's no surprise that union membership has shrunk to just 7 percent in the private sector. Likewise, though, it's not surprising that the Obama NLRB is digging in and trying to foist unionization on all companies while it still can.
Kline's bill attempts to prevent that from happening by guaranteeing that union elections are not held until workers have at least 35 days to hear from both sides, ensuring that employers have at least 14 days to find legal counsel before any legal proceedings begin, preventing unions from cherry-picking which workers can vote, and protecting privacy by letting workers decide which contact information to release to union organizers.
Kline says, "It's very clear to me that we're seeing the rights of employers and employees under attack." And he's right. Workers have a right to organize unions, but they should have a right not to organize them as well. Reforms like the ones Kline is proposing help protect that right.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Americans Continues to Wake Up to Just How BAD Obama Really Is...
Obama's Job Approval Drops Below Carter's
November 29, 2011
President Obama's slow ride down Gallup's daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.
Since March, Obama's job approval rating has hovered above Carter's, considered among the 20th century's worst presidents, but today Obama's punctured Carter's dismal job approval line. On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama's job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter's 51 percent.
Back in 1979, Carter was far below Obama until the Iran hostage crisis, eerily being duplicated in Tehran today with Iranian protesters storming the British embassy. The early days of the crisis helped Carter's ratings, though his failure to win the release of captured Americans, coupled with a bad economy, led to his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.
According to Gallup, here are the job approval numbers for other presidents at this stage of their terms, a year before the re-election campaign:
-- Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.
-- Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.
-- Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.
-- Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.
-- Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.
-- George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.
-- Bill Clinton: 51 percent.
-- George W. Bush: 55 percent.
What's more, Gallup finds that Obama's overall job approval rating so far has averaged 49 percent. Only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. Only Truman won re-election in an anti-Congress campaign that Obama's team is using as a model.
Many pundits believe that job approval ratings are the key number to look at when determining if a president will win re-election. Generally, they feel that a president should be higher than 47 percent to win re-election.
Obama's troubles have revived talk in Democratic circles that Vice President Joe Biden should be replaced by the politically popular Hillary Clinton. She plans to leave as secretary of state at the end of Obama's term no matter what happens in the re-election.
A key Democratic source said that Clinton could help revive the Democratic base and bring in Clinton backers, with whom the administration has had a cool relationship. Clinton has repeatedly rejected talk of her swapping roles with Biden, but Democratic operatives eager to keep the president in office believe that she would be the key to winning educated white voters and liberals upset with the administration's actions.
November 29, 2011
President Obama's slow ride down Gallup's daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.
Since March, Obama's job approval rating has hovered above Carter's, considered among the 20th century's worst presidents, but today Obama's punctured Carter's dismal job approval line. On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama's job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter's 51 percent.
Back in 1979, Carter was far below Obama until the Iran hostage crisis, eerily being duplicated in Tehran today with Iranian protesters storming the British embassy. The early days of the crisis helped Carter's ratings, though his failure to win the release of captured Americans, coupled with a bad economy, led to his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.
According to Gallup, here are the job approval numbers for other presidents at this stage of their terms, a year before the re-election campaign:
-- Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.
-- Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.
-- Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.
-- Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.
-- Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.
-- George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.
-- Bill Clinton: 51 percent.
-- George W. Bush: 55 percent.
What's more, Gallup finds that Obama's overall job approval rating so far has averaged 49 percent. Only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. Only Truman won re-election in an anti-Congress campaign that Obama's team is using as a model.
Many pundits believe that job approval ratings are the key number to look at when determining if a president will win re-election. Generally, they feel that a president should be higher than 47 percent to win re-election.
Obama's troubles have revived talk in Democratic circles that Vice President Joe Biden should be replaced by the politically popular Hillary Clinton. She plans to leave as secretary of state at the end of Obama's term no matter what happens in the re-election.
A key Democratic source said that Clinton could help revive the Democratic base and bring in Clinton backers, with whom the administration has had a cool relationship. Clinton has repeatedly rejected talk of her swapping roles with Biden, but Democratic operatives eager to keep the president in office believe that she would be the key to winning educated white voters and liberals upset with the administration's actions.
Christie to Obama - "what the hell are we paying you for?"
You've got to LOVE Chris Christie....He says to Obama..."What the Hell are we paying you for?"
Obama's just Campaigning on Your Dime!
Obama's again wasting taxpayer money by not working for the American Public, but rather spending the last year just campaigning for reelection on your dime....Jake Tapper is Correct!
You can tell by the length of Carney's answer that he's lying!
You can tell by the length of Carney's answer that he's lying!
Thank God Barney Frank will be GONE!
Yesterday was a GOOD DAY....Barney Frank announced he will not run for reelection..and that's probably the biggest positive contribution he's made to America since he entered Congress 16 terms ago.....Do we need term limits???? I think so!
November 29, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Exit Barney Frank
Rep. Barney Frank will be remembered for three things: First, he was not only the first openly gay member of Congress but the first involved in a gay-prostitution scandal. Second, he said, “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness” regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as exercised with regard to other government-affiliated agencies, preferring, as he memorably put it, to “roll the dice a little bit.” Third, he was co-author of the Frank-Dodd financial-reform legislation. Which is to say, Representative Frank will be remembered as an embarrassment, a reckless gambler, and a legislative malefactor.
Representative Frank was not much of a crusader on gay-rights issues, which was just as well. On the substance of those issues, he was on the wrong side. As a symbol, he was toxic — a powerful politician whose homosexual orientation was hardly the most remarkable feature of his private life, which included involvement with a gay hustler and convicted drug dealer whom the congressman was paying for sex, and who ended up running a prostitution operation out of the congressman’s home. Representative Frank was reprimanded by the House for making misleading statements to a Virginia prosecutor on behalf of the prostitute — whom the congressman eventually put on his own payroll — and for having fixed dozens of parking tickets on his behalf. Americans are broadly tolerant of homosexuality; they are rightly less tolerant of prostitution and political corruption. The congressman’s self-pitying account of the episode made the bad situation worse.
But though his private life spilled over into his public duties, it is as a champion of a different kind of pay-for-play operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that the congressman did the most damage to the country. The government-backed mortgage giants were at the center of the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis. Representative Frank was a stalwart defender of the organizations, even after the government uncovered “extensive” fraud at Fannie Mae and found that Freddie Mac had illegally channeled funds to its political benefactors. Again, Representative Frank’s personal life intruded into the story: He was sexually involved with a Fannie Mae executive during a time when he was voting on laws affecting the organization. The final cost of the Fannie/Freddie bailouts will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the real damage that the organizations did to the U.S. economy — and the world economy, for that matter — probably is incalculable.
In response to a financial crisis in which he was a significant figure, Representative Frank helped to craft a financial-reform law that bears his name. The drafting of Dodd-Frank began as a punitive measure, evolved into a dispensary of political favors, and in the end did little or nothing to address the problems that led to the 2008–09 crisis or to prevent similar crises in the future. Which means that we may have Barney Frank partly to thank not only for the last financial crisis but for the next one.
From his relatively petty transgressions related to his personal life to his more consequential role in enabling Fannie and Freddie, Representative Frank personifies a great deal of what is wrong with American public life. Though a highly intelligent man, he made the wrong decisions at every turn, and compounded his policy errors with the petty and vindictive style of his politics. Republicans will not miss him. Neither should his Democratic colleagues, his constituents, or the American public that will be paying off the cost of his errors and those of his allies, with interest, for a great many years. We hope that he will find in the obscurity of retirement the grace and wisdom that eluded him as an elected official, but we do not assume that it will be so.
November 29, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Exit Barney Frank
Rep. Barney Frank will be remembered for three things: First, he was not only the first openly gay member of Congress but the first involved in a gay-prostitution scandal. Second, he said, “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness” regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as exercised with regard to other government-affiliated agencies, preferring, as he memorably put it, to “roll the dice a little bit.” Third, he was co-author of the Frank-Dodd financial-reform legislation. Which is to say, Representative Frank will be remembered as an embarrassment, a reckless gambler, and a legislative malefactor.
Representative Frank was not much of a crusader on gay-rights issues, which was just as well. On the substance of those issues, he was on the wrong side. As a symbol, he was toxic — a powerful politician whose homosexual orientation was hardly the most remarkable feature of his private life, which included involvement with a gay hustler and convicted drug dealer whom the congressman was paying for sex, and who ended up running a prostitution operation out of the congressman’s home. Representative Frank was reprimanded by the House for making misleading statements to a Virginia prosecutor on behalf of the prostitute — whom the congressman eventually put on his own payroll — and for having fixed dozens of parking tickets on his behalf. Americans are broadly tolerant of homosexuality; they are rightly less tolerant of prostitution and political corruption. The congressman’s self-pitying account of the episode made the bad situation worse.
But though his private life spilled over into his public duties, it is as a champion of a different kind of pay-for-play operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that the congressman did the most damage to the country. The government-backed mortgage giants were at the center of the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis. Representative Frank was a stalwart defender of the organizations, even after the government uncovered “extensive” fraud at Fannie Mae and found that Freddie Mac had illegally channeled funds to its political benefactors. Again, Representative Frank’s personal life intruded into the story: He was sexually involved with a Fannie Mae executive during a time when he was voting on laws affecting the organization. The final cost of the Fannie/Freddie bailouts will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the real damage that the organizations did to the U.S. economy — and the world economy, for that matter — probably is incalculable.
In response to a financial crisis in which he was a significant figure, Representative Frank helped to craft a financial-reform law that bears his name. The drafting of Dodd-Frank began as a punitive measure, evolved into a dispensary of political favors, and in the end did little or nothing to address the problems that led to the 2008–09 crisis or to prevent similar crises in the future. Which means that we may have Barney Frank partly to thank not only for the last financial crisis but for the next one.
