Don’t you feel bad for those poor widdle union folks who appear to be well on the way to getting their asses kicked in Wisconsin?

No? Me neither.

Here they are whining about the fact that Democrats and the White House let them down:

…“I’m very disappointed that the DNC has not seen fit to make a dollar investment,” Schaitberger said. “When you’re facing $25 million or more in super-PAC funds, you need money. The campaign needed funds to get up on the air to fight back. … I think that would have been a good investment going into November.” …

When asked about national Democrats’ support in the recall election, another union official scoffed.

“Labor has always been there for the national Democratic Party. The national Democratic Party should be there for labor in this instance. They’re not,” he said.

And now, just like the adolescents they are, they are warning they are going to get their toys and run home to Mommy:

A Democratic strategist working for anti-Walker forces warned that union members would be less enthusiastic about working for Obama if he doesn’t step up for them.

“It won’t go unnoticed by labor the extent to which the White House ultimately decides to fight or not fight for working people the final critical days in Wisconsin,” he said. “The White House needs to move beyond being afraid of its own shadow. The Romney campaign has already been foaming at the mouth to pounce if Walker survives. If that isn’t motivation enough for the White House to start doing everything it can to help defeat Scott Walker, it’s hard to know what is.”

Yeah yeah. We all know the unions will go over the cliff with the Democrats. The rank and file may not like it but the leadership will force them to.

The house of cards will crash. Call it peak government. The game is up.

If we will not impose discipline on ourselves, the market will do it for us.
- Monty

It amazes me that this far in the recession the only solution they have is to increase taxes. It doesn’t seem like any State of the Union or any of the European nations outside of Iceland and Finland have smaller operating budgets today than in 2007. Just tax, tax, tax and spend your way out.

Governments are choosing to do all they can to perpetuate the status quo – focusing on keeping things together just through the next quarter, through the next election cycle. And it’s clear that their best efforts are meeting with less and less as the situation worsens.
- Macleod

Example #1 – the last paragraph says it all:

Malloy’s strategy is flawed because he enacted the largest tax increase in Connecticut history and the state is still facing a deficit.

Example #2 – In January 2011:

Illinois lawmakers raised income tax rates by 46 percent on businesses and a record 67 percent on individuals. And with this flood of new tax dollars, urgent pressure to pass lasting structural spending reforms deflated. The state is still broke. Not only still broke, but they borrowed more money last year further ballooning state debt.

One of the problems for politicians is GDP. GDP in of itself isn’t bad. But insert a bureaucrat statistician and GDP becomes a numbers game.

Take for instance efficiency. Efficient producers such as the manufacturers and suppliers of electronic goods and services, who reduce their prices over time, see their output diminished as a proportion of the statistical whole, while those that maintain their prices by monopolistic or subsidized means keep and even increase their weightings.

Alasdair Macleod continues and spells it out:

if you try and measure an economy by GDP, all you are measuring at the end of the day is the amount of money in the economy. It is not a measure of economic progress and/or true economic growth.

You have money in the private sector where value is produced and competitive advantages are gained – Keynesians are taking money away from the productive economy and injecting it into something less productive or not productive at all.

The money from the productive area of the economy is the area that needs to progress for the world to move forward from this global malaise.

Not only have politicians completely deceived the public over economic growth, but they deceive themselves. For this reason they are unequipped to deal with the developing crises, which are the result of earlier interventions. They now claim that economic growth, the ultimate source of tax revenue and government solvency is jeopardized by spending cuts. Statistically, this is obviously true, because if you take away government costs and support for unwanted economic activities, GDP will fall. But the important point that is commonly missed is that a government which stops draining an economy of its private sector resources actually releases them to be deployed more effectively for the common benefit by those randomly-acting entrepreneurs.
– Alasdair Macleod

The next economic cycle? The Facebook ipo flop – this was as good as any confirmation that we are entering it. And this one is going to be nasty.

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde told Harvard graduates they faced one of the most challenging economic times since the 1930s…pointing out the inability of 75 million young people to find a decent job.

Barron’s has an article up about the Baltic Dry Index no longer being a relevant metric because of too many ships and not enough trade.

I read China defaulted on coal contracts this month.

