Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken

[Soul Crusher]

I'm not talking about his poll  #'s

I'm talking specifically about your INSANE belief that Obama is intentionally trying to collapse the nation

why can't you ever pay attention to the topic at hand

don't you think Bachmann should start talking about this?

once the media and general public hear the evidence don't you think she'd win in a landslide?

She has many times.

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama’s Obsession with Sexual Orientation
The Catholic Thing ^ | Friday, 01 July 2011 | Austin Ruse
Posted on July 1, 2011 3:19:17 PM EDT by GonzoII

A few weeks ago, Malawi’s Ambassador to the United Nations said privately that the Obama administration had threatened to withhold $350 million in aid unless Malawi’s government struck down its laws on sodomy.

Let’s take a look at tiny Malawi. According to the CIA World Fact Book, among Malawi’s roughly 16-million inhabitants, the life expectancy is a paltry 5I.7 years, which turns to be the 211th lowest life expectancy in the world. Malawi has the eleventh highest infant mortality rate in the world. And 44 percent of the population does not have safe sanitation, meaning they very well might be peeing where they drink.

Malawi is also among the poorest countries in the world. A $350-million aid package goes a long way there, yet here are President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holding Malawi hostage to the new U.S. homosexual agenda. Make sodomy legal or your people can twist in the wind.

Malawi did not exactly arrive at its sodomy laws through a fatwa. It is 82-percent Christian and a multi-party democracy with a bi-cameral legislature and judicial review.

Within days, its government committed to changing Malawi’s sodomy laws. Obama the Bully hailed this as a great victory. Yes, you can usually get your way by threatening the world’s poorest people.

This is just a small and shocking measure of how the LGBT agenda has come to dominate at least part of our young president’s foreign policy.

(Excerpt) Read more at thecatholicthing.org ...










Funny Obama doesn't pressure Muslim nations to change their ways to get $$$$$. 

What a disgusting animal we have in office. 

[Soul Crusher]

Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com)

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.

Jeffrey H. Anderson

July 3, 2011 12:07 PM

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.   

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. 

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now.  In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt. 

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!

Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.

Copyright 2010 Weekly Standard LLC.

Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

EPA sets Shell Alaska emissions task
Upstream Online.com ^ | July 1,2011 | EPA sets Shell Alaska emissions task
Posted on July 3, 2011 4:32:16 PM EDT by Hojczyk

The green regime has slashed the amount of air pollutants allowable from the supermajor at its Beaufort and Chukchi plays by 50% from the original set of permits.

Anglo-Dutch outfit must obtain permits from US authorities as it proposed drilling activities off Alaska “would emit more than 250 tonnes of air pollutants a year”, the EPA wrote in a statement today.

“The revised permits have reduced emissions of most key air pollutants by more than 50% from the levels allowed in the 2010 permits.

“These reductions are largely due to the new NO2 standard that went into effect after the permits were issued last year.

“The draft permits are subject to a 30-day public comment period as well as a public hearing before EPA issues final permits.” That hearing will be held in Barrow, Alaska on 4 August.

The EPA had in early 2010 issued Shell with two permits to drill in the area but this was appealed by concerned third parties. Although this appeal was quashed in December the EPA revised the permits.

[Soul Crusher]

Schumer confirms White House considering ignoring debt limit
The Washington Examiner ^ | July 1, 2011 | Conn Carroll
Posted on July 2, 2011 10:08:07 AM EDT by opentalk

This morning we speculated that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was seriously considering just ignoring the statutory debt limit by claiming it was superseded by section Four of the 14th amendment. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., confirmed that that course of action has been considered by the White House. Talking Points Memo‘s Brian Beutler reports on a conference call with Schumer today:

I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question’s been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn’t go there just yet.

[emphasis mine] Considering the ease with which Obama has violated bankruptcy law, refused to enforce voter fraud laws, and ignored the War Powers Act, what is stopping him from ignoring the debt ceiling.q

[Soul Crusher]

‘Beginning of the end for small fishermen’
Captains issue S.O.S., claiming new rules meant to save the fish are killing their way of life
By Jessica Fargen  |   Sunday, July 3, 2011  |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Local Coverage
Photo by Patrick Whittemore


With the height of the New England fishing season getting under way this week, small family fishermen say controversial new rules are destroying their livelihood — forcing them to sell their boats and instead search for work as laborers on larger vessels.

“It’s a death knell. It’s the beginning of the end for small fishermen,” said Rhode Island fisherman Joel Hovanesian, 54, who recently sold his boat.

Plymouth fisherman Stephen Welch, 50, a father of two, said: “We’re in a crisis right now.”

The new rules — put into place one year ago — place hard catch limits that restrict how much groundfish, such as cod and haddock, a fisherman can catch. Fishermen are given allotments of fish and can buy and sell those.

Under the old system, fishermen were allowed a certain number of days at sea.

Figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show larger operations appear to have benefited. Annual revenue for boats larger than 75 feet increased approximately 33 percent in 2010 — up to $800,000, from $600,000 in 2009.

New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang, who, along with the city of Gloucester, sued NOAA over the new rules and recently lost, said he plans to ask the Commerce Department’s Inspector General to investigate.

“New Bedford and Gloucester are letting everyone know we will challenge anything that threatens the culture, history and traditions of our seacoast communities,” he said. “The average fisherman, the family fishermen, are being driven out.”

The fight over fishing rules has stretched all the way to the White House and crossed party lines.

Congressional members of both parties, including Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown and Democrat U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, are skeptical about the environmental ties of President Obama’s pick for Department of Commerce secretary, who oversees the nation’s fisheries. Environmental groups have backed the new rules.

