Salena Zito:
"This longtime Democrat left his party after it demanded that he sign a pledge to support only its candidates.
Local and national Democrats branded him as an extremist, out of touch with constituents; the press judged him to be “dead meat” in the 1970 campaign to win back his U.S. Senate seat.
Undeterred, Harry Byrd Jr. – namesake son of the legendary boss of Virginia’s then-dominant Democrats – beat the odds and won re-election. Not once but twice.
“It was a contentious time,” Byrd now says. “Then again, everyone thinks they are living in the most contentious times ever. Well, they really aren’t, are they?”
The longest-living former senator at age 97, Byrd still resides in his hometown of Winchester, Va., within walking distance of one of his beloved newspapers, the Winchester Star.
He served eight terms in Virginia’s senate before being appointed to his ailing father’s U.S. Senate seat.
He won that seat outright a year later, but the undercurrents of change already were building among Democrats.
“Liberals began … winning local elections in the primaries over moderate and fiscally conservative Democrats,” Byrd said of that shift. “You could just see it coming in successive primary elections, and that was in the ’60s.
“Now, the party is barely recognizable.”
He scoffs at the notion that this is the country’s worst-ever time, but passionately agrees we’re heading in a dangerous direction.
He served in the Senate under four U.S. presidents; he was close friends with Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Reagan, liked Clinton, but “never much cared for Carter.”
After his switch to independent, he still caucused with Senate Democrats but “no one ever took my vote for granted.” A staunch fiscal conservative, he introduced balanced-budget legislation four years in a row requiring that “total outlays of the federal government shall not exceed its receipts,” he said.
“Congress approved it, then promptly ignored it.”...." (Read more? Click title)
Showing posts with label Town Hall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Town Hall. Show all posts
June 12, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "One-on-One with Jeb Bush"
Larry Kudlow:
"Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Wednesday hailed the outcome of the Wisconsin recall election, praising Governor Scott Walker for emboldening conservatives in their drive to slash spending on a national level.
“He’s a courageous leader, and he was rewarded for courage,” Bush said on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.”
“In a world of dysfunction, it’s really good that a guy like that, who had the courage of his convictions and acted on them, is rewarded with a victory. I don’t even know why we had the recall to begin with, but if there was to be one, better to win by a bigger margin than he won in 2010, with a higher turnout. I think it’s a leading indicator of one thing, which is the intensity of the conservative side of politics is now stronger than the liberal side.”...." (Read more? Click title)
"Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Wednesday hailed the outcome of the Wisconsin recall election, praising Governor Scott Walker for emboldening conservatives in their drive to slash spending on a national level.
“He’s a courageous leader, and he was rewarded for courage,” Bush said on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.”
“In a world of dysfunction, it’s really good that a guy like that, who had the courage of his convictions and acted on them, is rewarded with a victory. I don’t even know why we had the recall to begin with, but if there was to be one, better to win by a bigger margin than he won in 2010, with a higher turnout. I think it’s a leading indicator of one thing, which is the intensity of the conservative side of politics is now stronger than the liberal side.”...." (Read more? Click title)
May 22, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "IRS Gives Billions in Tax Refunds to Illegals"
(See related video here)
Chuck Norris:
"WTHR, the NBC affiliate in Indianapolis, recently reported about how millions of illegal aliens are getting billions of dollars in U.S. tax refunds without having paid a dime in income taxes. The story instantly went viral because it's true. You won't believe what illegals are getting away with, and our government is enabling them.
Here's how it works.
Illegal immigrants cannot qualify for legitimate Social Security numbers, which would entitle them to work legally in the U.S. and file income tax returns, but the Internal Revenue Service allows them to apply for nine-digit individual taxpayer identification numbers, or ITINs, which also are used to file federal income tax returns.
In addition, a provision in the tax code permits illegals to claim "additional child tax credits," which grant families $1,000 per "dependent" child. Roughly three-quarters of tax returns filed by illegals include these ACTCs. With the ITIN, illegals are able to get tax credits and refunds for nephews, nieces and other family members who never have touched U.S. soil.
For example, an illegal immigrant who makes $13,000 a year not only pays no taxes but also can receive a refund of $5,000 by simply filling in five ACTCs. One illegal used a fake address and said four illegal aliens lived there with 20 relatives as dependents, for a grand total tax refund of $29,000!
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, in the 2010 tax year alone, more than 3 million returns were filed with ITINs. About 2.3 million of them paid no federal income taxes and also collected a cumulative $4 billion from the Treasury in tax refunds for claiming ACTCs.
FactCheck.org confirmed: "The (Treasury Department's inspector general's) report stated that more than 2.3 million persons who did not have Social Security numbers valid for working in the U.S. got an average of roughly $1,800 each in 2010 in child tax credit refunds. That included 9,000 illegal immigrants who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010."
A tax consultant snitched to WTHR News: "We've seen 10 (or) 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax returns. The more you put on there the more you get back. ... Here's a return right here: 'We've got a $10,300 refund (for) nine nieces and nephews.'"
And if you think this is a relatively new IRS scam, consider the report for the Center for Immigration Studies prepared by Peter A. Schulkin, who holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and has taught at several universities. It was a follow-up to a November 2010 memorandum titled "Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants."
In it, Schulkin "highlights new information contained in a report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) dated July 7, 2011, (titled) 'Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.' The $4.2 billion is entirely the product of the Additional Child Tax Credit ... for the 2010 tax processing year."
Furthermore, Schulkin reported: "The July 7, 2011, TIGTA report echoes the message contained in the earlier March 31, 2009, TIGTA report in the statement: 'Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit ... a refundable tax credit intended for working families. The payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.'"
In fact, Schulkin's memorandum reports a long history of IRS abuses of ACTCs by illegal immigrants -- at least seven years....." (Read more? You should. Click title)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Chuck Norris:
"WTHR, the NBC affiliate in Indianapolis, recently reported about how millions of illegal aliens are getting billions of dollars in U.S. tax refunds without having paid a dime in income taxes. The story instantly went viral because it's true. You won't believe what illegals are getting away with, and our government is enabling them.
Here's how it works.
