Sandy Helps Coverup The Benghazi Coverup

With every passing day, we "were" beginning to see that there was a clear coverup with regard to the facts surrounding the attack on our mission in Benghazi; even though this news was being scantily reported by left-leaning media types like the New York Times, MSNBC, and ABC.  Now, hurricane Sandy has come along and what little coverage there had been has, now, been completely pushed aside.

Clearly, advantage Obama.

More Proof That Obama Doesn't Have Israel's Back; Or, For That Matter, America's

For all the years that George W. Bush was in office, we, as a country, refused to participate in the United Nation's Human Rights Committee (HRC).  The reasons were simple.

First of all, the HRC is an in-name-only sham operation.  Of the 47 nations that make up the "Council", only 21 are actual democracies with its people even able to vote for their own fate.  The rest of the member nations were being run by royals, despots, and dictators; many of which are know human rights abusers in so many ways.  In fact, Libya was one such country.  It only lost its membership in the HRC in 2011 when it's leader, Gaddafi,  went beyond his normal violations of human rights and started openly slaughtering unarmed protestors in the streets of Libyan cities during that country's recent revolution.

More importantly, Bush refused to participate in this organization because it was dominated by Islamic countries who, year after year, have made sure that the HRC has generated dozens up dozens of resolutions calling for actions against Israel. In fact, in just the last session, the HRC recommended that the U.N. General Assembly adopt a total of 8 sanctions against countries for supposed violations against human rights.  5 of those 8 were calls for sanctions against Israel.

But, instead of following, Bush's lead, Obama -- shortly after taking office -- decided to saddle-up with this extremely anti-Israeli body.  And, what did we get for that?  Well, the HRC will shortly recommend another set of sanctions affecting Israel.  But, this time it is against American companies doing business with Israel.  What's worse.  The recommendation was authored by our own representative to the Human Rights Council, the Obama-appointed, Richard Falk.

To me, this is just unfathomable.  It clearly proves that this Administration is both anti-Israel and, now, anti-American business.  If not just anti-American.   I'll bet money that you won't find that in his recently released, 20-page glossy on how Obama will supposedly grow the economy in a second term. 

Please note: While the Associated Press did write an article regarding the HRC's recommended actions against U.S. companies, not a single mainstream media outlet like the New York Times, CBS, ABC, etc. picked up that story.  You can Google it for yourself and you won't find anything.  That's because they know just how explosively dangerous this fact would be to the President's reelection.

References:

---  The  U.N./HRC Report: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestine Territories Since 1967, Richard Falk:  http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/UN-Report-Sept-2012.pdf

--- American Thinker: A Commentary: Human rights abusers on the UN's Human Rights (sic) Council: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/human_rights_abusers_on_the_uns_human_rights_sic_council.html

--- The Washington Free Beacon: U.N. Human Rights Council Calls for Boycott of U.S. Companies:  http://freebeacon.com/u-n-human-rights-council-calls-for-boycott-of-u-s-companies/

Obama & Benghazi: When Your Too Busy Lying, Things Don't Add Up

Right after the Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama apparently had such supposed clarity of "intelligence information" that they were able to declare that the attack was both spontaneous and a result of a mob protest over an anti-Muhammad YouTube video.  Now, just recently, we find out that CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi asked for military assistance as the attack was developing.  Instead of providing that assistance, it was denied and, further, they were told to stand down; meaning that they were not even allowed to go to the consulate, just a mile away, and help those under attack.

Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, is now defending that inaction by saying that they didn't have a "clear enough picture" (you know, intelligence) to allow troops to be sent in to help.  So, apparently, they had enough immediate intelligence to blame the attack on the video but not enough to save our slain patriots; even though it is now known that they had a real-time video feed of the attack being streamed to the White House Situation Room.  Everything here is contradictory and my intelligence says cover-up.

--- Fox News: Exclusive: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

Obama's Math That Doesn't Add Up

Appearing on a recent Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Obama admitted that he struggled with math past the 7th grade.  Well, that explains a lot.  Take this campaign ad that was released just a month ago:



In it, Obama emphatically states:

"And as we end the war in Afghanistan let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home."  

However, the day before, in a 60-Minutes interview, he said this:

"When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

So, this begs the question. How can you use unfunded expenses for two wars -- which drove up the debt -- to pay down the debt?  You can't...and, this is absolute mathematical nonsense.

By the way.  Obama makes that very same claim in his newly released, 20-page booklet on how he would restore the economy.  Apparently, Team Obama thinks that lying about paying down the debt will just escape all scrutiny.

-- The Examiner: Obama to Leno: I struggle with math above the 7th grade level: http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-to-leno-i-struggle-with-math-above-the-7th-grade-level/article/2511708#.UI1yj4ZEbf0

-- The Foundary: Morning Bell: “60 Minutes” Contrast Between Romney, Obama on Entitlements: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/25/morning-bell-60-minutes-contrast-between-romney-obama-on-entitlements/

A Presidential Order That Is Oddly Missing After Our Embassies Are Breached

The killing of our Libyan Ambassador Stevens, three other Americans, and the complete destruction of our Benghazi mission on the anniversary of 9/11 is a big thing; especially from a security aspect.  Then, too, the breach of the Cairo Embassy, just hours earlier, brings the security of our missions overseas into serious question.

Yet, nowhere can I find a statement by President Obama ordering an immediate and complete security review of, at the very least, all of our Middle East State Department installations.  Other countries took that action within a day following the attack on our missions. But, not this President.  Making this so oddly non-presidential; if not just derelict of constitutional responsibility.

Instead, it took a group of bipartisan Senators -- Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Dan Coats (R-IN), Roy Blount (R-MO) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) -- to take the lead on this.  After seven days of inaction by the Obama Administration, those Senators felt compelled to write a letter to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, urging her to initiate a complete inter-agency security review of our diplomatic missions overseas.

This, to me, is just more proof that we have an incompetent President at the helm of this country.  There is no more of an important responsibility of an any American President than to protect the lives of all American citizens; both domestically and abroad.  This President, through his inaction, failed this; both before the Benghazi attack and, then, afterwards.

Lastly, there are some conspiracy theorists who believe that the attack on Benghazi was really some kind of setup of a hostage situation which would have allowed Obama to heroically negotiate a hostage release in exchange for releasing the Blind Sheik; just days before the election.  While this might seem implausible, the lack of an ordered security review of our other embassies seems to support the idea that the lax security at Benghazi was intentional.

--- Atlanta Journal Constitution: Senators urge review of embassy security: http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2012/09/18/senators-urge-review-of-embassy-security/

--- The Center For Western Journalism:  Muslim Brotherhood Behind Benghazi Attack With Link To Obama: http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-brotherhood-behind-benghazi-attack-with-link-to-obama/#comments

Blaming The 'Video' For Benghazi Is Right Out Of Rev. Wright's Playbook

As we all know by now, our President sat in the pews of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for more than 20 years.  In those years, he had to have listened to the pastor of that church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, give sermon after sermon in which he blamed the U.S. for almost every ill that exists in America and  the world, today.  In one infamous speech -- where he says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but, rather, sing "God Damn America" -- Wright clearly claims that the 9/11 attacks are a result of America's own "terrorism" in the world.  Further, Wright's well-known words of "America's chickens have come home to roost" is just another reiteration of this blaming of America.

So, we have a President who must have accepted these words and, subsequently, the beliefs and principals behind them.  After all, if he didn't, he "should" have left that church.  I think this is why, one of the first things that Obama did after taking office, was to launch his world "apology tour".  A tour that never once recognized "any" good that this country has done. 

