Obama Assails Romney On His "Victims" Comment, But...

Two weeks ago, the now infamous Romney tape was released where he said that 47% would not vote for him because they don't pay taxes and they probably feel like victims.  Of course, Obama is now using that statement to make Romney look like he's writing off half of the country and would only be the President of the other victimless half.  Further, Obama likes to say to the crowds at his campaign events: "I look out here and I don't see victims...I see hard working Americans".

The problem with Obama's words, like those of all Democrats, is that he has always seen certain Americans as victims.  According to Democrats, the blacks of this nation are always being victimized by whites.  The rich only got rich because they got that way off the backs of the poor.  The people losing their homes to foreclosure were victims of greedy Wall Street and greedy banks who steered them into bad mortgages.  People are out of work because greedy corporations are sitting on cash and not hiring.  The inner cities are poor because the wealthy have moved to the suburbs. Women are victims too, because the GOP has declared a war on women.  And, so it goes.

Identifying and politically creating victims is the mantra of all Democrats.  It's the basis of their belief in Social Justice (and Injustice) and income redistribution.  It's the rationale behind every single social program that the Democrats have initiated in this country.  It's how they build their political base and literally buy votes with taxpayer money. Quite simply, without a whole bunch of victims, the Democratic party wouldn't exist.

Obama's Neglect Of The Middle Class

Just recently, a Chicago-focused study on low-wage earners saw this group grow by 30% in just the last year.  More bluntly, this shows that the middle class is shrinking under Obama's stewardship; despite all his "bull" that he's growing and helping the middle class.  The fact is that most of the new jobs created in the private sector over the last 3-1/2 years have been low-paying; explaining why the mean family income has fallen by 8.2% over that same period.

References:

Chicago Sun-Times: Low-wage work force grows 30% as the number of jobs shrinks: http://www.suntimes.com/15379932-761/low-wage-work-force-grows-30-as-the-number-of-jobs-shrinks.html

Huffington Post: Job Market Recovery Led By Low-Wage Sectors: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/job-market-recovery-low-wage-sectors_n_1406102.html

Investor's Business Daily: Household Incomes Fall In Aug., Off 8.2% Under Obama: http://news.investors.com/092512-626958-household-income-down-82-under-president-obama.aspx

CBS/New York Times Swing State Poll: Rigged To Help Obama?

On Thursday, September 26, the New York Times and CBS released the results of their joint polling in three critical swing states: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  According to their polling, Obama now leads Romney by 10 points in Ohio; 9 points in Florida; and, 12 points in Pennsylvania.  My problem is that, in the case of each of those states, Obama is doing better in this poll than he did in 2008 when he beat McCain.  And, that's a little hard to believe with Obama's lousy record and lowered approval ratings.

In Ohio, for example, Obama won the state by only 4 points in 2008. Yet, the "Times" and CBS polling says that, if the elections were held today, he would win by 10 points.  In Florida, Obama only beat McCain by 2-1/2 points.  Now, in Pennsylvania, he did win big with an 11 point lead, but, can anyone really believe that the results will be better than they were in 2008?  In reality, my bet is that Romney is actually quite close to Obama in each of those states; if not leading in at least two.

These three polls just prove that, once again, those two liberal media outlets are in the tank for Obama.  The intent of showing him with such large leads is to discourage the Romney voter from wasting their time voting for someone that is going to lose, anyway.  It is a form of voter suppression.  And, it is disgusting.

References:

CBS: Poll: Obama opens substantial leads in key swing states: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57520341/poll-obama-opens-substantial-leads-in-key-swing-states/

New York Times: 2008 Ohio Election Results: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/ohio.html

USA Today: 2008 Florida Election Results: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/fl.htm

USA Today: 2008 Pennsylvania Election Results: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/pa.htm

Obama's Delusional Stance On Terrorism

Ever since the attack on our Libyan consulate and the murder of our ambassador, President Obama has refused to call that bloody scene an act of terrorism.   In his U.N. speech, he continued to call the mob rioting across the Middle East and elsewhere, merely a response to the "film" that denigrated the prophet Muhammad; never once mentioning organized terrorism. 

No one should be surprised that the President ignores any references to terrorism because the delusional Obama seems to think that terrorism is simply a "tactic" being used by extremists.  His senior adviser on "counter-terrorism" made this position quite clear in August of 2009 -- just months after Obama took office:



So, for nearly four years, we've had a President who doesn't recognize terrorists as terrorists. In fact, in his  mind, the War on Terror is over.  The silliness of this is that Obama is playing with semantics in some obtuse effort to not offend Muslims by having them broadly painted as terrorists.  No one else has done that.   Everyone knows that terrorism is an extremist act being conducted by Jihadists who have declared war on this country.  But, this is so Obama.  He's terribly afraid that Muslims will be somehow offended. This prostrate position has gotten us nowhere.  He refers to world events by bad actors like Al Qaeda and Iran as "noise" and "bumps in the road."  To anyone else, this is seen as simply weakness. That's why today, Muslims all over the world are burning our flag and shouting "death to America"  and "death to Obama."  We need a President that is less worried about "offending" those who would kill us and more concerned about "defending" Americans.

I Would Hope That Harry Reid Is Not The Face Of Mormonism

According to several reports, Harry Reid has now come up with a new attack line against Mitt Romney.  As one Mormon to another, Harry has stated that Mitt is not the "face of Mormonism" and has even gone so far as to say that he has "sullied" the LDS Church.

I'm not a Mormon but, when looking at these two, Reid and Romney,  I would seriously hope that Harry Reid is not the face of the Mormon Church.   In Reid, I see nothing Christian.  I see a person that does not believe in that foundation belief of "do unto others" or "Thou shall not bear false witness".  At every opportunity he lies or presents deceitful statements in order to score political points.  For weeks, he has lied about Romney not having paid any taxes in the last 12 years.  Then it was 10 years. To justify his words, he claimed a credible source: A nameless Bain investor.  Now, this week, we know that Romney has paid hefty taxes in all of the last 20 years.