Spain, France, and Germany just passed new border controls laws. When the EU collapses, people are going to attempt to flee with their money as this email from a family member in Europe illustrates:

Shortly after I arrived, the merchants did not want dollars or to be paid by credit cards issued from American banks (no Visa, no MasterCard etc) and they covered up the slots to swipe American credit cards on their machines and asked for cash or a bank card with a “chipknip” from a euro bank…The banks are undercapitalized, they are being asked to increase their capital requirements. … When we drove across the German border from Switzerland, there were armed border patrols.

Hattip – Brother Bob, TAB, ZeroHedge, Monty

Not long ago President Obama lit what Mark Steyn could have referred to as his latest exploding cigar. By now, you’re probably familiar with "Julia", the composite woman (not to be confused with the president’s composite girlfriends) who we learn lives a wonderful life with the comfort of cradle to grave assistance from the government, and how terrible her life would be as a result of a Romney presidency. Like manna from Heaven the conservatives had a field day with this one. The Romney campaign immediately fired off some tweets in response, we saw the Twittersphere light up with "#Im Not Julia" themed tweets, and of course, we saw a fair amount of ridicule in conservative publications and blogs.

We saw too may timeline parodies to list – PJ Media did a good job with their take. National Review’s Rich Lowry pointed out how condescending and insulting toward women the campaign is. Over at Flopping Aces Warren Beatty (the blogger, not the actor) submitted a guest post pointing out the dangers of becoming a society of Julias, which included a great comment below this story from FA contributor Skookum, who made an observation about the name choice that got a chuckle from every George Orwell fan who scrolled down to the comments.

When the Julia story broke I was ready to throw in my two cents, but as my faithful readers know I don’t write on a topic that someone who’s a better writer than me has already written. I was thinking of putting together another parody timeline that was completely empty showing how Julia’s life would have been had her mother chosen to terminate her with a government funded abortion, but too many other timeline mockups are already out there.

The above mentioned Warren Beatty stole a lot of my thunder, but thankfully for me he stopped short of a very disturbing conclusion in the motivation behind this ad campaign. First, I have two sidebars to help illustrate my point.

In a recent episode of Castle, Nathan Fillion’s character (Yes, THAT Nathan Fillion for all of the Firefly geeks out there) has a pretty close relationship with his soon to be college aged student daughter. One of their bonding activities is chasing each other around their home playing laser tag. In this episode the daughter didn’t want to play, saying ""I think it’s time to holster the laser guns and be adults". This gave her middle aged father a moment of painful introspection after getting a lesson on maturity from his teenaged daughter.

Another example goes back to an ad campaign for men’s underwear from the early 90′s. In my weekly subscription to Sports Illustrated one of these ads would appear just below the reader letters and showed men doing some low-key activities while wearing the company’s underwear. One that stuck with me was one that featured a 20-something looking guy in his briefs and undershirt looking very happy while carrying a little boy up on his shoulders with the boy holding a toy airplane over his head. The main ad text read something like, "Remember when you were young and couldn’t wait to grow up and be a man? How’s it going?" That ad really made me take a hard look at myself and my 20-something "Straight laced workaholic in a low paying job by day, bar hopping idiot by night" life style. I guess that the ad didn’t impact me too much, as it would take me almost another 20 years to get my act together enough to get married to a woman like Sister Babe.

So what is the conclusion that I’m trying to make? Team Obama put in time and effort to put together the entire Julia campaign. Whenever anyone is advertising or selling any point, there is one key factor that goes into the process before the first word is typed or pen meets paper.

"Will this appeal to my target audience?" The message of Julia is that one should expect to spend one’s entire life dependent on others to some degree at every stage of life.

At no point does she become that adult and take full responsibility for Julia. And if someone else is paying your bills, that gives them control over your life, in Julia’s case at every step. Personally, I’ve never met any kids who talked about how much they love having their parents and teachers tell them what to do, any elderly men or women eagerly awaiting the day they go into a nursing home or any former inmates reminiscing about the simplicity of prison life.

The most disturbing element of Julia is who the president thinks we are. Apparently the administration thinks that we have lost our sense of individuality, of ambition, and yes, responsibility. At every stage of our lives we shouldn’t just hope for a helping hand, we should expect and are entitled to that helping hand. It can be paid for by one of the various bogeymen that leftists love to cite in big businesses or the wealthy. Unfortunately when you sit down and do the math, neither one can ever produce enough to pay for a nation of Julias. At some point someone has to be the individual or group of individuals who produce more than they take. Thomas Sowell recently wrote a great article how politicians can can legislate dependency to keep their hold on their jobs even if they are ultimately killing their constituency.