Now, along comes the Benghazi mission attack where 4 Americans were killed. Certainly, if you have a Rev. Wright mind set, the first thing you're going to do as President is blame America for the attack.  Therefore, its only logical that Obama would set his sights on the anti-Mohammed video as the true reason for the killing of our people on that day.   Never did any Muslim hatred for American principals even cross his mind.  Never once did our President remind the people of Libya and Benghazi that America was largely responsible for the freeing of that country from Gaddafi's rule.  All that Obama did is blame our value of freedom of speech as the reason for the death of our own people.  This, in essence, was our President's figurative reiteration of Wright's words: "America's chickens have come home to roost".


--- ABC News, March 13, 2008: Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1#.UIlP4IZEbf0

Romney 'The Dunce'

On Friday, one of the official Obama-Biden campaign sites posted the following picture and it was quickly reported by the DRUDGE REPORT:

While the most childish among us might have thought that this was both "cute" and oh so true, those who know of Mitt Romney's background know that it is another complete falsehood being perpetrated by Obama.  This from a man of whom we have zero knowledge of how he performed in school.

That supposed Romney "The Dunce", got his Bachelors of English from BYU; graduating with the school's highest honors.  Later, with his wife and young kids in tow, he attended Harvard and graduated with a joint law degree (Juris Doctor or J.D.) and a Masters of Business Administration (MBA).  Overall, he graduated cum laude. He was in the top third of his class in law. At the same time, he was in the top 5% of his business classmates.  Further earning him the prestigious title of being a Baker Scholar.

What's next from our man-child Obama? Drawing mustaches on photographs?

With Newsweek's Decision To Go All-Digital: A Win For Conservative Politics!

Make no mistake about it, Obama and the Democrats could always count on Newsweek to show liberals in the most outrageously favorable light.  Obama, alone, has appeared positively on dozens of Newsweek's covers over the last 4+ years. At, the same time, Republicans could count on that rag-mag to present conservatives negatively:

So, when Newsweek decided to stop the printing presses and go all digital, the print media, as a whole, became a lot fairer.  No longer will millions of people be able to pass a newsstand on the street or in the supermarket, and see cover stories like the one, above, dissing Romney.  This is important, because, all too often, people form opinions based on a magazine cover they see or the front-page newspaper headline they read, without even buying that magazine or newspaper to read the actual story.  No longer will thousands of waiting rooms have copies of Newsweek laying around; praising the political left while criticizing conservatives. For this reason, this is truly a win-win for national, conservative politics.

--- Story: Washington Post: Newsweek to end print publication at year’s end:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/newsweek-to-end-print-publication-at-years-end/2012/10/18/af5b64d0-197c-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_story.html

The Crush Of The Middle Class Under Obama

On the stump and in the debates, the President is at the ready to tout his economic achievements.  He talks about turning the economy around, about creating 4.5 million jobs, about having cut taxes on small businesses 18 times,  lowering the unemployment rate from 10.2% in 2010 to today's 7.8,  and, having been there for the middle class.  But, there is one fact that truly belies Mr. Obama's words.  That fact is the number of people who have fallen out of the middle class under his economic policies.

In 2008,  32 million Americans or slightly more than 10% of our population were either classed as being low income or in poverty; as noted by this chart:

In 2009, that number jumped to around 37 million Americans; or, more than 12% of the population.  By the end of 2012, it is expected that nearly 22% or 66 million Americans will find themselves below the middle class.  That's a doubling since Obama was elected.  All this proves is that America has only gotten poorer, as a country, under Obama.  This is why food stamp usage has so dramatically risen in the last 3-1/2 years.  Why the average family income has fallen by $4300 since Bush left office.  And, proof that Obama's job creation hasn't been for any high quality and high paying jobs.  Truly, there are 66 million people, out there, who can't say they are better off than 4 years ago.

--- Interestingly, the above chart was created by a left-wing, progressive website called "Think Progress".  If they thought that this chart would help Obama and the progressive cause, they are sorely mistaken.  If anything, it only proves that Obama's idea of bigger government has done nothing but to make Americans worse off.  Anyway, here's that site and their story on that chart: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/20/714241/chart-number-of-americans-near-or-below-poverty-level-to-reach-all-time-high-in-2012/

Allred Sees Red After Judge's Decision On The Romney Testimony

Following two days of court activity, it appears that Gloria Allred's attempt to scandalize Mitt Romney, just days before the election, has been foiled.  In a final decision this morning, the judge in the case has ruled that Mitt's testimony in a contentious, quarter-century-old divorce settlement trial will be unsealed and handed over to the Boston Globe; where, I'm sure, it will be published and editorialized.

But, as far as Gloria's court request goes for the lifting of the gag order placed on the combatants of that divorce settlement, Gloria has to go home empty handed.  That order stands.  No longer will she be able to trot out another supposedly scandalized woman to tell her version of a story so Allred can use it to score political points for Obama. People will have to read the transcript for themselves and make up their own minds without having to put up with some televised, partisan mind-bending and distortion of the facts by a  political hack like Gloria Allred and her, possibly, overly emotional client.

Let me also say that Maureen Stemberg, Gloria's client, may have already violated that gag order with some of the things that she has publicly said about Mitt Romney's testimony.

--- Reference: TMZ:  Mitt Romney. Judge UNSEALS Docs, Allred Gets Shut Down: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/25/mitt-romney-divorce-testimony/#ixzz2AJwjYQAi

The Incumbent Rule Should Give Romney The Win In Ohio And In The General Election

Right now, there's a lot of talk about the swing-state polls and how Obama and Romney are fairing.  One of the key swing-states is Ohio; with most analysts saying that Romney can't win the election without winning there.

In the last week or so, there has been a flurry of polls in this critical swing state.  Most show the race close, with Obama leading by a scant 1 percentage point. The Fox News poll, on the other hand, appears to be the outlier; giving Obama a 3 percentage point lead: 46% to 43%.  Now, if you would look at the internals of that poll, you would find that a whopping 9% say they are still undecided but are planning to vote.  This is a critical number.

In a previous blog, I talked about the Incumbent Rule where, historically,  80% of undecideds usually break against the incumbent and vote for the challenger on election day.  If this historical fact holds true, Romney is actually leading in Ohio by 50.2% over Obama's 47.8%; once both candidate's numbers are adjusted for that "Rule".   Because this is a conclusional calculation, the margin of error doesn't necessarily apply; and, consequently, Romney appears to be on his way to a win in that state.  And, don't forget, this Fox News poll was the the only one that was most favorable to Obama in the last week.

Lastly, I think, barring any faux pas on Romney's part in the next week or two, he should win a lot of the swing states; simply because of the Incumbent Rule.  Romney now has a clear shot at winning this whole thing.

--- Fox News Ohio Poll: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/10/19/fox-news-poll-results-support-for-obama-dips-in-ohio/

--- Polling Report: Incumbent Rule: http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

Already, Hints Of Gloria Allred's October Surprise For Romney Don't Make Sense

According to several online sources, Gloria Allred will use a messy divorce settlement, going back to 1986, as proof that Mitt Romney lied under oath.  This divorce centers around a Romney friend and Staples founder, Tom Stemberg, and his wife of the time, Maureen.  By Maureen's account, Romney testified that Staples stock was "overvalued" and further told the court that "I didn't place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company's future."  As a result of that, Maureen (and, I guess, now, Allred) has become bitter over the fact that Romney cheated her out of a significant amounts of alimony money because Staples has done so well.

But, here's the thing.  Staples had just opened the doors on its very first store in 1986; the same year as the divorce.  It was a fledgling company with a very uncertain future. More importantly, in 1986, Staples was privately held.  There was no stock to be valued or "overvalued", as Maureen claims.  So, its very doubtful that an astute businessman like Mitt Romney would have made such a statement.

