Friday, October 31, 2014

Why Democrats Don't Deserve the Black Vote

Recently, The Drudge Report posted the following video made by three activists who were railing against Democrat policies and how they always want the Black vote but do nothing to benefit African American communities:

I, for one, have always been perplexed as to why Democrats think they deserve the Black vote.

It was a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who lead a Civil War to free Blacks from slavery.  Following the Civil War, so-called Radical Republicans fought for things like voting rights for Blacks in the Reconstruction era.  Then, in 1964, it was white Southern Democrats such as Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. who filibustered trying to block civil rights legislation.  Republicans voted for civil rights by 80% in both Houses of Congress. Democrats only voted to approve 61% in the House and 66% in the Senate.

Now, in the above video, these three Black activists appear to be complaining about just one thing: Jobs.

So, to that I need only present one chart that appeared on the CNN Money site in 2011:

Thanks to the policies of Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, Black unemployment rose to over 20% in the early 1980's; and the disparity between Black and White unemployment was high.  Then, thanks to the policies of a Republican President by the name of Ronald Reagan, Blacks, as well as all Americans, enjoyed one of the longest stretches of lower unemployment since World War II.  To be fair, the policies of Bill Clinton also benefited Blacks in the 1990's, though much of that success was done by building on the policies of Reagan.

Today, under Obama, Blacks are again hurting; just as the video above points out.  They, as of this writing, have an unemployment rate of 11.4% as compared to 5.3% for Whites, and the disparity between Black and White unemployment has returned to the days of Jimmy Carter where Black unemployment was more than twice as high as it is for Whites.

So, then, why should any Black think that only Democrats will benefit them in terms of jobs and a better life?


Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years:

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Radical Republican:

Reconstruction Era:

Thursday, October 30, 2014

A Disturbing Fact: ISIS Is Not Being Defeated

There is strength in numbers. If that is true, then ISIS is strengthening greatly. Unfortunately, their numbers are growing by leaps and bounds.

Earlier in the summer, they were thought to have 10,000 fighters.  Then, the CIA said that, by August, they had grown to a force of between 20,000 and 31,500.  Now, it is estimated they have a militia strength of between 30,000 and 50,000 and, with some experts, outside of our government, saying the number is as high as 100,000.

Obviously, the coalition airstrikes and the fighting on the ground by the Kurds, the Iraqis, and the free-Syria rebels isn't working.  Otherwise, ISIS wouldn't be growing so rapidly.  If this growth rate doesn't abate, they will literally be able to overrun any of the current ground forces that are fighting them in Syria and Iraq.

Then what?


Is ISIS Growing? Feinstein said Sunday on CNN that "ISIS is essentially a fighting force of 30,000 to 50,000 people.":

The True War On Women: ObamaCare

For years, Democrats have claimed that Republicans have waged a war on women; primarily over the so-called "reproductive rights" of abortion and contraception.  As if this is all women care about when they enter the voting booth. 

But, an important issue that should be on every woman's mind when they enter a voting booth should be ObamaCare.

Now, granted, ObamaCare gives them free access to some contraception and four free morning-after abortive meds but, that's where it ends.

First of all, the healthcare law is forcing many women, especially those with families, to lose their existing insurance.  As a result, they are being forced into new plans that may cost them little to nothing on a monthly basis; assuming they qualify for federal subsidies, but the real problem is that almost all ObamaCare health insurance policies are actually catastrophic policies.  Meaning that they have a low monthly cost but carry a hefty deductible of several thousand dollars per year.  And, if they don't qualify for a subsidy, they not only have to pay a high deductible, but also get nailed with high premiums.

Then, too, when enrolled in ObamaCare, it is very possible that women will lose their current doctor if they are not in the network of any of the insurers in the exchange.  At the same time, this new doctor may be miles away and only have admitting and treating privileges with a hospital that is also miles away.  As a result, people needing care are going to emergency rooms rather than travel to an ObamaCare doctor.  In addition, because reimbursement rates are lower under ObamaCare, the quality of care may also suffer.

Finally, there is the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare.

Democrats will argue that millions of low income Americans, who are above the poverty level, will get free healthcare under the expansion of Medicaid.  But, the problem here is that too few doctors and hospitals will accept Medicaid patients because the reimbursement rates are so low.  In fact, only 46% of doctors, in a recent study, said they would accept Medicaid patients; down 10% from just 4 years ago.  It is quite possible that we could get to a point where only a third, or less, of this nation's doctors will treat Medicaid patients as states continue to slash reimbursement rates in order to keep their budgets in balance. This will be seen in mostly Democratic states where high union pensions must be dealt with; such as California.

So, ask yourself this, isn't ObamaCare a major part of the real war on women since it fights against their natural instinct to care for themselves and their families?


Another 25 million ObamaCare victims:

Obamacare Sticker Shock Found in Deductibles, Not Premiums:

Obamacare website won’t reveal insurance costs for 2015 until after election:  States with key Senate races face double-digit premium hikes:

Doctors Begin To Refuse Obamacare Patients:

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare:

Losing Patience, and Patients, With Medicaid:

California Cuts Medicaid Payments Amid Wave of New Users:

2012: 13 States Cut Medicaid To Balance Budgets:

States Can Cut Back on Medicaid Payments, Administration Says:


Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Why Midterm Election Polling Might Be Getting It Wrong

Right now, the Real Clear Politics averages of all polls that are covering the Senatorial elections have the Democrats and the Republicans holding 45 seats each; leaving 10 seats as toss ups and too close to call.  This, then, means that whatever party is able to win 6 of those 10 races will have majority control of the Senate come January.

But, the problem with almost all of these polls is that they don't reflect the historical voter demographics of midterm elections which tend to give Republicans a natural advantage.

First of all, the midterm voters tend to be older; and older voters more often vote Republican.  Also, a large part of the Democrat's base, Blacks, tend not to vote in the midterms. This also proves true for women, who historically favor Democrats. On the other hand,  non-black males show up and tend to vote Republican.

So, when you look at it from a sampling basis, women and blacks are typically over-polled relative to historical turnout rates. At the same time, men and older Americans are being under polled.  This is clearly true in Kansas that has Greg Orman leading Republican Pat Roberts 45 to 44 percent.  There, men were under polled 49% to 51% for women. Yet, historically, men have a higher turnout than women.  Also 45% of those polled were under age 45; despite more older voters expected to show up.  While it is true that sorting out the "likely voters" from those polled helps adjust for the demographic turn out rates, that action still doesn't take into account for the turnout rates of the individual groups mentioned above.

These are the reasons why I think that a Republican win is being grossly understated and why most of those "too close to call" races are probably more Republican than the Real Clear Politics averages suggest.  Thus, expect Republicans to win on the high side of the predicted 5 to 8 seats of the 10 toss up races.


