header
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Its an Illinois thing...Trying to do something right till Madigan Wimps out on Pension reform!
Note: Quinn said Walker was wrong. I tell you what, Wisconsin turned their state around big time. Look at Illinois. We are still screwed with these Liberal Hacks in Springfield!
This might be the craziest political speech you’ve seen. This is Illinois State Rep. Mike Bost absolutely losing it during a floor speech yesterday. And while he does go ballistic — throwing papers, screaming, and flailing his arms — he does have a good reason: earlier in the day a committee voted on a pension reform bill that then put it up for a vote for the entire House; but Bost was furious since the hundred-plus-page bill wouldn’t be properly vetted.
The local CBS station describes why some are upset with the bill. But I think it’s safe to say that Bost is most upset with the tactics and how supporters tried to force a vote. In short, he didn’t want to pass the bill to find out what was in it. And he had enough. Here’s how it sounded (you might want to turn the volume up if you’ve had it with politics as usual — Bost is your champion):
http://youtu.be/ToXX1zPrhgU
“Total power in one person’s hands – not the American way!” Bost began.
“These damn bills that come out here all the damn time, come out here at the last second!” Bost added as he threw papers. “I’ve got to figure out how to vote for my people!”
“You should be ashamed of yourselves! I’m sick of it!” he went on. “Every year! We give power to one person! It was not made that way in the Constitution! He was around when it was written! Now we give him – we’ve passed rules that stop each one of us! Enough! I feel like somebody trying to be released from Egypt! Let my people go!”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/illinois-state-rep-goes-ballistic-throws-papers-flails-and-screams-over-vote-on-pension-bill/
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Numbers-dont-lie-but-democrats-do
I had to put this up......lots of interesting numbers here!
It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.” There’s even a chart!
I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on …
This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC. As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?
Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”
Note that Schultz also said that the “part of the chart representing President Obama’s term includes a stimulus package, too.” As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie.
Schultz’s guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston, confirmed: “And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.”
Everybody’s keyboard OK?
On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: “Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.”
In response, three writers from “The Daily Show” said, “We’ll never top that line,” and quit.
Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation’s premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.
(I’m reviewing it soon, but you should start without me.)
It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.
That’s not a joke.
That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)
Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending. And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”
Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush …”
On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending? Hey — we just found out that Obamacare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!
Nutting’s “and not to Bush” line is just a sleight of hand. He’s hoping you won’t notice that he said “$140 billion” and not “$825 billion,” and will be fooled into thinking that he’s counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama’s spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)
The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.
But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.
Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.
But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.
There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush’s spending.
Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.
But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.
If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/numbers-dont-lie-but-democrats-do/#ixzz1wJF3anQv
It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.” There’s even a chart!
I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on …
This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC. As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?
Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”
Note that Schultz also said that the “part of the chart representing President Obama’s term includes a stimulus package, too.” As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie.
Schultz’s guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston, confirmed: “And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.”
Everybody’s keyboard OK?
On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: “Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.”
In response, three writers from “The Daily Show” said, “We’ll never top that line,” and quit.
Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation’s premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.
(I’m reviewing it soon, but you should start without me.)
It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.
That’s not a joke.
That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)
Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending. And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”
Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush …”
On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending? Hey — we just found out that Obamacare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!
Nutting’s “and not to Bush” line is just a sleight of hand. He’s hoping you won’t notice that he said “$140 billion” and not “$825 billion,” and will be fooled into thinking that he’s counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama’s spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)
The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.
But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.
Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.
But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.
There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush’s spending.
Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.
But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.
If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/numbers-dont-lie-but-democrats-do/#ixzz1wJF3anQv
Monday, May 28, 2012
CBO: Ending Bush Tax Cuts Will Send US Off 'Fiscal Cliff'
A new government study says that allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire and a
scheduled round of automatic spending cuts to take effect would probably throw
the economy into a recession.
The Congressional Budget Office report says that the economy would shrink by 1.3 percent in the first half of next year if the government is allowed to fall off this so-called "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1. The cliff is what experts call the combination of higher tax rates and more than $100 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies.
It's a point that Republican leaders have hammered at again and again in an effort to move President Obama into responsible negotiations over keeping the Bush tax cuts.
In an exclusive interview Monday, Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee, told Newsmax that keeping the cuts are essential to preventing another recession.
“It looks like there will not be a vote until after the election, but I can’t say that for certain — but it certainly looks like that,” predicted Sessions. “That’s not healthy because we need certainty in our tax rate. There’s far too much uncertainty in our financial condition in America today.”
Last week, House Speaker John Boehner called on Congress and the White House to work out a long-term deficit deal and threatened not to raise the nation’s debt ceiling next year unless a greater amount of spending cuts is enacted.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that Obama is not behaving like an "adult" on negotiations to stave off the fiscal disaster.
McConnell said that without Mr. Obama taking action, nothing can be done regarding debt. "Look, without presidential leadership, nothing is, can be accomplished," he said. "We didn't have presidential leadership last year. It's pretty clear the president's not going to lead on this any time soon.
"We don't control the entire government," McConnell added. "We control the House of Representatives only. We'd like to do something about the nation's biggest problem — spending and debt, which is, of course, the reason for this economic melees and this high unemployment — and whenever the president is willing to engage, we're ready to go."
CBO's report says immediate tax increases and spending cuts would "represent an additional drag on the weak economic expansion."
CBO is the respected nonpartisan agency of Congress that produces economic analysis and estimates of the cost of legislation.
“Given the pattern of past recessions as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research, such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013 would probably be judged to be a recession,” the report states. A recession is technically defined as two economic quarters of negative economic growth.
If Congress and the White House turn off all the automatic cuts and tax increase, growth would rise to 4.4 percent, CBO predicted.
The CBO projections appear to go farther in stating the economic risks of lawmakers failing to act than other policymakers have gone.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned of the risk to the economic recovery, the Hill pointed out.
"It's very important to say that, if no action were to be taken by the fiscal authorities, the size of the fiscal cliff is such that I think there's absolutely no chance that the Fed could or would have any ability to offset, whatsoever, that effect on the economy," Bernanke told reporters in April. "I am concerned that if all the tax increases and spending cuts that are associated with current law would take place, absent congressional actions . . . that'd be a significant risk to the recovery. "
Read more on Newsmax.com: CBO: Ending Bush Tax Cuts Will Send US Off 'Fiscal Cliff'
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Note: links below Pelosi and Reid are(no civility again) Idiot!
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pelosi-obama-tax-cuts/2012/05/24/id/440174
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/harry-reid-i-have-no-problem-with-obamas-bain-capital-attacks-on-romney/
The Congressional Budget Office report says that the economy would shrink by 1.3 percent in the first half of next year if the government is allowed to fall off this so-called "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1. The cliff is what experts call the combination of higher tax rates and more than $100 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies.
It's a point that Republican leaders have hammered at again and again in an effort to move President Obama into responsible negotiations over keeping the Bush tax cuts.
In an exclusive interview Monday, Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee, told Newsmax that keeping the cuts are essential to preventing another recession.
“It looks like there will not be a vote until after the election, but I can’t say that for certain — but it certainly looks like that,” predicted Sessions. “That’s not healthy because we need certainty in our tax rate. There’s far too much uncertainty in our financial condition in America today.”
Last week, House Speaker John Boehner called on Congress and the White House to work out a long-term deficit deal and threatened not to raise the nation’s debt ceiling next year unless a greater amount of spending cuts is enacted.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that Obama is not behaving like an "adult" on negotiations to stave off the fiscal disaster.
McConnell said that without Mr. Obama taking action, nothing can be done regarding debt. "Look, without presidential leadership, nothing is, can be accomplished," he said. "We didn't have presidential leadership last year. It's pretty clear the president's not going to lead on this any time soon.
"We don't control the entire government," McConnell added. "We control the House of Representatives only. We'd like to do something about the nation's biggest problem — spending and debt, which is, of course, the reason for this economic melees and this high unemployment — and whenever the president is willing to engage, we're ready to go."
CBO's report says immediate tax increases and spending cuts would "represent an additional drag on the weak economic expansion."
CBO is the respected nonpartisan agency of Congress that produces economic analysis and estimates of the cost of legislation.
“Given the pattern of past recessions as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research, such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013 would probably be judged to be a recession,” the report states. A recession is technically defined as two economic quarters of negative economic growth.
If Congress and the White House turn off all the automatic cuts and tax increase, growth would rise to 4.4 percent, CBO predicted.
The CBO projections appear to go farther in stating the economic risks of lawmakers failing to act than other policymakers have gone.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned of the risk to the economic recovery, the Hill pointed out.
"It's very important to say that, if no action were to be taken by the fiscal authorities, the size of the fiscal cliff is such that I think there's absolutely no chance that the Fed could or would have any ability to offset, whatsoever, that effect on the economy," Bernanke told reporters in April. "I am concerned that if all the tax increases and spending cuts that are associated with current law would take place, absent congressional actions . . . that'd be a significant risk to the recovery. "
Read more on Newsmax.com: CBO: Ending Bush Tax Cuts Will Send US Off 'Fiscal Cliff'
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Note: links below Pelosi and Reid are(no civility again) Idiot!
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pelosi-obama-tax-cuts/2012/05/24/id/440174
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/harry-reid-i-have-no-problem-with-obamas-bain-capital-attacks-on-romney/
Some links of interest
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/liberal-bias-blamed-for-media-not-covering-carmona-harassment-allegations/
Note : This admin should keep their mouth shut on things like this link!
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/28/us-special-ops-commander-weve-sent-troops-into-north-korea/
Note : This admin should keep their mouth shut on things like this link!
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/28/us-special-ops-commander-weve-sent-troops-into-north-korea/
David-brooks-sours-on-obama-over-anti-bain-ads-administration-campaign-demeaned-itself/
The tone of this year’s presidential campaign between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been very different from the the atmosphere of the 2008 race, when Obama squared off against then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.