“The industry is hurting deeply,” Brown told the Herald this week. “It’s putting people out of business,” he said of the new rules.

NOAA, which regulates fishermen, says the changes are necessary to protect the region’s fish stock. They say it’s too early to tell the impact of the new rules on small-boat fishermen and seacoast communities, but they are studying the issue.

NOAA spokeswoman. Maggie Mooney-Seus said overfishing would have killed the industry had the new rules not been in place.

“We are going to prevent the stocks from deteriorating,” Mooney-Seus said. “Every measure put in place over the last several years is helping to rebuild the stock. If you talk to fishermen they are saying, ‘I’m seeing more fish out there than I’ve ever seen before.’ ”

But locals say they’re struggling to survive.

“It’s very hard,” said Jim Keding, 42, as he stood on a dock in Plymouth Harbor on Friday.

Keding, a dad of two, recently sold his boat, the Zachary Nicholas, because his allotment of 15,000 pounds of groundfish wasn’t enough. In 2009, he brought in 73,000 pounds. “It’s putting us out of business,” said Keding.

Lifelong fisherman Rich Burgess, 57, is selling two of his four boats.

“They just can’t afford to go fishing,” said Burgess, as he cleaned up his boat, the Heidi & Heather, docked in Gloucester Harbor last week. Under the new rules last year, he caught 50 percent less groundfish — cutting his income in half.

Larry Ciulla, owner of the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction, where crews unload the day’s catch, has seen a downturn in the last year.

“There are a lot of boats that just don’t go fishing and that’s sad,” he said. “Each small boat is a business.”

Supporters of the new rules say they have brought stability and reduced wasteful discards of fish.

“What this all amounts to is more flexibility and predictability for fishermen, and the necessary ingredients for recovering groundfish stocks,” Johanna Thomas, director of Pacific and New England regions at the Environmental Defense Fund oceans program, said in an e-mail.

However, according to Tina Jackson, president of the American Alliance for Fishermen and their Communities: “This has been so devastating to communities up and down the East Coast. . . . It’s a bad program. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t save fish stock.”

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1349376



 

[Soul Crusher]

FCC Moves Forward its Plans to Enact Net Neutrality
Digital Liberty ^ | 2011-07-01 | [Staff]

________________________ ________________________ ________-



...The proposed Net Neutrality rules look to limit how Internet Service Providers manage data flowing on their networks. Yet, under the FCC’s new interpretation of its statutory authority, if the rules are legitimized they open the door to regulating virtually any aspect of the Internet. What the FCC fails to recognize is that the Internet did not come to be the powerful entity that it is today by acting under burdensome government regulations. The Internet grew in a relatively free marketplace, unfettered by harmful governmental policies.

While the FCC has stated that they have regulatory authority to enact Net Neutrality under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, this section does not grant them such authority. Section 706 moves to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability” through “regulatory forbearance” and measures to “remove barriers to infrastructure investment.” Essentially, it calls for an expansion of broadband by deregulating the industry, rather than the FCC’s plan of onerous regulation. Even the Court of Appeals for D.C. ruled in a prior Net Neutrality challenge that Section 706 did not grant the FCC legal authority to regulate the Net.

As Net Neutrality moves toward being codified into law, Digital Liberty will keep you updated as the rules (and the impending lawsuits) unfold.


(Excerpt) Read more at digitalliberty.net ...




________________________ _______________________


HOPE & CHANGE BITCHES! 

[Soul Crusher]

Obama’s ICE amnesty puts us in physical danger as he tells the Middle Class to “go to hell”
coachisright.com ^ | July 5, 2011 | Kevin “Coach” Collins

________________________ ________________________ _________________



Obama’s latest backdoor ICE amnesty will bring death to some innocent Americans; bank on that. By ordering ICE agents to virtually stop deporting illegal aliens Obama is importing fraudulent voters with serious diseases. He has deliberately placed us all in danger and said, “The American Middle Class can go to hell.”

Over the years Democrat presidents have betrayed America to various degrees. A feckless John Kennedy double crossed CIA efforts to overthrow Castro; Carter gave away the Panama Canal and Clinton sold the Chinese secret missile technology.

Now Barack Obama may have topped these dubious “achievements” by stepping up his war on the Middle Class and threatening our very lives in his lust for power.

Not content to tax us into numbing poverty and hopelessness, Obama is throwing our borders open to bring in fraudulent new Democrat voters without regard for the fact they are bringing deadly diseases with them. The consistent evidence is that, many of these illegal aliens are carriers of virulent diseases.

Diseases sneaking in…. illegals

Whooping Cough a disease associated with third world sanitation failures is being found in growing numbers in locations where illegals congregate and live. Smithtown Long Island is such a place. Without reporting the high level of illegals in the area, a media report told of “dozens” of Whooping Cough cases.

Dysentery, a deadly and very contagious disease for babies has been found to have infected a Phoenix Police officer.

Malaria which we beat sixty years ago has re-appeared in California (of course) New York City and Houston.

Malaria infected blood supplies have been found as well. Dengue fever which kills children is now increasingly found where immigrants both legal and illegal congregate.

Leprosy currently known as Hansen’s disease to hide its presence, it steadily rising….


(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

ICE Memo Reveals new Obama Administration Plan to Incentivize Illegal Immigrants
The American Thinker ^ | 7/6/2011 | Tara Servatius

________________________ ________________________ _____



By now, the word is probably spreading like wildfire on the country's Spanish language radio stations that cater to illegal immigrants. Get pregnant, or conceive a child with your spouse or significant other, and you likely won't be deported.


Already have a child? Bring them here to America illegally. If you can prove you are the guardian of a minor, the government will likely take deportation off the table.