Real Clear Politics: 2014 Senate Races:

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections, but why?:

How the Rise of Reagan Seniors Helps Republicans in November:

2014 Midterm Elections: More Women In The Electorate, But More Men Vote:

Women More Likely to Be Democrats, Regardless of Age:

Obama looks to black radio listeners to boost (black) Dem votes in midterms:

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:  Current outlook: Republicans net 5-8 Senate seats:

Kansas Senatorial Race: NBC/Marist Poll:,%202014%20Kansas%20NBC%20News__Marist%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Obama's EPA Reg's Are At Odds With The Coal Miners

The United Mine Workers Union has been a traditional voting base for the Democrats.

However, Obama's plan to kill the coal industry through harsh EPA restrictions on coal usage may just bring that relationship to an end; and, in doing so, ruin the lives of 20,000 active miners.  But, the pain won't stop there.  40,000 retired workers and their 50,000 dependents and spouses could lose their pension benefits because there just won't be enough active workers left to support those benefits.

This is why, on October 7th, 300 miners picketed on the steps of the main headquarters of the EPA.  So, I guess the President has a choice.  Continue with the current course and tick off the mine workers and other sympathetic union members, or put a halt to the harsh restrictions on coal usage and tick off the environmental wing of the Democratic party.  With both actions costing votes.

By the way.  The pain won't only be felt by the current miners, retirees, and their families.  Whole communities depend on the dollars spent by all those workers.   As a result, some towns may cease to exist with people being literally forced to leave behind their homes in an attempt to survive.


Unions protest EPA power plant proposal:

Wikipedia: United Mine Workers:

Monday, October 27, 2014

Hillary Clinton: Raising the Minimum Wage Won't Kill Jobs

At a recent campaign rally, Hillary Clinton said this: “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”

That comment is sheer stupidity. Forcing higher wages always puts jobs at risk.  It is why union jobs have declined from a peak of 35% of the workforce in 1954 to today's meager 9%.  The same is true for minimum wage jobs.

Millions of minimum wage jobs have already been lost to automation. Raising it will only hasten that trend.

One of the most plentiful minimum wage jobs before the introduction of the fast food restaurant was that of the gas station attendant at a full-service gas station.  Millions of these jobs have been eliminated by the broad application of automated self-service pumps. ATM's have replaced the need for millions of teller jobs.  Self-checkout lanes in grocery stores and stores like Home Depot are also killing  jobs.  Many hotels and motels have abandoned sit-down breakfast, lunch and dinner restaurants in favor of a complimentary self-serve breakfast that is easily handled by only one or two members of the normal housekeeping staff; thus eliminating minimum wage waitresses, busboys, and dishwashers.  

I guarantee, that if there is another 40% increase in the minimum wage to $10.25 an hour in the next year or so, there will be an eventual blood bath of these jobs being lost.

First, small businesses that are heavily labor intensive and already marginally profitable will have to shutter their doors because, to raise prices in order to cover the higher cost of labor, would make them non-competitive to other, more labor-efficient competitors.  Others will raise prices but, as a result, may see a loss of foot traffic because some of their customers will no longer be able to afford the new higher prices.  As a result, this could cause layoffs or, worst case, bankruptcy.  This would be especially true for businesses who are operating in blighted and economically depressed areas of our major metropolitan cities such as Detroit.  Areas that can ill afford any more job losses.

Secondly, automation will become more cost effective.  I could easily see robotic arms, hanging from  ceilings, in retrofitted fast food restaurants, that are able to cook and bag fries, cook and assemble sandwiches, or do whatever.  Kiosks could easily replace order takers and cashiers. All the while killing jobs.  The technology is already here.  After all, look at all the manufacturing jobs that have already succumbed to robotics.  And, artificial intelligence has advanced to the point where we already have self-driving and self-parking cars.  So, cooking and assembling a burger can't be that impossible for a machine to do. In fact it isn't impossible.  A company by the name of Momentum Machines will soon start introducing gourmet burger operations that are fully robotic.  Some hotels are already introducing robotic butlers that would replace traditional bell hops.  Then, too, there is already a robot, called the Vigilant MCP, that is able to replace your average low-paid security guard.

So, go ahead and believe Hillary.  But, don't say you weren't warned when the inevitable loss of jobs begins happening. To me, pushing a higher minimum wage will only hasten to push those kinds of jobs out of existence.

One last thing.  In that very same speech, Hillary made another remarkable claim: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs...”  Well, every month, when the government reports job gains, it's from the private sector.  Typically, 64% of those jobs are from small businesses with the rest from larger businesses and corporations.

She wants to be our next President?  Sometimes, even the idiot Joe Biden makes more sense.  At least he's honest about not being rich!


“Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”:

Labor unions in the United States:

AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs:

The ‘Fight for $15’ Suffers A Setback As McDonald’s Flirts With Automation:

Here's The Burger-Flipping Robot That Could Put Fast-Food Workers Out Of A Job:

Panera Bread Will Replace Cashiers With Robots By 2016:

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers:

Nextep Systems: Self Order Kiosks for Restaurants:

Robot Butlers: Automated Room Service at Aloft Hotels!:

Mass Produced Security Robots Introduced in U.S.:

Employment Report: Table A:

Small Business Administration: Job Creation:

Joe Biden: I'm not rich:

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Both Sides of Gun Control Issue Use Ottawa To Push Their Views

Those who are pro gun control, see the Ottawa Parliament shooting as just another reason to promote gun control here in the United States.  On the other hand, the anti gun control side points to the fact that, if the Sargent of Arms hadn't had a gun in his possession and used it, there could have been many more that were killed. They also believe that, even if the gunman had no access to a gun, the religious fervor of the Ottawa terrorist would have driven him to use some other type of weapon; a bomb or even a hatchet; as was seen just recently in New York.

The simple fact is that, unless two-thirds of Americans turn in favor of gun control, it isn't going to happen because it will take that large of a majority to amend the Constitution's specified right to bear arms.  Further, there are millions of guns out there with nearly every bad guy owning at least one.  If there is gun control, only the law abiding would be left without protection against the evil that resides in this country.  The criminals will always be able to get guns and rifles through smuggling, or through the black market.

Friday, October 24, 2014

A Republican Senate Will Put Congress At War With Obama

Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has only had to use his veto power twice.  The reasons for this are quite simple.