Gone are the mantras of “hope” and “change.” Negative campaign advertisements have taken their place, like one recently released by the Obama campaign attacking Romney for his time at Bain Capital. This negative campaigning, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks, hurts not just Romney, but also Obama.
“I sort of think this debate hurts both candidates,” Brooks said Friday on PBS’s “NewsHour.” “I think Bain is not popular. It is not well-known. Most Americans don’t know what Bain is, but it is not popular, the idea that he was in some sort of weird consulting group. It’s not popular. And so I do think they are exploiting it for a reason. Nonetheless, I do think hurts Obama, because it makes him look like a very conventional politician. I don’t think, if you are a liberal Democrat, you want to be seen attacking business. People may not love business. They like it a lot better than government. And they don’t want to see an anti-business Democrat.”
Brooks called one ad, which blamed Romney for a steel plant closing, little more than “a whole series of falsehoods.”
“And, finally, I just think the Obama administration, or the campaign has demeaned itself with a series of falsehoods. They released this ad which had a whole series of falsehoods. The one was that this steel company, GST, was a healthy company until Bain took it over, which the ad suggests — completely untrue.”
Brooks added that some of these attacks blamed Romney for Bain’s activities long after the former Massachusetts governor had left the company.
“Second, [the idea] that Romney was part of throwing people out on the street when they finally did have to close this failing company,” he continued. “He was long gone from Bain. And then, finally, that these private equity companies load debt onto businesses. There is a study, though, reported in my newspaper. There is no more debt, no more default in these companies than in other comparable companies. So, it’s this whole series of things which were untrue, which make Obama seem much more like a conventional politician.”
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus agreed generally with Brooks, but also placed some of the blame on Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker’s remarks last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Well, in a sense, David is right — they are both hurt,” Marcus said. “I think one of the reasons we’re talking about Bain for a second week in a row is that we had the experience on Sunday of the Obama surrogate Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who said he found it nauseating that these attacks were coming up. If I were the candidates, I would get together very quietly — and this is my modest proposal to them — just have a pact that whatever — that your surrogate is going to say something really dumb and damaging to you. My surrogate is going to say really dumb and damaging to me. Let’s pretend they don’t exist.”
Brooks compared Obama’s 2008 campaign to his 2012 effort, noting the differences and suggesting Obama is running the risk of turning away a large number of independents.
“To me, one of the major questions of the Obama campaign is — he campaigned in 2008 as an untraditional candidate,” Brooks said. “Now, he did plenty of negative ads and all that. Nonetheless, he was something very different. People were disgusted by politics could really be inspired by Obama, because it was a very different campaign. And, privately, they would say, ‘We’re not going run a Clinton-type campaign. We’re not going to be conventional politicians.’”
“And so they really got a lot of independents excited,” Brooks continued. “Now they are running a completely traditional campaign, literally regurgitating the exact same ad that Ted Kennedy ran against Mitt Romney. And so have they decided, we have just got to win this way? Or are they losing something? I think they’re losing something by being so conventional.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/26/david-brooks-sours-on-obama-over-anti-bain-ads-administration-campaign-demeaned-itself/#ixzz1wDLS8qmH
Gone are the mantras of “hope” and “change.” Negative campaign advertisements have taken their place, like one recently released by the Obama campaign attacking Romney for his time at Bain Capital. This negative campaigning, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks, hurts not just Romney, but also Obama.
“I sort of think this debate hurts both candidates,” Brooks said Friday on PBS’s “NewsHour.” “I think Bain is not popular. It is not well-known. Most Americans don’t know what Bain is, but it is not popular, the idea that he was in some sort of weird consulting group. It’s not popular. And so I do think they are exploiting it for a reason. Nonetheless, I do think hurts Obama, because it makes him look like a very conventional politician. I don’t think, if you are a liberal Democrat, you want to be seen attacking business. People may not love business. They like it a lot better than government. And they don’t want to see an anti-business Democrat.”
Brooks called one ad, which blamed Romney for a steel plant closing, little more than “a whole series of falsehoods.”
“And, finally, I just think the Obama administration, or the campaign has demeaned itself with a series of falsehoods. They released this ad which had a whole series of falsehoods. The one was that this steel company, GST, was a healthy company until Bain took it over, which the ad suggests — completely untrue.”
Brooks added that some of these attacks blamed Romney for Bain’s activities long after the former Massachusetts governor had left the company.
“Second, [the idea] that Romney was part of throwing people out on the street when they finally did have to close this failing company,” he continued. “He was long gone from Bain. And then, finally, that these private equity companies load debt onto businesses. There is a study, though, reported in my newspaper. There is no more debt, no more default in these companies than in other comparable companies. So, it’s this whole series of things which were untrue, which make Obama seem much more like a conventional politician.”
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus agreed generally with Brooks, but also placed some of the blame on Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker’s remarks last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Well, in a sense, David is right — they are both hurt,” Marcus said. “I think one of the reasons we’re talking about Bain for a second week in a row is that we had the experience on Sunday of the Obama surrogate Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who said he found it nauseating that these attacks were coming up. If I were the candidates, I would get together very quietly — and this is my modest proposal to them — just have a pact that whatever — that your surrogate is going to say something really dumb and damaging to you. My surrogate is going to say really dumb and damaging to me. Let’s pretend they don’t exist.”
Brooks compared Obama’s 2008 campaign to his 2012 effort, noting the differences and suggesting Obama is running the risk of turning away a large number of independents.
“To me, one of the major questions of the Obama campaign is — he campaigned in 2008 as an untraditional candidate,” Brooks said. “Now, he did plenty of negative ads and all that. Nonetheless, he was something very different. People were disgusted by politics could really be inspired by Obama, because it was a very different campaign. And, privately, they would say, ‘We’re not going run a Clinton-type campaign. We’re not going to be conventional politicians.’”
“And so they really got a lot of independents excited,” Brooks continued. “Now they are running a completely traditional campaign, literally regurgitating the exact same ad that Ted Kennedy ran against Mitt Romney. And so have they decided, we have just got to win this way? Or are they losing something? I think they’re losing something by being so conventional.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/26/david-brooks-sours-on-obama-over-anti-bain-ads-administration-campaign-demeaned-itself/#ixzz1wDLS8qmH
Wasserman-schultz-wisconsin-recall-a-dry-run-for-november/
This Woman (no civility for a second) is an Idiot!
On Sunday’s “State of the Union” on CNN, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz addressed her party’s prospects of reclaiming the Wisconsin governor’s mansion, calling the battle to recall Gov. Scott Walker a “dry run” for the November election.
Current polls show Walker with a commanding lead over his opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. But that’s not deterring Wasserman Schultz from promoting her party’s prospects in the contest.
“I think that he [Barrett] has a real opportunity to win,” Wasserman Schultz said. “We have put our considerable grassroots resources behind him. All of the Obama for America and state party resources, our grassroots network is fully engaged. And — well, I think what’s going to happen is that because of our on-the-ground operation, we have had an opportunity in this election, because especially given that Wisconsin is a battleground state, just like we did in the recall elections a year ago, to give this a test run.”
“I think Tom Barrett will pull this out,” she added, “but regardless it has given the Obama for America operation an opportunity to do the dry run that we need of our massive, significant, dynamic grassroots presidential campaign, which can’t really be matched by the Romney campaign or the Republicans, because they’ve ignored the ground operations.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/27/wasserman-schultz-wisconsin-recall-a-dry-run-for-november/#ixzz1wDJ22OVT
On Sunday’s “State of the Union” on CNN, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz addressed her party’s prospects of reclaiming the Wisconsin governor’s mansion, calling the battle to recall Gov. Scott Walker a “dry run” for the November election.
Current polls show Walker with a commanding lead over his opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. But that’s not deterring Wasserman Schultz from promoting her party’s prospects in the contest.
“I think that he [Barrett] has a real opportunity to win,” Wasserman Schultz said. “We have put our considerable grassroots resources behind him. All of the Obama for America and state party resources, our grassroots network is fully engaged. And — well, I think what’s going to happen is that because of our on-the-ground operation, we have had an opportunity in this election, because especially given that Wisconsin is a battleground state, just like we did in the recall elections a year ago, to give this a test run.”
“I think Tom Barrett will pull this out,” she added, “but regardless it has given the Obama for America operation an opportunity to do the dry run that we need of our massive, significant, dynamic grassroots presidential campaign, which can’t really be matched by the Romney campaign or the Republicans, because they’ve ignored the ground operations.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/27/wasserman-schultz-wisconsin-recall-a-dry-run-for-november/#ixzz1wDJ22OVT
Vfw-slams-msnbc-host-who-said-he-was-uncomfortable-calling-dead-soldiers-heroes/
A spokesman for a leading veterans organization criticized MSNBC’s Chris Hayes for arguing on his television show that that he’s “uncomfortable” describing American soldiers who died in battles as heroes.
“If Mr. Hayes feels uncomfortable, I suggest he enlist, go to war, then come home to what he expects is a grateful nation but encounters the opposite. It’s far too easy to cast stones from inexperience,” Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis told The Daily Caller on Sunday.
Hayes, a liberal writer who hosts the weekend show “Up with Chris Hayes,” said he is “uncomfortable about the word [hero] because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.”
“I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, he said, “and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism — hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/28/vfw-slams-msnbc-host-who-said-he-was-uncomfortable-calling-dead-soldiers-heroes/#ixzz1wDICHWbY
“If Mr. Hayes feels uncomfortable, I suggest he enlist, go to war, then come home to what he expects is a grateful nation but encounters the opposite. It’s far too easy to cast stones from inexperience,” Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis told The Daily Caller on Sunday.
Hayes, a liberal writer who hosts the weekend show “Up with Chris Hayes,” said he is “uncomfortable about the word [hero] because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.”
