Story Of Obama

Here's Something Interesting

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qlkk-mwJ5hc?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You've got to subscribe to read the story. I just got a picture of horseshoe crabs.

 

Cell-Fare: Go On Food Stamps, Receive A Free Government Cell Phone
by Greg Campbell

Call me an idealist, but the biggest shock in American politics for me was the discovery of the thousand different ways pork and other needless expenditures were stuffed into the cracks of every corner of American politics. Don’t get me wrong, I knew this government was redundantly bureaucratic and leaked money faster than sand escaping a clenched fist, but the sheer magnitude of the money that is spent on nonsensical expenditures, enabling of parasitic citizens, and outright corruption is as startling as it is enraging.

The most recent expenditure that gets my blood boiling is the $2.1 billion spent on- wait for it- cell phones and cell phone plans for the needy. That’s right, a fraction of that money in your pocket will be funding the purchase of cell phones and plans so that those that already take too much from society can keep in touch with the other social parasites.

Lifeline is a program available to those that are on food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Head Start or just about any other program designed to “spread the wealth around”. This program, originally intended to provide phone service to the needy, has ballooned to an estimated $2.1 billion expense. While this is alarming by itself, what’s even more alarming is the rate at which this absurd program has increased in the past three years.

In 2005, the program demanded $802 million. It skyrocketed to $1 billion in 2009. By 2011, the program was costing us $2.1 billion and it is estimated that by 2014, we will be seeing the program costing $3.3 billion. But, of course, as ridiculous as this is, it is not nearly as costly as food stamps, which will cost Americans $82 billion this year.

A dollar bill is .010922 cm thick. That means if we take the current expenditure of 2.1 billion dollar bills and stacked them, we would see a stack 9,174,712.74 inches tall which is 144.8 miles tall. That is about 15 miles shy of the length of Vermont and three times the length of Rhode Island. With government spending billions here and there and pundits dismissing $1 billion as a measly sum, it is easy to lose sight of how much money this is. In short: it’s a lot.

Of course, the FCC claims that this is so high due to fraud and abuse of the program, with people doubling-up on cell phones and plans. But don’t worry, the FCC has planned to combat this problem by tracking and combating multiple users at a cost of around $7.5-$10 million. While it’s great to see that after years of abuses, they’re finally wising up and trying to crack down. However, the question remains: why does this program exist to begin with?

As if this wasn’t absurd enough, the FCC is considering providing broadband internet for those who already take too much. To illustrate the ridiculousness of this, it should be noted that in college, to save money, I did my work at school or a Starbucks for the free internet and I certainly did not have a smart phone.

We are becoming a nation of saps. We like to believe that every beggar with an iPod and a hard-luck story really is doing the best he can, and is, therefore, worthy of our dollar at a stoplight. Unwilling to kick the outliers that are the working poor to the curb, we continually fund food stamps and other welfare programs for fear that the truly disadvantaged will fall on tough times, despite the fact that charity existed for these people long before state-mandated robbery did.

We have become accustomed to thinking it is government’s job to help those who will not help themselves. The fiscally responsible wish to wean them off government assistance and they’re called heartless. I suggest that it is more heartless to create a class of social invalids, dependent upon others for their existence.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tpAOwJvTOio?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Sorry, it worked for me. Try this one:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7DEOU7onmoM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

This (Oldie) Is Cute Too

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vdnY8r7_fLw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Obama's Biggest Opponent Is the Truth
By KARL ROVE

When George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney in a Sept. 14 "Good Morning America" interview what he's learned about President Obama as a debater, the former Massachusetts governor replied, "I think he's going to say a lot of things that aren't accurate."

If Mr. Obama's debate performance mirrors his campaign, Mr. Romney's prediction will be dead on. To get a sense of how comprehensive the president's assault on the truth has been, consider some of his false claims in recent speeches and ads.

One Obama spot says, "To pay for huge, new tax breaks for millionaires like him, Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class: $2,000 for a family with children."

That claim has been thoroughly discredited, including by PolitiFact Virginia and editorials in this newspaper. Mr. Romney, unlike the president, is committed to cutting taxes for everyone, including the middle class.

Another ad says, "As a corporate raider, [Mr. Romney] shipped jobs to China and Mexico." In response, the Washington Post editorialized, "On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue." As recently as Sept. 17, Mr. Obama claimed in Ohio that Mr. Romney's "experience has been owning companies that were called 'pioneers' in the business of outsourcing jobs to countries like China." But that claim, too, is a fabrication.

There is more. An Obama ad aimed at northern Virginia women intones, "Mitt Romney opposes requiring coverage for contraception." In fact, Mr. Romney opposes the president's unprecedented assault on religious liberties—in this case, the federal government forcing religious institutions (like church-sponsored hospitals, schools and charities) to provide insurance coverage for contraception in violation of their fundamental moral values and, incidentally, the First Amendment.

Candidates always have disagreements, arguing over the meaning of events or evidence. But Mr. Obama has taken ordinary political differences beyond anything we've seen. Every day, it seems, he attempts to disqualify his opponent through deliberate and undeniable falsehoods.

