Tag Archives: 2012 Election News

Obama’s War on Energy is about Control

When one thinks of energy, the thoughts about economic growth rarely come into play.  In fact, most take it for granted.  It charges our iPhones, laptops, and Kindles, but it also is the lifeblood that keeps our economy growing.  It’s also the critical element that keeps our health services running.  It allows us to channel our resources elsewhere – to be more productive during the day.  However, we’re starting to see a shift occur through the policies of the Obama administration.  This radical reconfiguration of our energy infrastructure will be disastrous in the long run, and some in the media don’t seem to care.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Thomas Pyle, President of American Energy Alliance, Robin Millican, Policy Director for Institute for Energy Research (IER), and Dan Kish, Senior Vice President for Policy at IER on October 26 to discuss this issue further – and how it’s currently shaping the outcome of the 2012 election.  I mentioned the study Professor Gabriel Calzada conducted on Spain’s green energy investments and how he predicted a bubble, which seems to be bursting on the Iberian Peninsula.  Most disconcerting was the fact that for every green job created – 2.2 jobs were lost as a result.  In fact, Professor Gabriel Calzada found himself targeted by liberals and the Center for American Progress, John Podesta’s bastion of progressivism, as a consequence of his study concerning Spain’s green energy economy.  Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome in Spain, President Obama plans to use it as a model and apply it here, which would enter a more aggressive phase if he were reelected on November 6.

Furthermore, IER conducted a study on the impact of green energy initiatives in Germany.  Here are the key points:

  • Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.
  • In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.
  • Government support for solar energy between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to have a total net cost of $73.2 billion US, and $28.1 billion US for wind. A similar expenditure in the US would amount to about half a trillion dollars US.

 

  • Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.
  • Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.

However, one area that is salient to American voters is coal.  Obama’s War on Coal has been brutal for thousands of families who live in states along the Appalachian Trail.  With new greenhouse gas regulations the EPA is doling out, it’ll prevent the creation of new plants and is scheduled to shut down 10% of existing coal plats that are operational today.

Pyle warned that there will come a time when the economy will begin to grow again and the energy infrastructure that President Obama and the environmental left envision for America will not be adequate to meet the demands of commercial expansion. There’s no special switch we can turn to get our power back to appropriate levels for economic development. Furthermore, it doesn’t help our long-term energy development when government shuts down coal mining, offshore drilling, or puts the kibosh on the Keystone Pipeline.  As a result, the Gulf States, Alaska, Colorado, and Wyoming are suffering under Obama’s war on energy.

While the Environmental Protection Agency has the reputation of being a ‘protector,’ they have recently become the heaviest portion of the boot that is on the throat of American enterprise.  One thing the United States can never compete in again is the labor market.  However, with the derivatives from oil/gas/and coal such as petrochemicals, smart phones, computers, Kevlar, shaving cream, toothpaste, and gum – we can still retain our economic vigor.   However, EPA regulations are making it harder to produce such products for American and international markets.

Dan Kish, Senior Vice President of Policy for IER, noted how the air is cleaner and the water is better. In fact:

Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants. These six pollutants are ground-level ozone, particle pollution (PM2.5 and PM10), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nationally, air pollution was lower in 2008 than in 1990 for:

  • 8-hour ozone, by 14 percent
  • annual PM2.5 (since 2000), by 19 percent
  • PM10 , by 31 percent
  • Lead, by 78 percent
  • NO2 , by 35 percent
  • 8-hour CO, by 68 percent
  • annual SO2 , by 59 percent

Additionally, the EPA has affirmed this claim.

 As a result, life expectancy has increased dramatically – which is an effective metric at gauging the socioeconomic health of a nation.  Yet, the EPA feels that more needs to be done, despite that fact that states have their own safety and health provisions, which are tailored to accommodate the environments of each respective state.  However, given the dependency mentality of the Obama administration, the EPA insists on a one-size fits all model.  I guess the principles of federalism have taken a back seat.

Concerning coal, we have 497 billion short tons, which is enough to power the country for over 500 years – at our current levels of energy use.  When you incorporate Alaska into the picture, it dwarfs the lower forty-eight, with 10.38 trillion short tons for our use.  As a result, the United States is the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal.  And not all coal is used to generate electricity.  Thirty-eight percent of coal can be used to make jet fuel.  Fifty percent of all freight loads carried in the country are comprised of coal.  In fact, 25% of all rail revenue is derived from coal transportation.  What happens if that were to disappear, which is what the Obama administration wants as the end game in this power play.

We current use 1 billion tons of coal a year.  China uses 4 billion tons a year.  As a result, even if coal were to cease of an arm of the American economy, the effects on global CO2 emissions would be de minimis at best.  Kish noted how coal consumption has increased in Europe.  The reason is simple.  It’s cheap.  It works great, and is good for electricity.

Pyle touched upon the moral aspect of energy, which is seldom reported on in the press.  He reiterated the fact how 40% of India’s population don’t have access to affordable energy.  Kish noted how villages in Africa keep their kids to school, although they would like to send them there, because every available hand is needed to collect biomass to keep the home warm, to cook, and possibly fend themselves from predators at night.  If those kids were able to go to school because they had affordable energy, and access to it, increased economic activity from their education would have a ripple effect upon their community. Energy allows people to savor and spend their time more efficiently and purposefully. Until the Industrial Revolution, life expectancy had flat lined around age thirty for years, which saw a dramatic increase when people were able to utilize their time more efficiently due to proliferation of energy resources.

An example of the economic benefits in expanding our energy development can be seen in North Dakota.  Dan Kish recently visited the state, of which 97% isn’t owned by the government, and noticed the economic boom that has occurred from extracting the shale oil from the Bakken formation.  Williston, North Dakota has the busiest McDonald’s in the country.  A entry-level worker could earn up to $90,000 in his first year alone working the rigs.  In fact, five to ten years ago North Dakota wasn’t even a player in oil production.  Now, it’s ranked #2 – behind Texas – producing 18 million barrels of oil in March of 2012.  In all, between 2008-09, it’s proved reserves have increased from 543 million barrels to 1046 million barrels.  Some farmers, who’ve sold their land rights, are earning as much as $150,000 a month from the royalties.  Although, the monetary values is based on volume, but it’s possible.