Do we want to go down the path of Greece or France? How about the model that Detroit set for riches to rags, or California’s inevitable day of reckoning? As my previous post on paying off our national debt shows, we have some serious problems that won’t start getting better until we start taking them seriously. We don’t have to watch our country drive off a cliff. But for that to happen we have to choose, both as a nation and as individuals to not let that happen. But if we truly have become the nation of Julias that President Obama thinks we are then we will not survive as a society. As much as it pains me to say this, if he is right I’m not sure that we deserve to.

Cross Posted at Brother Bob’s Blog

Most Conservatives have for many years tried to make the case that “Liberalism” is synonymous with “Socialism.”

The main point being that liberal politicians can only be elected by ensuring their “constituents” remain dependent on the goodies only liberals can provide.

“The Redistribution of Wealth” therefore has to be a primary plank in their campaign platforms.

(It’s interesting to note that all these programs are designed to give their constituents just enough to survive, yet never enough to escape the trap of Government dependence).

Reagan once said “We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.”

Quite a contrast , don’t you think?

And now, as we head into the last 1/8 of the Obama Presidency, many opine that Obama has failed to produce……..failed to keep his campaign promises of 2008.

But is that really true? I don’t think so.

Take for example Obama’s promise that electric rates would have to increase, or that gasoline should be $5 per gallon. Or that the rich should pay a greater share of taxes (than the 80+% of all taxes they already pay). The examples of his ridiculous campaign promises are legendary if not for their content then for their sheer numbers. Remember: The oceans will stop rising if we just elect Obama.

Well, this video pretty much sums it all up.

This is a professionally produced gem. Note that it:

Never mentions any candidate or political party by name.

Never says so, but clearly describes how this is no accident. It is a carefully orchestrated plan. It is PERFECTLY PLANNED DESTRUCTION.

And then it implies at the end that if like what you just saw, don’t do anything on November 6th.

Enjoy the clip. (Both literally and figuratively).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Do you recall a time, a few years back, when the media wouldn’t shut up about a supposed outing of an agent? Yup, the left and the media were pissed.

I bet you could just imagine the firestorm of coverage that would result if instead of a former Secretary of State leaking a name it was our President….right?

Guess not:

Just a week ago the establishment media was aflutter with news that a CIA double-agent had thwarted a new type of underwear bomb attack targeting U.S. flights in a plot devised by al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula.

But as the week progressed, a developing bombshell story got buried under President Obama’s gay marriage announcement. Not only is the supposed CIA asset not a CIA asset at all, but the entire operation was exposed prematurely and the double-agent’s life was immediately threatened by an intelligence leak that very well may have come out of the White House for political gain.

As the story broke, the establishment media was more than happy to attribute the intelligence coup to the CIA and the Obama administration, describing the mole as a “CIA informant.”

It turns out that wasn’t true. The double-agent hadn’t been recruited and placed by the CIA, but by British intelligence, who also managed the operation. In fact, the Americans had only recently been made aware of the joint British-Saudi effort.

The leaks about the operation from the American side have infuriated British intelligence officials, who had hoped to continue the operation. The leaks not only scuttled the mission but put the life of the asset in jeopardy. Even CIA officials, joining their MI5 and MI6 counterparts, were describing the leaks as “despicable,” attributing them to the Obama administration.

As the stillborn investigation into the leaks continues (stillborn, because if the leaks are in fact traced to the White House, there will be no repercussions), the zeal with which the establishment media trumpeted the supposed CIA coup won’t likely be surpassed by the more important story of how the Obama administration attempted to score political points at the expense of one of the most important intelligence operations since 9/11.

Wait, for “political gain?”

Wasn’t the left and the media very upset that non-spy Valerie Plame’s name was uttered by Richard Armitage for “political gain?”

Weren’t there hearings and trials and all that? Or was I just imagining that?

And here we had a Yemeni deep cover agent that we may get once in a generation:

One US official has noted that “this operation could have gone on for some time … when it was cut off by a leak”. Even once the agent turned up in Saudi Arabia, it was clear that his intelligence was helping to target a spate of crucial drone strikes within Yemen – including one that killed AQAP’s head of external operations, a man responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

If the group learnt of their member’s defection from the media, who knows what countermeasures they took? How did that stymie further arrests or airstrikes? AQAP’s chief bomb-maker, Ibrahim Al-Asiri, might even have escaped as a result.

