Sunday, September 30, 2012

Obama List of Accomplishments


First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
• First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
• First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
• First President in History to be raised by Atheist mother, grandfather and grandmother.
• First President in History to have Communist Father.
• First President in History to be mentored by Marxist Socialist Radicals.
• First President to violate the War Powers Act.
• First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
• First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
• First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party, a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
• First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.
• First President to recommend changing our National Anthem as it portrays and promotes violence and is warlike in its theme.
• First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer Breakfast and activities.
• First President to initiate a Cash for Clunkers Program to clean up exhaust that adds to global warming, then extended it because it • was so popular — wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
• First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
• First President to bypass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
• First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

• First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
• First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
• First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
• First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
• First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

American voters need to take these Obama “Accomplishments” seriously. It doesn’t matter what color you are or what party you support, Americans MUST see the truth before its too late. Obama accomplishments are serious detriments to America long term. Don’t let these “accomplishments” by Obama continue or America will surely be reduced to rubble

More Obama Accomplishments

• First President to tell a major manufacturing company which state they are allowed to locate a factory in.
• First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
• First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
• First President to fire an inspector general of Americorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
• First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
• First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 100 to date.
• First President to pledge complete transparency while campaigning, then hide his medical, educational,and travel records.
• First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
• First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’.
• First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.
• First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
• First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
• First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an and tells us that the early morning Islamic call to worship is the most beautiful sound on earth.
• First President to NOT visit the WWII Memorial in Bedford VA on D Day – every President has visited the memorial on D Day since the memorial was constructed. President Obama has not visited the Memorial on D Day since he’s been in office. The past 2 years he chose to go on Campaign trips instead.

Now it is up to us Freedom-loving Americans to see to it that Obama is fired after his FIRST term. May God bless America again. Stay safe, and be aware of your surroundings.

Obama Accomplishments - List of Accomplishments by Obama

Do your homework. We can't trust Obama or the Press

Right after Obama was elected he stated I've got four years and … A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Now clearly Obama did indeed inherit a mess. This there is no doubt. There is however enough blame to go around. Did Bush make mistakes and screw some things up? Yes, but to lie and lay all the blame on Bush's shoulders is just cowardly and not the truth. Obama's lapdogs in the lame stream press have never stopped blaming everything on him. Are they just ignorant, incompetent journalists? Or are they just plain stupid. Do I think they are stupid? No, I don't think so. I believe they know exactly what they are doing. Most have spent a lot of time being educated and have all kinds of degree's. So I think a lot of them are just plain lazy and have a liberal agenda. You see they know from history that if you tell a huge lie and repeat over and over again you can brainwash the masses. This makes them dangerous. This is also not some new phenomenon. Thomas Jefferson said it best... As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers. 1806

Now we all know what happened to the economy. It was like the perfect storm. Too much government spending leading to too much debt. The collapse of the banking institutions and the housing market. Bush was definitely guilty of grossly over spending. The major cause of the collapse however was the failure of the banks and housing markets. This Bush tried to warn us about. Several times. In fact 17 times in 2008 he warned and pleaded with congress to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This was as we know blocked every time by the socialists Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. These two mental midgets are the ones Barack Obama should be calling out if he was an honest person. Its really hard to use the word honest and Obama in the same sentence. The two are polar opposites. Oh yea and by the way this stoke of unbelievable stupidity started with Jimmy carter back in 1977. It was called a nice compassionate, "Community reinvestment act." Under Carter and Clinton they forced the banks to relax the standards of lending requirements to minorities, and low income individuals applying for home mortgage and small business loans. Regardless if they could afford the loans or not. What a stroke of genius.           So what does all this ranting boil down too? We have a dishonest anti constitution President and a lame excuse for a press corp. Now you definitely can't trust this President to get the truth. The press however does manage to squeeze bits of it in little drips and drabs. So you really have to dig around and do your own homework to get at the truth. Our founders tried to warn us of this, if we are ignorant and expect to remain free we're only fooling ourselves and insuring that the next generation will be less free than we are now. We are lucky though, unlike in Jefferson's day. We have a fantastic tool called the internet. We have a vast amount of information at our finger tips. Use it and put an end to ignorance. 

Top White House Adviser Defends Obama’s Decision to Fundraise After Libya Terror Attack

I Don't think there is any good excuse. Top country Leaders come to this Country and your out raising money for yourself??  What a self centered gutless Stingy  Douchbag only thinking about yourself! When the Iran Hostage deal was going on our second worst President at least stayed at the Whitehouse during this issue. We had Officials Murdered and Top Leaders of other countries here and he is out to Fundraisers.....Pathetic!

White House senior adviser David Plouffe on Sunday defended President Barack Obama’s decision to attend a Las Vegas fundraiser after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, saying he is “on call 24/7.”
NBC “Meet the Press” host David Gregory asked Plouffe whether knowing that the Libya assault was a terrorist attack made it seem inappropriate in retrospect to engage in “politics as usual.”
“No,” Plouffe replied. “The president obviously is 24/7 engaged in the job of the presidency. He has spent an enormous amount of time in these weeks, by the way, in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. So absolutely not. A president is on call 24/7, and that just comes with the job.”
When Gregory pointed out that “24/7″ didn’t extend meeting with foreign leaders in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, but did put in an appearance on “The View.”
“This president has been obviously in constant contact throughout these four years with world leaders,” Plouffe said.
It’s a similar argument that senior Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs gave last week when he said Obama is the “president of the United States every minute of every day.”

If this would have been a Republican doing this all the Liberal Hacks in the Media would have been all over this!


Chris Christie: Stop Lying, Mr President

George Stephanopoulos is an Obama spokesperson. He is an Idiot or a "Wuss"

Liberal talking points....