In 1986, Romney's company, Bain Capital, ponied up $4.5 million to get Staples, as Stemberg's dream,  off the drawing board.  But, in 1986 Bain, itself, was struggling to get a footing because it had already picked so many losers.  In fact Wikipedia puts it this way:

"The Bain Capital team was initially reluctant to invest its capital. By 1985, things were going poorly enough that Romney considered closing the operation, returning investors' money back to them, and having the partners go back to their old positions. The partners saw weak spots in so many potential deals that by 1986, very few had been done."

So, in essence, a lot of what Romney and Bain were doing in 1985 and 1986 were a bunch of business crap shoots.  So, it's no wonder that Romney would have been extremely negative in his 1991 court testimony  -- looking backwards to 1986 -- he would have said the outlook on Staples was negative -- if in fact he even did testify to what Maureen is now claiming; over a quarter of a century later.

One last thing.  Staples became a publicly traded corporation in 1989.  By the end of 1990, the price of  its stock had fallen almost 30% from its initial offering price; meaning that the investment community wasn't too sure of the company's future.  So, Romney's initial appraisal of the company was true when you look at  how the stock traded in its first year or so on the stock market.  However, in 1991, the stock took off and, yes Romney's company, Bain, and Stemdberg were able to cash in.  But, remember, this was 6 years after the official divorce proceedings.

The problem, for Romney, is that a lot of people know that Staples is a very successful company.  So, if they hear that he understated that fact in court to cheat Maureen out of money, they are going to be outraged; especially woman.  Unfortunately, there isn't going to be a lot of time to get the above facts out to counter Allred's tactic here.  She knows this; and, that fact is simply disgraceful.

References:

--- TMZ:  Mitt Romney Allegedly LIED in Court To Screw Over Friend's Wife: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/24/mitt-romney-tom-stemberg-staples-lied-perjury-divorce-case-maureen/

--- Wikipedia: Staples, Inc.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staples_Inc.

--- Wikipedia: Bain Capital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital

On Sequestration, Obama Is Three Times A Liar

In Monday's debate, Obama responded to Romney's comments that "sequestration" will slash a half trillion dollars from the military budget by saying that "sequestration" was Congress' idea; not his. Then, he went on to declare that it just won't happen.

First of all, the idea for sequestration came from the White House.  According to Bob Woodward's latest book, 'The Price of Politics', Jack Lew, Obama's-then Office of Budget Director, pitched the idea to Harry Reid who, in turn, pitched it to Nancy Pelosi; and, those two negotiated the terms of sequestration with their GOP counterparts.  Further, for this President not to have known what Lew was proposing is highly unlikely since sequestration was the key negotiation point to breaking the deadlock that would have ultimately shut the government down.

Secondly, Obama signed the sequestration bill into law; thus further certifying his agreement with it.

Third, with regard to his "it won't happen" comment, the sequestration bill is the law of the land.  It will automatically happen unless Congress acts or our Federal courts nullify it. Its not up to the President to stop it or even declare that it won't happen.  He gave up that right when he signed it into law.

--- Bob Woodward: The Examiner: FACT: Obama’s White House proposed defense sequestration: http://washingtonexaminer.com/fact-obamas-white-house-proposed-defense-sequestration/article/2511489#.UIcT84ZEbf0

Romney: Looking Presidential

I suspect that those on the left think that Obama won the debate last night.  This, despite the fact that Romney presented his facts extremely well.  But, more importantly, the clear winner was Romney because he looked and acted presidential.  I would highly recommend that you re-watch the debate with the sound off; and, then, look at the demeanor of both candidates.  After doing so, I'm sure you will see what I mean.  Obama looked angry and awkward with his neck stretched out and his jaw as tight as a drum.  Romney appeared relaxed and confident.

CNN: Misery Index Predicts Obama Will Win The Election

On October 17, a CNN reporter, Annalyn Censky, wrote an article titled:  "Misery Index predicts Obama will win the election." I can't even fathom that CNN would take the time and space to produce such a major piece of dribble; unless, of course, they're actually in the tank for Obama.

If you're not familiar with the Misery Index, it is a simple number made up of two factors: (1) the current inflation rate added to (2) the current unemployment rate.  Theoretically, if the index is below 12%, the incumbent President will win because the average voter isn't really suffering any serious economic pain. Today, that number stands at 11.8% -- 2% for inflation and 7.8% for unemployment -- and that is why Ms. Censky is saying that "Obama will win...".

My problem with the 11.8% number is that it grossly understates the true economic pain that most Americans are feeling right now. 

First of all, there's the understatement of the inflation rate at 2%.  By protocol, the United States and many other countries measure inflation by "excluding" what they call volatile changes in both food and energy prices.  As a result, the Misery Index automatically doesn't include the "misery" of having to pay double at the gasoline pump since Obama took office.  This represents an additional expense of at least $2000 a year for the average, 2-car, middle class family. Nor, does it take into account the misery of dramatically higher food prices.  Further, the inflation rate calculation uses the lowering of costs for non-essential things like cell phones and flat-screen TV's to hide the fact that essential expenses, such as electrical energy and clothing prices, have gone up significantly.  Then, there's the two most critical inflationary factors of all: The average family income has fallen by $4019 and health care insurance premiums have gone up by $2370 since Obama took office. 

So, if you simply add up all the easy-to-identify negatives from the above paragraph (gasoline, health insurance, and income), you come up with a number of  $8,389.  Taken against the average family income of $54,983 in January of 2009, it means that the average American family has lost more than 15% in purchasing power since Obama has been President.  That to me, is the same as having an "additional" 15% inflation.  This means that the true Misery Index is a lot closer to 26.8% than the calculated 11.8%. 

Then, there is the understated unemployment rate of 7.8% that assumes only 12.1 million Americans are out of work.  But, in reality, that number doesn't include the misery of 8.6 million having to work part-time because they can't find full-time jobs, or, the nearly 10 million Americans who have just stopped looking because there aren't any jobs to look for.  When, all is added up, you get a real unemployment rate that is 14.7%.  That, then, means that the true Misery Index should be raised again; from 27% (above) to 33.7%.

Lastly, there's an immeasurable factor when it comes economic misery in the U.S.  And, that's the misery of having to lose your home to foreclosure or being so underwater on your mortgage that you have no other choice but to walk away from your home through a short sale. 

For Ms. Censky to simply conclude that Obama will win because of some artificially low Misery Index is consistent with what I have always stated in the blog:  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Note: The above annual gasoline expense is calculated on the basis that the average American car uses about 558 gallons of gasoline per year.  This is based on an average driving range of 12,500 miles per year with an average fuel consumption rate of 22.4 miles-per-gallon.  This is a somewhat conservative estimate since "averages" on the Internet vary from 12,000 to 15,000 miles driven per year with mileage rates of anywhere from 21 to 24 mpg.

References:

--- CNN:  Misery Index predicts Obama will win the election: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/17/misery-index-obama-will-win-the-election/

--- Forbes On Losses In Median Income:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/02/obamas-accelerating-downward-spiral-for-america/

--- Investor's Business Daily: Health Premiums Up $3,000; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut:  http://news.investors.com/092412-626848-health-premiums-up-3065-obama-vowed-2500-cut.aspx?p=full

--- September Unemployment Report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

--- Historical Gasoline Prices (interactive Chart): http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Is Gloria Allred Planning To Destroy Romney's Chances Of Winning?

According to both Matt Drudge and the U.K. Daily Mail, Gloria Allred might be planning a pre-election disclosure that is intended to strike a lethal blow to the Romney campaign.   Definitely, she's done this before with Meg Whitman -- running for California's governorship -- and, most recently, with Herman Cain -- running in the GOP Primaries.   Knowing her typical Modus Operandi, I'm quite sure it all has to do with something in either Romney's or Ryan's past that is negatively related to a woman or women.  My guess is that she will trot out some supposedly-wronged woman and, she will do it just days before the election; insuring that there will be little chance for anyone to fact-check the claims.  Further, it will be done early enough so she can guarantee making the Sunday talk-show circuit so voters will be exposed to whatever her claims are; just before Tuesday's election.

