Archive for January, 2012

Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)

January 31, 2012

When I left for my evening walk, we were all waiting for the outcome of the Florida primary with varying degrees of bated breath.

I, for one, had a VERY low degree of bated breath.

I’m looking at two very flawed candidates taking the biggest axe-swipes at one another they possibly can.  Romney won Florida primarily because – due to his millions in super pac money – he had a bigger axe.

Romney’s super pacs outspent Gingrich’s by more than 4-1.  And while 82% of Gingrich’s pac ads were negative compared to 12% positive, fully 100% of Romney’s pac ads were negative.  Gingrich, on the other hand, is viscerally angry about Mitt Romney lying about him while he lies about the guy whose lies he’s complaining about.

In my own blogging, I have to deal with a version of this dilemma: to be mean or not to be mean, that is the question.

Having watched Democrats be vile for, well, for my entire lifetime, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can either join them or get beat by them.  If your enemy fire bombs your cities and shells your troops with poison gas, you either fire bomb their cities and use poison gas on their troops, or you surrender and hope that the people who practice total war on you won’t put make the slave yokes too tight around your necks.

Here’s where I’m going with that: I routinely have pointed out incredibly hateful things that Democrats have said about Republicans.  But in every single occasion, my issue wasn’t about “Democrats being hateful”; it was rather about “hypocritical Democrats who demonize Republicans as being hateful are themselves incredibly hateful.” I don’t expect Democrats to do anything OTHER than practice hate; it’s simply who they are at their demagogic and hypocritical cores.  Which is to say that I’m not attacking Democrats for their hate, but rather for their abject hypocrisy.

Both Gingrich and Romney are hypocrites, in that both – in their own words and in the words of their ads – routinely attack the other for his lies even while he himself is lying about the opponent whose lies he is attacking.  And I don’t care for that entrenched hypocrisy one bit.

Obama – the man both men are hoping to face – is the grand master of ALL hypocrites, of course.  This is a guy who has routinely deceitfully portrayed himself as “transcending” the political language of anger and blame while he himself has done more of both than ANY president who has ever “occupied” the White House.

Then there’s the “I’m the true conservative and my opponent is a moderate/liberal” thing.

Hey, Newt and Mitt: YOU BOTH HAVE ALL KINDS OF BETRAYAL OF CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO ANSWER FOR

Mitt Romney clearly had an incredibly liberal “Republican” record as governor of Massachusetts that Gingrich can attack.  The problem for Gingrich is that he actually ENDORSED the worst of that record (RomneyCare), took over a million dollars from the detestable liberal creation a.k.a. Fannie Mae, sat on a love seat couch with Nancy Pelosi in mutual agreement about global warming, demonized free market enterprise with Bain Capital, and that sort of thing.

Neither one of these guys is a true conservative looking back; and the only question is which one would be more conservative if they actually got into the White House.

Now, it comes down to this for me: who is truly more likely to defeat Obama if he gets the Republican nomination.  And the answer is: I have absolutely no idea.

The Republican establishment and the mainstream media are agreed that Mitt Romney is the guy with the best chance of beating Obama.  But guess what?  I don’t particularly trust the former and I actively despise the latter.

I DO know that the night that Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to clinch the Republican nomination, the Carter campaign team toasted champagne.  Because Bush then was “the man most likely to defeat Carter” and Reagan was “the man who would lose in a landslide.”  And of course history reveals that Reagan took that champagne bottle and shoved it right up ….  Well, you get the idea.

That said, I also know a couple of contradictory things: I know, for example, that winning a campaign largely means raising massive money.  Romney beat Gingrich in Florida largely because he was able to outspend Gingrich by a 4-1 margin.  And of course what will be the margin of Obama who is going to be able to extort a billion dollars from his crony capitalist and union special interests?  Wouldn’t the same Gingrich who is bitterly complaining about Mitt Romney attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads be complaining about Barack Obama attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads?

And I also know that Mitt Romney has all of the charisma and excitement of the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, and Newt Gingrich is a guy who is capable of both fiery debate and oratory and the simple ability to fire up passion.

Which is more likely to win in November?  I don’t know.  I wish I could have seen a candidate who was capable of both.

So here I am, watching the Republican primary process unravel like sheer torture.  And I have absolutely no idea who to root for.

To continue, from my perspective, what I am watching is the worst possible scenario that the Republican nomination could have degenerated into.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have both publicly gone on the record as saying all of this is just wonderful and they hope the chainsaw fight will go one and on and on for as long as possible.

They might be right and I wrong, given the fact that both are far more politically accomplished than I’ll ever be.  But I cannot understand how.

I hate to introduce conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go UP when Democrats win.  And nothing would be better for Limbaugh’s career than Obama getting re-elected.  It is far easier to rip on a guy from the other party running things than it is to have to defend your guy’s policies.  As for Sarah Palin, she’s not running this year, but she might well run next time: and she sure would rather run against Obama’s cataclysmically failed record in 2016 than have to potentially wait until 2020 for her own shot at the title.

I hope I’m not right about their motivations, because I genuinely respect both Limbaugh and Palin.  But it remains a simple fact that the best thing that could happen for either of them professionally would be an Obama victory.

If one candidate could emerge, a few things would happen (all of them good, IMHO): 1) we could finally get to the case against Obama rather than the case against Romney or the case against Gingrich; 2) the Republican nominee could actually raise money for the war against Obama’s billion dollars rather than raising money to attack the other Republican(s) in the primary fight; 3) the attacks by Romney against Gingrich or Gingrich against Romney that Obama will be able to replay in his own hatefest would at least be lessened if the mud wrestling match ended now.

One last thing: I haven’t got involved in the slug fest (and I mean “slug” as much in the sense of “slimy crawling insect” as “punch-throwing”) because I genuinely believe in Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment that Republicans shouldn’t attack each other the way we’re seeing.  But I have watched other conservative blog sites such as Free Republic squander their credibility by (in the example of Free Republic) first picking Sarah Palin and viscerally attacking anybody who wasn’t Sarah Palin – including Newt Gingrich – and then picking Newt Gingrich and viscerally attacking Mitt Romney.  And my question is what will that site be worth to conservatives if Mitt Romney wins?

I am angry at the terrible Obama regime that has actually been WORSE than the terrible presidency I feared.  And I write with that sense of anger at what Obama has done to my country.  But one thing I can tell you about me is that I don’t WANT to be angry.  I WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE and I want to see our country governed by policies that would at least forestall the collapse that Obama’s ruinous regime set into motion.  But I am convinced that there are conservatives who truly hate Obama and who feel empowered by that hatred and anger [liberals had the same unhinged hatred for Bush, fwiw].  And my question is are these conservatives unconsciously setting up Obama for victory so they can go on hating him.