He has refused to walk across the aisle to work with Republicans on budgets, health care, or anything else.   He has treated them as lepers; not willing to hear any of their concerns.  He has facilitated Obama's destruction of this country by helping create a situation where millions of Americans are no longer employed and have lost thousands of dollars in salary over the last four years..   Reid was a pugilist by trade and has continued to act like he's still in the ring every day of his life.  I see a person that is constantly combative and unchristian; and, I would, hope, too, not Mormon.

Romney, to me, is more Christian than either Reid or Obama could ever hope to be.  He has helped many in need.  He has contributed his time and millions, each and every year, to his faith and other charities in order to comfort others.

Reid has gone too far, this time.  Hopefully, his words will backfire both on him and, as the Senate leader, and on the entire Democratic party for such a cheap-shot.

-- Politico: Harry Reid attacks Mitt Romney’s Mormonism: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81632.html

The Electric Car And Its Renewable Source Of Energy Joke

From the environmental left, all we ever hear is that we need to dump our dependence on finite energy resources like oil, coal, and natural gas.  To them, renewable electrical energy from wind and solar is the key to our future. Further, they envision a world of electric cars that would take advantage of all that wind and solar produced electricity.

But, there's a big flaw in their thinking, and, that flaw is the survivability of the lithium ion battery that is used to power the electric car.  You see, lithium is not renewable. It is finite; and, millions of more times more finite than the fuels that it was intended to replace.

Today, lithium is used to make batteries for everything portable.  Because of this, the current demand is growing at 25% per year while production is only increasing by about 4-to-5% per year.  This imbalance will eventually mean a shortage in lithium.  Some experts say this could happen as early as 2015.  The same experts say there's only enough high quality lithium product to produce 1.5 million electric cars like the Chevy Volt.  Because demand has been so high and production much slower, the price of lithium has tripled since 2000.  If by 2015, demand does outstrip production, expect prices to soar; and, when that happens, a replacement battery for your 2010 or later Volt could  zoom to $15,000 or more.  Of course, this high cost will just cause a used Volt's resale value to literally collapse. Then, too, a new Chevy Volt might cost $50,000 or more in just three years.

The only thing saving lithium from shortages is the fact that electric cars aren't selling as fast as expected.  Therefore, the doomsday of 2015 might have been pushed out to years later.

You see, the electric car isn't quite as renewably powered  as the environmental left would lead you to believe.

References:

IPad Boom Strains Lithium Supplies After Prices Triple: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/ipad-boom-strains-lithium-supplies-after-prices-triple.html

Electric Cars and Lithium Reserves: Only Enough For 1.5 Million Volts: http://gm-volt.com/2008/11/01/electric-cars-and-lithium-reserves-only-enough-for-15-million-chevy-volts/

Democrats Attack Romney's 2011 Tax Return

Within minutes of Romney's release of his 2011 tax return, Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, said this his about that return:

"confirms what we already knew - that people like Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than many middle-class families because of a set of complex loopholes and tax shelters only available to those at the top."

Of course the tone of that statement is intended to imply that the Romney's were getting away with murder when it comes to paying taxes.  But, what Ms. Cutter (and many liberals) don't seem to understand is that Romney does not have a salary.  Most all of his income comes from investments from which he receives dividends, capital gains, and interest income; and the tax rate for those types of income is much lower. The reason for the lower rate is that we want people like Romney to invest in America's stocks and bonds in order to grow the economy and support municipal building activity.  That's what investment income is all about.  At the same time, charitable giving gave the Romney's a lower rate.  Do we now want America's wealthy to stop giving money away the needy?

The fact is that the Romney's paid an effective 2011 tax rate of 13.9%.  According to the Tax Foundation's latest federal analysis from 2009, the lower 50% of all taxpayers with a positive tax burden* only pay an effective tax rate of 1.85%.  The average for all taxpayers is 11.06%; which is very near the 11.0% that the average middle-class family pays.   The average tax rate from the top 1% -- people like Romney -- is actually 24.01%.

This not paying "your fair share" class-warfare crap is really getting tiring.  People like Obama and Cutter want you and I to think that the rich aren't pulling this nation's wagon when, in fact, 50% of those at the bottom are riding in the wagon without hardly paying anything.  The top 1% of this country's taxpayers actually pay 36.7% of all taxes collected by the federal government while the 50% at the bottom only contribute 2.3%.  The top 25% of all taxpayers actually pay 87.3% of all taxes. How fair is that?

*Note: Some low income tax filers actually get more money back after taking credits than what they paid  due to something called Investment Tax Credit.  Therefore, these filers are considered to have a negative tax burden; and, in essence, this is another form of welfare.  But, this welfare is for people who are actually working and who do have some amount of income.

References:

Tax Foundation's Summary of Taxes Paid: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1

Associated Press: "Democrats: Political slant marks Romney tax return": http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-political-slant-marks-romney-tax-return-070444703--election.html

The 2010 Elections Changed Government From The Outside

In the President's Univision Q&A session, Obama said that Washington cannot be changed from the inside. He said it had to be done from the outside; implying that only the voters can determine the direction of government.  He further went on to say that this is why he was elected and why ObamaCare got passed into law.



Well, it seems Mr. Obama is forgetting the landslide, throw-the-bums out election of 2010.  The people gave the House of Representative back to the Republicans because they didn't agree with how the Democrats and Obama were "changing" things; starting with ObamaCare. They also took away the President's filibuster proof Democratic Senate.   All across the country, state legislatures and governorships were handed over to Republicans.

Obama is living in some kind of fantasy world if he thinks people are happy with the kind of change he  brought to Washington.

General Motors In Chains

According to comments made by GM's top execs, the company is more than anxious to sever its ties with the government.  MarketWatch.com reported it this way:

"...GM executives are...saying it [government ownership] hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions..."

Obviously, this is contrary to Obama/Biden's touting the GM bailout as a success. Lets face it, the bailout of $50 billion by the government has literary put the company in chains; keeping it totally beholding to the whims of the Obama Administration.