In his first two years in office, he had a fully Democrat-controlled Congress.  So, only "friendly" Senate and House bills were sent to the President for his signature.  Thus, they never put the President in the politically awkward position of having to veto a bill.  Then, since 2010, when the House of Representatives went to Republican control, Harry Reid managed to shield the Obama from using his veto power by simply sitting on more than 350 bills that the Republican House had sent over to the Democrat Senate.  Some are being tied up in Democrat-led committees; while the rest are just withering away because Harry Reid won't bring them to the floor for a vote.

If the Senate turns Republican, Reid will lose his majority leadership and all the Senate committees will become controlled by Republicans.  As a result, many of those idled bills will start being passed and sent to the President for his signature.  Now, most of those bills are not going to be to Obama's  political and ideological liking.  Especially the ones that would kill or delay ObamaCare. So, expect a flurry of vetoes that have never been seen in this country before.  Then Obama will be seen as the obstructionist.  Not Congress.

But, another interesting thing might happen with the vetoing of so many bills.  The President's approval rating may drop significantly.  That drop may force some Democrat Senators who are up for, and at risk of losing reelection in 2016, to distance themselves from him by joining the Republicans in overriding those vetoes.  Of course, that will force Obama to use even more executive orders in order to counter any those bills where his veto was overridden.

Lastly, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully implemented the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, he literally blew up the minority party's ability to use a filibuster to block the passage of certain bills and, the requirement of a minimum of 60 yea votes to approve the President's  nominees to the judicial bench or to any positions in his Administration.  As a consequence, the Senate Republicans lost the ability to do anything to block bills or block presidential nominees.  Many seem to think that, if the Senate goes Republican, the majority leader will reverse the nuclear option. I don't think so. By once again, requiring a 60-vote override of the filibuster, many of those 350 bills in the Senate won't reach cloture and won't even be sent to the Senate floor for a vote because they will just remain tied up in a filibuster by the Democrats.  Thus, if the Senate does go to the Republicans, the minority party Democrats will deservedly find themselves hoisted up on their own petard because they foolishly and selfishly implemented the nuclear option.

Ah yes.  the President's last two years in office could be quite interesting as both he and Congress battle it out in what could only be envisioned as an all out war.


Veto Counts by President:

Stack of 350 Bills Stuck in the Senate:

Thursday, October 23, 2014

For Russia, U.S. Oil Production Is Doing More Harm Than Sanctions

One thing is sure, the Democrats hate oil companies; and they want you to hate them too.  This year they are demonizing the Koch Brothers. In the past, Exxon Mobil and other big oil companies were the targets of their wrath.  Every time gasoline prices jumped significantly, the Democrats held hearings to publicly flog the oil company CEO's for manipulating prices so that they could fatten their already fat profits.

But, nothing ever came out of all those hearings. That's because, secretly, every Democrat wants high prices at the pump.  Only then will consumers shift to alternatives to oil or buy more fuel-efficient vehicles or drive less.

Barack Obama is no different.  Since coming to office, he has used EPA lawsuits -- most of which were found to be without merit -- to stop oil production and fracking operations in places like West Texas. He has blocked the Keystone pipeline project in order to restrict oil supplies. Following the BP Deep-Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf, he has effectively used that as an excuse to limit what had been a previously fast-growing and vast area of oil production.  At the same time, federal oil leases -- both for offshore and federal lands -- have been severely restricted by this President.  Lastly, he has attempted to use questionably endangered species like the Lesser Prairie Chicken and the Greater Sage Grouse to stop oil drilling and production in vasts swaths of the U.S.

But, despite all those efforts, and thanks to private and state oil drilling, America is set to be the world's largest oil production country by sometime next year.  And, we are all the beneficiaries because there is now a glut of oil and prices are falling; with lower prices at the gasoline pump to follow.

Even more interesting is the fact that lower oil prices, as a result of rising U.S. production, might be doing something to Russia that the President's own sanctions over the Ukraine haven't done.  That is, to severely hurt their economy.  Russia is heavily dependent on oil production and exports.  But, as the Russian Central Bank so noted, lower oil prices are threatening their economy. and, that comment was made when Brent Crude was at $98 a barrel.  Today, Brent is selling at about $86 and will probably fall even lower as world inventories continue to rise.

So if President Obama wanted to hurt Russia even more, he could approve the Keystone Pipeline.  Approve more federal leases and back off litigation and the EPA's abuse of the Endangered Species Act to restrict production.  However, given the political influence of the environmentalists and the Democrats, he would rather the Ukraine be handed over to Russia than increase U.S. oil production by one drop.


Venezuela blames U.S for global oil price slump:

Massive Rise in Crude Oil Inventory Sends Prices Tumbling:

U.S. to Be Top Oil Producer by 2015 on Shale, IEA Says:

Russian Central Bank Fears Weak Oil Price Could Threaten Economy:

Court backs Texas revolt against EPA's new greenhouse gas rules:

Oil and gas production on federal lands is in free fall under Obama:

Save a Chicken, Drill a Well - Wall Street Journal:

Critics cry foul as feds place lesser prairie chicken on threatened species list:

EPA backs off on fracking contamination claims in Texas:

EPA’s Abandoned Wyoming Fracking Study One Retreat of Many:

EPA drops action against Range Resources over Parker County water wells:

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

ObamaCare: The Unaffordable 'Affordable Care Act'

Recently, the New York Times reported that ObamaCare enrollees are avoiding necessary healthcare because they just can't afford the high cost of their deductibles.  To make that point, they introduced us to a woman by the name of Patricia Wanderlich who had a brain hemorrhage and aneurism three years ago and who should have a brain scan every year.  But, she is literally being forced to risk forgoing that scan this year because she can't afford its high cost and the high cost of  her $6000 annual ObamaCare deductible.

Literally, ObamaCare is putting people into insurance plans they can't afford and putting them at the risk of not getting the care they need. Yet, the President has said this many times in the past when hyping his healthcare law: "In the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one should go broke just because they get sick."

Well, you can add that lie to the one about keeping your doctor, or the one about keeping your existing  insurance that you are happy with!

It appears that ObamaCare will indeed lower the cost of healthcare in America by merely making it too expensive to see a doctor or, worse yet, get a much needed diagnosis. 


The New York Times: Unable to Meet the Deductible or the Doctor:

White House Blog: Weekly Wrap Up: “No one should go broke just because they get sick”:

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Senegal Imposed Travel Bans And Is Now Ebola Free

Up until a few days ago, Senegal was one of  five hot spots with widespread Ebola infections.  But, now, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that country to be Ebola free because 42 days have passed without another new case.

The way they did it was simple.

They imposed travel bans from all the other countries that have active cases of infection.  They even refused outside humanitarian aid. Yet, in this country, we have a CDC Director and a President who claim that travel bans will only cause the spread of the disease.  Obviously, Senegal would disagree.