When I was in California and now home I noticed all the Liberals(Dems) running for office are talking the same thing against the GOP runningmates. They are saying The GOP person voted against tax cuts, sent jobs overseas, wanting to get rid of medicare.. Well I checked into the local people here and the Republican did not vote against tax breaks for middle class (BS) Jobs going overseas is a thing with corporations. Lots of them do it to get their products into other markets cheaper, and yes because of lower taxes and cheaper labor. Can you blame them? Obama supported alot of overseas jobs with our tax dollars and GE (Obama's Best Buddy) Closed the light bulb factory and they re-opened one overseas(China I think) and no one mentions anything about him being involved.
   These Libs that are using the Medicare cuts as an elecion tool are blowing hot air. If nothing is done to restructure the entitlement progreams they wont be around for people down the road (empty promises I guess)

Video Proof: Obama Knew Libya Was Terror Attack Within 24 Hours

Over at the corrupt Politico, Josh Gerstein has discovered video of Obama's morning-after admission that what happened two weeks ago in Libya was "terror." But as you would expect from the corrupt Politico, Gerstein is spinning his find as some kind of proof that the Obama White House has not engaged in a systematic cover up of what really happened that fateful day. The truth, however, is that the video proves the exact opposite -- that Obama knew almost immediately that this was a terrorist attack and then had his Administration spend a week covering that fact up.

Watch for yourself:

TRANSCRIPT: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
You can read the entire statement at the link. The President was speaking specifically about Libya and not off the cuff. This was a prepared statement, not a slip of the tongue.
So now we have video proof that the president knew this was an act of terror the morning after the attack. This fits perfectly with what we've learned over the past few days regarding U.S. intelligence. Numerous news outlets are now reporting that within 24 hours of the attack, our government knew that what happened in Libya had been a terrorist committed by al-Qaeda.
And yet, for days and days and days afterward, the Obama Administration lied to the media and to the American people in order to spare themselves from headlines that would read: American Ambassador Assassinated By Al-Qaeda on 9/11 Anniversary -- because they knew those headlines would only raise questions about security and undermine the narrative Obama had fabricated that told us his "smart power" and apology tours had made us safer.
Team Obama also knew the truth would shake up the presidential race, and not to their advantage.
So instead of telling us the truth, the media and the Obama Administration embarked on a coordinated cover up. For seven days, the media feigned outrage over Romney's criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology and made sure that "gaffe" swamped the news cycle. In the meantime, the White House trotted out the absurd story that what happened in Libya was the result of a spontaneous protest over a video gone awry.
Then, on Saturday, in the dead of night, the filmmaker in question was hauled in for questioning as the locusts in our media breathlessly snapped pictures. Things would only get worse on Sunday morning when UN Ambassador Susan Rice was trotted out to all the news shows to, yes, lie.
On behalf of an Administration that knew it wasn't true, Susan Rice looked America and the media in the eye and told all of us that the planned and successful assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens by al-Qaeda was nothing more than a protest gone bad.
Obama's White House spokesman Jay Carney would then go on for days to double down on this lie.
Moreover, Obama would then go on Univision, "The View" and before the United Nations to further this fabrication. Yes, just as recently as a couple of days ago, Obama blamed a film for what he knew the day after the attack was a terrorist attack.
This is a scandal of the highest order. For purely political purposes, the Obama Administration and the President himself have repeatedly lied to the American people. And not only is the media refusing to crystallize this story into the scandal it is, the media is a willing co-conspirator.

New Contract Earns Chicago Schools 2nd Credit Downgrade – In One Quarter

And to think this must not bother Liberals at all when this happens? As long as Liberals are in charge I can see this to continue to happen.

Sound financial management clearly wasn’t a concern to any party involved in the recent contract negotiations in Chicago Public Schools.
They were warned that new labor expenses might result in a credit downgrade for the financially-strapped school district, and they chose to ignore it.
Now it has comes to pass. The credit rating agency Moody’s has downgraded the school district for the second time in one quarter.
Moody’s wrote:
“The negative outlook reflects the school district's budgeted depletion of reserves to fund ongoing operations in fiscal 2013; the moderate additional unbudgeted salary costs of labor contract negotiations, which have not yet been ratified by CTU; an estimated $1 billion budget deficit for fiscal 2014; and the sizable increase in pension contributions following a three-year relief period. Significant budget adjustments will be necessary, but the demonstrated power of collective bargaining suggests that future budget controls may be difficult for the district to implement.”
Chalk one up for the Chicago Teachers Union. It’s insistence on pressing for higher wages at a time when the district could not afford it has pushed CPS even closer to financial collapse. And Mayor Rahm Emanuel doesn’t deserve a pass. He didn’t have the guts to stand up to the union, and now schoolchildren and taxpayers will pay.
The downgrade will, of course, make it more expensive for the school district to borrow money, complicating an already messy financial situation.
As EAGnews.org has previously stated, it’s baffling how a business-savvy Board of Education could seemingly check its brains at the negotiating room door. How could people who run successful multi-national corporations allow such poor management of taxpayer resources?“The negative outlook reflects our view that the district will be hard-pressed to make the budget adjustments necessary to close an estimated $1 billion budget gap for fiscal 2014. In particular, the duration of the recent CTU strike demonstrates that labor issues may continue to be a ratings factor,” Moody’s wrote.
A word to the wise in Illinois, and particularly Chicago: Look at your neighbors to the north in Wisconsin. They solved the collective bargaining problem, and their schools are getting by just fine.


