Monthly Archives: September 2012

Ohio Poll Shows Poor Economy and Lack of Full Time Jobs Devastate Young Adults

Only 33 percent of Ohio’s 18-29 year olds say elected leaders represent their interests and fully 81 percent intend to vote in the 2012 presidential election

Washington, DC – (9/24/12) – Generation Opportunity, the largest non-profit, non-partisan organization in the United States engaging and mobilizing young Americans (Millennials ages 18-29 years old) on the important economic issues facing the nation, released new polling data today on Ohio young adults as the 2012 presidential election nears. Since its launch in June of 2011, Generation Opportunity has amassed a following of over four million on Facebook and is actively organizing Millennials across America through grassroots tactics, voter registration, and voter turnout efforts. Generation Opportunity has already engaged well over one hundred and thirty thousand Ohio young adults through its social media and field operations.

“Young adults in Ohio are paying a very steep personal price for the poor economy and economic policies coming out of the White House that are crushing the creation of full-time, meaningful jobs under the weight of higher taxes and ever-expanding regulations. Every day, across Ohio, young people are forced to cut back on basic purchases such as groceries and gifts for family members, to change living conditions and move back in with their parents, to find extra work and even sell their personal possessions. Their dreams of buying homes, going back to school, starting families, paying off student loans, getting married, and advancing their careers have been absolutely devastated. They know they are getting a raw deal and are intensely frustrated with elected leaders who once promised change, but have instead created a status quo that is even more bleak and limits the prospect of independence while pushing greater dependency,” said Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity and former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Department of Labor. “Our survey confirmed what we have heard on the ground and online for well over a year – if candidates want to earn the respect and votes of young people in Ohio, they need to offer detailed solutions that allow employers the ability to create full-time jobs that lead to improved lives and better futures. However, if elected leaders come to Ohio and stubbornly defend policies that have already proven to be a failure and harmful to young Americans, this generation will not hesitate to make their voices heard in November and demand change. They know America can do better, and they have the confidence to act.”

For Generation Opportunity, the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, conducted a statewide online survey of 507 Ohio adults ages 18-29 between July 27 and August 14, 2012.

Randomly selected online opt-in panel participants were sent an invitation to the survey via email which included a secure link to the online questionnaire. Quotas were used to ensure the survey was representative of the larger 18-29 year old statewide population with regard to race, region, and gender. The data were NOT weighted. The overall sampling margin of error for the survey is ±4.4% at a 95% confidence interval, meaning that the data obtained would not differ more than 4.4 percentage points in 95 out of 100 similar samples obtained.


  • 85% of Ohio’s 18-29 year olds changed some aspect of their day-to-day lives because of the current state of the economy (Accepted multiple responses) (Randomized):
  • 55% – reduced entertainment budget;
  • 43% – cut back on gifts for friends and family;
  • 43% – reduced grocery/food budget;
  • 38% – skipped a vacation;
  • 38% – driven less/relied more on public transit;
  • 37% – taken active steps to reduce home energy costs;
  • 30% – tried to find an additional job;
  • 27% – sold personal items or property (cars, electronic appliances, or other possessions);
  • 24% – changed living situation (moved in with family, taken extra roommates, downgraded apartment or home);
  • 17% – skipped a wedding, family reunion, or other significant social event;
  • 3% – Other, specified;
  • 11% – None of the above (accepted only this response);
  • 4% – Do not know/cannot judge (accepted only this response).
  • 79% of 18-29 year olds in Ohio have delayed or might not do at least one major life event due to the current state of the economy (Accepted multiple responses) (Randomized):
  • 42% – Buy my own place;
  • 30% – Go back to school/getting more education or training;
  • 29% – Pay off student loans or other debt;
  • 27% – Start a family;
  • 25% – Save for retirement;
  • 22% – Change jobs/cities;
  • 20% – Get married;
  • 17% – None of the above (accepted only this response);
  • 4% – Do not know/cannot judge (accepted only this response).


  • Only 33% believe that today’s political leaders reflect the interests of young Americans.
  • 73% believe that the lack of job opportunities is shrinking the American middle class.
  • 64% of Ohio Millennials believe the availability of more quality, full-time jobs upon graduation is more important than lower student loan interest rates.
  • 81% of 18-29 year olds in Ohio plan to vote in the election for President this year. 

Obama Embraces Keeping Blacks Stuck on the Democrat Plantation

The goal of democrat plantation politics has been to find a convenient and perpetual target that can be feared, hated, smeared and consequently demonized.

Hate, fear and smear!! “Shame on you Barack Obama!!”Feb 23, 2008

This is the legacy of the Democrat party and one which President Obama embraces and actually appears to relish. He is quite familiar with the hate, fear and smear art form practiced by his fellow democratic leaders. He uses it with adept frequency. The president flies into crucial swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Virginia with his practiced hanging drawl. He then enchants the black locals with notions of sugar plum government programs that will make their life better, if they give him the same chance they did in 2008.

This is done with no reflection upon their own increasing misery index which just happens to coincide with Obama’s increased abandonment of any job, education, or community safety-net promises made. Instead, it is only through continued black misery indexing upward can Obama and democrats continue their titanium plantation grip upon over 90 percent of America’s black electorate.

Where’s the beef? Where are the jobs?

The goal of democrat plantation politics has been to find a convenient and perpetual target that can be feared, hated, smeared and consequently demonized. Republicans are that target group, which unions, democrat community organizers like Obama, and democrat political machine leaders have made their primary election year goal.

Of course with the compliance of the NAACP, as their contracted plantation house servant, the nefarious and typically highly emotionally charged negative rhetoric rings off of church and community center walls every election season. But what are universally missing are the facts of Republican misdeeds. Emotional sing song rhyming rhetoric is the bait democrat plantation leaders ply to submerge common sense or biblical principles and values learned in the church.

President Obama not only knows this but he is absolutely banking on black mothers and fathers, grandparents and families to not look under the sheets and discover they have been hoodwinked and short-sheeted by Obama and the democrat plantation care takers. To borrow from Obama’s own 2008 words which blacks on the democrat political plantation would do well to remember, “Instead, they’re betting on amnesia. That’s what they’re counting on. They’re counting on that you all forgot. They think that they can run the okey-doke on you. Bamboozle you.