It's all part of what appears to be a new Obama Administration plan to incentivize illegal immigrants not just to come to America, but to stay, have and expand families, and put down roots that will hold them here.

Follow the news and you can see what's driving this. Democrats hoping to build a new, undefeatable super party by turning today's illegal aliens into tomorrow's voters are getting nervous. News reports have been popping up about illegal immigrants fleeing the country by the thousands as the economy sputters and states pass laws that make functioning here tougher for them.


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

money
White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not
By John Cook, Jul 6, 2011 3:21 PM
www.drudgereport.com



The White House released its annual salary report last week, and as usual, it's nice to work for Barack Obama: Most staffers who were there for more than a year got a salary bump. A bigger one than you did.

The last time we checked in on White House salaries, we found that an astonishing 75% of continuing staffers got raises from 2009 to 2010—a huge number given the fact that, according to compensation experts, most companies had skipped routine raises that year in reaction to the economic crisis that the White House was busy failing to solve. This time around—from 2010 to 2011—the ratio is a little less dramatic. Of the 270 White House staffers who have been there for more than a year, 146—or 54%—received raises. The average salary increase was 8%. If you look at only staffers who got raises, the average increase was twice that.

That's a much bigger raise than the average white-collar worker got. According to a survey conducted last year by the human resources consulting firm Mercer, most firms were projecting a 3% increase in base pay for executives. White House workers did nearly three times as well. Overall, it should be noted, the White House's salary budget contracted slightly, from $38.8 million to $37.1 million, largely because the number of staffers fell. The average salary also dropped from $82,721, or 65% above the median household income, to $81,765—or 65% above the median household income.

But high turnover left plenty of room for White House staffers climb up the ladder and snag huge pay boosts. One of Obama's first acts as president was to freeze the salaries of all White House officials earning more than $100,000 because "during this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington." Two years later, he extended that policy to all federal workers, using the same logic: "Small businesses and families are tightening their belts. Their government should too." But the across-the-board freeze didn't take effect until January 1, 2011, so the most recent report (which goes back to July 2010) features some eye-opening raises, like special assistant to the president for economic policy Matthew Vogel's $59,000, 82% raise to an annual salary of $130,500, or director of African American media Kevin Lewis' $36,000, 86% pay hike.

Both of those were accompanied by title changes indicating that the bigger paychecks came along with new duties. But almost half of the raises doled out by the White House in the last year—59, or 40% of all raises—weren't accompanied by new job descriptions. One of them—special assistant and associate counsel to the president Michael Gottlieb's 14% pay bump from $114,000 to $130,500—was a clear violation of Obama's freeze on salaries over $100,000.

The White House says that many of those positions are considered nonpolitical jobs that come with their own pay schedules, and that what matters is that the total budget and average salary are decreasing slightly. But that doesn't change the fact that White House staffers who stick it out are being rewarded, on average, for their continued service at a rate that far outstrips how the average white-collar worker is doing. The rhetoric behind the White House salary freeze was about making sure that the people engaged in leading the nation out of its economic mess share a sense of what American workers are experiencing. Unless roughly half of American workers saw their paychecks go up by an average of 8% last year (hint—they didn't), that's not the case.

Here's the statement White House spokesman Eric Schultz released in response to our inquiries:

President Obama is committed to continuing to reduce costs in government, and that is why over the past year, the average salary of a White House employee went down, the total number of White House staffers went down, and the total amount spent on White House salaries went down. Pay increases were given for a variety of reasons, ranging from promotions to additional work responsibilities.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Officials Misled Congress Regarding Scope of Illegal Immigration Deportation...
Judicial Watch ^ | July 7, 2011




Complete title: Obama Officials Misled Congress Regarding Scope of Illegal Immigration Deportation Dismissals According to Documents


Local Immigration Officials Given Wide Latitude to Dismiss Illegal Immigration Deportation Cases, Including For Those Involving Violent Crimes


Washington, DC -- July 7, 2011

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) showing that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of an immigration enforcement policy change that gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases. According to the documents, obtained pursuant to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, immigration officials sought the dismissal of charges against a wide range of illegal alien criminals, including those convicted of violent crimes, despite claims by the Obama administration to the contrary.

The documents concern the response by Houston immigration officials to a June 30, 2010, memo from John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to all ICE employees instructing local immigration officials to use their discretion in “prioritizing” illegal immigration deportation cases. This new policy resulted in the dismissal of hundreds of immigration cases and an overall 40% increase in deportation dismissals with the City of Houston taking a particularly aggressive approach to the policy’s implementation.

In response to calls by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for more information regarding this new deportation policy, DHS spokesman Matt Chandler said, “The idea that DHS is engaged in ‘selective enforcement’ couldn’t be further from the truth.” However, the documents uncovered by Judicial Watch show that Houston immigration officials moved quickly to implement a broad interpretation of Morton’s memo, earning praise from ICE agency headquarters:

Email from Gary Goldman, Chief Counsel for Houston ICE to Riah Ramlogan, ICE’s Director of Field Operations, August 6, 2010:

I was uncertain whether to write you this short note but I am comfortable in doing so.

In brief, I will push every policy that was disseminated to the Chief Counsels to my staff…effectively and quickly. I understand the responsibilities of my position and I take great pride in my work. I will…ensure each attorney is fully knowledgeable and compliant with policies regarding courtroom expectations, written work, humanitarian cases, reporting requirements, etc.


(Ramlogan’s response to Goldman’s efforts, August 10, 2010: “Outstanding, Gary.”)