“I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, he said, “and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism — hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/28/vfw-slams-msnbc-host-who-said-he-was-uncomfortable-calling-dead-soldiers-heroes/#ixzz1wDICHWbY
Students want loans forgivin?? They are Nuts!
Thes Kids had a choice...No one twisted their arm to go to school! As a taxpayer I would be highly Pissed! It will be the taxpayers paying off Fannie and Freddie with taxpayer dollars!
As the Wall Street protests grow and expand beyond New York, growing scrutiny of the nascent movement is warranted. What do these folks want? Alongside their ranting about the inequality of incomes, the alleged inordinate power of Wall Street and large corporations, the high level of unemployment, and the like, one policy goal ranks high with most protesters: the forgiveness of student-loan debt. In an informal survey of over 50 protesters in New York last Tuesday, blogger and equity research analyst David Maris found 93 percent of them advocated student-loan forgiveness. An online petition drive advocating student-loan forgiveness has gathered an impressive number of signatures (over 442,000). This is an issue that resonates with many Americans.
Economist Justin Wolfers recently opined that “this is the worst idea ever.” I think it is actually the second-worst idea ever — the worst was the creation of federally subsidized student loans in the first place. Under current law, when the feds (who have basically taken over the student-loan industry) make a loan, the size of the U.S. budget deficit rises and the government borrows additional funds, very often from foreign investors. We are borrowing from the Chinese to finance school attendance by a predominantly middle-class group of Americans.
But that is the tip of the iceberg: Though the ostensible objective of the loan program is to increase the proportion of adult Americans with college degrees, over 40 percent of those pursuing a bachelor’s degree fail to receive one within six years. And default is a growing problem with student loans.
Further, it’s not clear that college imparts much of value to the average student. The typical college student spends less than 30 hours a week, 32 weeks a year, on all academic matters — class attendance, writing papers, studying for exams, etc. They spend about half as much time on school as their parents spend working. If Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa (authors of Academically Adrift) are even roughly correct, today’s students typically learn little in the way of critical learning or writing skills while in school.
Moreover, the student-loan program has proven an ineffective way to achieve one of its initial aims, a goal also of the Wall Street protesters: increasing economic opportunity for the poor. In 1970, when federal student-loan and -grant programs were in their infancy, about 12 percent of college graduates came from the bottom one-fourth of the income distribution. While people from all social classes are more likely to go to college today, the poor haven’t gained nearly as much ground as the rich have: With the nation awash in nearly a trillion dollars in student-loan debt (more even than credit-card obligations), the proportion of bachelor’s-degree holders coming from the bottom one-fourth of the income distribution has fallen to around 7 percent.
The sins of the loan program are many. Let’s briefly mention just five.
First, artificially low interest rates are set by the federal government — they are fixed by law rather than market forces. Low-interest-rate mortgage loans resulting from loose Fed policies and the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spurred the housing bubble that caused the 2008 financial crisis. Arguably, federal student financial assistance is creating a second bubble in higher education.
Second, loan terms are invariant, with students with poor prospects of graduating and getting good jobs often borrowing at the same interest rates as those with excellent prospects (e.g., electrical-engineering majors at MIT).
Third, the availability of cheap loans has almost certainly contributed to the tuition explosion — college prices are going up even more than health-care prices.
Fourth, at present the loans are made by a monopoly provider, the same one that gave us such similar inefficient and costly monopolistic behemoths as the U.S. Postal Service.
Fifth, the student-loan and associated Pell Grant programs spawned the notorious FAFSA form that requires families to reveal all sorts of financial information — information that colleges use to engage in ruthless price discrimination via tuition discounting, charging wildly different amounts to students depending on how much their parents can afford to pay. It’s a soak-the-rich scheme on steroids.
Still, for good or ill, we have this unfortunate program. Wouldn’t loan forgiveness provide some stimulus to a moribund economy? The Wall Street protesters argue that if debt-burdened young persons were free of this albatross, they would start spending more on goods and services, stimulating employment. Yet we demonstrated with stimulus packages in 2008 and 2009 (not to mention the 1930s, Japan in the 1990s, etc.) that giving people more money to spend will not bring recovery. But even if it did, why should we give a break to this particular group of individuals, who disproportionately come from prosperous families to begin with? Why give them assistance while those who have dutifully repaid their loans get none? An arguably more equitable and efficient method of stimulus would be to drop dollars out of airplanes over low-income areas.
Moreover, this idea has ominous implications for the macro economy. Who would take the loss from the unanticipated non-repayment of a trillion dollars? If private financial institutions are liable for some of it, it could kill them, triggering another financial crisis. If the federal government shoulders the entire burden, we are adding a trillion or so more dollars in liabilities to a government already grievously overextended (upwards of $100 trillion in liabilities counting Medicare, Social Security, and the national debt), almost certainly leading to more debt downgrades, which could trigger investor panic. This idea is breathtaking in terms of its naïveté and stupidity.
The demonstrators say that selfish plutocrats are ruining our economy and creating an unjust society. Rather, a group of predominantly rather spoiled and coddled young persons, long favored and subsidized by the American taxpayer, are complaining that society has not given them enough — they want the taxpayer to foot the bill for their years of limited learning and heavy partying while in college. Hopefully, this burst of dimwittery should not pass muster even in our often dysfunctional Congress.
As the Wall Street protests grow and expand beyond New York, growing scrutiny of the nascent movement is warranted. What do these folks want? Alongside their ranting about the inequality of incomes, the alleged inordinate power of Wall Street and large corporations, the high level of unemployment, and the like, one policy goal ranks high with most protesters: the forgiveness of student-loan debt. In an informal survey of over 50 protesters in New York last Tuesday, blogger and equity research analyst David Maris found 93 percent of them advocated student-loan forgiveness. An online petition drive advocating student-loan forgiveness has gathered an impressive number of signatures (over 442,000). This is an issue that resonates with many Americans.
Economist Justin Wolfers recently opined that “this is the worst idea ever.” I think it is actually the second-worst idea ever — the worst was the creation of federally subsidized student loans in the first place. Under current law, when the feds (who have basically taken over the student-loan industry) make a loan, the size of the U.S. budget deficit rises and the government borrows additional funds, very often from foreign investors. We are borrowing from the Chinese to finance school attendance by a predominantly middle-class group of Americans.
But that is the tip of the iceberg: Though the ostensible objective of the loan program is to increase the proportion of adult Americans with college degrees, over 40 percent of those pursuing a bachelor’s degree fail to receive one within six years. And default is a growing problem with student loans.
Further, it’s not clear that college imparts much of value to the average student. The typical college student spends less than 30 hours a week, 32 weeks a year, on all academic matters — class attendance, writing papers, studying for exams, etc. They spend about half as much time on school as their parents spend working. If Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa (authors of Academically Adrift) are even roughly correct, today’s students typically learn little in the way of critical learning or writing skills while in school.
Moreover, the student-loan program has proven an ineffective way to achieve one of its initial aims, a goal also of the Wall Street protesters: increasing economic opportunity for the poor. In 1970, when federal student-loan and -grant programs were in their infancy, about 12 percent of college graduates came from the bottom one-fourth of the income distribution. While people from all social classes are more likely to go to college today, the poor haven’t gained nearly as much ground as the rich have: With the nation awash in nearly a trillion dollars in student-loan debt (more even than credit-card obligations), the proportion of bachelor’s-degree holders coming from the bottom one-fourth of the income distribution has fallen to around 7 percent.
The sins of the loan program are many. Let’s briefly mention just five.
First, artificially low interest rates are set by the federal government — they are fixed by law rather than market forces. Low-interest-rate mortgage loans resulting from loose Fed policies and the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spurred the housing bubble that caused the 2008 financial crisis. Arguably, federal student financial assistance is creating a second bubble in higher education.
Second, loan terms are invariant, with students with poor prospects of graduating and getting good jobs often borrowing at the same interest rates as those with excellent prospects (e.g., electrical-engineering majors at MIT).
Third, the availability of cheap loans has almost certainly contributed to the tuition explosion — college prices are going up even more than health-care prices.
Fourth, at present the loans are made by a monopoly provider, the same one that gave us such similar inefficient and costly monopolistic behemoths as the U.S. Postal Service.
Fifth, the student-loan and associated Pell Grant programs spawned the notorious FAFSA form that requires families to reveal all sorts of financial information — information that colleges use to engage in ruthless price discrimination via tuition discounting, charging wildly different amounts to students depending on how much their parents can afford to pay. It’s a soak-the-rich scheme on steroids.
Still, for good or ill, we have this unfortunate program. Wouldn’t loan forgiveness provide some stimulus to a moribund economy? The Wall Street protesters argue that if debt-burdened young persons were free of this albatross, they would start spending more on goods and services, stimulating employment. Yet we demonstrated with stimulus packages in 2008 and 2009 (not to mention the 1930s, Japan in the 1990s, etc.) that giving people more money to spend will not bring recovery. But even if it did, why should we give a break to this particular group of individuals, who disproportionately come from prosperous families to begin with? Why give them assistance while those who have dutifully repaid their loans get none? An arguably more equitable and efficient method of stimulus would be to drop dollars out of airplanes over low-income areas.
Moreover, this idea has ominous implications for the macro economy. Who would take the loss from the unanticipated non-repayment of a trillion dollars? If private financial institutions are liable for some of it, it could kill them, triggering another financial crisis. If the federal government shoulders the entire burden, we are adding a trillion or so more dollars in liabilities to a government already grievously overextended (upwards of $100 trillion in liabilities counting Medicare, Social Security, and the national debt), almost certainly leading to more debt downgrades, which could trigger investor panic. This idea is breathtaking in terms of its naïveté and stupidity.