Saturday, September 29, 2012

Noted Economist Says You Should be Worried About Latest Durable Goods Report: Here’s Why

Demand for durable goods (i.e. items that are expected to last for at least three years) is on the decline and a report released on Thursday shows that it has sunken to levels not seen since 2009 — the height of the Great Recession.
“The Commerce Department said Thursday that total durable goods orders fell 13.2 percent in August. That’s the biggest drop since January 2009 when the country was in recession. Aircraft orders fell by nearly 102 percent, pulling down the headline figure,” the Associated Press reports.
Economists had originally predicted a decline of maybe 5 percent. Obviously, they were off by just a little.
“U.S. manufacturing has weakened since the spring. Factories have been hurt by weaker consumer spending and slower global growth that has cut demand for U.S. exports,” the AP adds.
Okay, so what’s the big deal? Maybe we shouldn’t read too much into the data, right?
Well, according to economist David Rosenberg, there’s a part of the report that should raise some red flags. If you look at the three-month moving average* of non-defense capital goods orders (or “core capex [capital expenditures] orders”) excluding aircraft in Thursday’s durable goods report, you’ll note that it was -4.1 percent in August.
(*A statistical method for identifying the direction of a trend.)
“History shows when the trend weakened to the level we see today, the economy was in recession 100 percent of the time,“ Rosenberg claims in his latest ”Breakfast with Dave” note.
Furthermore, as Rosenberg notes, not only is the durable goods report obviously bad news for the manufacturing sector, but it also means bad news for the job market. You see, as the following chart illustrates, there’s an 83 percent correlation between core capex orders and jobs:
Aug. Durable Goods Report Has Economist David Rosneberg Talking About Recession
Courtesy: Business Insider
And there’s an 86 percent correlation between capex orders and the stock market:
Aug. Durable Goods Report Has Economist David Rosneberg Talking About Recession
Courtesy: Business Insider
Bottom line: Durable goods are down and manufacturing is down. According to the data presented in the above, not only does the report bode poorly for the already struggling job market, but it could also mean we’re headed for another recession.
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter


A few facebook pics

Quinn Raised our taxes and we are no better off today. When Liberals raise taxes the same crap happens...they just spend more!

Obama Administration to Defense Contractors: No Layoff Notices Until After Election, Please

Why?.....More election suppression?

In an effort to make the economy look a little rosier than it is, the Obama administration is basically coercing defense contractors so as to prevent news of layoffs hitting voters before the election. With sequestration about to result in some major cuts to the defense budget, contractors will lose government business -- and that means, employees will lose jobs. But to prevent poor numbers ahead of the November election, the Obama administration has made it very, well, fiscally unwise for companies to issue layoff notices too early.
The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.
But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.
The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.
Senate Republicans, who accused the White House of trying to hide job losses after the first guidance, said Friday that the new OMB statement “puts politics ahead of American workers.”
“The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”
The fight over WARN Act notices began in June when Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said his company might send the notices to all 123,000 of its employees.
Some companies were hesitant to follow Lockheed, but several others told McCain in letters earlier this month they might send the notices, too, despite the Labor Department guidance.
Basically, the government has tried to circumvent some inevitable bad news in an attempt to give the economy an artificial cushion. It's worth noting the Obama administration's duplicity, as well as the terrible effects of its policies.



"Al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat." -- President Barack Obama: Sept 6th, 2012, at the Democratic Convention.

Late yesterday afternoon, in an obvious attempt to rescue President Obama from what could and should be a brutal round of Sunday shows examining the cover up the White House is currently engaged in with respect to the sacking of our consulate in Libya, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released a statement revising its assessment of the attack. It is now the official position of the American intelligence community that what happened in Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack.
The statement comes from Shawn Turner, director of public affairs for National Intelligence -- the office that speaks for the intelligence community as a whole:
As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.
This is not news. In the last few days, the White House and State Department have both made statements saying exactly that.
This, however, is news and should be read carefully:
In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.
There's no question that what we have here is the DNI (Obama appointee James Clapper) attempting to fall on his sword and to put an end to the drumbeat of scandal coming mostly from Republicans and right-of-center media. What's been exposed, just weeks before a presidential election, is the fact that in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, the White House and State Department knowingly misled and lied to the American people about what they knew and when they knew it.
But what the DNI statement is really meant to do is muddy the waters.
The statement deliberately omits any information as to exactly when the determination was made that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack. Most importantly, nothing in the statement contradicts numerous news reports that U.S. officials were certain within 24 hours that they were dealing with a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous protest gone bad.
In other words, the DNI statement is so intentionally vague that it could read as confirmation that our government knew within 24 hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and still lied about it for days afterward.
And this, my friends, is how a cover up works.
And so, the only response to this cynical muddying of the waters is a 30,000 foot approach that might help connect some dots.
Standing on the shoulders of those who have done the admirable work of digging into and investigating this story (most notably, Brett Baier of Fox News, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Jake Tapper of ABC News, and the Daily Beast's Eli Lake), what I want to do is lay out a timeline of known facts that answer a very simple question:
What did our government know and what were we told when they knew it?
What you'll see below was inspired by the vitally important video-report Brett Baier closed "Special Report" with last night, but this will hopefully go into even greater detail. We'll also look into three specific areas: 1) Security failures. 2) The lies. 3) The attempted cover up of numbers one and two.
In an attempt to justify that the security at our Libyan consulate in Benghazi was "adequate," the White House laid a narrative along two tracks. The first, obviously, was that there was no way anyone could've predicted that a "spontaneous" protest would go bad. In fact, that defense would be the White House position for a full eight days, until Sept 20th, when White House Spokesman Jay Carney would finally admit it was "self-evident" Benghazi was a terror attack.