As a result, North Dakota’s unemployment rate remains at 3%, the GDP per capita is well above the national average at $50,096, it’s spurred a budget surplus of $ 1 billion dollars, and increased the workforce from 5,000 in 2005 to 30,000 in 2012.  Here’s to prosperity.

We have the resources to be energy independent.  Pyle mentioned that in 1944 it was estimated that America’s proven oil reserves amounted to about 20 billion barrels.  However, from 1945-2010, the United States production exceeded 176 billion barrels of oil.  That’s because proven reserves tend to increase in volume as we continue to explore for more energy resources.  Case in point, the Bakken Shale.  However, the boot of the EPA and government regulation seems to be aimed at halting this process.  It’s because government, especially the one we have now, is set on breaking the independent arms that are harvesting these resources to the will of the state.  It’s about centralization of energy distribution. It’s trickle down government incarnate.

Last May, IER Policy Director Robin Millican spoke at an Americans for Prosperity rally in McLean, Va. There she said that the military has become victim to these government policies.  In her speech, she noted how the Department of Defense signed a $12 million dollar contract with two biofuel companies to produce 450,000 gallons of the advanced liquid.  In short, it’s incredibly expensive.  This ludicrous expenditure is grounded in the words of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus who said “We are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters…our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.”  I’m sure the environmental left enjoys this change in course, but as Millican pointed out, the federal government has a portion of land in Alaska called the Naval Petroleum Reserve which is specifically set aside to meet the energy demands of the military.  Yet, we are going to pay companies to make fuel for our armed forces that is four times more expensive than standard fuel.

Additionally, Millican also delivered some remarks about the $500 million dollar loan allocated to Solyndra.  A company principally financed by George Kaiser, who was also a huge bundler for the Obama campaign in 2008.  In all, big government breed corruption, crony capitalism, and dependency. She aptly pointed out that these subsidies are not meant to better society, but are goodie bags to the politically connected.  She says, “look no further than a government funded program that relies on a stamp of approval from a group of unelected bureaucrats who have no technical experience.” The process in determining which system maximizes efficiency is not rigorous and comes down to nothing more than corporate welfare.  Continuing with the narrative of waste this administration has incurred due to its quest for clean energy initiatives, Millican detailed the Section 1603 program that has allocated $20 billion dollars in cash payments, not loans that need to be repaid, to companies that install solar, wind and geothermal properties.  Congress wants to extend this program for an additional year at the tune of $3 billion dollars.

Relating to AFP’s media campaign, Millican discussed the $529 million dollar loan to Fisker, which produced the $100,000 dollar Karma automobile that is principally made in Finland.  Is this investing in America? Ms. Millican astutely pointed out that renewables only constitute 1.5% of our entire energy consumption, but get the majority share of the funds allocated from Congress.

If Mitt Romney is elected President of the United States on November 6, it’ll be partially due to Americans’ disgust towards Obama’s war on energy – specifically coal.  The war on coal has affected thousands of families who live along the Appalachian Trail.  An aspect the Obama campaign should’ve taken more seriously since Virginia and Pennsylvania are both battleground and coal-producing states.  Currently, the small town of Grundy, Va is under siege by federal regulators who are preventing them from expanding their runway at the local airport because of coal.  It’s a three-year battle, which is really an assault on the American Dream.  The expansion of the airport would allow corporate jets to land, which could possibly spur economic development in Grundy and the surrounding counties.

Debra McCown reported on Grundy’s war with federal regulators back on October 17. I wrote, in a previous post, that since “the original airport was built on a piece of land made flat by surface mining by United Coal Co., which gave the land to Grundy,” the government won’t allow them to expand the runway.  It’s big government run amok.

McCown also reported in The American Spectator on October 22 “more than 5,500 people turned out Sunday afternoon at a mountaintop park in remote Buchanan County to show their support for coal.” She noted how the mood of the crowd exuded a certain dubiousness since most of these workers have an uncertain future, especially if Obama is reelected.   McCown quoted Jerry Shortt, who said, “the only promise Obama kept was to kill coal.”  “Jerry Shortt [is] a coal miner from Richlands who was laid off temporarily right after Labor Day — and learned Friday that for him, along with 189 other employees at the mine where he worked, the layoff would be permanent,” according to McCown.

She also noted that the EPA regulations that will be the harbingers of death for the industry.

First, new air emissions standards prompted utilities to announce the closure of dozens of coal-fired power plants, cutting the demand for coal and costing jobs. In some cases, utilities chose to convert those units to natural gas, which because of new technology for extraction has become relatively cheap and plentiful. Rules for coal-fired boilers have also affected factories and other facilities that use industrial boilers.

Second, a new proposed EPA rule would require any new coal-fired power plants to be constructed with technology to control carbon dioxide emissions — technology that’s not been fully developed. With this proposal, even state-of-the-art coal burning technology, like that being used at the new power plant that just opened in nearby Wise County, couldn’t be permitted, utility officials have said.

On the water pollution side, coalmines are now subject to new restrictions in obtaining the permits needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Targeted specifically at mountaintop mines in Appalachia, according to industry supporters, the change effectively prohibits modern surface mining and has also created significant problems for deep mining.

With the state in a statistical dead heat, the policies from the Obama administration to gut this business, and leave the families of those involved with coal mining in destitution – might be a deciding factor in how Virginia might vote on November 6.

The Washington Times’ Ben Wolfgang reported on October 23 that Obama’s crusade to destroy coal has put Pennsylvania in play.  More than anything, if Romney wins PA on November 6, it’ll be a very short election night.  While West Virginia was never going Democratic, Democrats there have eviscerated the Obama administration over recent coal miner layoffs.

Energy giant Consol announced Tuesday that it will idle its surface mining operations in Mingo County after failing to secure necessary Clean Water Act permits from the EPA.

The Miller Creek surface mine facility has been in operation for decades, and the company had planned to construct the new “King Coal Highway” as part of a reclamation project after mining is complete. Coal mine employees, Consol said, would eventually have been assigned to the highway project, once the coal supplies had been exhausted.