The demonstrators say that selfish plutocrats are ruining our economy and creating an unjust society. Rather, a group of predominantly rather spoiled and coddled young persons, long favored and subsidized by the American taxpayer, are complaining that society has not given them enough — they want the taxpayer to foot the bill for their years of limited learning and heavy partying while in college. Hopefully, this burst of dimwittery should not pass muster even in our often dysfunctional Congress.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Biden Says End to Wars Gives US New Flexibility Read more on Newsmax.com: Biden Says End to Wars Gives US New Flexibility Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Note: Other past criminals are gone. Other war criminals are gone. That don't mean we can say "wow a new world of peace" There will always be someone there to take their place. Oh and by the way I still wont vote for these Hacks because they are gone! Its the Economy stupid!!
PS what does he really mean.. No more war spending so we can spend it elsewhere rather than pay on debt?
Vice President Joe Biden told graduating cadets at West Point that the United States is able to focus on new global challenges after a decade of war.
Biden addressed the 972 U.S. Military Academy cadets in a ceremony Saturday morning. He said a nation emerging from a decade of war has greater flexibility.
Biden's election-year commencement speech at the storied military academy echoed themes struck by President Barack Obama at the U.S. Air Force Academy on Wednesday. Obama said they were the first class in nearly a decade to graduate into a world that has no Osama bin Laden, no war in Iraq and no questions about when the war in Afghanistan will end.
NATO allies this week affirmed that the war in Afghanistan will end in 2014.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Biden Says End to Wars Gives US New Flexibility
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
All of Obama's I am not a big spender
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.
“Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.
The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.
It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.
Obama rests his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch, a financial information and news service owned by Dow Jones & Co. The analysis simply looks at the year-to-year topline spending number for the government but doesn’t account for distortions baked into the figures by the Wall Street bailout and government takeover of the mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The MarketWatch study finds spending growth of only 1.4 percent over 2010-2013, or annual increases averaging 0.4 percent over that period. Those are stunningly low figures considering that Obama rammed through Congress an $831 billion stimulus measure in early 2009 and presided over significant increases in annual spending by domestic agencies at the same time the cost of benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid were ticking steadily higher. (VIEW: REBUTTAL INFOGRPAHIC TAKES APART OBAMA SPENDING CLAIMS)
A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.
So, how does the administration arrive at its claim?
First, there’s the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110 billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much.
The combination of TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama’s spending record for 2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama “cut” spending by 1.8 percent in 2010 as the analysis claims.
The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama’s record on spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only $40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration’s reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by Obama.
Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317 billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent increase.
Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts.
There’s also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president’s spending since the incoming president usually doesn’t change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140 million chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill.
But Obama’s role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. While the numbers don’t jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there’s a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.
As other critics have noted, including former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the MarketWatch analysis also incorporates CBO’s annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. That gives Obama credit for three events unlikely to occur:
—$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-the-board spending cuts slated to take effect next January.
—Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.
—The expiration of refundable tax cuts that are “scored” as spending in federal ledgers.
Lawmakers are unlikely to allow the automatic cuts to take full effect, but it’s at best a guessing game as to what will really happen in 2013. A better measure is Obama’s request for 2013.
“You can only make him look good by ignoring the early years and adopting the hope and not the reality of the years in his budget,” said Holtz-Eakin, a GOP economist and president of the American Action Forum, a free market think tank.
So how does Obama measure up?
If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture:
—A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.
—A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/26/fact-check-obama-off-on-thrifty-spending-claim/#ixzz1w1WvzRWp
Friday, May 25, 2012
Obama_s_public_equity_failures
Note: Here is some highlights of the taxpayer loans to failed or failing Obama companies. Also don't forget about all the jobs LOST whe Obama took over GM and shut down all the dealers and the support staff that worked there! You don't hear about them people. Also the private investors in GM that lost Millions.
He has the nerve to attack Bain Capital. Toward the end it tells about the track record of Bain and Obama!
"ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the company’s president, Don Karner, in the first lady’s box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story. According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, 'We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.'"
Okay, he's two-for-two in failures, but he's gotta like this. ECOtality says they may not sustain profitability. Sustain? They may not even get there. And this guy's in Michelle Obama's box. He's being held up as an example of stimulus success. Another Obama bankruptcy on the verge of happening. "According to CBS News the company is 'under investigation for insider trading,' and Karner has been subpoenaed 'for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company.'
"Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in 'financial turmoil' and that '[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was "significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern."'
First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company 'fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce.'"
So a solar firm given three billion, losing $401 million because they fired 30% of the workforce. "Abound Solar, Inc. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon -- a green-energy storage company -- a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, 'Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of "CCC-plus."' In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy."
These are just tip of the iceberg. Everything Obama's touched in terms of public equity has gone bankrupt. They've laid people off. And it's not been his money. It's been ours that he has lost.
RUSH: By the way, there are more companies that Mr. Thiessen wrote about here in Obama's public equity. There's a solar outfit. "A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the [regime], and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth. Brightsource got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million. And, of course, let’s not forget Solyndra -- the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook."
Bain has an 80% track record.
Obama is an 0-fer.
But for some reason, some people think, "The government is trying to help people. The government's trying to help people. Big business is evil. It's rotten." It's a perception that's been with us for as long as you've been alive. And it's been brought to you by the American left and the Democrat Party. And every damn one of these outfits was nothing more than a crony Obama supporter who probably chose these industries to pretend to start up just to get some government money.
There was no business there.
There is no green energy.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/25/obama_s_public_equity_failures
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/harry-reid-i-have-no-problem-with-obamas-bain-capital-attacks-on-romney/
Desperate Drive-Bys Blame Racism for Obama's Dismal Performances in the Kentucky and Arkansas Primaries
RUSH: It happened again to Obama last night in the primaries. Greetings. Great to have you. Rush Limbaugh. We're back at the EIB Southern Command here in South Florida, broadcast excellence the next three hours, which will go by lickety-split. The time the program's over you'll think it just started. Telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
President Obama lost again last night. Roughly 40% of the vote in Democratic primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. West Virginia a couple of weeks ago. But Arkansas and Kentucky he lost again, 40% of the vote. The Washington Post has a story. Folks, the pretense is gone. It's a story by Chris Cillizza. Now, Cillizza didn't write the headline, but the story gets into this. The headline: "Kentucky, Arkansas Primaries: Is It Racism?" Obama is losing because voters are racist and no longer want a black American as president. It's not even a pretense anymore. They're not even holding it out as a possibility. Now it's the real thing.
"Those headlines have drawn a collective eyeroll from Democrats -- and many others who closely follow national politics -- who ascribe the underperformance by the incumbent to a very simple thing: racism." They are pulling out all the cards.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now Cillizza and the Washington Post basically saying that Obama's losing in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, 'cause of racism. The voters there are just racist. These are Democrat voters, now. Democrat voters. This is a Democrat primary. Democrat racists. Don't like Obama. They argue that conservative white Democrats, particularly those in the South and Appalachia don't want to vote for an African-American for president, and therefore are willing to cast a ballot for almost anyone else up to and including an incarcerated felon. They voted for Obama last time. They've become racists after Obama got in the White House.
Well, what we'll probably start hearing is that they voted for Obama the first time around so people wouldn't think they were racist, but now, after they've done that once, now they're gonna go back and they're free to be racists now since they've already shown that they're not by voting for Obama for the first time. This is the series of contortions that the media is going to try to put themselves in in order to explain this. It can't be his policies, of course. It can't be that people can't find jobs. It can't be that people's homes are underwater. It can't be that nobody wants health care. It can't be that Obama's out there promoting gay marriage. Can't be any of that. Oh, no, no. It's gotta be because these voters are racist. And this is the charge Republicans are afraid of. They don't want it said about them.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "Kentucky 2012 Primary: President Barack Obama Rejected by State Democrats in 67 Counties." If you missed the top of the program, it's Kentucky, it's Arkansas, West Virginia, in the last two weeks, Obama has lost 40% of the primary vote in these three states. The Washington Post out with a story today saying it has to be racism, has to be. We're talking Democrat voters. We're talking Democrat primary voters. And the Washington Post is concluding it has to be racism. It can't be the destruction of the economy. It can't be the absence of jobs. It can't be the fact that home prices and values are low. Oh, speaking of, grab audio sound bite number 26. We have a guy here, Gary Shilling. This is last night on Bloomberg TV's Street Smart program. The co-host Trish Regan spoke with Gary Shilling, who's a Bloomberg View columnist. They were talking about the housing market, and she said, "What's your big concern about housing? You don't buy these numbers that we saw today; is that right?"
SHILLING: Because of excess inventories we estimate that there are two million inventories, both visible and shadow inventories, over and above normal working levels, and that's a lot. Back in the, oh, normal times, we built about a million-and-a-half houses a year so. Two-and-a-half million is a tremendous overhang, and excess inventories are the mortal enemy of prices. What may happen here is that now that the robo-signing flap is settled and the servicers, the big banks, settled for $25 billion with the various state attorneys general and the federal government, they've been holding off on foreclosures because they had enough bad PR. Now they've settled that. I think they're gonna go back to foreclosures. I'm looking for another 20% decline.
RUSH: In the housing market. This is an expert at Bloomberg. Another 20% decline in the housing market. See, the big banks were foreclosing. Obama didn't like that so he called 'em on it. He fined 'em $25 billion. They had to pay $25 billion. And because they've done that, that takes care of their PR problem, they think, and this guy expects them to start foreclosing. So it can't be that. It can't be the fact that nobody can find work. It can't be the fact that Obama's out touting gay marriage, oh, no, can't be any of that. These white Democrats in Arkansas and Kentucky, West Virginia, who voted for Obama in '08 have all of a sudden become racists. That's it. The Washington Post has made that determination.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/23/desperate_drive_bys_blame_racism_for_obama_s_dismal_performances_in_the_kentucky_and_arkansas_primaries
President Obama lost again last night. Roughly 40% of the vote in Democratic primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. West Virginia a couple of weeks ago. But Arkansas and Kentucky he lost again, 40% of the vote. The Washington Post has a story. Folks, the pretense is gone. It's a story by Chris Cillizza. Now, Cillizza didn't write the headline, but the story gets into this. The headline: "Kentucky, Arkansas Primaries: Is It Racism?" Obama is losing because voters are racist and no longer want a black American as president. It's not even a pretense anymore. They're not even holding it out as a possibility. Now it's the real thing.