The second narrative track, however, is as shaky as the first. Essentially, the Administration's line is that, based on what we knew, security was adequate.
That's a judgment call, I guess, but let's look at what we did know for a fact prior to the sacking of the consulate and determine if having no Marines, no bullet-proof windows, no threat assessment, and no real security other than locks on the doors was indeed adequate…
1. We'll start with what is the most underreported fact of this entire episode: the fact that this very same consulate had been targeted and attacked just a few months earlier, on June 6, in retaliation for a drone strike on a top al-Qaeda operative:
U.S. mission in Benghazi attacked to avenge al Qaeda
The United States diplomatic office in the Libyan city of Benghazi was attacked Tuesday night, the embassy in the capital Tripoli said Wednesday.
A Libyan security source told CNN a jihadist group that is suspected of carrying out the strike, the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, left leaflets at the scene claiming the attack was in retaliation for the death of Libyan al Qaeda No. 2 Abu Yahya al Libi.
"Fortunately, no one was injured" in the improvised explosive device attack, the embassy said.
2. It was the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, a date that should mean heightened security regardless of what our intelligence says.
3. In the days just prior to the Benghazi attack (September 9 and 10), al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri….
….posted a 42-minute video on Jihadist forums urging Libyans to attack Americans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the terror organization’s second-in-command, whom U.S. drones killed in June of 2012 in Pakistan.
In the video, al-Zawahri said al-Libi’s “blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the Crusaders,” leading up to a date heralded and celebrated by radical Islamists.
Another version of the video was actually posted on YouTube on September 9[.]
4. Just a couple of months prior to the Benghazi attack….
…an unclassified report published in August that fingers Qumu as a key al Qaeda operative in Libya. The report (“Al Qaeda in Libya: A Profile”) was prepared by the research division of the Library of Congress (LOC) under an agreement with the Defense Department’s Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office.
The report details al Qaeda’s plans for Libya, including the growth of a clandestine terrorist network that has attempted to hide its presence. The U.S military has concluded that al Qaeda is in the final phase of a three-step process for developing a full-blown al Qaeda affiliate.
5. Our assassinated Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, feared al-Qaeda's growing influence in Libya and believed he was on a hit list.
6. Sean Smith, one of our diplomats killed along with Stevens, also feared for his life prior to the attack:
One of the American diplomats killed Tuesday in a bloody attack on a Libyan Consulate told pals in an online gaming forum hours earlier that he'd seen suspicious people taking pictures outside his compound and wondered if he and his team might "die tonight." …
But hours before the bloody assault, Smith sent a message to Alex Gianturco, the director of "Goonswarm," Smith's online gaming team or "guild."
“Assuming we don’t die tonight,” the message, which was first reported by Wired, read. “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
Within hours of posting that message, Smith, a husband and father of two, was dead. Gianturco, who could not be reached for further comment, got the word out to fellow gamers, according to Wired.
What we have here are six concrete, non-speculative red flags that indicated our consulate and Ambassador were in danger, vulnerable to attack, and targets.
To justify a lack of adequate security, the Obama administration spent a week blaming the attack on a "spontaneous" demonstration they couldn’t have possibly predicted would occur. We now know that's simply not true. But here are two more justifications we were told:
1. CNN Sept 21: Clinton says Stevens was not worried about being hit by al-qaeda:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday she has "absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis" to suggest that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens believed he was on an al Qaeda hit list.
The remark came after a source familiar with Stevens' thinking told CNN that in the months leading up to his death, Stevens worried about constant security threats in Benghazi and mentioned that his name was on an al Qaeda hit list.
So Clinton is saying that Stevens wasn't on a al-Qaeda hit list. Stevens' diary says he was. Oh. Okay.
2. White House Spokesman Jay Carney on Sept 14: [emphasis added]
ABC NEWS' JAKE TAPPER: One of my colleagues in the Associated Press asked you a direct question, was there any direct intelligence suggesting that there would be an attack on the U.S. consulates. You said that a story — referred to a story being false and said there was no actionable intelligence, but you didn’t answer his question. Was there any intelligence, period — intelligence, period, suggesting that there was going to be an attack on either the –
CARNEY: There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is — I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this, that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false.
Note Carney's careful wording; how determined he is to stay in the arena of "actionable" intelligence and intelligence that "could have been acted on to prevent these attacks." Also note how Carney never answers Tapper's general question about "any intelligence" or intelligence in general.
Summation: Let's give our government the benefit of the doubt and assume the stories about Stevens' fear of being an al-Qaeda target are incorrect -- or, if true, that for some inexplicable reason he never communicated those fears to his superiors. Here's what is indisputable…
The Obama administration didn’t act upon the fact that the anniversary of 9/11 is an obvious date to be wary of or the fact that our consulate had already been targeted and attacked just a few months prior. We also didn’t act upon a report that said al-Qaeda's influence was growing in Libya or a video-threat released by an al-Qaeda chief just days prior to the red-flag date of 9/11.
But security was adequate.

Taking the just-released DNI statement at its word, let's argue that for a time our intelligence services believed the fatal Benghazi attack was a "spontaneous" protest gone bad. Then, on a date not specified in the DNI statement, the assessment was updated to a pre-meditated terrorist attack committed by affiliates of al-Qaeda.
None of that contradicts what we already knew.

According to a number of reports based on numerous sources, we can ascertain exactly when our government determined Benghazi was a terrorist attack -- and that was just 24 hours after the attack.
Let's run through the facts:
1. In a Rose Garden statement the morning after the attack, the President himself referred to the attacks as terror:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
2. "Intelligence sources said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day…"
… in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The sources said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike.
3. "In the hours following the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya…"
…U.S. intelligence agencies monitored communications from jihadists affiliated with the group that led the attack and members of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s North African affiliate.
In the communications, members of Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador, according to three U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
4. "Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi…"
U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.
Again, let's be clear: The DNI statement released yesterday does not dispute any of this. And yet….