Democrats in the state, already angry with the administration’s “war on coal,” unloaded on the EPA on Tuesday afternoon.

“I am incensed and infuriated that the EPA would intentionally delay the needed permit for a public-private project that would bring so many good jobs and valuable infrastructure to communities that so desperately need them,” West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said in a statement.

For those affected, it’s called a “regional genocide.”  For government, it’s a shift towards a cleaner future, despite the data suggesting otherwise.  At the end of the day, it’s about government controlling more of the means of production through our energy consumption.

Lab Test Finds Traces of “Date-Rape Drug,” GHB, on Lena Dunham’s 2008 Election Ballot

A recent Obama campaign ad featuring Lena Dunham, star and head writer of HBO’s hit series, Girls, likening her 2008 vote for Barack Obama to losing her virginity has come under fire as lab results uncovered traces of GHB, commonly referred to as the “date-rape drug,” on her 2008 presidential ballot.

The subject campaign ad features a bubbly Dunham recalling her 2008 cherry-poppin’ curtain-drawin’ ballot-castin’ “first time” voting, during which she cast her vote for current President Barack Obama. During the ad’s minute-long virginity-surrendering intimation, Dunham explains to viewers that, “your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy…somebody who really cares about you and understands women…[a guy who cares about] whether you get birth control…” among other fractured likenesses, concluding with, “before I was a girl. Now I was a woman. I voted for Barack Obama.”

However, lab results just released by the Ohio State University Medical Center revealed that Dunham’s 2008 presidential ballot contained distinct traces of the date-rape drug, GHB. Dr. Keller Sterling, PhD., who led the test team at the Ohio State University lab, pre-refuted skeptics of his findings explaining that, “because the November 2008 ballot cannot urinate or otherwise extract any substances from itself whatsoever, the lapse of time between the administration of the drug and the testing date did not impair the purity of the sample.”

The test results have effectively rendered the promiscuous Obama campaign ad baseless and left political pundits perplexed.

Dunham’s 2008 election ballot is finally speaking out since being substantiated by the recently released lab results. The victimized ballot recalled his final memory from that fateful night, “I was relaxing in [Dunham’s] polling booth,” the ballot explained, “we were just talking over a casual drink…when, without warning, she turned around and snapped the polling booth curtains together in haste. She turned back and approched me with intent, grabbed me with both hands, flipped me over on my back and declaratively whispered, ‘tonight…I become a woman.’ I began shaking with fear, like a lonely loose-leaf in the trembling hands of a nervous orator; then, I felt the pressure of her pen making its uninvited contact with my body, which jolted me into a defensive fit and that’s when everything just went blank…I woke up the next day in the ballot-counting machine with a massive headache and dark black bruising in my ‘Barack Obama’ bubble…”

Dunham did not return requests for comment. Sources close to Dunham are reporting that she has locked herself in her Brooklyn Heights apartment and is not allowing visitors since obtaining her 2012 absentee ballot nearly a week ago.

Obama campaign manager and competitive ginger, Jim Messina, issued the following statement in response to the recent developments:

The Obama 2012 reelection campaign is deeply troubled by the recent developments related to Lena Dunham’s questionable interaction with her 2008 presidential ballot. While the Obama campaign does not condone this type of promiscuous behavior outright, it would like to take this opportunity to remind voters: Psst! Hey! Free birth control over here!!!

Ohio state prosecutors explained that they will not seek charges against Dunham because an inanimate election ballot cannot be a victim of a crime according to state statutes.

* The above is satire. Although Lena Dunham did seriously star in an Obama campaign ad comparing her first time voting for Barack Obama to losing her virginity. For real, that actually happened, and it’s even posted on the Barack Obama campaign website. Like…for real.

Crossposted at TruthInJest.

“He Said, She Said” with Demetrius & Stacy. *ELECTION SPECIAL*

  When: Wed, Oct 31, 10PM EST/7PM Pacific

Where: Listen live: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cdnews/2012/11/01/he-said-she-said

What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into the mind of the conservative: bold, full strength, and unfiltered.

Tonight: Special guests: Christy Setzer (Twitter: @christyNHC), President of New Heights Communications and Democratic strategist, and Loren Heal (Twitter: @lheal), RNC delegate for Illinois 15th Congressional District and blogger for FreedomWorks.

 

Campaigns Resume after Sandy

For the first time since monster storm Sandy threatened the northeast, the Presidential campaigns are back in full-swing. All the major players are in battleground states with the exception of President Obama who continues to visit the areas affected by storm damage from Sandy.

Mitt Romney is campaigning in Florida with Governor Jeb Bush while Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan is campaigning in Wisconsin. Romney and Ryan are hoping to capitalize on their accelerating momentum evident in recent battleground and independent voter polls.

Former President Bill Clinton is stumping for Obama in Iowa and Joe Biden is holding events in Florida hoping to stem the tide of likely voters moving towards Romney in the final days of the campaign.

The Obama campaign has spent tremendous amounts of time and money to get the Democratic base to the polls early while the Romney camp has focused on getting not-so-committed voters to vote in early polls. The effect these two different techniques has on the election may be critical.

By pulling in his most-committed voters for the early vote, Obama is front-loading his base to pad his early vote numbers. While this will pad early voter totals, it leaves the campaign hoping that less-motivated voters turn out for long lines on election day. The tactic is likely an attempt to create a false wave for bandwagon voters to jump into. Obama hasn’t seen any positive momentum in months and may be working to create the appearance of a turn-around in the week before the election.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has been working to get under-motivated voters to the polls for early voting. Shorter lines and the choice of several days to avoid inclimate weather give those voters fewer reasons to avoid the polls. Romney’s approach seems to be hinging on the idea that his base will turn out on election day no matter what, but others may not.

So far, Obama’s strategy is scoring him some numbers in Iowa – but, that’s it. Nationwide, Romney has a 51% to 46% likely voter advantage vs. Obama according to Gallup. In Ohio, the early voting numbers are about even between Republicans and Democrats and recent polls show Romney taking a slight lead in the Buckeye state by a 50% to 48% margin.