"Those headlines have drawn a collective eyeroll from Democrats -- and many others who closely follow national politics -- who ascribe the underperformance by the incumbent to a very simple thing: racism." They are pulling out all the cards.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now Cillizza and the Washington Post basically saying that Obama's losing in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, 'cause of racism. The voters there are just racist. These are Democrat voters, now. Democrat voters. This is a Democrat primary. Democrat racists. Don't like Obama. They argue that conservative white Democrats, particularly those in the South and Appalachia don't want to vote for an African-American for president, and therefore are willing to cast a ballot for almost anyone else up to and including an incarcerated felon. They voted for Obama last time. They've become racists after Obama got in the White House.
Well, what we'll probably start hearing is that they voted for Obama the first time around so people wouldn't think they were racist, but now, after they've done that once, now they're gonna go back and they're free to be racists now since they've already shown that they're not by voting for Obama for the first time. This is the series of contortions that the media is going to try to put themselves in in order to explain this. It can't be his policies, of course. It can't be that people can't find jobs. It can't be that people's homes are underwater. It can't be that nobody wants health care. It can't be that Obama's out there promoting gay marriage. Can't be any of that. Oh, no, no. It's gotta be because these voters are racist. And this is the charge Republicans are afraid of. They don't want it said about them.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "Kentucky 2012 Primary: President Barack Obama Rejected by State Democrats in 67 Counties." If you missed the top of the program, it's Kentucky, it's Arkansas, West Virginia, in the last two weeks, Obama has lost 40% of the primary vote in these three states. The Washington Post out with a story today saying it has to be racism, has to be. We're talking Democrat voters. We're talking Democrat primary voters. And the Washington Post is concluding it has to be racism. It can't be the destruction of the economy. It can't be the absence of jobs. It can't be the fact that home prices and values are low. Oh, speaking of, grab audio sound bite number 26. We have a guy here, Gary Shilling. This is last night on Bloomberg TV's Street Smart program. The co-host Trish Regan spoke with Gary Shilling, who's a Bloomberg View columnist. They were talking about the housing market, and she said, "What's your big concern about housing? You don't buy these numbers that we saw today; is that right?"
SHILLING: Because of excess inventories we estimate that there are two million inventories, both visible and shadow inventories, over and above normal working levels, and that's a lot. Back in the, oh, normal times, we built about a million-and-a-half houses a year so. Two-and-a-half million is a tremendous overhang, and excess inventories are the mortal enemy of prices. What may happen here is that now that the robo-signing flap is settled and the servicers, the big banks, settled for $25 billion with the various state attorneys general and the federal government, they've been holding off on foreclosures because they had enough bad PR. Now they've settled that. I think they're gonna go back to foreclosures. I'm looking for another 20% decline.
RUSH: In the housing market. This is an expert at Bloomberg. Another 20% decline in the housing market. See, the big banks were foreclosing. Obama didn't like that so he called 'em on it. He fined 'em $25 billion. They had to pay $25 billion. And because they've done that, that takes care of their PR problem, they think, and this guy expects them to start foreclosing. So it can't be that. It can't be the fact that nobody can find work. It can't be the fact that Obama's out touting gay marriage, oh, no, can't be any of that. These white Democrats in Arkansas and Kentucky, West Virginia, who voted for Obama in '08 have all of a sudden become racists. That's it. The Washington Post has made that determination.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/23/desperate_drive_bys_blame_racism_for_obama_s_dismal_performances_in_the_kentucky_and_arkansas_primaries
Rep-king-slams-white-house-for-sharing-bin-laden-secrets-with-hollywood/
Myself , I will not vote for this guy just because he got Binladen! This will not help my own finances or it wont help the economy. If there is a movie it won't sway me or will I watch it!
The White House has apparently undermined the secrecy that protects U.S. anti-jihadi operations because it wants to aid Hollywood’s quick production of a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, according to a statement from Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
E-mails released May 22 show “a damning story of extremely close, unprecedented, and potentially dangerous collaboration with top officials at the CIA, the [Department of Defense] and the White House and a top Democratic lobbying firm,” King said.
King is pressing administration officials to explain their unprecedented cooperation with producer Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, whose movie, titled “Zero Dark Thirty,” is slated for release later this year.
Bigelow and Boal apparently used a Democratic lobbying firm, the Glover Park Group, to help them get access to officials and soldiers involved in the successful killing.
“Is it CIA practice to meet with registered lobbyists in order to facilitate access to National Clandestine Service personnel?… Were [CIA spies] introduced to Boal and Bigelow over the objections of the Director of the [CIA counterterrorism center], who apparently declined to meet with the filmmakers?” King asked in a May 23 letter sent to Michael Morell, deputy director of the CIA.
“Who specifically authorized current [Pentagon] Special Mission Unit operators to speak about this mission to uncleared personnel outside of their chain of command?… What specifically was your guidance [given to you] from your chain of command and the White House?” King asked in a second letter to Michael Vickers, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
The information sharing occurred even though top defense officials had apparently won a top White House commitment in May 2011 to shield secret intelligence-gathering techniques from the global media, King said.
“We simply cannot forget what then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said a week after the raid,” King said in his statement.
“Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day,” Gates said in May 2011, shortly after the media began publishing classified information about the raid that had been leaked by government officials.
The details of the close cooperation between White House officials and the filmmakers were published by a D.C.-based public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, following a Freedom of Information Act request.
“The email messages indicate that the filmmakers were allowed an unprecedented visit to a classified facility so secret that its name is redacted in the released email,” said King’s May 23 statement, which also included copies of the letters sent to Pentagon and CIA officials.
King also slammed the White House for allowing a lobbying firm to broker the meetings between the filmmakers and top White House officials, at least one of the officers who planned the raid, and several CIA anti-jihadi officials.
“The Democratic lobbying firm Glover Park Group was… intimately involved in brokering these filmmakers’ access to clandestine officers and potentially special operators only weeks after the mission and when details were otherwise still very closely guarded,” King said.
Since the cooperation took place, a top CIA public affairs aide has joined the Obama reelection campaign, said King’s statement.
Joel Arends, chairman of Veterans for a Strong America also criticized the cooperation, calling the entire move “disgusting and shameful behavior on the part of this White House” in a statement to The Daily Caller.
Arends said, “President Obama claimed he would not spike the football – now he is allowing his administration to literally write the movie and sell the movie rights.”
“The use of classified facilities at the Pentagon and CIA for the purposes of making a movie, which was originally due for release before the election,” he noted, “is the outright use of highly secretive national security resources for political campaigning.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/rep-king-slams-white-house-for-sharing-bin-laden-secrets-with-hollywood/#ixzz1vvnSxtJZ
The White House has apparently undermined the secrecy that protects U.S. anti-jihadi operations because it wants to aid Hollywood’s quick production of a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, according to a statement from Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
E-mails released May 22 show “a damning story of extremely close, unprecedented, and potentially dangerous collaboration with top officials at the CIA, the [Department of Defense] and the White House and a top Democratic lobbying firm,” King said.
King is pressing administration officials to explain their unprecedented cooperation with producer Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, whose movie, titled “Zero Dark Thirty,” is slated for release later this year.
Bigelow and Boal apparently used a Democratic lobbying firm, the Glover Park Group, to help them get access to officials and soldiers involved in the successful killing.
“Is it CIA practice to meet with registered lobbyists in order to facilitate access to National Clandestine Service personnel?… Were [CIA spies] introduced to Boal and Bigelow over the objections of the Director of the [CIA counterterrorism center], who apparently declined to meet with the filmmakers?” King asked in a May 23 letter sent to Michael Morell, deputy director of the CIA.
“Who specifically authorized current [Pentagon] Special Mission Unit operators to speak about this mission to uncleared personnel outside of their chain of command?… What specifically was your guidance [given to you] from your chain of command and the White House?” King asked in a second letter to Michael Vickers, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
The information sharing occurred even though top defense officials had apparently won a top White House commitment in May 2011 to shield secret intelligence-gathering techniques from the global media, King said.
“We simply cannot forget what then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said a week after the raid,” King said in his statement.
“Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day,” Gates said in May 2011, shortly after the media began publishing classified information about the raid that had been leaked by government officials.
The details of the close cooperation between White House officials and the filmmakers were published by a D.C.-based public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, following a Freedom of Information Act request.
“The email messages indicate that the filmmakers were allowed an unprecedented visit to a classified facility so secret that its name is redacted in the released email,” said King’s May 23 statement, which also included copies of the letters sent to Pentagon and CIA officials.
King also slammed the White House for allowing a lobbying firm to broker the meetings between the filmmakers and top White House officials, at least one of the officers who planned the raid, and several CIA anti-jihadi officials.
“The Democratic lobbying firm Glover Park Group was… intimately involved in brokering these filmmakers’ access to clandestine officers and potentially special operators only weeks after the mission and when details were otherwise still very closely guarded,” King said.
Since the cooperation took place, a top CIA public affairs aide has joined the Obama reelection campaign, said King’s statement.
Joel Arends, chairman of Veterans for a Strong America also criticized the cooperation, calling the entire move “disgusting and shameful behavior on the part of this White House” in a statement to The Daily Caller.
Arends said, “President Obama claimed he would not spike the football – now he is allowing his administration to literally write the movie and sell the movie rights.”
“The use of classified facilities at the Pentagon and CIA for the purposes of making a movie, which was originally due for release before the election,” he noted, “is the outright use of highly secretive national security resources for political campaigning.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/rep-king-slams-white-house-for-sharing-bin-laden-secrets-with-hollywood/#ixzz1vvnSxtJZ
Mcconnell-on-bain-attacks-obama-most-anti-business-president-since-carter-video/
Weighing in on the Obama campaign’s criticism of GOP opponent Mitt Romney’s work as the CEO of Bain Capital, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell labeled the Obama administration the “most anti-business” White House since “the Carter years.”
