Need we say more?
|Recently Obama was a guest on ‘The Daily Show’ and when referring to the four dead Americans in Benghazi, he said it was ‘not optimal’. This outrageous statement from the President of the United States has many Americans upset and demanding the truth about this horrific terrorist attack on one of our Embassies.
From the National Review Online
A new Obama campaign ad directed at women votersstates that Republican candidate Mitt Romney would ban abortion, but uses a Romney quote that has been cut off to distort the candidate’s stance toward the 1973Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
The quote is from a Republican primary debate during which moderator Anderson Cooper asked the candidates, “If Roe v. Wade were overturned, Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?”
The ad depicts Romney’s response as, “I’d be delighted to sign that bill,” but truncates the remainder of his sentence, which was, “But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today.”
The ad comes as a new USA Today/Gallup poll finds more women in swing states are leaning toward Romney. The Obama campaign and the campaigns of many other Democrats around the country are doubling down on the left’s “War on Women” canard, a sure sign that the “women’s vote” is no longer a certainty for Democrats.
In the state of Connecticut, for example, abortion and access to birth control took center stage during the final debate between U.S. Senate candidates Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican Linda McMahon. Similarly, on Thursday we reported that Planned Parenthood is spending an additional $828,000 on Romney attack ads in the swing states of Colorado and Virginia.
In response to the ad, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said:
President Obama’s campaign continues to mislead voters in a desperate attempt to distract from this president’s failed economic record. Five and a half million women are struggling to find work in the Obama economy, and they are suffering from record unemployment under this president.
From The Foundry
October 18, 2012 at 8:25 am
It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.
The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.
So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
- Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
- SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
- Solyndra ($535 million)*
- Beacon Power ($69 million)*
- AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
- Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
- SunPower ($1.5 billion)
- First Solar ($1.46 billion)
- Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
- EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
- Amonix ($5.9 million)
- National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
- Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
- Abound Solar ($374 million)*
- A123 Systems ($279 million)*
- Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
- Johnson Controls ($299 million)
- Schneider Electric ($86 million)
- Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
- ECOtality ($126.2 million)
- Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
- Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
- Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
- Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
- Range Fuels ($80 million)*
- Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
- Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
- LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
- UniSolar ($100 million)*
- Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
- GreenVolts ($500,000)
- Vestas ($50 million)
- LG Chem’s subsidiary Chemical Power ($150 million)
- Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
- Navistar ($10 million)
- Satcon ($3 million)*
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.
The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.
During the Presidential debate and Hofstra, ‘moderator’ Candy Crowley from CNN interjected herself when Romney called out Obama for not immediately calling the horrific attack on Benghazi in which 4 Americans were murdered by Islamic Extremists a terror attack. The administration knew within 24 hours that the attack was indeed terrorism that was acted upon Americans on September 11. Crowley lied and said that Obama did call it an ‘act of terror’. Interesting that she argued with David Alexrod (from Obama’s campaign) about that very same topic. For this, she is despicable.
From Pat Dollard
Oct 17, 2012 0 Comments Chuck BiscuitsExcerpted from Big Journalism: On CNN’s “State of the Union” on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama’s chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror” on the day after.
“First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape,” Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.
This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday’s debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue — and took Obama’s side.
During the debate, Crowley affirmed Obama’s assertion that he referred to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror on the day after.
After Romney correctly said it took Obama 14 days before Obama said the the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror, Crowley took Obama’s side — to an ovation from the town hall audience — and she proclaimed Obama had indeed claimed the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the attacks in the White House Rose Garden.
On September 12, the day after the attacks, Obama did say the words “acts of terror” but he was not referring to the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
Crowley knew that on September 30 and she conceded it again hours after the debate when she went on CNN and said while Romney “was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word.” But the damage had already been done.
With Obama’s reelection on the line, Crowley seemed to have conveniently forgotten the facts she knew two weeks before when she grilled Axelrod in a way she should have Obama.