If this does happen, I would seriously hope that voters will reject it for what it truly is: The dirtiest of dirty politics. 

--- Daily Mail: Republicans bracing for 'October surprise' as Gloria Allred 'prepares for Romney revelation': http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220526/Republicans-bracing-October-surprise-Gloria-Allred-prepares-Romney-revelation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Why Were We Even In Benghazi?

With information trickling out by the day, we are now getting a clearer picture of what took place in the lead up to the killing of 4 American's and the total destruction of our consulate in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.  The picture we are now able to see is that we had an ambassador in Benghazi who was pleading for additional security as the violence in that country was increasing. Instead of providing the requested  security,  President Obama's and Hillary Clinton's State Department actually reduced it; leaving in place just 3 armed Americans and an additional security detail of 5 unarmed Libyans who were under contract by the Blue Mountain Group (an "outsourced" British contractor). Just what were those 5 unarmed Libyans supposed to do?  Just check names at the door when those nearly 200 armed terrorists flooded the compound?

The real problem here is total incompetence.

You had increasing violence with roving armed militias walking the streets of Benghazi and our government actually reduced security?  At the same time, the fledgling government of Libya had a totally ineffective national guard; unable to even protect themselves...let alone our personnel in Benghazi.  So this all begs a singular question:  Why were we even in Benghazi with a diplomatic mission?  Because, by being there -- without adequate security and amid increasing violence -- our State Department literally gave those now-dead Americans a death sentence.  This isn't just a "bump in the road" or not being "optimal" as the President has declared.  This was gross negligence by an incompetent President and his incompetent people.  This is a President who spent two weeks trying to hide the truth by floating that bogus YouTube video argument; when, in fact, he knew very well, the day of the killings, that it was a well orchestrated terrorist attack that had nothing to do with that video.

All Americans should be outraged!  A lot of heads should roll on this one...starting at the very top!

Related Information:

--- The Telegraph: British firm secured Benghazi consulate contract with little experience: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9607958/British-firm-secured-Benghazi-consulate-contract-with-little-experience.html

--- The Daily Beast:  Despite Threats, U.S. Cut Security in Libya Before Attacks: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/04/despite-threats-u-s-cut-security-in-libya-before-attacks.html

Obama Should Learn A Lesson From His Home State

Moving into 2011, the Democrats of the Illinois State legislature and a Democrat Governor rammed through a 67% across-the-board tax increase in an effort to stop the accumulating red ink in that state.  Now, nearly 2-years later, the bleeding continues and is picking up steam.  It's as if that $7 billion a year in tax increases did nothing.  You see, like our Federal government, Illinois didn't have a revenue problem.  It had, and still has, a spending problem.

What Illinois is finding out is that government spending has a life of its own unless curtailed.  Pensions are rising fast as the base of retired Illinois State workers continues to broaden.  Healthcare costs are increasing because costs are rising faster than inflation and because more people, without jobs, are applying for Medicaid.  The over 9% unemployment rate is stressing all of the state's social support programs.

Like the Illinois Democrats, Obama and the D.C. Democrats want to increase taxes to cure our deficit problems; but only for the so-called rich. They seem to think we have a revenue problem. But, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the so-called rich will only increase revenues by, at best, $85 billion a year; while, at the same time, the federal government is overspending by more than a trillion dollars a year.  So, mathematically, there is no way that simply increasing taxes on the rich is going to solve our deficit spending problems.  If anything, the increase in taxes on the rich might actually result in less revenues because the rich will naturally take whatever measures are necessary to legally use holes in our tax codes to reduce their tax burden.  Then, too, some individuals and their businesses may actually leave the country to move to a more tax favorable country; like Canada.

Obama created most of our massive debt problem over the last four years; despite promising to cut the deficit in half in that same amount of time.   Now, we're supposed to believe that he can fix it by simply taxing the rich.  Obama has an Illinois mentality that matches that state's inability to fix its own deficit problems.  This is why we seriously need to change management at the top and in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate.

--- Chicago Tribune: Record tax hike isn't fixing Illinois' problems:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-28/news/ct-met-illinois-budget-20120528_1_pension-payments-income-tax-tax-hike

Another Take On Biden's Debate Performance

In a followup debate analysis, Brit Hume of Fox News said these significant words about Biden's childish behavior: "My sense was that it was so compelling that people probably couldn’t take their eyes off of it."  In fact, in our house, we, early on, agreed that Biden's performance was so distracting that we weren't actually listening to what Ryan was saying.

Now that I have had time to think about it and have actually replayed much of the video, I believe that Joe Biden was intentionally coached to act that way so that voters would not hear all the "truths" that Ryan would be saying about the failures of the Obama Administration.   At same time, Biden was able to lie and distort Obama's record because Ryan was too much of a gentleman not to similarly interrupt Biden or distract the audience.

The bottom line is that Team Obama didn't want this debate; and, definitely, didn't want to lose it on the facts.  So, the easiest way to do that with someone who is so gaffe-prone like Biden was to make a complete farce out of it.  For that, the Vice President gets a gold star. 

Do The Latest Gallup Poll Numbers Show That Biden Really Blew It?

Gallup's October 18th presidential tracking poll shows Romney leading Obama -- nationally -- 51% to 45%.  This poll is a seven-day, rolling average of daily samples so, it doesn't include the recent Obama-Romney debate results. But, it does include, for the first time, full polling data following the Biden-Ryan debate.  The real question is whether or not this phenomenal weakness on the part of the Obama campaign is a result of Biden's childish debate performance or, perhaps, fallout from the Benghazi embassy attack.  Given the way the media has done everything possible to cover up the Benghazi story, my guess is that this poll is showing us that Biden's performance was a serious negative for the President's campaign.

Make no mistake about it, this Gallup poll is a real problem for Obama.  As Karl Rove aptly noted, no candidate has ever lost after having achieved a 50% or greater rating by mid-October in this particular Gallup poll; definitely putting Romney in the catbird seat.  Or, to put it another way, if Obama was to win, it would be a historic first.

Furthermore, the always-accurate University of Colorado Poli-Sci election model now indicates that  Romney has a 77% chance of winning the popular vote.  That model has never been wrong; going all the way back to 1980.  And, that 77% chance is a very high number relative to past winning candidates.

Update: As of today, the very latest Gallup numbers give Romney a 52% to 45% lead.

--- Gallup Tracking Poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

--- Story on the Colorado University Study: http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

--- Karl Rove Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/rove_no_candidate_who_has_led_with_50_of_more_in_likely_voter_poll_in_mid-october_has_lost.html

91 Million Radical Muslims Means The War On Terror Is Not Over

As noted in this blog recently, the Obama administration would prefer us to believe that the War on Terror is over.  They would have you believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are no longer a threat.  This head-in-the-sand attitude completely ignores the realities of how radical the Muslim world has become.

According to the Gallup organization, about 36% of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world believe that the attacks on 9/11 were either somewhat or completely justified.  Buried within that 36%  is a hardcore and radical group of 7% who do think the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified.  Now, 7% might seem like a small percentage but, in actuality, its about 91 million people.  Even if one-tenth of one percent of the most radical would be willing to kill themselves for the cause, you're talking about at least 91,000 Muslims around the world who could be a serious threat to us.  Of course, there's a real possibility, that this number is well understated.