Illegal immigrants cannot qualify for legitimate Social Security numbers, which would entitle them to work legally in the U.S. and file income tax returns, but the Internal Revenue Service allows them to apply for nine-digit individual taxpayer identification numbers, or ITINs, which also are used to file federal income tax returns.
In addition, a provision in the tax code permits illegals to claim "additional child tax credits," which grant families $1,000 per "dependent" child. Roughly three-quarters of tax returns filed by illegals include these ACTCs. With the ITIN, illegals are able to get tax credits and refunds for nephews, nieces and other family members who never have touched U.S. soil.
For example, an illegal immigrant who makes $13,000 a year not only pays no taxes but also can receive a refund of $5,000 by simply filling in five ACTCs. One illegal used a fake address and said four illegal aliens lived there with 20 relatives as dependents, for a grand total tax refund of $29,000!
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, in the 2010 tax year alone, more than 3 million returns were filed with ITINs. About 2.3 million of them paid no federal income taxes and also collected a cumulative $4 billion from the Treasury in tax refunds for claiming ACTCs.
FactCheck.org confirmed: "The (Treasury Department's inspector general's) report stated that more than 2.3 million persons who did not have Social Security numbers valid for working in the U.S. got an average of roughly $1,800 each in 2010 in child tax credit refunds. That included 9,000 illegal immigrants who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010."
A tax consultant snitched to WTHR News: "We've seen 10 (or) 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax returns. The more you put on there the more you get back. ... Here's a return right here: 'We've got a $10,300 refund (for) nine nieces and nephews.'"
And if you think this is a relatively new IRS scam, consider the report for the Center for Immigration Studies prepared by Peter A. Schulkin, who holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and has taught at several universities. It was a follow-up to a November 2010 memorandum titled "Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants."
In it, Schulkin "highlights new information contained in a report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) dated July 7, 2011, (titled) 'Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.' The $4.2 billion is entirely the product of the Additional Child Tax Credit ... for the 2010 tax processing year."
Furthermore, Schulkin reported: "The July 7, 2011, TIGTA report echoes the message contained in the earlier March 31, 2009, TIGTA report in the statement: 'Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit ... a refundable tax credit intended for working families. The payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.'"
In fact, Schulkin's memorandum reports a long history of IRS abuses of ACTCs by illegal immigrants -- at least seven years....." (Read more? You should. Click title)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
May 21, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "Hopeless Change for the Young"
Bob Beauprez:
"In 2008, Obama inspired legions of young Americans who bought into his "Change you can believe in" campaign message. According to the Pew Research Center, voters under the age of 30 supported Obama over John McCain 66:31 – by far the largest disparity between young voters and other age groups in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972. In addition to the critical vote totals, Obama attracted thousands of high energy campaign volunteers that brought unbridled enthusiasm to his campaign of Hope-and-Change.
Sadly, three years later, it is more like Hopeless Change that millions of young Americans face. In exchange for that 2:1 vote of confidence they gave Obama in 2008, the 18-29 year-olds are feeling the brunt of the economic stagnation – often by twice the degree of all other age groups. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. labor market is in a malaise, but young adults are in crisis."
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the recession supposedly ended almost three years ago. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, the economic downturn that began in December 2007, lasted 18 months and officially ended in June, 2009. NBER defines a recession is a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. Economists declare the end of a recession when the declining trend is reversed....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"In 2008, Obama inspired legions of young Americans who bought into his "Change you can believe in" campaign message. According to the Pew Research Center, voters under the age of 30 supported Obama over John McCain 66:31 – by far the largest disparity between young voters and other age groups in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972. In addition to the critical vote totals, Obama attracted thousands of high energy campaign volunteers that brought unbridled enthusiasm to his campaign of Hope-and-Change.
Sadly, three years later, it is more like Hopeless Change that millions of young Americans face. In exchange for that 2:1 vote of confidence they gave Obama in 2008, the 18-29 year-olds are feeling the brunt of the economic stagnation – often by twice the degree of all other age groups. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. labor market is in a malaise, but young adults are in crisis."
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the recession supposedly ended almost three years ago. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, the economic downturn that began in December 2007, lasted 18 months and officially ended in June, 2009. NBER defines a recession is a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. Economists declare the end of a recession when the declining trend is reversed....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010."
May 17, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "The Feds' Intrusions Into American Farms and Families"
Rick Perry. 2016.
Chuck Norris:
"After a national decry by American farmers (and all of us who support them), the Obama administration has just shelved its plan to severely restrict kids younger than 16 from working on family farms. But mark my words. As the feds often do, they merely are regrouping to march again on those great American homesteads.
Part of the very words of the U.S. Department of Labor's "withdrawal" statement: "The Department of Labor is announcing today the withdrawal of the proposed rule dealing with children under the age of 16 who work in agricultural vocations. ... To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration."
"Will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration"?
So, until Jan. 20, 2013, right?
Kudos to the bipartisan group of 98 members of Congress who sent a letter to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis protesting this rule, which would have severely limited teenagers and younger children from learning the family trade, not to mention undermined the very business fabric of rural America. It might sound legislatively crazy if it weren't coming from one of the most overextended federal governments in the history of the U.S.
According to The Raleigh Telegram, "the rule would have prevented children younger than 16 from doing 'agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins' while also forbidding them from using 'power-driven equipment' and working in the 'cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco.'"
Can you imagine? What's next? The feds' crackdown making it illegal for kids to wash dishes, because a knife might cut them? No grinding up food, because the garbage disposer might malfunction and start suddenly while their hand is in it? No more cooking or ironing, because their hands might get burned? No more housecleaning, because the Environmental Protection Agency has designated the mixture of certain cleaning chemicals as hazardous to touch or breathe in?
Let's get real, folks! How far do the feds have to mingle in our manure before we say enough is enough? How far do we have to slide down the slippery slope of socialism before the descent becomes irreversible, before we say, "Welcome to Greece"?..." (Read more? Clickt title)
"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Chuck Norris:
"After a national decry by American farmers (and all of us who support them), the Obama administration has just shelved its plan to severely restrict kids younger than 16 from working on family farms. But mark my words. As the feds often do, they merely are regrouping to march again on those great American homesteads.