Here is how Crowley questioned Axelrod then:
CROWLEY: … There’s a back and forth now about why didn’t this administration — why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved. John McCain said it doesn’t pass the smell test, or it’s willful ignorance to think that they didn’t know before this what was going on. Your reaction?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened. But when you’re the responsible party, when you’re the administration, then you have a responsibility to act on what you know and what the intelligence community believes. This was — this is being thoroughly investigated.
When Axelrod tried to tell Crowley that the “president called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” Crowley rejected the spin and corrected Axelrod, telling him that Obama said the the attacks were not “planned” and was “part of this tape,” in reference to the obscure anti-Muhammad Internet video the Obama administration blamed:
CROWLEY: First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape. All that stuff.
AXELROD: As the director of national intelligence said on Friday, that was the original information that that was given to us. What we don’t need is a president or an administration that shoots first and asks questions later.
Crowley then accused the Obama administration of shooting first (not telling Americans terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks) and asking questions later, which is what Obama accused Romney of doing when Romney released a statement
CROWLEY: But isn’t that what happened?
AXELROD: And, you know, Governor Romney leaped out on this Libya issue on the first day, and was terribly mistaken about what he said. That is not what you want in a president of the United States. And as for Senator McCain, for whom I have great respect, he has disapproved of our approach to Libya from the beginning, including the strategy that brought Gadhafi to justice.
Despicable – Obama outright LIED during the debate saying that he called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack. As with his Administration, he LIED yet again. Americans deserve BETTER.
If you watched the Vice Presidential debate last night, you are aware that Joe Biden made a giant horse’s ass out of himself. He embarrassed the office of the Vice President and the United States with his childish behavior. When you really take a look at what he laughed at, it’s despicable.
Obama’s campaign manager, Stef Cutter, is actually claiming that Romney and Ryan are politicizing Obama’s failure in Benghazi and that is why people are talking about it.
NO you despicable moron, Americans deserve to know the truth about what happen so they can decide that Obama has blood on his hands for themselves.
Still think Democrats aren’t despicable?
As if Democrats couldn’t get any worse, the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) has now created an ad for New Hampshire’s far left wing Congressional District 2 candidate Ann Kuster that outright LIES about Medicare. The ad shows ALL elderly people and tries to tell them that they are going to lose their Medicare. This is an egregious LIE. The Ryan plan doesn’t affect ANYONE over 55 and the Democrats know that. Apparently elder abuse is now on their check list of ‘things to do’.
Organizing For America – the group that campaigns for Obama – doesn’t bother telling people that it’s ILLEGAL to vote TWICE in the election. They are despicable.
Obama and his Administration continue to lie to the American people about his FAILURE in Benghazi. 4 Americans DIED because Obama refused to send American Security forces to protect them. He and his Administration then lied about it to the American people. This is beyond despicable.
From the Center for Freedom and Prosperity
The economy is suffering from the weakest recovery since the end of World War II, in large part because President Obama has increased the burden of government. This CF&P Foundation mini-documentary also contrasts the economy’s anemic performance under Obamanomics with the strong expansion under Reaganomics.
Obama and his team believe Americans are stupid and won’t look into the actual numbers. Fortunately some have. Obama has continued to lie about his job creation throughout his campaign; especially in his comparison to President George Bush. Unreal.
- Posted on October 5, 2012 at 9:36am by Meredith Jessup
From The Blaze
The reported unemployment rate measures the ratio of unemployed workers seeking work relative to the size of the workforce. So what happens when the size of the workforce shrinks to historic lows? You get a small dip in the unemployment rate.
As this chart (via Zero Hedge) demonstrates, America’s workforce continues shrink as unemployed workers give up on finding jobs:
Does today’s dip in the unemployment rate mean our economy is on the right track? That’s the argument President Obama and his campaign are sure to make. But the labor force participation rate – which has fallen precipitously from 66.1 percent in 2008 to 63.5 percent today – tells a different story.
The median family income in America has dropped 8% since Obama took office.
The nation’s real unemployment rate remains near 11%.
The percentage of college graduates who can’t find work now exceeds 50%.