For my own part, I plan to be done with political blogging one way or another after November.  If Obama wins, America truly deserves what it is going to get.  Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s reverend and spiritual advisor for over twenty years – prophetically said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  And “God damn America” was what the American people voted for in 2008.  If they want more God damn America, I’m washing my hands.  Jeremiah 11:14 says: “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.”  And that would be exactly where America would fall (And I DO mean “America will fall”).  On the other hand, if Romney or Gingrich wins, I simply can’t see myself enthusiastically defending their administrations against the onslaught of the newest version of liberal “Bush derangement syndrome.”

Bottom line: one way or another, I’m going to lay my political hatchet down and start writing as an evangelical Christian trying to warn as many as will listen about the soon-coming last days.  Because one way or another, the beast of Revelation is coming.  And if Obama wins, his coming will be hastened all the more.

Don’t think for a second that I won’t drag myself off of my deathbed (hopefully it won’t come to that!) to vote for the Republican nominee, be it Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or ???.  But as I watch the primary drag out, I’m shaking my head with disgust rather than nodding it in enthusiasm.

Democrats Want The Obama Road To Economic Implosion; I Want A Reagan Recovery

January 31, 2012

The following article does a great job in ramming home just how miserable Obama has been for the economy versus how wonderful Reagan was for the country.

In fact, the information contained probably explains why Reagan is considered “the greatest president in American history” and Obama is “the most polarizing president in American history” (both as measured by Gallup).

So do you want to recover or do you want another Obama term of abject failure?

The $1.2 Tril Gap: Obama’s Subpar Recovery Continues
Posted 06:50 PM ET

 

Economy: The latest economic data make it clear that President Obama’s policies aren’t helping the country get stronger. Rather, they’re smothering what should have been a solid recovery.

Real GDP climbed a less-than-expected 2.8% in final quarter of 2011, and just 1.7% for the entire year, down from 3% in 2010. The trend of subpar growth under Obama continues.

To get a better sense of how bad Obama’s recovery is, consider this: Under Obama, real GDP has climbed a total of just 6% in the two-and-a-half years since the recession ended in June 2009.

By comparison, real GDP had grown 16% by this point in the Reagan recovery, after the very deep and painful 1981-82 recession.

Had Obama’s recovery been as powerful as Reagan’s, the economic pie would be $1.2 trillion bigger today.

And had job growth under Obama kept pace with job growth during the Reagan recovery, there would be 10 million — yes 10 million — more people with jobs today.

So what explains the difference between these two recoveries? Obama and his legion of liberal defenders claim the last recession was so deep that we’re just now getting back on our feet.

Plus, they claim that a financial crisis invariably causes a slow recovery.

Neither excuse holds water. First, the 1981-82 recession was almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months), and as deep (unemployment was actually higher, peaking at 10.8% in that earlier recession).

But even that didn’t stop a rip-roaring comeback.

Second, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta report found: “U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007-2008.”

Plus, nobody at the time expected the Reagan recovery to be as fast and as powerful as it was.

So what’s different? The presidents’ policies.

Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector.

Obama’s approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan’s approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations “has never worked” to spur growth.

Obama might think the U.S. is “getting stronger,” as he put it in his State of the Union speech, and maybe it is, a little. But if he keeps choking it with his misguided policies, it will never be as strong as it could be, or should be.

It strikes even me as strange to conclude one article by producing the opening paragraphs of another, but I wrote this about what Ronald Reagan accomplished a couple of years ago:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

And the only thing that could truly destroy the fruit of Reagan’s policies was the coming of another Jimmy Carter.

And of course that’s exactly what we got in this turd:

Obama obviously has no solution to anything but trying to get himself re-elected so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America into a failed socialist banana republic.

Obama, The Angry President Who Is Angry For All The Wrong Reasons And None Of The Right Ones

January 31, 2012

Recently Obama did an interview with ABC to manage the flap created by his run-in with Governor Jan Brewster of Arizona – which ended with Obama storming off with the governor in mid-sentence.

Instead of answering the direct question (which was basically, “Are you thin-skinned?”), Obama punted to this:

“I’m usually accused of not being intense enough, right,” he told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, laughing. “Too relaxed.”

Well, let me assure you of something: I’VE sure never called Obama “too relaxed.”  I’VE sure never called him “No Drama Obama.”  In fact, the reason I write this blog is to try to document the incessant never-ending drama and histrionics that constitutes the Obama presidency.  Every day is a fresh, new outrage.

The man who is “the most polarizing president in American history” is hardly “too relaxed.”  You just don’t get to be “the most polarizing president in American history” by being “too relaxed.”

A partial list of reasons why I openly mock the “No Drama Obama” bullcrap of “I’m usually accused of not being intense enough” appears below:

Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Chairman Obama
Bring it on”- Obama Regime to The American People.
Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Obama
I want all Americans to get in each others faces!” – Obama
You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama
Republicans are our enemies“–Obama
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
the Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” ” – Beer Summit Gaffe Leader

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/commenter?id=4d2ba389ccd1d58425050000#ixzz1l0CejqKX

So I thought it was interesting to learn a little more about this incredibly angry man who inhabits our White House rather like a Chicago thug.  And here’s a triad from the Orange County Register’s Mark Landsbaum:

Obama the Angry
January 25th, 2012, 3:49 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

During the State of the Union speech last night we had the TV turned up very loud so I could hear the speech while following along in the released transcript on my computer screen and taking notes at the keyboard while simultaneously roughing a draft of our editorial today.

Let him make this perfectly clear…

During the 65 minutes he spoke, I developed something of a headache.

It seemed to me the president virtually shouted his entire speech. I though that maybe it was the louder-than-normal TV volume. But all the same, it seemed as if the guy was, how should I put it? Angry.

Now, given what he had to work with, stupefying unemployment, a dead-in-the-water cap-and-trade scheme, a soon-to-be-ruled unconstitutional ObamaCare, an economy that’s doing an excellent imitation of a recession and the likelihood of losing not just his support in Congress, but his own job, I can understand why the president might be a bit on edge.

Then this afternoon I clicked on to one of our favorite items, James Taranto’s Best of the Web column in the Wall Street Journal. And what did he have to say?

“This guy is angry.”

Maybe it wasn’t just the TV volume.

Considering that the SOTU speech essentially marks the beginning of Obama’s reelection campaign, what does this portend for the campaign trail as the president ratchets up his mood and voice another notch every time he is greeted with underwhelming response? He could be hoarse by June.

How about voters?

We don’t know about you, but there is little in politics that turned us off as did Al Gore’s pretentious and pompous tone, or Hillary’s fingernail-scraping shrillness. Little, that is, until we got 65 minutes of Obama’s screaming, ranting performance last night.

And:

Obama the Angry, part II
January 27th, 2012, 4:54 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

We normally don’t comment on blogs in the neighborhood, but this one was too sweet to ignore. Some fella named Prevatt over at some blog called TheLiberalOC.com took exception to our characterization of the angry fellow in the White House as being, well, angry.