Memo from Goldman to all attorneys, Office of Chief Counsel, August 12, 2010 (ultimately rescinded per the instruction of ICE headquarters):

Beginning immediately on all duty files and court files every attorney must determine whether the case may be amenable to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to guidelines outlined in the June 30, 2010 Assistant Secretary John Morton memorandum…If the crime is remote in time and the alien has a substantial number of equities, all factors will be weighed to determine if an exercise of PD [prosecutorial discretion] is appropriate.


Memo from Goldman to all attorneys, Office of Chief Counsel, August 16, 2010 (ultimately rescinded per the instruction of ICE headquarters):

ICE Senior Leadership does not want their attorneys to merely fill a seat in immigration court and blindly prosecute every case handed to them. The current administration wants attorneys of greater sophistication, independence and complexity in decision making…


Moreover, despite the claims of immigration officials, ICE attorneys sought to block deportation proceeding for illegal aliens with violent crime offenses. A spreadsheet obtained by Judicial Watch lists the specific violent crimes that immigration officials were prepared to overlook. They include: sexual assault, solicitation of murder, aggravated assault, assaulting a police officer, and kidnapping, as well as numerous drug charges.

Following the press coverage of the memo, which resulted in widespread outrage, immigration officials sought to contain the damage by narrowing the scope of the policy change:

An email from Raphael Choi, Chief Counsel for Arlington ICE to Gary Goldman, August 18, 2010:

…in-house I’m way behind. We continue to review cases piecemeal. The problem is every time I'm about to wield a blunt instrument to our docket, some case shows up in the press that gives me pause. I think its given Riah pause too.


Letter from Ramlogan to Goldman on the day the Houston Chronicle exposed the new policy on deportations, August 25, 2010:

I am concerned that your interpretation of the memorandum, although well-intentioned, could create a gap in basic immigration enforcement. Your approach that our attorneys should only litigate cases within the agency’s highest priorities is not an accurate interpretation of the Assistant Secretary’s guidance and is not consistent with agency policy…please immediately rescind your memoranda.


(Note: Ramlogan had been provided a copy of Goldman’s memo on August 10, 2010 but provided no comment until the day the Houston Chronicle story was published.)

On June 17, 2011, John Morton sent another memo to all field officers, special agents and to the chief counsel further defining the term “prosecutorial discretion.” “In basic terms, prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual,” Morton writes. Critics point out that this is precisely the type of “selective enforcement” the DHS has denied fostering with its new deportation policy.

“These documents show that the Obama administration is implementing ‘stealth amnesty,’ which is an end-run around the rule of law and Congress.” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration doesn’t seem to care about its constitutional responsibility to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ by pushing the selective enforcement of immigration laws. And they are thumbing their noses at Congress and the American people by stonewalling information requests and lying to cover up their stealth amnesty scheme. Congress should initiate a full investigation to get to the truth of the matter. The lawlessness must stop.”

Documents Uncovered
DHS documents, part 1
DHS documents, part 2
DHS documents, part 3
DHS documents, part 4

[Soul Crusher]

Skip to comments.

EPA finalizes stricter air pollution rules for Wisconsin, other states
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal ^ | 7/7/11 | Lee Bergquist and Thomas Content
Posted on July 7, 2011 9:36:17 PM EDT by Jean S

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday finalized stronger regulations for Wisconsin and 26 other states aimed at curbing air pollution from long-distance sources.

The rules will help those states fight ozone and particle pollution caused by power plants in Illinois, Indiana and other states.

But Wisconsin utilities - whose pollution can contribute to air-quality problems elsewhere - will also need to find ways to reduce their own emissions.

The likely result: Higher electric bills in the coming years.

A group of power companies known as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity called the action one of the most costly crackdowns on coal ever.

Nationwide, the EPA estimated utilities will spend $1.2 billion next year and $800 million in 2014 to comply with the rule.

(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Documents confirm Obama administration’s ‘catch and release’ immigration policy
Washington Examiner ^ | 7/7/11 | Barbara Hollingsworth
Posted on July 7, 2011 10:10:51 PM EDT by Nachum

Well, what do you know. Obama administration officials at the Department of Homeland Security deliberately misled Congress when they denied using “selective enforcement” to deport convicted criminals in the U.S. illegally. Their much-criticized “catch and release” policy was confirmed by documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents “show that the Obama administration is implementing ‘stealth amnesty’ which is an end-run around the rule of law and Congress,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Texas fight with EPA grows with power-plant rule
Reuters ^ | July 7, 2011 | Eileen O'Grady
Posted on July 7, 2011 10:16:57 PM EDT by Clairity

Texas Governor Rick Perry and two top state regulators on Thursday blasted the U.S. environmental agency for including Texas in a rule to slash sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants, warning that the last-minute action could threaten the state's electric supply.

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule to reduce air pollution from coal-fired power plants in states east of the Rocky Mountains.

"Today's EPA announcement is another example of heavy-handed and misguided action from Washington, D.C., that threatens Texas jobs and families and puts at risk the reliable and affordable electricity our state needs to succeed," said Perry,

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's Stimulus Waste: $7 million per House on Internet Access
Townhall.com ^ | July 8, 2011 | Bob Beauprez

________________________ ________________________ ______________


In our blog post of July 5, 2011 we cited analysis of the recently release quarterly summary report of Barack Obama's Stimulus that concluded the Administration spent $278,000 per job they claimed to have "saved or created" with the $666 billion the White House has spent thus far of the more than $800 billion authorized by the legislation approved in 2009.   

The Administration used the Stimulus as a private slush fund to funnel vast amounts of money to programs and industries favored by the President. 

One of his campaign pledges was to expand broadband internet access, particularly to rural areas, and with the Stimulus check book in hand, Obama proceeded to deliver on that promise spending a total of $7.2 billion, with $2.5 billion specifically allocated to "Rural Utilities Service" (RUS). 