From his relatively petty transgressions related to his personal life to his more consequential role in enabling Fannie and Freddie, Representative Frank personifies a great deal of what is wrong with American public life. Though a highly intelligent man, he made the wrong decisions at every turn, and compounded his policy errors with the petty and vindictive style of his politics. Republicans will not miss him. Neither should his Democratic colleagues, his constituents, or the American public that will be paying off the cost of his errors and those of his allies, with interest, for a great many years. We hope that he will find in the obscurity of retirement the grace and wisdom that eluded him as an elected official, but we do not assume that it will be so.
The ONLY Job Obama is Concerned About is HIS OWN!
More Proof that the ONLY Job Obama is concerned about is his own!...He's never been serious about creating jobs and putting America back to work!
Obama Keeps Turning His Back on Jobs
This week, President Obama is again set to make a pitch for his latest plan to stimulate the economy, but meanwhile he is turning his back on projects that would put tens or even hundreds of thousands Americans to work. And he's doing it all to appease his left-wing, environmentalist base at the expense of domestic energy production.
Heritage's Rob Bluey reported last week on a new finding by a New Orleans-based group that the Obama administration is approving just 35 percent of the oil drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico so far this year. It is also taking an average of 115 days -- nearly four months -- to secure approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Those numbers are a sharp drop from previous years, well below the historical average 73.4 percent approval rate and 61 days it takes to approve plans. And for plans that require drilling activity, the numbers are even worse with an average approval time of 222 days.
That's bad news for job creation. One deepwater rig alone can create 700 jobs locally. But slowing down oil drilling in the Gulf isn't the only way the President is blocking jobs. Earlier this month, the Obama Administration announced it would delay the construction of the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline that would bring in more than 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf coast--and could have produced upwards of 20,000 jobs. Heritage's Nicolas Loris explains the impact:
What this delay really means is that President Obama is putting off an important election year decision in which two of his largest supporters--labor unions and environmentalists--are split on the issue. This tactic allows the decision to be delayed until after the 2012 elections.
More importantly, this means a delay in access to easy imports from our northern neighbor, the creation of thousands of jobs, and the generation of revenue for the states where the pipeline passes. Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas are collectively projected to collect $5.2 billion in property tax revenue as a result of building the pipeline.
As if that weren't enough, the White House made another decision blocking energy-related jobs in the United States. In mid-November, the Obama Administration delayed a mineral lease sale in Ohio's Wayne National Forest for oil and gas drilling. Apart for providing Americans access to affordable energy, the project could have had a tremendous impact in the state, including the creation of an estimated 200,000 jobs, an overall wage and personal-income boost of $12 billion by 2015, and a billion-dollar boon to Ohio landowners, schools, businesses, and communities.
The President's direction on energy policy is aimed at appeasing a very specific base, but it's coming at a tremendously high cost. While Americans struggle to make ends meet, pay their bills, and find work, President Obama is turning his back on new jobs and safe, affordable energy sources.
Obama Keeps Turning His Back on Jobs
This week, President Obama is again set to make a pitch for his latest plan to stimulate the economy, but meanwhile he is turning his back on projects that would put tens or even hundreds of thousands Americans to work. And he's doing it all to appease his left-wing, environmentalist base at the expense of domestic energy production.
Heritage's Rob Bluey reported last week on a new finding by a New Orleans-based group that the Obama administration is approving just 35 percent of the oil drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico so far this year. It is also taking an average of 115 days -- nearly four months -- to secure approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Those numbers are a sharp drop from previous years, well below the historical average 73.4 percent approval rate and 61 days it takes to approve plans. And for plans that require drilling activity, the numbers are even worse with an average approval time of 222 days.
That's bad news for job creation. One deepwater rig alone can create 700 jobs locally. But slowing down oil drilling in the Gulf isn't the only way the President is blocking jobs. Earlier this month, the Obama Administration announced it would delay the construction of the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline that would bring in more than 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf coast--and could have produced upwards of 20,000 jobs. Heritage's Nicolas Loris explains the impact:
What this delay really means is that President Obama is putting off an important election year decision in which two of his largest supporters--labor unions and environmentalists--are split on the issue. This tactic allows the decision to be delayed until after the 2012 elections.
More importantly, this means a delay in access to easy imports from our northern neighbor, the creation of thousands of jobs, and the generation of revenue for the states where the pipeline passes. Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas are collectively projected to collect $5.2 billion in property tax revenue as a result of building the pipeline.
As if that weren't enough, the White House made another decision blocking energy-related jobs in the United States. In mid-November, the Obama Administration delayed a mineral lease sale in Ohio's Wayne National Forest for oil and gas drilling. Apart for providing Americans access to affordable energy, the project could have had a tremendous impact in the state, including the creation of an estimated 200,000 jobs, an overall wage and personal-income boost of $12 billion by 2015, and a billion-dollar boon to Ohio landowners, schools, businesses, and communities.
The President's direction on energy policy is aimed at appeasing a very specific base, but it's coming at a tremendously high cost. While Americans struggle to make ends meet, pay their bills, and find work, President Obama is turning his back on new jobs and safe, affordable energy sources.
More Reasons Why Obama and the Dems Have to Go in 2012!
Another Example of how the Obama White House is overregulating America and getting involved in decisions they have NO RIGHT BEING INVOLVED IN! Just more reasons we need a big change in the White House and Republican Control of the Senate as well as the House.....It's time to get America back on track and let Americans make decisions on their own...Get the government out of the way!
How the EPA May Cost You Thousands
Brace yourself. The cost of a new car in America is set to explode, skyrocketing by thousands of dollars, all thanks to a new regulation proposed by President Barack Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Under a new 893-page proposal unveiled last week, automakers must hit a fleet-wide fuel economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025--double today's 27.3 standard. The government says it would cost automakers $8.5 billion per year to comply, which means a spike in sticker prices of at least $2,000 to $2,800, according to official projections. Other estimates peg the added costs at $3,100, and that could go even higher. As The Wall Street Journal writes, "Vehicles that currently cost $15,000 or less will effectively be regulated out of existence."
Apart from increased costs, the new regulations would have other impacts on consumers as well. In a new paper, Heritage's Diane Katz warns that another unacceptable consequence is loss of life resulting from smaller vehicles:
In past years, the structure of the regulations induced automakers to dramatically downsize some vehicles to meet the standard, which increased traffic fatalities by the thousands. The new standards would require downsizing to both small and large models, which the government contends will neutralize the risk. However, the NHTSA and the EPA disagree on the extent of the risk, while outside experts say that the danger would be heightened by the extreme stringency of the proposed standards.
While consumers struggle to pay the price of higher cost vehicles, U.S. automakers would likely take a hit as well. They would be forced to change the lineup of vehicles they offer in order to meet their fuel efficiency targets, and they would produce cars and trucks that Americans don't even want. The Wall Street Journal explains:
The only way Detroit can hit these averages will be by turning at least 25% of its fleet into hybrids. But hybrid sales peaked in the U.S. two years ago at 3% of the market and are declining. The EPA's $157 billion price tag includes only the estimate of what manufacturers will have to invest in new technology, not the billions more that will hemorrhage when nobody buys their EPA-approved products.
And all this comes as the former "Detroit Three" are struggling with weak auto sales, projected to be down by 17.9 percent in 2011 from where they stood at the onset of the recession. Ironically, the federal government that bailed out the industry is now imposing regulations that could once again threaten its existence. The Obama Administration is pointing to the supposed benefits of the new standards--including a fuel savings of $1.7 trillion--but as Katz writes, that number is "pure speculation given that actual savings would depend on the price of gasoline," which can't be predicted 14 years into the future, much less next summer.
There's another point to be made, as well: American consumers would face higher-priced vehicles and fewer choices all at the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the EPA who have never been authorized by Congress to set fuel-efficiency standards for any purpose. That, though, is consistent with President Obama's modus operandi--to regulate where he cannot legislate. There is something Congress can and should do: bar the EPA and the NHTSA from implementing and enforcing the new standards by withholding funds or passing a law prohibiting the regulation.
The EPA should not be in the business of picking and choosing what kind of cars and trucks Americans can drive, and neither should President Obama. But if Congress does not take action, that could certainly be the result.
How the EPA May Cost You Thousands
Brace yourself. The cost of a new car in America is set to explode, skyrocketing by thousands of dollars, all thanks to a new regulation proposed by President Barack Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Under a new 893-page proposal unveiled last week, automakers must hit a fleet-wide fuel economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025--double today's 27.3 standard. The government says it would cost automakers $8.5 billion per year to comply, which means a spike in sticker prices of at least $2,000 to $2,800, according to official projections. Other estimates peg the added costs at $3,100, and that could go even higher. As The Wall Street Journal writes, "Vehicles that currently cost $15,000 or less will effectively be regulated out of existence."
Apart from increased costs, the new regulations would have other impacts on consumers as well. In a new paper, Heritage's Diane Katz warns that another unacceptable consequence is loss of life resulting from smaller vehicles:
In past years, the structure of the regulations induced automakers to dramatically downsize some vehicles to meet the standard, which increased traffic fatalities by the thousands. The new standards would require downsizing to both small and large models, which the government contends will neutralize the risk. However, the NHTSA and the EPA disagree on the extent of the risk, while outside experts say that the danger would be heightened by the extreme stringency of the proposed standards.
While consumers struggle to pay the price of higher cost vehicles, U.S. automakers would likely take a hit as well. They would be forced to change the lineup of vehicles they offer in order to meet their fuel efficiency targets, and they would produce cars and trucks that Americans don't even want. The Wall Street Journal explains:
The only way Detroit can hit these averages will be by turning at least 25% of its fleet into hybrids. But hybrid sales peaked in the U.S. two years ago at 3% of the market and are declining. The EPA's $157 billion price tag includes only the estimate of what manufacturers will have to invest in new technology, not the billions more that will hemorrhage when nobody buys their EPA-approved products.
And all this comes as the former "Detroit Three" are struggling with weak auto sales, projected to be down by 17.9 percent in 2011 from where they stood at the onset of the recession. Ironically, the federal government that bailed out the industry is now imposing regulations that could once again threaten its existence. The Obama Administration is pointing to the supposed benefits of the new standards--including a fuel savings of $1.7 trillion--but as Katz writes, that number is "pure speculation given that actual savings would depend on the price of gasoline," which can't be predicted 14 years into the future, much less next summer.