As long as we continue a policy of not restricting travel from contaminated West African countries, we will never be able to say that we, too, are Ebola free.


August 22: Senegal blocks Ebola aid flight, imposes travel curbs:

October 17: Senegal is free from Ebola, WHO says:

Monday, October 20, 2014

Jobless Claims at 14-Year Low: Because of ObamaCare?

Does anyone really think the current economy and job market is as good as it was in 2007 when the unemployment rate was at the historically low level of 4.6%?  So, then, why was the Labor Department able to report that the weekly jobless claims number, at 264,000, reached a 14-year low?  Truly, an unbelievable drop of 23,000 in a single week.  This despite the fact that the current unemployment rate is 1.3 percentage points higher than it was in 2007 at 5.9%.

Two things might explain this.

First, we could be seeing "number manipulations" in the run up to the November 4th elections.  Let's not forget that Obama's Census Bureau was caught doing just that very thing before the 2012 elections.  Therefore, there is no reason not to think that his Labor Department couldn't be doing the same with the unemployment claims number.  Having a multi-year low in claims, with the mid-term elections only 2-1/2 weeks away is quite a coincidence.  And, like the last time, the number juggling probably won't be exposed until months after the election.

The other reason might be the direct result of an increasing trend by American businesses towards hiring fewer full-time workers; and going with temporary help instead, or using temp services, contract labor, freelancers, consultants etc.  All of which are not eligible for unemployment benefits when their services are no longer needed.

You can blame this trend of not hiring full time workers on ObamaCare.

Under the ObamaCare law, a business  must provide health insurance to its full time employees or pay a tax (really, a fine) if it has more than 50 employees, all of which are working at least 30 hours a week.  Hiring temporary help or contracting outside labor can easily keep small businesses and franchisees from reaching that 50 full-time worker threshold. It also means they don't have to subsidize FICA, unemployment insurance, or provide benefits such as paid vacations and pensions.

While some economists and politicians might think that lower jobless claims is a good thing, it may be the result of a growing trend towards avoiding employer-provided health insurance.  Something that one of the chief architects of ObamaCare, Ezekiel Emanuel, recently predicted.

So, now we have a healthcare law that was supposed to increase the number of insured but, instead, is doing just the opposite.  At the same time, it is putting American workers at risk because fewer of them will be eligible for unemployment benefits when laid off. 


November 16: New Jobless Claims Fall to Lowest Since 2000:

US companies increasingly turning to temporary workers to fill positions:

For Many Americans, 'Temp' Work Becomes Permanent Way of Life:

Temporary jobs becoming a permanent fixture:

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey:

Census 'faked' 2012 election jobs report:

Obamacare architect: Law will cause ‘the end of employer-sponsored insurance’:

Sunday, October 19, 2014

World Health Org. Says Ebola Can Incubate Longer Than 21 Days

According to the CDC, if you have been exposed to Ebola and don't show symptoms for 21 days, it means your free of the disease.  Well, maybe they should talk to the World Health Organization.  Their review of studies shows that, while 95% of Ebola infected patients show symptoms within 21 days, another 3% won't present any symptoms for as long as 42 days.  Their "Ebola situation assessment - 14 October 2014" on incubation periods reads as follows:
Recent studies conducted in West Africa have demonstrated that 95% of confirmed cases have an incubation period in the range of 1 to 21 days; 98% have an incubation period that falls within the 1 to 42 day interval.
Clearly, some 3% of all those healthcare workers, airline passengers, and family/friends of Thomas Duncan might not fall ill for well past 21 days and shouldn't be given a clean bill of health until a full 42 days has lapsed.  Again, the CDC should err on the side of caution when dealing with this disease.


World Health Organization: Ebola situation assessment - 14 October 2014:

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Obama's Ebola Czar: A Political Move To Hide The Truth About The Disease

President Obama has just named a career political operative, Ron Klain, as his Ebola Czar.  He has zero medical background but is well equipped to navigate the political waters to make Obama's handling of the issue look much better than it probably is.  Obviously, any bad news or negatives will stop with Ron Klain now managing the crisis. And, for sure, keep it off the news and headlines while only being 20 days away from the November elections.

Further, the fact that Obama had to even appoint a Czar simply shows that his choice of a CDC head, Tom Frieden, was flawed.   Klain may be no better.  It was Klain who had the last word on the now-bankrupt Solyndra and other failed "green" companies that were given stimulus funds.


Wikipedia: Ron Klain:

Friday, October 17, 2014

Ebola and the CDC's Reliance on Human Perfection

I find it difficult to  believe that a trained nurse who herself had been exposed to Ebola and who was running a low-grade fever (supposedly 99.5) would have jeopardized the lives of others by boarding a plane.  Yet, she did, and was  diagnosed with the disease just hours after taking that flight.

Then, too, the first U.S. Ebola patient, Thomas Duncan, lied to the Liberian travel security about his having contact with an infected person; thus, gaining travel access to the United States.

It appears that the CDC's handling of Ebola is based on the assumption that humans are perfect and that they would never do stupid things or lie to gain access to this country. Yet, in the U.S., nearly 100,000 people die each year from diseases contracted while hospitalized.  Disease due to improper hygiene practices, unclean toilet facilities, and contaminated surfaces on reused devices such as x-ray machines and other testing equipment.

At the same time, the CDC is giving people mixed signals.

They tells us that a travel ban isn't necessary, and, that they are screening people at airports for high-grade fevers of 101.5 degrees or above.   It was no wonder then, that the nurse thought it was safe for her to fly.  She hadn't been quarantined.  She had simply been told to "self-monitor" her temperature on a regular basis and look out for a high-grade fever.   Only, then should she seek medical attention and be considered a risk to others. However, even though she did not meet the technical criteria for no air travel, she still contacted the CDC and asked for their advice. They told her to go ahead and get on the plane.

Of course, if we considered an alternate scenario, and she did not board the plane she would most likely show up at a hospital with Ebola.  Thus putting everybody in that emergency room at risk.  Not sure that is a good policy either.

I think that the CDC's handling of Ebola falls well short of considering the "human" element in trying to contain the disease.


Ebola Patient Shouldn't Have Boarded Plane, Officials Say:

Liberia says Dallas Ebola patient lied on exit document:

Officials Relying On ‘Self-Monitoring’ System When It Comes To US Health Care Workers Caring For Isolated Ebola Patients:

Hospital-Acquired Infections:  Hospital-acquired infection

CDC Q&A on Ebola: Seek medical care immediately if you develop fever (temperature of 101.5°F/ 38.6°C) and any of the other following symptoms: headache, muscle pain, diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, or unexplained bruising or bleeding:


Thursday, October 16, 2014

CDC Incompetence: Allowing Possibly Infected People To Live Normally Among Us

According to the Director of the CDC, they are closely monitoring all those who treated the first U.S. Ebola patient. Estimates are that this is about 70 people. Now, we are told that another nurse, one of that 70, has been diagnosed with Ebola and, only hours before, traveled by air to and from Cleveland, Ohio.  As a result, we now have another 132 passengers who may have been in contact with this 3rd U.S. patient. But, what about all those other people that came in contact with that healthcare worker either before or after taking the flight?