Jeffry Eisenach and Kevin Caves of Navigant Economics, a financial and economic analysis and consulting firm looked at the results of Obama's rural broadband expansion efforts.   The results aren't very pretty.


The Navigant analysts evaluated programs in three areas: Southwestern Montana, Northwestern Kansas, and Northern Minnesota that received Stimulus funds to extend broadband access to homes currently lacking service.   

According to their report, it cost on average $349,234 per household. 

But, it gets worse.

In the Montana region, there were actually a number of providers, including wireless, that already provided service in the area. 

Eisenach and Caves found that if 3G wireless was included, only seven households in the entire region could be considered to be without any option for access.  Thus, the cost to extend access to those seven homes was about $7 million each. 

Like Einstein said of insanity, this was doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.   


According to the Eisenach and Caves, "Prior investigations have shown that RUS' broadband subsidy programs were not cost effective, and often funded duplicative coverage in areas already served by existing programs." 

But, Obama funded it anyway – and sent American taxpayers the bill. 

[Soul Crusher]

Stunner: NFP Up Just 18K, Unemployment Rate 9.2%, Household Survey Down 445K, Birth Death +131K
Zero Hedge ^ | July 8, 2011 | Tyler Durden

________________________ ________________________ _______________



Absolute disaster. Total jobs per the establishment survey: +18K on expectations of 105K, Private Jobs + 57K on expectations of 132K. Last month total was revised from 54K to 25K. Combined April and May revision down 44K. The household survey was down by 445K from 139,779 to 139,334. Birth death adjustment + 131K. Complete humiliation for Wall Street's economists, the lowest prediction of whom came Bob Brusca at +60K. From the NFP: "Nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged in June (+18,000), and the unemployment rate was little changed at 9.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment in most major private-sector industries changed little over the month. Government employment continued to trend down." It is time for Joe LaVorgna to retire, with his 175K forecast, or off by a factor of 972%.


Some key jobs categories:


Employment in government continued to trend down over the month (-39,000). Federal employment declined by 14,000 in June. Employment in both state government and local government continued to trend down over the month and has been falling since the second half of 2008.

Manufacturing employment changed little in June. Following gains totaling 164,000 between November 2010 and April 2011, employment in this industry has been flat for the past 2 months. In June, job gains in fabricated metal products (+8,000) were partially offset by a loss in wood products (-5,000).

Construction employment was essentially unchanged in June. After having fallen sharply during the 2007-09 period, employment in construction has shown little movement on net since early 2010.

There is no sugarcoating this report. Absolutely abysmal.



________________________ ________________________ _______

HOPE & CHANGE!!!!

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Oops I Forgot To Create Jobs: A Review Of Obamanomics
Townhall.com ^ | July 10, 2011 | Austin Hill
Posted on July 10, 2011 9:10:51 AM EDT by Kaslin

How seriously are we to take President Obama on economic matters? Is anybody still expecting him to “create jobs?”

Since the early days of his presidential bid in 2007, many have marveled at Barack Obama’s dulcet-toned voice and charming demeanor, while applauding at every word he utters – including what he says about the economy and employment. Now, roughly two and a half years into his presidency, it is painfully apparent that mere charisma and smooth talk don’t “create jobs.”

But why not? What, possibly, could have gone wrong? When Mr. Obama began his presidency in January of 2009 he noted that his “economic stimulus plan” would “save or create three to four million jobs.” Why hasn’t that happened?

The only plausible, reasonable answer to this question has to go something like this: in order for any economy to be sustainable, the majority of its employment opportunities absolutely must come from the for-profit, private sector of our economy. Sure, government agencies employ people too, but they should only employ people in numbers necessary for those agencies to provide essential basic services, and pay these employees commensurate with their private sector counterparts.

The most important thing government can do for the economy is to help to expand employment in the private sector, for-profit arena of our economy. And government can help make this happen, not by cajoling and manipulating and threatening businesses into “hiring,” but rather, by providing a stable and consistent regulatory environment, reasonably low tax rates to businesses and their investors, and encouraging free trade.

Unfortunately, both President Obama’s words and deeds have been hostile towards the private sector, while at the same time he has encouraged the expansion of the government sector. Thus here we are in July of 2011, with many government employees having their compensation and benefits packages expanded, as many private sector businesses continue to eliminate eliminate jobs. President Obama has said and done the opposite of what a President should be doing on economic matters, and – not surprisingly – he has produced the opposite of what we would all want.

If you think this is harsh or unfair, consider some of what the President has been saying over the last few years. Let’s start with this quote from August of 2008, when candidate Obama was speaking before a stadium full of his true believers.

Several American oil companies had just posted some robust profits, and the soon-to-be-President Obama seemed to think this was a bad thing. “First of all,” candidate Obama stated, “you’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…They..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”

That was some great campaign rhetoric back then. But today we are in dire need of great policies from our President – and maligning American companies for being “too profitable” doesn’t incentivize them to grow.

Fast-forward to January 29th of 2009. Despite the economic decline, some of the nation’s largest financial and lending institutions had actually just posted some hefty profits, and had paid their executives bonuses. And once again President Obama chastised the achievement, stating “there will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses…now’s not that time, and that’s a message I intend to send directly to them..” Apparently, in Mr. Obama’s view, it is sometimes preferable for companies to be unprofitable – yet unprofitable companies don’t “create jobs.”