This is what Obama said to blacks in 2008 about Republican, but look at the facts, and see how the bamboozle practices applies to the plantation democrat caretakers.
First, joblessness in the black community has skyrocketed from 12.1 percent during the last month of the Bush presidency, to as high as 16.3 percent according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July it was reported that black families were hit hardest by unemployment. The rate increased from 13.6% in May to 14.4% in June. In fact, mainstream and black media artfully avoided holding Obama’s hope and change feet to the fire for the abysmal unemployment rate increase of 39.3%, up from 36.5% in June, among black youth 16-to 19.

Instead, Obama and the plantation overseeing democrats came into Ohio and other crucial battleground states diverting attention away from murder rates in Chicago, escalating joblessness in Cleveland and Akron, Ohio and hopelessness in Detroit, and the increasing black poverty 20 percent rate in Virginia from 2010.

Black Americans have to truly take a serious look at themselves, and come to the realization that this nonsensical embrace of plantation charlatan practices by Obama and the democrats is a death sentence for their children’s future.

Think about this, as blacks, you have been told to discard their own misery index which continues to shackle the hopes and dreams of your family. Instead you are spun a myth with no facts. If one were to ask a black democrat plantation resident, what is wrong with a Romney or President Bush, or even a President Reagan or President Nixon, they cannot give one specific fact-based reason. The only practiced response uttered is “They… said he or they hate blacks!”

Did Republican President Lincoln hate blacks when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation to free black slaves? Did Republican President Eisenhower hate blacks when he sent federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the lives of young black school children or support civil rights bills? Did Republican President Nixon hate blacks when he supported and promoted funding for historically African American colleges, minority-owned businesses, and supporting ill-advised affirmative action programs?

So where is this disconnect in the black community coming from? Why the hate, fear and smear campaigns against republican presidents and candidates?

Democrats truly believe that black people should be handled as if they are less capable of getting voting identification than whites. The democrats believe that blacks would rather listen to emotional fictional tripe from Obama’s cleverly crafted Chicago campaign message makers. Democrats want blacks to ignore their personal pain and anguish that the facts bear out. Democrats want blacks to subdue their misery index; while the outcome of Obama’s failing policies have cost them their homes, their jobs and their children’s future.

Getting free of the chains of the Democrat’s plantation politics is crucial. Instead blacks must reject the withering racial divisiveness of Biden and Obama, and seek solace in Rev. Martin Luther King Jr’s vision to not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. They must head towards and not away from King’s devotion to a new national colorblind heritage.

So before Blacks walk into that voting booth or fill out that absentee ballot, they have to have to ask themselves one crucial question. Are you willing to trade continued enslavement of democrat plantation politics for a chance to own your own destiny as an American in a colorblind nation?

On November 6th, what destiny are blacks willing to choose? Will the choice be one of freedom, or one where their freedom and their destiny are planned, government funded, and government determined for them?

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. stressed, “Man is man because he is free to operate within a framework of his destiny. He is free to deliberate, to make decisions, and to choose between alternatives.” Blacks should not let the democrats racial divisive plantation politics determine their destiny.

Reject hate, fear and smear. “Shame on you Barack Obama!!”

The decision is yours as to which dream and future you are willing to risk!


Let me know what you think:

The Worldwide Consequences of Obama’s Manufactured Crisis Strategy

With the world swirling in Obama-induced chaos I thought it fitting to dust off an article first published in 2008 that forewarns of the world he and his communist cohorts have been striving to create. Originally a follow-on to the September 2008 article Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, it was titled “Conspiracy of the Lemmings.” I have added two paragraphs to the discussion on China, updated links that over time were lost, cut out dated material and summarized the section on Obama’s foundation work. Finally, I have appended Andrew Breitbart’s parting admonition from CPAC 2012.

Original Article (Edited)

The United States of America is the world’s marketplace. Without the worldwide trade generated by American demand, the international marketplace will fail. Today we are witnessing an undeniable demonstration of this fact as world markets reel in response to our domestic financial crisis. This lesson must be burnt into our collective conscience. Our nation is the last repository of free market economic principles, and a fundamental change in our government toward socialism will spell worldwide economic disaster from which we may never recover.

Yet this is exactly the endgame of the American radical Left – increasingly indistinguishable from today’s Democrat Party – and offers the only internally consistent explanation for their historic obsession with divisive policy. From their early support of Hitler to their central role in the current financial crisis, the Left’s contribution to domestic and foreign policy at federal, state and local levels can only be described as wantonly destructive. Their takeover of schools and popular culture has been equally toxic. Their environmental radicalism has spawned the energy crisis, while offering no viable alternatives. It defies logic.

But there is logic, a deadly logic, and in the ’60’s, two radicals gave it a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. As explained in my prior article, the goal was to create a groundswell of demands for public services to overwhelm government, create crisis and usher in a widespread call for fundamental economic reform at the federal level, with socialism the ultimate goal.

Democrats embrace the rhetoric of “compassion,” but look past the rhetoric to the results. This country is polarized as never before because of their relentless agitation for extremist positions on every issue, and the outrageous tactics they use to promote them. But while Radical Saul Alinsky’s tactics guide today’s Democrat electoral game plan, the Cloward-Piven Strategy describes the overarching goal of almost every leftwing organization/movement/ideal today.

How do they survive?

These organizations rarely produce anything of value, yet are extremely adept at not only surviving but flourishing. Many receive their financial backbone from prominent philanthropies. They also receive subsidies and tax breaks with the help of friends in federal, state and local government. This fact is unknown to most voters, who would be outraged if they fully understood how their tax dollars were being spent.

Our mass media is mostly to blame for the current state of affairs. The Left’s strategies could not survive the light of day. Radicals require a sympathetic media to deliver their message in an acceptable fashion and actively suppress inconvenient facts that reveal these organizations’ true character and agenda. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is perhaps the most poignant current example of this. Without mass media’s shamelessly biased support, he would still be community organizing, or perhaps in jail.

It is a tangled web of radical interconnections with the ultimate goal being an end to our Constitutional framework, the fall of our Republic and its replacement with a radical vision of socialist utopia – finally removing the last major roadblock to world socialism.