Part of the very words of the U.S. Department of Labor's "withdrawal" statement: "The Department of Labor is announcing today the withdrawal of the proposed rule dealing with children under the age of 16 who work in agricultural vocations. ... To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration."
"Will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration"?
So, until Jan. 20, 2013, right?
Kudos to the bipartisan group of 98 members of Congress who sent a letter to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis protesting this rule, which would have severely limited teenagers and younger children from learning the family trade, not to mention undermined the very business fabric of rural America. It might sound legislatively crazy if it weren't coming from one of the most overextended federal governments in the history of the U.S.
According to The Raleigh Telegram, "the rule would have prevented children younger than 16 from doing 'agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins' while also forbidding them from using 'power-driven equipment' and working in the 'cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco.'"
Can you imagine? What's next? The feds' crackdown making it illegal for kids to wash dishes, because a knife might cut them? No grinding up food, because the garbage disposer might malfunction and start suddenly while their hand is in it? No more cooking or ironing, because their hands might get burned? No more housecleaning, because the Environmental Protection Agency has designated the mixture of certain cleaning chemicals as hazardous to touch or breathe in?
Let's get real, folks! How far do the feds have to mingle in our manure before we say enough is enough? How far do we have to slide down the slippery slope of socialism before the descent becomes irreversible, before we say, "Welcome to Greece"?..." (Read more? Clickt title)
"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010."
May 15, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "How Romney and Our Republic Can Win (Part 2)"
(See related post here)
Chuck Norris:
"Last week, I showed how the Republican Party likely would lose the presidential election in November if it were to use conventional campaign tactics. However, I also explained an unconventional strategy that could usher in victory for the GOP and our republic -- a tactic used by President Abraham Lincoln.
This week, I want to elaborate more on Lincoln's concept of a team of rivals -- and who could be a part of it -- and also share with you the inspiring dream my wife, Gena, had that we both hope comes true.
For those who missed Part 1, a book that highlights Lincoln's brilliant action is titled "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. Lincoln's idea and action was simply this: Once elected, Lincoln brought together his former GOP competitors (each representing a political faction in the country) and created a united force that ultimately healed the divisions in the land and propelled America forward.
Why couldn't that happen again, especially in a country as divided as ours? And why couldn't the GOP nominee propose such a plan to boost his election probability?..." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010.
Chuck Norris:
"Last week, I showed how the Republican Party likely would lose the presidential election in November if it were to use conventional campaign tactics. However, I also explained an unconventional strategy that could usher in victory for the GOP and our republic -- a tactic used by President Abraham Lincoln.
This week, I want to elaborate more on Lincoln's concept of a team of rivals -- and who could be a part of it -- and also share with you the inspiring dream my wife, Gena, had that we both hope comes true.
For those who missed Part 1, a book that highlights Lincoln's brilliant action is titled "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. Lincoln's idea and action was simply this: Once elected, Lincoln brought together his former GOP competitors (each representing a political faction in the country) and created a united force that ultimately healed the divisions in the land and propelled America forward.
Why couldn't that happen again, especially in a country as divided as ours? And why couldn't the GOP nominee propose such a plan to boost his election probability?..." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within the news others make since 2010.
May 12, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Scott Rasmussen "Lugar Loss Highlights Sour Relationship Between Voters and Politicians"
Scott Rasmussen:
"When relationships go bad, an early warning sign is that one side doesn't really hear what the other is saying. That's certainly the case today in the relationship between voters and America's political class.
Many in Washington, D.C., took comfort over the past year in polling data showing that fewer voters consider themselves part of the tea party movement. Only 13 percent claim such a tie today, roughly half its peak in 2010. This was reassuring to those in power, suggesting voters were willing to let the politicians return to politics as usual.
But the panic returned to Washington this week, following the defeat of 36-year incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar in a Republican primary election.
The reality that the politicians missed is that declining membership in the tea party did not mean a decline in anger at the political class. That's because the tea party has always been strongest when it tapped into concerns that most Americans shared. In particular, the tea party highlighted the twin problems of continuous government spending growth and a self-serving political class that's out of touch with voters.
Today, only 33 percent are even somewhat confident that their representative in Congress is looking out for the best interests of their constituents. Only 8 percent are very confident.
Sixty-five percent are angry at the policies of the federal government, but few see anybody in Washington willing to take on the status quo. There is a strong belief that Democrats are the party of big government and the Republicans the party of big business. Seven out of 10 believe big government and big business work together against the rest of us..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"When relationships go bad, an early warning sign is that one side doesn't really hear what the other is saying. That's certainly the case today in the relationship between voters and America's political class.
Many in Washington, D.C., took comfort over the past year in polling data showing that fewer voters consider themselves part of the tea party movement. Only 13 percent claim such a tie today, roughly half its peak in 2010. This was reassuring to those in power, suggesting voters were willing to let the politicians return to politics as usual.
But the panic returned to Washington this week, following the defeat of 36-year incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar in a Republican primary election.
The reality that the politicians missed is that declining membership in the tea party did not mean a decline in anger at the political class. That's because the tea party has always been strongest when it tapped into concerns that most Americans shared. In particular, the tea party highlighted the twin problems of continuous government spending growth and a self-serving political class that's out of touch with voters.
Today, only 33 percent are even somewhat confident that their representative in Congress is looking out for the best interests of their constituents. Only 8 percent are very confident.
Sixty-five percent are angry at the policies of the federal government, but few see anybody in Washington willing to take on the status quo. There is a strong belief that Democrats are the party of big government and the Republicans the party of big business. Seven out of 10 believe big government and big business work together against the rest of us..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
May 10, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "Obama gets a Keystone Mulligan"
(See related story and public comments here)
Bob Beauprez:
"Barack Obama is going to get another shot at getting the decision of the Keystone XL Pipeline right. The Canadian company, TransCanada, seeking to build the massive delivery system that would transport 800,000 barrels of oil from the Canadian tar sands to Texas refineries announced it is resubmitting an application for permitting approval.