After all, the agent was reportedly evacuated from Yemen two weeks before the appointed date for his attack. He might have remained quietly operational for that entire period, contacting his colleagues and passing on their location. This leak appears to have frustrated a painstaking and risky operation, of the sort that cannot come around very often.

But the Obama administration deliberately scuttled that huge undercover operation, and put the life of a British agent in jeopardy to boot. For what? To boost his re-election hopes. This wasn’t some non-spy desk jockey at the CIA. This was someone who had infiltrated al-Qaeda for god’s sake!

But the MSM and the left are ignoring it.

At least one Democrat lawmaker isn’t

Senator Diane Fienstein:

“AQAP is the number-one threat to our country. … The leak really did endanger sources and methods, and the leak, I think, really has to be prosecuted.”

Congressman Peter King:

“This was more secret than any operation I’m familiar with — even more classified than bin Laden. … That’s why I’m saying the FBI should do a full and complete investigation, because this really is criminal in the literal sense of the word to leak out this type of sensitive, classified information on really almost unparalleled penetration of the enemy.”

Congressman Mike Rogers:

“This has been a damaging leak. We shouldn’t underestimate what really happened here. When you jeopardize our foreign-service liaison partners, any of them that may or may not have been involved, or you jeopardize the conclusion of wrapping up all of the people involved, that’s dangerous to our national security.”

Paging Patrick Fitzgerald….paging Patrick Fitzgerald

Exit thought….ya think they will make a movie about this?

I was, the other day, trying to explain the word "fair" to a friend. Suddenly it occurred to me that I was trying to explain the definition from a statistics perspective, and that was the cause of the miscommunication. In statistics, the word "fair" means that probabilities of occurrence does not change each time an action or process (trial) is conducted. If a process is "fair," then exact probabilities of occurrence can be calculated regardless of initial conditions. We statisticians (besides being weird) understand the word "fair" because it has a very precise, unchanging meaning.

That is the reason why, in a Craps game, "loaded" dice always have the same appearance as regular dice, and that they are slipped into the game only when "serious" money is being wagered and the sucker cannot alter his wagering accordingly. Loaded dice are not fair from a wagering perspective because they alter probabilities of occurrence, thereby increasing the probability that the sucker will lose his wager. Besides, even without loaded dice, craps probabilities favor the person running the game. All he has to do is make the payoff, not welsh, if an individual sucker gets lucky.

That difficulty, the definition of "fair,"occurs quite often. As Jim Yardley said, "’Fair’ is one of those warm, fuzzy words that allows the listener to define it to his own personal taste – and the definition changes from one specific case to another."

For example, Obama, during the Democrat Party primary debate, said that he would raise capital gains rates — not because it would increase revenue, but because it was "fair." During the debate, Obama said, "…I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." He continued, "…I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair…."

The "problem" is that Obama did not define, precisely or otherwise, his definition of "fair." As Yardley says, we are left with, in this case, Obama’s definition – "and the definition changes from one specific case to another." One thing you will never hear Obama explain is precisely what he means when he uses the word "fair."

In his 2012 State of the Union speech, Obama said, "… or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share…." But nowhere does he define what he means by "fair shot" or "fair share." I guess that he wants us to trust that his definition will be "fair."

We are all familiar with the "Buffett Rule."   It states, according to the White House, "No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays. This is the Buffett Rule – a simple principle of tax fairness that asks everyone to pay their fair share." The site continues, "Warren Buffett, for example, pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, and that’s not fair." Please notice that, in the White House definition, there is an inconsistency. The rule states, "…pay a smaller share…." Then the White House definition offers, "… effective tax rate…." So, which definition applies? How can we be "fair" if the rule is arbitrary?

It is quite disingenuous to use the word "fair" when referring to the "Buffett Rule" tax situation. Buffett contributes much more as an absolute amount than his secretary. "Fairness" means an equal share is paid by all – thus fairness would mean that Buffett and his secretary pay exactly the same absolute amount of tax. And that is what the Buffett Rule says – reread it. Will it be "fair" for Buffett and his secretary to pay the same amount, the same share? Whose tax amount will increase and whose will decrease in order to preserve "fairness?"