For an extensive rundown of the false and misleading statements surrounding the Benghazi attack, let me refer you again to Brett Baier's video report and to a Washington Post rundown put together by Glenn Kessler.

What I want to focus on here is the administration's narrative. There's simply no longer any question that in the days following the attack, a coordinated White House narrative was orchestrated that was intentionally misleading and completely false.
And that narrative went something like this:
1. There was no security failure at the consulate. The attack was birthed by a spontaneous protest gone bad -- so how could we have known?
2. Obama's brag before the country that al-Qaeda was on the road to defeat just five days before the Benghazi attack remains true. After all, this wasn't a terrorist attack, it was a protest gone bad.
3. Obama's Middle East policy of disengagement and assuming his own awesomeness would buy us goodwill with radicals worked. After all, these massive, deadly protests in two dozen countries have nothing to do with anti-American sentiment; the bad guy is a Coptic Christian filmmaker who insulted Muhammad.
I'll reiterate that this is how a cover up works. You don’t tell the truth and you don't lie; what you do is manufacture a false narrative built on misleading statements that aren’t outright lies. As you can see, many of the statements made by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Jay Carney, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice are loaded with caveats and escape hatches: "Based on what we know…" and "What we do know is…"
Defenders of the President and his administration officials will and are using these escape hatches to defend the intentional spinning of a patently false narrative. But there's absolutely no question that for a full week this false narrative -- a glaring lie of omission -- was also used to strike down, downplay, dismiss, and distract from any raising of the question that what might've happened in Benghazi was the work of terrorists.
Moreover, this narrative was so intentionally stifling and oppressive, it wouldn’t even allow room for an either/or possibility. The lie of omission was that no administration official told us that what happened "could've been" or "might've been" a terrorist attack. Quite the opposite. The narrative was used to tell us the raising of that possibility was outrageous.
This, even in the face of numerous news outlets reporting just a day or two after the attack that terrorism was a likely motive. On September 12, both Fox News and CBS News reported the possibility, and on September 13, CNN joined in.
And yet, this narrative lie of omission that was used to scape-goat this filmmaker and to shout down anyone who even entertained the notion of terrorism, remained firmly in place until Sept. 20, the day Jay Carney finally admitted it was "self-evident" terrorism was behind the attack.
But just day before, on Sept 19, the White House was using this narrative to treat those who even raised the possibility of a terror attack like they were crazy. Watch this bizarre exchange between Carney and CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante a full eight days after the attack:

That memorable exchange occurred the very same day National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen told Congress that the Benghazi attack was indeed an act of terror.

Not every statement made by an administration official contained the necessary escape hatches to avoid being outright lies. In fact, if you look closely at numerous statements made by Susan Rice and Jay Carney, regardless of how much benefit of the doubt Obama's defenders wish to summon -- both of them looked the American people in the eye and lied.
Let's start with Carney.