Obama killed the jobs creating, energy supplying proposal in January to appease his radical environmental constituency that opposes anything connected with the hydrocarbon industry. Criticism of his blatantly political decision came from all corners of the spectrum including the President's usually loyal labor unions who coveted the employment opportunities the pipeline would generate....."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Bob Beauprez:
"Barack Obama is going to get another shot at getting the decision of the Keystone XL Pipeline right. The Canadian company, TransCanada, seeking to build the massive delivery system that would transport 800,000 barrels of oil from the Canadian tar sands to Texas refineries announced it is resubmitting an application for permitting approval.
Obama killed the jobs creating, energy supplying proposal in January to appease his radical environmental constituency that opposes anything connected with the hydrocarbon industry. Criticism of his blatantly political decision came from all corners of the spectrum including the President's usually loyal labor unions who coveted the employment opportunities the pipeline would generate....."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
May 9, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "Truth Is Major Obstacle to Obama's Re-election"
David Limbaugh:
"President Obama formally kicked off his re-election campaign in Richmond, Va., and Columbus, Ohio, Saturday, and his theme was certainly not, shall we say, "it's morning again in America" -- President Ronald Reagan's optimistic re-election slogan in 1984.
Obama's central message was more like: "Hey, I realize things look bad, and I'm not going to pretend you want four more years of this. But just think how much worse it would have been without me and how much worse it's going to get if you get rid of me."
Interestingly, mainstream media journalists Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake were certain enough that Obama wasn't sufficiently forthcoming in his speech that they co-wrote a piece for The Washington Post "parsing" it. Without a whiff of disapproval, they said, "This being politics, Obama said less than what he meant. But, that's where we come in." The two then set out Obama's "most quotable lines" and followed each with their "translation of the message he was trying to send."
The writers are obviously sympathetic to Obama's agenda and, as fellow liberals, share his end-justifies-the-means sleight of hand -- whatever it takes to keep this federal juggernaut barreling along. Let's look at just a few of the quotes they highlighted.
Obama said: "I don't care how many ways you try to explain it: Corporations aren't people. People are people." The writers said Obama was responding to Mitt Romney's earlier remark that "corporations are people," and they said Obama intended to send this message: "Romney is the business candidate. I am the people's candidate."
Well, Romney is right. Most corporations (excepting holding companies and the like) are owned and operated by people. But Obama must depersonalize them because it makes his attacks on business seem less personal, which brings us to another point. Obama has denied he is anti-business, but everything about him screams otherwise, and even many of his liberal defenders, from these two writers to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Fareed Zakaria, have been hard-pressed to deny that he either is anti-business or sends unmistakable signals that he is....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"President Obama formally kicked off his re-election campaign in Richmond, Va., and Columbus, Ohio, Saturday, and his theme was certainly not, shall we say, "it's morning again in America" -- President Ronald Reagan's optimistic re-election slogan in 1984.
Obama's central message was more like: "Hey, I realize things look bad, and I'm not going to pretend you want four more years of this. But just think how much worse it would have been without me and how much worse it's going to get if you get rid of me."
Interestingly, mainstream media journalists Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake were certain enough that Obama wasn't sufficiently forthcoming in his speech that they co-wrote a piece for The Washington Post "parsing" it. Without a whiff of disapproval, they said, "This being politics, Obama said less than what he meant. But, that's where we come in." The two then set out Obama's "most quotable lines" and followed each with their "translation of the message he was trying to send."
The writers are obviously sympathetic to Obama's agenda and, as fellow liberals, share his end-justifies-the-means sleight of hand -- whatever it takes to keep this federal juggernaut barreling along. Let's look at just a few of the quotes they highlighted.
Obama said: "I don't care how many ways you try to explain it: Corporations aren't people. People are people." The writers said Obama was responding to Mitt Romney's earlier remark that "corporations are people," and they said Obama intended to send this message: "Romney is the business candidate. I am the people's candidate."
Well, Romney is right. Most corporations (excepting holding companies and the like) are owned and operated by people. But Obama must depersonalize them because it makes his attacks on business seem less personal, which brings us to another point. Obama has denied he is anti-business, but everything about him screams otherwise, and even many of his liberal defenders, from these two writers to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Fareed Zakaria, have been hard-pressed to deny that he either is anti-business or sends unmistakable signals that he is....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
May 5, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "10 Things That Would Be Happening Today If Obama's Policies Were Working"
John Hawkins:
"Barack Obama has "already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined." Yet, despite the fact that he has been campaigning almost non-stop since the 2010 election, aside from trying to steal credit from the SEALs for killing Osama Bin Laden, you very seldom hear Obama talk about his record. This is especially noteworthy because like him or hate him, Obama has passed a lot of legislation. So, if Barack Obama has such an extensive record, why is it that Republicans are the ones that are always talking about it while Obama tries to steer the conversation to anything else? Simple: Obama is a failed President. His policies haven't worked. If Obama had actually produced results, the country would look very different today....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Barack Obama has "already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined." Yet, despite the fact that he has been campaigning almost non-stop since the 2010 election, aside from trying to steal credit from the SEALs for killing Osama Bin Laden, you very seldom hear Obama talk about his record. This is especially noteworthy because like him or hate him, Obama has passed a lot of legislation. So, if Barack Obama has such an extensive record, why is it that Republicans are the ones that are always talking about it while Obama tries to steer the conversation to anything else? Simple: Obama is a failed President. His policies haven't worked. If Obama had actually produced results, the country would look very different today....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
May 1, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "How Romney and Our Republic Can Win (Part 1)"
Chuck Norris:
"Enough talk. The idea is this, and it is not my idea but the action of President Abraham Lincoln.
A book that highlights Lincoln's brilliant action is titled "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. In addition to topping charts and receiving scholarly acclaim, the book itself is political genius and outlines the crucial strategy needed not only to rally the present GOP base but also to win the White House and save our republic. (I also wrote about this unifying strategy in a former column, "The 8th Miracle To Save America," which can be read at http://www.creators.com/opinion/chuck-norris/the-8th-miracle-to-save-america.html.)
Goodwin's prize-winning treatise details how Lincoln brought together his candidate rivals by appointing them to key positions in his administration when he became president.