But Majority Leader Harry Reid disagreed, saying he has “no problem” with the president’s surrogates attacking Bain. (VIDEO: Obama: Bain debate ‘is what the campaign is going to be about’)
“The whole notion of earned success, and of capitalism, seems to be under attack by this administration across the board — not just in the campaign, but through the actions of the government itself,” McConnell told reporters at the Capitol Tuesday. ”They seem to have forgotten what made this country great and what has lifted literally millions of Americans out of poverty for a long period of time.”
“It’s been a robust capitalist system. I think the view of this administration is that if you are making a profit, you must be up to no good. You must either mistreating your employees or cheating your customers or both.” (RELATED: Obama stands by hits on Romney’s Bain Capital days)
“This is certainly the most anti-business administration since the Carter years,” McConnell added, ”and at least you could say this for President Carter: He was largely incompetent. This administration has actually done a lot of damage to the country. We hope we can begin to clean up the mess and repair the damage after the election.”
Reid had a different opinion.
“I believe that Governor Romney, who holds himself up to be this great businessman, should have to — should have his record looked at. I have no problem with this,” he said Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/mcconnell-on-bain-attacks-obama-most-anti-business-president-since-carter-video/#ixzz1vvmaUPu0
Pelosi: Forcing Military Chaplains to Perform Gay Marriages Against Their Beliefs No Big Deal
Note: Forcing? Here we go again....Wanting to force an issue. She is an idiot!
The stage is being set so that military Chaplains can and most likely will be ordered to perform same sex marriage in contradiction to their religious beliefs.
WASHINGTON, May 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Democrat House leaders including Nancy Pelosi have opposed a measure to ensure military chaplains are not forced to perform same-sex “marriages,” arguing that it is based on a “manufactured crisis” and therefore unnecessary - a response strongly criticized by chaplain advocates.The result will be that chaplains of certain faiths abandon the military as they are forced to choose between violating their faiths or being driven out for not performing such marriage ceremonies.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday echoed sentiments issued by the Obama White House regarding the conscience language, part of a defense spending bill, saying that “there’s nothing that says that chaplains act against their faith.”
What is required is the respect of certain long-established and broadly supported religious beliefs. We currently lack a White House and Democrat leadership capable of providing this respect. When Leftists empowered by big government meet religion, religion loses and is ultimately diminished in size and influence.
Pelosi and Obama need to be held accountable for it and not be allowed to slip away based on misleading arguments designed to give them the authority to dictate their own liberal agendas.
ABC, NBC Punt on Alleged Obama Administration Leak of Classified Information to Hollywood
CBS This Morning stood out as the only Big Three network morning show on Thursday to cover a conservative group's allegation that the Obama administration gave a movie director and writer "special access to government officials involved in the commando operation that killed Osama bin Laden," as reported by Reuters on Wednesday. ABC's Good Morning America and NBC's Today ignored the story.
Correspondent Chip Reid outlined that "the documents...obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group...reveal that director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal...met with top national security officials; gained access to Seal Team 6; and visited the CIA."
Anchor Charlie Rose pointed out in his introduction to Reid's report that there was "new information this morning on an alleged security leak by the Obama administration. Officials are accused of telling Hollywood filmmakers too much about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden." The CBS journalist continued that "it's no surprise that the Obama administration would enthusiastically welcome a movie about the killing of bin Laden. But some critics say what is surprising is how far the White House was willing to go to get that movie made."
Reid provided some corroboration to the Judicial Watch allegation during his report: "Sources tell CBS News the White House put the movie on the fast track, aggressively looking for ways to help." He also played a soundbite from Republican Congressman Peter King, who criticized the administration's catering of Hollywood: "I believe they could have compromised secrets. They could have put people's lives at risk."
Near the end of his report, the correspondent noted how "many officials, including former defense secretary Robert Gates in an interview with Charlie Rose, have expressed frustration over how much of the bin Laden mission has been leaked."
Mark Hosenball highlighted in his Wednesday report for Reuters that "neither the CIA nor the Pentagon disputed the authenticity of the documents" obtained by Judicial Watch. Even with this detail, it seems that ABC and NBC concluded that it wasn't newsworthy to cover for their morning newscasts on Thursday.
The full transcript of Chip Reid's report from Thursday's CBS This Morning, which aired 12 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour:
CHARLIE ROSE: We have new information this morning on an alleged security leak by the Obama administration. Officials are accused of telling Hollywood filmmakers too much about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
ERICA HILL: Chip Reid is in Washington this morning. Chip, good morning.
[CBS News Graphic: "Helping Hollywood: White House Under Fire Over Bin Laden Movie"]
CHIP REID: Well, good morning, Erica and Charlie. You know, it's no surprise that the Obama administration would enthusiastically welcome a movie about the killing of bin Laden. But some critics say what is surprising is how far the White House was willing to go to get that movie made.
REID (voice-over): The mission to kill Osama bin Laden is the stuff movies are made of. But newly obtained documents reveal the Obama administration went out of its way to give access to well-connected Hollywood filmmakers. While asking a CIA official to speak to one of the filmmakers, a public affairs officer wrote, 'I know this is a little outside what we typically do,' but 'we're trying to keep his visits a bit quiet.' Sources tell CBS News the White House put the movie on the fast track, aggressively looking for ways to help.
Republican Congressman Peter King says the administration crossed the line.
REP. PETER KING, (R), NEW YORK: I give the President full credit for this raid, but it seems as if the White House wasn't content to let that be enough. I believe they could have compromised secrets. They could have put people's lives at risk.
REID: The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group. They reveal that director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, who both won Oscars for the motion picture, 'The Hurt Locker,' met with top national security officials; gained access to Seal Team 6; and visited the CIA, where some of the planning took place. But administration officials say the meeting with Seal Team 6 never happened, and officials who did meet with the movie makers did so to make sure they got the facts straight. A Pentagon spokesman said, 'This is something we do every single day of the week, and this is not driven by politics.'
Even so, many officials, including former defense secretary Robert Gates in an interview with Charlie Rose, have expressed frustration over how much of the bin Laden mission has been leaked.
CHARLIE ROSE (from interview on CBS This Morning): The night of the bin Laden raid and the assassination and the killing-
ROBERT GATES, FMR. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The one where we pledged to each other we would never go out public with operational-
ROSE: And how long did that last?
GATES: Five hours.
REID (on-camera): White House critics have said that what the White House was trying to do is get the movie made before Election Day. The White House denies that. The movie is now set for release some time in December, after Election Day. Charlie and Erica?
ROSE: Chip Reid, thanks.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/05/24/abc-nbc-punt-alleged-obama-administration-leak-classified-information#ixzz1vvkzOBNb
Correspondent Chip Reid outlined that "the documents...obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group...reveal that director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal...met with top national security officials; gained access to Seal Team 6; and visited the CIA."
Anchor Charlie Rose pointed out in his introduction to Reid's report that there was "new information this morning on an alleged security leak by the Obama administration. Officials are accused of telling Hollywood filmmakers too much about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden." The CBS journalist continued that "it's no surprise that the Obama administration would enthusiastically welcome a movie about the killing of bin Laden. But some critics say what is surprising is how far the White House was willing to go to get that movie made."
Reid provided some corroboration to the Judicial Watch allegation during his report: "Sources tell CBS News the White House put the movie on the fast track, aggressively looking for ways to help." He also played a soundbite from Republican Congressman Peter King, who criticized the administration's catering of Hollywood: "I believe they could have compromised secrets. They could have put people's lives at risk."Near the end of his report, the correspondent noted how "many officials, including former defense secretary Robert Gates in an interview with Charlie Rose, have expressed frustration over how much of the bin Laden mission has been leaked."
Mark Hosenball highlighted in his Wednesday report for Reuters that "neither the CIA nor the Pentagon disputed the authenticity of the documents" obtained by Judicial Watch. Even with this detail, it seems that ABC and NBC concluded that it wasn't newsworthy to cover for their morning newscasts on Thursday.
The full transcript of Chip Reid's report from Thursday's CBS This Morning, which aired 12 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour:
CHARLIE ROSE: We have new information this morning on an alleged security leak by the Obama administration. Officials are accused of telling Hollywood filmmakers too much about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
ERICA HILL: Chip Reid is in Washington this morning. Chip, good morning.
[CBS News Graphic: "Helping Hollywood: White House Under Fire Over Bin Laden Movie"]
CHIP REID: Well, good morning, Erica and Charlie. You know, it's no surprise that the Obama administration would enthusiastically welcome a movie about the killing of bin Laden. But some critics say what is surprising is how far the White House was willing to go to get that movie made.
REID (voice-over): The mission to kill Osama bin Laden is the stuff movies are made of. But newly obtained documents reveal the Obama administration went out of its way to give access to well-connected Hollywood filmmakers. While asking a CIA official to speak to one of the filmmakers, a public affairs officer wrote, 'I know this is a little outside what we typically do,' but 'we're trying to keep his visits a bit quiet.' Sources tell CBS News the White House put the movie on the fast track, aggressively looking for ways to help.
Republican Congressman Peter King says the administration crossed the line.
REP. PETER KING, (R), NEW YORK: I give the President full credit for this raid, but it seems as if the White House wasn't content to let that be enough. I believe they could have compromised secrets. They could have put people's lives at risk.
REID: The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group. They reveal that director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, who both won Oscars for the motion picture, 'The Hurt Locker,' met with top national security officials; gained access to Seal Team 6; and visited the CIA, where some of the planning took place. But administration officials say the meeting with Seal Team 6 never happened, and officials who did meet with the movie makers did so to make sure they got the facts straight. A Pentagon spokesman said, 'This is something we do every single day of the week, and this is not driven by politics.'