The fact is that radical Muslim terrorism is never going to go away as long as radical Madrassas (schools) continue to exist throughout the world.  Muslim children, at their earliest ages, are being taught to hate America, Israel, and the Western way of life.  On top of that, you have thousands of radical religious leaders (Imams) teaching that same hate at weekly prayers.  Those two facts, combined, are why 36% of all Muslims even believe that the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified.  It doesn't matter if Bin Laden is dead.  There are millions of potential terrorists who eagerly want to hurt the U.S..

Note: I would suggest that you read this article which covers a speech given by CBS Reporter Laura Logan and which is perfectly related to the above post: Chicago Sun-Times: Reporter Lara Logan brings ominous news from Middle East:  http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/15581902-452/reporter-lara-logan-brings-ominous-news-from-middle-east.html

Statistical Reference: The Weekly Standard: Gallup says only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are political radicals. Yet 36 percent think the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/066chpzg.asp?pg=1

Candy Crowley Performed Just As Expected

The media of this country has the fictional belief that the folks over at CNN are right down the middle when it comes to their handling of politics.  But, in fact, they aren't; and, Candy Crowley proved that point last night as the debate moderator.  She's a liberal and she acted like one; cutting off Romney 3 times more often than Obama.  Overall, she gave Obama more time for his responses. Then, there was that Libya terrorism comment she used to shutdown Romney's point that it took 14 days for the Obama Administration to admit that the Libya consulate attack was a coordinated terrorist attack.  In effect, she saved Obama's bacon by interrupting Romney and lying about the fact that, from the beginning, Obama called the consulate attack a terrorist attack.  Even CNN (according to TMZ: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-cnn-presidential-debate-controversy/ ) is trying to distance itself from Crowley's biased performance because they know it could further hurt their already-floundering audience ratings.

Maybe Obama Should Be Sued Under The Lilly Ledbetter Act!

In last night's debate, Obama defended his record on equal pay for woman by constantly referring to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that he signed into law in 2008.  If you're not aware of it, the "Ledbetter" law extends the amount of time that women have available to them in suing over pay discrimination.  But, here's the problem with Obama even referencing that law.  The woman of his own staff are being paid "significantly" less than their male counterparts; as noted in this article that appeared in the U.K. Daily Mail in April of this year:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html

Maybe Obama's woman staffers should sue him in federal court for their lack of fair pay.  You see, as always with Obama, talk is extremely cheap.

$150 Million In Tax Payer Money To Send Jobs To South Korea

A Compact Battery plant in Holland, Michigan -- owned by LG Chemicals of South Korea -- was supposed to make lithium ION batteries for the Chevy Volt and Ford's electric Focus.  In doing so, it would create 200 new jobs.  So, Obama's Energy Department ponied up $150 million in taxpayer money to support the plant's operation.  Of course, this funding, comes at a cost of about $750,000 per each job created.  What's worse, the plant never created a single battery for any electric car; and, now, those 200 jobs are being eliminated.   The batteries were actually being made in South Korea, instead. Just where was any government oversight?

And so, the ashes of failed, Obama-funded "green" companies continues to pile up; along with the country's debt and unemployment.  The regularity of these kinds of failures should be more than enough grounds for firing Obama's Energy Department Secretary, Stephen Chu.

--- Reference: Fox News: Plant that got $150M in taxpayer money to make Volt batteries furloughs workers:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/08/lg-plant-that-got-150m-to-make-volt-batteries-in-michigan-puts-workers-on/

On Tonight's Second Presidential Debate

There's an old saying: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."  Because of this, psychologists tell us that first impressions are, mentally, nearly impossible to shake.  I think that's why, over the last 3-1/2 years, President Obama has maintained such favorable job approvals; this, despite an apparent failed presidency in so many ways.

For many Americans, the first presidential debate was a chance for Mitt Romney to make that critical first impression.  And, the polls now tell us that it was a favorable one.  In many head-to-head polls against Barack Obama, Romney is now leading; where he was clearly losing before the debate.  But, in most of those same polls, Obama's favorability still persists; proving, once again, that people will resist changing their impressions of someone.

I personally think that most people have already made up their minds as far as which candidate they will vote for; with that mindset being created -- whether they know it or not -- as a result of the first debate and with the impressions that were newly formed.  Even those who didn't watch it may have since made up their minds on the basis what of they have either heard or read about regarding that night.  For this reason, I think tonight's debate will be of less importance than what some in the media would lead us to believe.  If I'm right, the audience size will be much smaller this time around.

Are The Rich Getting Richer and the Poor Poorer?

Back in July, Pew Research issued a report titled: "Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations."  In it, Pew looked at the social economic progressions of two generations of families; going back to 1968.  The report is extensive and its conclusions could easily be politically exploited; especially if you are on the political left and you believe that the poor are being disadvantaged in American society.  In fact, a writer the the New York Times, Catherine Rampell, did just that when she published her analysis of the report, titled: "Richer Rich, and Poorer Poor."  Certainly, her arguments are valid if you simply look at the size of the piece of economic pie that the rich and the poor share today as compared to four decades ago.

In a nutshell, she focuses in on the fact that salaries for the top 20% of American wage earners have risen more rapidly than those at the bottom.  In fact, when adjusted for inflation, she shows that incomes at the bottom have fallen by 62%. I would certainly agree with that conclusion on a simply statistical basis.  After all, the people who make up the category of "rich" in this country have seen their incomes explode over the last two generations.  Professional athletes, with all their endorsements and high salaries, are more likely to be instant millionaires today than a generation ago. The same is true for all those in the entertainment industry.  At the same time, much-sought-out Wall Streeters, CEO's, and select MBA's and PHD's have seen there salaries rise more rapidly than even 10 years ago.

But, the problem with Ms. Rampell's conclusion of a "Poorer Poor" is that it simply ignores the reality that the poor and lower middle class of today are a lot better off then their predecessors Which is one of the key conclusions on page 5 of the Pew report:

"Eighty-four percent of Americans have higher family incomes than their parents had at the same age, and across all levels of the income distribution, this generation is doing better than the one that came before it."

Ms. Rampell also seems to forget that, in 1968, people making as little as $900 paid a federal income tax.  Today, almost half of all Americans pay no federal income tax.  In fact, those at the bottom, actually get rebate checks if they file a tax return. Further, social programs, like LBJ's Great Society, have greatly improved the lives of the poor in last 4 decades.  They are now guaranteed free healthcare through programs like Medicaid.  Most receive welfare checks. Children get free or low-cost school lunches under the National School Lunch Act. There is a similar program for breakfasts. Today, many of our poor have amenities that the poor of 1968 could only dream of; like TV's, cars, and cell phones.

But, more importantly, Ms. Rampell ignores another key conclusion of that report (again on page 5):

"Forty-three percent of Americans raised in the bottom quintile remain stuck in the bottom as adults..."

Now, when you look at that above statement on a more positive basis, it says that 57% of those born into poverty actually are able to lift themselves out of poverty. Certainly, for those who accomplished this, you can't argue that those people got poorer.

Additionally, the Pew report also concluded that only 40% of those born into wealth remain wealthy.  Conversely, this means that 60% of rich at birth wind up being poorer.  Meaning that Ms. Rampell's conclusion of a "Richer Rich" is, in reality, just all wet. 

To me, this report just proves that the American Dream is alive and well for those who "seek" it out.  And, the key to this is education.  As Pew reported:

"Having a college degree makes a person more than three times more likely to rise from the bottom of the family income ladder all the way to the top, and makes a person more than four times more likely to rise from the bottom of the family wealth ladder to the top."

References:

--- New York Times Article: Richer Rich, and Poorer Poor: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/richer-rich-and-poorer-poor/

--- Pew Report:  Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf

--- 1968 Tax Instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040a--1968.pdf

--- Heritage Foundation: Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor


 

Part Time Work May Become The New Normal

According to last month's employment report, the number of part time workers, who were in that situation for the lack of a full time job, rose by 7.2% from 8 million to 8.6 million.  This was a record rise in part-time employment and this fact, alone, is supposedly why the unemployment rate fell from 8.1% to 7.8%. 