The following is a transcript of a Sept. 14 exchange between Carney and ABC's Jake Tapper: [emphasis added]
TAPPER: Wouldn’t it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?
CARNEY: Well, as you know, there — we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But let’s be -
TAPPER: Obviously not vigilant enough.
CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear. This — these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region [1]–
TAPPER: At Benghazi?
CARNEY: We certainly don’t know; we don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. [2] The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of or to U.S. policy.
TAPPER: The group around the Benghazi post was well-armed, it was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?
CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have — but I answered the question.
ANOTHER REPORTER: But your operating assumptions — your operating assumption is that that was — that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework; that’s the operating assumption?
CARNEY: It’s not an assumption –
TAPPER: Administration officials have said that it looks like this was something other than -
CARNEY: I think there have been misreports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned. [3]
What I've bolded and numbered are undeniably false statements. On Sept. 14, a full two days after the attack, Carney is falsely but declaratively stating as fact that…
1. "[L]et’s be clear. This — these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region."
Carney isn't stating this as a possibility, he is stating it as settled fact. Even if you give the White House as much benefit of the doubt as possible, no one believed that was settled fact. And yet, this is what the White House told America.
2. "[W]e have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack."
That's just false. By this time that was probably the only information the White House had.
3. Carney doubles down on the patently false "no information" claim.
As we now know, numerous reports based on numerous sources say that within 24 hours of the sacking of our consulate, we not only had information that al-Qaeda was behind it, but on day one, in order to release the necessary resources, we had designated it as a terror attack.
If that isn't bad enough, a full five days later, on Sept. 19, Carney had this exchange with CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante: [emphasis added]
PLANTE: You are still maintaining that there was no evidence of a pre-planned attack--
CARNEY: Bill, let me just repeat now--
PLANTE: But how is it that the attackers had RPGs, automatic weapons, mortars…
CARNEY: Bill, I know you've done a little bit of reading about Libya since the unrest that began with Gaddafi. The place has an abundance of weapons.
PLANTE: But you expect a street mob to come armed that way?
CARNEY: There are unfortunately many bad actors throughout the region and they're very armed. ….
PLANTE: But they planned to do it, don't you think?
CARNEY: They might, or they might not. All I can tell you is that based on the information that we had then and have now we do not yet have indication that it was pre-planned or pre-meditated. There's an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that is where the investigation has led. Our interest is in finding out the facts of what happened, not taking what we've read in the newspaper and making bold assertions that we know what happened.
Once again, you have Carney stating declaratively and falsely stating that "we [still] do not yet have indication" that the Benghazi attack was pre-planned -- eight days after the attack!
Again, under the most generous benefit of the doubt one can summon, what you have in these two examples is the White House lying to the media and to the American people.
Impossibly enough, what Susan Rice did was even worse.
On September 16, a full four days after the attack, and at least three days after the White House knew Benghazi had been a terror attack, Rice was sent out on a round-robin of five Sunday morning news shows to push a narrative the White House knew was false.
What's worse, however, is that like Carney, Rice also made declaratively false statements: [emphasis added]
Fox News Sunday:
RICE: The best information and the best assessment we have today is that was, in fact, not a pre-planned and pre-meditated attack. That what happened initially -- it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya. And that then spun out of control. We don't see at this point -- signs that this was a coordinated, pre-meditated attack. Obviously we'll wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment.
Face the Nation:
As soon as the president of Libya's National Congress, Mohamed Magariaf, finished telling host Bob Scieffer….
The way these perpetrators acted and moved, I think we-- and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no-- this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined-- predetermined. months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their-- since their arrival.
…Ambassador Rice took her turn:
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with [Magariaf] that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
This Week:
JAKE TAPPER: It just seems that the U.S. government is powerless as this -- as this maelstrom erupts.
RICE: It's actually the opposite. First of all, let's be clear about what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region...
TAPPER: Tunisia, Khartoum...
RICE: ... was a result -- a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting. We have also been very clear in saying that there is no excuse for violence, there is -- that we have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.
Rice declaratively states as settled fact that the Benghazi attack was a "direct result" of the video.
Meet the Press:
DAVID GREGORY: Was there a failure here that this administration is responsible for, whether it’s an intelligence failure, a failure to see this coming, or a failure to adequately protect U.S. embassies and installations from a spontaneous kind of reaction like this?
SUSAN RICE: David, I don’t think so. First of all we had no actionable intelligence to suggest that-- that any attack on our facility in Benghazi was imminent. In Cairo, we did have indications that there was the risk that the video might spark some-- some protests and our embassy, in fact, acted accordingly, and had called upon the Egyptian authorities to-- to reinforce our facility. What we have seen as-- with respect to the security response, obviously we had security personnel in Benghazi, a-- a significant number, and tragically, among those four that were killed were two of our security personnel. But what happened, obviously, overwhelmed the security we had in place which is why the president ordered additional reinforcements to Tripoli and-- and why elsewhere in the world we have been working with governments to ensure they take up their obligations to protect us and we reinforce where necessary.
Note how, like Carney earlier, Rice rephrases the question into "actionable" intelligence. Because we most certainly had intelligence, including a video threat from a top al-Qaeda operative.

As if all of the above isn’t on its own frustrating, heart-breaking, maddening, and unforgivable enough, let me close with one more deceit.

During her Sunday blitz, and in an attempt to explain the criminal and fatal lack of security in Benghazi, Susan Rice told Chris Wallace this:
WALLACE: And the last question: Terror cells in Benghazi had carried out five attacks since April, including one at this same consulate-- a bombing at this same consulate in June. Should U.S. security been tighter at that consulate given the history of terror activity in Benghazi?
RICE: We obviously did have a strong security presence and unfortunately, two of the four Americans who died in Benghazi were there to provide security. But that obviously wasn’t sufficient in the circumstances to prevent the overrun of the consulate. This is among the things that will obviously be looked at as the investigation as the investigation unfolds.
That's also not true.
Whatever security there was, the White House cannot use two dead Navy SEALs as window dressing that makes some sort of case that says, Well, at least the White House had Navy SEALs protecting the ambassador and the consulate -- because regardless of the spin Rice put on it, that simply wasn't the case:
As recently as Sunday, UN Ambassador Susan Rice gave a similar description. “Two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them,” Rice told ABC's This Week program.
In fact, officials said, the two men were personal service contractors whose official function was described as "embassy security," but whose work did not involve personal protection of the ambassador or perimeter security of the compound. …
They stepped into action, however, when Stevens became separated from the small security detail normally assigned to protect him when he traveled from the more fortified embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi, the officials said.
The two ex-Seals and others engaged in a lengthy firefight with the extremists who attacked the compound, a fight that stretched from the inner area of the consulate to an outside annex and a nearby safe house -- a location that the insurgents appeared to know about, the officials said.
The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes asks:
Some of the misleading information provided to the public could not possibly have been a result of incomplete or evolving intelligence. The information about security for the ambassador and the compound, for instance, would have been readily available to administration officials from the beginning. And yet when Susan Rice appeared on five political talk shows on September 16, she erroneously claimed that the two ex-Navy SEALs killed in the attack were, along with several colleagues, providing security. They were not. Why did she say this?
Good question. But I have a better one: Why did our president say the same:
Glen and Tyrone had each served America as Navy SEALs for many years, before continuing their service providing security for our diplomats in Libya. They died as they lived their lives — defending their fellow Americans, and advancing the values that all of us hold dear.
This is a legitimate scandal of the highest order. Four Americans are dead, our government is still attempting to cover up what really happened, and as of this writing. the F.B.I still hasn't gained access to the consulate.
And what's the response of those charged with the sacred duty of holding our government accountable?
Mitt Romney, what about your gaffffes...