The U.S. birthrate has even declined as young Americans struggle to get established.
The number of workers settling for part-time work rose 7.5% last month to 8.6 million.
Clearly, the unemployment rate is not telling the whole story.
To add insult to injury, the United States added 114,000 jobs in September. Cause for celebration? Hardly: With just 1/10th of the population of the United States, Canada added 52,000 jobs last month. If the United States economy created jobs at a rate on par with Canada’s economy, we would’ve created about 480,000 jobs last month, not 114,000.
If this is what moving “forward” looks like in America nowadays, we’re in serious trouble.
This union hack teacher actually told the student to get out of her class AND equated wearing a Romney/Ryan t-shirt to wearing a KKK t-shirt. Apparently the teacher doesn’t realize that Democrats started the KKK and were the ONLY party to ever lynch a black man. This teacher should be FIRED, no questions asked, for her treatment of this student; her violation of the 1st Amendment; her lack of knowledge about history and her lack of civility.
During the robust Reagan jobs recovery in the 1980s, liberals regularly dismissed good news by attributing it to the creation of “McJobs.” So it’s interesting to see liberals celebrating the September jobs report, in which the headline unemployment figure fell to 7.8 percent, largely because of an increase in Americans settling for low paying part-time jobs.
Once a month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports two main sets of employment numbers. Under one measure, based on a survey of employers, the economy added 114,000 jobs in September. Under another measure, based on a smaller survey of households, the economy added 873,000. But a more detailed look at these numbers shows that 572,000 — or about 67 percent — of the reported job gains that contributed to the reduction in the unemployment rate came from workers who had to settle for part time work. BLS explains that, “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.” This is why a broader measure of unemployment, which takes into account those who were forced to accept inferior jobs, remained flat at 14.7 percent.
This report is part of a broader trend that we’ve seen over the past few years, in which job gains have been concentrated in lower-wage positions. And this isn’t just spin from the Romney campaign. Over the summer, the liberal National Employment Law Project released a report that was highlighted in the Atlantic, which focused on this trend. The report found that:
– Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.
– Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
This is illustrated by the NELP chart above. Though Obama has touted modest job gains during the recovery as evidence things are getting better, looking merely at the headline jobs and unemployment number obscures the fact that the middle class has still struggled to find quality jobs, while more Americans are settling for lower-paying work.
Oct 1, 2012 1 Comment Pat DollardExcerpted from The Washington Examiner: President Obama has made so-called “green energy” policies a key part of his economic agenda, but as a new book argues, they actually disproportionately hurt the poor by boosting the cost of energy.
Last week, Examiner columnist and Manhattan Institute fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth, author of the new book “Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies Are Damaging America’s Economy,” explained that:
Most people think green is good but pay little attention to associated increases in costs. In 2015, it will cost between $49 and $79 to generate one megawatt hour of electricity from natural gas. A megawatt hour from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, and from solar photovoltaic will cost between $242 and $455.
As her book demonstrates in this chart, rising costs of energy hit lower income Americans the hardest, because they spend a higher proportion of their incomes on energy:
Energy Costs as a Percentage of Income by Quintile, 2011
Obama thinks the American people are stupid. Throughout the debate, Obama regurgitated his talking points about a balanced solution to the debt crisis. In the process he insulted the intelligence of every voter by intimating that the budget can be balanced by eliminating a few tax credits. No, he didn’t commit to tackling the tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities to Medicare and Social Security. He declined to confront the ballooning cost of all the welfare programs. The only thing he wanted to discuss was eliminating a few tax credits for oil companies and corporate jets.
In May 2011, the Senate took up a bill to eliminate $2 billion worth of tax credits for the gas and oil industry. Let’s overlook their fallacious charges that these are unique handouts to the industry – and treat them as if they are expenditures. We are slated to spend over $3.6 trillion this year, yet Obama is obsessing over $2 billion in tax credits. Here are some of the major expenditures for last fiscal year, including the so-called handouts to big oil (in billions):
Yes, these tax credits barely register among our major ‘expenses.’