And, just as it is in sports, pay will be what attracts the kind of talented people that are going to keep GM profitable in the years to come.   The problem with Obama and his people are that they are too union worker focused and, seem to think that it is those workers, and those workers, alone, that are responsible for a company's success.   That's why GM was forced to shed executives and executive pay while being all warm and cozy and protecting union contracts.  Union workers are at the tail end of the creative process and GM can see that process is in jeopardy for as long as the government has its heavy hand in the company's business.   My guess is that, if Obama wasn't involved, GM would never have introduced the money-losing Volt.  The Volt is a typical example of what happens when the profit motive is eliminated by government intervention.

MarketWatch.com Article on the above subject: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-09-17/industries/33890428_1_stake-gm-executives-general-motors

Helicopter Ben Does It Again: QE3: Buying Mortgage Backed Securities

This week Fed. Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Federal Reserve will buy up Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) to the tune of $40 billion dollars a month; with this action being open ended or without an end date.  His rationale in doing so is that it will lower interest rates and stimulate borrowing to buy everything from cars to houses to washing machines; thus creating jobs.

We've already completed $2 trillion dollars of Quantitative Easing (QE) stimulus in the last 3 years.  Yet, unemployment has remained high.  As far as borrowing is concerned, interest rates on loans are already at near historic rates.  So, why would anyone think another round of QE will matter to this economy?

To me, Bernanke is "Keynesian economics" and "Monetarist economics" out of control.  He is called "Helicopter Ben" for a reason.  Like most Keynesians, he believes that just introducing a lot of money into the economy will stimulate growth.  But, my god, between a near trillion dollars from Obama and $2 trillion from Bernanke, the economy and jobs are still limping along and none of those trillions have done much to fix anything.

All that Bernanke's QE3 will do is make a lot of people rich who now hold Mortgage Backed Securities.  These people finally have a sucker to buy all these junk securities that they've been stuck with since the housing collapse.  As far as lowering interest rates is concerned, a lot of average people with money in the bank will just get less interest on their accounts; making them feel less wealthy and less confident in spending the kind of money needed to grow our economy.  At the same time, food, energy, and import prices will go up; again, forcing consumers to watch their wallets.  And, it is this praxeology (or human behavior) that both Bernanke and Obama and most Keynesians never seem to understand.  People aren't buying houses because interest rates aren't low enough, they simply can't afford the 20% that is "now" required to buy a home.  Hardly anyone has that amount of money just lying around.  For sure, having higher food, energy, and import prices doesn't help anyone save the kind of money needed to buy a house, car, or whatever.  The bottom line is that when things are tight, rational people don't spend their savings.

Bernanke and Obama need to stop this top-down money-spending belief that it will somehow grow the economy.  They both need to look to the consumer and what the consumer is contending with and formulate a solution to address it.  Otherwise, our economy will remain stagnant for decades.

Chicago Teachers Stupidly Exposed How Well Off They Are

In just the last two weeks, we've come to understand much about the pay and benefits of unionized Chicago teachers.

First of all, they're paid well with an average annual salary of just under $76,000.  Of course, this is before any benefits. At the same time, the average full-time male worker in Chicago is only paid $39,449;  $35,867 for full-time females.  Then, too, the teachers only have to pay 3% of their income towards their health care insurance while,  most other workers pay an average of 27% towards their employer-based health insurance.  So, after the insurance deduction, the average teacher is left with $73,720.  At the same time, the average male's salary is dropped down to $28,798. For the ladies, it's down to $26,183.   In effect, the average teacher makes 2-1/2 times what the average Chicago male makes in a year and almost 3 times what women make after health care insurance costs are deducted.

Then, there's the days worked per year issue.  According to statistics, the average teacher only works 154 days per year, while the average other worker puts in 228 days of work.  This mean that the  Chicago teacher, after health insurance is deducted, gets paid $479 per day.  One the other hand, the full-time male worker only gets $126 for his day's work, and, the working woman only sees $115 a day.  When looked at this way, the average teacher makes nearly 4 times the daily pay of the average taxpayer in Chicago.

Something is really out of balance here when teachers are getting 4 times the pay of  the people who pay their salaries. I personally don't want to hear another word that teachers are underpaid in America, and, we can all thank the Chicago Teachers strike for stupidly exposing this disparity in salaries.

One last thing.  The Chicago teachers are fighting teacher performance evaluations through student tests under "No Child Left Behind".  This seems strange from a group that is constantly grading their students through testing.

References:

Chicago Worker Pay Statistics: http://www.simplyhired.com/a/local-jobs/city/l-Chicago,+IL

Percent of Income Toward Health Insurance (paragraph 7): http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/12/business/la-fi-employer-health-costs-20120912

Days worked: Teachers vs. Average Worker: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-many-days-per-year-does-a-teacher-work/question-1552159/

Chicago Teacher Contract Demands and Current Average Salary: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/contract-issues-chicago-teachers-strike-17259268#.UFiNNVFT8uc

Obama's War On Woman Theme Loses Steam

According to the Democrats and President Obama, the GOP is waging a war on women.  So, for the last four months, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have constantly tried to hammer that message home with millions upon millions of dollars worth of campaign ads, and through numerous interviews.  Unfortunately for Obama, this supposed campaign on behalf of women has actually backfired.  In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, women's preference for Obama over Romney is now down to a 6 point spread; less than the 7 point spread that handed Reagan the win over Jimmy Carter.  Well down by the 13 point margin that gave Obama his win over McCain. What's worse, in the Spring, the President had a favorable versus unfavorable approval among women of 57% to 39%; respectively.  That same ABC/Post poll now says the numbers have flipped "to the negative" with Obama only getting a 46% approval from women while 50% of are disapproving of his presidency.

This is a big thing, and I believe that the "war on women" campaign actually infuriated some women by implying that their "only" election concerns are reproductive in nature.  I'm quite sure that many found this quite demeaning and a slap against the intelligence of women.  This is more proof that politicians should tread lightly in trying to divide the country along class -- this time gender -- lines.

ABC Polling Commentary: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obamas-popularity-dips-underwater-for-romney-a-faint-favorability-bounce/

Gender and Voting Behavior (study results): http://grounds-strategy.com/files/gender-and-voting.pdf

Why Didn't Obama Ask The Creator Of the Film To Take The You Tube Video Down Down?