There's another point to be made, as well: American consumers would face higher-priced vehicles and fewer choices all at the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the EPA who have never been authorized by Congress to set fuel-efficiency standards for any purpose. That, though, is consistent with President Obama's modus operandi--to regulate where he cannot legislate. There is something Congress can and should do: bar the EPA and the NHTSA from implementing and enforcing the new standards by withholding funds or passing a law prohibiting the regulation.
The EPA should not be in the business of picking and choosing what kind of cars and trucks Americans can drive, and neither should President Obama. But if Congress does not take action, that could certainly be the result.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Everyone Creates more Jobs Than Obama
Subject: The Green Bay Packers
Last year.... after the Packers / Bills game, Buffalo released quarterback Trent Edwards.
During the Packers / Eagles game, the Packers injured Philadelphia quarterback Kevin Kolb. Philadelphia then had to play backup quarterback Michael Vick.
During a playoff game against the Eagles, the Packers injured Michael Vick and another backup was needed.
After the Packers / Cowboys game, Dallas fired Wade Phillips and most of his staff.
After the Packers / Vikings game, Minnesota fired Brad Childress and most of his staff.
Four weeks after losing to the Packers, the 49er's coach Mike Singletary and most of his staff were fired and replaced.
During the Bears Playoff game, the Packers injured Jay Cutler and backup Todd Collins forcing the Bears to go with 3rd string quarterback Caleb Hanie.
So here's the question ....
Is it just me, or did the Packers create more jobs last year than Obama?
Last year.... after the Packers / Bills game, Buffalo released quarterback Trent Edwards.
During the Packers / Eagles game, the Packers injured Philadelphia quarterback Kevin Kolb. Philadelphia then had to play backup quarterback Michael Vick.
During a playoff game against the Eagles, the Packers injured Michael Vick and another backup was needed.
After the Packers / Cowboys game, Dallas fired Wade Phillips and most of his staff.
After the Packers / Vikings game, Minnesota fired Brad Childress and most of his staff.
Four weeks after losing to the Packers, the 49er's coach Mike Singletary and most of his staff were fired and replaced.
During the Bears Playoff game, the Packers injured Jay Cutler and backup Todd Collins forcing the Bears to go with 3rd string quarterback Caleb Hanie.
So here's the question ....
Is it just me, or did the Packers create more jobs last year than Obama?
State-Run ABC Gets it Wrong Again....
Interesting State-Run Media piece from ABC....Obama's out there saying we need to fund infastructure projects with government money...but many of those projects already under way are being completed by Chinese owned contractors.....BUT ABC misses the real point....U.S. workers didn't get the jobs because we pay our union workers too much to be competitive..it's the same old problem...the same reason that GM and Chrysler were about to go under.....The answer is to get rid of unions and start to pay American workers competitive wages and give them competitive benefits..and in a global world that's basing those wages and benefits off what Chinese and other foreign workers are getting paid.....
This is What Your President and His Democrats are Supporting...
This is what Obama wants for America...and Pelosi...and the Rest of the Democrats...it's INSANE!
Friday, November 25, 2011
Obama on Thanksgiving...thanking Everyone BUT GOD!
Here's your Pathetic Excuse for a President thanking everyone BUT GOD!...Acts like and Sounds more and more like a Muslim everyday!!!!...
Newt's Immigration Policy Makes Some Sense...
I think this makes sense...certainly once the borders are secured America is NOT going to deport 11+ million illegals...it just won't happen so we would have to have a mechanism to deal with the problem and this is Newt's take on it.....it also shows just how sensational and unfactuals others are by claiming that Newt's statements mean he wants to make all illegals legal...Once again Michelle Bachmann jumped to conclusions and was one of leaders out there making these false accusations....She's Out as far as I am concerned...
And PS...Romney has made statements simular to Newt's statement back in 2007....
Gingrich Says His Immigration Plan Doesn't Include Legalizing 11M Illegal Aliens
Published November 24, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Former House Speaker and current Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is fighting back against rumors his immigration plan is to legalize 11 million aliens.
"This is explicitly false," Gingrich told Fox News on Thursday.
However, Gingrich did say he supported a path to legalization for illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria.
"I am for deporting all recent unattached illegals," he explained. "I am for a local citizen panel to consider certification of those who have been here 25 years and have family and community and have been law abiding and tax paying," he said.
Gingrich's explanation comes after his comments made on immigration during a CNN 2012 Republican presidential debate on national security where he referenced the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation's plan.
The foundation supports the creation of 'smart cards' that would allow workers that pass certifications to work in the U.S. legally. Gingrich says he supports this concept.
"They could get what the Krieble Foundation developed as a 'red card' and be legal, but with no path to citizenship and no right to vote. I do believe if you've been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers, but I would urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation Plan," he said.
Gingrich says he is willing to take the heat that may come with these beliefs to stand up for the rights of families.
"Let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families," he said.
And PS...Romney has made statements simular to Newt's statement back in 2007....
Gingrich Says His Immigration Plan Doesn't Include Legalizing 11M Illegal Aliens
Published November 24, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Former House Speaker and current Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is fighting back against rumors his immigration plan is to legalize 11 million aliens.
"This is explicitly false," Gingrich told Fox News on Thursday.
However, Gingrich did say he supported a path to legalization for illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria.
"I am for deporting all recent unattached illegals," he explained. "I am for a local citizen panel to consider certification of those who have been here 25 years and have family and community and have been law abiding and tax paying," he said.
Gingrich's explanation comes after his comments made on immigration during a CNN 2012 Republican presidential debate on national security where he referenced the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation's plan.
The foundation supports the creation of 'smart cards' that would allow workers that pass certifications to work in the U.S. legally. Gingrich says he supports this concept.
"They could get what the Krieble Foundation developed as a 'red card' and be legal, but with no path to citizenship and no right to vote. I do believe if you've been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers, but I would urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation Plan," he said.
Gingrich says he is willing to take the heat that may come with these beliefs to stand up for the rights of families.
"Let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families," he said.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
NBC Finally Apologizes to Bachmann....
I guess an apology from NBC is better late than never, but why would it take them two days????...Why would both Bachmann and others have to request an apology?....I'll tell you why because NBC is state-run Media and furthermore it's liberal state - run media....
NBC Apologizes to Bachmann for Fallon Song Choice
Published November 24, 2011 | Associated Press
GOP Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann received an apology from an NBC executive after an off-color song was played during her appearance on Jimmy Fallon's "Late Night," her spokeswoman said late Wednesday.
The Minnesota congresswoman received a personal letter from NBC's vice president for late night programming, Doug Vaughan, a day after she appeared on the show. As Bachmann walked onstage, the show's band had played a snippet of a 1985 Fishbone song entitled "Lyin' Ass B----."
Vaughan wrote that the incident was "not only unfortunate but also unacceptable," Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart told The Associated Press. She said Vaughn offered his sincerest apologies and said the band had been "severely reprimanded."
Fallon also apologized to Bachmann when they spoke earlier Wednesday, she said. He'd tweeted earlier, saying he was "so sorry about the intro mess."
"He was extremely nice and friendly and offered his apology, and she accepted it," Stewart said, adding that the comedian said he was unaware the band planned to play the song. "It's just unfortunate that someone had to do something so disrespectful."
Bachmann lashed out earlier Wednesday at NBC for not apologizing or taking immediate disciplinary action. In her first comments on the flap, Bachmann said on the Fox News Channel that the Fallon show band displayed sexism and bias by playing the song.
"This is clearly a form of bias on the part of the Hollywood entertainment elite," Bachmann said. She added, "This wouldn't be tolerated if this was Michelle Obama. It shouldn't be tolerated if it's a conservative woman either."
She went further on a national radio conservative radio show hosted by Michael Medved, calling the incident "inappropriate, outrageous and disrespectful."
On Fox, Bachmann expressed surprise that she's heard nothing from the TV network. She suggested that discipline for the show's band, The Roots, was in order. She said she believed Fallon's comments to be sincere.
One of Bachmann's congressional colleagues, New York Democrat Nita Lowey, had called on NBC to apologize for its "insulting and inappropriate" treatment of its guest.
An NBC spokeswoman didn't return a phone message from The Associated Press.
The Roots' bandleader, Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson, has said the song was a "tongue-in-cheek and spur-of-the-moment decision."
Bachmann, who is lagging in presidential polls, has spent the week promoting her new autobiography in national television interviews.
NBC Apologizes to Bachmann for Fallon Song Choice
Published November 24, 2011 | Associated Press
GOP Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann received an apology from an NBC executive after an off-color song was played during her appearance on Jimmy Fallon's "Late Night," her spokeswoman said late Wednesday.
The Minnesota congresswoman received a personal letter from NBC's vice president for late night programming, Doug Vaughan, a day after she appeared on the show. As Bachmann walked onstage, the show's band had played a snippet of a 1985 Fishbone song entitled "Lyin' Ass B----."
Vaughan wrote that the incident was "not only unfortunate but also unacceptable," Bachmann spokeswoman Alice Stewart told The Associated Press. She said Vaughn offered his sincerest apologies and said the band had been "severely reprimanded."
Fallon also apologized to Bachmann when they spoke earlier Wednesday, she said. He'd tweeted earlier, saying he was "so sorry about the intro mess."
"He was extremely nice and friendly and offered his apology, and she accepted it," Stewart said, adding that the comedian said he was unaware the band planned to play the song. "It's just unfortunate that someone had to do something so disrespectful."
Bachmann lashed out earlier Wednesday at NBC for not apologizing or taking immediate disciplinary action. In her first comments on the flap, Bachmann said on the Fox News Channel that the Fallon show band displayed sexism and bias by playing the song.