These radical individuals are highly motivated, in many cases intelligent and talented, and sometimes even driven by what they would describe as altruistic motives. Yet the impacts of socialist central planning are inarguably destructive.

Marx may have had some interesting insights on history, but despite his ponderous three volume “Das Kapital” he was no economist. Instead, Kapital provided the intellectual excuse for Marx’s anarchistic Communist Manifesto.

And the severe verdict of history on his perverted vision is without equal: over 100 million people murdered by their own governments in times of peace, more than all the wars of history combined. The rest face abject poverty, mass starvation, economic and environmental ruin, all overseen by smothering, indescribably brutal governments – a grey, barren existence for all but the apparatchiks.

So why are so many Westerners infatuated with this demented vision?

Entrepreneurial Parasites

The high-minded types are driven by a galling sense of superiority. They are addicted to their own egos. They know better and can defy the verdict of history because people as smart as they are weren’t around when Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Congo, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., went Red.

Living well in affluent, capitalist America, it is all theoretical, so they can indulge their fantasies while promoting this destructive agenda with impunity. For these people ignorance is literally a blessing, for if they soberly analyzed their ego-driven beliefs, they would be embarrassed.

If you examine their pasts closely, you learn that most of these people also came from upper class backgrounds. PhD Chemistry Professor George Wiley, the black radical who led Cloward and Piven’s National Welfare Rights Organization, was a well-to-do son of a Rhode Island family.

Wade Rathke, the NWRO veteran who started ACORN, was from a similarly well-to-do background, although he dropped out of Williams College.

Bill Ayers’ Arrest Photo

Obama’s radical friend Bill Ayers’ family was very wealthy. Looking at his arrest photos, and listening to his smug self-righteousness, you really get the impression that he was little more than an arrogant, spoiled brat, with a titanic sense of entitlement that allowed him to rationalize mass murder.

This is a familiar story throughout the American left and indeed with many of the most infamous communist leaders around the world. For example, Communist China’s first leader, Mao Zedong, the inspiration for Ayers and many other radicals, was son of the wealthiest man in his home town.

According to the incredible biography, Mao: the Unknown Story, he was lazy, arrogant, and refused to work, despite his father’s repeated attempts to find him suitable employment. He finally saw an opportunity for real advancement working for the Soviets. During the Long March he was carried by porters, and was likely often joined by the most attractive picks among his 100,000 “person” army.

As young idealists, many of these people are initially snared into this ideology by the exaggerated sense of self-importance that is often a characteristic of youth. But we all have to live, and as they grow up they discover that the radical profession can be a pretty lucrative racket. Despite their high-minded rhetoric about saving the poor and oppressed, communists and socialists are what I call entrepreneurial parasites.

Consider what they demand of us: sacrifice of all worldly goods to the state, penurious, barren lifstyles, slavish observance of their dictates and full-time commitment to the well-being of the state, while our jobs, careers, industries, the environment, even our lives are threatened. But how do they live?

Obama’s pal Ayers, who describes himself as a “small ‘c’ communist,” lives in a lavish home, in the upscale Hyde Park neighborhood, with a six-figure (or more) income. It is easy to see how, given the open spigot of money his organizations receive from the various non-profit funds he’s ingratiated himself to. Bill Ayers father, Tom, had been CEO of Commonwealth Edison, so Billy boy was used to money, and later developments in his career point to a hand up from Daddy.

Barack lives in Hyde Park too. It is difficult to find anyone in the American Marxist elite who doesn’t fully enjoy the fruits of capitalism in his or her personal life. In fact, Obama’s early career seems to have been centered on dispensing foundation money as a means to secure his career in politics. Here is a perfect example.

Obama’s work on the boards of Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge during the 1990s has been widely publicized, but during that period, Obama also worked for four other foundations, the Joyce Foundation, the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership for a Quality Education – run by John Ayers, Bill’s brother – and the Chicago Public Education Fund, whose board also included failed bank magnate Penny Pritzger, later finance director of Obama’s 2008 campaign. During that period, Obama shared a small office with Bill Ayers, Mike Klonsky and Mike’s wife, Susan (both prominent movement communists). The mass media has never reported on any of this.

This taste for wealth is not limited to American socialists. Every socialist dictator from Stalin to Saddam has lived in opulent surroundings with multiple estates, scores of servants and every kind of luxury and indulgence available to them.

Marxist austerity is only meant for the rest of us.

See for example, Gorbachev’s dacha in Foros, Crimea – complete with bulletproof glass covered walkway; a testament to communist modesty if ever there was one. Same with all the leaders of communist countries. Indeed, Bulgarian defector Georgi Markov was murdered for his extensive reporting on the opulent, decadent lifestyles of Bulgarian Communist leaders. It’s a good racket, if you don’t mind blood.

While socialist leaders live in lavish style, in every country where socialist policies are imposed, they measurably worsen the lives of everyday citizens in direct proportion to their scope. Even countries with vast natural resources, like Russia, founder because their economies are constructed on the fatally flawed economic principles of socialism.

Despite this, they still manage to live on, in many cases hanging by mere threads for years.


The dirty little secret of socialism is that it cannot survive without capitalism – capitalist countries provide the resources necessary for these socialist governments to continue. In addition to providing a market for their goods, Western nations keep socialist countries afloat through grants and loans from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other governmental institutions, as well as huge investments by private companies.

Even China, widely misunderstood as the next “free market,” only practices market economics one-way in international trade while maintaining iron fisted central planning internally, and could not maintain its current level of economic growth without the markets provided by the United States and other Western countries.

Consider what China has gotten from us: ready made products of proven market viability, the methods for manufacturing them, markets in which to sell them, and the distribution chains to deliver them. They have received invaluable technological expertise and in some cases, monopolistic access to scarce resources formerly controlled by American companies. They have gotten this all for free. And what we get in return? Cheap labor that we can only utilize by shamelessly ignoring their slave-like circumstances.