According to the Obama Administration, it is the YouTube video, "The Innocence of Muslims," that is responsible for the widespread, Muslim anger in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

If this is truly what Obama and his people believe, then why hasn't the President shown leadership by personally asking the creator of that video to remove it from YouTube?  Just think about it.  If the President could succeed in having it voluntarily removed, he would appear to be defending Islam while, at the same time, protecting this country's belief in freedom of speech.  Also, by resolving the issue, thousands of Americans, living throughout the Muslim world, would be protected from harm. 

Instead the Administration chose to use "back door" diplomacy by asking Google to review the YouTube video in the hopes that they would remove it from YouTube.  Now, the Administration has been embarrassed because Google has rejected the request. Once again this President has choosen to lead from behind; making him look consistently weak and ineffectual.

Further reading: New York Daily News: Google will not remove anti-Muslim YouTube video that sparked violent protests: It does not violate company's terms: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/google-remove-riot-spawning-anti-muslim-youtube-video-sparked-violent-protests-violate-company-terms-article-1.1160370

Obama Hides Behind YouTube Video

Obama and his people desperately want you to think that the only reason that the Middle East and North Africa are in flames is because of a YouTube video that insults Mohammed.

However, the actions of the rioters belie this fact.  There are no signs being carried around calling for the death of the people who made the film or expressed anger against YouTube.  Instead, the chants are for death to the United States and death to Obama.  Effigies and posters of Obama are being displayed in the streets.  They are burning our flags and putting the black flag of Al Qaeda atop our Embassies that were stormed.

Even the timeline surrounding the release of the video doesn't match with what actually happened on 9/11 of this year.  The full-length video was actually previewed twice in Hollywood in June. In July, the 13 minute trailer, translated into Arabic, was put up on YouTube.  Yet, somehow, we are now supposed to believe that there was this delayed reaction to the video; all spontaneously culminating on 9/11.  Then, there are reports that the Obama Administration had advance notice of the rioting; three days before the 9/11 attack on our Libyan compound and that Obama's State Department did nothing to protect our Ambassador and his staff.  By the way.  Advance notice hardly supports the spontaneity claim by Obama.

The last time a U.S. Ambassador was killed was when Jimmy Carter was President.  The parallels with Carter's weaknesses in dealing with the Middle East and this President are just too strikingly similar.  If you cater to violent extremists, you will be seen by them as being weak, and, the result is what we are seeing right now.  We are seeing a reaction to a failed foreign policy and not some poorly produced video on YouTube.  Just the opposite of what Obama is trying to sell us.

Reference: The (U.K.) Independent:  Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing': http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

CNN:  More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Two Unemployment Numbers Signal A Further Slowdown In The Economy

For most people, the unemployment rate and the number of jobs created is all they care about when the jobs report is released each month.  But, there are internal numbers buried in that report that can tell us a lot about what's happening in the economy in general. 

This month, two numbers were significant.

First, manufacturing jobs declined by 15,000 workers in August.  This is the first time this number has gone negative in almost a year.  Now, certainly, one month isn't a trend; but, the drop in manufacturing jobs does seem to be consistent with other economic numbers that have shown a slowdown in manufacturing.  Take, for example, the Institute for Supply Management's Factory Index measurement.  For 3 months in a row, it has fallen; and fallen below the 50% mark that would otherwise indicate an expansion of factory orders.  That index, now sitting at 49.6%, indicates that manufacturing is contracting, and the August drop in manufacturing jobs is consistent with that contraction.

Then, there's the decline in the average work week for manufacturing workers.  In the August jobs report, the average work week slipped by two-tenths of an hour to 40.5 hours.  Normally, a slippage in this number would mean that overtime hours were being minimized by hiring more workers.  But, the number actually fell in the month.  This, then, means that manufacturing overtime hours (those hours above a 40-hour workweek) were in decline.  This is just the opposite of what you want in a growing economy.  Increasing overtime hours -- hours paid at time-and-a-half or double-time -- usually force a manufacturer to hire new workers, but  falling hours without new hires means that manufacturing output is in decline.  And, if manufacturing output is falling, so is the economy.

August Jobs Report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Institute for Supply Management's Factory Index report: ISM factory index contracts for third month: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-09-04/economy/33571413_1_ism-survey-new-orders-index-factory-sector

Where's The Obama Administration's Sensitivity To Coptic Christianity

Every time I hear a repeat of our Cairo Embassy's apology for that anti-Muslim film made in the U.S. by a Coptic Christian, I am infuriated.  Not just because our freedom of speech is at issue but, because that apology ignores the plight of the Coptic Christians in Egypt.

For years, thousands of Coptic Christian women and girls have been abducted, raped, killed, stripped naked in public and, forced into Muslim marriages in some twisted attempt to make these women convert to Islam.  While attacks against all Christians have occurred throughout the Muslim world,  Egypt is certainly ground zero when it comes to its own Christian population: The Coptics.

So, where's the State Department's concern over the religious feelings of the Coptics?  The guy who made that film, a Coptic Christian, didn't just make it because he woke up one day to hate Muslims.  He made it because of how Coptic Christians are being so brutally treated by Muslims in the names of Islam and Muhammad.

References;

Washington Times: Escalating violence against Coptic women and girls: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/26/escalating-violence-against-coptic-women-and-girls/

Radical Islam.org: Kidnapping, Rape of Egyptian Coptic Christian Girls at Record High: http://www.radicalislam.org/news/kidnapping-rape-egyptian-coptic-christian-girls-record-high

Jihad Watch.org: Egypt: Muslims kidnap and enslave thousands of Christian girls: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/egypt-muslims-kindnap-and-enslave-thousands-of-christian-girls.html

The Religions of Peace.com:  Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians (Since 9/11): http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm

YouTube: Coptic Christian girl being sexually abused to make her convert to Islam (Warning: Explicit Violence and Sexual Content):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5rZ-2kKDjo&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCIQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DW5rZ-2kKDjo%26ei%3DSHdTUO2KLeHIiwKE14B4%26usg%3DAFQjCNEwJXcmlGqBkw_c--IBcWalFnFeog%26sig2%3DH3SnSyLtkMl-ezFGVk2R7A&has_verified=1

The Media Placed Romney In A Catch 22 Position On Embassy Attacks

Immediately after Romney criticized the U.S. Embassy officials in Cairo for putting out a statement that apologized to the Muslims for America's belief in freedom of speech, the media pounced; saying that Romney had jumped the gun and had politicized a crisis situation.