"This is clearly a form of bias on the part of the Hollywood entertainment elite," Bachmann said. She added, "This wouldn't be tolerated if this was Michelle Obama. It shouldn't be tolerated if it's a conservative woman either."
She went further on a national radio conservative radio show hosted by Michael Medved, calling the incident "inappropriate, outrageous and disrespectful."
On Fox, Bachmann expressed surprise that she's heard nothing from the TV network. She suggested that discipline for the show's band, The Roots, was in order. She said she believed Fallon's comments to be sincere.
One of Bachmann's congressional colleagues, New York Democrat Nita Lowey, had called on NBC to apologize for its "insulting and inappropriate" treatment of its guest.
An NBC spokeswoman didn't return a phone message from The Associated Press.
The Roots' bandleader, Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson, has said the song was a "tongue-in-cheek and spur-of-the-moment decision."
Bachmann, who is lagging in presidential polls, has spent the week promoting her new autobiography in national television interviews.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
This is Classic Rush Limbaugh....
This is Classic Limbaugh...and his point is well taken...if anyone did to Michelle Obama what NBC did to Michelle Bachmann there would be a nationwide uproar....Obama/Democrat hypocricy continues...
Limbaugh says he would welcome Michelle Obama to his show with song ‘Baby Got Back’
Published: 3:16 PM 11/23/2011 By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller
On his Wednesday show, radio host Rush Limbaugh illustrated what would otherwise be an ill-advised hypothetical situation by suggesting that if Michelle Obama were to appear on his radio show, he would introduce the first lady with Sir-Mix-A-Lot’s 1992 hit “Baby Got Back.”
Limbaugh’s goal was to “illustrate” what the reaction would be, compared to the scant attention given when GOP presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann was introduced on Jimmy Fallon’s Monday night NBC program to Fishbone’s “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, it is not often that we have guests here on this program at the EIB Network,” Limbaugh said. “But as today as it can often happen, we have an exception and I am proud and I am honored and I want to introduce to the microphones of this program the First Lady of the United States Michelle ‘Mochelle’ Obama.”
Limbaugh suggested there was a possibility the Sir-Mix-A-Lot tune could have been on the iPod he gave the Queen of England back in 2009.
“I wonder if that song was on the iPod that Barack gave the Queen the first time he went over to visit here in the U.K.,” Limbaugh said. “Now you people are probably saying, ‘Rush, that’s tasteless – how could you possibly?’ I’m just trying to illustrate. That’s what we do here on this program sometimes. You illustrate absurdity by being absurd.”
Limbaugh has taken heat in recent days for another swipe he took at the first lady, saying she was guilty of committing “uppity-ism” on his Monday program.
Limbaugh says he would welcome Michelle Obama to his show with song ‘Baby Got Back’
Published: 3:16 PM 11/23/2011 By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller
On his Wednesday show, radio host Rush Limbaugh illustrated what would otherwise be an ill-advised hypothetical situation by suggesting that if Michelle Obama were to appear on his radio show, he would introduce the first lady with Sir-Mix-A-Lot’s 1992 hit “Baby Got Back.”
Limbaugh’s goal was to “illustrate” what the reaction would be, compared to the scant attention given when GOP presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann was introduced on Jimmy Fallon’s Monday night NBC program to Fishbone’s “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, it is not often that we have guests here on this program at the EIB Network,” Limbaugh said. “But as today as it can often happen, we have an exception and I am proud and I am honored and I want to introduce to the microphones of this program the First Lady of the United States Michelle ‘Mochelle’ Obama.”
Limbaugh suggested there was a possibility the Sir-Mix-A-Lot tune could have been on the iPod he gave the Queen of England back in 2009.
“I wonder if that song was on the iPod that Barack gave the Queen the first time he went over to visit here in the U.K.,” Limbaugh said. “Now you people are probably saying, ‘Rush, that’s tasteless – how could you possibly?’ I’m just trying to illustrate. That’s what we do here on this program sometimes. You illustrate absurdity by being absurd.”
Limbaugh has taken heat in recent days for another swipe he took at the first lady, saying she was guilty of committing “uppity-ism” on his Monday program.
I Like This Guy's Style....Hopefully other businesses will follow suit...It illustrates why companies are NOT HIRING NOW!
'Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone'
3:56 PM, Nov 23, 2011 | 245 comments Written by Jon Shirek
WACO, Ga. -- A west Georgia business owner is stirring up controversy with signs he posted on his company's trucks, for all to see as the trucks roll up and down roads, highways and interstates:
"New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone."
"Can't afford it," explained the employer, Bill Looman, Tuesday evening. "I've got people that I want to hire now, but I just can't afford it. And I don't foresee that I'll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C."
Looman's company is U.S. Cranes, LLC. He said he put up the signs, and first posted pictures of the signs on his personal Facebook page, six months ago, and he said he received mostly positive reaction from people, "about 20-to-one positive."
But for some reason, one of the photos went viral on the Internet on Monday.
And the reaction has been so intense, pro and con, he's had to have his phones disconnected because of the non-stop calls, and he's had to temporarily shut down his company's website because of all the traffic crashing the system.
Looman made it clear, talking with 11Alive's Jon Shirek, that he is not refusing to hire to make some political point; it's that he doesn't believe he can hire anyone, because of the economy. And he blames the Obama administration.
"The way the economy's running, and the way my business has been hampered by the economy, and the policies of the people in power, I felt that it was necessary to voice my opinion, and predict that I wouldn't be able to do any hiring," he said.
Looman did receive some unexpected attention not long after he put up his signs and Facebook photos. He said someone, and he thinks he knows who it was, reported him to the FBI as a threat to national security. He said the accusation filtered its way through the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and finally the Secret Service. Agents interviewed him.
"The Secret Service left here, they were in a good mood and laughing," Looman said. "I got the feeling they thought it was kind of ridiculous, and a waste of their time."
So Bill Looman is keeping the signs up, and the photos up -- stirring up a lot of debate.
"I just spent 10 years in the Marine Corps protecting the rights of people... the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment and the [rest of the] Bill of Rights," he said. "Lord knows they're calling me at 2 in the morning, all night long, and voicing their opinion. And I respect their right to do that. I'm getting a reaction, a lot of it's negative, now. But a lot of people are waking up."
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The More Time that Passes The More All Will See Obama is THE WORST President We've Ever Had....
CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run
by Stephen Dinan The Washington Times Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”
The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.
All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010 it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.
The Obama administration had promised 3.5 million jobs would be produced at the peak of spending.
For this current quarter CBO said the stimulus is sustaining between 600,000 and 1.8 million jobs, which has improved the unemployment rate by as much as 1 percent versus what it otherwise would have been.
The White House did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday afternoon, but the president has defended the stimulus package as a bulwark against an even weaker economy.
Earlier this fall he proposed another round of spending, calling for $447 billion in expanded tax breaks, additional aid to states to hire teachers and emergency workers, and more infrastructure spending.
That broad effort has stalled, though on Monday Mr. Obama signed a slim portion of the package that offers tax breaks to businesses that hire veterans, and that repeals a 3 percent contract withholding requirement for government contractors.
CBO has re-evaluated the stimulus every three months, and its estimates for the total cost of varied. Initially the package was pegged at $787 billion, rose as high as $862 billion at one point, and it now projected to be $825 billion once all the money is paid out.
The non-partisan agency also has changed its model for the spending’s impact on the economy, and the new calculations show the Recovery Act did less than originally projected.
CBO said it has concluded there is less of an indirect multiplier effect of federal spending.
Those changes caused it to drop its estimates for total employment sustained by the spending in 2011 from between 1.2 million and 3.7 million down to between 600,000 and 3.6 million.
As for the long-term situation, CBO said its basic assumption is that each dollar of additional federal debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital.
CBO does not calculate crowding out in the short term, which is why the Recovery Act boosts the economy in the near term.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
by Stephen Dinan The Washington Times Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.
CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”
The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.
All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010 it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.
The Obama administration had promised 3.5 million jobs would be produced at the peak of spending.
For this current quarter CBO said the stimulus is sustaining between 600,000 and 1.8 million jobs, which has improved the unemployment rate by as much as 1 percent versus what it otherwise would have been.
The White House did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday afternoon, but the president has defended the stimulus package as a bulwark against an even weaker economy.
Earlier this fall he proposed another round of spending, calling for $447 billion in expanded tax breaks, additional aid to states to hire teachers and emergency workers, and more infrastructure spending.
That broad effort has stalled, though on Monday Mr. Obama signed a slim portion of the package that offers tax breaks to businesses that hire veterans, and that repeals a 3 percent contract withholding requirement for government contractors.
CBO has re-evaluated the stimulus every three months, and its estimates for the total cost of varied. Initially the package was pegged at $787 billion, rose as high as $862 billion at one point, and it now projected to be $825 billion once all the money is paid out.
The non-partisan agency also has changed its model for the spending’s impact on the economy, and the new calculations show the Recovery Act did less than originally projected.
CBO said it has concluded there is less of an indirect multiplier effect of federal spending.
Those changes caused it to drop its estimates for total employment sustained by the spending in 2011 from between 1.2 million and 3.7 million down to between 600,000 and 3.6 million.
As for the long-term situation, CBO said its basic assumption is that each dollar of additional federal debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital.
CBO does not calculate crowding out in the short term, which is why the Recovery Act boosts the economy in the near term.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Monday, November 21, 2011
My Latest Letter to Mr Obama....11/21/11
When are you going to start to LEAD???..You are the most pathetic excuse for a President this nation has ever seen...all you care about is trying to get reelected...keeping your one job...you are trying to run against a "do nothing" Congress, but you Sir are a "DO NOTHING PRESIDENT". While the Super Committee was trying to work, you were out vacationing on the taxpayer dollara playing golf in Hawaii and other exotic locations...That is NOT LEADERSHIP! ...That's a Do NOTHING PRESIDENT!