According to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, voter registration totals as of October 22nd were 626,508 Republican, 621,401 Democrat and 686,649 unaffiliated. The largest voting block in the Hawkeye state is independents among whom Romney leads Obama by 16-20 points in recent polls. The Iowa Secretary of State’s office is also reporting that 531,996 people had voted through October 30th with Democrats casting 43.7% of the ballots vs. 32.2% by Republicans and 24% Independents.  The totals show that  232,462 Democrats, 171,272 and 127,620 Independents have voted so far. That leaves a much larger contingent of likely Romney voters yet to vote in the 2012 election. With up to 20% of independents leaning to Romney, the race in Iowa is still quite close and tipping towards Romney as election day approaches.

Romney’s momentum is carrying into early voting and voter enthusiasm is clearly in his favor, but the election will only go his way if all of the likely voters show up to vote.

No, Conservatives Don’t ‘Hate’ Stephanie Cutter

Here we go again. Those mean conservatives ganging up of a poor, helpless liberal from the Obama campaign, which happens to be the president’s deputy campaign manager.  We don’t “hate” Stephanie Cutter, which Amanda Marcotte suggested in her October 23 post on Slate’s feminist “Double X” blog.  Ok, let me walk that back – most conservatives don’t “hate” Stephanie Cutter.  You’ll always find those hyper-partisans, on either side of the aisle, that will have deep-seated hatred for the other side. But for the rest of us – it’s not hate that drives our passionate responses about Stephanie Cutter.  It’s the fact that she is dead wrong on most of the issues of this campaign. Oh, did I also mention that she engaged in deliberate misinformation.

First, Marcotte recommends Alex Sietz-Wald’s piece on Salon.com, which is a cesspool of American progressivism.  Marcotte wrote that “she’s [Cutter] an attractive woman who looks younger than her 44 years and who appears to believe that none of these attributes mean that she should be taken less seriously than a man in her position. As with Sandra Fluke and the poor woman who asked a question about equal pay at the last debate, it seems that being an attractive female with liberal opinions in your reproductive years who speaks in public makes you a target.” No, it’s when you’re a deputy campaign manager that makes you the target.  A title that shows that this isn’t your first time to the dance.  The same goes for Fluke.  She’s a seasoned political activist, who knew full well the chaos she was about to unleash when she gave that testimony on the Hill last winter. As Hyman Roth said, “this is the business we’ve chosen.”

“If conservative pundits don’t cut it out, they’ll soon find out that the era when pretty unmarried women were considered “girls”—expected to be quiet and let the adults do the talking—is waning rapidly. Over time, people are going to start noticing the correlation between the amount of hate aimed at a woman and her single, attractive status, and begin to piece it together, ” according to Marcotte.  I’m sure The Hardy Boys are on the case.  What correlation is Marcotte talking about?  What hate does she speak of? This is pure liberal drivel.

Marcotte then cites “Seitz-Wald [who] quotes Rush Limbaugh, whose attacks on Cutter are pretty standard issue when it comes to his approach to any nice looking liberal woman with the audacity to flap her lips: assert repeatedly that said woman is only useful as a sex object, and angrily disavow the very idea that she might actually have some intelligence of her own.”

Well, let’s go over Cutter’s top three whoppers she’s said so far during this election.

Let’s start with her denial that she didn’t know any facts relating to Joe Soptic, aka cancer man, even though she had a conference call with him in May of this year.

Here she is lying about not knowing the details surrounding Joe Soptic’s wife.

A U.S. ambassador was assassinated for the first time in thirty-three years in Libya.  The calls for more protection at our compound in Benghazi were ignored.  The narrative surrounding the cause of the terrorist attack constantly changes.  Yet, Cutter thinks this isn’t a foreign policy disaster.  As Ed Morrissey noted, that our efforts with NATO to oust Qaddafi lead to the proliferation of terror networks in Libya.  Love him or hate him – Qaddafi kept these people out.

By the way, this little kerfuffle in Libya is only an issue because Mitt Romney is politicizing the tragedy.  Yep, how dare someone ask questions about the facts surrounding a terrorist attack on Americans.  How dare Mitt Romney demonstrate that he could be a more competent commander-in-chief.  Did anyone tell Cutter that this is an election?

Then, there is the $5 trillion dollar lie concerning Mitt Romney’s tax cuts.  A spin tactic Cutter admitted wasn’t true.

Cutter: Well, okay, stipulated. It won’t be near $5 trillion but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close. So it is going to cost someone and it’s going to cost the middle class. Independent economists have taken a look at this. There aren’t enough deductions for those at the top to account for the number of tax cuts that they get because of Mitt Romney’s policy so you have to raise taxes on the middle class. As Bill Clinton said, it’s just simple math.

Burnett: Okay, they’ll just say that you can do that. They’re are other studies. I know the one to which you’re referring, but there’s also the possibility of economic growth.

Cutter: Prove it. Erin, prove it.

Burnett: We can’t prove either side, that’s all I’m saying, but the one thing that I can say is not true is the $5 trillion tax cut.

Cutter: I disagree with you. You can prove it. So then they should just say that they’re counting entirely on economic growth to pay for a tax cut. Which is an interesting theory because that is what George Bush and let’s look at how that turned out, we had the slowest economic growth since World War II.

Burnett: They’re not saying entirely, they’re saying closing loopholes and economic growth, both. I understand you disagree with it.

Cutter: But that still leaves you at least a trillion dollars short. The math does not work with what they’re saying. And they won’t name those deductions, not a single deduction that they will close because they know that is bad for their politics. Now look, this is the center, this is the core of Mitt Romney’s economic policy. Last night, he walked away from it, said he didn’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. He does. That’s what lowering the rates amounts to.

Lastly, Cutter said that the Obama recovery has created more jobs than Reagan’s in the 1980s.

James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute had this to say on the matter.

From the end of the recession in June 2009 through July 2012 — the first 37 months of the Obama recovery — the U.S. economy has generated 2.7 million net new jobs. From the jobs low point in February 2010, the U.S. economy has generated 4 million net new jobs.

From the end of the 1981-82 recession through the end of of 1985 —  the first 37 months of the Reagan recovery — the U.S.created 9.8 million net new jobs. And if you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the comparable figure is more than 12 million jobs.