And here’s one of my favorites, from May of 2009. Speaking at the commencement exercises at Arizona State University, President Obama advised the new college graduates against private-sector success: “…You’re taught to chase after all the usual brass rings,” the President lamented. “Yah try to be on this ‘who’s who’ list or that ‘top 100 list’…ya chase after the big money, ya figure out how big your corner office is…ya worry about whether or not ya have a fancy enough title, or a fancy enough car…Now you can take that road, and it may work, for some. But at this critical juncture in our nation’s history, at this difficult time, let me suggest that such an approach won’t get you where you want to go. Did you study business? You can go start a company…or, why not go help a struggling not-for-profit find better and more effective ways to help folks in need?”

From there the President went on to extol the many virtues of “public service” – that is, becoming a government employee – and how important it is for people to become public school teachers. Yet he had nothing positive to say about how to create the wealth that funds the non-profit groups and that pays for the labor of the government employees.

Barack Obama is the President who loathes and chastises for-profit enterprise while praising and expanding government bureaucracies. Our current economic conditions provide a mirror image to the President’s vision.

[Soul Crusher]

Return to the Article   


July 8, 2011
Obama's Plan for $10 Gas

By Jeffrey Folks
American drivers are angry at having to pay $4 a gallon for gas, and understandably so.  Their anger is often directed at the oil companies that supply the gas.  It should be directed at Barack Obama instead.

From the beginning of his appearance on the national stage, Obama has focused on the goal of driving up energy prices with the idea of "weaning" America off fossil fuels.  He has succeeded in driving up prices, all right, but not in reducing dependence on fossil fuels.  According to "The Outlook for Energy 2011," fossil fuels now supply 80% of global demand.  That percentage will remain unchanged through 2030 despite hundreds of billions in subsidies squandered on wind and solar.

Nor has Obama succeeded in reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil.  According to the American Petroleum Institute imports now amount to some 11 million barrels per day or 56% of deliveries.  That compares with 35% in 1973 and 42% in 1990.  Despite imposition of strict mileage standards and the burden of higher prices on the consumer, the level of imports has not declined significantly under President Obama.

In fact, Obama's energy policies have created the worst of all possible worlds for American consumers: higher prices and continued dependency on imported oil.

Now, in the ongoing deficit reduction talks, the President is insisting on cutting $45 billion of incentives for oil and gas companies over the next decade.  The Democrats like to portray these incentives as "special breaks" for Big Oil, but in fact they are no different from expensing and depreciation allowances enjoyed by most manufacturing businesses.  In reality, Obama's proposal has nothing to do with "special breaks" for oil companies.  Instead, it is a "special tax" aimed specifically at oil and gas.

The proposed $45-billion tax on America's oil companies would be in addition to the excessive and disproportionate taxes already paid by the industry.  The oil majors already pay $35.7 billion in taxes annually.  That's 41.1% of net income, far more than the average of 26% for S&P500 companies outside the energy sector (2009 figures).  Between 1980 and 2009 American oil and gas companies paid $1 trillion in taxes, and at current levels American producers will be paying another $714 billion in taxes over the next decade.

No unbiased observer can say that the American oil and gas industry is under-taxed.  And yet Obama wants to pile on more taxes with the aim of bringing some of our nation's greatest corporations under the heel of government control.

Oil and gas is one sector where American companies still enjoy a distinct advantage over foreign competitors in the form of superior management and technological know-how.  It is one area, in other words, where American workers are able to compete effectively with foreign workers.  A $45-billion tax would go a long way toward destroying that advantage.  Obama's energy tax would also reduce funds available for exploration and production, thus reducing output and raising the cost of energy for American consumers.  It would reduce domestic production, thus exacerbating our balance of payments problem.  It would put American energy companies at a disadvantage to foreign competitors, thus reducing the number of jobs for American workers in the oil and gas sector.

This, of course, is exactly what the President wants.  By driving up gas prices, Obama hopes to force Americans to purchase hybrid and electric vehicles.  And by reducing the size and influence of America's oil and gas companies, Obama plans to make these companies even more susceptible to government control and de facto nationalization. 

Just how high gas prices will go is a matter of serious debate at the present time.  Despite recent declines and futures prices that suggest the possibility of further declines in the near term, the price of oil may be headed up.  Respected energy analysts have suggested that oil may hit $170 a barrel by spring 2012.  That would translate into $7 a gallon at the pump.

If American drivers are angry at paying $4 a gallon, they would be furious when gas hits $7.  But Obama knows that their fury will be directed at oil companies.  At that point he could score points by proposing another windfall profits tax, enough to drive prices up even further.

For this President the goal all along has been $10 gas, and he is closer to achieving it than most observers realize.  If Obama manages to negotiate $45 billion of new taxes on oil companies, those taxes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.  Combine that with the spike in global oil prices that many predict and further "windfall" taxes on oil companies once they have been forced to raise prices at the pump, and you have $10 gas.

The best part for Obama is that he gets to pretend he had nothing to do with it.  After all, he has been a leading critic of "greedy oil companies."  He has supported one proposal after another for "punishing" Big Oil.  Despite the fact that oil companies have been pleading with the Obama administration for the chance to drill offshore and bring down prices, they are the guilty ones, and he is somehow on the side of the struggling middle class.

Yes, and he is also the chief architect of $10 gas.

That's what Obama is trying to do with his $45 billion in new taxes.  Since America's oil companies already pay 41% of their profits in taxes, piling on more taxes has nothing to do with "fairness."  It is merely a step toward one of the left's cherished goals: Chavez-style nationalization of the energy industry and ultimately of the entire economy.

Conservatives need to draw a line in the sand on Obama's revenue proposals: no new taxes on anyone.  No new taxes on oil and gas, financial managers, or producers of private jets.  All of these are bad ideas that will lead to less investment, less growth, and less job creation.  There is more than enough waste in the federal budget to cut $4 trillion over the next decade.  Republicans should not let Obama get away with using this crisis to advance his purposes of nationalizing the American economy. 