But, I guarantee you that if Romney hadn't spoken, the media would have charred him for his lack of concern and, more probably, his lack of foreign policy experience.  Either way, the media was out to get Romney and elevate Obama in the process.

One last thing.  An apology is an admission of guilt and that Embassy apology may have actually inflamed the situation further. The U.S. should never issue an apology unless some "official" action, in violation of our principals, necessitated it.  Romney was right to criticize the apology.

Biden's Disingenuous Take on Romney's Proposed Territorial Tax

In his DNC Convention speech, Vice President Biden made this comment:

"Governor Romney believes in this global economy it doesn't matter much where American companies invest and put their money or where they create jobs. As a matter of fact, in his budget proposal, in his tax proposal, he calls for a new tax. It's called a territorial tax, which the experts have looked at, and they acknowledge it will create 800,000 new jobs -- all of them overseas, all of them."

So, what "experts" (plural) have looked at Romney's proposal and found that it would create 800,000 jobs overseas.  Well, in fact, it is only one such expert: An Obama donor, professor Kimberly Clausing.  And, she was only able to come to that conclusion by ignoring other Romney proposals, such as lowering the corporate tax rate.

Even the President's own Jobs Council has recommended the Territorial Tax as a means of bringing back more than a trillion dollars in cash that is just sitting in overseas accounts; and, just sitting and waiting to be put to work in those overseas locations by building new factories and offices and hiring new "overseas" workers.  Just think about it.  If I'm a multinational corporation and I have millions of dollars sitting in China and a need a new manufacturing plant somewhere, I would be crazy not to use that money "in" China and build a new plant there.  This is why Kimberly Clausing's study is so controversial; if not just plain ridiculous.  Of course, citing a ridiculous study only reassures us about what we already know and love about Joe Biden.


References

Huffington Post: Joe Biden's Territorial Tax Claim Based On Controversial Study: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/joe-biden-territorial-tax_n_1865287.html

Tax Foundation: Would Territorial Taxation Create 800,000 Jobs Abroad at the Expense of U.S. Jobs?: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/would-territorial-taxation-create-800000-jobs-abroad-expense-us-jobs

Which Policies Of Bush Caused The Economic Mess We're In?

Over and over, again, Obama and the Democrats blame the "policies" of George W. Bush for causing the recession and the economic mess we find ourselves in.  Literally, you heard a continuous chorus of those charges being made during the recent Democratic Convention.  But, I ask you this: "Have you ever heard a single Democrat, including Obama, tell you what specific Bush policies caused the recession?"  My guess is no because, as close as I am to politics, I have never heard an explanation or itemization of those supposed bad policies.  In fact, the Democrats, who had complete control of our government in 2009 and 2010, never really held hearings or issued a report blaming Bush for the recession and the banking problems.  Certainly, if Bush and the Republicans were at fault, you would have thought that the Democrats would have never passed up such a juicy political opportunity.  But, they did because too much of their own bad policies led to the recession and the housing collapse.

If you really want to know why banks were able to bundle worthless mortgages and sell them to each other and, again, sell them to banks in other countries, you need only look to the sweeping changes in banking regulation that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1999.  Here's the hype story from the very liberal New York Times; dated November 13, 1999:

"President Clinton signed into law today a sweeping overhaul of Depression-era banking laws. The measure lifts barriers in the industry and allows banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge and to sell each other's products."

It was from this very change in the banking laws that gave the banks and Wall Street firms a green light to bundle and sell so many worthless mortgages; putting their own financial security in jeopardy.  This is the very reason that billions of dollars in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) monies had to be used to save banks, and the securities and mortgage industries.  The fact is, that, if Clinton had left the previous banking regulations in place -- the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act -- we would have never seen the collapse of the banking industry; and, the recession would have definitely been less severe.  For sure, the mortgage industry would have been held to a higher standard and, as a result, the housing collapse might have been averted.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush has remained silent on this and so many other charges that Obama and the Democrats have leveled against him.  But, to me, they are just charges without any foundation. On top of that, you have a left-wing media who has also remained silent and who has been unwilling to expose this constant lie by Obama. To top that all off, you have the obviously economically guilty Bill Clinton, at last weeks' DNC, lecturing us on how good Democrats are with economic issues. 

Reference: New York Times: Clinton Signs Legislation Overhauling Banking Laws: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/13/business/clinton-signs-legislation-overhauling-banking-laws.html

Debunking The 10,000 Baby Boomers Retiring Every Day Claim

This post has been updated.  Please go to this link: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-big-lie-workforce-contractions-are.html

Dropping Jerusalem As The Capital Of Israel Was No Surprise

During the Democratic Convention, its leadership and some media seemed to be -- but maybe not genuinely -- surprised that any reference to Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel had been dropped from their platform. But, no one should have surprised; given the President's historical attitudes towards Israel, and his belief that the Palestinians are the victims of Israel imperialism.

For twenty years, President Obama sat in a church that was headed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and, I'm sure that, for twenty years, he listened to much hatred for the Israelis being spewed out of Wrights mouth.  Wright is a person who blames America for the attacks on 9/11 because of our association with Israel and what he considers as their victimization of the Palestinians.  He has called Judaism a gutter religion. Before Reverend Wright was a minister, was a Black Muslim; and, Black Muslim's make no bones about the destruction of Israel. One of his key supporters and, I'm sure friend, is George Soros; an avid critic of America's close relationship with Israel. One of the best recaps of Obama's attitudes toward Israel can be found in this article written in January 2008 for the American Thinker by Ed Lasky: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html.

Then, there was Obama's May 2011 declaration that called for Israel to return to its pre-Six Day War, 1967 borders as a prerequisite for peace.  In that very statement, he was clearly siding with the Palestinians; knowing full well that the City of Jerusalem would be, once again, divided with Palestinians controlling East Jerusalem.  More importantly, some of the most holy Israeli religious sites would then be handed over to Muslims who, in the past, have had no qualms about destroying non-Muslim religious antiquities.