George H.W. Bush was stupid enough to start the ball rolling with this change, although maybe we should really blame Nixon, who opened the door to China. But the person most responsible for exporting our manufacturing base there was Bill Clinton, erroneously credited with 1990s prosperity. In fact, we traded a short-term prosperity gained through Wal-Mart prices for a dark future clouded by Communist China, now armed to the teeth using American dollars. And people think Clinton was a moderate? He knew exactly what he was doing!

Finally, there is a vast network of American enterprises, owned covertly by foreign dictators, whose true purpose is to provide underground income for these leaders and their socialist governments, while offering convenient cover for industrial and military spies. This fact is rarely mentioned and largely unknown.

At its core, socialism can only be parasitic. It cannot survive without its capitalist host. Therefore, if the United States becomes a socialist country, worldwide capital will soon dry up. Remaining market economies around the world will succumb either to their own internal socialist movements or direct military threat from abroad. Without the protective umbrella of American military might, they will have no other choice.

Without the markets and resources capitalist economies provide, the many socialist countries that have survived on our largesse until now will find their income stream shut off. The world will plunge into an unprecedented, cataclysmic depression. This depression will be of indeterminate length because the wherewithal for recovery – a large capitalist economy – will no longer exist. With a world controlled by parasites, the host will die.

At this point even the parasites will be in danger. The socialists’ internationalist agenda truly is a Conspiracy of the Lemmings. It is not merely a criminal conspiracy, it is criminally insane.

Barack Hussein Obama has been chosen as standard bearer to bring this agenda to fruition here. If he is elected we can expect a sea change in Washington. But it will not be for the better. The socialist economic agenda he has publicly articulated is enough in the current financial crisis to plunge our economy into deep recession. The disarmament agenda he has publicly articulated is enough to strip us of the meager defenses we currently have against a rogue missile attack, and Iran has already telegraphed plans to launch such an attack.

What is even more frightening is the agenda he has not shared, but is implicit in his radical upbringing, his radical connections, and his limited but demonstrative experience.

2012 Conclusion

We are seeing this agenda being played out before our very eyes today. I will repeat what I have said many times before: 2012 will be the most important election in US history, because it will decide our fate as a nation. Please take to heart Breitbart’s parting words:

This is my war cry for 2012. You need to join me in this war against the institutional left. This is not your mother’s Democratic Party. John Podesta, George Soros, this is not your mother’s Democratic Party either… I don’t care who the candidate is, and I haven’t since the beginning… Ask not what the candidate can do for you; ask what you can do for the candidate. And that’s what the Tea Party is. We are there to confront them on behalf of our candidate. I will march behind whoever our candidate is because if we don’t, we lose. There are two paths… one is America and the other one is Occupy… Anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive Left, I will be in that bunker. And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side!

Romney is right about the 47%

The Ed Morrissey Show,with’s Andrew Malcolm, had a discussion about media bias on their September 18 broadcast – which highlighted how they still have some pull shaping the narrative, especially when it’s a concerted effort.  Thankfully, the proliferation of blogs have been able to blunt or outright debunk the various narratives the mainstream media disseminates daily.  Nevertheless, Morrissey mentioned that when the lack of security at some of our embassies was starting to gain traction – the “47 percent” video was released and the whole picture changed.  After all, when you have reports that the president decides to forgo intelligence briefings, which make him look weak and unprepared as commander in chief – then you must initiate secondary protocol.  And that’s what the left did.

Sadly, I passed out early last night due after a recent bout of insomnia, but Allahpundit posted about this “earth shattering” event on September 17.  The video has the Republican nominee saying:

‘There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…

‘And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49 … he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.’

However, the exact number does vary. In February of 2012, Rob Bluey over at Heritage reported that 49.5% – or 151.7 million Americans – don’t pay any federal income taxes, which is up from 14.8% in 1984. Patrick Tyrrell, also at Heritage, posted on September 18 that 48.87% don’t pay income taxes.

Regardless, is this more controversial than when Obama said that rural voters “get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion?”

Romney does have the misfortune of having a horrible relationship with the press.  Granted, Americans didn’t like Bush, but he had a good relationship with the media thereby they allowed some things – de minimis things – skate by.  With Romney, everything is scrutinized.  However, Romney’s statement rings true.  The more people who aren’t responsible for a government they aren’t paying for leads to perverse behavior.  They have zero incentive to restrict it’s size  – which George Will remarked at CPAC in 2010 represents a “classic case of moral hazard.”

Additionally, there is entitlement/dependency agenda, which is why the left is so appalled. In the left’s eyes, the more people on food stamps or a government program represents an equalization of outcome that increases the public good.  Hence, why the Dependency Index has increased 23%under the Obama administration.  In fact, Tyrrell wrote:

The Index rises 3.28 percent in next year’s report, for which 2011 is the latest year the underlying data are available. It is adjusted for inflation, so it rises or falls because of spending in real dollars. The updated Index reveals:

  • Government dependency jumped 3.28 percent in 2011, with the largest increases in higher education loans and grants and in retirement spending.
  • This is the fourth year in a row that the Index has risen, rising 31.73 percent in that time.


After all, this is the administration that thinks food stamps are a form of economic stimulus. 

Lastly, 49 million Americans will become dependent on government-run health services once Obamacare is fully implemented.  An event that will also lead to 20 million Americans losing their health care coverage according to the CBO.

While the left will hammer Romney as being out of touch or racist, what he said isn’t controversial in the slightest.  There is an entitlement mentality and a dependency agenda peddled by the left that seeks to grossly transform the socio-economic fabric of this country.  With an increasing number of dependents and an incrementally smaller tax base to support them – Tyrrell and other conservative commentators warn that  ”…the conjunction of these two trends… concerns those interested in the fate of the American form of government.”

Also, “in last year’s 2012 Index of Dependence on Government, it was reported that 70.5 percent of federal spending goes to dependency creating programs—showing that the often-repeated mantra, ‘We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem’ could not be more true.”

For those of us who pay taxes, and yes I am one of them, the burden of the state is becoming increasingly heavier and changes need to be made to end this ”war on responsibility.”


Originally Posted on Hot Air.