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/07/obamas_plan_for_10_gas.html at July 10, 2011 - 10:02:51 AM CDT

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

NYC business owners sick over ObamaCare
NY Post ^ | July 2, 2011 | JOHN AIDAN BYRNE
Posted on July 3, 2011 8:45:22 AM EDT by lowbridge

Rohit Arora runs a small business credit service. His firm provides the much-needed capital for companies to grow, expand and to hire.

So when Arora, the CEO of Biz2Credit, a Midtown finance company, says his latest research shows businesses large and small are making every effort to avoid hiring full-time workers, Washington should take notice.

The reason, Arora says, is because of rising health-care costs and fears about ObamaCare, the red tape and paperwork. He is also practicing what he hears with his own firm.

"ObamaCare has cast a long shadow over my plans to hire more staff," Arora said.

Employers across the metro area have had to put off hiring workers. They blame spiraling health-care costs and the uncertain future price tag of ObamaCare.

Another owner, Frank Passantino, is furious.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...






Bump for team dildo.

[Soul Crusher]

Jobless Presidencies Should Result in Jobless Presidents
Townhall.com ^ | July 11, 2011 | Jon Sanders



In the religious ecstasy of early 2009, when Barack Obama was yet in mid-ascension operating the "Office of the President-Elect" (complete with custom-made seal), he was campaigning hard for his stimulus plan.

On January 10 of that year, the Obama "administration-in-waiting" released a report by its chief economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein titled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." The thrust of the report was to show how the stimulus plan was far preferable to doing nothing.

"In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more [jobs]," Romer and Bernstein estimated. With the stimulus, "we believe a reasonable range for 2010Q4 is 3.3 to 4.1 million jobs created."

The report included a handy graph (ours being such a visually motivated society) that showed exactly the choice we faced. Without the recovery plan, unemployment would peak at a whopping and then-unfathomable 9 percent through the first three quarters of 2010.


With the recovery plan, however, unemployment would peak at just below 8 percent by late 2009 and steadily fall to 7 percent by the end of 2010. By now it would be around 6.6 percent.

Hundreds of other economists, including some Nobel laureates, warned against the folly of the stimulus plan. In full-page ads in major newspapers across the U.S., the Cato Institute published their open letter to the president, which stated,

More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

It is now mid-July 2011. The latest jobs report is now out, and unemployment is not around 6.6 percent as Obama's economists predicted. Instead it is at 9.2 percent and rising. The same economists predicted that the worst that unemployment would have gotten without the stimulus was 9 percent. With the stimulus, it not only is above that rate, but it has been above that rate since early 2009, shortly after the stimulus passed.

When the stimulus passed in February 2009, there were 141.7 million people employed in the U.S. That number has fallen to 139.3 percent.

That means there are 2.4 million fewer people employed now than when the stimulus passed in February 2009.

It costs a lot of money to throw this many Americans out of work. The stimulus costs $814 billion, according to the CBO. In essence, we are spending about $340,000 for each net new person put out of work since the stimulus passed.

"Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth," counseled the economists who proved to know what they were talking about. To his very core Obama resists that truth, even at this late hour with so many more of his fellow Americans out of work. Three separate wars in the Middle East but still the president's bitterest fight is against lowering tax rates and reducing the burden of government. Witness the debt ceiling standoff in Washington right now.

Epilogue: On February 2, 2009, the new president was interviewed by Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today." He spoke confidently of the stimulus plan. "One nice thing about the situation I find myself in," he said, "is that I will be held accountable. I've got four years."


He added that "a year from now I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years," he said, two and a half years ago, "then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

The one term, in the president's stilted speech, undoubtedly refers to one presidential term. It cannot refer to a descriptive term. No single word could capture the colossal failure of the stimulus nor the staggering, stultifying ignorance behind it. Not yet, anyway. One day, however, the term "Obamanomics" may suffice.

[Soul Crusher]

The hubris of O, &c.
National Review ^ | 7/18/2011 | Jay guy



There was a headline last week: “Obama’s ratings plummet in Arab World.” (Article here.) Obama’s ratings are below those of George W. Bush, when that much maligned president left office.


I couldn’t help thinking of something that Obama said during the ’08 campaign: “I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated . . . not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently.” The candidate went on, “The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world.”


Was Obama an egomaniac or a fool? The thing about egomania, it tends to make one look foolish, among other things.


An Associated Press report about Syria bears attention. Tens of thousands marched through Damascus shouting “We want freedom!” You know what I think these Arabs mean when they shout “We want freedom!” Oddly enough, I think they mean “We want freedom!”


Haitham al-Maleh said something rather moving. He is an 80-year-old lawyer and dissident, who has spent time in Syrian jails. He recently left his country “out of fear for his life,” as the AP says.


Anyway, Maleh was in Turkey, attending a conference. And he said, “The regime” — meaning the Assad dictatorship — has “kidnapped the entire state, and we want it back.” He also called the dictatorship a “fascist regime.”


Which is exactly what it is.


Let me do some quoting of that report:


Saturday’s opposition conference in Turkey — called the National Salvation Conference — was attended by some 400 dissidents looking to form a unified opposition to Assad, whose family has ruled Syria for more than 40 years.


Some more:


Organizers had planned to hold a conference in Damascus in tandem with the Turkey meeting, but it was canceled after Friday’s bloodshed. The Local Coordination Committees said at least 14 people were killed near a hall where the conference was to be held.


Think of the bravery — the reckless, nearly mad bravery — of those people for getting anywhere near that hall.


One more excerpt, please:


Opposition figure Mashaal Tammo, addressing the conference by phone from Damascus, said Assad had lost his legitimacy to rule and called on him to step down.