The problem with the sudden rise in part time workers is that it could be a sign of the times; and, in fact, a new normal for employment of the low wage workers in this country. And, I think ObamaCare will be at the core of this trend.

The fact is that, under ObamaCare, companies are excluded from being forced to provide health insurance for their employees and will not be fined (taxed) if the company employs less than 50 full-time workers.  Further, even if a company is above that "50" threshold, it is not required to offer health care coverage to any of its part-time workers; those working less that 30 hours a week.  This, to me, is a formula designed to destroy full-time work in America.  If I have a company that employs 49 workers and I need to hire another, I will probably hire two part-timers, instead.  Because, to go to 50 full-time employees means that I will be automatically forced to provide health care coverage at a rather high cost.

So what will Obama tell that waitress or dishwasher when that person has to go out and find and juggle another job; just to make ends meet?  This is just another insane consequence of ObamaCare.

For those who seem to think this won't happen, just read this news story that covers how the parent company of Red Lobster, LongHorn, and Olive Garden is experimenting with part-time workers to avoid providing health care to all of its restaurant workers: The Orlando Sentinel: Darden tests limiting worker hours as health-care changes loom: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007,0,1505128.story

--- Reference: Bureau of Labor Statistics September Employment Report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Americans Favor One-Party Rule?

Recently, NBC and the Wall Street Journal teamed up to take the pulse on whether or not Americans were tired of gridlock in Washington.  Now, if we are to believe the results, 52% of those polled said they would prefer one-party rule.   Democrats, 2-to-1, wanted single-party rule while only 50% of Republicans wanted that status in D.C.

To me, this totally flies in the face of what has happened in the last 4 years.  In 2009 and 2010, America had one-party rule in our nation's capital and it was that party, the Democrats, who dished up ObamaCare without any input from Republicans.  Everything was done behind closed doors.  Even, we, the voters, had no idea what was being discussed or planned. To date, a majority of Americans are still unhappy with that turn of events.  So, for 1,000 people in some poll to say we need one-party control in Washington is ridiculous.  In fact, the best poll around as to whether or not America wants it was the 2010 election where, around the country, and in D.C., Democrats were soundly defeated.

Personally, I would prefer "zero" political parties in America. We have too many unqualified people being elected on the simple basis that they have a big "D" or big "R" after their names.  In effect, political parties dumb down the electorate because party bias prevents many voters from doing their homework on the past political activities of each, individual candidate.  

--- WSJ/NBC Poll: Majority Favors One-Party Control: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/02/wsjnbc-poll-majority-favor-one-party-control/

Californians: You Made Your Own Bed Of Gasoline Shortages

California, in your zeal to have the cleanest gasoline in the country, you isolated yourselves from all the less-clean supplies that the rest of us enjoy throughout the United States.  Your shortages and high gasoline prices are of your own making.  All it took was two major, plant-shutting-down accidents at two very critical refineries -- refineries dedicated to making your state's very stringent blends of summer gasoline -- to send your Golden State into serious supply shortages.  Now you whine.  Like Kermit The Frog once sang: "It's not easy being green".  So, accept your fate.

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein is calling for an investigation.   This is so typical of all Democrats: Eager to imply that any shortages are due to price manipulation by the big oil companies when, of course, the real blame goes to the Democrats of the California State legislature who mandated cleaner fuels than the rest of the U.S..  California only has 21 operating refineries; working full-time to meet the state's high EPA standards.  Take at least 10% of them offline and, you wind up with serious shortages; especially if those refineries were high output plants (see note below).  And, the refineries in other states can't help you out because their blends are illegal for sale in California. So, get over it.  You voted for "greener" fuel standards and you got them.

Note: Capacities of the two refineries that were shut down. The Richmond Chevron Refinery processes 240,000 barrels of oil per day. That is 12% of the nearly 2 million barrels of oil that are processed daily in California.  Exxon-Mobil's Torrance facility produces nearly 10% of California's gasoline.  So, in effect, those two plants produced 22% of all the gasoline in California.

References:

--- L.A. Times: Gassing Up Conspiracy Theories In California: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gasoline-20121009,0,7222847.story

--- U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA): California Refining Statistics: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_sca_a.htm

--- Wikipedia: Chevron's Richmond Ca. Refinery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Richmond_Refinery

--- Exxon-Mobil: About the Torrance Refinery: http://www.exxonmobil.com/NA-English/PA/about_where_ref_torrance.aspx

How Can Any Other Nation Trust Our UN Ambassador?

Following the Benghazi Embassy attack, Susan Rice -- our UN Ambassador -- was trotted out on the Sunday news talk show circuit to squelch the belief that what took place was a terrorist attack. Instead, she was to simply convince Americans that it was a result of that Coptic Christian video that mocked Muhammad.  This was despite the fact that many experts were saying just the opposite, and, over the last three weeks, Rice has clearly been proven wrong.  We now know that there was no gathering protest, but a  a well-coordinated and instantaneous attack.  Note this ABC Breaking News video of October 9th:




Of course, to protect Rice, the White House is now saying that the UN Ambassador was working with "wrong" information.

Make no mistake about it, the leaders of the world are watching this situation unfold.  And, what they are seeing is a Susan Rice, who is either easily hoodwinked or one that is given to easily lying.  Either way, this is not good.  We don't want world leaders to question our U.N. Ambassador's truthfulness.  And, as a country, we don't need an Ambassador who can be so easily mislead into believing something that was logically difficult to believe in the first place.  Then, too, one has to question an entire Obama Administration who spent more than three weeks lying to America.

At the very least, I think Rice should resign or be let go.

Biden Laughs While The Country and Middle East Are In Serious Trouble

OK.  An "occasional" and "well-targeted" laugh, smirk, or even a chuckle can be a "somewhat" effective  technique.  But, laughing and smirking should never be a substitute for thoughtful retorts during a debate.   Biden's incessant laughs and smirks just made him look like Chuckles the Clown.  But, ask yourself this. Is this the debating style that we would want from a person who might be President and who would be tasked with negotiating with an ally or an adversary?

From everything I've read, many of the hardcore left seemed to think that Biden won.  Even, Chris Matthews might have gotten back the "tingle up his leg". But, focus groups and the CNN post-debate poll as well as commentaries from many media types say just the opposite.  Even some typical lefties, like David Gregory, gave Biden the thumbs down for his laugh fest.  Maybe the Vice President revved up his political base. Especially those who might have felt demoralized following Obama's performance.  However, I think the people in the middle -- the Independents and the undecideds -- will think that he showed a total lack of presidential demeanor. One woman in a focus group put it best: "He looked like a buffoon!"



Lastly, we were told  that Joe Biden was taking 6 days off from campaigning to practice for the debate. Apparently, it took all that time to perfect his "smirk". That's 6 days of work just to look like a jerk.

Obama's Labor Department Continues To Campaign For Him With Questionable Jobs Numbers

Last Friday, Obama's Labor Department suddenly found 873,000 workers who "miraculously" came out of hiding and found jobs.  This was the largest increase in the workforce in 29 years; driving the unemployment rate down below 8% to 7.8%.  Conveniently, this "great news" came just a month before the elections.   Now, just 6 days later, we have another Obama-benefiting number from that same Labor Department:  First time jobless claims dropped by a whopping 30,000 last week.  The biggest drop in 4-1/2 years.

With nothing in the Labor Department's official press release to explain this sudden downturn in job losses, the Wall Street Journal had to chase down a Department of Labor's economist for the reason.  The response they got was reported as follows:

"...a Labor economist said one "large" state didn't report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease."