According to his 2011 income tax return, Obama doesn’t technically fall under the Buffett Rule – his income was "only" $789,684. If you believe that the amount was his entire income, I hold the deed to certain bridge in NYC in which you may be interested! Anyway, Obama’s secretary, Anita J. Breckenridge, earned $95,000 in 2011. Yet she paid a higher effective tax rate than did Obama. And Obama made substantially more than she did. Her tax rate was not much higher than Obama’s but it was still higher. Is that "fair?"

Dr. Walter E. Williams, in "Devious Taxation," wrote, "…the top 1 percent of American income earners paid almost 37 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent paid about 70 percent of federal income taxes, and the top 50 percent paid nearly 98 percent. Roughly 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. Here’s my fairness question to you: What standard of fairness dictates that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 70 percent of the income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay nothing?" It sure doesn’t sound like everyone, as Obama said in the State of the Union speech, "does their fair share."

As Gary Wickert, in "Defining ‘Fair’ in Obama’s ‘Paying a Fair Share’ Rhetoric" wrote: "Precisely what our president means by "fair" remains unclear – clouded in social envy, class warfare, and populist rhetoric. But one thing is certain. The so-called wealthy are paying a disproportionately higher amount of taxes even when compared to their share of the income – far more than their "fair share."

Further, the statistical definition of a "fair game" is one that has an expected value (EV) of zero. For example, consider the wager in which a person tosses a "fair" coin and wins $1 if heads appears and loses $1 if tails appears. The EV = 0.5*$1 + 0.5*(-$1) = 0. In this game, the word "fair" refers to the fact that each time the coin is tossed the probability of the face appearance remains at 50%. We could, even if the coin was weighted so that heads appeared (say) 70% of time, adjust our wagering so as to make this a "fair game." The key concept is that the probability of occurrence remain unchanged each time the coin is tossed.

This is how Obama sees the US and world economy – a zero-sum. In order to be "fair," Obama wants to redistribute assets that the rich obviously stole from the poor, the defenseless. He even formalized his view. On the world economy, R.A., in "Free exchange," wrote that Obama said in his State of the Union speech: "Don’t let other countries win the race for the future." About this statement, R.A. says, "A zero-sum world is a world without hope, and if Mr Obama is convinced that’s what we’re in then I don’t see much need for him to stick around."

Obama chides corporations that are "sitting on" vast quantities of cash. They are waiting for a precise definition of "fair." They will not get that definition until November, 2012, when Obama is voted out of office.

The bottom line is, as Jim Yardley says, that the listener (and, in this instance, the declarer) gets to use the word "fair" and define it to his personal taste. And, with Obama, the definition is constantly changing.

But that’s just my opinion.

"It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so." – Ronald Reagan

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

Good question: Why is President Obama still “evolving” on gay marriage?

I guess the addiction to decisively voting “present” is still a tough option to let go…

“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual – men and women marrying – are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden said on “Meet the Press”. “And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

The idea that Biden had gone beyond the previous position staked out on the issue was quickly stamped out — with Administration sources and the Vice President’s office insisting that there was nothing new in what he said.

“The Vice President has made similar comments many times before,” said Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter in an interview Monday afternoon on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports”.

The whole kerfuffle over what Biden said (and meant) has re-opened a somewhat heated debate within Democratic circles: Why won’t President Obama simply come out in favor of gay marriage once and for all?