In an emotional speech, he said the “the existence of the regime was no longer justified,” and called for a peaceful transition to a civil, pluralistic and democratic state.


These people are really not much different from you and me, in their desires and hopes. People will spend all their time — using their very last breath — to tell you it isn’t so. That these Arabs belong to a different species, really. You don’t have to believe them.


And, if you can — go discover for yourselves. Not Syria, just now. But the Middle East in general.


Ron Prosor was Israel’s ambassador to Britain for four years. Last month, on leaving, he published an article in the Telegraph. Here is part of what he said:


In Syria, Bashar al-Assad, the London-educated ophthalmologist with a blind spot for terror, is crushing the vision of unarmed protesters. Yet on the streets and campuses of Britain, Assad will never receive the level of vitriolic condemnation for slaughtering his citizens that Israel receives for defending ours.


You got that right, baby.


Frankly, I’m not really sure what “blind spot for terror” means. It seems to mean that Assad relishes terror, eyes wide open. I imagine I just have a blind spot when it comes to Ambassador Prosor’s wording.


Oh, hang on, I get it — must be some joke with “ophthalmologist.” Still . . .


As President Obama shuffles the Dalai Lama in and out of the White House, with no media permitted, I think back to Obama’s predecessor, glorious in so many ways. Here was a president who had the spine to appear with the Tibetan leader in public. In fact, he traveled to the Capitol Rotunda, to see the Dalai Lama receive the Congressional Gold Medal.


Want to see W. and the lama grinning together, enjoying life together? Check it out.


Beautiful.


I saw a headline yesterday: “Giuliani: GOP Should Stop Focusing on Gay Marriage.” That was a weird one. The GOP is focusing on gay marriage? I had no idea. And I follow things kind of closely, I think. Seems to me we’re pretty much budget-mad, as we well should be.


Lemme quote: “Saying that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, Giuliani nonetheless told CNN’s Candy Crowley that the ‘Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things get decided by states.’”


What in the world does gay marriage — the issue of whether marriage should be redefined — have to do with being the heck in people’s bedrooms? That is simply bizarre. When Teddy Kennedy was defending abortion, he would use that same language: that we shouldn’t snoop around people’s bedrooms. What in the world does that have to do with abortion?


Why are people — excuse me — such morons?


Every once in a while, I try to describe the mentality I grew up with, in good old Ann Arbortown. I know I have described it ad nauseam. Can you stand a little more nauseam?


Because President Obama and his cabinet have been illustrating beautifully the mentality I grew up with. People were always talking about the money others “needed,” or didn’t need. “No one needs that much money,” they would say. “He has far too much money, much more than he needs.”


The word “obscene” was always attached to wealth: “obscene wealth.” “He is obscenely wealthy.” You know how Orwell noted that “rabid” was always attached to anti-Communism (never anti-fascism)? Similar thing.


Anyway, Obama said, “I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need.” Think of the myriad and wonderful charitable uses to which that money could be put!


By the way, do you love that phrase “additional income”? Additional to what? The money O and his family “need”?


Also, our energy secretary, Steven Chu, talked about the banning of the light bulb as we know it: “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”


Ladies and gentlemen, when people in power talk that way, be on your guard. And “take away” their power at the next opportunity.


I got a press release from the Philadelphia Orchestra, which is bankrupt. They are a microcosm of what has happened in Greece, Portugal, and elsewhere: Pension commitments and the like are killing the orchestra. The union has ruled the roost.


The orchestra’s fundraising slogan is “Listen with Your Heart.” To my ears, that is a guilt-mongering slogan. I would counter with, “Get off my back. Don’t pretend that I’m stingy. Why don’t you ‘Manage with Your Head’? Then get back to me, maybe.”


In a recent column, I said something about the expression “No soap.” That is an oldie, meaning, “No go,” or “No cigar,” or “No deal.”


A reader writes,


My mother used to tell of a family trip between Indiana and Florida in either the 1930s or the 1940s. They stopped at a motel to check it out for an overnight stay. My grandfather asked to look at a room and went into one with the owner. It was of quite dubious quality, and my grandfather said, “No soap.” The owner responded, “Ain’t got no towels either.”


Some colleagues have been providing memories of Dorothy McCartney, who worked at National Review her entire career, I believe. I’d like to contribute a little story.


I first knew of her because her name was in Firing Line’s closing credits: She was Bill’s — William F. Buckley Jr.’s — research assistant. So the credits would say, “RESEARCH: DOROTHY MCCARTNEY,” something like that.


When I first came to NR, I said to her, “You’re famous.” She sort of blushed and said, “No, I’m not.” I said, “Yes, you are, for the credits!” Grinning, she continued to protest. But then she confided the following: “Once, I was at a bank in Long Island, and handed over a document that gave my name. The teller said, ‘Are you the Dorothy McCartney?’”


Yes, she was. The.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Soul Crusher]

Posted on July 18, 2011
Wynn Slams Obama On Business: "Responsible For Fear In America"

Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, trashed President Obama on a company conference call today. Below are the most damning portions of the call:

I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.


(full transcript available here)
   

[headhuntersix]

They'd rather talk about News Corp, Palin and whatever else. This is the only thing that matters right now..not even A-stan matters as much as this. Hell Barry doesn't care about the wars either. Can anybody explain to me why or how he got elected.

[Soul Crusher]

Very simple

1.  Guilt ridden white morons. 

2.  95 percent of blacks. 

3.  Dumber than dirt college students. 

4.  65 percent of Hispanics.

5.  Lbgt, eviro, progressive commies


Etc etc.

[Soul Crusher]

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=YkBvqcx6OBQ


Wynn nails Obama to the wall.