Story Of Obama

Swing State Polls Are Rigged
By Dick Morris

After Wednesday night’s smashing debate victory for Romney, we may expect the national and swing state polls to change in the Republican’s direction. But not by as much as they should. These polls are biased in favor of Obama and here’s the data to prove it:

From noted Republican pollster John McLaughlin comes a clear and convincing exposé of the bias of media polls in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

McLaughlin reviewed exit polls in each state for the past four elections. From this data about who actually voted, he found that the party divisions manifest on election day have little to do with the samples upon which the media is basing its polling. And, coincidentally, it is always the Republican vote that tends to be undercounted.

In Florida, for example, McLaughlin finds that the average of the last four elections produced a turnout of 37% Democrats and 38% Republicans. But here is the partisan distribution of the most recent Florida media polls:

9-26: CBS/NY Times = 36% Dem / 27% Rep

9-23: Wash Post = 35% Dem / 29% Rep

So the media polls reflect a 9 point and six point Democratic edge even though the actual experience of the past four elections has been a 1 point Republican advantage.

Things are no better in Ohio. Here, McLaughlin finds a 2 point Democratic edge in the past four elections (38% Dem, 36% Rep). But the media polls show vastly more Democrats and fewer Republicans in their samples:

9-26: CBS/NY Times = 35% Dem / 26% Rep

9-23: Wash Post = 35% Dem / 27% Rep

9-11: NBC/Wall St Journal = 38% Dem / 28% Rep

Once again, the actual exit poll-measured vote in Ohio shows a 2 point Democratic edge, but the polls reflect Democratic advantages of 9 points, 8 points, and 10 points respectively.

In Virginia, it’s the same story. The last four elections have a combined 1 point Republican edge, 37-36. But the media polls show a big pro-Democratic bias:

10/2: Roanoke College = Democrat 36% / Republican 27%

9/17: CBS/NYTimes = Democrat 35% / Republican 26%

9/16: Washington Post = Democrat 35% / Republican 24%

9/11: NBC/Wall St Journal = Democrat 31% / Republican 26%

So instead of showing a 1 point Republican edge, these media poll samples show Democratic advantages of 9,9,11, and 5.

The correct conclusion to draw from all these polls is that Romney is comfortably ahead in Virginia and Florida while he holds a slight lead in Ohio. And, remember these polls are all pre-debate!

Also, bear in mind that the undecided vote in all of these polls usually goes against the incumbent.

That’s the real story.

 

Stop Demonizing Job Creators
by Daniel J. Ikenson

Like too many other long-reigning fixtures on Capitol Hill, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) doesn't appreciate the magnitude of the challenge to the authority he presumes to hold over America's job and wealth creators. Or, maybe he does, and frustration over that fact explains why he besmirches companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard.

Levin presided over a Senate hearing last week devoted to examining the "loopholes and gimmicks" used by these multinational companies to avoid paying taxes — and to branding them dirty tax scofflaws. Well here's a news flash for the senator: incentives matter.

The byzantine U.S. tax code, which Senator Levin — over his 33-year tenure in the U.S. Senate — no doubt had a hand or two in shaping, includes the highest corporate income tax rate among all of the world's industrialized countries and the unusual requirement that profits earned abroad by U.S. multinationals are subject to U.S. taxation upon repatriation. No other major economy does that. Who in their right minds would not expect those incentives to encourage moving production off shore and keeping profits there?

Minimizing exposure to taxes — like avoiding an oncoming truck — is a natural reaction to tax policy. Entire software and accounting industries exist to serve that specific objective. Unless they are illegal (and that is not what Levin asserts directly), the tax minimization programs employed at Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard are legitimate responses to the tax policies implemented and foreshadowed by this and previous congresses. If Levin is concerned about diminishing federal tax collections from corporations (which, of course, reduces his power), the solution is to change the incentives — to change the convoluted artifice of backroom politics that is our present tax code.