Obviously, the CDC isn't containing the disease when, in fact, it allows possibly contaminated persons to live their normal lives; including air travel.  How many people have to be infected before the CDC treats this disease with serious caution?

I'm not buying the fact that Ebola is not contagious until there are symptoms.  I hardly think that it is like a light switch when, as soon as there is a 101.5 degree or higher fever, a person is somehow instantly contagious. My guess is we will soon find out that this, too, is a lie.  Ask yourself this.  Why is the CDC trying to find those 132 passengers from that flight if, supposedly, that infected healthcare worker was said to only have a low-grade fever when she took that flight?

One last thing.  I'm tired of people downplaying this by saying more people die of the flu each year in this country than have died from Ebola.  We are only in the early stages and it looks to be spreading.  As a disease, it has a 70% kill rate. The flu kills less than one-tenth of one percent of those who contract it.  So, let me ask you this: What would you prefer to get infected with? The flu? Or, Ebola?


Ebola Health Worker Flew Hours Before Reporting Symptoms:

CDC says it missed opportunities to contain Ebola:

WHO: Ebola Death Rate Now 70%; 10,000 New Cases a Week Possible:


Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Five Things Obama Is Keeping Quiet About Before The Election

Most Democrats that are at risk of losing in the Fall, will argue that Obama is not on the ballot and should have no bearing on their particular electability. However, most political gurus will tell you that the incumbent President always has an impact on midterm elections.  In 2010, Obama wasn't on the ballot.  Yet, his policies were. ObamaCare and the handling of the economy resulted in massive losses for the Democrats; both in state and federal races.

The President knows this, and its why he's attempted to use a number of executive orders this year to prop up Democrats going into November.  But, he also knows that his negatives can hurt the party       and this is why I believe we won't hear anything on the following five key issues.

Ferguson Grand Jury. It has been almost 2 months since the Grand Jury convened on August 21 to decide if the officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown will be found guilty of murder.  By all rights, such a spontaneous event with limited witnesses and expert testimony, should have had a Grand Jury decision weeks ago; and in fact, the decision has been delayed by an extension.  But, my guess is that there is a feeling, or perhaps proof, that the officer is not chargeable and the final deliberation on that case is being held until after the election.  In fact, we perhaps got a hint of that when a supposed friend of one Grand Jury member tweeted that there is insufficient evidence to charge office Darren Wilson. That tweet also seems to imply that there is no more evidence for the jury to weigh.  While some would argue that the Grand Jury is a local issue and not under Obama's control, his Department of Justice is closely involved in the prosecution of this case. The last thing the President wants is an exoneration of the police officer and a resulting riot before the elections.

Bergdahl Desertion.  According to persons close to the investigation of Sargent Bergdahl , the investigation on whether or not he was a deserter when captured by the Taliban, is supposedly complete.  Yet, the U.S. Army refuses to release the results. Nor have they allowed Bergdahl to talk to the press.  My sense is that the Commander-In-Chief, Barack Obama, knows that Bergdahl was a deserter and ordered -- not asked -- the Army to keep a lid on that fact, since there would be nothing but public outrage over trading 5 high-value Taliban leaders for a treasonous deserter.

Final Numbers on ObamaCare Enrollment, Cancellations and Pricing.  Independent studies have discovered that many enrollees are opting out by either never paying their first premium or failing to continue to pay.  The President's Health and Human Services Department (HHS) has kept that actual number under wraps.  At the same time, HHS is well aware of how much premiums will go up this year, but has already said that they won't release any data until after the election.  Believe me, if the numbers were good, Obama and his people would be tripping all over themselves to tell that story as soon as possible.

Boots on the ground.  With the continued push by ISIS to take more and more territory in both Iraq and Syria, the President has to know that airstrikes, alone, aren't working.  I am quite sure he's been told that success against ISIS can only be done with boots on the ground. But, after seeing this President in action over nearly 6 years, we know he will only make the decision to do that until after the election.  Sadly, this "waiting" may have already handed ISIS the key city of Kobani in northern Syria, and may have actually committed Baghdad to a defeat.

Immigration Reform:  All along, we have been told that the American people want immigration reform. Obama blames Republicans for any inaction on this issue.  So, a few months ago he said that by summer's end, he would, by executive order, take steps to reform immigration on his own.  It was estimated that this action would give 5 million illegals the right to stay in this country.  However, in early September, he announced that he would delay any executive orders until after the election.  Obviously, he knows that, whatever he plans to do, would not sit well with a large segment of the public and would hurt the Democrats chances in November.


Ferguson grand jury deadline extended:

Tweet about Ferguson grand jury sparks misconduct probe:

Army Refuses to Release Findings of Bergdahl Investigation:

Axelrod calls Obama's midterm ballot line 'a mistake':

Admin Won’t Release Final Premiums Until After Elections:

Over 80 percent of ObamaCare enrollees have paid premiums, insurers say:

War against Isis: US strategy in tatters as militants march on:

Obama to delay executive action on immigration until after election:

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The Blatant Lie That Ebola Is Spreading Because of GOP Budget Cuts

For Democrats, lying seems to come naturally and is considered a necessary means to an end.  Remember that famous "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" lie that helped Obama gain public approval for his planned healthcare reform.

Now, with the Democrat control of the Senate in serious jeopardy, there is a desperate effort being made and a blatant lie being told. They are somehow trying to blame the spread of Ebola on Republican budget cuts.  The basis for this seems to be an article appearing in the Huffington Post showing the CDC's budget dropping by $600 million since 2010 (the same year that the Republicans took the House of Representatives).  In support of that fact, the writer presents the CDC's budget numbers as follows:
           "2010: $6.467 billion
            2011: $5.737 billion
            2012: $5.732 billion
            2013: $5.721 billion
            2013 (after sequestration took effect): $5.432 billion
            2014: $5.882 billion"

But if you looked at President Obama's actual 2014 Budget submission for the CDC, you would have seen the following opening text:
"The president’s fiscal year ( FY ) 2014 budget request for CDC is $6.6 billion, a decrease of $270 million from FY 2013."
First, it is Obama who cut the budget from 2013 to 2014 with his own budget submission.  Secondly, $6.6 billion dollars is actually higher than 2010's spending level of $6.47 billion as claimed by the Huffington Post author.