U.S. Drops to 18th in Economic Freedom

If you’re a Canadian, you should be happy.  Our friendly neighbors to the north are riding high with their recent placement on the Economic Freedom chart at number five.  Meanwhile, the United States dropped ten spots to number eighteen on the scale.  Gateway Pundit posted about this story on September 19 citing The National Post which reported that:

The annual Economic Freedom of the World report, released Tuesday, has Canada tied in fifth place with Australia — up one spot from last year. Hong Kong remains at the top, Singapore’s next, then New Zealand.

Meanwhile, the United States, once a ‘standard bearer’ of economic liberty among industrial nations, spiralled 10 spots from the 2011 rankings to 18th place — its lowest position ever, and a huge drop from its second place spot in 2000.

Liberals will continue to say it’s all Bush’s fault.  However, did Bush add $5 trillion to the national debt in less than four years?  Furthermore, given that we have a new multi-trillion dollar health care entitlement – whose true cost periodically changes with the CBO– I’m sure that uncertainty levied upon small business owners had ‘no impact’ on the various indicators that calculate economic freedom (I’m kidding) Furthermore, The Economistpublished a column last February, which highlighted our over-regulated business apparatus, now looks prophetic.

 Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end “too big to fail” by authorising regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. This newspaper supported these goals at the time, and we still do. But Dodd-Frank is far too complex, and becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Worse, every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the “Volcker rule”, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions.

Hardly anyone has actually read Dodd-Frank, besides the Chinese government and our correspondent in New York (see article). Those who have struggle to make sense of it, not least because so much detail has yet to be filled in: of the 400 rules it mandates, only 93 have been finalised. So financial firms in America must prepare to comply with a law that is partly unintelligible and partly unknowable. 

Oh yes, a classic example of government trying to do too much, too fast leading to the inevitable confusion that big government policies exude.  Just look at education policy in this country.  Now,we’ve got a titanic battle with the blob on our hands.  Then, there is health care where all fifty state legislatures have passed, cumulatively,  almost 1900 mandates on benefits coverage – which has only increased costs in the succeeding years.  Yes, it’s a state issue – but given that Obamacare acts like one of these mandates on steroids – suffice to say it will yield the same results seen in all 57 50 states.  Lastly, “every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis.”  The leviathan is waiting.

As I reported in a previous post about the Fed bailout of the Obama economy, Penny Star at CNS News reported on September 10 that:

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Leaving out that fact that Obama added $9.5 billion in red tape last July – Star reported that “Seventy percent of the regulations were economic, accounting for $1.236 trillion of the annual cost. The other regulations were, in order of cost, environment regulations ($281 billion), tax compliance ($160 billion) and occupational safety and health and homeland security ($75 billion).”  Then, there is EPA administrator Lisa Jackson – who said the agency wasn’t  responsible for killing jobs.  Although, in 2008, President Obama did officially launched the “war on coal” and promised to squash any new plants under his tenure.  That sounds like killing jobs to me.

As Investors Business Daily reported last September:

 …Texas energy company Luminant announced that new Environmental Protection Agency regulations were forcing it to close several facilities, resulting in the loss of 500 jobs and 1,200 megawatts of generating capacity.

The company cited the cross-state air-pollution rule in its decision to cease operations at two electricity-generating facilities and three coal mines. Texas utilities have been ordered by the EPA to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 47% from 2010 levels and nitrogen oxide by 8% and to do it by January. The head of the Texas Public Utility Commission says the rules could lead to rolling blackouts.

The rule affects more than Texas. It requires coal companies in 27 states to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide by 73% and 54% from 2005 levels by 2014. ‘Just because wind and weather will carry air pollution away from its source at a local power plant doesn’t mean that pollution is no longer that plant’s responsibility,’ said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson.


Steven Miller, CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, warns of job losses totaling 1.4 million over the next eight years and a 23% jump in electricity rates in states dependent on coal-fired plants. Well, Obama did promise he would make energy prices ‘necessarily skyrocket.’

500 jobs were lost – is that a lot?  Sadly, more lay offs are on the way, unless you’re a union worker.

Finally, there is the national debt and our exploding and unsustainable welfare state, which correlates with the size and scope of government.  As reported by back in February, “President Obama has permanently grown the size of the U.S. federal government’s budget by 16.5% during the four years he will have been in office by the end of his first term in office. The federal government’s spending is one-sixth bigger today than it was projected to be at this point four years ago.”


So, that certainly debunks what Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, said on This Week last January on why the economy had stagnated.  Yes, he actually said economic growth was impeded due to the rapid shrinkage of government.

Given all of these aspects of the Obama economic psyche, no wonder why we have a significant amount of our economic freedom.  Granted, there are probably many more issues that have lead to this epic fall, but it should get conservatives more enthused and more fired up to deny Barack Obama a second term.  While I’m not going to use the phrase the “most important election of our lifetime” – which I think should be retired forever – we certainly cannot afford another four years of the Obama administration.

In the meantime, we should be thanking the Fraser Institute for not incorporating government incompetence into their methodology for the Economic Freedom of the World Report.  I can only imagine where we would fall under this administration.

should we move to Canada – eh?

Originally posted on Hot Air.

The Hill Cites Squishy Republicans To Portray GOP as ‘Alarmed’

The media’s ongoing contribution to the Obama reelection effort is fairly obvious: omit or downplay news stories and polling data that cast the Obama administration in a negative light while hyping trivial Romney gaffes or media-manufactured tempests-in-teapots in order to focus the election narrative on the Republican candidate’s deficiencies – real or or imagined — rather than the incumbent Democrat’s record.

The Hill’s Cameron Joseph is just the latest liberal journalist to follow this pattern in his September 18 piece, “GOP frets Romney is blowing the race.” Of  course, Joseph’s idea of the GOP happens to unnamed Republican strategist in addition to Mark McKinnon, a squishy moderate who famously bowed out of the McCain campaign in 2008 because he couldn’t bring himself to campaign against Obama.

“He’s pushing independent voters out the door,” Joseph quoted the “No Labels” co-founder. No Labels is A 501 (c) (4) group, which urges government to “stop fighting [and] start fixing.” McKinnon is not a die-hard Republican partisan, he’s a former Bush Democrat-turned-Republican who spends his time lecturing the GOP that it is too conservative for Americans’ taste — even though the 2010 midterms and the viability of the Tea Party proves otherwise.