This is total dishonesty by, again, a Labor Department that seems to be manipulating the numbers in the President's favor. There wasn't a single comment, or footnote, or asterisk in their press release to make the above fact known.  The Labor Department simply published the numbers as fact.  As a result, we get unbridled headlines like "Jobless Claims Plunge" and the "Biggest Drop In 4-1/2 years".   All benefiting Obama ahead of the election.

--- Labor Department Press Release: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm#.UHbullFEbf0

--- Wall Street Journal Article: U.S. Jobless Claims Drop to 339,000: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578050233117300440.html

Will Obama Overreact In The Next Debate

Prior to the first presidential debate, strategists were saying that Romney's best tactic was to get under Obama's skin.  That's because the President has a nasty habit of losing his cool whenever someone questions his actions or policies.  And, when he does lose his cool, he doesn't look very presidential.

Of course, we now know that Romney wasn't able to get under Obama's skin in their first spar.  But, then again, maybe he did.  The fact that he beat him has to be eating away at Obama.  After all, it is well known that, for months, Obama has shown disdain for his wealthy opponent.  A man that represents everything that he hates.  For that reason, we just might see him lose it in the next debate.  Again, giving Romney the win because all that pent up anger just won't look presidential.

For Further Reading On Obama's History Of Being Thin-Skinned: Human Events: Barack Obama: Our thin-skinned president: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/01/30/barack-obama-our-thinskinned-president/

Report Link: (1) "...the President also did not take his debate preparation seriously.." and (2) "...the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn't believe he needed to engage with him.": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215173/Obama-believed-beaten-Romney-Denver-debate-ignoring-advice-aides.html

Let's Put "Big Bird" To A Vote

In last week's debate, Romney caused somewhat of an uproar, especially among Democrats, when he said that he would be willing to drop federal dollar support for "Big Bird" and Jim Lehrer.   Well, I have a proposal.

Right now, there are about 135 million tax returns filed each year.  Of those, about 100 million actually have any tax liability and will actually pay taxes for that year.  According to various sites on the internet, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets about $160 million in grants from the federal government to support PBS and NPR.  For the average taxpayer that's about $1.60 a year.  So, let's add a line to next year's tax return that says something to the effect: Enter an amount of either zero or $2 or more in the amount of additional taxes you are willing to pay to support Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR).  If the liberals are lucky, taxpayers might actually give more than is currently being paid to support public radio and TV.

The Follies Hollande

A few days ago, the socialists, now in control of France, announced their new plan to levy a 75% tax on those making the U.S. equivalent of  $1.29 million and 45% on those making a little more than $194,000 (U.S.) in the "belief" that these new taxes will reduce the government debt by $26 billion (U.S.) a year and bring all debt within 3% of GDP.

Of course, this all makes sense if, in fact, France's wealthy just accept their fate and do nothing about it.  But, I think that French President Hollande and the rest of his socialist cohorts are going to find themselves falling well short of their very optimistic tax collection goals and the entire country will lose in the process.

First of all, most wealthy people are mobile.  If a person is truly independently wealthy and living off investment income, that person can do that anywhere.  So, I would expect a lot of wealthy French to pack it up an go elsewhere.  This could cause French businesses to move as well.. In the process, France will become a poorer nation. Further, those that are independently wealthy, but still want to remain in France, might adjust their investment activity downwards to fall below the 75% or 45% taxing levels; meaning the country will lose more tax revenues.  Some might actually punish the socialist government, all together, by stopping all investment income activity. Other talented and highly paid workers might peddle their talents to companies and institutions in other countries; even taking pay cuts because those cuts would still leave them better off than if they had remained.  I could just see a number of French soccer stars pursuing other competing country's teams.

Lastly, I would also expect some of the highly paid workers to actually ask for pay cuts.  Think about it. If I were making $1.3 million a year and the tax level for the 75% tax is about $1.29 million, why not take my salary down to $1.28 million.  That loss of $100,000 to $200,000 would easily offset having to pay an additional $390,000 in taxes.  This would also be true for those on the cusp of having to pay the 45% tax rate.

--- Los Angeles Times: France unveils tax-heavy budget: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france-budget-20120929,0,4668110.story

The Romney "Lied" In The Debate Charge Continues

Obama and his surrogates continue to claim that Romney served up a bunch of lies during the debate.  Yet, not once during that debate, did Obama rebut a single, supposed lie.

The fact is that Romney said nothing different, in the debate, than he had been saying on the campaign trail, all along.  Obama not having challenged Romney on the issues or those supposed lies just shows that the President lacked serious debate prep.  In any debate preparation, job one is to anticipate what your opponent will say and, then, practice how you will counter what was said.  That's what debating is all about.  Obviously, Obama was not prepared for anything that Romney had been saying for months.

Simply, Obama stunk up the place and, now, team Obama is using the "lie excuse" as a kind of deodorizer to try and hide it.  But, the stink is still there.

Media Ignores Romney Debate Performance: Focuses on "Missing" Obama

Since last Wednesday's Presidential Debate, the media seems to be less focused on Romney's excellent performance and, instead, would prefer to analyze why Obama was MIA at that event.  It's as if they seem to think that Romney didn't really win but, instead, the President lost because he wasn't up to par.  Of course, by implication, this means that if Obama was Obama that night, Romney would still be eating his dust.

Anyone who unbiasedly watched that debate saw a sharp and quick-minded Romney who was in control of the facts and looked as presidential as anyone could look.  But of course, the left-wing media just won't give Romney the win on any basis.

Obama Gets Tough When Armed With His Teleprompter

The day after the debate, Obama came out swinging with his teleprompter loaded up with zingers to counter Romney's excellent win.  Many on the left wondered where "this tough Obama" was on the debate night.  But, what you are seeing between the debate and the days following is the real Obama.

Obama is only tough when he's in front of an adoring crowd; where no one actually questions what he's saying.  He has always preferred softball interviews like those with the View and David Letterman or, from the friendly media types at NBC, CBS, and ABC.  When he is truly grilled, like he was by Univision, he doesn't fair well.  This is most likely why he has had so few press conferences in the last year. The bottom line is that Obama is not as quick thinking on his feet as people seem to think.  When cornered with a tough question, he will stammer and stutter and simply try to divert answering that question by going off on another issue or by throwing another question back in the questioners face.  This is a classic defensive debate technique used by those arguing from weakness. That's what we saw from Obama many times in last Wednesday's debate.

We might see an angrier Obama at the next debate, but I guarantee you, that he stands for so many weak positions that he has no choice but to return to his defensive ways. 

--- For Reference: NPR: Despite Obama's High Latino Support, Univision Puts Him On the Hot Seat:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/20/161495589/despite-obamas-high-latino-support-univision-puts-him-on-hot-seat

Mara Liasson's Economic Deception On Fox News Sunday

On Fox's Sunday news show, the liberal Mara Liasson argued that Obama will do well because people are seeing that things are getting better.  One of the economic measures that she referred to as proof of this was the fact that consumer spending is increasing.  Apparently, Liasson wants us to think that because spending is up, people are feeling more confident in the economy and less worried about conserving cash.

It just annoys me when people quote statistics by implying false premises.  Consumer spending is higher.  It's higher because gasoline prices are at record highs.  Food prices are soaring.  Health care insurance premiums are going up faster than inflation. Home energy prices are higher. And, it just goes on and on.  At the same time, wages are at near stagnation or, in many cases, have actually fallen.   This is not better.  And, having to pay a lot more to just survive is not a good thing for Obama.  That's why, on a nearly 2-to-1 basis, Americans agree that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

--- Washington Post: US consumer spending rose 0.5 percent, driven up by higher gas prices; income barely grew:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-consumer-spending-rose-05-percent-driven-up-by-higher-gas-prices-income-barely-grew/2012/09/28/c47051aa-0969-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html

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

A Video That Every American Friend Of Israel Should Watch

A Political Miracle: Obama Gets The Unemployment Rate Down Below 8%

Normally, with a civilian labor force of 154.6 million workers,  the economy would have had to create more than 462,000 jobs in order to lower the unemployment rate by three-tenths of a percent from 8.1% to this morning's reported 7.8%.  But, according to Barack Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics, it only took 114,000 jobs added to do the "trick".  So, automatically, one has to wonder what "magic" or what "miracle" took place in order to make this happen.