Keep this in mind, too.  The CDC had publicly said that Ebola had a low risk of reaching the U.S. or even qualifying as an outbreak.  Further, up until now, it has occurred infrequently and has been easily contained and controlled. So, it is a little hard to believe that a lot money had or would have been prioritized to fight a disease that had so little chance of reaching our shores.  Also, if the CDC wanted to focus on Ebola, there are thousands of studies (some absolutely ridiculous like studying shrimp on a treadmill or why dogs bite) that could be terminated in order to fund Ebola research and training.

However, that fact doesn't seem to stop the left from perpetuating the lie.  Take this rant from the liberal talk show host Richard Fowler:

Then there's this ad that is now airing in States where Senate Democrats are in trouble:

In this last ad, the National Institute of Health (NIH) is mentioned as having their budgets cut along with the CDC's.  That too is a lie.  Republicans have done everything possible to keep funding for the NIH.  From the government's Office of Legislative Policy and Analysis, you get a clear sense of this happening in 1999:
"The effort to double the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget began as a movement among Senate Republicans and has had bipartisan support in both the House and Senate since the first session of the 105th Congress."
 And, that effort resulted in the following:

Year Estimate for Doubling NIH Actual Appropriation President's Budget Request
1999 $15.636 billion $15.612 billion $14.763 billion
2000 $17.960 billion $17.913 billion $15.933 billion
2001 $20.631 billion $20.313 billion $18.813 billion
2002 $23.698 billion $23.042 billion $23.042 billion
2003 $27.221 billionPending$27.335 billion

Clearly, if it had been for a Republican effort, the NIH wouldn't currently have more than $30 billion, today, to fight disease.

Sadly, when the truth is finally revealed, the elections will be over. Just as when the "keep your doctor" lie was finally exposed, ObamaCare had already been passed into law and was being rolled out. As a consequence, Obama never payed the price for that lie in his 2012 run against Romney.


Huffington Post:  Agency Leading Ebola Response Has Had Budget Cut Nearly $600 Million Since 2010:

Budget Request for FYI 2014: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

NIH Budget:

CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak Unlikely In U.S.: 

Office of Legistative Policy and Analysis: 107th Congress:

CDC Studies (A to Z):

U.S. Government Has Spent $682,570 to Study 'Shrimp On A Treadmill': 

CDC Dog Bite Study:

Monday, October 13, 2014

CDC Director On Ebola: "Don't Worry...Be Happy"

With the second confirmed case of Ebola on our shores, once again, the CDC Director, Thomas Frieden, took to the airways to assure us that our government has everything under control.  As if he could speak for the actions of every person who either contracts the disease or who treats those patients, he assures us that we have "decades" of knowing how to handle Ebola.  The problem with that statement is that 99.999% of the healthcare workers in this country have never dealt with it in their  lifetimes.

The world now has two healthcare workers, outside of West Africa, who have contracted Ebola while working with a patient.  The first was in Spain and, the newest is in Dallas. In both cases, they supposedly wore all the protective equipment but, in each case, some unknown errant action must have occurred, proving how difficult and deadly this disease can be.

Now, while Thomas Frieden might be a good doctor, we need to understand that he is a political appointee of President Obama.  For that reason, he wears two hats.  The first is to run the CDC.  But, the second, is to be a political spokesman for the President.  Much of what I have heard in the three news conferences that he has given has been downplaying the danger of getting Ebola.  He has also made certain to depersonalized the disease,  never referring to the first Dallas patient by name.  Instead he calls him the "indexed patient".  Frieden is also saying that the second Dallas patient must have contracted the disease through  a "breach of protocol".  But, the CDC still doesn't know how that "protocol" was actually breached.  Further, he insists that a travel ban is not necessary.  Yet, we know that the incubation period can last up to 21 days before any symptoms are evident.  So, it is possible that a person, who may be days into the disease but not showing symptoms, can safely pass airport security; only, to have full-blown Ebola days later. 

My problem with Frieden is that he isn't being honest with the American public.  He knows that he can't assure that every hospital and its workers, both urban and rural, will take all the necessary precautions when faced with an Ebola patient.  These workers are people and, just like the nurses in Spain and Dallas, they will make mistakes and, by doing so,  put themselves and others at risk.  He also knows that some individuals, who know they might have had contact with the disease, will lie on the airport screening checklist to gain access to the United States; insuring better care than they would receive in West Africa where, in some cases, there is a 90% death rate. Our first Ebola patient, Thomas Duncan, did just that.

Obviously, Obama, too, is not being up front with America.  Just two weeks before the first victim, hit our shores, he assured us that it was an "unlikely event" that would ever happen.  Yet, it did happen and we now know Duncan lied to get into this country.  Then, the President assured us we were prepared if someone does enter the country with Ebola.  Well, we weren't.  On his first visit to the hospital's emergency room, Duncan was sent home with a 103 degree fever.  Then, Obama assured us that  you can't get Ebola just by riding on a bus.  Well, evidently it now appears that you can get it while wearing full hazmat gear.

It's no wonder that people are nervous about the government's handling of Ebola.  When the President and Frieden are being contradicted by such early events, what confidence is there that an actual outbreak will be contained properly?


At CDC, Frieden says 2d Ebola case shows clearly a “breach in protocol” in treating the indexed patient:

Obama: You Can't Get Ebola 'Sitting Next to Someone on a Bus;' CDC: 'Avoid Public Transportation':

Dallas County prosecutor considering criminal charges against Duncan for lying on the questionnaire:

Ebola Victim Thomas Eric Duncan Sent Home From Hospital With 103 Fever:

3 more people under observation for Ebola in Spain:

Ebola typically kills 90% of those infected:

Two Weeks Ago, Obama Said Ebola in the United States was Unlikely:


Saturday, October 11, 2014

Pelosi: Democrats Will Sweep 2016 Elections

In a recent interview with The, Nancy Pelosi predicted a Democratic sweep of the congress and the presidency in 2016.  Of course, one can't forget her last big prediction. In 2010, when asked "If your party does lose the House would you step aside as leader?", she said:

"First of all, I don't accept that premise in any way shape or form. The momentum is with us. We are out there to dispel many of the misrepresentations that have been going out there for nearly two years by the Republicans and the special interests, the oil industry, the health insurance industry, the banks and their allies....And we believe that six weeks from today, six weeks from Wednesday of this week we will have no regrets but instead we will have a great Democratic victory."
Well, as we all know, in 2010, the Democrats lost a record 680 seats in federal and state legislatures and the Republicans wound up controlling the House of Representatives and 29 of 50 Governor's seats and gained the dominant control of 26 state legislatures; leaving the Democrats only controlling 15.