So, it’s not that conservatives “hate” Stephanie Cutter.  We just hate her lies and willful ignorance concerning the facts, which has gotten her tongue tied on live TV at times.  Lastly, to hang the hate card on Rush Limbaugh and to convey that fat that he’s the leader of the conservative movement is too easy.  He’s one of many voices in conservative America.  We have different opinions and tolerate such differences within our big tent.  A notion liberals seem to forget, as they have a tendency to eat their own during election cycles.
Our, or should I say my, problem with Cutter isn’t that she’s a woman, single, attractive or smart.  I find those qualities appealing.  It’s that she’s a liar and a deceiver with a long rap sheet affirming such notions.

On November 6th, Remember Obama’s Record

In 2008, America was tired.

War-weary.  And fearful of an impending financial crisis.

The country hungered for change.

Candidate Barack Obama offered the nation a sappy-sweet promise of “hope and change” full of high emotion and little substance to which many disillusioned Americans fell prey.

In 2012, America is more fearful than ever.  The promised change has not come.  In its place, a dark agenda of wealth redistribution, punitive taxes and massive expansion of government control in all areas of our lives.

Some saw this coming.  Others are just awakening to the nightmare.

Now, Barack Obama says he wants four more years to finish what he started.

Except this time, the happy talk and lofty rhetoric is gone.  There’s a record to review.

And the reviews are not good.

The polls are reflecting this truth and it’s only going to get worse.

Because when Americans go to the polls on November 6th, we will remember the Obama record.

We’ll remember Obamacare being forced down our throats without one Republican vote and without anyone reading the bill.  Our voices were heard loud and clear at town hall meetings across the nation.  Yet, Obama and Congressional Democrats chose to rule against the will of the people.

We won’t forget or forgive them for it.

As the details of Obamacare slowly dripped out, people of faith joined in protest of provisions requiring religious institutions to provide health insurance that covered abortions and abortifacients.  Barack pledged that there would be no taxpayer funded abortions in Obamacare.  But, now he demands that religious organizations violate their conscience and support the murder of unborn babies.

Obama repeatedly promised that no American earning over $250,000 would receive a tax increase.  America believed and was then shocked to find 21 new taxes hidden within the 2,000 pages of the Obamacare law.  We won’t forget that.

He said that Obamacare was not, in any way, a tax on Americans.  Yet, when Obamacare reached the Supreme Court, the Obama team argued that the law actually was a tax and, therefore, constitutional because of Congress’ power to tax.  The Supreme Court clarified.  Obamacare is a tax, the largest in U.S. history.

In 2008 Obama promised to lower the unemployment rate to under 6%. Yet, today, true unemployment is in the 15% range with untold Americans underemployed or having given up looking for work altogether.

Meanwhile, Obama has not passed a single budget since entering office.  Both Democrats and Republicans have rejected his budget proposals.  That is inexcusable, and it will be on our minds.

As gas prices soar, we’ll remember that Obama restricted American oil production and rejected the Keystone Pipeline while championing and providing financial assistance for oil drilling by Brazil.  His war on coal is killing jobs in coal producing states and threatening to decimate the entire U.S. coal industry.

Meanwhile, Barack channeled 90 billion dollars for “green energy” to companies like Solyndra, Abound Solar, A123 Battery Co, Ener1 and Beacon Power all of which went bankrupt.

We remember Obama’s foreign policy record as he insulted our closest allies by returning the bust of Winston Churchill to Britain and choosing to put “daylight” between America and Israel.  Remember Barack’s hateful glare at Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu?

And who can forget Obama’s overseas apology tour as he criticized America while standing on foreign soil?

Americans heard Obama, on a hot mic, tell Russian President Medvedev and, by extension Vladimir Putin, that he’d have “more flexibility” after the election to deal with difficult issues such as missile defense.

Obama championed the “Arab Spring” while a radical, Islamist government arose in Egypt with anti-American, anti-Christian sentiments.  Coptic Christians are beaten and slaughtered in Egypt and in Nigeria.  According to Obama, the “Arab Spring” is a victory for democracy.

We know better.

We remember the Iranian protests of 2009 as they sought freedom for their nation and asked “Obama, are you with us or against us?”  Obama’s silence was deafening.  Iran remains in the hands of radical, apocalyptic Islamists committed to achieving nuclear weapons and the destruction of Israel and the United States.

Two days after the announcement of Bin Laden’s death, Vice President Joe Biden revealed that U.S. Navy SEALs had ended OBL’s existence.  One month later, the Administration provided the name of the planner and SEAL commander to Hollywood producers.  90 days after Bin Laden’s demise 22 U.S. SEALS, most from SEAL Team 6, were killed in Afghanistan when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket propelled grenade.  30 service personnel died that day.  The worst single day death toll in the entire Afghanistan war.

We will not forget them or that Obama Administration leaks likely contributed to their deaths.

Meanwhile, Libya is in shambles and Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three brave Americans are dead.  We remember their names:

Glen Doherty.

Tyrone Woods.

Sean Smith.

And we won’t forget that they were abandoned in their hour of need or that Barack Obama continues to lie to the American people about the events of that day.

Mr. President, when you needed them, the SEALs responded and killed Bin Laden.  When they needed you in Benghazi, where were you?

We are repulsed by the President’s lawlessness as he signed executive orders circumventing Congress and changing U.S. policy toward illegal immigration, effectively implementing “The Dream Act” without Congressional approval.  And by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and negating key work provisions of Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Act, he violated his oath, and the law, once again.

Maybe it’s all in a day’s work for him.   But, we expect our presidents to obey the law.  We’ll remember that Barack did not.

We’ll remember Operation Fast and Furious and seek to honor U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry and his grieving family.  The Obama Administration allowed thousands of weapons to “walk” into Mexico.  Those weapons killed Brian Terry and are now killing Mexican citizens.

And we won’t forget that President Obama invoked Executive Privilege to prevent the truth from being known about this deadly scandal.

We’ll be reminded that Obama has repeatedly lied to the American people as demonstrated in numerous articles, fact checks and witnessed by tens of millions of Americans during the recent presidential debates.