Now you come out today after the Super Committee says they can't find a compromise and say it's the Republicans fault...Sir the Democrats didn't ever have a plan. They couldn't decide on a plan...all they could do is repeat the same old/same old tax the rich message that you've failed on for the past three years. This Super Committee was doomed for failure from the start, not because of the Republicans, but because of the Democrats that are totally unwilling to compromise at all.
The definition of compromise is meeting in the middle NOT getting all of what you want!
But the Americans see through you Mr Obama...You will not be Reelected!....You need to start looking at your next career opportunities because it will not be in the White House...God knows your wife can't even make an appearance without getting boo'ed...and you've even lost Chris Matthews of the socialist MSNBC channel.
You are pathetic...your arrogant, stubborn, socialist approach to everything is NOT right for America and the vast majority of Americans know that!....
Your Not a Leader...your not good at telling the Truth....your Administration is Corrupt...and your career as a politician is just about over....in less than a year we'll elect a NEW President and you will be unemployed...Thank Goodness!
Now you come out today after the Super Committee says they can't find a compromise and say it's the Republicans fault...Sir the Democrats didn't ever have a plan. They couldn't decide on a plan...all they could do is repeat the same old/same old tax the rich message that you've failed on for the past three years. This Super Committee was doomed for failure from the start, not because of the Republicans, but because of the Democrats that are totally unwilling to compromise at all.
The definition of compromise is meeting in the middle NOT getting all of what you want!
But the Americans see through you Mr Obama...You will not be Reelected!....You need to start looking at your next career opportunities because it will not be in the White House...God knows your wife can't even make an appearance without getting boo'ed...and you've even lost Chris Matthews of the socialist MSNBC channel.
You are pathetic...your arrogant, stubborn, socialist approach to everything is NOT right for America and the vast majority of Americans know that!....
Your Not a Leader...your not good at telling the Truth....your Administration is Corrupt...and your career as a politician is just about over....in less than a year we'll elect a NEW President and you will be unemployed...Thank Goodness!
A Picture Really Is Worth 1,000 Words...
The most ethical Congress in History....NOT!!!! and delivered from Ms Ethics...Nancy Pelosi....A picture really is worth 1,000 words...
The Thrill Is Gone!...Chris Matthews Turns on Obama!
You Have Got To Watch This Video...
THIS IS BIG!!!.....Chris Matthews turns on Obama...The thrill is GONE!...You know if Matthews is waking up and turning on this guy so is America!
THIS IS BIG!!!.....Chris Matthews turns on Obama...The thrill is GONE!...You know if Matthews is waking up and turning on this guy so is America!
It's No Wonder that The American People Would Boo Michelle Obama!!!
Michelle Obama and Jill Biden Get Mixed Welcome at NASCAR Season Finale
Published November 20, 2011 | NewsCore
HOMESTEAD, Fla – First Lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden received a mixed welcome to NASCAR's season-ending Ford 400 Sunday, where they served as grand marshals to help raise awareness for their "Joining Forces" initiative, which supports military families.
Scattered boos could be heard from the crowd as Obama and Biden were introduced and invited to give the traditional command, "Gentlemen, start your engines."
Earlier, Obama and Biden had addressed the drivers' meeting at Homestead-Miami Speedway, the Sun Sentinel reported.
"I know this is a big day for all of you so we're not going to take up your time because you need to be focused," Obama said, according to the newspaper. "We just wanted to stop by and say thank you. NASCAR has just been amazing in terms of its support -- not just today, but every day -- of military families."
Obama and Biden were also scheduled to attend a barbecue lunch with service members and their families, the Sun Sentinel reported.
"We want to make sure these families know that America has their back," Obama said during a television interview with an ESPN reporter.
When asked how she felt about the sights, smells and sounds of NASCAR, Obama replied, "It's awesome!"
Published November 20, 2011 | NewsCore
HOMESTEAD, Fla – First Lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden received a mixed welcome to NASCAR's season-ending Ford 400 Sunday, where they served as grand marshals to help raise awareness for their "Joining Forces" initiative, which supports military families.
Scattered boos could be heard from the crowd as Obama and Biden were introduced and invited to give the traditional command, "Gentlemen, start your engines."
Earlier, Obama and Biden had addressed the drivers' meeting at Homestead-Miami Speedway, the Sun Sentinel reported.
"I know this is a big day for all of you so we're not going to take up your time because you need to be focused," Obama said, according to the newspaper. "We just wanted to stop by and say thank you. NASCAR has just been amazing in terms of its support -- not just today, but every day -- of military families."
Obama and Biden were also scheduled to attend a barbecue lunch with service members and their families, the Sun Sentinel reported.
"We want to make sure these families know that America has their back," Obama said during a television interview with an ESPN reporter.
When asked how she felt about the sights, smells and sounds of NASCAR, Obama replied, "It's awesome!"
Sunday, November 20, 2011
I Agree....No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal... This Supercommittee was Doomed From the Start!
James C. Capretta November 18, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Supercommittee, Super Confusion
The GOP is in danger of losing its way on the budget and taxes — again.
As the November 23 deadline looms for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — the “supercommittee” — to approve a deficit-cutting proposal or disband, the GOP again seems to be running the substantial risk of stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.
Recall that in the early part of the summer, House Speaker John Boehner was in the thick of negotiations with President Obama over the parameters of a “grand bargain” on the budget. The deal that was then under discussion would have required the GOP to agree to an $800 billion tax increase in return for Democratic support for entitlement reform.
If consummated, this deal would have been a political and substantive debacle for the GOP, as it would have ended their two-decade record of holding the line on tax increases, and it would not have secured anything of real value from the Democrats. Yes, under the terms of the suggested bargain, Democrats would have had to sign up for certain cuts in entitlement programs — but those cuts came more from the Democrats’ playbook than from the GOP’s. Among other things, Obamacare would have gone completely unscathed, and the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid would have come largely from more government micromanagement of the programs, not from market-based reforms. In short, the GOP would have abandoned its main source of electoral support — an unwavering commitment not to raise the federal tax burden — in return for affirmation of the Democratic welfare state. Some deal.
Fortunately, the speaker and the wider congressional GOP came to their senses before the Boehner-Obama talks ever reached the point of a deal. The bargain that was eventually struck to raise the debt limit in early August was far superior to what had been floated earlier in the summer, as it included no new taxes and placed enforceable caps on discretionary spending. Most observers concluded that the congressional GOP got the better of the president in the debt-ceiling fight.
Unfortunately, as the supercommittee heads toward its endgame, the same impulse that almost led to a disastrous Boehner-Obama deal in July now could lead some GOP members, on and off the supercommittee, to sign on to an equally ill-advised “bargain” with the Democrats. Recent news stories have suggested that the GOP members have offered to raise taxes by $300 billion over the coming decade as part of a deal that would also include some reductions in entitlement spending. But once again, the entitlement changes will do nothing to change the basic, cost-inflating structures of Medicare, Medicaid, or Obamacare. Indeed, if the GOP were to strike such a deal, it would make it that much harder to do what really needs to be done, which is to replace the entire health-entitlement status quo with reformed programs that rely on cost-conscious consumers in a functioning marketplace.
Moreover, the deal that is apparently under consideration would also rely on Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus to write the actual tax and entitlement legislation, along with his GOP counterpart in the House, Dave Camp. This is hardly a process that builds confidence, as Baucus was a primary architect of the massive government overreach that is Obamacare. Indeed, if the supercommittee’s contribution to deficit cutting is to cede power back to the regular committee process, one has to wonder, what was the point of having the committee at all?
The problems for the GOP began as soon as the supercommittee was announced as a component of the August debt-limit deal. It was quite predictable based on the structure of the committee that the president and his allies in Congress would never let a proposal emerge if it didn’t include a tax increase that would violate the GOP’s core commitment to voters. That being the case, GOP leaders should have signaled in unmistakable terms that they would far prefer no deal to a tax increase. Instead, what we have gotten is a steady stream of statements from both House speaker Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell that the supercommittee’s failure is not an option, thus raising the stakes and driving the GOP right into the dead end they now find themselves facing.
Some in the GOP may argue that a deal is necessary to avoid a rating-agency downgrade and the “sequester” process — which will automatically occur if no deal is reached, slashing funding across the board, including defense spending. But that’s not true. The supercommittee will make no difference to the ratings agencies, because it will make no difference to the final amount of deficit reduction — if it succeeds, it will merely replace the sequester process with the agreed-upon spending cuts and tax hikes. There is virtually no chance that the supercommittee will go beyond the required deficit reduction. And even if the supercommittee fails, a sequester is not guaranteed. There will still be a year before any cuts are implemented, leaving plenty of time for the normal legislative process to work toward an alternative series of cuts to substitute for blunt defense-spending reductions. In other words, the demise of the supercommittee would be far from the end of the story.
The supercommittee process was never a good idea, as it left the GOP vulnerable to Democratic hostage taking. Nothing would please the president more than to see his adversaries capitulate on their no-tax-hike pledges. The problem is compounded by some GOP members on and off the supercommittee who seem eager for a deal because it might enhance their own personal stature as power brokers.
It’s been clear for two years now that the kind of fundamental fiscal reform necessary to put the nation on a strong foundation for growth will not be possible with the current president. Cutting a bad budget deal now will only make it more difficult to do what is necessary if and when the opportunity for real reform presents itself in 2013.
— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was an associate director at the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
Supercommittee, Super Confusion
The GOP is in danger of losing its way on the budget and taxes — again.
As the November 23 deadline looms for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — the “supercommittee” — to approve a deficit-cutting proposal or disband, the GOP again seems to be running the substantial risk of stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.
Recall that in the early part of the summer, House Speaker John Boehner was in the thick of negotiations with President Obama over the parameters of a “grand bargain” on the budget. The deal that was then under discussion would have required the GOP to agree to an $800 billion tax increase in return for Democratic support for entitlement reform.