Quantitative Easing Did Not Work For The Weimar Republic Either

Did printing vast quantities of money work for the Weimar Republic? Nope. And it won't work for us either. If printing money was the secret to economic success, we could just print up a trillion dollars for every American and be done with it. The truth is that making everyone in America a trillionaire would not mean that we would all suddenly be wealthy. There would be the same amount of "real wealth" in our economy as before. But what it would do is render our currency meaningless and totally destroy faith in our financial system. Sadly, we have not learned the lessons that history has tried to teach us. Back in April 1919, it took 12 German marks to get 1 U.S. dollar. By December 1923, it took approximately 4 trillion German marks to get 1 U.S. dollar. So was the Weimar Republic better off after all of the "quantitative easing" that they did or worse off? Of course they were worse off. They destroyed their currency and wrecked all confidence in their financial system. There was an old joke that if you left a wheelbarrow full of money sitting around in the Weimar Republic that thieves would take the wheelbarrow and they would leave the money behind. Will things eventually get that bad in the United States someday?
Of course we are not going to see hyperinflation in the U.S. this week or this month.

But don't think that it will never happen.

The people of Germany never thought that it would happen to them, but it did.

The following is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article about the Weimar Republic. Take note of the similarities between what the Weimar Republic experienced and what we are going through today....

The cause of the immense acceleration of prices that occurred during the German hyperinflation of 1922–23 seemed unclear and unpredictable to those who lived through it, but in retrospect was relatively simple. The Treaty of Versailles imposed a huge debt on Germany that could be paid only in gold or foreign currency. With its gold depleted, the German government attempted to buy foreign currency with German currency, but this caused the German Mark to fall rapidly in value, which greatly increased the number of Marks needed to buy more foreign currency. This caused German prices of goods to rise rapidly which increase the cost of operating the German government which could not be financed by raising taxes. The resulting budget deficit increased rapidly and was financed by the central bank creating more money. When the German people realized that their money was rapidly losing value, they tried to spend it quickly. This increase in monetary velocity caused still more rapid increase in prices which created a vicious cycle. This placed the government and banks between two unacceptable alternatives: if they stopped the inflation this would cause immediate bankruptcies, unemployment, strikes, hunger, violence, collapse of civil order, insurrection, and revolution. If they continued the inflation they would default on their foreign debt. The attempts to avoid both unemployment and insolvency ultimately failed when Germany had both.

When the Weimar Republic first started rapidly printing money everything seemed fine at first. Economic activity was buzzing and unemployment was very low.

But as the following chart shows, when hyperinflation kicks in, it can happen very quickly. By late 1922, the effects of all of the money printing were really starting to hit the German economy....

Once you start printing money it is really, really hard to stop.

By late 1922, inflation was officially out of control. An article in The Economist described what happened next....

Prices roared up. So did unemployment, modest as 1923 began. As October ended, 19% of metal-workers were officially out of work, and half of those left were on short time. Feeble attempts had been made to stabilise prices. Some German states had issued their own would-be stable currency: Baden's was secured on the revenue of state forests, Hanover's convertible into a given quantity of rye. The central authorities issued what became known as “gold loan” notes, payable in 1935. Then, on November 15th, came the Rentenmark, worth 1,000 billion paper marks, or just under 24 American cents, like the gold mark of 1914.

Hyperinflation hurts the poor, the elderly and those on fixed incomes the worst. The following is an excerpt from a work by Adam Fergusson....

The rentier classes who depended on savings or pensions, and anyone on a fixed income, were soon in penury, their possessions sold. Barter often took over from purchase. By law rents could not be raised, which allowed employers to pay low wages and impoverished landlords in a country where renting was the norm. The professional classes -- lawyers, doctors, scientists, professors -- found little demand for their services. In due course, the trade unions, no longer able to strike for higher wages (often uncertain what to ask for, so fast became the mark's fall from day to day), went to the wall, too.

Workers regularly got wage increases during this time, but they never seemed to keep up with the horrible inflation that was raging all around them. So they steadily became poorer even though the amount of money they were bringing home was steadily increasing.

People started to lose all faith in the currency and in the financial system. This had an absolutely devastating effect on the German population. American author Pearl Buck was living in Germany at the time and the following is what she wrote about what she saw....

"The cities were still there, the houses not yet bombed and in ruins, but the victims were millions of people. They had lost their fortunes, their savings; they were dazed and inflation-shocked and did not understand how it had happened to them and who the foe was who had defeated them. Yet they had lost their self-assurance, their feeling that they themselves could be the masters of their own lives if only they worked hard enough; and lost, too, were the old values of morals, of ethics, of decency."

Of course not everyone in Germany was opposed to the rampant inflation that was happening. There were some business people that became very wealthy during this time. The hyperinflation rendered their past debts meaningless, and by investing paper money (that would soon be worthless) into assets that would greatly appreciate thanks to inflation, many of them made out like bandits.

The key was to take your paper money and spend it on something that would hold value (or even increase in value) as rapidly as possible.

The introduction of the Rentenmark brought an end to hyperinflation, but the damage to the stability of the German economy had been done. The German economy went through several wild swings which ultimately resulted in the rise of the Nazis. The following description of this time period is from an article by Alex Kurtagic....

The post-hyperinflationary credit crunch was, not surprisingly followed by a credit boom: starved of money and basic necessities for so long (do not forget the hyperinflation had come directly after defeat in The Great War), many funded lavish lifestyles through borrowing during the second half of the 1920s. We know how that ended, of course: in The Great Depression, which eventually saw the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the National Socialist era.

By the end of the decade unemployment really started to take hold in Germany as the following statistics reveal....

September 1928 - 650,000 unemployed

September 1929 - 1,320,000 unemployed

September 1930 - 3,000,000 unemployed

September 1931 - 4,350,000 unemployed

September 1932 - 5,102,000 unemployed

January 1933 - 6,100,000 unemployed

By the end of 1932, over 30 percent of all German workers were unemployed. This created an environment where people were hungry for "change".

On January 30th, 1933 Hitler was sworn in as chancellor, and the rest is history.