Well, if  I was to believe the "Bureau", apparently 873,000 previously discouraged workers --  workers who had just given up looking for work because there were no jobs -- got off their couches; turned off their TV sets; walked out the door; and, just automatically found a job.  Mostly part-time jobs; but, a job anyway.  What's more, this amazing and massive jump in the size of the workforce is something that hadn't been seen in 29 years; at a time when the economy was growing 3-1/2 times faster than the current, anemic growth rate of 1.3%.  Conveniently, this "miracle" occurred just a little over a month before the election.  Also, what's even more remarkable about this is the fact that it occurred within a backdrop of a whole host of weakening economic numbers; especially, disastrous durable goods orders and high rates of weekly filers for unemployment insurance.  WOW! Truly, Ah-mazing!

Note:  Even the former and well respected General Electric CEO, Jack Welch, took an unprecedented stand and accused Obama of "cooking" the numbers.

You realize, of course, this employment number and the next employment number will have a chance to be revised after the election; just as the previous two jobs numbers (July and August) were revised this morning.  Only then will the September jobs report become officially booked.

-- CNBC: Jobs Growth Rises 114,000 as Rate Slides to 7.8 Percent: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718

-- Washington Post: Jack Welch accuses Obama of cooking jobs numbers:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/05/jack-welch-accuses-obama-of-cooking-jobs-numbers/

A Confident Romney Wins The Debate

Mark Twain once said:

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."  

In the debate last night, we saw Barack Obama stammering and slow in his responses because he had to think too much.  Like Twain said.  He had to remember.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, knew the facts and delivered them quickly and confidently; without having to think.  It seems, without a teleprompter, Obama lacks conviction in what he says.  And, that is why Romney made Obama look so bad last night.

A Biden Lie Helps Expose The Truth About The Middle Class

Last Tuesday, Joe Biden, while stumping on the campaign trail, said this: "How they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that's been buried in the last four years".  The stupidity of this statement is two fold.  Once again the VP is trying to push the totally fact-checked lie that Mitt Romney would raise taxes on the Middle Class; but, the larger stupidity of Biden's statement is that the middle class has been "buried in the last four years."  Who does Biden think did that?  Who was in charge?  Did Biden forget which political side he's on?

The reality is that Obama has not been able to help the middle class one iota in the last 4 years.  The average family has lost more than $4,000 in wages.  Health care insurance rates have gone up by more than $3,000 since ObamaCare was passed into law when, in fact, a $2,500 savings was promised by Obama.  And, the costs for food, clothing, gasoline, and energy have all risen at rates we haven't seen since Jimmy Carter. 

--- Joe Biden makes a gaffe on the eve of the presidential debate: http://www.news.com.au/world/joe-biden-gaffe-on-eve-of-presidential-debate/story-fndir2ev-1226487454755

--- FactCheck.org: "a frequent but groundless Democratic talking point, warning that Romney would raise taxes on the middle class": http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/democratic-disinformation-from-charlotte/

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

--- Investors.com: Health Premiums Up $3,000; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut: http://news.investors.com/092412-626848-health-premiums-up-3065-obama-vowed-2500-cut.aspx?p=full

My Prediction On Tonight's Presidential Debate

Both debaters may make a gaffe or two; or maybe more. But, expect the left wing media to highlight Romney's missteps while totally ignoring those of the President.  As a result, Obama will be played up as the winner of Wednesday night.  In my opinion, the only way Romney can win is to have a perfectly flawless evening along with putting Obama heavily on the defensive; otherwise, barring a perfect Romney performance, Obama can do no wrong in the media's eyes. That's my prediction.

Under Obama, Muslim Respect Of U.S. Falls By More Than Half

With many Muslim countries in flames, it is important to look back at the President's commitment to improving America's standing in the Muslim world.  After being elected, the Obama transition team posted this statement with regard to overall foreign policy:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will renew America’s security and standing in the world through a new era of American leadership."

Then, there was the Cairo speech in June of 2009 where the President said:

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

But, after more than three years of Obama, our standing in the world -- especially in the Muslim world -- is less than it was under that supposed "cowboy" of foreign policy: George W. Bush.  In June, Pew Research issued the results of a worldwide poll.  At the same time, comparing those results to the results of a similar poll taken in 2009:

Except for increases in Japan and Russia's favorable opinion towards America, every other category, by country, in this poll has fallen under Obama.  What's most disturbing is that Muslim support for U.S foreign policies has fallen by more than half from 34% in 2009 to just 15% this year.

When this poll was released, most of the left-leaning media didn't report it because it reveals another major Obama failure.  His problem is that he demonstrates weakness not strength  Arabs, by their nature, have a history of respecting strongmen as their leaders. You can't go on a worldwide apology tour and expect the world to respect us.  The President seems to think that his words speak louder than his actions; when, in fact, we all know that the reverse has always been true.  To me, the Pew results speak volumes as to why there is so much turmoil now in the Muslim world, and, let's not forget that this poll was taken long before any dumb YouTube video appeared.  With Obama, there is no leadership or strength for the Muslims to respect.  Only perceived weakness.  Just the opposite of Bush when the U.S. favorability numbers were higher.

-- Change.gov: Obama's Foreign Policy Plan: http://change.gov/agenda/foreign_policy_agenda/

-- Cairo Speech Text: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?pagewanted=all

--  Pew Research: International Poll Results: http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/

The Federal Government's One-Size-Fits-All-Mentality Strikes Our School Cafeterias

People who have read this blog know that I rail against federal legislation that carries fixed values without regard to variables that may exist throughout these broad United States.  More than once I have complained that setting a fixed number for a minimum wage is just stupid because it doesn't take into consideration the costs of living that varies so greatly by states, cities, and communities within major cities. 

When I heard that school children were rebelling against the new cafeteria standards as part of Michele Obama's pushed legislation, The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, I just knew it had to be because the government, once again, decided on a one-size-fits-all solution.

Under the law, the USDA is given the responsibility of setting calorie sizes for meals served in school cafeterias.  So, in the summer of this year they released these new calorie limits for breakfast and lunches being served in our nation's schools:

As you can see, the calorie values are simply set by age.  So, a 6-foot tall, 16-year old male will be getting the same amount of food that a 5-foot tall female of the same age. There is also no consideration of activity levels, rates of metabolism or BMI, gender, or any health conditions.  This is another perfect example of why government needs to stay out of our lives and stop trying to turn America into a European-style nanny-state.

Lastly... This stupid regulation was passed into law in 2010 by the same Democrat controlled Congress and the same Democrat President that gave us ObamaCare.  Also, my guess is that our kids will just get fatter because they will ultimately make up for the loss of calories at school with more junk food outside of school.  This is because, drastic dieting and food deprivation can result in binge eating the "forbidden foods" they once enjoyed.

References:

-- USDA/Department of Education: Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act 2010: Nutrition Standards: New Meal Pattern Requirements (released: The Summer of 2012): http://www.upsd.org/68098930103610/lib/68098930103610/New%20Meal%20Regulations/Meal%20Pattern%20New%20PPPresentation%20PDE%202012.pdf

-- Fox News: High school students boycott school cafeteria over new lunch restrictions: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/18/high-school-students-boycott-school-cafeteria-over-new-lunch-restrictions/