We’ll surely remember Obama quoting the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed….with certain unalienable rights…” regularly omitting the words “by their Creator.” 

All parents will remember that Barack and Michelle Obama mandated what kind of food and how much of it our children can eat while at school even to the point of confiscating our children’s homemade lunches.

And no one will ever forget You didn’t build that!”

As Americans vote this next Tuesday, we will remember the Obama record and how it has affected the people in our lives.

We’ll think about family and friends who are out of work or are just barely scraping by.

We’ll think about the millions of Americans who have lost their homes and now wonder if they’ll ever own a home again.

We’ll think about our children and every parent’s dream that their children’s lives will be better than their own.

Many will wonder if they’ll ever retire or if being a senior citizen means having to say “do you want fries with that?” or “welcome to Walmart” until they can no longer physically perform.

We’ll remember our men and women in uniform and wonder if their Commander in Chief truly values their lives and the sacrifices of their families.

Business owners will wonder if they’ll be able to expand and hire new workers or if they’ll be forced to lay off more of their valued employees.  Even worse, if they’ll be forced to close their doors forever.

And entrepreneurs will wonder if opportunity will still exist in America.  If free enterprise can survive another four years of Barack Obama.

Americans will remember the Obama record.

His inability to get things done, to perform on behalf of the American people.

And to tell the truth.

Obama will be weighed in the balance against previous presidents, and he will be found wanting.

Incompetent.  Dishonest.  And un-American.

As history judges the record of President Barack Obama, it may be that his one, signature achievement was not only unintended, but something that no one thought possible.

In less than four years, Barack Obama has made even Jimmy Carter seem competent by comparison.

And Bill Clinton seem honest.

On November 6th, we’ll remember.

 


NPR Fact-checking Themselves to Prove They Are Not Biased

NPR, after the Big Bird thing, might have thought it would be a good idea to attempt to appear unbiased. Of course, the concept of bias-free journalism in America today is akin to the dinosaurs – as in extinct. But, Edward Schumacher-Matos decided to take a stab at it by fact-checking the NPR fact-checkers.

Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com (CC)


Yes, that does smack of Monty Python’s “Department of Redundancy Department”, but hey, if that keeps Schumacher-Matos busy for a day, so be it. And, more importantly, his little exercise yielded some interesting statistics to consider. If you skipped the link above, that’s fine. I can understand if you don’t want to read liberal nonsense – that’s what I’m here for! Besides, what was written really wasn’t worth reading, until the end, when Schumacher-Matos presented his readers with some pie charts and bar graphs. See, it’s not just the liberal public that has trouble with words.

So, what was this great discovery he made? Low and behold, the NPR audience likes fact-checking interspersed with the reporting. At least that’s what the nifty pie charts indicated. Now, whether or not NPR could recognize a fact, even if it bit them, is a debate for another time. As for how often they want fact-checking, they want it daily, not just occasionally. I know, we’re talking about liberals here, but this is beyond political leanings – it is a matter of human nature. Yes, Schumacher-Matos and NPR took the time to poll their audience on something that theoretically should have been assumed by anyone that successfully completed Psychology 101 in college. Kudos guys, really!

But that’s just amusing. The really good stuff was in their nifty bar graph. On that one, they asked their audience what needed fact-checking the most. There were several categories, but the really striking thing is where liberal priorities lie. They want fact-checking of the candidates first – predictable. But, down near the bottom, just above fact-checking personal stories of voters, is fact-checking polls and national standings of the candidates. So, in liberal-land, it’s not really important if the polls are accurate (assuming that Obama is ahead, of course), and they really don’t care if people lie to them about where the candidates really stand on the electoral map. Thank you Schumacher-Matos! Really! That is very helpful information for us, on the conservative side of the spectrum. Carry on liberal comrades, and don’t worry if your left-biased polls are accurate or not!

Obama Will Lose Because Americans Are Racist

At least that’s what the Obama campaign folks will undoubtedly cry when all is said and done. Now, it’s true the British already think we’ve become more prejudiced during this administration, but perhaps we can choose to take that with a grain of salt, given that the Brits are arguably left of Obama himself.

DonkeyHotey (CC)

But, back to our shores. You know it’s bad when even CNN is pointing out that Obama is having trouble with a particular group of voters. In this case, his trouble is with white males. Obama is carrying 40 percent of the white voting bloc right now. That is an important number, when you consider the following:

Obama made history when he won the 2008 presidential election — a feat he accomplished in part with 43% of the white vote. It was the same percentage former President Bill Clinton netted in 1996…

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry lost his presidential run after getting only 41% of that group. In the 2000 election, Vice President Al Gore lost with 42% of the white vote, 90% of the black vote and 35% of the Latino vote.

Yes, you read that right – less than that “magic” number, 43% of white voters, and there haven’t been any Dems getting into the White House. And Obama’s sitting on 40% support. Sure, this doesn’t mean “game over” for the Obama campaign, however it also isn’t good news by any stretch of the imagination. As for why this is happening, it’s not news to conservatives at all. We’ve been saying for months that there are plenty of former Obama supporters that are jumping ship, and we’ve been sharing piles of video and audio interviews with these disillusioned voters. And yes, many of them have been white.

If nothing else, it has left NPR looking for a race to the bottom – of the barrel, that is. Their path to a win for Obama in the face of these numbers includes counting on relatively uneducated votes of all races to come to their guy’s rescue. Now, if that isn’t a sad statement in itself…

But, time will tell. Now we just have to sit back, and hope that Sandy doesn’t totally screw up the election by leaving the East Coast in the dark on November 6th.

Electoral College Analysis: Forecasting a Romney Victory

Up until the first presidential debate, polling for Romney looked pretty bleak. Recently, there’s been a recent Romney surge in polling on the popular vote. But this close in the election, is it enough for Romney to win?

Let’s take a look at the state of the polls.

The following map from Real Clear Politics shows the breakdown of states that are either solid or leaning Republican or Democrat, as well as swing states.

According to this morning’s Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll, Wisconsin has Obama and Romney tied at 49%. Last week, Obama had a 2 point margin over Romney. Given that Wisconsin is quite literally, the home of the progressive movement, this is an impressive swing.