This is only one side of a two-sided coin. The president can't tell the truth about his own record either.

For example, Mr. Obama said at a Univision Town Hall on Sept. 20 that his biggest failure "is we haven't gotten comprehensive immigration reform done." The president then did what is second nature to him: He pinned the blame on Republicans. The problem with this excuse is that the Democrats controlled Congress by huge margins in the first two years of his presidency—and Mr. Obama never introduced an immigration bill or even provided the framework for one.

In the same interview, Mr. Obama claimed that his Justice Department's botched "Fast and Furious" gunrunning program was "begun under the previous administration." This time it was ABC's Jake Tapper correcting the record, pointing out, "it was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency."

The most troubling recent example of Mr. Obama's serial dishonesty is his administration's effort to deny that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist assault, as if the truth would somehow tarnish Mr. Obama's foreign-policy credentials.

Voters expect politicians to stretch the truth. But when the offender is as persistent with mistruths, half-truths and no-truths as Mr. Obama is, voters expect the other candidate to blow the whistle. They want their leaders to show toughness and be competitive. Which brings us back to the coming Oct. 3 debate, to be followed by two others on Oct. 16 and 22.

During these widely watched events, Mr. Romney must call out the president. That is not so easy: Mr. Romney can't call Mr. Obama a liar; that's too harsh a word that would backfire. Mr. Romney must instead set the record straight in a presidential tone—firm, respectful, but not deferential. And a dash of humor is worth its weight in gold.

While Mr. Romney must point out the president's misrepresentations, he can't take on the role of fact-checker-in-chief. He should deal comprehensively with several of Mr. Obama's untruths and, having done so, dismiss the rest as more of the same.

By carefully calling into question the president's veracity, Mr. Romney will have the opportunity to provide context: Mr. Obama doesn't shoot straight because he can't defend his record and has no agenda for the future except the status quo, stay the course.

What exactly about the past four years do Americans like? And why would they want four more years like them? Mr. Obama knows how most Americans would answer these questions, which is why he is being so fast and loose with the truth. Mr. Romney's job is to shine a light on this for voters.

 

New Obama ad: More promises, more Bolshevik
by: Herman Cain

This ad is such a load of crap, there is no English word that will do it justice.

It must be nice to be a candidate for office who can say absolutely anything, and can promise absolutely anything, without fear of serious media scrutiny. In other words, with an unlimited license to B.S., you might as well take advantage. And boy, does Barack Obama ever do that in his latest ad.

This two-minute barnburner is so shameless, you almost have to tip your hat to Obama and his campaign for having the temerity to put the damn thing on the air. Then again, why not? They're not going to get any scrutiny from the media "fact checkers," and they know it.

It's going to take some time and space to dissect this thing, so let's get into it. First, here's the ad:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZYI7qPO5wVw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Where to start? How about here:

1. Yes, we were in a full-blown recession when Obama took office, as he constantly reminds us. Sharp recessions are historically followed by sharp recoveries. Because so many jobs were lost, there is lots of room to regain them, and smart economic policies should give you robust economic growth and job creation. But we are not having that now, precisely because of Obama's policies. Three years after the recession officially ended, unemployment is still above 8 percent, and the real U6 unemployment rate that includes those underemployed or who have left the workforce is closer to 15 percent. We found out this morning that economic growth in the second quarter of this year was only 1.3 percent.

That is terrible!

This is not because of the recession of 2008 and 2009. That recession should have set the stage for a robust, full-blown recovery. We are not having that recovery, and Obama's policies are the reason.

2. We were not "mired in Iraq" in January 2009. As a result of the troop surge of 2007, we were wrapping up a victory in Iraq by 2009. By the time we ended combat operations shortly after Obama took office, we had won.

3. Tax cuts and reductions in regulation, which Obama calls "trickle down economics," are not what "got us in this mess in the first place." I detailed the real causes of the economic meltdown in this piece a few weeks back. But I also told you Obama would keep saying this, and he is.

4. Here's where it really gets rich, because at this point Obama simply starts making random promises he can't possibly back up. The first is that he is going to "create 1 million manufacturing jobs." Oh? How? Right now the entire economy is failing to produce 100,000 new jobs per month of any kind, let alone in manufacturing. Why should anyone think Obama knows how to create 1 million new manufacturing jobs? Just because he says so? I could announce that I have a "plan," and that part of my plan is to triple the salary your employer is paying you. Sounds great, doesn't it? How exactly would I do that? I have no idea. But all I have to do is promise it and get you to believe it.

Obama is not going to create 1 million manufacturing jobs. That is utter nonsense.

5. Help businesses double their exports. Really? How is he going to do that? Are customers overseas going to suddenly start buying twice as much American stuff because Obama asks them very nicely? Obama could put more business-friendly policies in place, although that would be a pretty dramatic change from what he's done to date. But even if he did (and I haven't seen a single proposal yet from him that would qualify as business-friendly), there is no way he can say how much U.S. exports would increase, or if they would at all. This is a promise on which he knows he can't deliver. He just says it because it sounds good.