Cameron also turned to New York Times token “conservative” David Brooks to further push the notion that Romney misspoke:

New York Times columnist David Brooks in a harsh critique of Romney said his comments suggest “he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?” He added: “It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.”

That’s one way to look at it.  Although, it could be what John Sununu also said yesterday – which is the “… liberal media…is looking for the tiniest little wart that they can blow up into a giant cancer” against Romney.

Indeed, Sununu’s explanation makes perfect sense, especially since there’s troubling polling data for President Obama that the media either are ignoring or downplaying. For example, as Patrick Goodenough of our sister organization noted yesterday:

The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday found the president’s foreign policy approval among registered voters at 49 percent, down from 54 percent one month earlier.”The fall was steeper among independents, going from 53 percent in August to 41 percent,” NBC reported.

So independents are particularly worried about Obama’s handling of foreign policy, and yet last week the media wouldn’t shut up about how Romney had goofed with the timing of his criticism of the Obama State Department’s handling of the protests in Cairo.

This week, thanks to a leaked video from a private fundraiser, the media have shifted from attacking Romney over his supposed gaffe to attacking him once again as out of touch with middle-class voters, even as they ignore the president’s economic record.

Originally posted on Newsbusters.

PBS Anchor Gwen Ifill Touts Pro-Obama Polls, Dismisses Mideast Violence As a ‘Dust Up’

On the September 19 broadcast of the PBS Newshour, anchor Gwen Ifill discussed the latest polls with Pew’s Andrew Kohut and Mark Blumenthal, “senior polling analyst” of The Huffington Post.  Her talk about voter engagement and enthusiasm got a little hazy – if not completely insensitive – when she referred to last week’s embassy attacks as a “dust up.”

Perhaps “dust up” in her mind only refers to the liberal media’s insular discussions about foreign-policy developments, but could she sound more cavalier about the deaths of Americans in Libya?

GWEN IFILL: Do these polls tell us anything about what people — how people view either of these two as a leader?

After all, we’re voting for the commander in chief. Last week, we had this dust-up about foreign policy. And, in fact, it continued into this week.

Is there anything that you’re seeing in these numbers that shows that people look at these two and they can imagine one as president and not the other?

ANDREW KOHUT: Yes. Well, that’s really — the problem really here is for Romney, because his favorable ratings haven’t gone up.

He’s not seen as any more credible than he was prior to the conventions. They don’t think he is honest — honest and trustworthy to a great extent.

He’s afraid to take unpopular positions. And they don’t see him as empathetic. He doesn’t understand people like him. He doesn’t connect with the average guy.

And there’s no — there’s no change in these numbers. He didn’t fulfill his mission to improve public confidence in him as a leader, both in personal terms and certainly in terms — as Mark [Blumenthal] was noting, in terms of strong leader, good judgment in a crisis. Obama’s got him by double digits on these things.

Additionally, Kohut’s analysis was more of a malicious commentator who basically said that the American people consider the Republican nominee a liar.  We should all note that Election Day is forty-seven days away.  There is still a lot of time for Romney to make up lost ground, but most importantly, some members of the media need to understand that throwing dirt on a campaign before the election is over is sophomoric in the extreme.

Gov. Michael Dukakis –the tank man – left the Democratic National Convention with a seventeen-point lead over George H.W. Bush in 1988.  In the end, Dukakis only won ten states and lost the popular vote by eight points. In the words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over til’ it’s over.”

Apparently, the polls are a much more important subject than investigating how an American ambassador, Chris Stevens, was assassinated, since there was no Libya segment on Wednesday night. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey remarked today that this is the first time such an awful event has occurred in nearly thirty-three years.

As for Ifill’s talent for understating or overstating political events, let’s revisit the hyperbole Ifill unleashed when she worked for MSNBC in 1998, when The Starr Report on President Clinton’s unethical and potentially illegal actions was sent to Capitol Hill for review:

 ’Already, some of the more thoughtful members of the House and Senate have admitted, yes, they expect to be overwhelmed. There’s very little they can do about this, when someone drives, as one House Judiciary Committee member put this some weeks ago, a truck bomb up to the steps of the Capitol and just dumps it on them. Now this is probably not the most advisable comparison when you consider what happened on these very steps not so many weeks ago, but it is in some ways, politically, a very violent action for Ken Starr to leave this on them weeks before an election when they’re trying to decide how to deal with it.’

Originally posted on Newsbusters.

CNN Anchor Tells Citizens United President David Bossie You Can’t Judge OWS By ‘Worst Members’

With Occupy Unmasked being released today in select theaters, the September 21 edition of CNN’s Early Start with Zoraida Sambolin invited David Bossie, producer of the film and President of Citizens United to discuss the film.  However, things got hazy towards the end of the interview where Sombolin shamelessly tried to convey the narrative that Occupy is a “peaceful” movement.

Sambolin, ironically, fed into the premise of the film itself – which centers on “the liberal establishment and mainstream media portray[ing] the Occupy Wall Street movement as organic and nonviolent.”   In arguing how you can’t judge a movement by its “worst members,” she mentioned how “Adbusters” promoted the notion of “Occupying” Wall Street and decided to defend the movement – while castigating the Tea Party as “racist.”  However, Bossie wasn’t going to let that form of abject slander slide.

SAMBOLIN: Okay, let’s look at the time line just because I really want to hone in on this. I want to really establish who started this. So July 13 “Adbusters” magazine calls for the September 17 peaceful protest. And on September 9, We Are The 99 Percent tumblr. September 17, the protest begin in Zuccotti Park. October 1, 700 protesters arrested in March across the Brooklyn Bridge. And October 5, 39 organizations including labor unions join Occupy Wall Street — 25,000 people march and mass arrests, and there are mass arrests. So the timeline really starts rather peacefully. 

BOSSIE: It does. I don’t say that it doesn’t. What I’m saying is, that the — that the insidious nature of this, and really, you know, within our film, we have undercover cameras inside of our film that show these people are organized by the unions and they’re paid by the unions to attend these rallies, too. So it’s a little bit disingenuous for everybody to think that they’re just peaceful demonstrators who show up for no reason.