Obama, who supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage, has said repeatedly that the issue is very personal for him and acknowledged that he struggles with it. In an interview with liberal bloggers in the fall of 2010, Obama said he “wrestles” with the issue, adding: “I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about.”

~~~

Obama, himself, seems to be well aware of what he called the “arc of history” in that 2010 interview. “The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going,” said Obama at the time.

But rather than trailblazing and leading from the front, President Obama would rather vote “present”. He’d rather not see a show of his open support trending worldwide. That would take political cajones.

Chris Cillizza goes on to point out the trendlines that president Obama alludes to, along with chart. Blacks remain the biggest constituency that are opposed to a redefinition of traditional marriage:

On the other hand, African Americans, one of the main pillars of the President’s political coalition, remain decidedly skeptical about gay marriage. In the last year’s worth of Post-ABC data, just 42 percent said they support legalization while 55 percent oppose it.

Viewed through that lens, coming out in support of gay marriage looks like an unnecessary political risk for Obama.

Yes, it would clearly thrill a portion of his base (gays and lesbians) but it could alienate — at least in parts — another portion of his base (African Americans) that he desperately needs to win reelection this fall.

I’d recommend he take the gamble and stick his neck out. Unless of course he doesn’t have the courage of conviction and is “still evolving”….*snicker*

I really don’t see this as a great political risk, anymore than a likelihood of losing the LGBT vote:

And, it’s hard to see the LGBT community abandoning Obama — either for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney or to simply sit on the sidelines — given that the President can point to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the decision to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act as signs that he is working to address their concerns. (Cutter made mention of both moves to argue that the Obama Administration has a strong record on matters of gay rights.)

Simply put: The political upside of coming out in support of gay marriage is simply not as high as the political downside of coming out in support of gay marriage. Hence, the quick work of the Obama team to minimize Biden’s comments — and the fact that the Administration nas been decidedly low profile on a measure that would ban civil unions set to be voted on in North Carolina on Tuesday. (Make sure to read Amy Gardner’s terrific story on Obama’s delicate dance in the Tarheel State.)

“On any such issue that is not part of your game plan, the art of communications is limiting the time that it is a major issue that is moving you off your game plan or off your message,” explained Chris Lehane, a veteran Democratic communications consultant.

The other thing to consider when it comes to the politics of gay marriage is that while it might not be a slam dunk for Obama to be for it before November, it could well be just that sort of issue if he is elected to a second four-year term.

Why? Because the Post-ABC polling shows a huge generational divide — with young people overwhelmingly supportive of legalization. Fully 65 percent of people aged 18-29 say gay marriage should be legal while 61 percent of those aged 30-39 agree. And there is every indication that each younger generation feels increasingly comfortable with the idea of gay men and women being married.

Given those numbers, in even three years time — and unburdened from concerns about reelection — it’s not inconceivable (with apologies to Vizzini in “The Princess Bride”) to imagine that President Obama’s evolution on the issue will be complete.

So his “evolving beliefs” are based on political opportunism and the weathervane method of decision-making? Not in being a bold visionary and strong leader who takes calculated risks to do what he feels is right?

Nice.

On the one hand we have a candidate accused of being a flip-flopper; on the other, we have a president afraid to flip for fear of flopping.

NO! It can’t be! President Barack Hussein Obama playing politics with Osama bin Laden’s death?

At the ABC News web site, “The Note,” Michael Falcone wrote, “But four years ago this April, the Obama campaign criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for using Osama bin Laden in a political ad.” “The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing ‘the politics of fear’ just like George W. Bush.” Can anyone say, “Hypocrisy?”

All you Obama Kool-Aid drinkers will want to watch this video that features the very objective Bill Clinton who turned down numerous chances to capture or kill bin Laden that were handed to him. Isn’t it ironic that the Obama campaign staff chose Clinton for this video? That is the same Clinton who, when he appeared on “Fox News Sunday” September 24, 2006, got into a rather animated discussion with host Chris Wallace. And that is the same Clinton that was defended by “Netroots,” a liberal web site that declared the ABC docudrama “The Path To 9/11″ as “a piece of fiction,” and that ABC’s airing it represents “gross negligence” since it didn’t cast its hero, Bill Clinton, in a very favorable light. There was, however, one small problem. None of the “Netroots” writers had seen the docudrama before writing about it. Further, Markos Moulitsas at “The Daily Kos,” posted an article entitled “ABC’s Work of Fiction” In it he wrote, “ABC’s piece of fiction, written by Rush Limbaugh’s personal friend and marketed heavily in wingnut circles, bills itself as ‘objective’ and a ‘docudrama’.”