Obama once said he knows more about Judaism than any other past president.  However, I would question whether he knows Judaism and Israel in the way that Reverend Wright espouses or in the way that most Americans look at that country and its religion.  I think the dropping of Jerusalem from the platform speaks volumes in answering that question.

For more reading: New York Times May 2011: Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?pagewanted=all

Jennifer Granholm Channels Elaine Benes At The Democratic Convention

I'm sure you all remember the Elaine Benes' now-famous dance scene from the Seinfeld TV series:



After seeing Elaine dance, George Castanza later told Jerry Seinfeld it was like watching dry heaves set to music.

Now watch as Jennifer Granholm channels "Elaine" in this viral melt-down speech of hers at the Democratic National Convention.  This time it looks like dry heaves set to a political speech:

The Sum Total Of The Obama Presidency: Bin Laden Is Dead and General Motors Is Alive

In response to the "Are you better off question", Joe Biden has revived his "Bin Laden Is Dead and General Motors Is Alive" campaign mantra.  If this is all he can come up, it's a sad commentary about the last 4 years of Obama's presidency.  I'm quite sure that most Americans would agree that neither Bin Laden's death or the bailout of GM has made their lives any better.

CBS News: Biden: We are better off, "bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive": http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57505234-503544/biden-we-are-better-off-bin-laden-is-dead-and-general-motors-is-alive/

Team Obama: We Are Definitely Better Off Than 4 Years Ago

Over the last weekend, representatives of the Obama campaign were asked the classic Ronald Reagan rhetorical question: "Ask yourself if are you better off than you were four years ago?"  All, except for one, danced around the answer by declaring how bad things were when Obama took office; offering this as the only proof that Americans are truly better off today.  Now, the one who didn't do the dance, Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, answered the Reagan-esque question by saying: "No, but that's not the question of this election."

I think most Americans would probably agree with the first part of O'Malley's answer because I believe they  feel that things have only gotten worse over the last four years.  Lets not forget the recession actually ended 5 months after Obama took office; with a noticeable rebound in economic activity.  Ever since then, economic growth in this country has only gotten weaker with debt going through the roof.   The average family income has shrunk by more than $4000; and, at the same time, prices for food, energy, gasoline, and clothing are significantly higher with gasoline prices more than doubling.  Home prices have hit rock bottom. People are still being foreclosed on. Many couldn't sell there homes if they wanted to because they are so upside down on their mortgages.  Home sales, despite record low interest rates, are at half the rate of a normal economy. There are a million more unemployed today than when Obama took office. Nearly half of all college graduates can't find work. Then, too, more than 8 million people are being forced to work part-time for lack of any real jobs.  On top of that, more than 12 million workers have just given up looking or are in jobs that are below their experience levels.  Put that all together and it is very hard to say America is better off under Obama's stewardship.

As far as O'Malley's "but that's not the question of this election", I think this is another attempt to sidestep the reality that Americans aren't better off.  Further, in poll after poll, jobs, the economy, home values, and food prices are things that are the biggest concerns of voters.  O'Malley and others in the Obama camp are just whistling past the graveyard if they keep trying ignore the truth contained in the answer to that famous Reagen question.

Are You Better Off, Today? The Wrong Track Polling Says It All.

Almost every political poll taken contains one critical question: "In your opinion, is the country heading in the right direction?"

To the pollsters, this is generally referred to as the wrong track/right track question. And, nothing is a better indicator as to the feeling of Americans about themselves and the country.  Today, the average of all polls that are followed by Real Clear Politics shows that, by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.  This, to me, is the true answer to the "Are you better of Today" question.  Don't let Obama and his people tell you any differently.

The Real Clear Politics Direction Of Country Polling Results: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Clinton Fantasy: No President Could Have Restored The Economy In Four Years

In his convention speech, Clinton said that no president, not even him, could have restored the economy in just 4 years.  Well, that, to me, is B.S.  The economy actually began to heal itself just as Obama took office.  Here's the chart:

In fact, by June of 2009 -- 5 months after Obama took office -- the recession was declared to be officially over.  From the above chart you can clearly see a snap-back in the economy.  Unemployment hadn't yet caught up with the recovery because unemployment is always a lagging indicator.  But, by the 4th quarter of 2009, the economy actually grew by 5.6%.  For the last half of 2009, the economy had recovered to an average 4.1% growth.  This was truly a recovery and, if left alone, it could have been a good recovery.

My contention is that as Stimulus money was being applied it weakened the U.S. dollar as debt was being created.  This, in turn, created inflation in  food, gasoline, clothing, and imported goods.  This inflation seriously damaged the purchasing power of the American consumer.  As a result, consumer spending began to slide and the economy has been weakening ever since.  From 5.6% in the 4th Quarter of 2009, we saw economic growth drop to 3.1% in 2010 and to 2% in 2011.  This year, thus far, growth is another abysmal 1.7% but still subject to being reported lower as the next two quarters of growth are reported.

The fact is that Obama stalled a recovery through massive spending.  Cheapening the dollar through massive debt accumulation has its consequences.  That consequence is a slowed economy and weakened consumer spending..  Apparently, something Clinton either doesn't understand or would just prefer to lie about it.


Report: Clinton: No one could have restored economy to full health in 4 years: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13686746-clinton-no-one-could-have-restored-economy-to-full-health-in-4-years?lite

The Godlessness of the Democratic Party

On Tuesday, it was uncovered that any reference to God and to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had been removed from this year's Democratic convention platform.  When Bret Baier of Fox News cornered Democratic Senator Dick Durbin on the issue, Durbin angrily responded:

“Well, I can just basically tell you that if the narrative that is being presented on your station and through your channel and your network is that Democrats are godless people, they ought to know better. God is not a franchise of the Republican Party. Those of us who believe in God, and those of us who have dedicated our lives to helping others in the name of God don’t want to take a second seat to anyone who is suggesting that one word out of the platform means that the Democrats across America are godless.”