Using a 10-year budget frame, we are expected to spend another $46 trillion. Democrats claim that their plan to cut the oil tax deductions would save us $21 billion over 10 years. That amounts to .00045% of our estimated outlays.
What about the much beleaguered corporate jet tax deduction? That would save $3 billion over ten years – $300 million per year.
Mitt Romney rightfully lambasted Obama for overlooking the $90 billion in subsidies for green energy while focusing on a few billion in deductions he feels he could demagogue.
But there’s more to the story than just the dollar figure comparison. For Obama, a universal tax deduction to those who already pay a lot of taxes is a handout, while a parochial handout to a sectarian interest that pays no taxes is a tax cut. And the fact is that green energy companies have no tax liability. Perforce, their tax credits are nothing more than refundable handouts.
The green energy sector is even more parasitic when scrutinized by performance. Consider this chart detailing our energy usage by source for 2009; solar, wind, and biomass are barely on the map, even though they are almost completely subsidized. Here is a chart from the Institute for Energy Research comparing federal subsidies per unit of production of different energy sources:
As you can see, Solar is being subsidized by over 1200 times more than fossil fuels, while Wind enjoys over 80 times more in taxpayer cash. The reality is that no amount of subsidy can compensate for the impotence of green energy.
Moreover, while most of the government’s investments in green energy are in the form of direct subsidies, Oil and Gas companies don’t receive subsidies; they enjoy universal credits and deductions that are afforded to all businesses. Additionally, oil and gas companies pay an effective corporate tax rate about 55% higher than that of most other industries. All the while, the renewable-energy sector is ostensibly kept afloat by the taxpayer, offering nothing in terms of revenue.
Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal laid out the facts about who pays taxes and who doesn’t.
The federal Energy Information Administration reports that the industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available. That alone is about 10% of non-defense discretionary spending—and it would cover a lot of Solyndras. That figure also doesn’t count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every day—far more than from any other business. [...]
Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil and gas company, says that in the five years prior to 2010 it paid about $59 billion in total U.S. taxes, while it earned . . . $40.5 billion domestically. Another way of putting it is that for every dollar of net U.S. profits between 2006 and 2010, the company incurred $1.45 in taxes. Exxon’s 2010 tax bill was three times larger than its domestic profits. The company can stay in business because it operates globally and earned a total net income after tax of $30.5 billion in 2010 on revenues of $370.1 billion.
Now let’s contrast that with green energy companies:
For comparison, nuclear power comes in at minus-99.5%, wind at minus-163.8% and solar thermal at minus-244.7%—and that’s before the 2009 Obama-Pelosi stimulus. In other words, the taxpayer loses more the more each of these power sources produces.
If Obama wants his green-energy campaign donors to be on equal footing with oil companies, maybe they should begin producing something useful and actually incur a tax liability before they receive tax credits.
Cross-posted from The Madison Project
From the Gateway Pundit
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, September 30, 2012, 8:54 AM
David Foster’s first line at the DNC:
“I’m David Foster and I was a steelworker for 31 years.” (He forgot to mention he was a union organizer and not an employee of GST steel.)
But David Foster never worked for Bain or GST. He was a union organizer.
The Politico reported:
The Obama campaign will deploy a group of surrogates to go after Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital record in the days surrounding the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, a campaign official said Saturday.
Among those surrogates will be multiple ex-employees of companies owned by Bain. Randy Johnson, the former Ampad worker who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, will campaign in Wisconsin on Oct. 2 and 3. Former Dade Behring employee Cindy Hewitt will appear in Florida on Oct. 3 and 4. And David Foster, who was a union negotiator for workers at the Bain-owned company GST Steel, will visit Ohio on Oct. 3 and 4 and join some of Johnson’s events in Wisconsin.
“David Foster was never an employee of GST Steel’s Kansas City plant. He was employed by the United Steelworkers of America as their regional union director to represent GST Steel, but was not employed at our facility,” according to BC Huselton, who was head of HR at GST.
Instead, Foster was a union organizer, who negotiated for workers that did work for the company.