Kenneth P. Vogel of “Politico,” wrote of Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs’ appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, April 29. 2012. Gibbs said, “Look, just a few years ago, President Obama – then a candidate – said in a speech that if we had actionable intelligence of a high-value target in Pakistan, we’d go in and get that high value target. Mitt Romney said that was foolish. He wouldn’t do such a thing. That he wouldn’t move heaven and earth to get Osama bin Laden.”

But… as Morgen Richmond at “Hot Air” writes, “The full context of Romney’s remarks demonstrate that he was actually calling for a more strategic and expansive approach in the fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism.”

Obama and Democrats focus on one statement Romney made, taken out of context. But they forget (or don’t want to remember) what Romney said on the bin Laden subject in 2007. As SNL’s “Church Lady” used to say, “Isn’t that convenient.” This video provides a much more complete picture of Romney’s view of pursuing high value targets.

Further, Guy Benson wrote at “Townhall,” “…to blatantly harp on this point in an election season is decidedly unseemly; to suggest that your political opponent wouldn’t have made the exact same call borders on slander, especially if you dredge up an out-of-context quote to ‘prove’ the point.” Benson provides the full conversation between Liz Sidoti and Mitt Romney. Read it – you liberals may learn something. Benson continues, “In other words, Romney was all for nailing OBL, but he also knew that the effectiveness of an entire war effort can’t be graded on one narrow rubric. That’s common sense. The Obama campaign is trying to turn the sentiment above into ‘Mitt didn’t care about bin Laden and would’ve let him skate’.”

And now this from Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad. This is the same President who once criticized Hillary Clinton for invoking bin Laden ‘to score political points.’ This is the same President who said, after bin Laden was dead, that we shouldn’t ‘spike the ball’ after the touchdown. And now Barack Obama is not only trying to score political points by invoking Osama bin Laden, he is doing a shameless end-zone dance to help himself get reelected. No one disputes that the President deserves credit for ordering the raid, but to politicize it in this way is the height of hypocrisy.”

The problem is that none of the hard-core liberals/progressives/Democrats will do any research, will view anything that might upset their world, will believe the half-truths, lies, and taken from context statements provided by Obama and his campaign staff, and, based on that “information,” vote.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Here is the DNC’s chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz making a fool of herself, once again, on Bret Baier’s show last night whining that the GOP had blocked the President’s budget plan even though SHE, along with all of her fellow Democrats voted against her President’s budget plan.

Meanwhile The Heritage Foundation just released some Federal Spending in Graphs. A pictorial tour through Obama’s destruction of our economy. A taste:

Much more where that came from at the link.

Runaway spending is causing our doom, so why not spend a bit more. This time to pander to the youth in our country:

Obama told the students that since they were born, tuition and fees at colleges have doubled.

“And that forces students like you to take on a lot more loans, there are fewer grants, you rack up a lot more debt,” Obama stated.

“Can I get an Amen for that?” he asked the crowd who cheered, “AMEN!”

“Now, the average student who borrows to pay for college, now graduates with with about $25,000 in debt, that’s the average, he added,

“Some have more,” he said. “Can I get an Amen for that?”

“AMEN!” the crowd who cheered.

“Because some folks have a lot more debt like that,” Obama chuckled, as another person in the crowd shouted, “AMEN!”

Ugh, the pandering from this man is disgusting. Can I get an Amen for that?

Doug Powers:

What the students didn’t hear:

“In 2007 I missed two votes to extend the student loan bill that I now want you to believe is the most important things I’ve ever promoted. Can I get an amen?”

“More than half of all young college grads are now jobless or underemployed. Can I get an amen?”

“According to my own Vice President, government meddling in the free market actually increases college tuition. Can I get an amen?”

“Since I took office, over $5 trillion has been added to the national debt — or over $16,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Can I get an amen?”

“Student loan interest rates are set to double because the then Democrat-controlled Congress voted to do so. Can I get an amen?”

Anyways, he wants to freeze student loan interest rates to buy some votes. Of course this would cost close to 6 billion dollars. How will they pay for that?

By raising taxes of course:

Senate Democrats introduced legislation Tuesday that would prevent student loan interest rates from doubling this summer. Its $5.9 billion cost would be paid for by making it harder for owners of so-called S corporations to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on some of their earnings.

The proposal would affect such companies with earnings of at least $250,000 annually and whose revenues come from the work of three or fewer owners. It would also apply to some lawyers, doctors and other professional service businesses that are owned by partnerships.

House Democrats said late Tuesday that they would introduce a similar bill, also financed by boosting payroll tax collections from many private companies’ owners.

S-Corps are used by many small companies, from mom and pop stores to individual workers like doctors and to start up businesses to file their taxes.

So he wants to raise the taxes on these small business owners to help students who have racked up a ton of debt to get an education.

And what does Obama tell those kids?

And living with that kind of debt means some pretty tough choices when you’re first starting out. It means putting off buying your first house. Or it means maybe you can’t start up that business right away that you’ve got this great idea for.