SAMBOLIN: The movie trailer compares Tea Party coverage with that of the Occupy movement. The Tea Party has been accused of racism, of inciting violence. Take a look at some of the signs from the Tea Party rallies as well here. Do you think that it’s really fair to judge a group based on its worst members? 

BOSSIE: First of all, comparing the Tea Party to the Occupy Wall Street movement is just nonsensical. There’s no comparison. When the Tea Party movement has a single person who shows up with some crazy T- shirt or a button on, they self-police themselves and they kick them out or the media picks on them and make them – the face of the organization. That’s ridiculous. 

The Occupy movement – there’s nowhere in the Tea Party movement are they destroying American cities, running rampage over the police department and confronting the police. It’s just – not even close.

Bossie mentions union astroturfing at these events, but he could have mentioned the direct involvement some members of the media had in this event.  Folks – who were not only involved in propagating a false narrative of the movement’s organic roots – but strategized and discussed ways to destroy our free market society.  Yes – I’m referring to former freelance writer for The New York Times and contributor Natasha Lennard.

Furthermore, to bash the Tea Party because they’re racist is beyond absurd. The most famous incident involved racial slurs being hurled at Rep. John Lewis two years ago during the health care debate, which wasn’t authenticated – nor did any camera catch the alleged event – yet the media decided to propagate this false narrative of racism anyway.

Lastly, concerning Sambolin’s statement that Bossie and his film take the “worst members” of Occupy to portray them in a bad light is egregious.

Did the Tea Party leave thirty tons of garbage lying around Los Angeles?  Did the Tea Party engage in serial rape within their encampments across the country?  Did the Tea Party peddle drugs and intimidate people with violence? Where was the widespread and in-depth reporting on the sanitary conditions these camps inflicted on local communities and the serial criminality?

The Tea Party has had zero criminal charges filed against their members – while Occupy has had a whopping 417 cases of illegal activity cited against them. These aren’t isolated incidents. As always, CNN wanted to show the worst of the Tea Party and argue for the best of OWS.

Originally posted on Newsbusters.

Howard Stern Exposes Obama Supporters

The ‘man on the street’ interviews of Obama supporters that will make you cringe. Howard Stern says it’s pretty funny… and if it weren’t so serious, it would be funny. It’s actually pretty sad. We are in a very bad place in this country. People have no clue!

YouTube Description:

Howard Stern contributors Sal and Richard travel to Harlem to interview Obama supporters and ask them why they are voting for Obama. They did this back in 2008, now let’s see what happens when they do it again in 2012!


With Friends Like These…

As the GOP nominee to be President of the United States, it would seem reasonable to expect that members of your own political Party would support you.

Apparently, for Mitt Romney, that is an unreasonable expectation.

Peggy Noonan, a former speech writer for President Ronald Reagan (who joined with Colin Powell in turning their backs on the Republican Party while publically supporting Barack Obama in 2008), wrote of Romney’s campaign that “an intervention” is needed  because it is “incompetent”.

Noonan continued: “It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues.  It’s always been too small for the moment.  All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change.”

She doubled down later, when she said: “The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant ‘rolling calamity.’”

This is not entirely unexpected from someone who’s credentials were built on being a speech writer for a President who had very little need for speechwriters, who of her own free will turned her back on her political Party to publically support an obviously inexperienced, unqualified, community organizer who was manufactured into a pop star candidate by institutionalized “progressive” leftists in America’s media.  A candidate who had never run a business, never met a payroll…who had voted “present” over one hundred times as an Illinois State Senator.  A candidate who had lived his entire life not only surrounded by anti-American radicals, but who when in school actively sought them out.

The attacks coming from Bill Kristol, editor of the ‘Weekly Standard’, who worked as chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle, are less explainable. 

Recently, Kristol wrote: “It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!).   But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that Romney’s comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant.  Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?”

When Kristol states that this election features “two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country” is he honestly comparing a former community organizer (radicalizer) who since moving into the White House has continuously placed obstacles in the path of job creating small businesses, stifled energy development, socialized huge portions of the private sector economy, and created catastrophic  chaos overseas, to a capital investor who succeeded within the American free market enterprise system, saved businesses from insolvency, created jobs, protected the nation from international embarrassment when he rescued the Salt Lake City Olympic Games from bankruptcy, who as Governor reduced his State’s debt without raising taxes while improving their schools to the best in the country?  Or is Kristol just trying to sound important in hopes of remaining relevant?

If this can be counted on from Republicans, who needs Kaili Joy Gray of the Daily Kos?

Gray gleefully joins in the “pile on Mitt Romney” festivities, but prefers to first attack the candidate’s wife: “Ann Romney is once again up on her gold-plated cross, and she’s got another message for the ingrates out there who don’t appreciate how hard it is to be her.

During an interview early this evening with Radio Iowa, Mrs. Romney directly addressed her fellow Republicans who’ve criticized her husband.

‘Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring.  This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country’.”

When Gray does quit picking on the candidate’s MS stricken, breast cancer surviving wife and slithers off to attack Mr. Romney, the following spews forth: “It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don’t care about this community.  But no. You people just won’t let up, with the mockery of the Romneys’ car elevator; with the questions about all those millions stashed away in secret bank accounts; with the outright disgust at Ann’s tales of woe about struggling to survive on Mitt’s inherited stock portfolio.”

Gray and Kos have carefully aligned themselves with the class warfare strategy of the White House re-election campaign.

In the final weeks of what is an extremely important tipping point election, possibly the most significant American election since the 1860s, is it really too much to ask for Republican pundits and journalists to at least offer constructive criticism instead of plain old Daily Kos style attacks?

With friends like Noonan and Kristol, who needs Gray?

Taxation Without Participation

It’s easy to vote for higher taxes when you’re not paying.

Michael Kinsley described a “gaffe” as anytime a politician is caught telling the truth. This is particularly accurate for Republicans and conservatives as is demonstrated by the reaction to Mitt Romney’s comment regarding Obama’s base.