Let me re-highlight a few critical points from Goodwin's book review in The New York Times:
"The party in the 1860's was a coalition of politicians who only a few years earlier had been Whigs (Lincoln, Seward, Bates), Democrats (Blair, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin), Free Soilers (Chase), or had flirted with the short-lived anti-immigrant American Party, or Know Nothings (Cameron and Bates). In addition, several cabinet members personally disliked each other: Blair and Chase, Seward and Welles, Chase and Seward, Blair and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who replaced Cameron in January 1862. Lincoln's 'political genius' enabled him to herd these political cats and keep them driving toward ultimate victory.
"How did he do it? Goodwin deals with this question better than any other writer. Part of the answer lay in Lincoln's steadfastness of purpose, which inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries. Part of it lay in his superb sense of timing and his sensitivity to the pulse of public opinion as he moved to bring along a divided people to the support of 'a new birth of freedom.' And part of it lay in Lincoln's ability to rise above personal slights, his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other."
Whether you agree with Lincoln or not, his team of rivals worked, propelled his leadership and ultimately unified the country.
Isn't our divided country again ripe for a new "team of rivals," made up of past presidential candidates and other vetted, qualified and esteemed national leaders, rather than merely a dynamic duo fighting the Obama campaign machine?
Lincoln recognized the wisdom of Jesus when it came to collective success: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
The question is this: Will Romney?
Next week, I will not only elaborate more on this concept of a team of rivals and the people I believe should be a part of it but also share the inspiring dream Gena had, which we both hope comes true."
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Enough talk. The idea is this, and it is not my idea but the action of President Abraham Lincoln.
A book that highlights Lincoln's brilliant action is titled "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. In addition to topping charts and receiving scholarly acclaim, the book itself is political genius and outlines the crucial strategy needed not only to rally the present GOP base but also to win the White House and save our republic. (I also wrote about this unifying strategy in a former column, "The 8th Miracle To Save America," which can be read at http://www.creators.com/opinion/chuck-norris/the-8th-miracle-to-save-america.html.)
Goodwin's prize-winning treatise details how Lincoln brought together his candidate rivals by appointing them to key positions in his administration when he became president.
Let me re-highlight a few critical points from Goodwin's book review in The New York Times:
"The party in the 1860's was a coalition of politicians who only a few years earlier had been Whigs (Lincoln, Seward, Bates), Democrats (Blair, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin), Free Soilers (Chase), or had flirted with the short-lived anti-immigrant American Party, or Know Nothings (Cameron and Bates). In addition, several cabinet members personally disliked each other: Blair and Chase, Seward and Welles, Chase and Seward, Blair and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who replaced Cameron in January 1862. Lincoln's 'political genius' enabled him to herd these political cats and keep them driving toward ultimate victory.
"How did he do it? Goodwin deals with this question better than any other writer. Part of the answer lay in Lincoln's steadfastness of purpose, which inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries. Part of it lay in his superb sense of timing and his sensitivity to the pulse of public opinion as he moved to bring along a divided people to the support of 'a new birth of freedom.' And part of it lay in Lincoln's ability to rise above personal slights, his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other."
Whether you agree with Lincoln or not, his team of rivals worked, propelled his leadership and ultimately unified the country.
Isn't our divided country again ripe for a new "team of rivals," made up of past presidential candidates and other vetted, qualified and esteemed national leaders, rather than merely a dynamic duo fighting the Obama campaign machine?
Lincoln recognized the wisdom of Jesus when it came to collective success: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
The question is this: Will Romney?
Next week, I will not only elaborate more on this concept of a team of rivals and the people I believe should be a part of it but also share the inspiring dream Gena had, which we both hope comes true."
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 25, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "Running Without An Agenda For The Next Four years"
Donald Lambro:
"WASHINGTON - President Obama has officially begun his 2012 campaign, telling special interest groups what the government will do for them if he is re-elected to a second term.
But the question many people are asking is, what else is he running on besides government handouts?
What's his second term agenda? What is he planning to do if he wins? He doesn't say.
There is no hint of a grand plan of action dealing with the mountain of unfinished problems he's left behind in the nation's capital as he piles up frequent flyer miles in hot pursuit of his singular goal: becoming a two term president.
His campaign rhetoric thus far gives us no clue that he intends to address the big problems that still need to be fixed. He knows what they are, because polls tell us what America's primary concerns are: a lackluster, slow-growth, sub-par economy, far too few jobs; a monster $1.2 trillion budget deficit, the fourth of his big spending presidency, and a $16 trillion debt by the end of this year.
But Obama isn't talking about a mediocre economy that appears to be slowing down -- again.
And he isn't talking about jobs, or bemoaning the fact that many college grads -- who this week he promised an extension of low interest student loans -- can't find a job that will allow them to pay back the government.
As for the student loan extension Obama is pushing on the campaign trail, it's interesting to note that in 2007 then-Sen. Obama missed two pivotal Senate votes on the bill that created the program.
He's embracing it now because he needs the support of younger voters to save his presidency, but he did not vote for the original bill or on final passage, and didn't bother to sign on as a co- sponsor, according to a report Tuesday by Politico....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"WASHINGTON - President Obama has officially begun his 2012 campaign, telling special interest groups what the government will do for them if he is re-elected to a second term.
But the question many people are asking is, what else is he running on besides government handouts?
What's his second term agenda? What is he planning to do if he wins? He doesn't say.
There is no hint of a grand plan of action dealing with the mountain of unfinished problems he's left behind in the nation's capital as he piles up frequent flyer miles in hot pursuit of his singular goal: becoming a two term president.
His campaign rhetoric thus far gives us no clue that he intends to address the big problems that still need to be fixed. He knows what they are, because polls tell us what America's primary concerns are: a lackluster, slow-growth, sub-par economy, far too few jobs; a monster $1.2 trillion budget deficit, the fourth of his big spending presidency, and a $16 trillion debt by the end of this year.
But Obama isn't talking about a mediocre economy that appears to be slowing down -- again.
And he isn't talking about jobs, or bemoaning the fact that many college grads -- who this week he promised an extension of low interest student loans -- can't find a job that will allow them to pay back the government.
As for the student loan extension Obama is pushing on the campaign trail, it's interesting to note that in 2007 then-Sen. Obama missed two pivotal Senate votes on the bill that created the program.