Our post was titled “Obama the Angry,” for reasons pretty much apparent to anyone with ears to hear. But Mr. Prevatt said that we went on, “to promote the stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president’s” State of the Union speech.

Stereotype of an angry black man?

We checked and sure enough, we didn’t identify the man in the White House by his race. Which means once again the Angry Left has jumped to the conclusion that any unflattering characterization of Obama must be rooted in something racial.

What we did, of course, was simply identify an angry man.

Perhaps “an angry black man” fits some stereotype of Barack Obama held by Mr. Prevatt. After all, it was he not we who drew the inference of stereotype.

For our part, we think Barack Obama is much different than any stereotype. We find him almost singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced and, well, angry. Particularly so for a president. In fact, he couldn’t in any way be described as stereotypical. We’ll give him that. He’s definitely one of a kind.

Let’s reiterate here, just in case someone other than Mr. Prevatt is reading this. It was Mr. Prevatt who invoked the “stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president.” Not us.

As it happens, we also had alluded in that blog post and linked to the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto column, headlined “The State of the Union Is Angry.” Lo and behold, it was another characterization of the president as being angry during his speech. Taranto, like us, also didn’t mention race.

Have you noticed how often the Angry Left finds race and racism in, well, in just about everything? And have you noticed how we (and Mr. Taranto too) never seem to? Why is that?

But we digress. Taranto actually has written recently on this tendency of the Angry Left to see the world through racial lenses. Check here for a sample in his recent column, The Genetic Fallacy. In that column Taranto offers interesting insights into why the Left does what it does. It’s rooted in “a new kind of inequality that developed in the wake of the civil rights revolution, defined by Shelby Steele in his brilliant 2006 book, ‘White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era’.”

We put it another way. We call it projection, the defense mechanism in which a person transfers or projects his feelings onto another person. We think there’s a lot of this among the Angry Left.

Feelings of white guilt result in projection by Angry Leftists of their own failings and shortcomings onto their opponents.

Anyway. We found Mr. Prevatt’s blog transparently so. But what are you gonna do?

We’re not even going to complain that Mr. Prevatt referred to us by our first name, something we find just a tad presumptuous from a stranger, and for the record we can’t ever remember shaking the hand of anyone named Prevatt, let along being friends with one, although we wouldn’t rule that out, provided he stops projecting onto us.

And we aren’t going to make too much of Mr. Prevatt’s rather crude suggestion that “Mark, try … investing in a hearing aide,” or make a big deal about him misspelling it.

This Prevatt fellow may not even know that our otolaryngologist diagnosed yours truly to have substantial hearing loss in both ears, so Mr. Prevatt probably didn’t mean to be crude or rude. That may just be the way he is.

But to clarify, the reason we turned up the TV volume to listen to the president’s speech had nothing to do with our somewhat impaired hearing, which actually doesn’t require a hearing aid. It was because we were typing at the keyboard in THE NEXT ROOM.

We don’t doubt that even Mr. Prevatt may strain when it comes to listening to a television from another room.

But be all that as it may, let’s deal briefly with whether Taranto and we correctly identify the president as an angry person, whatever color he may be. Google for yourself the words “angry” and “Obama.”

Here is just a sampling with our emphases:

“Obama’s gracious tone has diminished almost by the hour since his election. He snipes at the American people for not being smart enough to get how smart his plans for them are. He blames others for his failings. Bush, Congress, rich people, even poor people.”

The Washington Post’s headline Friday: “Obama exchange with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer reveals his testy side.” Oh those stereotyping guys at the Post.

Writes Michelle Malkin: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said, “He was a little disturbed about my book.” Then “In the shadow of Air Force One, Obama complained that Brewer hadn’t “treated him cordially,” and then stalked off while she was responding mid-sentence.”

Recall this one? “Angry Obama walks out on debt-limit talks” By S.A. MILLER, New York Post Correspondent.

And this account: “…Cantor explained, the president became ‘very agitated’ and said he had ‘sat here long enough’… Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.’ He then ‘shoved back’ and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’.”

Then there was this Washington Post account last week by David Nakamura and Rachel Weiner, not exactly card-carrying Tea Partiers: “AURORA, Colo. — President Obama’s raw exchange with the governor of Arizona on an airport tarmac this week did more than overshadow his carefully stage-managed road trip to trumpet his State of the Union goals. The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as ‘no-drama Obama,’ reviving criticism that he is unwilling to be second-guessed — or to even entertain another point of view.”

Testy” was the reporters’ characterization. Reporters from the left-leaning Post.

Brewer later told reporters “He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least.”

Oh we could go on. And on. But that would be sort of like, well, piling on. And we don’t want to make him angry, so we’ll let it go at that.

But testy. Angry. Yelling his speeches?

These are signs of a guy who is frustrated and can’t seem to make things work the way that he wants them to. That’s because things don’t work that way. He’s not organizing the illiterate unemployed in Chicago slums. He’s trying to deal with some of the most argumentative and experienced political animals on the planet.

Did we mention inexperience and ineptness?

When others complain, he has no solution but to figuratively stomp his feet and blame them for not getting it. On a couple of levels he’s right. They don’t get the money that used to belong to them but thanks to Obama redistribution logic now is handed to someone else.

They also don’t get how that’s supposed to benefit anyone except the cronies who walk off with the dough.

Such a degree of frustration with people who don’t get it is enough to make any singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced person angry. Whatever color he may be.

And:

Obama the Angry, part III
January 30th, 2012, 1:51 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

Nah, he’s not an angry guy. Not much.

We no sooner observe how the Hothead in Chief gets snippy at the slightest provocation than another incident comes to the fore to verify that this president is out of his league. Criticisms and things that don’t go his way seem to have a disproportionate effect. The guy loses his cool. And we had such hope. Oh well, another change unanticipated.

According to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, after the Gulf oil spill the president visited.

“He grabs me by the arm, takes me aside,” Jindal said, “Here’s the strange thing … I thought he’d be angry about the oil spill, the lack of resources; I thought he’d get down there and say, look governor, we’re going to do everything we can to work together. Instead, he was upset he was going to look bad; he was worried about some routine letter we had already sent to his administration, nothing important.”

The reaction shocked Jindal.

“I was amazed at two things: one, that he was mad about the wrong things, and two, that he was so thin-skinned.” In a time of crisis, Jindal said the last thing he wanted or expected was for the president to stage what was “clearly a media stunt. I wanted him to be the president of the country, and instead he was playing political theatrics.”

Why’s this guy so angry? Why’s his threshold so low?

It’s because he’s been in over his head from Day 1. He’s never managed anything more robust than a political campaign, and even then not all that many of them.

The only reason you’ve kept hearing about “No Drama Obama” is because the mainstream media is the most dishonest since Joseph Goebbels and TASS were in business.

Experts Point Out 2011 Ended In Empty Hype That Economy Will Pay For In 2012

January 31, 2012

Has the economy turned around?