So where will all of this money printing take America?

As I wrote about in a previous article, the amount of excess reserves that banks have stashed with the Federal Reserve has risen from about 9 billion dollars on September 10th, 2008 to about 1.5 trillion dollars today....

What is going to happen to inflation when all of those excess reserves start flowing out into the regular economy?

It won't be pretty.

Just consider the ominous words that Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser used earlier this week....

"Inflation is going to occur when excess reserves of this huge balance sheet begin to flow outside into the real economy. I can't tell you when that's going to happen."
"When that does begin if we don't engage in a fairly aggressive and effective policy of preventing that from happening, there's no question in my mind that that will lead to lots of inflation."

Oh great.

And so what is Bernanke doing?

He is printing up lots more money.

But isn't this supposed to help the economy?

I wouldn't count on it.

According to USA Today, the following is what Plosser says about the effect that QE3 is likely to have on our economy....

"We are unlikely to see much benefit to growth or to employment from further asset purchases."

But we will get more inflation, so our monthly budgets will not go as far as they did before.

The other day I was going to the supermarket, and my wife told me that she wanted some croissants. When I got to the bakery section I discovered that it was $4.49 for just four croissants.

If it had just been for me, I would have never gotten them. I am the kind of shopper that doesn't even want to look at something unless there is a sale tag on it.

But I did get the croissants for my wife.

Unfortunately, thanks to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke soon none of us may be able to afford to buy croissants.

I still remember the days when I could fill up my entire shopping cart for 20 bucks.

And it was not that long ago - I am talking about the late 90s.

But paying more for food is not the greatest danger we are facing. Bernanke is destroying the credibility of our currency and he is destroying faith in our financial system.

Bernanke may believe that he is preventing the next great collapse from happening, but the truth is that what he is doing is going to make the eventual collapse far worse.

Better get your wheelbarrows ready.


More links of Interest

Small Buisness are a big part of Job creators




Canada PM to Meet With Netanyahu, Obama With Whoopi

Obama Has Free Time Today, Won't Meet Netanyahu

Recession Looms: GDP Revised Down to 1.3%, Durable Goods Collapse 13%

Voters Expect Economy to Improve With Romney as President

Alec Baldwin: U.S. 'Will Never Be Great Again' Under Romney (Alec is a Dirtbag)

How Obama's Policies are affecting you(me)

I heard good point's on a Radio talk show......

High gas prices...Obama wants electric cars over gas. He said that gas will rise before his 2008 election.  No complaints from Media!

Higher home heating and cooling cost..... He wants windmills and solar, and shutting down coal mines.  Solar and wind to expensive and is subsidized by the Government(tax money). Coal is cheaper  to mine than solar and wind is to build the infrastructure. Nothing From the Media

Healthcare premiums have rose Under Obama's Term.....Spending on health care rose 4.6 percent in 2011 — up $4,500 per person, on average — according to the nonpartisan Health Care Cost Institute. That’s up from a 3.8 growth rate in 2010...Nothing from the mainstream media!

Unemployment is still up over 8% and could be hire with all the People that stopped looking for work or went on disability.    What gets me still is when the Libs and Obama keep saying they created 4.5 or now 5 million jobs under his watch. There are less people working today than when he put his stimulous out there. Media twist this to say things are getting better

Welfare Spending Skyrockets, Poverty Rate Remains Unchanged Under Obama
Remember he is fighting for the middle class. Apparently not the low income or poverty people. The last 8 months he has been in campaign mode and nothing else.

Inflation is higher....You can say the cost of almost anything you buy is higher than when Obama took office...and why?   Maybe the QE1 QE2 QE3. They are simply printing money to stimulate the economy. The first 2 did not work and now they are doing it again. By printing money as they say the value of the dollar drops.

 I think these were 6 major ones mentioned. As the debt goes up its going to cost everyone more to pay some type of tax. If Obama is re-elected with no more in front of him, what will stop him from doubling down on his spending. we know he wont cut any debt as promised,because he already added 6  trillion to it instead of cutting it in half as promised.

Obama calls on Congress to approve refinance plan

This is the same Crap that crashed the Housing Market. He wants the Government to back low interest Loans for people under water! You never want anyone to lose their home but he is not fixing the problem. Banks andfinancers should be working with the people instead of Obama's Liberal failed policy that should have learned the first time that it did not work! Also Blaming Republicans? At the cost to the taxpayer I don't blame them a bit for not passing this bill.

Citing historically low mortgages, President Barack Obama is pressing Republicans to back housing policies the White House says would help struggling homeowners refinance their debts and prevent foreclosures.
Obama is blaming congressional Republicans for not passing legislation he proposed in February that would lower lending rates for millions of borrowers who have not been able to get out from under burdensome mortgages. Republicans have objected, citing among other things the estimated $5 billion to $10 billion cost of the proposal.
"Here we are - seven months later - still waiting on Congress to act," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.
Congress has recessed and is not scheduled to return until after the November elections.
"Instead of worrying about you, they'd already gone home to worry about their campaigns," the president said.
Obama's push comes as home prices have been rising across the United States. National home prices increased 1.2 percent in July, compared with the same month last year, according to the Standard & Poor's/Case Shiller index released Tuesday.
In the Republican weekly address, Arizona congressional candidate Vernon Parker said the U.S. corporate tax rate is pushing jobs overseas. He said he agrees with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, "that we need to stop all the looming tax hikes and develop a pro-growth tax code that brings jobs home and keeps jobs here."
He also called for the repeal of Obama's health care law.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/29/obama-calls-on-congress-to-approve-refinance-plan-1960166567/#ixzz27uI9MmqQ