He's embracing it now because he needs the support of younger voters to save his presidency, but he did not vote for the original bill or on final passage, and didn't bother to sign on as a co- sponsor, according to a report Tuesday by Politico....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 24, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall/Chuck Norris "Soros and Obama vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio"
Chuck Norris:
"...Of course, if you mention the term sheriff at the moment, most thoughts go racing to Arizona and Maricopa County's 20-year sheriff, Joe Arpaio, and his plight with the feds and fight against illegal immigration.
Regardless of the fact that there are a plethora of amazing sheriffs across the country doing incredible work subduing lawbreakers and keeping their counties clean of mischief, the mainstream media, or MSM, are working double time with the federal government to make sure that when you think of sheriffs, the picture painted in your mind is one of runaway renegades -- badged outlaws on the loose.
Despite how you feel about Sheriff Joe's personal conduct, government suspicions or the severity of criminal discipline, there is no doubt that the feds' entanglements into his affairs are a massive overreach of local and state laws and jurisdictions. It is pathetic that President Barack Obama, as well as the entire left-wing progressive establishment, is in a multimillion-dollar smear campaign to discredit and take down Sheriff Joe, as the sheriff's own re-election website proclaims, because he has "led the fight in Arizona against illegal immigration."
Rush Limbaugh was right in recently calling out the MSM's bias against Sheriff Joe in that not a single left-wing news source has reported that the sheriff has received repeated online death threats by an avid Obama supporter. But a year ago, when then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a madman, the MSM were quick to incriminate any right-wing sources, including polemical innuendoes on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's and Limbaugh's websites, for contributing to the killing spree on that dark, tragic Arizona day.
My question is this: If there isn't any credence to the left-wing's demonizing and entrapment of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, then why would billionaire progressive George Soros spend millions of dollars on anti-Arpaio campaigns and pledge millions more to defeat the toughest U.S. sheriff's re-election?..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"...Of course, if you mention the term sheriff at the moment, most thoughts go racing to Arizona and Maricopa County's 20-year sheriff, Joe Arpaio, and his plight with the feds and fight against illegal immigration.
Regardless of the fact that there are a plethora of amazing sheriffs across the country doing incredible work subduing lawbreakers and keeping their counties clean of mischief, the mainstream media, or MSM, are working double time with the federal government to make sure that when you think of sheriffs, the picture painted in your mind is one of runaway renegades -- badged outlaws on the loose.
Despite how you feel about Sheriff Joe's personal conduct, government suspicions or the severity of criminal discipline, there is no doubt that the feds' entanglements into his affairs are a massive overreach of local and state laws and jurisdictions. It is pathetic that President Barack Obama, as well as the entire left-wing progressive establishment, is in a multimillion-dollar smear campaign to discredit and take down Sheriff Joe, as the sheriff's own re-election website proclaims, because he has "led the fight in Arizona against illegal immigration."
Rush Limbaugh was right in recently calling out the MSM's bias against Sheriff Joe in that not a single left-wing news source has reported that the sheriff has received repeated online death threats by an avid Obama supporter. But a year ago, when then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a madman, the MSM were quick to incriminate any right-wing sources, including polemical innuendoes on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's and Limbaugh's websites, for contributing to the killing spree on that dark, tragic Arizona day.
My question is this: If there isn't any credence to the left-wing's demonizing and entrapment of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, then why would billionaire progressive George Soros spend millions of dollars on anti-Arpaio campaigns and pledge millions more to defeat the toughest U.S. sheriff's re-election?..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "Something Rotten in the State"
Pat Buchanan:
"With the number of Secret Service members and agents caught up in the partying-with-prostitutes scandal in Cartagena now at a dozen, and six already gone, how much wider and deeper does this go?
No one can take pleasure in seeing Secret Service agents -- whose deserved reputation is that they will "take a bullet" for the president, his family and all whom they protect -- shamed and disgraced.
Yet one would have to be naive to believe this was some isolated incident. No sooner was the first day's work done in Cartagena than 20 hookers were trooping into the hotel rooms of SS agents, supervisors and members of the military advance team.
And Sen. Charles Grassley asks a relevant question.
As the Secret Service travel and work in close contact with the White House Advance Office and White House Communications Agency, was the Obama staff oblivious to this misconduct? If they were aware of it, did no one report it to the White House chief of staff?
Hostile intelligence services often use "honey traps" to ensnare U.S. diplomats and journalists. Thus this hookers-and-agents scandal is no laughing matter.
And it hit just as we learned that the General Services Administration, purchasing agent for the U.S. government, shelled out $823,000 on a party for 300 employees at a casino-spa in Las Vegas, where the hired entertainment included a mind reader, a clown and a $75,000 bicycle-building exercise.
Jeff Neeley, the GSA western regional commissioner, invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than testify to Congress about what is now being investigated as criminal misconduct.
President Obama's appointee to head GSA, Martha Johnson, has resigned.
Infinitely larger in terms of the tax dollars looted or lost is the Solyndra scandal, where a green technology company favored by the White House went belly up after receiving an endorsement visit from Obama and an astonishing half-billion dollars in federal loan guarantees.
These events all point to a culture of entitlement born of a belief that now that the Democratic Party, the Party of Government, is again running the government, we can "let the good times roll" once more....."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"With the number of Secret Service members and agents caught up in the partying-with-prostitutes scandal in Cartagena now at a dozen, and six already gone, how much wider and deeper does this go?
No one can take pleasure in seeing Secret Service agents -- whose deserved reputation is that they will "take a bullet" for the president, his family and all whom they protect -- shamed and disgraced.
Yet one would have to be naive to believe this was some isolated incident. No sooner was the first day's work done in Cartagena than 20 hookers were trooping into the hotel rooms of SS agents, supervisors and members of the military advance team.
And Sen. Charles Grassley asks a relevant question.
As the Secret Service travel and work in close contact with the White House Advance Office and White House Communications Agency, was the Obama staff oblivious to this misconduct? If they were aware of it, did no one report it to the White House chief of staff?
Hostile intelligence services often use "honey traps" to ensnare U.S. diplomats and journalists. Thus this hookers-and-agents scandal is no laughing matter.