Don’t bet on it (and note that this is MSNBC, not Fox News):

Unsold goods weigh on future economic growth
By John W. Schoen, Senior Producer

The U.S. economy perked up late last year as hiring accelerated and factories ramped up production. Unfortunately, a lot of what those factories made is still sitting in warehouses and on store shelves.

That doesn’t bode well for growth in the coming months.

At first blush, the numbers posted by the Commerce Department for gross domestic product in the last three months of 2011 looked strong. Overall growth advanced by 2.8 percent on an annual basis, a little weaker than economists had expected based on a series of other positive economic reports. That was much better than the 1.8 percent pace in the third quarter and the best showing since the second quarter of 2010.

But much of the fourth quarter growth came from businesses restocking inventories, which swelled by $56.0 billion, adding nearly 2 percentage points to GDP growth. The so-called ”final sales” number, which tracks how much was actually sold, rose a meager 0.8 percent.

“The pickup in GDP growth doesn’t look half as good when you realize that most of it was due to inventory accumulation,” said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics. “Despite the apparent improvement in some of the incoming economic data, it still looks like … another disappointing year.”

Ashworth is among a number of private economists who see the fourth quarter growth spurt easing this year. He expects to see U.S. GDP advance by just 1.5 percent in 2012.

Federal Reserve officials echoed that prediction this week, though they’re a bit more optimistic. The central bank is looking for growth of 2.7 percent in 2012, but the latest forecast was trimmed by two-tenths of a percentage point. The Fed expects unemployment to drop as low as 8.2 percent by the end of the year.

Vote: Will the economy continue to accelerate?

The lowered growth forecast prompted central bankers to extend their pledge to keep interest rates at or near zero for another year; they now expect to hold rates at rock bottom until at least 2014 to try to encourage businesses and consumers to borrow and spend more money.

Business investment slowed sharply in the fourth quarter after heavy spending earlier last year.

Consumers continued to do their part; consumer spending grew at a 2 percent annual rate, up a bit from the third quarter. Car sales zoomed ahead as the average age of the cars and light trucks on the road hit record levels. The replacement of those worn-out vehicles helped boost car sales by 14.8 percent.

Consumers are feeling a bit better about the outlook for the economy. A separate report Friday showed the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index edging up for the fourth straight month. But the level of confidence remains weak.

“Despite the rise, this and other confidence measures remain in recession territory due to global sovereign debt fear, Congressional dysfunction, and high food and energy prices,” said economist Mike Englund at Action Economics

Consumers have also fallen back on car loans and credit cards to maintain their spending. Consumer borrowing jumped by $20.4 billion in November, the Federal Reserve said Monday. That was the third straight increase and the largest monthly gain in a decade. Consumers have boosted borrowing in 13 of the past 14 months.

The gradual improvement in the job market may explain some of the rise in borrowing. But many households are also leaning harder on debt because their wages are rising as fast as the price of the goods and services they need to buy.

A breakdown of the fourth quarter GDP numbers, with Mark Olson, Treliant Risk Advisors co-chairman/former Fed governor; CNBC’s Steve Liesman & Rick Santelli

Personal incomes rose at an 0.8 percent annual rate, according to Friday’s GDP report, after falling for the last two quarters. Consumer prices are climbing at an annual rate of 3 percent, according to the latest government data.

Much of that spending appears to represent people buying goods, not services. That’s a sign that households are sticking to necessities, according to Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors.

“The clearest sign that households remain cautious was in services spending,” he said. “This is the largest component of consumer demand and it fairly budged. People are not yet comfortable buying the little luxuries in life.”

With consumers tapped out and cautious, the economy faces other headwinds in the coming year. The housing industry remains stuck in the worst recession since the 1930s. A separate report Friday showed that the pace of new home sales fell in December, making 2011 the worst sales year since the Commerce Department first began collecting the data in 1963. Sales in December fell to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 307,000 – less than half the 700,000 that economists say represents a healthy pace.

Slack sales have forced builders to slash prices, which has kept many would-be buyers on the fence until they see signs that the market has bottomed. The median sales prices for new homes dropped in December by 2.5 percent to $210,300.

Though ultra-low mortgage rates have made home buying more affordable than it has been in decades, mortgage bankers remain very choosy about to whom they’ll lend. Some 12 million potential “move-up” buyers are stuck with mortgages that are bigger than their homes are worth.

Growth in the fourth quarter was also held back by big cuts in government spending, which lopped 0.9 percent from fourth-quarter GDP. That belt-tightening will likely continue.

Why did we have all of this extra manufacturing?  For the same reason that Charlie Brown tried to kick the football again: somebody (in this case the mainstream media) lied to them and told them everything was looking just peachy when it really wasn’t.

We saw the same exact thing happen last year: the media assured us that happy times were here again (because the same media that unceasingly demonizes the economy in any Republican administration unceasingly exalts it in any Democrat one) in the 4th quarter of 2010.  And then suddenly it wasn’t the Holiday Season anymore and things went back to sucking.

Let’s look at a couple of facts a little more closely, beginning with the fact that as Obama begins his fourth year, the housing market that collapsed in 2008 to kill the economy is WORSE than it HAS EVER BEEN:

New home purchases fall, making 2011 worst year ever for sales
Associated Press
Thursday, January 26th 2012, 12:11 PM

Fewer people bought new homes in December. The decline made 2011 the worst year for new-homes sales on records dating back nearly half a century.
 
The Commerce Department said Thursday new-home sales fell 2.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 307,000. The pace is less than half the 700,000 that economists say must be sold in a healthy economy.
 
About 302,000 new homes were sold last year. That’s less than the 323,000 sold in 2010, making last year’s sales the worst on records dating back to 1963. And it coincides with a report last week that said 2011 was the weakest year for single-family home construction on record.
 
The median sales prices for new homes dropped in December to $210,300. Builders continued to slash price to stay competitive in the depressed market.

And what about 2012?

Housing Prices Will Bottom in 2012: Freddie Mac
By Shanthi Bharatwaj 12/14/11 – 04:33 PM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Housing prices are likely to move lower and bottom out in 2012 with modest appreciation likely in 2013, Freddie Mac(FMCC.OB) Chief Economist Frank Nothaft said in his outlook on Wednesday.

The Freddie Mac Housing Price Index is forecast to dip by 1% in 2012, marking the sixth consecutive year of declines. The index is expected to move higher by 2% in 2013.
 
The economist said in his report that national indexes masked sizable variation in local house-price performance. “Some markets have appreciated over the past year and are likely to gain further in 2012, while those markets with higher vacancy rates and relatively large distressed sales will continue to see downward price pressure over the next year.”

Anybody who says Obama “fixed” the economy is a liar or an idiot or a lying idiot.  Because it was the housing bubble’s bursting that blew up the economy in 2008 – and the man hasn’t done a damn thing to fix it.