I think it's great that Nancy Pelosi thinks there will be a Democratic sweep.  Given how wrong she was in 2010, it must mean that the Republicans will win big in 2016; including the presidency.


October 2014: Pelosi: Dems will take Congress, WH in '16:

September 2010: Nancy Pelosi: 'Momentum Is With Us. Confident About Election':

2010 Election Results:,_2010

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Will The Label 'Do Nothing Congress' Backfire On Democrats In November

Ever since 2010, when the GOP took control of the House of Representatives, liberals and the liberal media have referred to them as a "Do Nothing Congress" because the President and the Democrats have been unable to get any of their liberal agenda passed through the GOP-controlled House. Of course that moniker also includes the Democrat-controlled Senate.  So, from a public opinion standpoint, they are both "do nothings".  This is why Congress, as a whole, has historically low approval ratings.

Going into the fall elections, when the Democrats desperately need to keep Senatorial control, the liberal name callers may have unwittingly set up a negative branding of their own candidates who are seeking reelection in typically GOP voting states.  And, I think this is why -- at least partly -- that 7 existing Democrat Senate seats are currently up for grabs going into November. This according to today's Real Clear Politics aggregate polling results.

Seven seats that just might give the control of the Senate to the Republicans.


A 'do-nothing Congress'?:

Rachael Maddow:

No surprise public approval of Congress at rock-bottom:

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

CNBC Poll: Only 24% Give Obama Good Marks On The Economy

Just last week, President Obama gave a speech at Northwestern University to hype his economic accomplishments.  But, as I have said before in this blog, people aren't feeling real good about their particular economic situations because their incomes are still lower than when Obama took office; and, most of the jobs created are low paying.  Note this pictorial from a New York Times article on that very topic:

Click on image to zoom

This is why, in the latest CNBC poll, Obama only gets a 24% approval rating on the economy; down from 33% a year ago.

However, this seems to escape the folks at CNBC.  They seem perplexed by the fact that the President's poll numbers are so low even with an improving economy.  In the video (see first link below), CNBC's Chief Economist, Steve Liesman can't understand why improving unemployment numbers haven't helped the President.  But, Liesman, like so many other cheerleaders and apologists for Obama, would be well advised to look at the low quality of those falling unemployment numbers.  Maybe, then, he would understand why people don't like the current handling of the economy.


October 7th: Confidence in Obama on economy sinks to new low:

October 2nd: Obama Touts Economic Gains Under His Watch:

Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones:

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

The Shameful Politicization of Ebola

Former presidential Chief of Staff and close adviser to President Obama, Rahm Emmanuel once said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." Thus, implying that any crisis can be used to your political advantage.  So, its no wonder that Ebola is being used (abused) in that very fashion.

Louis Farrakhan, in order to gin up more black hatred of whites, claims that Ebola was weaponized by the CIA to kill blacks while sparing whites.  For sure, Obama's former pastor, Reverend Wright, can't be too far behind on this theory either.  He's already on record claiming that HIV/AIDS was invented by white people to kill off blacks and gays.

MSNBC claims that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is making Ebola worse because the President's nominee for Surgeon General is being blocked by the efforts of that group. In other words:  How can we fight Ebola without the nation's top doctor on the job? 

Then there is the inevitable: Blaming Ebola on Global Warming.  Even, the liberal online magazine '' isn't buying this one.  In their article 'Stop Saying Global Warming Caused Ebola!', they chastised the numerous attempts to link Ebola to climate change.

Finally, there's this from liberal activist and former Special Adviser To President Obama, Van Jones:  Democrats should use Ebola as a campaign weapon against the Republicans; arguing that Ebola shows the need for big government to handle these types of  problems.  This, even though the current system seemed to muff the quick and decisive handling of the Dallas victim.

What next?  Maybe vegans will warn people to not eat meat since that's how Ebola was initially transmitted, although the original transmission of the disease came from bush meats like fruit bats, gorillas, rats, and monkeys and, not domestically raised animals.

All these claims are from the left.  The only way the GOP can politicize Ebola is if things go terribly wrong in the government's handling of the disease.  What are the chances of that happening?  Well, just think about shovel-ready jobs, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the roll out of ObamaCare, ISIS, Syria, what's happening in Iraq and, the endless mishandled problems by this President and his people.


Rahm Emanuel: You never let a serious crisis go to waste:

Farrakhan Crawls Out From Under Rock To Declare Whites Invented Ebola To Kill Blacks:

The Fact Checker: Reverend Wright's Wild Claims:

How the NRA is making the Ebola crisis worse:

Stop saying global warming caused Ebola!:

Van Jones: Dems Should Use Ebola As Campaign Talking Point Against GOP:

Why West Africans keep hunting and eating bush meat despite Ebola concerns:

Monday, October 6, 2014

Does Obama Think Warren Buffett Is Unpatriotic?

Pictured above, liberal billionaire Warren Buffett is apparently a well respected person to whom the President is clearly intent on listening to.  In fact, in 2011, Barack Obama couldn't speak of Warren Buffet enough while promoting increased taxes on millionaires because, in the past, Buffett has actively criticized our tax system for letting the rich pay a smaller share of their income than those in the middle class.  By what he calls the Buffett Rule, the President's 2011 tax plan would increase the top income tax rate to 30%.  Unfortunately, for Obama, the Buffett Rule was never passed into law because there were never enough Senate votes to enact it.

But, that was then and, now, Buffett, may just be on the President's sh*t list.

That's because, Burger King -- a company that Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate has a $3 billion stake in, and for which he would receive a handsome annual 9% interest payment  -- is now using Buffet's money to move its headquarters to Canada to avoid paying high taxes in the U.S.. This is done by using a process called corporate inversion or tax inversion.  Just this year, Obama has called such actions "unpatriotic".

So, with that, is Warren Buffett -- who is vehemently defending the Burger King's tax inversion deal because, of course, he is a rich guy who will only get richer because Burger King can duck U.S. taxes -- now "unpatriotic" by Obama's very public definition?

Of course, one thing is sure.  Buffett's backing of tax inversion has put the President in a box where he can never again refer to the Buffett Rule when trying to push higher taxes on the rich.  Nor, can Obama ever criticize corporate tax inversions. Because to do so would force him to criticized Buffett;  a major and very influential donor to liberal causes and liberal politics.


Picture Source: 2011: Obama Meets With Warren Buffett:

Buffet Rule:

Obama: Offshore 'Tax Inversions' Are Unpatriotic: 

Warren Buffett stands by Burger King deal:

Why Burger King Is Paying 9% for Warren Buffett’s Blessing:

Sunday, October 5, 2014

Will A Flood Of Ebola Victims Seek Refuge In The U.S.?