(There are many who would dismiss Rasmussen’s polls as ‘right leaning’ or ‘suspicious’ because they don’t release their methodology. However, during the past two election cycles, Rasmussen has been the most accurate polling outfit, which gives some legitimacy to their poll numbers.)

If Mitt Romney can win Wisconsin, he scores a major victory over Obama.

Two other important swing states are Virginia and Florida.

Depending on the poll, Romney has anywhere from a 1 point to a 5 point margin over Obama in Florida. The Real Clear Politics Average has Romney up by 1.8 points.

Romney is also currently up by 2 points in Virginia according to Rasmussen.

To clench the electoral college, Romney must win both Florida and Virginia. Florida has 29 electoral votes, and Virginia has 13.

Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes. If Romney wins Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin, along with the solidly Republican states in the South, he has 243 of the 270 electoral votes he needs to win.

In swing state North Carolina,  Romney has been ahead consistently in the polls for the past month. Colorado also has had Romney up, albeit by a slim margin. If Romney takes both of these states, he adds another 24 electoral college votes, giving him 267 of the 270 needed to win.

Of the remaining swing states, Obama is ahead in Nevada by about a 2 point spread. He holds Michigan by between 3 and 7 points, depending on the poll.

In New Hampshire, Obama is currently up by 1.1 points, according to the RCP average. However, Rasmussen has Romney up by 2.

If Romney wins all of the swing states mentioned above, then he only needs New Hampshire’s 4 electoral votes to put him at 271 electoral votes- 1 vote over the 270 needed to win.

Even if Obama wins Pennsylvania, where he’s up by 5, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Nevada, along with the solidly Democratic state, he only has 267 electoral votes.

The map below depicts this outcome.

The result of this scenario is a Romney presidency. It would be historical in that, for the first time since 1972, the presidency could be won without Ohio.

Obviously, this is only one of many scenarios that could unfold on election night, and it is a bit of a stretch for Romney- his triumph depends on a series of wins in tough battleground states, including some where he’s currently behind in the polls. But it is possible. And much more likely than polling from a month ago shows. And with just under two weeks until the election, it may become more likely.

Mitt Romney Is Wrong On Defense Department Cuts

Mitt Romney has made the prevention of President Barack Obama’s sequestration plan one of his primary campaign talking points. He’s probably done this for two reasons: it plays well with voters in Virginia and veterans, but it also helps with those who want the U.S. to have the strongest military possible.

There’s nothing wrong with the U.S. having a strong military; the Constitution says the country must be able to defend its borders. However, the country is dealing with $16-trillion in debt which means some cuts have to happen. It’s here where Romney is wrong on an increase in defense spending.

For the sake of America’s financial future, there have to be cuts to defense and changes to how the Pentagon doles out cash. Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz wants the State Department to start prioritizing spending. The Defense Department needs to do this as well. The way to figure this out is through Senator Rand Paul’s suggested audit of the Pentagon.

The best example of how wasteful the Pentagon can be is a look at military auctions websites. Listings include a stroller, weights, a driving simulator, a Piper Arrow IV aircraft, a Vantage Motor Scooter and a 1978 Corvette. The weights make sense because soldiers need to be in shape. The driver simulator makes sense as well, because it’s cheaper to use a simulator than wreck a vehicle. But having a motor scooter or a Corvette in our military inventory makes zero sense whatsoever. Here is where cuts help the military prioritize spending and eliminate waste.

There can also be reforms into how military contracts are handed out. Citizens Against Government Waste has done an excellent job at pointing out some of the problems, including analysis on defense issues (anyone remember the $640 toilet seat?).

Just because spending cuts happen doesn’t mean the U.S. military can’t recoup some of the money lost. The simplest way is to go through some of the surplus warehouses, find things which are valuable and sell them. Michelle Ray has told the story of how someone she knows made a 200% profit minimum by stripping the copper from spools of wire and selling it. If private citizens can do this, why can’t the military?

The military could also save money by selling aircraft and weapons it doesn’t use. Obviously there are concerns about Iran getting a hold of some technology; however, completely scrapping the entire F-14 Tomcat fleet in 2006 makes zero sense. The sale of the airplanes to Israel or Brazil or Taiwan would help offset some of the cuts. A similar solution could be devised for our fleet at sea.

Military cuts don’t have to mean gutting the armed forces. Senator Pat Toomey has proposed a plan which reduces spending in all areas and yet still makes sure the military is strong. A strong military ensures the country can defend itself from foreign threats the natural borders with the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can’t. It also makes sure our bases and embassies across the globe are protected from threats.

But as former Joint Chief of Staff chair Admiral Mike Mullen has said, the national debt is the greatest threat the U.S. has. Spending and the growth of government need to be stopped.

This means no sacred cows. Not if there’s going to be a financial future for the U.S.

**A CDN reader sent us a response to this article in which he disagreed with the author – you can see the response HERE.

Romney out-raises Obama in October

In the first half of October, Mitt Romney raised $21 million more than the President according to Federal Election Commission filings covering the period from October 1st to the 17th.

For the first 17 days of October, Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee said they pulled in just over $90 million while Romney and the RNC brought in almost $112 million during that same time period. Obama’s campaign has outspent the former governor by almost $117 million over the course of the campaign leaving the president with $125 million while Romney has almost $170 million to spend between now and election day.

This campaign marks the first where both candidates have raised almost a billion dollars each and both may well best Obama’s record from the 2008 campaign. Romney has raised $975 million and Obama has brought in $981 since the beginning of their fund raising efforts. Voter’s in battleground states will be on the receiving end of the deluge of advertising likely to be purchased in the final week and a half of the campaign.

The candidates were allowed to pull in these massive totals as this is the first election where both candidates waived public matching funds in order to remove fund raising limits. The sharply-divided electorate has also energized donors on both sides to open their wallets in the hopes of giving their candidate a better chance.

Super PACs and unions have also played a major roll in election financing. Both bundle money from donors, but because of recent campaign finance changes, Republicans can use Super PACs to raise money on an even footing with democrat-friendly unions – something the left has fought vehemently to prevent.