As for inflation, Obama has been like a curse from an angry old gypsy lady who pointed a finger at us and said, “You will vote for a fool to eat your wealth like a cancer!”

Food prices have skyrocketed. 

Fuel prices have skyrocketed.

Another “worst”: Gasoline prices were the worst over the year 2011 of any year IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

The Obama economic record is a very ugly thing indeed:

And as I have previously pointed out:

Barack Obama is destroying the middle class before our very eyes even as he incessantly claims to be the one standing up for the very middle class that he is destroying.

Under Obama, poverty has soared to its highest rate EVER in the entire 52 years that the Census Bureau has tracked it.

Under Obama, the misery index is at its highest rate EVER.

85% of the small business America depends on to create jobs and build the economy are terrified of Obama and his idiotic policies.

Obama’s reverend and spiritual mentor prophetically anticipated an Obama presidency when he screamed:

“No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

Hopefully you’ve had your fill of God damn America.

Tracking Image

The Inconvenient Truth About The Lilly White Occupy Wall Street Movement And The Media Propaganda That Ignores Truth Altogether

January 30, 2012

The media fell all over itself demonizing the Tea Party as “white.”  Never mind that the liberal media talking heads that were doing most of the demonizing were themselves all white.

And the liberal protest is every bit as white as the Tea Party ever was:

The color of protest
Friday, January 27, 2012 3:07 AM EST

Progressive Media Project writer Randy Jurado Ertil seems nonplussed the far-left Occupy Wall Street movement is mainly white. “If the Occupy movement is to succeed this year, it needs to become more diverse,” he says in a Jan. 13 op-ed.

It seems like it was just yesterday that people of the left were saying the same thing about the tea-party movement. What gives?

Could it be that minorities feel disenfranchised by both sides — the left and the right — though for radically different reasons? As black conservative columnist and economics professor Walter Williams would say, let’s look at it.

The scarcity of black and brown faces in tea-party crowds has been chronicled gleefully by the liberal news media and activists, who have strived mightily to characterize the tea party as a racist enterprise. Is it any wonder more minorities don’t try to shoulder their way into the mix? If they believe even a fraction of what they read, hear and see on television, they’ll believe people of their race are unwelcome in tea-party gatherings — especially if they’re not told tea-party icons include black leaders such as Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., and Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C.

“The Occupy movement needs to recruit minorities not only to reflect accurately the ethnic diversity that does exist in the United States but also to respond to the fact that economic injustice falls most heavily on the backs of minorities,” Mr. Ertil writes.

And whose fault is that? Ask black intellectual Thomas Sowell; he’ll tell you:

“Over the years, some of the most devastating policies, in terms of their actual effects on black people, have come from liberal Democrats … None cost blacks more jobs than minimum-wage laws, (which) have a track record of increasing unemployment, especially among the young, the less skilled and minorities. … Urban renewal was another big Democratic liberal idea. It destroyed mostly low-income minority neighborhoods and replaced them with upscale housing the former residents could not afford. … Even when liberal Democrats try specifically to help blacks, the results often backfire. …”

Arguably, the worst policy of all was the vast expansion of the family-destroying welfare state beginning in the 1960s. Mr. Ertil mentions the large disparity in wealth between white and black households, but neglects to add that this disparity shrinks dramatically among households led by married couples.

There’s probably no way to find out precisely why minorities are scarce in Occupy encampments, but here’s a theory: middle-class African-Americans and Hispanics recognize the movement has nothing to offer them; and the rest are starting to catch on that the left has been lying to them and holding them down ever since the days when the Democrats’ primary Republican target was Abraham Lincoln.

We have a rather inconvenient truth about the liberal Occupy movement as noted by the Washington Times:

The Occupy Wall Street movement wants the world to see it as an inclusive, multicultural grassroots uprising representing the full spectrum of America’s rich ethnic tapestry. But the group’s internal documents reveal what any casual observer knows; the movement is almost entirely dominated by a bunch of disaffected white kids.

White people.  A sea of vile white people:

That’s right, I said vile white people:

You might similarly remember how the media climbed all over themselves to apply the label “violent” to the Tea Party.  It didn’t matter that in thousands of events across the country nobody got arrested and the parks they protested in were invariably left cleaner than they’d been before the Tea Partiers got there.  Versus this sort of behavior from Occupy.

And versus the 6,319 documented arrests so far at Occupy protests.

It is of course irrelevant that the OWS movement is an inherently violent group of fascists.  With violent uprisings all over the country.

Because the same mainstream media that was all over “allegations” of Tea Party violence even though they didn’t exist has decided that the OWS movement is to be celebrated as being “non-violent” no matter how violent and fascist it is.

If you rely on liberal media for your “news” you are one pathetically stupid sucker.  You’re an obnoxious little baby hungrily sucking on the tits of propaganda.

The Failure And Stupidity Of Democrats’ Fascist Central-Planning Documented In Leftist Los Angeles Times

January 30, 2012

Two articles on the same day from the same liberal newspaper pretty much put the kibosh on any portrayal of liberals as anything other than completely insane:

A big bet on electric vehicle manufacturing goes bust
Production of electric vehicles and batteries was supposed to create high-tech jobs in Indiana. Think City and Ener1 set up shop, enticed by government incentives. But soon they filed for bankruptcy.
January 27, 2012|By Julie Wernau

Reporting from Elkhart, Ind. — For politicians betting on electric vehicles to drive job growth, the view from inside Think City’s plant here is their worst nightmare: 100 unfinished vehicles lined up with no word on whether they will be completed.

 Only two years ago, the tiny Think cars (two can fit in a regular parking space) were expected to bring more than 400 jobs to this ailing city and a lifeline to suppliers who once made parts for gas-guzzling recreational vehicles.

“We’ve said we’re out to make Indiana the electric vehicle state. It’s beginning to look like the state capital will be Elkhart County,” Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said in January 2010 in announcing government incentives used to attract Think to his state.

 Instead, the Hoosier State’s big bet has been a bust. The plant is devoid of activity; there are just two employees. A Russian investor who recently purchased Think’s bankrupt parent in Norway has been silent about its future.  A government-backed Indianapolis battery maker that was to supply Think wrote off a $73-million investment in the car company and Thursday declared bankruptcy. Two unrelated electric truck makers Indiana planned to nurture have yet to get off the ground.

 Indiana’s foray into electric vehicles is a cautionary tale for states in hot pursuit of high-tech manufacturing jobs. Think’s story illustrates how politicians so badly wanted to stimulate job growth that they showered the automaker and the battery supplier with tax benefits and incentives while at the same time failing to determine whether there was a market for the car: a plastic two-seater with a top speed of about 65 mph and a price tag approaching $42,000.

 “Where’s the value?” Gregg Fore, an Elkhart recreational vehicle industry executive, said of Think. “I could buy a golf cart for five grand if that’s what I wanted to drive.”