Even so, many officials, including former defense secretary Robert Gates in an interview with Charlie Rose, have expressed frustration over how much of the bin Laden mission has been leaked.
CHARLIE ROSE (from interview on CBS This Morning): The night of the bin Laden raid and the assassination and the killing-
ROBERT GATES, FMR. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The one where we pledged to each other we would never go out public with operational-
ROSE: And how long did that last?
GATES: Five hours.
REID (on-camera): White House critics have said that what the White House was trying to do is get the movie made before Election Day. The White House denies that. The movie is now set for release some time in December, after Election Day. Charlie and Erica?
ROSE: Chip Reid, thanks.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/05/24/abc-nbc-punt-alleged-obama-administration-leak-classified-information#ixzz1vvkzOBNb
Dnc-spokesman-recognizes-question-of-obama-resume-fraud/
Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse went there: He acknowledged the emerging question of whether a young Barack Obama could have fraudulently mischaracterized his upbringing while seeking entrance to three colleges — Occidental, Columbia and Harvard.
On Tuesday afternoon, Donald Trump tweeted out a coy message saying, “I wonder if @BarackObama ever applied to Occidental, Columbia or Harvard as a foreign student. When can we see his applications? What do they say about his place of birth.”
Nine minutes after Trump’s tweet, Woodhouse jumped in, seeking to entangle Gov. Mitt Romney in Trump’s inquiry. “What say you @MittRomney?” Woodhouse tweeted.
The possibility floated by Trump was raised by recent discoveries of inaccuracies in a past resume produced for Obama and in a resume offered by Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.
During the 1990s, Warren touted a claim that she was 1/32 Cherokee Indian while she was seeking a teaching slot at Harvard. President Barack Obama’s literary agent told publishers from 1991 to 2007 that he was born in Kenya.
There’s little or no solid evidence that either claim is true, and there’s conflicting reports about how the misleading information was produced.
The intervention risks highlighting the issue, but may be intended to delegitimize the issue by associating it with the wealthy and bombastic Trump, who is derided by many media professionals and Democrats.
The issue also provides Democrats another story line to distract the public from Romney’s focus on the economy, where record unemployment, deficits and debts have driven Obama’s public approval ratings well below 50 percent.
Democrats have already pushed several media controversies — including the short-lived Republican “war on women” and Obama’s decision to switch his position on the definition of marriage — that have successfully drawn media attention away from the public’s anger over the stalled economy.
Fraudulent resumes, however, have damaged many politicians and executives’ careers.
Warren’s unproven Indian claim has badly damaged her Senate run, and has scalped her ratings in the strongly Democratic state.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign was hit when he was unable to substantiate all of his Vietnam War resume.
Others Democrats have survived resume hits. They include Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who exaggerated his record in the Vietnam War, and Vice President Joe Biden, who padded his academic claims.
The possibility of fraud in Obama’s college applications could undermine his relatively high personal ratings, which his campaign is using to offset his low performance ratings.
Obama has not okayed the release of any of his university records, even though he has pitched his administration as the “most transparent” administration ever.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/dnc-spokesman-recognizes-question-of-obama-resume-fraud/#ixzz1vvkJFJ9u
On Tuesday afternoon, Donald Trump tweeted out a coy message saying, “I wonder if @BarackObama ever applied to Occidental, Columbia or Harvard as a foreign student. When can we see his applications? What do they say about his place of birth.”
Nine minutes after Trump’s tweet, Woodhouse jumped in, seeking to entangle Gov. Mitt Romney in Trump’s inquiry. “What say you @MittRomney?” Woodhouse tweeted.
The possibility floated by Trump was raised by recent discoveries of inaccuracies in a past resume produced for Obama and in a resume offered by Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.
During the 1990s, Warren touted a claim that she was 1/32 Cherokee Indian while she was seeking a teaching slot at Harvard. President Barack Obama’s literary agent told publishers from 1991 to 2007 that he was born in Kenya.
There’s little or no solid evidence that either claim is true, and there’s conflicting reports about how the misleading information was produced.
The intervention risks highlighting the issue, but may be intended to delegitimize the issue by associating it with the wealthy and bombastic Trump, who is derided by many media professionals and Democrats.
The issue also provides Democrats another story line to distract the public from Romney’s focus on the economy, where record unemployment, deficits and debts have driven Obama’s public approval ratings well below 50 percent.
Democrats have already pushed several media controversies — including the short-lived Republican “war on women” and Obama’s decision to switch his position on the definition of marriage — that have successfully drawn media attention away from the public’s anger over the stalled economy.
Fraudulent resumes, however, have damaged many politicians and executives’ careers.
Warren’s unproven Indian claim has badly damaged her Senate run, and has scalped her ratings in the strongly Democratic state.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign was hit when he was unable to substantiate all of his Vietnam War resume.
Others Democrats have survived resume hits. They include Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who exaggerated his record in the Vietnam War, and Vice President Joe Biden, who padded his academic claims.
The possibility of fraud in Obama’s college applications could undermine his relatively high personal ratings, which his campaign is using to offset his low performance ratings.
Obama has not okayed the release of any of his university records, even though he has pitched his administration as the “most transparent” administration ever.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/dnc-spokesman-recognizes-question-of-obama-resume-fraud/#ixzz1vvkJFJ9u
Thursday, May 24, 2012
http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=91074&sitesection=breitbartprivate&VID=23627460
How can I respect the guy when they spin the truth on spending?
How can I respect the guy when they spin the truth on spending?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Clyburn-romney-bain-raping-companies-video/
Mitt Romney was “raping companies” at Bain Capital, said Rep. James Clyburn on Tuesday.
“There’s something about raping companies and leaving them in debt and setting up Swiss bank accounts and corporate businesses in the Grand Caymans,” the South Carolina Democrat said Tuesday morning on MSNBC. “I have a serious problem with that.”
Clyburn’s strong language takes attacks on Romney’s private equity past to a new level for Democratic lawmakers, who have largely been attacking Romney in unison with the Obama campaign.
UPDATE 2:27 PM:
An Obama campaign spokesperson, Lis Smith, emailed The Daily Caller the following statement when asked for comment:
“We strongly disagree with Congressman Clyburn’s choice of words- they have no place in this conversation. But we do believe that Mitt Romney should come clean about his record as a corporate buyout specialist and how, contrary to his claims of creating jobs, his focus was on reaping quick profits for investors at the expense of workers and middle class families.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/clyburn-romney-bain-raping-companies-video/#ixzz1veNpLmhh
Ohio Rep. Johnson: EPA Rules Crippling my State
Despite Vice President Joe Biden’s touting of the Obama administration’s record
on manufacturing in Ohio on Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
is moving to cripple the energy business in the state, Rep. Bill Johnson told
Newsmax TV.
“The EPA is actually trying to shut down steel manufacturing in America,” the Ohio Republican said.
New regulations due soon could effectively close the nation’s only two makers of manganese ferroalloy, a critical component in steel manufacturing, Johnson said. One plant is in Marietta, Ohio; the other, in Letart, W. Va.
“Their analysis is both technically and scientifically flawed,” Johnson said of the EPA. “The remediation and compliance requirements – to put a dome over those facilities – is economically infeasible.
“They’ll shut down,” he added. “We’ll lose 500-plus jobs and America will have to buy manganese from our competitors, like China.”
“That’s a national security issue — and it’s just another example of how the rhetoric coming out of the White House … says one thing, and their actions and policies are doing something different.”
In his Thursday stop at M-7 Technologies, which conducts high-tech manufacturing as well as research and development, Biden criticized Republican Mitt Romney on his record at Bain Capital Management and highlighted the White House’s focus on reviving the manufacturing industry.
But any improved manufacturing in Ohio is not occurring because of the administration, Johnson told Newsmax. He noted how increased natural gas production at the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in the state cut domestic oil productions on federal lands by 11 percent last year.
“The growth is occurring in spite of the president and vice president and their policies, not because of them,” Johnson said.
He also noted how the EPA also is trying to increase regulation of “fracking” – pumping millions of gallons of water, toxic chemicals, and sand into wells to free up oil and gas far below ground – despite Ohio having one of the best safety records on fracking since 1965. The state even has support from EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, he said.
“So why does the federal EPA need to insert itself into a process that’s working very well already?” Johnson asked.
He also noted how Ohio residents get 87 percent of their energy from coal — and how federal regulations threaten the state’s underground coal-mining industry by reducing production in half with as many as 27,000 coal industry and related jobs lost. “It’s just absolutely irresponsible.”
Americans are paying $300 more on average for energy per year now than when Obama became president, said Johnson. He called on the EPA, the Interior Department and other regulatory agencies to become “partners in progress” with energy companies to address issues.
“I’m all for common-sense regulations, but ‘no’ should not be the final answer for any of these industries,” Johnson said. “That’s not what the American people expect. That’s not what the American people deserve.”
As for the November election, Johnson said he’s going to work to deliver Ohio, a crucial swing state, to Romney. Johnson faces a rematch in his seat in the south east of the state with former Democratic Congressman Charlie Wilson, whom he defeated two years ago.
“We’re going to see the debate turn to jobs and the economy,” Johnson said. “That’s what the people along the Ohio River think is important. They’re also very upset about the uncertainty that’s associated with the health-care law.”
Johnson noted how Wilson did not contest rewritten regulations that threatened the state’s coal industry and how he “voted 98.2 percent of the time for the big-government, big-spending agenda of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Ohio Rep. Johnson: EPA Rules Crippling my State
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Johnson-EPA-cripples-Ohio/2012/05/18/id/439590
“The EPA is actually trying to shut down steel manufacturing in America,” the Ohio Republican said.
New regulations due soon could effectively close the nation’s only two makers of manganese ferroalloy, a critical component in steel manufacturing, Johnson said. One plant is in Marietta, Ohio; the other, in Letart, W. Va.