If consummated, this deal would have been a political and substantive debacle for the GOP, as it would have ended their two-decade record of holding the line on tax increases, and it would not have secured anything of real value from the Democrats. Yes, under the terms of the suggested bargain, Democrats would have had to sign up for certain cuts in entitlement programs — but those cuts came more from the Democrats’ playbook than from the GOP’s. Among other things, Obamacare would have gone completely unscathed, and the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid would have come largely from more government micromanagement of the programs, not from market-based reforms. In short, the GOP would have abandoned its main source of electoral support — an unwavering commitment not to raise the federal tax burden — in return for affirmation of the Democratic welfare state. Some deal.
Fortunately, the speaker and the wider congressional GOP came to their senses before the Boehner-Obama talks ever reached the point of a deal. The bargain that was eventually struck to raise the debt limit in early August was far superior to what had been floated earlier in the summer, as it included no new taxes and placed enforceable caps on discretionary spending. Most observers concluded that the congressional GOP got the better of the president in the debt-ceiling fight.
Unfortunately, as the supercommittee heads toward its endgame, the same impulse that almost led to a disastrous Boehner-Obama deal in July now could lead some GOP members, on and off the supercommittee, to sign on to an equally ill-advised “bargain” with the Democrats. Recent news stories have suggested that the GOP members have offered to raise taxes by $300 billion over the coming decade as part of a deal that would also include some reductions in entitlement spending. But once again, the entitlement changes will do nothing to change the basic, cost-inflating structures of Medicare, Medicaid, or Obamacare. Indeed, if the GOP were to strike such a deal, it would make it that much harder to do what really needs to be done, which is to replace the entire health-entitlement status quo with reformed programs that rely on cost-conscious consumers in a functioning marketplace.
Moreover, the deal that is apparently under consideration would also rely on Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus to write the actual tax and entitlement legislation, along with his GOP counterpart in the House, Dave Camp. This is hardly a process that builds confidence, as Baucus was a primary architect of the massive government overreach that is Obamacare. Indeed, if the supercommittee’s contribution to deficit cutting is to cede power back to the regular committee process, one has to wonder, what was the point of having the committee at all?
The problems for the GOP began as soon as the supercommittee was announced as a component of the August debt-limit deal. It was quite predictable based on the structure of the committee that the president and his allies in Congress would never let a proposal emerge if it didn’t include a tax increase that would violate the GOP’s core commitment to voters. That being the case, GOP leaders should have signaled in unmistakable terms that they would far prefer no deal to a tax increase. Instead, what we have gotten is a steady stream of statements from both House speaker Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell that the supercommittee’s failure is not an option, thus raising the stakes and driving the GOP right into the dead end they now find themselves facing.
Some in the GOP may argue that a deal is necessary to avoid a rating-agency downgrade and the “sequester” process — which will automatically occur if no deal is reached, slashing funding across the board, including defense spending. But that’s not true. The supercommittee will make no difference to the ratings agencies, because it will make no difference to the final amount of deficit reduction — if it succeeds, it will merely replace the sequester process with the agreed-upon spending cuts and tax hikes. There is virtually no chance that the supercommittee will go beyond the required deficit reduction. And even if the supercommittee fails, a sequester is not guaranteed. There will still be a year before any cuts are implemented, leaving plenty of time for the normal legislative process to work toward an alternative series of cuts to substitute for blunt defense-spending reductions. In other words, the demise of the supercommittee would be far from the end of the story.
The supercommittee process was never a good idea, as it left the GOP vulnerable to Democratic hostage taking. Nothing would please the president more than to see his adversaries capitulate on their no-tax-hike pledges. The problem is compounded by some GOP members on and off the supercommittee who seem eager for a deal because it might enhance their own personal stature as power brokers.
It’s been clear for two years now that the kind of fundamental fiscal reform necessary to put the nation on a strong foundation for growth will not be possible with the current president. Cutting a bad budget deal now will only make it more difficult to do what is necessary if and when the opportunity for real reform presents itself in 2013.
— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was an associate director at the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
How Good Would It Be to Have a President that Actually Anticipates Problems/Crisis....
Wouldn't it be GREAT to have a President that really anticipates issues and acts BEFORE there is a crisis....Not like the Idiot we have in the White House now that only thinks about acting after the nation is in the ditch....how refreshing would that be...Newt might be the guy that can get that done...he's got the experience....I'm liking him more and more each day...
Gingrich Tries to Preempt Attacks as Poll Numbers Rise
Published November 20, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Surging for the moment into a front-runner position in the Republican presidential race, Newt Gingrich is trying to insulate himself against the attacks that are sure to accompany his rise in the polls.
The former House speaker pitches himself as the most accomplished member in the 2012 field. By the campaign's count, he has cast 7,000 votes, delivered 1,500 speeches and written "thousands" of articles as well as two-dozen books.
That record is fodder for opposition researchers, as much as it is resume material for his presidential bid.
Related Stories
Republican 2012 Candidates Court Iowa Voters at Religious Forum
The campaign has now launched a website that bluntly tackles a host of controversies that have followed Gingrich and will likely pop up again in the run-up to the leadoff Iowa caucuses.
The first item on Gingrich's "Answering the Attacks" site deals with a hiccup Gingrich had at the very beginning of the campaign season, when he described the House GOP budget plan as "right-wing social engineering."
On the site, the campaign reminded readers that Gingrich later described his choice of words as too extreme. The site clarified that the candidate supports the plan to create a new system that would provide aid for private insurance to Medicare seniors, but said he would prefer to give seniors the choice to stay in the current system.
Gingrich also addressed a 2007 ad he cut with Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi in which the two of them called for action on climate change.
"Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere," the campaign said on the site. The campaign quoted Gingrich from an interview on Fox News calling the ad "probably the dumbest single thing I've ever done," but said the candidate believes conservatives "cannot be absent" from the debate about the environment.
The site tackled several topics dating back to his time as speaker, and before -- including his extramarital affair during the impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton. The campaign noted that critics who point to that "are ignoring" the fact that Clinton was on trial for perjury allegations. "Newt felt he had a duty to uphold the rule of law by pursuing impeachment," the campaign said.
The site said also that while Gingrich voted for the Department of Education, its bureaucracy has since "ballooned" and should be dramatically reduced. And the site said it was a "mistake" for Gingrich to support the Republican nominee in a 2009 House special election in New York State. In that race, GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava was trailing badly against a third-party candidate, Tea Party-backed Doug Hoffman -- she effectively dropped out of the race days before the election to endorse the Democratic candidate, who later won.
The site later tackled the more recent controversy over his consulting firm's payment by troubled mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
Gingrich echoed the language on the website following a forum on religion Saturday afternoon in Iowa.
"I did no lobbying, I have never done any lobbying," Gingrich told reporters, describing himself as merely a "strategic adviser."
As Gingrich's campaign tries to preempt the attacks, his opponents are looking for new angles.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., on Saturday went after his abortion record, something that wasn't addressed on the website.
"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to uphold a consistently pro-life stance throughout his career in public life," her campaign said in a statement, citing in part a 1990 column that described Gingrich as backing away from a stiff anti-abortion stance.
But Gingrich so far has avoided lunging at his GOP opponents, often stating at debates that they should focus on challenging President Obama and not each other.
The ex-speaker seems to have found a favorite target, though, in the Occupy Wall Street protesters. He lobbed harsh words at the movement Saturday in Iowa, describing them as representative of an entitlement culture.
"Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath," Gingrich said.
A recent Fox News poll showed Gingrich leading the GOP field by a hair. The poll showed him with 23 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney right behind him with 22 percent.
The poll showed businessman Herman Cain, who for weeks was competitive with Romney, dropping back to third place with 15 percent.
A new poll out of New Hampshire also showed Gingrich closing in on Romney, who is banking on a win in the Granite State primary. The Magellan Strategies poll showed Romney leading with 29 percent and Gingrich with 27 percent, inside the 3.6 percentage-point margin of error.
Gingrich Tries to Preempt Attacks as Poll Numbers Rise
Published November 20, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Surging for the moment into a front-runner position in the Republican presidential race, Newt Gingrich is trying to insulate himself against the attacks that are sure to accompany his rise in the polls.
The former House speaker pitches himself as the most accomplished member in the 2012 field. By the campaign's count, he has cast 7,000 votes, delivered 1,500 speeches and written "thousands" of articles as well as two-dozen books.
That record is fodder for opposition researchers, as much as it is resume material for his presidential bid.
Related Stories
Republican 2012 Candidates Court Iowa Voters at Religious Forum
The campaign has now launched a website that bluntly tackles a host of controversies that have followed Gingrich and will likely pop up again in the run-up to the leadoff Iowa caucuses.
The first item on Gingrich's "Answering the Attacks" site deals with a hiccup Gingrich had at the very beginning of the campaign season, when he described the House GOP budget plan as "right-wing social engineering."
On the site, the campaign reminded readers that Gingrich later described his choice of words as too extreme. The site clarified that the candidate supports the plan to create a new system that would provide aid for private insurance to Medicare seniors, but said he would prefer to give seniors the choice to stay in the current system.
Gingrich also addressed a 2007 ad he cut with Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi in which the two of them called for action on climate change.
"Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere," the campaign said on the site. The campaign quoted Gingrich from an interview on Fox News calling the ad "probably the dumbest single thing I've ever done," but said the candidate believes conservatives "cannot be absent" from the debate about the environment.
The site tackled several topics dating back to his time as speaker, and before -- including his extramarital affair during the impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton. The campaign noted that critics who point to that "are ignoring" the fact that Clinton was on trial for perjury allegations. "Newt felt he had a duty to uphold the rule of law by pursuing impeachment," the campaign said.
The site said also that while Gingrich voted for the Department of Education, its bureaucracy has since "ballooned" and should be dramatically reduced. And the site said it was a "mistake" for Gingrich to support the Republican nominee in a 2009 House special election in New York State. In that race, GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava was trailing badly against a third-party candidate, Tea Party-backed Doug Hoffman -- she effectively dropped out of the race days before the election to endorse the Democratic candidate, who later won.
The site later tackled the more recent controversy over his consulting firm's payment by troubled mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
Gingrich echoed the language on the website following a forum on religion Saturday afternoon in Iowa.