 Fore says the federal and state governments as well as Elkhart subsidized the Think project apparently believing those tax benefits would drive down the vehicle’s price and make the cars more attractive. “By giving money to the battery company and electric car company, they are saying, ‘We want you to buy their products even though we know you don’t want them.'”

 Indiana’s total losses aren’t immediately known. Katelyn Hancock, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Economic Development Corp., the state’s economic development arm, declined to disclose how much Think and battery-maker Ener1 had received in taxpayer-funded credits and incentives, saying such information is confidential. Ener1 also refused to provide the information.

 What is known, however, is that the Obama and Bush administrations poured millions of dollars into battery production in a quest to power thousands of Think City vehicles with lithium-ion batteries. To date, Ener1 has spent $55 million in federal funding, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

 Some analysts say government backing of the car didn’t seem like a bad investment at the time. “It looked like electric vehicles were it in 2008. It really did,” said Theodore O’Neill, an analyst who has followed the electric car industry. “You had the government calling the shots and doling the money out with the major” automakers.

 Still, O’Neill says he wouldn’t buy such a car. “For $40,000, you can get a certified pre-owned BMW convertible and a Vespa scooter. Both of them. And if you want to have a good time, put the top down.” General Motors’ Chevy Volt electric car sells for about the same price.

Think City’s plant, a 10-minute drive from Elkhart’s Main Street, appears all but abandoned these days. When a reporter visited recently, the parking lot was empty and the visitor entrance and lobby were laced with cobwebs. A single pickup truck and a sign telling visitors to ring the buzzer were the only signs of life near the rear of the building. Inside two men were quietly baby-sitting the plant, awaiting headlights and seat belts from Europe so the cars could meet U.S. standards.

 What eventually is supposed to happen to these cars isn’t clear. No one in Elkhart could point to a local executive in charge of production. A person identified as a spokesman declined to comment, saying he was no longer on the payroll.

 The person who may have the most to say about Think’s future also isn’t talking. Russian investor Boris Zingarevich bought Think Global, the Norwegian parent company, at auction a month after its bankruptcy.

 Reached by phone in Russia, Slava Bychkov, a spokesman for Zingarevich’s Ilim Group, said he could not provide details of plans for the car company.

 “The management is now under the restart process and will communicate their strategy in [the] near future,” Bychkov said.

Okay.  So Democrats’ bright idea to impose “green” cars on America was a rather stupid one and all the promises they made about such vehicles and all the jobs they would create were all a bunch of lies.  So we’re finally abandoning that idiotic boondoggle, right?  I mean, obviously nobody but a collection of abject idiots would keep demanding we keep pursuing the same utterly failed policies, right?

Wrong.  You can NEVER underestimate the sheer imbecilic stupidity of liberals or their determination to implode America with said stupidity:

California orders hike in number of super clean cars
The state’s air board issues new rules to automakers as part of its effort to cut greenhouse gases.
By Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times
January 28, 2012

California, long a national leader in cutting auto pollution, pushed the envelope further Friday as state regulators approved rules to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and put significantly more pollution-free vehicles on the road in coming years.

The package of Air Resources Board regulations would require auto manufacturers to offer more zero- or very low-emission cars such as battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and plug-in hybrid vehicles in California starting with model year 2018.

By 2025, one in seven new autos sold in California, or roughly 1.4 million, must be ultra-clean, moving what is now a driving novelty into the mainstream.

The board also strengthened future emission standards for all new cars, making them the toughest in the nation. The rules are intended by 2025 to slash smog-forming pollutants from new vehicles by 75 percent and reduce by a third their emissions that contribute to global warming.

“Today’s vote … represents a new chapter for clean cars in California and in the nation as a whole,” said Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols.

Auto manufacturers are uneasy with some of the provisions but generally support the package, which took three years to develop. “We know the board wants to push the automakers,” said Mike Love, national regulatory affairs manager for Toyota Motor Sales. “We said we’re willing to go along with you and do our best.”

The requirements are expected to drive up car prices. The board staff predicts that the advanced technologies needed to meet the new standards will add $1,900 to the price of a new car in 2025. But that would be more than offset by $6,000 in estimated fuel savings over the life of the vehicle, according to the board’s staff.

Zero-emission autos now make up a minuscule portion of the more than 26 million cars in California, with just a few hundred fuel cell cars and about 34,000 battery electric autos on the road.

“The fact that we are going to change what consumers can buy is one of the most important things we can do,” board member Ken Yeager said before the panel, at the end of a two-day hearing in Los Angeles, voted 9 to 0 to approve the rules.

Manufacturers are poised to introduce a number of new electric and plug-in hybrid models. “This year, two dozen or more new vehicles are going to come out in the market,” Love said. “Everyone is trying their idea for EVs (electric vehicles), plug-ins.”

Nichols said she has seen “a real change in attitudes on the part of auto companies that have seen the handwriting on the wall…. The reality is that companies see the future is going to be in electric drivetrain vehicles. They’re moving there as fast they can.”

But automakers do still have concerns, particularly whether consumers will buy the ultra-clean cars.

“Automakers are mandated to build products that consumers are not mandated to buy,” said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes Chrysler Group, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. “If the electric vehicle infrastructure is not in place, consumers may be reluctant to buy these technologies.”

Jack Nerad, Kelley Blue Book market analyst, predicted that “the added expense and lesser versatility of the ‘environmental’ vehicles” will continue to make them less desirable to consumers. Manufacturers might have to sell clean cars at a loss to meet the requirements, and “buyers of conventional cars will pick up the remainder of the tab,” he said. One of the most disputed elements of the rules centered on a clause that in the early years of the mandate gives credits to automakers who reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their fleets more than required. Those credits would cut the number of electric, fuel cell and plug-in hybrids the companies had to offer in California.

Jay Friedland, legislative director of Plug In America, called it “a loophole you can drive a truck through” that will undermine the 2025 goal of having ultra-clean cars make up 15% of the new vehicles sold in the state.

A zero-emission mandate is not new in California. It dates from 1990 but was progressively watered down over the years.

The state’s ambitious goals to slash its greenhouse gas production renewed focus on the role that super clean cars could play.

“The steady drumbeat of the need to get off the dependence on petroleum is really what is driving this,” Nichols said. “It’s taken longer than we’ve hoped.”

Starting with model year 2015, automakers will have to meet tougher standards for smog-forming emissions and, in 2017, greater limits on pollutants that contribute to global warming.

By 2025, the standards are designed to reduce the average smog-forming emissions of new cars and light trucks by 75% compared with those sold today.

The greenhouse gas limits, which would be the same as the federal government has proposed for vehicles nationally, should cut those auto emissions by a third more in 2025 than required under current standards. To meet the new limits, the board staff anticipates the auto industry will make greater use of advanced hybrid technology, stronger and lighter materials and improved emission control equipment.