Combine the current tax incentive structure with stifling, redundant environmental, financial, and health and safety regulations, an out-of-control tort system that often starts with a presumption of corporate malfeasance, exploding health care costs, and costly worker's compensation rules, and it becomes apparent why more and more businesses would consider moving operations abroad — permanently. Thanks to the progressive trends of globalization, liberalization, transportation, and communication, societies' producers are no longer quite as captive to confiscatory or otherwise suffocating domestic policies. They have choices.

Of course many choose to stay, and for good reason. We are fortunate to have the institutions, the rule of law, deep and diversified capital markets, excellent research universities, a highly-skilled workforce, cultural diversity, and a society that not only tolerates but encourages dissent, and the world's largest consumer market — still. Success is more likely to be achieved in an environment with those advantages. They are the ingredients of our ingenuity, our innovativeness, our willingness to take risks as entrepreneurs, and our economic success. This is why companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Hewlett-Packard are born in the United States.

But those advantages are eroding. While U.S. policymakers browbeat U.S. companies and threaten them with sanctions for "shipping jobs overseas" or "hiding profits abroad" or some other manifestation of what politicians like to call corporate greed, characterizing them as a scourge to be contained and controlled, other governments are hungry for the benefits those companies can provide their people. Some of those governments seem to recognize that the world's wealth and jobs creators have choices about where they produce, sell, and conduct research and development. And some are acting to attract U.S. businesses with incentives that become less necessary every time a politician vents his spleen about evil corporations. Not only should our wealth creators be treated with greater respect from Washington, but we are kidding ourselves if we think our policies don't need to keep up. As I wrote in a December 2009 Cato paper:

Governments are competing for investment and talent, which both tend to flow to jurisdictions where the rule of law is clear and abided; where there is greater certainty to the business and political climate; where the specter of asset expropriation is negligible; where physical and administrative infrastructure is in good shape; where the local work force is productive; where there are limited physical, political, and administrative friction.

This global competition in policy is a positive development. But U.S. policymakers cannot take for granted that traditional U.S. strengths will be enough. We have to compete and earn our share with good policies. The decisions made now with respect to policies on immigration, education, energy, trade, entitlements, taxes, and the role of government in managing the economy will determine the health, competitiveness, and relative significance of the U.S. economy in the decades ahead.

Since another hearing devoted to thanking these companies for their contributions to the U.S. economy is unlikely, perhaps Senator Levin should at least consider the perils of chasing away these golden geese.

 

The Wisdom Of Thomas Sowell

 

The Wisdom Of Thomas Sowell

 

The Wisdom Of Thomas Sowell

 

This is a great one.

 

Thinking back about 50 years, the growth entitlements has escalated to the point that we have become (or about to become) an official "Welfare State"... where more than 50% of the population/voters are dependent upon a government check... at the expense of the other 50%.... and vote passionately for hand outs instead of earning their own way.

And with 50%+ voting in concert for their support checks to continue without interruption.... how do we ever turn this around?

Sad. Pathetic. Scary.

 

If we get the Balanced Budget Amendment passed and ratified, voters will need to choose in each election between more goodies that would mean more unemployment, and a rational management of the economy that would benefit everybody. Lucky for us, we have te failure of communism in the Soviet Union (with the dictatorship that's needed to keep it in place) as well as the much more recent failure of (mostly Southern) European socialism (with its huge state borrowing appetite) to point out to. And, pray that more than half of the electorate has a brain to process those two bloody examples and their implications, and act responsibly. Conservatives will need to do a better job at explaining business/economy management on a national scale to people to counteract the ginormous demagoguery that's bound to rise on the left side of our political spectrum.