When I was over at The Sink I was talking to three business majors, and they all had these business ideas. But it’s tougher if you’ve got all this loan that you’re already thinking about the minute you get out of school. Maybe you’ve got to start a family a little bit later. It takes you a longer time to save for retirement. And when a big chunk of every paycheck goes towards loan debt, that’s not just tough on you. It’s not just tough on your families. It’s painful for the whole economy because that’s money that could be going into the economy and could be going into new businesses and could be helping businesses grow.

So on the one hand he panders to the youth telling them the taxpayers will help get them out of debt so they can start those small businesses, and on the other hand he wants to raise taxes on those same small businesses. I’m sure many of those students who have racked up a ton of debt are doctors and lawyers. Those same people who WOULD have used the S-Corps tax breaks to become more successful. Not anymore.

Just another example how Obama and the Democrats are destroying this country.

Can I get an Amen for that?

More pandering from Obama:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Of course government needs to step in to protect consumers because god knows us consumers can’t think for ourselves and we need to be protected from those eeeevvviiiiiilllllll bankers…woops, I mean those eeeeevilllllll CEO’s….woops, I mean those evvvvvillllll speculators.

Now it’s the speculators and their evil capitalist ways. I mean how dare they want to make a profit? To a Socialist, like this man, it’s pure evil to want to make money. Everything should be done to help the State, all profits should be confiscated and the government should be allowed to decide who is worthy to receive that which they didn’t work for.

This is how this man thinks.

By the way, did we hear these kinds of complaints when the price of oil went down to 30 bucks a barrel not so long ago? No, Didn’t think so.

So now our President is going to take 52 million dollars of our tax money to pay for more bureaucrats to investigate speculators AGAIN!

In the U.S., we’ve had repeated federal investigations of speculators’ role in driving up prices — in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011 and again this year. Not one has found evidence of pervasive market manipulation.

How else to describe this as anything other than pure political pandering to his base. His base wants the mighty hand of government to control all aspects of life in this country. Somehow they believe if government bureaucrats get involved they will stop oil speculators from making a profit and THAT will drive the price of oil down?

Let’s not even mention the fact that our exchange is not the only exchange in the world. There are exchanges and speculators all over the planet, and our government can’t do a damn thing about preventing them from making a buck. Speculators will just move to those exchanges if he makes it difficult for speculators to make a buck AND speculation will still occur.

The fact of the matter is that speculators don’t cause higher prices. Higher prices occur because of supply and demand: (pdf)

In theory the price effect of commodity financial investment is ambiguous. On the one hand, well-informed, rational investors should add liquidity to commodity derivatives market, facilitating price discovery and keeping prices more aligned with fundamentals. As commodity investors buy when prices are low and sell when prices are high, this should help clear the market. However, some argue that “ill informed” investors exhibiting herding behavior could add to price volatility (page 6).

That said, most empirical studies find that financial investment in commodities does not have a significant effect on commodity prices. The World Bank, commenting in its June 2011 Global Economic Prospects, observes that “[d]espite such contrasting views [on the relationship between investment fund activity and commodity prices], the empirical evidence is, at best, weak.” (World Bank (2011). p. 62) Moreover, financial investment plays a key role in liquidity provision, and some speculation is needed to clear commodity derivatives markets.

…and volatility

The French G-20 leadership and other official sector entities have also expressed concern regarding the potential role of financial investment in causing commodity price volatility. The most recent upswing in commodity prices beginning in 2009 was accompanied by a sharp rise in commodity price volatility, peaking in February 2010, though volatility has since returned to levels prevailing
during 2000-2009 (Chart 6 below).

However, the even more striking increase in commodity prices during 2008 was not accompanied by a commensurate increase in commodity price volatility.

Broadly speaking, research on the impact of financial investment on commodity price volatility—including work done by the BIS in 2007, the IMF in 2008, and the OECD in 2010—suggests that there is little evidence linking financial investment in commodities to higher commodity price volatility. Indeed, some researchers have found that the presence of key financial investors (index and swap funds) actually helps reduce market volatility. (OECD (Irwin and Sanders). (2010). IMF World Economic Outlook. (October 2008). BIS Quarterly Review. (March 2007)). That said, some recent research indicates that new investment vehicles may have been responsible for at least part of the post-2005 volatility in commodity prices. (World Bank (2011). p. 62)

Is the end goal of Obama here to bring back OPEC? I doubt it. The end goal here is just to rile up the base. Nothing he suggests, no “five point” plan he puts out has any hope of bringing down the price of gas. He needs to open up drilling to every inch of this country and off-shore. THAT will bring down the prices.

Until then we will continue to get inane pandering from this insult of a President.