"I did no lobbying, I have never done any lobbying," Gingrich told reporters, describing himself as merely a "strategic adviser."
As Gingrich's campaign tries to preempt the attacks, his opponents are looking for new angles.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., on Saturday went after his abortion record, something that wasn't addressed on the website.
"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to uphold a consistently pro-life stance throughout his career in public life," her campaign said in a statement, citing in part a 1990 column that described Gingrich as backing away from a stiff anti-abortion stance.
But Gingrich so far has avoided lunging at his GOP opponents, often stating at debates that they should focus on challenging President Obama and not each other.
The ex-speaker seems to have found a favorite target, though, in the Occupy Wall Street protesters. He lobbed harsh words at the movement Saturday in Iowa, describing them as representative of an entitlement culture.
"Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath," Gingrich said.
A recent Fox News poll showed Gingrich leading the GOP field by a hair. The poll showed him with 23 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney right behind him with 22 percent.
The poll showed businessman Herman Cain, who for weeks was competitive with Romney, dropping back to third place with 15 percent.
A new poll out of New Hampshire also showed Gingrich closing in on Romney, who is banking on a win in the Granite State primary. The Magellan Strategies poll showed Romney leading with 29 percent and Gingrich with 27 percent, inside the 3.6 percentage-point margin of error.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Obama Politics....The ONLY Job He's Concerned About is His OWN!
What a Pathetic Excuse for a President Obama is....
Friday, November 18, 2011
Obama - decisions to save jobs....or at least One Job, His Own...Charles Krauthammer is almost always right...
Do it NOW!...We Can't Wait!...Circumvent Congress!...all the things that Obama is screaming...BUT we can wait when it's the job creating pipeline...then we can wait from 12 to 18 months??? What a piece of crap this President is....the American People see through him...
Charles Krauthammer
November 18, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Pipeline Sellout
Obama puts politics over nation, again.
In 2008, the slogan was “Yes We Can.” For 2011–12, it’s “We Can’t Wait.” What happened in between? Candidate Obama, the vessel into which myriad dreams were poured, met the reality of governance.
His near–$1 trillion stimulus begat a stagnant economy with 9 percent unemployment. His attempt at Wall Street reform left in place a still too-big-to-fail financial system as vulnerable today as when he came into office. His green-energy fantasies yielded Solyndra cronyism and a cap-and-trade regime not even a Democratic Congress would pass.
And now his signature achievement, Obamacare, is headed to the Supreme Court, where it could very well be struck down, just a week after its central element was overwhelmingly repudiated (2–1) by the good burghers of Ohio.
So what do you do when you say you can, but, it turns out, you can’t? Blame the other guy. Charge the Republicans with making governing impossible. Never mind that you had control of the Congress for two-thirds of your current tenure. It’s all the fault of Republican rejectionism.
Hence: “We Can’t Wait.” We can’t wait while they obstruct. We can’t wait while they dither with my jobs bill. Write Congress today! Vote Democrat tomorrow!
We can’t wait. Except for certain exceptions, such as the 1,700-mile trans-U.S. Keystone XL pipeline, carrying Alberta oil to Texas refineries, which would have created thousands of American jobs and increased our energy independence.
For that, we can wait, it seems. President Obama decreed that any decision must wait 12 to 18 months — postponed, by amazing coincidence, until after next year’s election.
Why? Because the pipeline angered Obama’s environmental constituency. But their complaints are risible. Global warming from the extraction of the Alberta tar sands? Canada will extract the oil anyway. If it doesn’t go to us, it will go to China. Net effect on the climate if we don’t take that oil? Zero.
Danger to a major aquifer, which the pipeline traverses? It is already crisscrossed by 25,000 miles of pipeline, enough to circle the Earth. Moreover, the State Department had subjected Keystone to three years of review — the most exhaustive study of any oil pipeline in U.S. history — and twice concluded in voluminous studies that there would be no significant environmental harm.
So what happened? “The administration,” reported the New York Times, “had in recent days been exploring ways to put off the decision until after the presidential election.” Exploring ways to improve the project? Hardly. Exploring ways to get past the election.
Obama’s decision was meant to appease his environmentalists. It’s already working. The president of the National Wildlife Federation told the Washington Post (online edition, November 10) that thousands of environmentalists who were galvanized to protest the pipeline would now support Obama in 2012. Moreover, a source told the Post, Obama campaign officials had concluded that “they do not pick up one vote from approving this project.”
Sure, the pipeline would have produced thousands of truly shovel-ready jobs. Sure, delay could forfeit to China a supremely important strategic asset — a nearby, highly reliable source of energy. But approval was calculated to be a political loss for the president. Easy choice.
It’s hard to think of a more clear-cut case of putting politics over nation. This from a president whose central campaign theme is that Republicans put party over nation, sacrificing country to crass political ends.
Nor is this the first time Obama’s election calendar trumped the national interest:
Obama’s decision to wind down the Afghan surge in September 2012 is militarily inexplicable. It comes during the fighting season. It was recommended by none of his own military commanders. It is explicable only as a talking point for the final days of his reelection campaign.
At the height of the debt-ceiling debate last July, Obama pledged to veto any agreement that was not long term. Definition of long term? By another amazing coincidence, any deal large enough to get him past Election Day (and thus avoid another such crisis next year).
Tuesday it was revealed that last year the administration pressured Solyndra, as it was failing, to delay its planned October 28 announcement of layoffs until November 3 — the day after the midterm election.
A contemporaneous e-mail from a Solyndra investor noted: “Oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.” The writer was clearly born yesterday. The American voter was not — and (s)he soon gets to decide who really puts party over nation and reelection above all.
We can’t wait.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Charles Krauthammer
November 18, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Pipeline Sellout
Obama puts politics over nation, again.
In 2008, the slogan was “Yes We Can.” For 2011–12, it’s “We Can’t Wait.” What happened in between? Candidate Obama, the vessel into which myriad dreams were poured, met the reality of governance.
His near–$1 trillion stimulus begat a stagnant economy with 9 percent unemployment. His attempt at Wall Street reform left in place a still too-big-to-fail financial system as vulnerable today as when he came into office. His green-energy fantasies yielded Solyndra cronyism and a cap-and-trade regime not even a Democratic Congress would pass.
And now his signature achievement, Obamacare, is headed to the Supreme Court, where it could very well be struck down, just a week after its central element was overwhelmingly repudiated (2–1) by the good burghers of Ohio.
So what do you do when you say you can, but, it turns out, you can’t? Blame the other guy. Charge the Republicans with making governing impossible. Never mind that you had control of the Congress for two-thirds of your current tenure. It’s all the fault of Republican rejectionism.
Hence: “We Can’t Wait.” We can’t wait while they obstruct. We can’t wait while they dither with my jobs bill. Write Congress today! Vote Democrat tomorrow!
We can’t wait. Except for certain exceptions, such as the 1,700-mile trans-U.S. Keystone XL pipeline, carrying Alberta oil to Texas refineries, which would have created thousands of American jobs and increased our energy independence.
For that, we can wait, it seems. President Obama decreed that any decision must wait 12 to 18 months — postponed, by amazing coincidence, until after next year’s election.
Why? Because the pipeline angered Obama’s environmental constituency. But their complaints are risible. Global warming from the extraction of the Alberta tar sands? Canada will extract the oil anyway. If it doesn’t go to us, it will go to China. Net effect on the climate if we don’t take that oil? Zero.
Danger to a major aquifer, which the pipeline traverses? It is already crisscrossed by 25,000 miles of pipeline, enough to circle the Earth. Moreover, the State Department had subjected Keystone to three years of review — the most exhaustive study of any oil pipeline in U.S. history — and twice concluded in voluminous studies that there would be no significant environmental harm.
So what happened? “The administration,” reported the New York Times, “had in recent days been exploring ways to put off the decision until after the presidential election.” Exploring ways to improve the project? Hardly. Exploring ways to get past the election.
Obama’s decision was meant to appease his environmentalists. It’s already working. The president of the National Wildlife Federation told the Washington Post (online edition, November 10) that thousands of environmentalists who were galvanized to protest the pipeline would now support Obama in 2012. Moreover, a source told the Post, Obama campaign officials had concluded that “they do not pick up one vote from approving this project.”
Sure, the pipeline would have produced thousands of truly shovel-ready jobs. Sure, delay could forfeit to China a supremely important strategic asset — a nearby, highly reliable source of energy. But approval was calculated to be a political loss for the president. Easy choice.
It’s hard to think of a more clear-cut case of putting politics over nation. This from a president whose central campaign theme is that Republicans put party over nation, sacrificing country to crass political ends.
Nor is this the first time Obama’s election calendar trumped the national interest:
Obama’s decision to wind down the Afghan surge in September 2012 is militarily inexplicable. It comes during the fighting season. It was recommended by none of his own military commanders. It is explicable only as a talking point for the final days of his reelection campaign.
At the height of the debt-ceiling debate last July, Obama pledged to veto any agreement that was not long term. Definition of long term? By another amazing coincidence, any deal large enough to get him past Election Day (and thus avoid another such crisis next year).
Tuesday it was revealed that last year the administration pressured Solyndra, as it was failing, to delay its planned October 28 announcement of layoffs until November 3 — the day after the midterm election.
A contemporaneous e-mail from a Solyndra investor noted: “Oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.” The writer was clearly born yesterday. The American voter was not — and (s)he soon gets to decide who really puts party over nation and reelection above all.
We can’t wait.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Obama's problem with the Truth Continues....
Once Again Obama Distorts the TRUTH and exhibits his self centered, arrogant approach to everything...it's all about Government!!!....What a Pathetic Excuse for a President he is...he's got to go in 2012!!!!!
Obama takes credit for Boeing deal
Published: 4:25 PM 11/18/2011 | Updated: 4:47 PM 11/18/2011
President Barack Obama displayed his focus on government Friday by thanking his own administration for Boeing’s new $21.7 billion sales deal with Lion Air, a fast-growing Asian airline company.