And it hit just as we learned that the General Services Administration, purchasing agent for the U.S. government, shelled out $823,000 on a party for 300 employees at a casino-spa in Las Vegas, where the hired entertainment included a mind reader, a clown and a $75,000 bicycle-building exercise.
Jeff Neeley, the GSA western regional commissioner, invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than testify to Congress about what is now being investigated as criminal misconduct.
President Obama's appointee to head GSA, Martha Johnson, has resigned.
Infinitely larger in terms of the tax dollars looted or lost is the Solyndra scandal, where a green technology company favored by the White House went belly up after receiving an endorsement visit from Obama and an astonishing half-billion dollars in federal loan guarantees.
These events all point to a culture of entitlement born of a belief that now that the Democratic Party, the Party of Government, is again running the government, we can "let the good times roll" once more....."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 23, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "Rationally Green"
Paul Jacob:
"Environmental laws are very human constructs. They are not examples of divine intervention set to doing one thing and one thing only, “saving the environment.” (Indeed, it's a truism of ecology: “You cannot do just one thing.”) There’s been a problem with the laws that came into being right around the first “Earth Day” in 1970. And this original “sin” is getting more and more obvious.
The trouble with environmental legislation in the U.S. has been the will to micromanage. Instead of setting standards (cleaner water, cleaner air) or procedures (property rights, tort rules, standing in pollution cases) the federal government, along with the bulk of the states that piled on, has prohibited some activity or technologies, and mandated others.
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Environmental laws are very human constructs. They are not examples of divine intervention set to doing one thing and one thing only, “saving the environment.” (Indeed, it's a truism of ecology: “You cannot do just one thing.”) There’s been a problem with the laws that came into being right around the first “Earth Day” in 1970. And this original “sin” is getting more and more obvious.
The trouble with environmental legislation in the U.S. has been the will to micromanage. Instead of setting standards (cleaner water, cleaner air) or procedures (property rights, tort rules, standing in pollution cases) the federal government, along with the bulk of the states that piled on, has prohibited some activity or technologies, and mandated others.
This cleaned up some of the worst abuses. But it did so at great cost, and it set up bureaucratic rules doomed to obsolescence. As economist Bruce Yandle puts it,
Students of regulation know there are three types of regulatory instruments that may be used when governments choose to regulate: performance standards that set limits or goals without mandating how the outcomes must be achieved, technology standards that specify how the goal will be achieved, and incentives such as fees, prices, and taxes that put a price on the activity to be limited. . . . Any one of the three can generate a desired outcome, but it is generally agreed that technology standards — the approach mandated by our basic environmental statutes — are the most costly and therefore least effective regulatory choice."(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 17, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "Katie Pavlich's 'Fast and Furious' "
David Limbaugh:
"Pavlich exposes how extreme gun control measures have been a top political goal for President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other important leaders within the administration -- and she draws the lines that link this goal directly to the implementation of Fast and Furious. Just as importantly, she shows how the administration has shamelessly tried to obscure those links.
The operation resulted in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the murder or wounding of some 200 Mexican citizens.
In the operation, there was no attempt to track the weapons sold, and some agents who tried to follow the purchasers were told to stand down. Not only that, but our government kept Mexican authorities wholly in the dark about the operation. Allowing these guns to "walk" into Mexico without surveillance and behind the backs of Mexican authorities guaranteed they would end up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and only be recovered after crimes had been committed, which is exactly what occurred.
As one ATF agent testified to Congress, "you can't allow thousands of guns to go south of the border without an expectation that they are going to be recovered eventually in crimes and people are going to die."...." Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Pavlich exposes how extreme gun control measures have been a top political goal for President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other important leaders within the administration -- and she draws the lines that link this goal directly to the implementation of Fast and Furious. Just as importantly, she shows how the administration has shamelessly tried to obscure those links.
The operation resulted in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the murder or wounding of some 200 Mexican citizens.
In the operation, there was no attempt to track the weapons sold, and some agents who tried to follow the purchasers were told to stand down. Not only that, but our government kept Mexican authorities wholly in the dark about the operation. Allowing these guns to "walk" into Mexico without surveillance and behind the backs of Mexican authorities guaranteed they would end up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and only be recovered after crimes had been committed, which is exactly what occurred.
As one ATF agent testified to Congress, "you can't allow thousands of guns to go south of the border without an expectation that they are going to be recovered eventually in crimes and people are going to die."...." Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 16, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "ALEC’s Rich States, Poor States"
Chris Edwards:
"The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released the fifth edition of its “Rich States, Poor States” report yesterday. For fiscal wonks the report is a fun read, as it is chock full of tax and economic comparisons between the 50 states.
The first part of the report is a “Supply Side 101” lesson on the advantages of low marginal tax rates and the mobility of labor and capital. One point that policymakers often overlook is that a high tax rate on one tax base tends to shrink not just that tax base, but other tax bases as well. Thus, high income tax rates shrink reported incomes, and in turn that shrinks both income and payroll tax bases. Similarly, high corporate income tax rates shrink the corporate tax base and the individual and payroll tax bases as corporate investment, hiring, and wage growth are reduced...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released the fifth edition of its “Rich States, Poor States” report yesterday. For fiscal wonks the report is a fun read, as it is chock full of tax and economic comparisons between the 50 states.
The first part of the report is a “Supply Side 101” lesson on the advantages of low marginal tax rates and the mobility of labor and capital. One point that policymakers often overlook is that a high tax rate on one tax base tends to shrink not just that tax base, but other tax bases as well. Thus, high income tax rates shrink reported incomes, and in turn that shrinks both income and payroll tax bases. Similarly, high corporate income tax rates shrink the corporate tax base and the individual and payroll tax bases as corporate investment, hiring, and wage growth are reduced...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 13, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "In Battle for Young Voters, Romney Should Play it Uncool"
Jonah Goldberg:
"...Obama was different. He had that cool name. He was black. He'd never done much that was important, save give some fun speeches, but that was OK; neither had most college students, and that didn't keep them from being special either. More important, they believed his promises, they liked his style, they bought his easy answers and flattering pandering.