The setting was unfortunate — a $50,000–a–plate fundraiser — but the message was accurate. As he discussed campaign strategy — not governing philosophy — Romney explained: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… And the government should give it to them…

Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful…”

Romney neglected to mention another solid portion of the Obama base: the welfare–industrial complex composed of government workers and associated special interest groups. The simple fact is the more people receiving government handouts, the more government employees you need to distribute the geetus.

The size of the two populations increases in lockstep as does the size of the Obama base. There is no exit strategy for the War on Poverty.

And this is nothing new, as Ann Coulter pointed out, “Democrats’ problem with welfare reform always was that if it worked, we would need fewer of these well-pensioned public employees, a fact repeatedly acknowledged by liberals themselves.”

Democrat “compassion” for the poor and underprivileged always comes with a healthy dose of self–interest. Just like any attack on Republicans while defending welfare programs is done with elections in mind. They know a reduction in dependency threatens to result in a reduction in Democrats.

Why do you think the Obama administration imitates Tupperware and throws food stamp parties to urge people to apply for handouts? Why did the number of able–bodied participants in the food stamp program double after Obama suspended the work requirement? Why do a record 8.8 million Americans collect disability checks? Why do federal unemployment checks continue for almost two years? And why is the Obama administration spending a record 15.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on direct cash payments to individuals?

The answer is simple: Obama’s building his base. That’s why Democrats at their national convention had no problem with an Orwellian video that proclaimed, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.”

Realizing this 47 percent voting block constitutes a problem isn’t a targeting decision made inside the Romney campaign. It’s an issue with the potential to rend the social fabric of the nation. It is a serious enough problem to offer Democrats a trade.

Conservatives agree to abandon photo ID requirements for voting if in return Democrats agree any citizen who is dependent on the federal government for his livelihood is not eligible to vote. This important reform would not mean a permanent loss of voting privileges and the creation of lifelong second–class citizens. On the contrary, as soon as the dependent citizen re–establishes financial independence the individual regains his vote. Regaining his vote acts as an incentive for personal responsibility.

When 47 percent of the populace is dependent on government benefits the nation is fast approaching a tipping point. Once the number passes 50 percent, American society will no longer have a crucial element of shared sacrifice. Instead the dependency block gets to vote for their share of increased benefits and taxpayers make the sacrifice. Even Democrats should be able to recognize that situation is unfair and inequitable.

For example, are McDonald’s customers allowed to set the price of a Big Mac? Do employees of Government Motors vote to set their own salaries? Do football teams get to vote on how many points the opposing defense will surrender?

There already exists a precedent for temporarily relinquishing the vote. Judges, Congressmen and even members of the city council are not supposed to vote or rule on matters in which they have a financial interest.

Naturally government employees would retain voting privileges. As would Social Security recipients, simply because seniors have been told since the program’s inception the money is not welfare. It’s not true now and it was a lie in 1935, but I’m not prepared to penalize seniors because the government misled them.

This reform would leave us with an electorate that bears the responsibility of paying for the government it advocates. Without this reform the Obamatrons continue to benefit unfairly from Taxation Without Participation.

In November one might cynically term Obama’s 47 percent “pocketbook voters,” only the pocketbook they’ll be voting is yours.

Has Anyone Even Heard Of The Depression Of 1920?

Is there anyone out there that has read about, or even heard about the depression of 1920? No, that is not a type-o. We all have heard about the 1929 depression, the one that lasted for over 12 years, but not too much is known about the depression we had in 1920, which lasted from January of 1920 to July of 1921. There are many that say it started as severe, or more severe than the depression of 1929. So why did the depression of 1920 last for 18 months, while the depression of 1929 lasted for over 12 years? Well, for one thing we had a Republican President that believed in the free market system, his name was Warren Harding.

President Harding did little in the way of Government interference, he did it by cutting Government and expanding the tax base. He immediately put together a committee which consisted of members of industry, banking and labor to come up with a solution. They came up with a plan, which was supported by the Republican Party and conservatives and generally opposed by the Democratic Party and liberal progressives. By the way, President Harding was involved each time the committee met, he wasn’t playing golf, traveling around the country on fundraisers, or visiting Hollywood celebrities. The point is, Government participation was small, capitalism and the free market took care of the rest.

At the start of the depression of 1929, we had a Republican President by the name of Herbert Hoover, but he turned his back on his party and free market   principles and started Government interference, like quantitative easing and public works projects.(hey, where have I heard that before?) Well things got worse and he was defeated in the next election. In comes a Democratic President by the name of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His approach was the complete opposite of Harding’s,  he, like our current President believe that Government is the answer, F.D.R. was wrong then, just like Obama is wrong today. F.D.R. left the private sector out, and the Government started to invest heavily, in what he thought was the answer to the problems of the country. Well his solution took over 12 years.

Over 70% of this country think we are still in a recession, even though the Government is telling us it ended in 2009. When are these Liberals going to learn that Government is not the answer, Government is the problem. We need to learn from history, when Capitalism is unleashed the country grows and everyone benefits. Of course, that is not what Liberals want; they want Government taking care of everyone. Just as F.D.R.’s policies prevented the economy from growing, Obama’s policies are doing the same.

The C.B.O. or the Congressional Budget Office, says that if things do not change, the unemployment rate could hit over 9% in 2013. We have all heard the definition of insanity, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Well the only conclusion I can come to, is that Obama is insane, how else do you explain why he continues with his proven failed policies. There is no doubt about it Obama is inept, he is a boy in a man’s job, he never should have become President. If he were running a private company, he would have been fire after the first year.

Instead of following in the footsteps of Harding, he has chosen to follow the footsteps of F.D.R. That only means one thing, if he is re-elected, we can expect higher unemployment, more job layoffs, and a lousy economy. The only bright spot is that unlike F.D.R. he can only serve two terms, but by then, it might just be too late for our country, if it isn’t already.


?????????????????????????????????????  Four More Years  ?????????????????????????????????


This is one man’s opinion.


In Deep with Michelle Ray – No Pants Required

When: Thursday, September 20th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: You know him, most of you love him: ComedianStephen Kruiser (@stephenkruiser), host of Kruiser Control on joins to me to ponder what is next for the TEA Party and conservative activists and we may toss around some Kruiser inspired ideas for the long-term future of the GOP. Obviously, pants are not required.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

« Older Entries Recent Entries »