“The U.S. administration and the Ex-Im Bank, in particular, were critical in facilitating this deal. … I want to thank all of the administration officials who were dogged in trying to get this completed,” he said, in a statement from the island of Bali.
Obama next credited Singapore-based Lion Air before congratulating Boeing, whose 157,000 workers design, manufacture, market and maintain the aircraft. Roughly 78,000 Boeing workers are employed in Washington state.
“I want to, first of all, congratulate Lion Air for their incredible success. I want to congratulate Boeing for making outstanding planes. … This is an example of a win-win situation where the people of the region are going to be able to benefit from an outstanding airline.”
His emphasis on government’s role will likely fuel Republicans’ growing criticism of Obama for statements in which he called America lazy and soft.
Republicans also criticize Obama for his appointees to the National Labor Relations Board. The appointees are strongly critical of Boeing’s executives for opening a new production line in South Carolina, where state laws hinder unions’ recruitment efforts.
The new Lion Air deal calls for the delivery of up to 230 aircraft, and is the largest deal for Boeing since Indian airlines bought $11 billion of aircraft in January 2006.
Obama’s focus on his administration’s role stands in contrast to President George W. Bush’s comments about other Boeing deals.
Two months after Boeing signed the 2006 India deal, Bush visited India and talked up trade, but he emphasized customers and companies, not government middlemen.
“Americans who come to this country will see … Indian businesses buying American products like the 68 planes that Air India recently ordered from Boeing. They will also see American businesses like General Electric and Microsoft and Intel, who are in India to learn about the needs of local customers and do vital research that makes their products more competitive in world markets,” he said.
In November 2005, Bush visited China, whose government announced it was buying 70 Boeing aircraft.
Bush didn’t try to take credit, but instead told press that he met with China’s top official “to make sure that we’ve got access to Chinese markets like they’ve got to ours. … I was pleased to see that the Chinese government ordered Boeing aircraft.”
Obama’s Friday comments also downplayed the role of Boeing’s workers, while emphasizing his own record and that his of his appointees.
The Lion Air deal “is an example of how we are going to achieve the long-term goal that I set of doubling U.S. exports over the next several years. … And our workers back home are going to be able to have job security and be able to produce an outstanding product made in America,’ he said just before ending his statement with “so congratulations, gentlemen. Thank you so much.’
Obama’s self-congratulation contrast with his critical comments about Americans.
“We’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades, and so we have failed to do enough to attract foreign investment,” the president said Nov 12. during a scripted conversation with Boeing CEO James McNerney, Jr. at a summit for Pacific region business leaders.
In September, Obama told a Florida interviewer that “this is a great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades.”
Bush’s emphasis was different.
In a March 2004 ceremony where he awarded a prize to Boeing, he declared, “We’ve got the world’s hardest-working people. We’ve got the most productive work force in the world. We have an attractive climate for our businesses to expand. We have innovative, dynamic companies which are producing world-class products and services.”
“America’s best companies are emphasizing quality and service, and developing world-class methods for production,” he said at the Arlington, Va., event. “By selling good ideas and good products in markets not only here, but across the world, we’re creating jobs — good, high-paying jobs for the American citizen.”
What an Arrogant Asshole this Guy is!
Obama takes credit for Boeing deal
Published: 4:25 PM 11/18/2011 | Updated: 4:47 PM 11/18/2011
President Barack Obama displayed his focus on government Friday by thanking his own administration for Boeing’s new $21.7 billion sales deal with Lion Air, a fast-growing Asian airline company.
“The U.S. administration and the Ex-Im Bank, in particular, were critical in facilitating this deal. … I want to thank all of the administration officials who were dogged in trying to get this completed,” he said, in a statement from the island of Bali.
Obama next credited Singapore-based Lion Air before congratulating Boeing, whose 157,000 workers design, manufacture, market and maintain the aircraft. Roughly 78,000 Boeing workers are employed in Washington state.
“I want to, first of all, congratulate Lion Air for their incredible success. I want to congratulate Boeing for making outstanding planes. … This is an example of a win-win situation where the people of the region are going to be able to benefit from an outstanding airline.”
His emphasis on government’s role will likely fuel Republicans’ growing criticism of Obama for statements in which he called America lazy and soft.
Republicans also criticize Obama for his appointees to the National Labor Relations Board. The appointees are strongly critical of Boeing’s executives for opening a new production line in South Carolina, where state laws hinder unions’ recruitment efforts.
The new Lion Air deal calls for the delivery of up to 230 aircraft, and is the largest deal for Boeing since Indian airlines bought $11 billion of aircraft in January 2006.
Obama’s focus on his administration’s role stands in contrast to President George W. Bush’s comments about other Boeing deals.
Two months after Boeing signed the 2006 India deal, Bush visited India and talked up trade, but he emphasized customers and companies, not government middlemen.
“Americans who come to this country will see … Indian businesses buying American products like the 68 planes that Air India recently ordered from Boeing. They will also see American businesses like General Electric and Microsoft and Intel, who are in India to learn about the needs of local customers and do vital research that makes their products more competitive in world markets,” he said.
In November 2005, Bush visited China, whose government announced it was buying 70 Boeing aircraft.
Bush didn’t try to take credit, but instead told press that he met with China’s top official “to make sure that we’ve got access to Chinese markets like they’ve got to ours. … I was pleased to see that the Chinese government ordered Boeing aircraft.”
Obama’s Friday comments also downplayed the role of Boeing’s workers, while emphasizing his own record and that his of his appointees.
The Lion Air deal “is an example of how we are going to achieve the long-term goal that I set of doubling U.S. exports over the next several years. … And our workers back home are going to be able to have job security and be able to produce an outstanding product made in America,’ he said just before ending his statement with “so congratulations, gentlemen. Thank you so much.’
Obama’s self-congratulation contrast with his critical comments about Americans.
“We’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades, and so we have failed to do enough to attract foreign investment,” the president said Nov 12. during a scripted conversation with Boeing CEO James McNerney, Jr. at a summit for Pacific region business leaders.
In September, Obama told a Florida interviewer that “this is a great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades.”
Bush’s emphasis was different.
In a March 2004 ceremony where he awarded a prize to Boeing, he declared, “We’ve got the world’s hardest-working people. We’ve got the most productive work force in the world. We have an attractive climate for our businesses to expand. We have innovative, dynamic companies which are producing world-class products and services.”
“America’s best companies are emphasizing quality and service, and developing world-class methods for production,” he said at the Arlington, Va., event. “By selling good ideas and good products in markets not only here, but across the world, we’re creating jobs — good, high-paying jobs for the American citizen.”
What an Arrogant Asshole this Guy is!
The REAL "Occupy" Movement...No wonder America is getting tired of It!
These are immature kids that are the "Occupy" movement....this is who the Democrats are supporting including Mr Obama????.....I agree they need to "occupy" a desk and get a job.
Obama - An Administration of Corruption...
More evidence of the overreaching corruption in the Obama Administration...for someone that hailed transparency, change, and honest dealings Obama has delivered nothing but corruption, crony capitalism, and divisiveness. He's certainly failed at changing the way Washington works....
I like Newt more every Day!
Newt was right on the impending Housing disaster in March of 2008...he's the smartest candidate running and for sure much smarter than the idiot that occupys the White House today....Go Newt!!!!!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
You have GOT to see this Video....Raise My Taxes, But I Don't Want to Pay Any More!
‘Patriotic millionaires’ demand higher taxes, but unwilling to pay up [VIDEO]
Published: Updated: 8:33 AM 11/17/2011 By Michelle Fields - The Daily Caller
Two dozen “patriotic millionaires” traveled to the national’s capital on Wednesday to demand that Congress raise taxes on wealthy Americans.
The Daily Caller attended their press conference with an iPad, which displayed the Treasury Department’s donation page, to find out if any of the “patriotic millionaires” were willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Published: Updated: 8:33 AM 11/17/2011 By Michelle Fields - The Daily Caller
Two dozen “patriotic millionaires” traveled to the national’s capital on Wednesday to demand that Congress raise taxes on wealthy Americans.
The Daily Caller attended their press conference with an iPad, which displayed the Treasury Department’s donation page, to find out if any of the “patriotic millionaires” were willing to put their money where their mouth is.
The Obama/Democrat/Labor backed "Occupy" Movement...YOU DECIDE!
Obama and many key Democrats have made supporting comments about the "occupy" movement, AND organized labor has supported the movement both in message and in money.........Where do you think the majority of Americans Stand....Do you agree with Obama/the Dems/Big Labor or are you with the other Camp????
The 99% is with the other camp...
Obama has NO REAL intention to create JOBS...
Obama has NO real passion to create jobs...he's more interested in his personal reelection than fixing the problems facing America and there's no better example of that than this issue. His delay in making a decision on this is totally political move and he's even been called out by Canada...
The ONLY JOB he is interested in is HIS!...and we need to deny him that!
Perry Does Put Together GREAT Ads...and Obama IS a pathetic Socialist that IS Bankrupting America!
Obama's "lazy" comment is just his attempt to again blame someone/anyone but himself for the condition America finds itself in....he's the "blamer in chief" and now it's the American publics turn to take the blame....what a "Pathetic Excuse" for a President!
He's Got to GO in 2012!
This Congressional Insider Trading Issue is a BIG DEAL...
The Perry comments make a lot of sense and his whole message of making government as inconsequencial in everyone's life resonates more and more...he might not be a great debater, BUT he's right to change Washington!
It's time to write to your Congressman and make certain they sponsor this type of legislation....NOW!
No Wonder politicians want to stay in congress for a career...Another reason to install term limits on the House and the Senate...
I'm Back!
Been gone for a few weeks...went to Europe on vacation to get away from the stress and strain of the political problems we face....But I'm back and ready to keep up the fight to make certain that Barack is NOT elected for a second term in 2012!!!
That's Job #1
Steve
That's Job #1
Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)