One thing we clearly know about Ebola is that the countries in West Africa, where these infections are originating, lack the medical conditions to effectively fight the disease and save lives.  For that reason, every time an American contracts the disease, they are airlifted back to the states in order to get critically needed medical care.

Therefore, it seems to me that some West Africans, who suspect they are infected, may well try to reach the United States in order to save their own lives.  After all, the current airport screening  method is simply to take each passenger's temperature and have them fill out a questionnaire so officials can try and ascertain if they were exposed.  That's it.

But, let's say someone knows they are exposed and desperately needs access to U.S. medical services.  As noted by the DailyMail, a passenger could minimize their fever by taking ibuprofen.  Then, it's just a simple matter of lying on the questionnaire.   The latter is apparently what happened in the case of the Dallas Ebola patient from Liberia, Thomas Duncan.

Just two weeks before Duncan showed up in Dallas, Obama said: "In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we’ve taken new measures so that we’re prepared here at home."  But the unlikely happened and we weren't prepared.  Because, Thomas Duncan went to the hospital emergency room, demonstrating all the symptoms of Ebola and he was sent home. While the Centers for Disease Control are busy locating anyone who had contact with Duncan, there still remains the fact that he was able to "reach our shores" and that is not being addressed.

For this reason, I think that the Obama Administration would be well advised to restrict air travel to and from the infected areas of West Africa.  Otherwise, we nay have a flood of Ebola victims seeking care in the U.S. and putting each and everyone of us at risk.

Lastly, the beginning of the flu season is just around the corner and, we know that Ebola first demonstrates itself with flu-like symptoms.  I can't imagine what chaos we will see as hospitals and doctors try to sort out possible Ebola from the common flu.  Another reason why travel restrictions should be paramount for controlling the entry of Ebola patients to our country.


How to get into America with Ebola: Ibuprofen and a lie:

Liberia, US Hospital Both Say Ebola Patient Lied About Exposure:

Obama, Two Weeks Ago: 'Chances of an Ebola Outbreak Here ... Extremely Low' (unlikely):

Saturday, October 4, 2014

On the Economy: Obama Our Used Car Salesman

Americans harbor a negative stereotype of a used car salesmen as someone who will try to sell you a car by emphasizing the positives and hiding those ugly flaws that often turn your shiny new purchase into a lemon. That's what the President did on Thursday, when he began to hype his record on the economy.

While he can talk about all kinds of economic positives since taking office, there is really only one thing that my countrymen use to measure the economy: their paychecks.

And, this is where the Obama-economy falls far short.

In 2009, when the President took office, the median household income was $51,190.  In the latest report, the Census Bureau shows the median household income in 2013 was $51,900 or up just 1.3%.  That's an average increase of only $177 a year.  At the same time, the prices of many of the things we buy have gone through the roof.  Beef, for example, has gone up 56% since 2010.  In fact, most food prices, this year alone, are rising faster than both incomes and inflation.  Additionally, despite a wealth of low-cost natural gas, electricity rates are soaring because of the high cost of adding wind and solar.

This simple fact is why Obama, in poll after poll, gets horrible marks on his handling of the economy.  In a recent Pew poll, respondents only gave the President a 39% approval.  Worse than that was the recent Gallup poll where he only scored a 35% approval on the economy.

Obama appears to be on a fool's errand. He runs around the country, making speech after speech, telling Americans how great the economy is.  People aren't going to buy it because they clearly aren't feeling it.


Obama Touts Economic Gains Under His Watch:

Household Incomes 2009 and 2010:

Five Years Of Recovery Haven’t Boosted The Median Household Income:

Beef prices hit record high:

As Food Prices Rise, Fed Keeps a Watchful Eye:

Electricity Price Index Soars to New Record at Start of 2014:

Summary of Polls: President Obama and the Obama Administration:

Friday, October 3, 2014

Three Terrorist Acts, That Aren't Called Terrorism

I think most people would agree that the beheading of a female employee in Moore, Oklahoma by a radical Muslim male co-worker is a form of terrorism, though not the FBI or the local police.  They are both referring to this as an act of workplace violence.

The same is true with the Fort Hood Shooting.  Now, 5 years after the fact, it is still defined as  workplace violence.  Further, the U.S. Treasury has refused to label the Boston Marathon bombing a terrorist act.  As a result, in all these cases, the victims and their families are being denied access to federal funds under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

An important question though, is why aren't these horrendous events not being considered terrorism by The President?  Is it because Obama doesn't want to admit that, under his watch, there have been acts of terrorism on U.S. soil?  Something that never happened after 9/11 with Bush in charge. Or, is it because he doesn't want to admit that Al Qaeda and others still exist? After all, in November of 2012 he said this: “Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.” 

The simple fact is that terrorism does exist and, the radicals that commit these acts are growing in strength and numbers.  The worst kind of terrorism that we have to deal with is that which is associated with radical Islam.  Radicalized Muslims not only believe that violence against "infidels" is a good thing but, also, that dying while committing this violence is an act of martyrdom and an immediate path to heaven.  Contrary to Obama's politically motivated lie that Al Qaeda was "decimated", the truth is that its still alive and growing.

I think this Administration needs to start recognizing terrorism where it exists.  Not to do so results in our President having to admit that he and his National Security Director James Clapper underestimated the ISIS threat.  It would also have meant that, perhaps, both the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Foot Hood Shooting could have been avoided because, in both cases, the FBI had the perpetrators in their sights but did nothing.  And, one also has to wonder why the Oklahoma beheader wasn't on the FBI's radar with all the radical postings on his quite public Facebook page.


Scarborough Scalds FBI for Labelling OK Beheading 'Workplace Violence':

Boston Marathon Victims Denied Insurance Reimbursement Because Bombing Was ‘Not Act of Terrorism’:

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act:

Boston bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev penned confession in boat: report The 19-year-old, who was hiding from cops, left a message confessing to the Boston Marathon bombing. The confession reportedly said he and his brother planted the bombs in retaliation for U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack:

Jihad Against Infidels and Democracy:

Obama: U.S. underestimated rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria:

‘SHARIA LAW IS COMING!!!!’ Oklahoma Beheader Celebrated Terrorists, Disparaged Non-Muslims On Facebook:

Did the FBI miss a chance to stop Tamerlan Tsarnaev?:

Fort Hood Shooting: FBI Fights Claims It Ignored Intel on Hasan:,8599,1937574,00.html

Al-Qaeda hasn't gone away, and is gaining: