We Haven't Been Giving Obama Enough Credit for Creating Jobs

Today I watched a few episodes of Doomsday Preppers and Doomsdays Bunkers and realized we haven't been giving President Obama enough credit. He and his cronies and co-conspirators have created an entire industry based upon people's fears that our country is heading toward either an impending total financial collapse, #OWS-style anarchy resulting in a collapse of the social order, or a terrorist attack.  In a recent survey of 1007 Americans, more than half said they feared one of these events. The delicious irony is that the prepper movement is causing a Capitalism-driven boom in industries catering to those preparing for the Obamapocalypse.

Doomsday Preppers shows families installing massive underground bunkers the back woods of their properties. Some of these units are impressive. A company called Vivos offers luxury models for individual families and groups:

In addition to the bunker, you need other necessities like generators, waste disposal, food, water and, of course, weapons. LOTS of weapons. If your plan for the Obamapocalyps is to glom off of one of these families, think again. Most of them have impressive arsenals. Oh, and some of them have massive, impenetrable doors, made to withstand a direct nuclear missile attack.

One episode showed a restaurant supply store that expanded its operations because it's now selling large quantities of food to preppers. Lehman's Hardware, in Kidron, Ohio, began as a store selling primarily to Amish; they carry a wide variety of non-electric supplies. Now, in addition to the Amish, they are selling composting toilets and other supplies to those who want to live "off the grid" and they're actively marketing to them. There is also a market for gas masks, firearms classes, camouflage gear....the possibilities are endless. The 1007 who were surveyed were also asked,

Which of the following, if any, have you ever done to prepare for a potential catastrophe?:

Ca-ching!! Somebody is making all of this doomsday equipment, trucks are delivering it to stores, and sales people are selling it, in addition to all the associated overhead processes associated with commerce. Then there is all the labor involved in installing the bunkers, including cranes, concrete trucks, and various contractors. All this translates into jobs.

Sure, pending doom is a non-traditional jobs plan, but a job is a job in these difficult times. So, on behalf of Americans everywhere, including our friends in the Prepper Movement, I say, "Thank you, Mr. President, for creating all these jobs."

Cross-posted at RedState

National Debt Road Trip

How do the Obama deficits compare with past presidents? And how did the national debt get so big anyway. This video tries to answer those questions by looking at the debt as a road trip and seeing how fast different administrations have been traveling.

Buckle your seat belt! I don't think this would even be allowed on the Autobahn.

The roaring, soaring, Constitution-ignoring days of Obama's Recovery Summer

This video is a year old.  Shocking that nothing - not the war, not the unemployment rate, not the media coverage of Obama - has changed:

...Kick back with Andrew Klavan and enjoy the roaring, soaring, constitution ignoring days of Obama's Recovery Summer. It's sunny. It's funny. But I'm out of work honey. With unemployment over 9%, what isn't there to love? At least it isn't the grim old days of George W. Bush when unemployment was below 6% and General Petraeus was leading a surge...

...Did you vote for Barack Obama? Feeling embarrassed by the results? Don't be so hard on yourself; DE is more common than you think. Nearly 70 million voters may suffer from DE. Have your talk today with Andrew Klavan and find out what you can do to treat DE. You - and your country - will be glad you did...

I sure wish they'd replace all those Viagra commercials during the baseball games with this one!

The Gas Tax: Barack Antoinette feels your pain

In a campaign speech at Indiana University in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama ridiculed John McCain and Hillary Clinton's proposal to suspend the federal gas tax for three months:

"Some are making decisions about buying food or buying gas. This is a critical problem that requires a serious response. So what does John McCain do? He suggests that we suspend the federal gas tax for three months. Now, I want you all to understand what this would do for you. You would save 30 cents a day for three months for a grand total savings of twenty-eight dollars.  Twenty-eight dollars.  You can't even buy a cup of coffee at 7-11 for thirty cents a day!"  

In this "Let them eat cake" moment our Martha's Vinyard president demonstrated just how out of touch he is with ordinary families.  While he and Michelle wear designer clothes and send their children to an exclusive $32K/year private school, many other families really are struggling to put food on the table.  They really are choosing between food and gas.  Twenty-eight dollars a month means something to them and it's disrespectful and insulting for an elitists millionaire like Obama to make a joke of it.  

Fast forward a few years and Obama is making good on his promise to keep the 18.4 cent/gallon tax in place, no matter how high gas prices go. That's in addition to your state gas tax. In Ohio we pay 28 cents/gallon,  for a total of 46.4 cents of tax on every gallon of gas, which means the state and federal governments confiscates around 13% of the price of every gallon of gas purchased. 

Obama says the federal government needs this money.  To make sure you neighbor keeps his job. Because it's now your duty as an American to subsidize your neighbor's job through the 18.4 cent/gallon gas tax.  

In a speech on the Palace of Versailles White House lawn last week President Obama warned that thousands- MILLIONS - would lose their jobs if the gas tax is not extended on September 30th:

"For construction workers and their families across the country it represents the difference between making ends meet and not making ends meet. If we allow the transportation bill to expire,  over 4000 workers will be furloughed without pay...If it's delayed even longer, over 1 million workers could lose their jobs over the course of the next year.  That includes some of the folks behind me today...If we don't extend this bill by the end of September, all of them will be out of a job just because of politics in Washington."

So next time you pump $70 worth of gas into your SUV, remind yourself that you are doing your part to make sure those construction workers lined up behind Obama and union boss Richard Trumpka can work another day thanks to your generosity. Aren't you glad you skipped that Slurpee?  

Or we can take Steven Crowder's advice and get rid of the federal gas tax (which panders to the unions) and give the power back to the states:

Some food for thought: I can't help but think there are some parallels between this elitist administration and pre-revolution France.  Let's hope we can elect a new president before he runs this country completely into the ground.

Crosspost

Obama's jobs plan is a National Infrastructure Bank with projects tied to "inequality reduction"

Thursday at a Holland, Michigan plant, President Obama turned on his folksy charm and declared that he would work tirelessly to “Git folks workin’ again” (note to the prez…I’ve been to lovely Holland, MI several times and they don’t talk that way, so there was no need to put on airs). He again terrified the markets by threatening to propose a whole host of new legislation to make sure the government provides everyone with a job. [Please, Mr. President, please, stay at Martha's Vinyard until 2012 and spare us any ideas you have rattling around in that oversize brain!]

One of the buzzwords that the president and his fellow Democrats have been floating this past week is investment in “infrastructure” as the solution to flat economic growth and high unemployment rates. Wednesday on Fox’s The Five, leftist political analyst Bob Bechtel said that a National Infrastructure Bank would help put people back to work.

To be honest, I had never heard of the National Infrastructure Bank until I received an e-mail about it this week from my senator, Sherrod Brown (D-OH), the most liberal member of Congress. Brown proudly announced that he was trying to sell the scheme to business leaders in Cincinnati as a way to rebuild a crumbling bridge. Brown linked to an article in the Cincinnati Business Courrier that covered the meeting :

“Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown assembled a group of business, labor and local government officials in Cincinnati Tuesday to voice support for new legislation that would create a national infrastructure bank to finance big-ticket projects like the Brent Spence Bridge….Brown’s proposal calls for projects of national significance to receive financing as long as they as they can demonstrate “an ability to repay the loan.”

In an opinion piece in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, former PA Governor Ed Rendell and Mesa, AZ Mayor Scott Smith are pushing the rebuilding of our infrastructure via a National Infrastructure Bank:

“It is also time we create new infrastructure financing options, including a National Infrastructure Bank. Many of these new programs, using Build America Bonds, for instance, can be paid for with a minimal impact on the federal deficit.

"The government’s continued neglect of infrastructure will consign our nation and our children to economic decline. Rebuilding America’s future cannot be a Democratic or Republican political cause. It must be a national undertaking.”

Rendell and Smith write as representatives of Building America’s Future Educational Fund, which bills itself as “a bipartisan coalition of elected officials dedicated to bringing about a new era of U.S. investment in infrastructure that enhances our nation’s prosperity and quality of life.”

Alright, if by “bipartisan” they mean a collection of leftists and RINO’s which includes the likes of Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwazenegger, Gavin Newsome, Charlie Crist, David Patterson, and Ted Strickland. The Director of the Board is Donna Cooper from the Center for American Progress. Notice there’s quite a collection of out-of-work former Democratic office-holders on the list. Apparently their wives couldn’t handle having them wandering aimlessly around the estates all day.

So what exactly is this National Infrastructure Bank? Various iterations of it have been tossed around for the past several years. The basic idea is that a government bureaucracy would be set up to lend (or give) money out to fund infrastructure projects. Obama had a version in his 2011 budget announcement. Remember that “invest” is a code word for deficit spending:

“The Administration’s six year plan would invest $30 billion to found a National Infrastructure Bank (I-Bank). The I-Bank would leverage this Federal investment by providing loans and grants to support individual projects and broader activities of significance to our Nation’s economic competitiveness…A cornerstone of the I-Bank’s approach will be a rigorous project comparison method that transparently measures which projects offer the biggest “bang for the buck” to taxpayers and our economy. This marks a substantial departure from the practice of funding projects based on more narrow considerations.”

Well, this all sounds very reasonable, doesn’t it? We all want safe roads and bridges. We all have images of the Minneapolis bridge collapse seared into our brains and recognize that our nation needs upgrades in our infrastructure.

But as often has happened with this administration, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner reveals the real motives behind this plan:

“That’s why the President’s plan will reform our current system to promote merit-based investment by creating a National Infrastructure Bank, which will select projects on the basis of rigorous analysis. The National Infrastructure Bank will also draw private capital to invest in American infrastructure so that we can better leverage scarce taxpayer dollars. We will support projects that produce significant returns on our investment, allow Americans more choices in their modes of transportation, and improve the interconnectedness of our existing transportation networks to maximize the value of our current infrastructure.

“…Eighty percent of jobs created by investing in infrastructure will likely be created in three occupations –construction, manufacturing, and retail trade – which are among the hardest hit from the recession. Nine out of 10 jobs created in these three sectors pay middle-class wages.” [emphasis added]

Once again, the central planners are picking winners and losers. Not only are “three occupations” being targeted for specific consideration (union jobs, of course), but the “bank” will choose which projects have “merit” and thereby which “modes of transportation” will “produce significant returns on our investment,” all under the guise of giving us more “choices” in our modes of transportation (code for the continued push to get us all to “choose” public transportation).

But again, this isn’t necessarily all bad, until you actually read the legislation that has been proposed. It then descends into the usual Democratic pandering and central planning. H.R. 402, The National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2011, sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 56 co-sponsors (all Democrats) was introduced in January and is currently in the subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology:

“Establishment of National Infrastructure Development Bank- The National Infrastructure Development Bank is established as a wholly owned Government corporation…”

Oh no, here we go again. When you see the words “government” and “corporation” together beware. It brings to mind government takeovers of the banks, the auto industry and the student loan program.

“The Bank shall have a Board of Directors consisting of 5 members appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” [emphasis added]

The five members of the Board would have broad powers including:

"To make loans and purchase debt securities; to issue and sell debt securities of the Bank; to issue public benefit bonds and to provide financing to infrastructure projects from amounts made available from the issuance of such bonds; to make loan guarantees; to borrow on the global capital market and lend to regional, State, and local entities, and commercial banks for the purpose of funding infrastructure projects; to purchase in the open market any of the Bank’s outstanding obligations at any time and at any price; to monitor and oversee infrastructure projects financed, in whole or in part, by the Bank."

The eligibility criteria for infrastructure projects receiving assistance from the bank must meet the goals of the Bank:

"IN GENERAL- The Bank shall conduct an analysis that takes into account the economic, environmental, social benefits, and costs of each project under consideration for financial assistance under this Act, prioritizing projects that contribute to economic growth, lead to job creation, and are of regional or national significance."

And like nearly all legislation written by liberal Democrats, it rewards their special interest groups – those with the preferred skin color and gender and of course, the red carpet treatment for the beloved Mother Earth. It also adds the lofty goal of “inequality reduction,” which every good engineer should have foremost in his mind when designing a bridge. Some of the factors considered for transportation projects:

• Job creation, including workforce development for women and minorities, responsible employment practices, and quality job training opportunities. 



• Reduction in carbon emissions 


• Poverty and inequality reduction through targeted training and employment opportunities for low-income workers. 


• Use of smart tolling, such as vehicle miles traveled and congestion pricing, for highway, road, and bridge projects. 

“Smart tolling, such as vehicle miles traveled and congestion pricing”? We’ve heard talk of car transponders that will be able to report our mileage to the government so those who drive too much can pay higher tolls or taxes. Is this what they have in mind?

The requirements are similar for energy and environmental projects. For telecommunications projects it also adds Obama’s goal of internet access for all:
The extent to which assistance expands or improves broadband and wireless services in rural and disadvantaged communities.

Once again, we have the federal government engaging in social engineering – this time calling it “infrastructure” and telling us it’s about building roads and bridges and the smart grid. But if you read the text of the legislation, the priority seems to be picking the winners and losers and deciding who is deserving of this piece of the American Pie and who is not.

Best of all, this bill puts $5 billion in capital into the capable hands of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner:

"There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for purchase of the shares of the Bank $5,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 with the aggregate representing 10 percent of the total subscribed capital of the Bank":

There is a similar measure percolating in the Senate, S. 652, Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-term Development, sponsored by John Kerry (D-MA) and co-sponsored by six Democrats and Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) and Lindsay Graham (SC). While not including the radical social engineering language of the House version, the 7-member Board, appointed by the president, has broad powers to approve projects which must meet:

“…any criteria established by the Board of Directors or chief executive officer in accordance with this Act.”

Michelle Malkin summarized it this way:

“How would it work, and who would pay? Unveiled at the radical leftist Center for American Progress in January, Kerry and Company’s pipe dream would somehow leverage $10 billion in unidentified public funds into $640 billion in government loans and loan guarantees for union-exclusive construction and bogus green jobs projects. [T]he infrastructure banks would borrow more money the government doesn’t have to dole out grants that wouldn’t be paid back and don’t require interest payments.”

In addition to bailing out banks, auto companies and the student loan industry and propping up state and local governments with stimulus money, our lawmakers are now considering bailing out states and municipalities that failed to plan for the future. They now want to take out million dollar mortgages on roads and bridges they can’t afford with money borrowed from the federal government that doesn’t actually have any money and is borrowing it from China. To…give everyone a job. You can’t make this stuff up.


Cross posted at Red State

Which party gave us the corporate jet tax loophole? Guess again.

Paul Ryan (R-WI) was on Fox News' Greta Van Susteren show last night to talk about  - what else - the debt ceiling circus.  I've been rather surprised that Ryan, the House Budget Committee Chairman has been mostly absent from the talks and debate.  He's been squirreled away in a dark room holding Medicare hearings.  Certainly, important work, but I'd love to see him out front on this issue because as a numbers guru, he's able to explain and articulate the rationale for the GOP's strong stand on cutting spending and not raising taxes. I'd much rather have him give the GOP response to Obama's  pep rally press conference pep rally tomorrow than Boehner. 


Finally, someone let Ryan out of the dingy House hearing room tonight and even though he coughed and cleared his throughout the interview with Greta, he brought up an important point that someone needs to scream from the rooftops.  Namely, that the so-called "corporate jet loophole" was a part of the Obama stimulus package. No kidding - it was the DEMOCRATS WHO GAVE US THE CORPORATE JET TAX LOOPHOLE!


Ryan told Greta:

'It was in the stimulus package. None of us voted for the stimulus package.  This was called accelerated depreciation. It's a tax policy that the president put into his stimulus package and passed. Now he's saying that it's a corporate jet loophole. It  applies to lots of things, airplanes included. What I find interesting about this one particular issue was it never came up in our debt negotiations, it never came up in discussions. The first time I heard about a corporate jet loophole, which was in the stimulus package, was when he mentioned it six times in a press conference. "

In February, 2009, Fox News reported:

"Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes. The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.

The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year.

"This is exactly the type of financial incentive that should be included in a stimulus bill," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., in an interview. His state lost at least 6,900 jobs at Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, both based in Wichita."

Of course, rather than taking responsibility for the loopholes, Obama looked into the teleprompter and read, "It's the Republicans' fault, it's the Republicans' fault, it's the Republicans' fault."  Six times Obama repeated the fib about Republicans wanting to protect that tax loophole for millionaires. Apparently, TOTUS is stuck on that line. 



Paul Ryan expressed his frustration with the stalemate:

"Look, I understand it plays for good politics and class warfare and makes it look like all we care about is that corporate - who cares about that corporate jet loophole? It's - we want to get rid of all those loopholes in tax reform. And what people don't tell you is our Republican budget? That's exactly what we proposed doing! We're saying clear out the brush of loopholes and lower everyone's tax rates so we can create jobs in the economy.  That way the government doesn't lose any money but we clean up the tax code and we're not picking winners and losers in the tax code.  General Electric paid no taxes but made a lot of money.  UPS, another big company, paid about a 34% tax rate and their competitor, DHL, paid 24%. So there's something wrong with the fact that we're taxing a lot of our employers more. "

Everyone clear on that now?  Obama?  Obama? ....?  

Gov. Kasich declares Dallas Mavericks honorary Ohioans

"Whereas the NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Dirk Nowitzki chose to resign with the Dallas Mavericks in the summer of 2010, forgoing free agency and keeping his talents in Dallas, thus remaining loyal to the team, city and fans for whom he played his entire career..."

Ohio Governor John Kasich had a little fun with LeBron today, taking a swipe at him,  while proclaiming the Mavericks honorary Ohioans. 


Nah, we're not bitter about LeBron "taking his talents to South Beach" and making a world-wide spectacle of his decision.  The seven championships he bragged about will have to wait.


   




Gary, my husband, was actually in Dallas for the blessed event last night and the family he is staying with went out immediately to purchase their championship gear.  Being newly minted "Mavaliers," we forked out $17.50 a piece for a few of our own to wear around C-Town.  

Before I go on, I would be remiss if I did not give credit where it was due:

But before everything got officially started, the president - unsolicited - brought up the topic most Clevelanders have chosen to forget, LeBron James.

"Is Cleveland still rooting against Miami?" asked the president as [WEWS reporter Leon] Bibb was taking his seat (and before the cameras were rolling).

"Yeah, we're working on that," replied Bibb, laughing and asking his thought on the series. 

The president said he expects the Heat to take it.  

The man is consistent in his sports picks, if nothing else.   His endorsement is the kiss of death to a team.  I don't think anyone has been this consistent since Paul the Octopus was picking World Cup soccer winners!

Immediately after the game, it seems like everyone in N.E. Ohio took to Facebook for an impromptu virtual celebration.  Here's a sampling of the Facebook comments:

"BREAKING NEWS: Apple just announced the new "Lebron IPhone"; it just vibrates - No rings!" 

"LeBron needs to marry Savannah, then he could finally get his ring. But knowing the way LeBron performs down the stretch he probably wouldnt show up!!" [ouch!]

"I think Mavs Nation just increased permenantly by, oh, about the population of Ohio or so."

"Man he wasn't kidding when he personally garenteed that Cleveland would win a championship before Miami!" [speaking of Cav's owner, Dan Gilbert, I'm assuming] 

"Hey LeBron (cough, cough)." "Wassup, D-Wade (cough)." "You (cough, cough) feelin' sick yet?" "(Cough) Yup." "Me too."

"I don't even like basketball, but YAY DALLAS!!!!! Not that I'm vindictive or anything..."

"Did anyone see the Miami NBA dream team win the finals!?... Neither did I."

"Looks like a true CHAMPION finally brought their talents to South Beach tonight.....Thanks Dallas, on behalf of all of us here in Ohio, for showing this bunch of clueless clowns how to win with determination, guts, and most of all, CLASS!"

I'm not gonna lie.  I enjoyed it.  A lot.  

In addition to Miami, the other losers last night were the Knicks.  They cleared salary space hoping to sign LeBron, only to have him join Bosh and Wade in Florida, which could rightly be named the Tax Shelter State.  Lebron and the rest of the NBA Tax Shelter Bloc saved millions by taking their talents and big bucks to Florida.  New York, again, shoots itself in the foot with it's oppressive tax burden. 

Brian Windhorst, former Cleveland sports writer, now with ESPN, as LeBron's personal reporter, wrote an article ripping LeBron's performance in the championship series:

"It was now when he was expected to rediscover that dominance with anger and motivation from the Mavs and the masses. Everyone around him thought so, too. They talked to him about it, they encouraged him, they expected it. Even his biggest detractors and critics knew it could happen. They qualified and tempered their lashings over the past two weeks expecting James to answer at some point. 

But as he went through another puzzling game Sunday -- dishing repeatedly to Juwan Howard at the rim instead of taking the ball to the basket himself, passing up wide-open shots when the ball came his way, standing and watching on defense like it was a summer camp drill at times -- it got more and more clear.
James couldn’t do it.

So fitting was the moment in the fourth quarter when the Heat were trying to cobble together a comeback and Mario Chalmers and James found themselves on a break together. James called for the ball. Chalmers saw him but kept it, trying to beat two Mavs players by himself. It was a brash play by a headstrong and fearless player that was wrong, but it was also a glaring indication of where James’ teammates apparently thought he was by then. Chalmers felt like he could do it better by himself."

It's almost painful to read. 


James took to Twitter and blamed God:

“The Greater Man upstairs know [sic] when it's my time. Right now isn't the time.”

And he told the media that we, the fans, should get back to our pathetic little lives and he would get back to his bazillion times more awesome life:

“All the people that were rooting me on to fail, at the end of the day they have to wake up tomorrow and have the same life they had before. They have the same personal problems they had today. I’m going to continue to live the way I want to live and continue to do the things that I want with me and my family and be happy with that.”

 Very classy, LeBron. 

Nathaniel S. Butler/Getty NBAE/Getty Images

Obama or Huntsman quote? Take the quiz.

Quiz time, kids.   Below is a series of quotes on various issues.  Each set has a quote from former Utah Governor/former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman and one from President Obama.  See if you can figure out who the Progressive is.  Answers below. 


1.    "I had many discussions...with many legal experts who informed me that individual rights, equal rights, could be taken up to the level of civil unions without compromising traditional marriage, which is something I believe in. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but I also believe that we can do a better job in enhancing equal rights for more of our citizens... It may need to be clarified, over time, by way of the courts, but I think there was a pretty broad level of interpretation from the beginning that certain areas equating in enhanced equal rights would be allowed under [the Marriage Amendment]..."  


2.    "I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex... "

3.    "But in order to get to the heart and soul of carbon emission, which is a problem, because it leads to polluted skies and air quality problems and climate change, we must put a value on carbon. Until we put a value on carbon, we've never going to be able to get serious with dealing with climate change longer term. Now, putting a value on carbon either suggests that you go to a carbon tax or you get a cap-and-trade system under way...[we will] develop a comprehensive energy program ... which will include issues of affordability, issues of energy independence, and issues of sustainability. And when I speak of sustainability, I talk about ultimately a cap-and-trade system."

4.   "The market will set the price, but unlike the other cap-and-trade proposals that have been offered in this race, no business will be allowed to emit any greenhouses gases for free. Businesses don't own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution."  


5.    "...I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith. That doesn't make faith any less important than science. It just means they're two different things. And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry."  


6.    “Public schools are largely secular institutions. I would expect my kids in science class to be instructed in those things that are somewhat quantifiable and based on thorough and rigorous empirical research.” “If it comes up in sociology or philosophy as differing views on creation, I think that's appropriate, ... But that doesn't happen until college or maybe later in high school.”  

7.    “First and foremost I want to make sure people are taken care of. We'll find the money to cover them; I want to make sure they're taken care of.”  "I mentioned yesterday to somebody asking a question that I wouldn't shy away from mandates. I think if you're going to get it done and get it done right, mandate has to be part of it in some way, shape, or form whether it's the college age population or whether it's something beyond, it's got to be a serious attempt, and I'm not sure you get to the point of serious attempt without some sort of mandate associated with what you're trying to do.  Certainly a market-based approach is part of the solution as well. We forget that. If a tax credit is something that the federal government ultimately works out, then you've got some market solutions tossed in and nobody likes the word mandate, but without that kind of insistence--that directness, I don't know that you can achieve something this challenging in a short period of time, which is what I think we need to do as a nation." 

8.    “If we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it. While I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.  I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest.”

9.    “But the situation is such today that I don’t think we have a choice, and before we begin the conversation of processing 11 or 12 million undocumented workers, we’ve got to secure the border. I hate the thought of a fence on the border. I mean, for me, as an American, the thought of a fence to some extent repulses me, because it is not consistent with … the image that we projected from the very beginning to the rest of the world. There’s got to be an alternative rather than sending people back. That’s unrealistic."  "A lot of these kids were either born here or certainly were not in a position in their earlier lives to have any influence over the outcome of their journey. They were brought here. Does that mean we disregard them and we kind of cancel them out from achieving the American dream?" 

10.  "Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable."  

Scroll down for answers.....

1.  Huntsman Daily Herald

2.  Obama   The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.222-3 

3.  Huntsman   YouTube

4.  Obama   MarketWatch 

5.  Obama  York Daily Record

6.  Huntsman  ThinkExist

7.  Huntsman    ThinkExist    KUED

8.  Obama  NY Times

9.  Huntsman  Salt Lake Tribune    Deseret News

10.  Obama  WSJ

Leave me a comment and let me know how you did.  

Now,  can we please vote this guy off the GOP island right now and send him back to Team Obama where he belongs?  We don't have time for these distractions and RINO's.  


And if you haven't seen it yet, take a look at the clever video, "Not endorsed by Jon Huntsman or anyone in his campaign. Or by Mitt Romney."  

Obama "mobilizing" and "leveraging" $1 billion for Jordanian economic development

It was just a quick little statement after President Obama's meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah today:

"I'm pleased to announce that we have mobilized several hundreds of millions of dollars through OPIC, and that will leverage ultimately about $1 billion for economic development inside of Jordan. In addition, because of the huge spike in commodity prices throughout the world, we are going to be providing 50,000 metric tons of wheat to Jordan. All of this will help to stabilize the cost of living and day-to-day situation of Jordanians and will provide a foundation so that these economic reforms can move forward and long-term development can take place. So we're very happy to be partnering with His Majesty on that issue."

When I first heard the statement on Fox News, I thought he said the money would be leveraged through "OPEC" but after reading the transcript, I see that the president was referring to OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.  It claims to be:

"[t]he U.S. Government's development finance institution. It mobilizes private capital to help solve critical world challenges and in doing so, advances U.S. foreign policy. Because OPIC works with the U.S. private sector, it helps U.S. businesses gain footholds in emerging markets catalyzing revenues, jobs and growth opportunities both at home and abroad."

It also claims it was:

"[E]stablished as an agency of the U.S. Government in 1971, OPIC operates on a self-sustaining basis at no net cost to American taxpayers."

A government agency that operates at no net cost to the American taxpayers?  Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical. 

So back to Obama "mobilizing" OPIC dollars.  The State department released a report today detailing U.S. aid to Jordan.  It includes:

• $463 million FY 2010 in USAID funds (includes $194 million cash transfer to assist the Jordanian government in retiring its foreign debt).
• $303.8 million FY 2010 in military assistance.
• $24.6 million FY 2010 Nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining, and related programs.
• $1.5 million FY 2010 International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement.
• $600,000 FY 2010 Civil Society Programs.
• $275.1 million October 2010 Millennium Challenge Corporation (clean water compact). 
• $400 million (planned) OPIC Investment Programs (financing to "mobilize" $1 billion of development projects in Jordan).

That's roughly a billion dollars in aid we sent to Jordan last year, not including the "no net cost" OPIC money.  This aid is essentially a payoff for them to remain at peace with Israel and to be a good role model to other Middle Eastern countries.  


Can we be really honest here?  This is not about humanitarian aid.  While Jordan is experiencing some difficult economic times, it's hardly Sudan or Somalia.  In fact, a Jordanian Chamber of Commerce-style website boasts:

• Jordan is among the region’s highest spenders on education, investing more than 20.4% of our GDP to enable a labor force tailored to meet the demands of the modern market. 
• Jordan’s literacy rate of 91% is among the highest in the Middle East.
• Beginning in elementary school, Jordanian children learn English and Computer skills ;( in preparation for IT training at the secondary level.) 
• Jordan produces over 6,000 IT graduates every year
• An efficiently, productive workforce. We spend 4.2% of our GDP to guarantee the well being of our citizens- more than any other country in the region. Life expectancy and public health levels in Jordan are comparable to the West with 70% of the population on medical insurance.
• Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Report in 2003, ranked Jordanian students scores to be 22 points above international average in science and mathematics.
• Superb housing at the most competitive rates in the Middle East.
• Excellent medical facilities with Western trained physicians
• A wide range of international schools.
• Broadband connectivity in the major cities.

Though Jordan has few natural resources and isn't sitting on oil reserves like other Middle Eastern countries, it's hardly a third-world, desolate wasteland.  


For many years, conservatives have accepted these payouts to countries like Jordan without batting an eye, thinking that it was a necessary evil in the name of "peacekeeping" and "nation building."  And we have a vested interest in Israel - she is our ally and the only democracy in the Middle East.  We must not allow Israel to be shoved into the sea as her enemies have been trying to do since Israel gained its independence in 1948.  If that happens, the spread and escalation of radical Islam in the world will be something unprecedented in history.


But do these payouts actually work? Are they helping?  When I see that we gave Jordan $194 million to retire their foreign debt it tells me that their government is as fiscally irresponsible as ours is.  Think about this:  


We borrowed $194 million to send to Jordan so they could pay off their foreign debts and added  it to our own national debt!


In whose universe is that even slightly reasonable?  


We also give $1.5 billion to Egypt and $3.1 billion to Pakistan.  It's anybody's guess whether these countries are our friends.  If they are, it may change next week.  The only thing that's clear is that they lean Islamic-totalitarian-dictator-ish in political philosophy and we can trust them about as far as we can throw a Muhammad statue (that is if you could actually create one of those in Egypt or Pakistan and then manage to toss it without having your head forcibly removed by the authorities or local frenzied mob). 


The question that vexes me is how and when bribery came to be a synonym for diplomacy.  We've completely ceded our status as a world power when our only bargaining chip is cash, which we seem to be completely out of right now. 

 

April 27, 2011

The Gospel is preached on MSNBC

It's clear that MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell (who calls himself a Socialist)  was attempting to show that Franklin Graham was some kind of  GOP tool for his positive statements about Donald Trump as a presidential candidate.  While I'm certainly baffled by Graham's positive statements about Trump, who is clearly no conservative, social or otherwise, the statements certainly did not rise to the level of "semi-endorsement" as O'Donnell claimed.  

They then moved on to the subject of whether or not President Obama is a Christian.  O'Donnell surely thought he was being clever and that he would "get" Graham with his carefully chosen proof-text verse, ripped out of context.   A fascinating discussion ensued about what it means to be a Christian.  To O'Donnel, it means saying you're a Christian and making an appearance at church now and then.  To Graham, it is receiving forgiveness for your sins by trusting in the work of Christ on the cross.  

I happen to be a bit of a cable news junkie and have seen Franklin Graham do these brief interviews dozens of times.  WITHOUT EXCEPTION, the man finds a way to get a short gospel presentation into the interview.  And this interview was no exception.  In fact, I think it was exceptional - Graham, I thought, was especially earnest.  He came out swinging with the Gospel and ended the interview with this:

"God loves us and he wants us to be saved from Hell. There is a Hell and there is a punishment for those who reject God. And there is salvation in Jesus Christ and for me as a minister the most important thing is not who's going to be president, or who is trying to run for president. The most important thing is, is a person ready to stand before Almighty God? Are they ready to have that time face-to-face with God and answer to him, because God's going to ask you, "What did you do about my Son? I sent my Son to take your sins. Did you accept him or did you reject him?"

~~~~~

Speaking of Donald Trump, conservative columnist and intellectual Thomas Sowell warns the GOP about the dangers of a Trump candidacy in an excellent piece at Town Hall.  Aside from Trump's inconsistency on a number of issues, which Sowell calls his "versatility of viewpoints,"  he says this: 

"Donald Trump is dangerous in at least two senses. If, by some tragic miracle, he should become the Republicans' candidate for president in 2012, that would be the closest thing to an iron-clad guarantee of a second term in the White House for Barack Obama. 

That would be a huge setback for the Republicans-- and, far more important-- a historic catastrophe for this country. 

What seems more likely is that Donald Trump as a candidate for the Republican nomination would use his superior articulation skills-- not to mention brash irresponsibility-- to trash all the other Republican candidates for that nomination, leaving them damaged goods in the eyes of the public, and therefore less able to gather the votes needed to prevent the reelection of Obama."

We can all hope that Trump-as-Presidential-Candidate would follow Reagan's 11th Commandment and never publicly criticize another Republican, but Sowell is right, Trump will do and say anything to promote the Trump Brand.  In fact, he has already started trashing the GOP by going after Paul Ryan and his budget plan:

"I'm very concerned about doing anything that's going to tinker too much with Medicare. I protect the senior citizens. Senior citizens are protected. They are lifeblood, as far as I'm concerned. I think Paul Ryan is too far out front with this issue. I think he ought to sit back and relax."

~~~~~

I'm no libertarian, but I do agree with many of their principals.  This video clip about the influence of tax money on education makes some good points.  In particular, I agree with him when he says that "school choice" isn't really "choice" when the government is involved.  For example, charter schools are closed when they don't meet government standards even though the parents may feel that it's a good school and their children are learning and in an environment that best suits their needs.  So their "choice" becomes a victim of government accountability. 

I think at this point government involvement in education is so entrenched that it would take something cataclysmic to get the toothpaste back into the tube, but the more we can think and work outside the box and try innovative solutions, the better. 

~~~~~

Earth Day Ends Obama's 53,300 Gallon Trip - Washington Whispers (usnews.com): 

"President Obama declared today's 41st annual Earth Day proof of America's ecological and conservation spirit—then completed a three-day campaign-style trip logging 10,666 miles on Air Force One, eating up some 53,300 gallons at a cost of about $180,000. And that doesn't include the fuel consumption of his helicopter, limo, or the 29 other vehicles that travel with that car."

Meanwhile, the Green Police are coming after Google, Facebook, and other companies that rely on cloud computing:

Cloud computing and Internet use suck energy, emit CO2, says Greenpeace | Technology | Los Angeles Times:

"Computer servers in data centers account for about 2% of global energy demand, growing about 12% a year, according to the group.  The servers, Greenpeace said, can suck up as much power as 50,000 average U.S. homes.

But most of what powers the cloud comes from coal and nuclear energy rather than renewable sources such as wind and solar, according to Greenpeace. Clusters of data centers are emerging in places like the Midwest, where coal-powered electricity is cheap and plentiful, the group said.

In its report, the organization zeroed in on 10 major tech companies, including Apple, Twitter and Amazon. Recently, the group has waged a feisty fight against Facebook, which relies on coal for 53.2% of its electricity, according to Greenpeace."

But wait, electric is good, right?  These are the same people who are pushing the electric cars, aren't they?  I'm so confused.   If these people get their way, the internet of the future will be solar and wind-powered server farms.  Instead of "HTTP error 504" we're going to start seeing "NWT Error - No Wind Today."  

~~~~~

 Pro-Choice Vandals Desecrate Cemetery of the Innocents Display - Students for Life: 

"In a breathtaking public display of anti-Christian and anti-Life motivations, 350 crosses were pulled up and re-inserted in inverted fashion, a well-known anti-Christian symbol. Additionally, red paint was splattered on crosses and signs. Even eerier was the mock bloody footprints of an infant painted in front of the display...

 ...Last week was Clarion Students for Life’s annual “Life Week”. Each year the group organizes a Cemetery of the Innocents Display in the middle of campus. They have 350 crosses and two signs explaining that each cross represents 10 children aborted every day.

Every year Clarion SFL experiences some sort of vandalism – broken crosses or knocked over crosses – during their Life Week, but this year the opposition on campus has taken its vandalism to a whole new level. Members of Clarion’s Students for Life group see an anti-Life motivation to this vandalism, but also an anti-Christian motivation as well. The inverted cross has long been a symbol of anti-Christian and anti-religious sentiments."

 

 ~~~~~

Republican Study Committee (RSC) - Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011: 

"Washington, Mar 31 - Reps. Jack Kingston and Louie Gohmert introduced the “Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011” to authorize the Secretary of Defense to continue to provide pay and allowances without interruption to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps who perform service during any funding gap. Without action on the measure such funds could be delayed or withheld. During the government shutdown in 1995, soldiers were paid because the Defense Department had already been funded through the year; the current funding for the Defense Department is set to expire on April 8."

Let's hope they can get this passed and take military pay off the table when it comes to these budget negotiations.  Our men and women in uniform should never be used as human shields in the budget wars.  Would any legislator dare to vote against this?

~~~~~

And just for fun....