“Their analysis is both technically and scientifically flawed,” Johnson said of the EPA. “The remediation and compliance requirements – to put a dome over those facilities – is economically infeasible.
“They’ll shut down,” he added. “We’ll lose 500-plus jobs and America will have to buy manganese from our competitors, like China.”
“That’s a national security issue — and it’s just another example of how the rhetoric coming out of the White House … says one thing, and their actions and policies are doing something different.”
In his Thursday stop at M-7 Technologies, which conducts high-tech manufacturing as well as research and development, Biden criticized Republican Mitt Romney on his record at Bain Capital Management and highlighted the White House’s focus on reviving the manufacturing industry.
But any improved manufacturing in Ohio is not occurring because of the administration, Johnson told Newsmax. He noted how increased natural gas production at the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in the state cut domestic oil productions on federal lands by 11 percent last year.
“The growth is occurring in spite of the president and vice president and their policies, not because of them,” Johnson said.
He also noted how the EPA also is trying to increase regulation of “fracking” – pumping millions of gallons of water, toxic chemicals, and sand into wells to free up oil and gas far below ground – despite Ohio having one of the best safety records on fracking since 1965. The state even has support from EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, he said.
“So why does the federal EPA need to insert itself into a process that’s working very well already?” Johnson asked.
He also noted how Ohio residents get 87 percent of their energy from coal — and how federal regulations threaten the state’s underground coal-mining industry by reducing production in half with as many as 27,000 coal industry and related jobs lost. “It’s just absolutely irresponsible.”
Americans are paying $300 more on average for energy per year now than when Obama became president, said Johnson. He called on the EPA, the Interior Department and other regulatory agencies to become “partners in progress” with energy companies to address issues.
“I’m all for common-sense regulations, but ‘no’ should not be the final answer for any of these industries,” Johnson said. “That’s not what the American people expect. That’s not what the American people deserve.”
As for the November election, Johnson said he’s going to work to deliver Ohio, a crucial swing state, to Romney. Johnson faces a rematch in his seat in the south east of the state with former Democratic Congressman Charlie Wilson, whom he defeated two years ago.
“We’re going to see the debate turn to jobs and the economy,” Johnson said. “That’s what the people along the Ohio River think is important. They’re also very upset about the uncertainty that’s associated with the health-care law.”
Johnson noted how Wilson did not contest rewritten regulations that threatened the state’s coal industry and how he “voted 98.2 percent of the time for the big-government, big-spending agenda of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Ohio Rep. Johnson: EPA Rules Crippling my State
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Johnson-EPA-cripples-Ohio/2012/05/18/id/439590
Media-matters-sen-coons-dismiss-solyndra-as-distraction-in-clean-energy-fight/
The liberal advocacy group Media Matters for America and Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons teamed up Thursday to urge reporters to ignore the Solyndra scandal.
“Media Matters is watching the news all day, every day,” Media Matters President Matt Butler declared during a Thursday morning call with reporters. After “the year-and-a-half long failed investigation of Solyndra” — the collapsed Department of Energy-backed solar company that cost taxpayers $535 million — “clean energy opponents are not letting up,” Butler lamented.
Supporters of green energy should not allow talk of the the Solyndra debacle, and other skepticism directed at federally subsidized fossil fuel alternatives, to overshadow “scores of success stories surrounding American clean energy companies,” Butler said.
The call, he explained, was arranged to “explain why continued federal support for private sector investment and a clear U.S. policy direction is really, really needed.”
Coons, who spoke during the Media Matters-organized call, chimed in by applauding the liberal messaging group’s work.
“I’m grateful for what you [Butler] and Media Matters do year in and year out to help set the record straight” about American energy policy, Coons began. (RELATED: Full coverage of Media Matters)
“This is a moment where if America’s going to lead [on energy policy], we have to work together,” Coons continued, referring to “work[ing] together” with private sector energy companies through government assistance.
Coons mentioned that he had attended the ARPA-E Summit earlier this year — where green energy proponents gathered and concluded that tax breaks were needed to spur growth in the industry — and noticed that the private green energy market was already moving on its own.
The event is presented by the Clean Technology and Sustainable Industries Organization and co-hosted by the U.S. Department of Energy and its Advanced Projects Research Agency (ARPA-E).
“[I] was really inspired by what I saw there,” Coons explained. “The private sector is investing significantly. Entrepreneurs are making significant progress in launching new companies. Researchers at both the national labs and in the academic community are making critical innovations and inventions.”
The House Oversight Committee held a hearing Wednesday to examine the impact of the Department of Energy loan guarantee program — a second look spurred by the collapse of Solyndra and other green energy companies.
If the goal of that investigation is ultimately to slow federal support for green energy initiatives, Sen. Coons, who sits on the Senate Energy Committee, seems to think it’s working.
“All of these pieces of the clean energy eco-system are functioning and healthy, but they have a critical problem,” warned Coons. There’s not enough government backing, he said, thanks to “the ongoing partisan differences that Matt [Butler] referred to,” like the broad debate over Solyndra.
Those investigations may have created too great a distraction to move forward on green energy policy in the short-term, he said. “We may be handcuffed by these bitter partisan debates,” Coons admitted.
Those distractions also include companies like First Solar, whose chairman admitted before a House subcommittee Wednesday that the $3.1 billion in Energy Department loan guarantees his outfit received helped create more jobs overseas than in the United States.
“I do just want to say thank you to Media Matters and others on this call for not allowing over-hyped partisan investigations to become the only story about these big changes in the clean energy economy,” Coons said.
“Media Matters is watching the news all day, every day,” Media Matters President Matt Butler declared during a Thursday morning call with reporters. After “the year-and-a-half long failed investigation of Solyndra” — the collapsed Department of Energy-backed solar company that cost taxpayers $535 million — “clean energy opponents are not letting up,” Butler lamented.
Supporters of green energy should not allow talk of the the Solyndra debacle, and other skepticism directed at federally subsidized fossil fuel alternatives, to overshadow “scores of success stories surrounding American clean energy companies,” Butler said.
The call, he explained, was arranged to “explain why continued federal support for private sector investment and a clear U.S. policy direction is really, really needed.”
Coons, who spoke during the Media Matters-organized call, chimed in by applauding the liberal messaging group’s work.
“I’m grateful for what you [Butler] and Media Matters do year in and year out to help set the record straight” about American energy policy, Coons began. (RELATED: Full coverage of Media Matters)
“This is a moment where if America’s going to lead [on energy policy], we have to work together,” Coons continued, referring to “work[ing] together” with private sector energy companies through government assistance.
Coons mentioned that he had attended the ARPA-E Summit earlier this year — where green energy proponents gathered and concluded that tax breaks were needed to spur growth in the industry — and noticed that the private green energy market was already moving on its own.
The event is presented by the Clean Technology and Sustainable Industries Organization and co-hosted by the U.S. Department of Energy and its Advanced Projects Research Agency (ARPA-E).
“[I] was really inspired by what I saw there,” Coons explained. “The private sector is investing significantly. Entrepreneurs are making significant progress in launching new companies. Researchers at both the national labs and in the academic community are making critical innovations and inventions.”
The House Oversight Committee held a hearing Wednesday to examine the impact of the Department of Energy loan guarantee program — a second look spurred by the collapse of Solyndra and other green energy companies.
If the goal of that investigation is ultimately to slow federal support for green energy initiatives, Sen. Coons, who sits on the Senate Energy Committee, seems to think it’s working.
“All of these pieces of the clean energy eco-system are functioning and healthy, but they have a critical problem,” warned Coons. There’s not enough government backing, he said, thanks to “the ongoing partisan differences that Matt [Butler] referred to,” like the broad debate over Solyndra.
Those investigations may have created too great a distraction to move forward on green energy policy in the short-term, he said. “We may be handcuffed by these bitter partisan debates,” Coons admitted.
Those distractions also include companies like First Solar, whose chairman admitted before a House subcommittee Wednesday that the $3.1 billion in Energy Department loan guarantees his outfit received helped create more jobs overseas than in the United States.
“I do just want to say thank you to Media Matters and others on this call for not allowing over-hyped partisan investigations to become the only story about these big changes in the clean energy economy,” Coons said.
Coons ended his remarks by stumping for a “clean energy standard” that the Senate is considering. That standard would require power plants to use renewable energy sources while paying for their added costs through tax credits or subsidies.
The Media Matters event also featured NRG Energy president and CEO David Crane, RELYANT executive and retired Gen. Steven Anderson, and Judith Albert of Environmental Entrepreneurs. They all called for more federal government support of green energy, a staple of the Democratic agenda.
Anderson, who also served as the chief logistics officer for Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, and described himself as a “conservative Republican,” warned that not advancing renewable energy plans could pose a “national security” risk.
“I’m absolutely convinced DOD [the Department of Defense] needs to take a decisive leadership role on this as well,” Anderson explained.
“Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security — not just foreign oil, but oil in general.
“I believe in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that all drives,” Anderson said. “I think that increases the likelihood that there’ll be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/17/media-matters-sen-coons-dismiss-solyndra-as-distraction-in-clean-energy-fight/#ixzz1veJZBIO4
The Media Matters event also featured NRG Energy president and CEO David Crane, RELYANT executive and retired Gen. Steven Anderson, and Judith Albert of Environmental Entrepreneurs. They all called for more federal government support of green energy, a staple of the Democratic agenda.
Anderson, who also served as the chief logistics officer for Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, and described himself as a “conservative Republican,” warned that not advancing renewable energy plans could pose a “national security” risk.
“I’m absolutely convinced DOD [the Department of Defense] needs to take a decisive leadership role on this as well,” Anderson explained.
“Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security — not just foreign oil, but oil in general.
“I believe in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that all drives,” Anderson said. “I think that increases the likelihood that there’ll be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/17/media-matters-sen-coons-dismiss-solyndra-as-distraction-in-clean-energy-fight/#ixzz1veJZBIO4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)