6. Cut oil imports in half? Is that right? By allowing drilling in the ANWR? By relaxing restrictions on drilling on other federal lands? By opening up the exploration of shale oil in the west? By ending restrictions on off-shore drilling? No, no, no, no. By ending his war on coal? By getting rid of restrictions on nuclear power? No. No. By dumping a bunch of taxpayer money into solar energy companies like Solyndra? Oh, wait, that didn't work. The fact is, we have enough oil, coal, natural gas and alternative energy resources right now to become completely energy-independent, and the reason we're not tapping these resources is the morass of federal restrictions that Obama refuses to lift. Cut oil imports on half. Right. Tell me another one.

7. Double the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks? Here's something fans of government should understand. There is a big difference between passing a law that says something must happen, and actually making it happen. Federal CAFE standards are mandating that cars and trucks achieve close to 50 miles per gallon in the near future. That doesn't mean the technology exists to make that happen, and the only way to develop and apply such technology will be a massive capital expenditure by the auto companies, which would drive prices sky high, or a massive federal subsidy. With the Chevy Volt, you have both. Sure, it runs on electricity, but it costs $40,000 to buy one and sales continually fall below projections. Even if you could get every other car to 50 MPG, what good would that do when it would cost so much to make the cars that no one can buy them? That's how empty this promise is.

8. We're going to have 100,000 new math and science teachers, are we? Is the federal government going to subsidize this? Because 100,000 teachers at a cost of $50,000 each per year costs $50 billion. Who's going to pay for that? Will local school districts just find money under rocks? Or does a federal government that's already running $1 trillion-plus deficits just figure, "Hey, we're going bankrupt anyway. Might as well!"

9. We're going to train 2 million Americans for new jobs? See the same questions I posed under Item 8.

10. “On top of the $1 trillion we’ve already cut, I’d ask the wealthy to pay a little more.”

Wait . . . what? The $1 trillion you’ve already cut? What $1 trillion would that be? Obama hasn’t cut any $1 trillion in spending! He’s done exactly the opposite of that!

My friends, let’s review.

When Obama took office in 2009, he immediately pushed an $862 billion so-called stimulus package through Congress. This pushed federal spending to more than $3.6 trillion, and to more than 25 percent of our gross domestic product for the first time since World War II. It was a huge spending increase!

But that was just the start. Having boosted 2009 spending with what he claimed was a one-time emergency measure, Obama and congressional Democrats simply kept spending at the same level in 2010, 2011 and 2012, but most people don’t know about it because they stopped passing budgets.

Cut a trillion dollars? Bolshevik! Obama hasn’t cut anything!

What he must be claiming is that his 10-year deficit reduction plan cuts $1 trillion in the so-called out years. That’s a promise he can’t keep because he will not be president in 10 years, and long-term budget cuts in the out years never happen!

11. This may be the best one. He said that after we end the war in Afghanistan, we're going to take the money we save, use half of it to pay down the debt and use the other half to "do some nation building here at home" (because of course we're spending so little now). OK. Let's run the numbers. The web site www.costofwar.com says the Afghanistan War has cost us $569 billion since it started. Let's be really generous to Obama and call it an even $1 trillion. Divide that by the 11 years the war has gone on, and the cost would average out to $90 billion a year.

The annual deficit is about $1.6 trillion. If you applied $45 billion to that, the deficit would be $1.55 trillion. You're not "paying down the debt" even a little. You're reducing your borrowing in such minuscule fashion you'd need a magnifying glass to see it on a pie chart. As for the half he wants to use for "nation building here at home," $45 billion won't even pay for all those teachers he promised.

This ad is such a load of crap, I can hardly come up with an English word to do it justice. In fact, I can't. I have to use a Russian one: Bolshevik!

 

Good analysis but I'd wager my paycheck you've put more time into debunking his Christmas wish list here than he has spent dreaming them up.

 

It's too bad you analysis couldn't be read on TV immediately after this ad each time it runs. Obama is so full of crap. But, there are so many naive voters that just eat this stuff up.

 

Consumer Confidence - Bloomberg

"Highlights
Consumer spirits are definitely picking up with the consumer confidence index, which had been lagging indications of strength in rival reports, jumping a very strong nine points to 70.3 in September (August upwardly revised to 61.3). This is the best reading since February and the third best reading of the whole recovery. This report stresses the consumer's assessment of the jobs market and improvement is evident. Those saying jobs are currently hard to get fell seven tenths to 39.9 percent, which is the best reading since April and which points to improvement in the monthly employment report. Those saying that jobs are plentiful rose, up 1.1 percentage points to a still however very modest 8.3 percent. Backing up these current readings is strength in the consumer's outlook for the jobs market where more see more jobs ahead and substantially fewer see fewer jobs.

"Other readings include improvement in income expectations where, for the first time since June, optimists outnumber pessimists. This is an important signal of strength for the upcoming holiday shopping season. Buying plans show increases for autos and for appliances but a dip for homes. Inflation expectations are a positive in the report, showing a slight dip to 5.8 percent and perhaps anticipating what looks to be a topping underway in gasoline prices."