Four years later, Obama's in trouble, which is why he's visiting college campuses more often than a Red Bull delivery truck. He's talking louder and getting more shrill, because his campaign knows how desperately it needs to replicate -- or even come close to replicating -- his success with the youth vote in 2008. Polls and countless news stories indicate that young voters are either bored, unimpressed or disappointed with Obama, and with the state of the country.
All of the exciting reasons to vote for Obama are gone. Even his accomplishments don't excite people, never mind his failures. His "Yes, we can" rhetoric is gone because it sounds stupid after four years of "No, we didn't." Now we get cynicism and fear-mongering. His attacks on the Republicans are tawdry and desperate. He even admits the "Buffett Rule" is a gimmick. Other issues like green energy are passé now, even though gas prices continue to soar. (A troubling sign for Obama: Only a third of hybrid car owners are interested in ever getting another after they get rid of the one they have.)
Obama's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds hovers around 50 percent (after almost a year of bad press for the GOP). But a late 2011 Harvard survey found that only 12 percent of young people felt the country was moving in the right direction. An outfit called Generation Opportunity, which is trying to organize young voters on economic issues, finds that 77 percent of young people have had to put their lives on hold because of the economy....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"...Obama was different. He had that cool name. He was black. He'd never done much that was important, save give some fun speeches, but that was OK; neither had most college students, and that didn't keep them from being special either. More important, they believed his promises, they liked his style, they bought his easy answers and flattering pandering.
Four years later, Obama's in trouble, which is why he's visiting college campuses more often than a Red Bull delivery truck. He's talking louder and getting more shrill, because his campaign knows how desperately it needs to replicate -- or even come close to replicating -- his success with the youth vote in 2008. Polls and countless news stories indicate that young voters are either bored, unimpressed or disappointed with Obama, and with the state of the country.
All of the exciting reasons to vote for Obama are gone. Even his accomplishments don't excite people, never mind his failures. His "Yes, we can" rhetoric is gone because it sounds stupid after four years of "No, we didn't." Now we get cynicism and fear-mongering. His attacks on the Republicans are tawdry and desperate. He even admits the "Buffett Rule" is a gimmick. Other issues like green energy are passé now, even though gas prices continue to soar. (A troubling sign for Obama: Only a third of hybrid car owners are interested in ever getting another after they get rid of the one they have.)
Obama's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds hovers around 50 percent (after almost a year of bad press for the GOP). But a late 2011 Harvard survey found that only 12 percent of young people felt the country was moving in the right direction. An outfit called Generation Opportunity, which is trying to organize young voters on economic issues, finds that 77 percent of young people have had to put their lives on hold because of the economy....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "What Goes Around"
Oliver North:
"This week's "cease-fire," brokered by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, hasn't stopped Syrian refugees from trekking through the Syrian Desert and across the border into Qaim. Deterred by harsh conditions, lack of fuel and inadequate food and water and banned by the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki from going any farther, they have become unwelcome squatters in the border town that once served as a refuge for terrorists.
The brutal irony in all this is that many of those who once passed through Qaim to threaten the government in Baghdad are now among the armed rebels menacing the regime in Damascus. For six years, Bashar Assad was deaf to U.S. pleas to cut the terror ratlines from Syria into Iraq. Instead, he did the opposite -- facilitating the movement of thousands of Islamist fighters into Anbar province to kill and maim.
Now those same Islamists have turned on him, and he is learning one of the harsh realities of war: What goes around comes around....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"This week's "cease-fire," brokered by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, hasn't stopped Syrian refugees from trekking through the Syrian Desert and across the border into Qaim. Deterred by harsh conditions, lack of fuel and inadequate food and water and banned by the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki from going any farther, they have become unwelcome squatters in the border town that once served as a refuge for terrorists.
The brutal irony in all this is that many of those who once passed through Qaim to threaten the government in Baghdad are now among the armed rebels menacing the regime in Damascus. For six years, Bashar Assad was deaf to U.S. pleas to cut the terror ratlines from Syria into Iraq. Instead, he did the opposite -- facilitating the movement of thousands of Islamist fighters into Anbar province to kill and maim.
Now those same Islamists have turned on him, and he is learning one of the harsh realities of war: What goes around comes around....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 11, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Town Hall "The Benign and Benevolant President Obama? "
Chuck Norris:
"In my column two weeks ago, "Not All Presidential Orders Are Created Equal," I discussed some specifics in President Barack Obama's March 16 executive order, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," and how it is a completely audacious overreach of presidential power, especially enacting peacetime martial law.
Here I will discuss why analysts are wrong for simply overlooking it as a benign order similar to other presidents' orders.
I finished two weeks ago by saying that whether in preparation for war (for example, with Iran) or any other national emergency, the federal government does not have the authority to take over our food and water supply, energy supplies (including oil and natural gas), technology, industry, manufacturing, transportation, health care facilities, etc.
And taking the additional preliminary steps for enacting martial law even during a time of peace is an unprecedented and reckless abuse of executive power. As Alex Jones' Prison Planet explained, "a key addition to the language made by Obama is that all these industries and means of production can be seized 'under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.'"
This presidential order is another sweeping power grab in a long and dangerous legacy of presidential overreaches. Our Founding Fathers never would have allowed it, and we shouldn't, either.
As James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," explained, "the operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"In my column two weeks ago, "Not All Presidential Orders Are Created Equal," I discussed some specifics in President Barack Obama's March 16 executive order, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," and how it is a completely audacious overreach of presidential power, especially enacting peacetime martial law.
Here I will discuss why analysts are wrong for simply overlooking it as a benign order similar to other presidents' orders.
I finished two weeks ago by saying that whether in preparation for war (for example, with Iran) or any other national emergency, the federal government does not have the authority to take over our food and water supply, energy supplies (including oil and natural gas), technology, industry, manufacturing, transportation, health care facilities, etc.
And taking the additional preliminary steps for enacting martial law even during a time of peace is an unprecedented and reckless abuse of executive power. As Alex Jones' Prison Planet explained, "a key addition to the language made by Obama is that all these industries and means of production can be seized 'under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.'"
This presidential order is another sweeping power grab in a long and dangerous legacy of presidential overreaches. Our Founding Fathers never would have allowed it, and we shouldn't, either.
As James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," explained, "the operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)