 Well, yesterday, Durbin's words turned sour when the convention attendees could clearly be heard voting as loudly to keep God and Jerusalem "out" of the platform as those who would add God and Jerusalem back into the platform wording:



Basically, the Dems exposed themselves as being fairly anti-Semitic and very secular with God having no place in the Democratic party.  Actions and words don't lie.  Durbin is a fool.

Can You Believe Bill Clinton's Speech Last Night?

Rush Limbaugh has said that Bill Clinton is the only politician he knows of that can lie to you, straight faced, and you don't mind being lied to.  Hence, his widely held nickname of  "Slick Willie". Certainly, much of what he said last night was just that.  And, how do I know this? In making his points, he used that same boney, word-by-word cadenced finger pointing that he used when saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."  This kind of scolding gesturing is his way of saying that "you'd better believe me" (even though I'm lying). Otherwise, when telling the truth or when making honest comments, he tends to express himself with open outstretched-hands or with a hands-on-chest gesture as if to pull the audience into what he's saying.

Oh, and by the way.  Don't expect the liberal media to fact-check anything Clinton said last night.  That's because he is their god, and, to fact check god would be akin to blasphemy.

Obama And Post-Racial Unhealing

When President Obama was elected, it was supposed to represent the final atonement for this country's sins of slavery, racism, and segregation.  He was referred to as the post-racial President; meaning that racism has now been put behind us.  However, Obama's term in office has only exacerbated the racial divide in this country.  The Democrats have used the Obama presidency to examine every word said or action done by Republicans for any signs of racism; whether real or, as in most cases, imagined.

This fact was never more apparent than during the RNC Convention. On a daily basis, liberal columnists at the New York Times, Washington Post, or at MSNBC managed to write something confirming that Republicans are all racists.  One MSNBC commentator said that minorities were being staged to be in front of the cameras so this "white guy" party would look like it was something that it wasn't: racially diverse.  Mike Elk, a labor journalist, tweeted: "Eastwood chair rant was RACIST, white man putting dirty words into mouth of black man like a puppet...".  MSNBC intentionally cut away from every minority speaker to insure that their audience only saw white people speaking at the Convention.  After Mia Love, a black woman, gave a rousing speech before the RNC conventioneers, her Wikipedia page was edited by some liberal; calling her a "house n**ger" and "dirty whore" who was a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”  Then, too, Chris Matthews said that every time "Chicago" was mentioned at the Convention, it was actually a super-secret GOP racist reference.

But, the Convention comments were no rare instances of calling out the GOP as racists. Over the years,  any criticism of this President has been labelled racist instead of constructive.  You can't even refer to Obama as being "cool" without it being racist.  This according to the Congressional Black Caucus.  Then there's the use of the term "ObamaCare".  It is considered by many liberals as a racial slur because it negatively refers back to a black man; rather than to the president who promoted it.  Then, there was this gem from Joe Biden.  Speaking before a nearly all-black audience, Biden said that Romney and Ryan want to "put y'all back in chains".

The real fact is that racism and slavery is alive and well in this country.  Unfortunately, it's alive and well in the Democrat party; the very party that claims to be non-racial.  The Democrats, for decades, have "kept" blacks as literal slaves by using racial tensions to insure that blacks cling to their party.  At every possible turn, the Democrats try to make Republicans look like racists.  If any black does stray away and become -- God help them -- a Republican, the Democrats keep them in check by assuring that they will, for ever more, be labelled as "uncle Toms" and "plantation slaves" or "house n**gers".  

In my opinion, Obama's election wasn't post-racial.  It has become hyper-racial.  Instead of celebrating the fact that the Republican party has become so diverse, the Democrats have done everything possible to damage or hide that diversity.  Obama has become a tool for the Democrats to throw racists labels around in a manner and frequency that they were unable to do before he was elected. 

Deval Patrick's Lie About Romney's Record

Last night, the current Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, made the claim that when Romney left the State it was 47th in job creation.  But, this was a politically manufactured number from Patrick's (and Obama's) political handler: David Axelrod.

Here's the truth:

When Romney became Governor, the state was actually 50th in job creation.  That 47th ranking is a politically skewed number that is calculated by comparing the "total number of jobs" that were created over Romney's term and then comparing that to the increases in "total jobs" created in other states; regardless of the comparative sizes of those individual states.  Normally, the size differences between states are negated by calculating jobs creation on a relative "percentage" basis.  However,  Axelrod knew that if he did that,  Romney's job creation record, when leaving office, would have moved Massachusetts to the 28th position.

This is a perfect example of that famous quote: "There are lies; damn lies; and statistics."   Obama and his supporters have literally raised "lying statistics" to an art form.

References:

Romney's Job Creation Record: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-jobs-record-is-best-or-worst/

WOW! The Media's Really Caught Paul Ryan This Time!

While giving an interview, Paul Ryan was asked if he ever ran a marathon and, if so, how fast.  Ryan responded with two hours and 50 something.  We'll of course, only a few amateur runners are able crack the 3 hour limit.  So, now the left-wing media has become absolutely hysterical in calling out Ryan as a liar.  Here's a sample of some of the headlines:

• Daily KOS: Ryan Marathon Liar
• Salon: Ryan marathon lie
• Huffington Post: Paul Ryan: Marathon Time Not True
• Salon: Ryan's Marathon Lie
• ABC News: Ryan Trips Over Marathon Question
• L.A. Times: Ryan exaggerates his marathon-running prowess
• The Atlantic: The Real Mystery Of Paul Ryan's Marathon Time
• NPR: Fact Check: Paul Ryan Exaggerates Marathon Claim

And, this just goes on and on with more than 23 pages of Google headlines on the topic.  Even Biden's "they want y'all back in chains" didn't get that much attention.  Nor did Obama's 57 states gaffe.  But, my God!  Is this the end of the Romney-Ryan ticket?  Did Romney make a mistake in picking a liar as a "running" running mate?  If Ryan lied about this, what else is he lying about?  I'm sure the media is now charged up an ready to find every lie that Ryan has every told. Go get 'em media.  This is more important than jobs, the economy, Iran and Israel, the collapse of Europe, and every other problem facing this country.

Actually, Ryan has since corrected himself by saying his time was 4 hours and 1 minute and 25 seconds. 