If oil companies don’t reach an agreement with the state to voluntarily install alternative fueling stations, such as for hydrogen fuel cells, the new rules will also require them to do so when a certain number of cars using that fuel is reached. The outlets could be placed at an existing gasoline station or a free-standing site.

“I hope the oil industry will get on board rather than dragging its feet,” said board member Hector De La Torre.

Democrats are more rigidly determined to be stupid and to impose their immoral stupidity on others than any other people who have ever lived.  I say that because they come from the greatest nation on earth with the greatest example of the success that comes from liberty and economic liberty.  And then they choose every single time to choose the 100 percent failed track record of centrally planned economies.

Democrats are also fascist to the cores of their shriveled little souls.  They have long-since convinced themselves that they are better than you and smarter than you and more moral than you.  And that gives them the right to dictate – because that’s precisely the right word – what kind of health insurance you must have and what kind of light bulbs you must use and what kind of car you must drive.  Whether it is utterly insane or not.

It doesn’t work.  But that is completely irrelevant:

Conservatives who want the government to end all energy subsidies say they are not surprised that Obama won’t let go of the clean-energy mantra.

“They don’t look at Solyndra as part of the larger problem of the Energy Department and the federal government intervening in the markets,” said Jack Spencer, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “They see it as a failed program within the larger context of a succeeding policy.”

Solyndra.  Ener1.  Think City.  Beacon Power.  Evergreen Solar.  AES.  SpectraWatt Amonix.  It doesn’t matter how many times Obama or Democrats fail with other people’s money.  Because they are maximally immune from reality.  And when they create these boondoggles they invariably seem benefit their big Democrat donors (crony capitalist fascism alert).  And did I mention that they play their games with other peoples’ money?

We have the most important election in our entire history coming up this year: we either vote Democrat and vote to go the way of the Dodo bird or we vote Republican and vote for a chance – and I mean only a chance – to survive.  Because Obama has already wounded this country so terribly in his “fundamental transformation” that it may well not survive no matter who runs it.

Obama ‘Fundamental Transformation’ Taking Us Way Back To The Flinstones Rather Than Way Ahead To The Jetsons

January 30, 2012

Obama told us he was going to fundamentally transform America:

And, of course, he has.

Food stamps:

This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Government-dependency benefits:

According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries

Direct government payments to the permanent welfare class that Obama has massively increased:

The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press points out the fact that:

“Most know by now that Obama dedicates his time to the end of America as it presently exists.”

One of the ways to illustrate what has happened in America is the flak that Newt Gingrich has taken for talking about a vision to not only put a man on the moon, but have a space station there.  There is doubt, skepticism and outright mockery of him in the mainstream media (“Newt Skywalker“?).

Greta Van Sustern asked Newt about why that was.  And Newt went right after Obama for killing America’s dreams and her future.

Gingrich pointed out that JFK in 1961 offered an even MORE audacious vision of putting a man on the moon when not only had no man ever been on the moon but when only the Soviet Union had ever even sent a man into orbit.  JFK said we would put a man on the moon within ten years.  And while he did not live to see the day because a leftist socialist assassinated him, we DID put a man on the moon within ten years of that famous speech.

Why can’t we now?

Because Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a country that can’t do anything and knows it can’t do anything, that’s why.  And of course how could we with such pathetic, failed leadership?  How could we possibly ever thrive under the wings of a man whose only talent is reading off a pair of teleprompter screens?

And the naysayers are completely right: nothing great is possible under this fool.

Only real leadership can get us to the Jetsons.

Newt Gingrich is dreaming of a day when America isn’t under the disgraced and failed leadership of “the Failure-in-Chief.”

Obama is taking us to the Flintstones.  And the sad fact is that the dinosaurs we’ll encounter won’t be anywhere near as friendly as that cartoon described when we get to where Obama is taking us.

Please vote for the destruction of America and a future that takes us – and in particular our children – down into collapse and depression.  Please give us more Obama because we simply don’t deserve to continue the way we’re going.

P.S. Hat tip to Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld for his “Jetsons-Flintstones” analogy.

There Is No Compelling Scientific Argument For Global Warming, Say The Scientists

January 28, 2012

It’s not enough to say that Al Gore was wrong when he kept lecturing us about the “consensus” of science.  Unless it’s the other way around.

Another Global Warming Oops Moment, and it’s a dilly
January 27th, 2012, 9:48 am · posted by Mark Landsbaum

The Wall Street Journal has a letter today signed by 16 noteworthy scientists who wanted to go on the record about global warming. What they had to say constitutes today’s Global Warming Oops Moment, one of those delightful public displays that reveal the emperor has no clothes.

We quote:

“Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”

Oops. As we so enjoy saying.

It’s sad that the bullies who run the global warming scare machine have intimidated so many for so long, threatening to label any critics as cranks and not real scientists, even cutting them off from tenure, funding and membership and publishing in journals. But thuggery sooner or later is exposed and courage sooner or later overcomes it. Here’s one of those tipping points, as delineated in the WSJ letter:

“Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. “

What’s this remind you of? If the old Soviet system comes to mind, you’re correct. Also from the letter:

“… we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.”

As we have written for years, global warming alarmism is not and never has been about the earth heating up dangerously, which it isn’t. It’s always been about control and money – their control over your money.

It seems these 16 scientists understand this motivation:

“Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word ‘incontrovertible’ from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question ‘cui bono?’ Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Did we say Oops?

Incidentally, these scientists also echo our long-standing observation that global warming simply isn’t dangerously warming the earth, and hasn’t at all this century.

“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 ‘Climategate’ email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

We have to repeat, Oops!

Hey, anyone in a hurry to scuttle the economic engine of our society so we can subsidize these masters of deceit and fraud? Count up the things government tells you that you must do – and pay for – because of global warming. Subsidizing Solyndra, and countless others, is just the tip of the iceberg.

=-=-=

RELATED POSTS:

I used to live in Orange County and loved the Register.

I miss it even more reading this guy.

He’s got another short piece that supports the one above (Bob Lutz being one of the best engineers in America):

Global warming quote of the day
January 26th, 2012, 4:51 pm · · posted by Mark Landsbaum

It’s been a few days since our last Global Warming Quote of the Day, and because our readers probably have yearned for another, we bring you without further ado, today’s Global Warming Quote of the Day.


“I don’t pursue the electrification of the automobile out of any fear I might have of planetary meltdown. First of all, you have to realize that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, one of most minimal gases in atmosphere. If you believe in the greenhouse effect, you should realize that methane, also known as bovine flatulence, has more than 20 times the power of CO2, and yet nobody talks about it. More than 98 percent of CO2 is from natural causes—just two percent is from humans, and mostly from stationary sources. And just a fifth of the human-caused emissions are from the global automotive sector. You could plug up the spark plug holes of every car and truck on the planet with cement and it would be a rounding error as far as CO2 production is concerned.