 

Got Racism?
By: Ann Coulter

Liberal racism sightings have become like a lunatic’s version of “Where’s Waldo?” Kevin Baker of Harper’s magazine says Romney’s referring to his “five boys” in last week’s debate was how he “slyly found a way” to call Obama a “boy.” Says Baker: “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that!”MSNBC’s Chris Matthews says the word “apartment” is racist because black people live in apartments. He also says the word “Chicago” is racist because — despite its well-known reputation as the home of Al Capone and the Daley machine — a lot of black people live there, too. (And don’t get him started on “Chicago apartments”!)As we go to press, Matthews is working on an exciting new hypothesis that peanut butter is racist.Meanwhile, my new favorite actress, Stacey Dash, sends an inoffensive little tweet supporting Mitt Romney and is buried in tweets calling her “an indoor slave” and a “jiggaboo,” who was “slutting (herself) to the white man.” (And those were just the tweets from the Obama 2012 Re-election Campaign!)

Could we get an expert opinion from Chris Matthews or Kevin Baker about whether any of that is racist?

It’s a strange thing with liberals. They spend so much time fawning over black nonentities — like Maya Angelou, Eugene Robinson, Barack and Michelle Obama, and Rachel Maddow’s very, very, very special black guest Melissa Harris-Perry — that, every once in awhile, they seem to erupt in racist bile to restore their mental equilibrium.

After President George W. Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, she was maligned in racist cartoons portraying her as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches.

Kevin Baker didn’t notice any of that because he was working on his theory that referring to your sons is racist.

When Michael Steele ran for senator from Maryland, he was depicted in blackface and with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Sen. Charles Schumer’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of Steele’s credit report — something done to no other Republican candidate.

Is that more or less racist than Romney mentioning his sons? More or less racist than the word “apartment”?

Mia Love, a black Republican running for Congress in Utah had her Wikipedia page hacked with racist bile, heavy on the N-word. Her campaign headquarters has been bombarded with racist graffiti and slimy mailings with pictures of Klansman next to photos of her family.

Some would say that’s even more racist than Romney talking about his sons.

On less evidence than the birthers have, liberals slandered both Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain with the racist stereotype of black men as sexual predators.

As the preceding short list suggests, liberals usually limit their racist slime to conservative blacks. But not always.

In 2008, Bill Clinton said of Obama “a few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Democratic Sen. Harry Reid praised Obama for not speaking in a “Negro dialect.” Joe Biden complimented Obama for being “clean” and “articulate.”

Did I mention that Kevin Baker thinks that Romney referring to his “five boys” is racist?

Two years ago, liberal newsman Dan Rather said the criticism of Obama was that he “couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” (I immediately called for Rather’s firing for that, and then remembered that he didn’t have a job.)

Last week, Rather won the 2012 Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement from Washington State University. That’s not a joke — or at least not my joke.

Meanwhile, evidence of alleged Republican racism invariably consists of tenuous connections and apocryphal signals normally associated with schizophrenics and sufferers of “Thrilled Leg Syndrome.”

Since February 2008, the primary evidence of racism has been failure to fully support Obama’s election, policies or re-election. As Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg put it during the last presidential campaign, only if Obama were elected president would children in America be able to “grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives.”

I wish I had a nickel for every kid who’s come up to me in an airport and said, “What I wouldn’t give to be able to think of prejudice as a non-factor in my life …”

Curiously, liberals weren’t concerned about what children in America would think if Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination had been defeated. No, only electing the most liberal person ever to seek the presidency on a major party ticket would prove that the country could “put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.”

The left’s racial demagoguery worked: In 2008, Obama received a larger proportion of the white vote than any Democrat running for president in nearly 40 years. (Though he tied Clinton’s 1996 white vote record.)

And look how well that turned out! We haven’t heard another peep about racism since then.

To read more about what a smashing success the left’s utterly self-serving racial bullying has been, read my new book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.”

 

DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?

Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our “economic crisis” occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were already being put in place to create the havoc we’ve all been experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains, on January 3, 2007.

I'm sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences because I believe it is something you may not have considered.

This tells the story, why Bush was so “bad” at the end of his term.

Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:
• The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
• The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
• The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
• George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day...January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.