Cost Containment: What Medicare Seniors Should Worry About

For years, the bureaucrats in Washington have been trying to control rising Medicare (and Medicaid) costs by underpaying doctors, diagnosticians, and hospitals for their services using some false assumption that those healthcare professionals will find a cheaper means to provide services.  But the healthcare system can't cheapen their services because, to do so, would open itself up to more and more costly malpractice suits.  So, more often than not, this Medicare cost containment tactic is like squeezing a balloon.  All that happens is that non-Medicare patients are billed at higher rates to compensate for the losses incurred in taking care of Medicare patients.  But, at some point, those medical professionals will find that the other private insurers won't pay more either.  When that happens, they are likely to drop their Medicare patients to avoid going broke.  For example, in 2010, the prestigious Mayo Clinic announced it was no longer taking Medicare patients at one of their hospitals because they had lost a total of $840 million in the previous year.  Right now there are no comprehensive statistics as to how many doctors and hospitals are refusing to provide healthcare to Medicare seniors; but it is happening and gaining speed.

However, what is really ridiculous is that the Democrats and Obama have decided to double-down on this cost containment tactic that is causing so many health care professionals to refuse Medicare patients.  When they crafted ObamaCare they created something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board or IPAB.  IPAB is basically a 15-member board of bureaucrats that will determine what Medicare will pay out for certain medical procedures and devices. By law, they must find ways to cut costs if those costs exceed actuarial estimates for any given year.  In effect, IPAB has the authority to independently tell the health care industry which procedures will be covered by Medicare and for how much.  Congress cannot block or overrule them unless they pass legislation that would meet or exceed the IPAB's recommendations for any given year.

The problem with all these cost containment gimmicks, like IPAB, is that they don't address "why" costs are going up as fast as they are.  You can't mandate a bunch of free annual check ups and free diagnostics and expect Medicare costs to be lowered.  Sure, early diagnosis might avoid some future expenses but, many experts have concluded that widespread recommended diagnostic routines are not cost effective and are not necessarily preventative.  With mammograms, for example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) set new recommendations in 2009 that effectively removed the testing regimen of having bi-annual mammograms for women over 40.  Their new recommendation is for bi-annual mammograms for women over 50.

In my opinion, the USPSTF is better able to make cost-lowering recommendations rather than IPAB.  IPAB will only result in more seniors being dropped by doctors, hospitals, and diagnosticians.  The result will be to force Medicare patients into "cattle-car" clinics with extremely long wait time and less qualified doctors.  In fact, seniors will probably wind up seeing physician assistants rather doctors. This is what every senior should fear as a result of ObamaCare.

One last thing.  Healthcare costs are being driven by doctors practicing defensive medicine as a safeguard against being sued for malpractice.  Unless there is tort reform, costs will continue to rise at rates faster than inflation.  But, ObamaCare never included tort reform because the Democrats are in bed with the trial lawyers for campaign donations.

For Further Reading:

Mayo Clinic Bridles at Medicare Payments: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43841043/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-medicare-payments/

Wikipedia On IPAB:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Website: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm

Clint's Empty Chair Is Really An Empty Suit Analogy

When Clint Eastwood started with his "empty chair" shtick on the last night of the RNC Convention, I think a lot of people missed how analogous that was to Obama's performance as president.  It reminded me that Obama is what, in corporate life, is called an "empty suit".   The Urban Dictionary gives this definition of an "empty suit" as follows:

"Someone puffed up with his own importance but really having little effect on the lives of others... The true empty suit, which conjures up the image of a business suit of clothing without a person, really doesn’t know what he or she is doing. He or she is ineffectual, perhaps a phony, and is about as relevant or helpful as a suit hanging on a rack."

My only disagreement with the above definition is that which states: "...having little effect on the lives of others..."  Sadly, all too often, "empty suits" make wrong decisions which seriously impact the workplace or the company.  As president, Barack Obama has seriously impacted our everyday lives in negative way.  Beyond this, the definition, above, accurately defines our current President.

Still No Obama College Records. But, We Did Get His Super Secret Beer Recipe!

Playing Fast And Loose With Fact Checking

I find it interesting that left-wing media outlets have anointed themselves as fair-and-balanced fact checking machines.

For example, Politifact Wisconsin literally ripped Paul Ryan's convention speech apart by fact checking what they thought were a bunch of lies.   But, when Politifact was, itself, checked, it was found that they were  owed quite a few Pinocchios of their own.  In one such fact check lie, PolitiFact said this about Ryan's recounting of the GM plant closure in Janesville Wisconsin:

Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office. We rate Ryan's statement False.

When it comes to promises, the real fact is that Obama visited the Janesville plant right after GM announced that it would probably have to go into bankruptcy.  Obama assured the workers by saying:

"...I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."

Now, PolitiFact is probably right in that the above words are not an "explicit" promise to keep the plant open for the next hundred years, but,  I'm quite sure those workers felt as if they were hearing a promise anyway.

PolitiFact is also wrong on the dates of the plant closure.  Only a portion of that plant's operations were shut down before this President took office.  The actual shuttering of all operations took place in late April of 2009; four months after he took office and 3 months after Obama put his car Czar, Steven Rattner, in charge of the GM bailout.  Further, GM's official announcement of the plant closing was that "Janesville was placed on standby capacity in May 2009" which means the plant could be reopened, although today, with GM sales sagging from last year, it hardly seems likely that it will reopen any time soon.

If Obama held true to what he said in Janesville in 2008, he and his car Czar had ample time in 2009 to save the  plant by having it retooled to make more profitable vehicles; or, at the very least, he or Rattner could have gone back to the plant and explained their error in thinking it would be saved for the next 100 years.  But, you see, Obama is a man of many promises and few results; and, the left-wing media is ever ready to hide the sad fact about his inability to get things done.

It just seems that if a liberal paper slaps the words "Fact Check" on something, they are sure you will assume that it must be true.   However, all too often the truth has been manipulated and the conclusions are just opinions being made by politically partisan media types.   

Politifact Wisconsin Analysis: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/did-barack-obama-break-promise-keep-gm-plant-open/