“The whole thing [blaming cars for global warming] is outrageous, and the purpose is to create an artificial scarcity of fossil fuel to raise prices and get alternative fuels, which cost way more, to start paying off.” - Bob Lutz, former vice chairman of General Motors.

These words came when Lutz was asked to give context to words he previously had uttered regarding global warming. You recall what he said then, right?

He said global warming was “a crock of *$%*#@.”

There’s a great article that explains what Bob Lutz was saying available here called “An Inconvenient Truth.”  If you read it you will begin to understand the incredibly deceitful bait and switch that global warming alarmism truly is.

Climate Change Crap: Global Temperatures Are PLUNGING

January 28, 2012

You know, one of the question I ask global warming nuts is “And just exactly what should the temperature be today?”

Here is the real science of “global warming” posted on What’s Up With That:

What in the world is going on with global temperatures?
Posted on January 26, 2012by Anthony Watts

Multiple indicators show global temperatures headed down this month, and fast.

by Joe D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

As shown above (see the datapoint in the square box), the UAH AMSU daily temperatures are the coldest for the globe at 600mb of all the years tracked since 2002 (warmest 2010, previously coldest 2009).

The new Dr. Ryan Maue reanalysis based global temperature anomalies has declined dramatically this month – almost a full degree Celsius!

Forecasts for temperature 8 days in advance are appended to the reanalysis values.

Is this a reflection of the stratospheric warming pushing the cold to middle latitudes?

The cross section suggests that initial warm burst has ended. Often they repeat as the cold reloads and dumps again.

The 10mb warmth has only backed off slightly.

Notice at the north pole how temperatures warmed 50C (90F) at 10mb.

See how the warmth at the top has spread north then east then west.

Some lowering of the cold as warmth above presses down.

Meanwhile much of the lower 48 and western Europe is having a mild winter in contrast to recent years. It may end up among the coldest ever in Alaska. With a recent heat wave that I am sure Gerald Meehl at NOAA/NCAR is looking at where temperatures in Fairbanks rose to a balmy -3 (warmest this month), the average monthly temperature is an amazing 16.5F below normal. In Anchroage it has been about 13F below normal with double the normal snowfall.

The Alaska temperatures follow with the PDO. A cold PDO (with cold water offshore) means colder than normal, a warm PDO warmer than normal. Any surprise warming was observed as we moved from the La Nina rich cold PDO before 1977 to the El Ninos and +PDO in the 1980s and 1990s (attributed the CO2 of course). Any surprise with a negative 2 STD PDO and La Ninas, it is brutally cold again.

How will all of this play out in February and March???

BTW, instead of taking a PR cruise to Antarctica during their late summer to see melting ice maybe Hansen, Gore and Trenberth should go to Alaska in mid winter to see their fairy tale collapse as they freeze their tails.

So it’s looking more like an ice age than it is global warming.

James Hanson was one of the pseudo-scientist frauds who predicted an ice age in the 1970s before he started predicting global warming in the 1990s.

It just never ends.  The more wrong global warming religionists are the more they claim that all the science is on their side and everyone who doesn’t agree with them is some kind of heretic.

Georgia Court Asking Some VERY Interesting Questions Regarding Obama’s Qualification To Be President

January 27, 2012

I got a tip about this article from one of my friends Truth Unites… and Divides.  It is very much worth taking a look at.

I’ve written a couple of articles on Obama and his birth certificate and Social Security Number maladies, but have largely refrained because I am neither a lawyer, nor a document expert, nor someone who has the ability to subpoena or even view the actual original documents at issue.

But check out the facts that are being presented in a Georgia quote about whether Obama was legally able to run for president according to that state’s laws (which appears in the context of the following article at the very end):

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama’s alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama’s passport records under FOIA

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

For the record, I have no idea what Social Security Number Barack Obama is using.  I frankly hope he doesn’t know mine, either!  But if in fact Barack Obama is using a bogus Connecticut Social Security Number given that his own claim is that he was born in Hawaii, that in and of itself should be utterly devastating and he should be forced to either resign or be removed from office immediately.

January 27, 2012
Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By
By Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert

Two AT writers attended yesterday’s hearing in Georgia over President Obama’s eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:

President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O’Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.

Ms. O’Brien commented to Professor Lott: “Gods don’t debate. They just issue decrees.”

And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.

On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama’s eligibility to appear on Georgia’s 2012 ballot. In two previous American Thinker blog posts, “The Birthers Went Down to Georgia” and “Georgia on Obama’s Mind,” I described the content and history of the cases.

The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant. The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

…Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority…evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary…”

Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp. He requested that Kemp “bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.” Jablonski’s letter concluded: “We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.”

A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning: “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

And the hearings did proceed, although approximately 20 minutes late, after Judge Malihi requested a pre-hearing conference with all of the attorneys in his chambers.

Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation presented his case first, followed by J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz. Irion’s argument focused on the definition of “natural born” citizen in the holding of Minor v Happersett and the principle of “statutory construction” in the interpretation of the 14th amendment. Hatfield added the fact that the Interpretations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognize the delineation between “natural born” and “native-born” citizenship.

Orly Taitz also ably presented her evidence regarding the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number, even though she was rushed by the judge on several occasions, shortening her planned two-hour presentation by half.

After only two hours for three hearings that most spectators had expected to take several, Judge Malihi asked the attorneys to file briefs by February 5 and dismissed the courtroom. No date has been set for his decision.

Rumors began flying around the blogosphere almost immediately — primarily one that the judge had informed the attorneys, in the pre-hearing conference, that he intended to enter a default judgment against Obama. If true, that would essentially mean that yet another action against Obama’s eligibility has resulted in no decision on the merits.

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court’s opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama’s name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state. According to Irion, Obama has also “decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated…that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it.”

Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.

And most of the media has followed along right behind him.

Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

Obama Declares he is Above Georgia’s Election Laws

Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a “Natural Born Citizen” and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot. This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law. Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi. Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court’s Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing. Obama’s attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled. Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them “they did so at their own peril” if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.

The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections. It most assuredly is a Citizen’s Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President. This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.

The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama. Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 — the legal heart of the matter. An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.

Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother’s passport records. A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit.

Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama. She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing. Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator. Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning. It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama’s attorney in particular.

She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961. He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960’s. This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate.

The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator. He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama’s records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain. The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama’s, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially. There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace. He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama’s exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.

However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings. However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts. Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present.

Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the “trier of the facts”. Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial. Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal. As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level!

Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal! The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand! It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law — Georgia’s. We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama’s records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public’s hands for the last four years. After this hearing we may eventually know why.

________________________________________________________________________

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama’s alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama’s passport records under FOIA

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

This is an important story, if for no other reason than that we should finally be able to know for certain the issue of Obama’s elegibility to be president.

Liberals want to depict these questions as racist; very well, then: it was racist LIBERALS who demanded to see John McCain’s birth certificate.  So we’re all of us racist alike.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 525 other followers