Obama’s fund raising efforts have been called into question lately as, according to web researchers, the majority of his web traffic appears to have originated overseas. The President’s fund raising website does not verify address information as strongly as Romney’s and allows foreign addressed credit cards to be used to donate to the campaign. Considering the strong support Obama gets from Russia, China and Iran, there is some concern of foreign influence on the election.

Is Sarah Palin’s “Shuck and Jive” Obama Comment Racist

Liberals have double standard with “Shuck and Jive” phrase used by Sarah Palin for President Obama

This week former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin penned an article on Facebook with the title “Obama’s Shuck and Jive Ends With Benghazi Lies,” This has set off a firestorm of criticism throughout the liberal punditry world.  MNBC’s Chris Matthews has railed against Palin, calling her comments of having “a particular ethnic connection” and that she aimed “to throw it at the president as an ethnic shot is pretty blatant.”

Palin’s use of a phrase which has a clear connection to negative stereotypical behavior that was used against black people is not open to debate.  The context in which it was used demonstrates more of unfamiliarity with history than it seems to have with racist intent.  There is a serious question that is still left on the table unanswered.   Should Chris Matthews and other liberals who are quite familiar with its historical intent, context as well as usage, receive a free pass when they have used the phrase on several occasions without similar howls of protest.

What about President Obama’s own White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who used the phrase last year in September 2011?  In talking to the press corps at the beginning of a White House briefing, he stated, “Sorry. I’m going to shuck and jive! Time to shuck and jive.”  So America gets it, only certain people can say it. Where was the liberal rap on the knuckles for insulting black people or his boss?

In fact, Chris Matthews the self appointed defender of the liberal faith used the phrase in 2010 when fellow MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow was discussing her ratings driven trip to Afghanistan.  Matthews reportedly asked Maddow, “What has it been like, as you shuck and jive, hang out with the men over there, the women over there, in uniform risking their lives every day?”

Did Matthews become suddenly affected with “Obamnesia,” the known malady which infects liberals’ with sudden outbursts of hypocrisy and a temporary loss of liberal fictional talking points?  Matthews clearly had a strong case of this.  Yet, where was the outcry from the defenders of the liberal faith?  Was Matthews hoping that Maddow would discuss how she found proud black soldiers risking their lives, engaging in being foot shuffling’ Negros?

What about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who while New York Attorney General, in 2008 targeted democrat presidential candidate U.S. Senator Barack Obama for his all too frequent side stepping of the facts?  Out of frustration, Cuomo blasted Obama in a radio interview by stating, “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference!

Where were the liberal siren and alarm bells in 2008?  Where was Chris Matthew’s denunciation or even Rev. Jesse Jackson, or the other liberal pundits?  Meanwhile, some of the liberal cleanup crew likened Cuomo’s comments to a boxer who was “bobbing and weaving” around the facts.  So was it racist or was it inarticulate?

The plain truth of the matter is that the phrase is a phrase that has no place in American discussion. Yet it should serve as a reminder that beneath the comments of a Governor Cuomo or a Sarah Palin when referring to the ever evasive bobbing and weaving conduct of a presidential candidate Obama or a President Obama, his lies have consequences. His lies have purposely covered up true facts about the murders of 4 innocent Americans in Benghazi.

America and the world should not only be angry, but it should be outraged that the liberal media journalists and self appointed pundit fact checkers did not do their job in 2008.  They should have dug deeper into the content of what New York Attorney General Cuomo was referring to about Obama’s well honed evasive nature to dodge facts about his racist minister, his birth records, his college application, college records and even his true record of accomplishment in Chicago.

The true bottom line in this made up racial campaign issue, is that America may have actually voted for a Manchurian-style socialist candidate, who charmed the mainstream liberal press into white guilt. So one has to still ask the question, was it racist that Sarah Palin used the phrase “Shuck and Jive”, when angered that a president mangles the truth, and subverts the legacy of four proud Americans who died in Benghazi?

The truth is that this phrase did not kill Americans. 

The truth is that a president black or white who covers up the truth about what he knew, when he knew it and what his administration did not do to prevent is more important than an archaic phrase.

The true racism is how an American mainstream media can keep giving a president of the United States an affirmative action-type break and pretend Americans in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado or anyone else cannot tell the truth about his lies.

The real racism is that the media protected this man of color, because they did not do their job to seek the truth when it was more convenient to believe Obama’s fiction.  Four Americans were murdered and on November 6th President Obama must answer for it.

Let me know what you think ( Click ) 

MSM’s Love Affair with Obama Cooling Down

It’s true that the Mainstream Media has been madly in love with Obama since he came on the scene as a Presidential contender. But, over the past month or so, it’s been cooling down from a plot-free “XXX” sex-fest, to around an R-rated movie. Still a little hot and heavy, but at least that’s an improvement.

jamesomalley (CC)


One could argue that Jake Tapper started it, at least by grilling Jay Carney over the Benghazi attacks just a couple weeks ago. There were at least a few conservatives out in the twitterverse that got excited about that little dance. Even if it took a while for others to start joining in, the “maybe we really do need to question Obama” itch has been spreading slowly through the ranks of generally liberal journalists that have been protecting the President every chance they get.

CNN stepped up and questioned Obama’s second-term plan yesterday. Of course, the item in question begged for it, since it was just a fancy re-hashing of all the old Obama plans that haven’t worked. Not to be outdone, NBC’s Brian Williams managed to point out the lackluster numbers of crowds showing up for Obama events. Surprisingly, Williams even implied it might have something to do with the economy not doing as well as people would like.

From the print world, the Des Moines Register got the last laugh after the dust-up over an “off-the-record” interview with Obama. They gave the President the proverbial raspberries by putting his grumpy face picture on the front page next to a smiling Romney. Who said print journalism was dead?

Finally, CBS’s “60 Minutes” came clean about some deleted footage that shows the White House had lied about Benghazi. Of course it’s Twitchy.com and Breitbart.com pointing out these misadventures in journalism, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are happening. For those that were questioning whether or not the attack on Benghazi would make a difference in this election, this might be a major indication that it has. It at least threw a healthy glass of ice water on those lovers – the MSM and Obama.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »