Midknight Review -- new and revised

In a battle between MSM and the social media, the MSM loses, hands down.

2012-01-30T02:46:00.000-05:00

What might be a little disconcerting to the Obama campaign is thefact that he is not being discussed that much more than any of the top three GOPcandidates. As per the usual, however, the Mainstream Media(MSM) is completely out of step with thepeople when it comes to the mention of "Obama." By a ratio of morethan 2 to 1, Obama gets the nod from the MSM . . . . . and you can bet the vast majority of these addresses arepositive.

What might beoverlooked, is the obvious fact that the social media more than negatesthe influence of the MSM. In fact, we have a ratio between the socialmedia and MSM of 900 to 37, favoring social mediadiscussions.

No wonder the Marxist Media has lost it ability to influenceelections as it once did in thepast. No wonder the Obama government hasbusied itself working against free speech and an open internet.

Which candidate was talked about most this week?

Rank	Candidate	Twitter mentions	Media Mentions
1	Obama	233,962	16,122
2	Gingrich	216,266	7,717
3	Paul	209,954	2,377
4	Romney	204,035	7,579
5	Santorum	64,135	2,716

Swing States and the 2012 election - In a tight election, Obama loses by 20. Here's how it might happen.

2012-01-30T00:33:00.002-05:00

Battleground States according to USA Today.

click on image to enlarge

On this electoralmap, the grey colored states are considered "swing states" or "battleground states" with regards to the coming 2012presidential election. There are 12 such states from Nevada to NewHampshire (just below Maine) on this USA Today map. Generally speaking, when you hear talk of "the battleground states," these states are included. Some believe that as many as 16 states are in play during the current election cycle. Whatever the case, the coming election will be fought within these boundaries.

Immediately afterthe State of the Union speech, Obama visited four of these swing states (Iowa,Nevada and Colorado and Michigan). He added Arizona to his five state tour, astate that voted against him on a close count in 2008. He clearly thinks his opposition to Governor Jan Brewer and the lawsuit his DoJ has filedagainst Arizona, will win that state to his cause in the coming election.

I took time tomake a list of states that voted GOP in 2000, 2004 followed by a Democrat/Obama vote in 2008. There are ten such states: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska,Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. If thepopulations of these states are as frustrated with Obama as is the rest ofthe nation, they will revert to their past traditions. If that happens, Obamawill lose 117 electoral votes and the election.

It takes 270electoral votes to win. In 2008, Obama took the election with 365votes on the wings of a campaign that was not honest in describing theextent of the "change" he had in mind. No one knew, forexample, that he would circumvent the congress as a matter of policy andact on his own - similar in function to a dictator. No one knew that hewould be the first president to include those who openly shared the values ofKarl Marx (Van Jones, Obama's green czar,and Elizabeth Warren, the woman who designed the first ConsumerProtection agency - an agency created to manage Big Banking against the commonman ) and the Chinese despot, Mao (Anita Dunn - his first communication adviser). He was silentas to his plans to take over the auto industry, something that was in theworks from 2007. And know one had a hint about his angst with the Catholic Church, which supported his first election. I could go on, but these examples make my point.

If he loses the 10states in question, all with prior Republican voting histories, he loses theelection with a GOP electoral vote total of 290. If he takes Arizona awayfor the Republicans, the GOP still takes the election with a countof 279 votes.

He is aggressively at odds with the Catholic Church, forcing that institution to offer contraception and abortion to its health benefit packages.

He has written off the middle class white worker, choosing to ignore this monster voting block. He lost that demographic, in 2008, by 10 points. Currently, predictions call for a loss in this category by more than 20 points.

How much harm he has done to the Hispanic vote, is not, yet, fully known, as well. Will this demographic hold him accountable for a record setting pace on deportations coupled with a failed promise to sign comprehensive immigration legislation into law by the end of 2009? Time will tell.

The point of this post: on a good day, Obama will have a very difficult time getting himself re-elected.

My cruiser - tell me this is not a serious Man Bike.

2012-01-29T18:31:00.000-05:00

Picture taken 1/28/2012

You are looking at a 2003 VTX 1800

I am at 5,500 feet near Yosemite.

Keep in mind the valleyfloor is 330 ft elevation.

A 5,000 foot climbhere, gets you to 5,300 feet, elevation.

A 5,000 foot climb inColorado, gets you to 11,200 feetbecause your starting elevation is 5,200 ft (Denver)

While in Colorado, I and Sweetness were at 12,000 ft.

on several occasions,12,300 once. I miss Colorado. The air is dryer, and much,much cleaner than here in California.

I have plans to ride toRichfield, Utah, in the early summer and Seattle, Washington, this spring.

Romney with a 15 point lead in Florida.

2012-01-29T18:18:00.001-05:00

Here is the heart of the story:

The formerMassachusetts governor has 42 percent support among likely GOP voters, comparedto the former House Speaker’s 27 percent, according to the NBC News/Marist poll released Sunday. The pollincludes undecided voters who are leaning toward a particular candidate.

This poll is released just two days before the Florida primary vote. Marist took the poll, NBC crafted the questions.

Anyone think NBC approves of Newt Gingrich? Maybe that has something to do with the polling results. Note all polls are the same.

Gallup surveys the national election: Obama versus each of the four primary contestants.

2012-01-29T17:42:00.003-05:00

Obama 47% Romney 48%
Obama 50% Paul 43%
Obama 51% Santorum 44%
Obama 54% Gingrich 40%

Hmmmm, That's funny. Just last Monday, Jan 23, Mitt and Newt were running behind Obama by the same margins, and it was close: 50% for Barack and 48% for each of the two GOP contestants. See the Daily Kos for confirmation.

Let’s getsomething straight: the election willnot be decided by Left leaning polls and lies in the Marxist Media informing usof the growing divide between Obama and his opposition, a growing divide that works in hisfavor.

Obamawon the first election by just 7% of the national vote. Does anyone actually believe that he has increasedhis voter appeal since then? When wasthe last time someone won a presidential election campaigning on raisingtaxes, running the government on his ownwithout the benefit of the Congress (House or Senate), and ignoring half thepopulation he has condemned as either too rich or too raciest or too stupid ortoo religious?

Whether or not aparticular polling firm is complicit in the effort to discourage the oppositionand gain victory for Barack, you should,at least, consider the possibility. Begin with the knowledge that bias exists inthe media. Never forget that reportersin the major Leftist media have spoken publically, of the need to abandon “objectivity”because of the importance this election, and recall these two facts on every occasion you see or read a public opinion poll --- can't hurt.

Be diligent, patiently determined, with an eye on what must be accomplished.

The truth about Newts ethics violation. Now you know. Someone needs to tell Romney.

2012-01-29T03:59:00.000-05:00

Whileon the campaign trail, today, Mitt Romney pretended that Newt isguilty of stretching the truth when it comes to details about ethicssanctions, in 1994. Speaking of Gingrich and his so-called"Speaker scandal," Romney reminded his audience of Newt's claim tobe a historian. He then followed that reminder with this comment,"But he [Newt] doesn't get to rewrite history." Mitt then used that statement as a segueto a more potent rhetorical attack on Newt and, in sodoing, Romney, himself, rewrote the record onthe supposed "Speaker scandal" of 1997. In mounting his attack,Mitt presented the "facts" of the scandal as reported by Tom Brokaw, NBC newscaster, himself a partisan hack from the Left. Thevideo is the 30 second portion of the NBC broadcast used by Romney in hiscurrent campaign against Gingrich.

You should know that NBC and Tom Brokaw have demanded that Romneycease and desist from the use of this video blub. You should also know that NBC continues to run the video, themselves, doing their part to help Obama to another victory.

More importantly, we now have enough reliable information as regards the Newt "Speakerscandal" to know that it is afalsified story, for the most part. Thispost will give the truth of this matter as substantiated by liberals andconservatives alike. Just tonight, on the Judge Jeanine show (Jan 29,2012,FoxNews), guests from both sides of the aisle agreed that the Brokawreport was inaccurate and Romney's reiteration of the NBC report isunfair.

You have theBrokaw misrepresentation, and, here are the facts:

Gingrich came intothe Speakership because of the 1994 sweep of the House and Senate, by the GOP, a victory that was more the doing of Newt Gingrich than any other singlepolitician of the day.

Let that fact sink in for just a moment.

This was the first time in 40 years the Democrats did not"rule the roost" and they were as vindictive and angry, then, as they are today. Newt was literally hated by the Democratminority which included an embittered Nancy Pelosi. Just 10 yearsafter this reprimand, she would take over the Speakership of the House(1997) and rule the House as a dictator. In 2011 she was accused ofinsider trading in which she and her husband took in more than $200,000in profits. But, Idigress.

Back to Newt. Again, the 1990's conservative revolution was more the handiwork ofGingrich than any other Republican..

That is afact. As a result, he was elected Speaker and began the taskof implementing his "Contract with America." He washardly the poster boy for the Establishment GOP and, with the passing oftime, became very unpopular with that wing of the party, as well.

As a sidebar, you should know that in 1989, Newt orchestrated events in the House that lead to the resignation of,then, Speaker, Jim Wright (D-TX).The 1997 vote was retaliation for that circumstance as well as the Gingrichlead defeat of the Democrats in the midterm elections of '94.

Understand thatthere are sanctions, reprimands, and censor available to the Ethics Committeewhen dealing with so-called ethicsviolations. "Sanctions" are the least critical and this is whatall four Democrats and three of the four Republicans voted to enforce. There was no “fine,” asNewt's enemies call it. Rather, Newt agreed to reimburse thecommittee for part of the cost of the investigation and his share was $300,000.

The charge, itself, had to do with the notion that Newthad received money from a GOPAC fund, as pay for a college course Gingrichtaught. What is never mentioned in the telling of this tale, is thefact that the IRS did, in fact, investigate this charge, acharge that amounted to embezzlement, and found the Speakercompletely innocent. Also, Newt's enemies fail to mention that he ran forSpeaker in 1998, a year following the conclusion of the "scandal," and won re-election. He resigned in 1999 because the victory didnot include enough of a majority to overcome the Democrat opposition. Gingrich had done all that he could, and resigned his membership inthe House and moved into the private sector. A related articlein the Washington Post givesconfirmation to all this.

By now, inthis primary campaign, Mitt Romney should know the truth of the matter, but he continues to tell the Tom Bokaw version. In my opinion, such is a deliberate lie and Romney should move away from this storyline.

Palin vs the Bushes? While the Bushes give Obama his photo op, the First Lady of TEA has something important to say.

2012-01-28T13:22:00.000-05:00

I begin with a scheduling fact; for the first time in four years, the First Lady of the TEA party movement has decided to attend and speak at the Feb. 9-12 CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference]. She will be the keynote speaker on the final day of that Republican conclave. I find the timing most revealing.

Many of us who have diligently followed this woman beginning with the days of McCain, believe that she has, indeed, taken herself out of the running for a presidential GOP nomination. Assuming the truth of that consideration, why has our First Lady decided to attend and accept this keynote assignment? I believe we have the answer embedded in her several public comments, none more comprehensive than her most recent Facebook addendum.

We all know that the woman can inspire. A return trip to her acceptance speech of 2008 establishes that fact. We, as a party (TEA/GOP) need a course correction. We need to be reminded of the need for unity under the banner of conservative Constitutional values.

I actually look for this speech to be one of the most significant of Palin's political career and one of the most critical to the developing primary campaign. There is no doubt that her coming CPAC speech will be substantive and critically important. Will it inspire? Will it bring us together in the midst of a potentially divisive primary season?

If she is working on this keynote address, now (and, of course she is), this Facebook article just might be its forerunner. I encourage you to read the entire Facebook message. From top to bottom, it frames the totality of the current debate without, I think, adding to the divisive nature of the selective process.

At a time when Jeb Bush and his father are being used by the White House in an Obama effort to frame himself as an uniter, Sarah is busy doing what she can to keep the party together and on track. Salute to the First Lady !!

From Palin's Facebook, we have this revealing excerpt:

. . . . . . . . . thiswhole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about theGOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans whoare sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment hasbeen just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfectvessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to getbehind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOPestablishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol weusually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterlyclinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights.

The Tea Party wasonce again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of theirbetters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment:without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke upbefore the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primarygoing because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anointa candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energyand resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to thegeneral election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect GovernorRomney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record andwhether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and howthis impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That iswhy this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Punditsin the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over afterFlorida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’spossible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with thesequestions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion.Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of GovernorRomney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on NewtGingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The TeaParty grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with theperceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers tryingto sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, GovernorRomney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlesslyparsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swingvoters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short bythe GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chiefrival.

Miley plays the slut - of course, she is just pretending . . . . at her boyfriends party,.

2012-01-27T19:53:00.001-05:00

The Culture and Media Institute, a group dedicated to preserving America's culture, character and traditional has come out with criticism of Miley Cyrus. TMZ captured a picture that shows Cyrus posing suggestively with a penis-shaped cake at her boyfriend's birthday party. It is clear to this editor that she "lost her virginity" a long time ago. In fact, judging from her past transgressions, this little picture episode is no surprise. Think about it. How far over the top is this piece of work, to have a picture taken of this nature, not caring how many people see her do this or how many now know how immoral she intends to be.

She made her money pretending to be Miss Disneyland and after she made her bucks, she moved on. I have a name for a gal who humps the rabbit for cash and it starts with a W . . . . . . . and we all know how many people hate W. If you write a letter, address it to her mullet abusing father. Turns out the girl is nothing more than white trash on her way to imitating Amy Winehouse. Poppa should feel so proud.

Gateway to more than 100 articles dealing with the protection of privacy in your use of the computer.

2012-01-27T19:22:00.000-05:00

Thanks to E/How for this wonderful information

Editor's note: Fox Business interviewed Google. That represented that Google Chrome

allows for and protects "anonymous search." That does not mean that you have privacy

protection from an intrusive (albeit justifiable) government search, but it does protect

you from being inundated with ad pop-ups that relate to any and all subjects you

reflect in, say, a Facebook comment or a search for leather product. The search results,

are hidden, but, if you click on and attend a particular site, you might begin to see

advertisement added to an open site. For example, I recently bought some leather product

for riding my monster VTX 1800 motorcycle. I now see advertisements from that

purchasing site, but not from competing sites . . . a very good thing. - blog editor.

5 Ways to Stay Safe on a Chat

Instant messaging and chat rooms can be fun ways to interact with your friends and to meet new people. However, a small percentage of the chats that you engage in could potentially pose dangers to you…

How to Display a New Javascript Window With Dimensions

Popup windows display Web pages in small browser windows often limited in size and functionality. Though out of fashion in modern Web design, popups still have their uses in a variety of contexts,…

How to Troubleshoot a Camfrog

Camfrog was created in 2003 and is a video chatting client that allows one on one chatting or group video conferencing. It can be used to communicate with users worldwide. Camfrog users may encounter…

Free Ways to Hide an IP Address

IP addresses are like Internet home addresses. They are used in identifying details such as the country, city and even the home from where you are browsing. Many people's privacy has been invaded by…

This link will take you to our page in the above menu bar. There you will find more than 120 individual articles such
as the four listed above. A lot of great advice. If you lose track of this link, just remember that this information is
preserved on that blog page. - blog editor.

Newt wants to colonize the moon and proves himself to be a serious lunatic.

2012-01-27T18:53:00.001-05:00

Newt has mentioned colonizing the moon, before. It wasnot well received and last night, it really bombed.

Romney respondedby telling us that he would fire Newt, for having that idea.
Santorum remindedus all that this is the time we need to be discussing less spending.
And Ron Paulseemed to think it a good idea if we were sending some politicians there (tomoon).

Instead of letting this idea go as the loser it is, Newt has decided to double down on the notion and, in so doing, lose even more ground as he struggles to remain competitive in the Florida primary. Understand that 50 delegate votes are in the offering in Florida, winner takes all. It will be huge game changer, I think.

Next primary: Florida, this coming Tuesday, Jan 31st.

There are four primaries in the month of February. The talking heads believe that these favor Romney and Newt does not have a debate to lean on until the end of that month.

Next debate:

February 22, 20128pm ET on CNN (Originally Dec 1, then Nov 30)
Location: Mesa Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona
Sponsor: CNN and the Republican Party of Arizona

Best line in the debate went to Ron Paul, of course:

2012-01-27T18:50:00.001-05:00

When asked by the moderator, "If Raul Castor called and you were in the White House, whatwould you say?"

To whichRep Paul answered, "Well, I would say, 'Why did you call?' "

Obama begins bragging about the new GDP numbers. Kind of makes you think he hasn't a clue.

2012-01-27T16:12:00.002-05:00

revised 1/28/12

Requisite Commentary: We are talking about"GDP." You need to understand exactly what "GDP" is .. . . . . . . . and it is the measure of all things for which there is the exchangeof money whether that includes wages, paid out benefits, paidinsurance claims, the cost of food whether fresh or prepared, a gasolinefill up, cigs, loan payments, a quarter in a toilet booth ifsomeone tracks that sort of thing --- and, depending on whyyou are in that booth, I suppose . . . . . . ANYTHING for which money comesinto play. Currently, our nation's Gross Domestic Product is 15billion dollars, annually. What this country buys and sellsannually, double China or Japan and no other country is even that close. We are the richest nation on earth and we spent money like it.

Commentary:

Generally, GDP isa good thing. It is a measure of wealth transfer. But, not all product added to the GDP report is a sign of good times. And this last quarter's report is aperfect example of this caveat.

Here are thefacts.

There are fourquarters in a year and the last quarter of 2011 was just announced, asrelates to GDP.

The average GDPfor the entire year (2011) was 1.7% and that includes the fourth quarterof . . . . . .

2.8 percent as atotal for the last quarter.

Anything under 3%GDP is bad; anything close to 1% GDP is recessionary; two quartersof sub 0% GDP is officially a "recession." Conversely, people can start bragging when GDP gets to 3% or higherand stays there. The economy is said to be prospering if 3% GDPbecomes an average percentage. At this point in time of the Reaganrecovery, the economy was pumping out 6 and 7 percent GDP numbers.

Yesterday, the 4th quarter report was 2.8%.

Obama jumped allover that number, as he is given to do -- kind of like alittle kid when he discovers a dollar bill laying on the ground,. SoObama starts talking about "the economy is back" and away wego.

Understand that hecould be right, but we will have to wait and see. What Obama does not understand,apparently, is that this latest fourth quarter report, is not a good report as relates to evidence of an acceleration of economic growth; economist on CNN and Fox Business agree. Why?

Of the 2.8%"growth," 2.1% of the GDP for the 4th quarter was purchasedinventory. That leaves us with a 0.7% GDP for the quarter. OnlyObama would proclaim the end to the recession simply because we all boughtinventory and set it aside for the sake of future business

One more thing: the official average GDP for the entire year of 2011 was a pathetic 1.7% . . . . . . . includingthis latest quarter with its inflated inventory numbers.

Keep in mind, businesses increase inventories AT THE END OF EVERY YEAR . It is part of a reporting strategy for the purpose of reducing the income tax burden, Obama's excitement is misplaced. This is not the first time he has jumped to conclusions regarding the vitality of the current "recovery." I seem to remember "the summer of recovery." That was two years ago.

The NLRB - a government agency that is pro-union and is used by Obama to favor unionizing enterprises.

2012-01-27T13:16:00.000-05:00

Now that Obama has his goons in place on the NLRB, via the recessprocess (just two weeks ago), we have these two shocking pro-union decisions.

NLRB will, now, require private, non-union employers to surrender names, addressesand e-mials of their employees to local union entities.

NLRB will, now, require or allow for "ambush unionizing elections." Thisgives the employers less time to plan for and debate potential unionization.

Understand thatObama has done nothing for the private sector, non-union workforce andthey total the vast majority of the nation's laborers.

When he talksabout " improved wages for all," or " jobs thatoffer security and a sense of respectable employment," he is onlytalking about union jobs.

Global Warming's Eulogy : From the WSJ and 16 scientistists

2012-01-27T11:53:00.001-05:00

WSJ: No Need to Panic About Global Warming

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Steve Milloy

Sixteen scientists write in the Wall Street Journal that, “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.”

The WSJ op-ed is below.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

January 27, 2012, Wall Street Journal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . the several opening paragraphs have been deleted in an effort to encourage you to actually read the Wall Street Journal article. The following is a "cropped" presentation of the article as a summary review of the much larger article. The notion of a harmful global warming curve is a dead intellectual reality. We just haven't gotten around to eulogizing the remains. Perhaps this article will suffice -- blog editor.

Article excerpts:

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today . . . . . . . . . . .

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 . . . . . . . . .

Why is there so much passion about global warming . . . . . . . . . . . . There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes . . . . . . . .

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. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world . . . . . .

Last paragraph and scientists' signatures (16 in toto)

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Obama's forced takeover of auto industry is a pox on the UAW. he he he

2012-01-27T02:47:00.000-05:00

They brought it upon themselves. I think its funny -- blog owner

UAW Fund, Underfunded By $20 Billion, To Cut Retiree Benefits

January 9th 2012

72

Share
SHAREBAR

You may remember how, during the Obama-structured bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler, shareholders were shoved to the side by the UAW’s retiree benefit trust (called a VEBA), which assumed partial ownership of GM and majority ownership of Chrysler. That was in addition to the American taxpayers pumping in billions to the American auto companies.

Well, as it turns out, the UAW’s retiree benefit trust is, according to Crain’s, still running in the red:

A nasty combination of rising health care costs and poor stock market performance has caused a drop in available funding for the UAWs Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, according to documents filed in October with the U.S. Department of Labor.
The trust pays for health care benefit costs for 840,000 retired autoworkers and their dependents that currently amount to $4.5 billion each year.
The fund has net assets of $58.8 billion and total benefit obligations of $79 billion, resulting in a $20.2 billion shortfall, said the UAW documents.

This shortfall is leading the UAW VEBA to begin cutting retiree benefits.

“I’ve already gotten letters saying they are raising premiums for dental and eye coverage,” said Lyle Roussey, a worker who retired from GM’s Saginaw Metal Casting plant in Michigan two years ago. “I never had faith when the UAW took over medical benefits. We don’t know what they are doing with all the money.
“From the beginning, the VEBA was underfunded by billions of dollars. Now all we are going to see is more letters, saying ‘we’ve got to cut this, we’ve got to make you pay for more this.’”

In 2007, in exchange for cutting entry-level wages, the UAW achieved its long-standing goal of getting the auto companies to fund the VEBA, a union benefit trust fund that the UAW would administer to its retirees. Then UAW-president Ron Gettlefinger pitched the agreement to both the media and his members, claiming that the VEBA would take care of the UAA retirees for 80 years.

“I am pleased to say we have a VEBA,” Gettelfinger said, “and that it stretches out for the next 80 years. And that’s all I’ll say.”
Gettelfinger and UAW Vice President Cal Rapson stressed that the VEBA should help GM become more competitive by relieving the automaker of direct health care costs. Instead, the company and the union will put money into the trust, which will be administered by a third party.

We know how that turned out, don’t we? Now, with an additional $20 billion of under funding, will American taxpayers get asked to kick in more money?

529 jobs are lost because of the EPA after company spent 10 billion in upgrades and compliance costs.

2012-01-27T02:35:00.003-05:00

How many times has this happenedduring the three years Obama has served as our nation's first de factoDictator? Here are six coal plants that have been driven out of businessbecause of the Gestapo run EPA at a loss of millions if not billions in investmentdollars and the cost of 529 jobs.

Thefollowing plants will be retired: Bay Shore Plant, Units 2-4, Oregon, Ohio;Eastlake Plant, Eastlake, Ohio; Ashtabula Plant, Ashtabula, Ohio; Lake ShorePlant, Cleveland, Ohio; Armstrong Power Station, Adrian, Pa.; and R. Paul SmithPower Station, Williamsport, Md.

In total,529 employees will be directly affected. Existing severance benefits will applyto eligible, affected employees. However, the final number of affectedemployees could be less as some are considered for open positions at other FirstEnergyfacilities and work locations, and eligible employees take advantage of aretirement benefit being offered to those 55 years and older.

"Thisdecision is not in any way a reflection of the fine work done by the employeesat the affected plants, but is related to the impact of new environmentalrules," said James H. Lash, president, FirstEnergy Generation and chiefnuclear officer. "We recently completed a comprehensive review of ourcoal-fired generating plants and determined that additional investments toimplement MATS and other environmental rules would make these older plants evenless likely to be dispatched under market rules. As a result, it was necessaryto retire the plants rather than continue operations." Read the full article here.

Source: Thurber's Thoughts, an Ohio based blog/ article:

FirstEnergy closing 6 plants due to new EPA rules

Editor's notes: Ifyou were to go to Thurber's Thoughts and read the remainder of the article, you might come away feeling that this is not so a calamity. Itcould be argued that the plants were old and needed to be shut down. Seriously, read the article and then, read what is not said betweenthe lines. Understand that we are dealing with a Gestapo stylepresidency. First Energy is the name of the company, and, after the shutdowns, it will continue to be a producer. So, what can it say without bringing the wrath of Kong down upon its head? Read that last paragraph. The president of the company made a pointof saying, "This decision is not . . . . a reflection of the finework done by the employees." Because of the increased expense ofdealing with MATS regulations, this company could no long run theseplants and be competitive under "market rules." We are talking"free market rules." I am guessing he left off "free" because there ain't no such thing, nowadays, is there,Comrade. -- blog owner.

Employers to be forced to turn over names/addresses of non-union workforce.

2012-01-27T02:04:00.002-05:00

I took this entire article from the Labor Union Report (a blog on my speed dial). Does anyone get just how anti-Constitutional this bunch of hoodlums are, the ones Occupying our White House ???? I do, that's why I blog.

NLRB To Force Companies To Turn Over Employee Telephone Numbers & E-Mail Addresses To Unions?

January 26th 2012

Source: Labor Union Report.com found here: http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2012/01/nlrb-chair-wants-to-force-companies-to-turn-over-employee-telephone-numbers-e-mail-addresses/

Union-backed NLRB Chairman: “We keep our eye on the prize.”

Undaunted by the constitutionally-questionableappointment of three members to Barack Obama’s NationalLabor Relations Board, union attorney and current NLRB chairman Mark Pearcedeclared in an Associated Pressinterview that he and his union comrades are continuing theirassault on the 93% of private-sector employees who are union-free.

In fact, if Obama’sunion appointees have their way, all employees who are targeted forunionization will have their employers forced to turn over their home telephonenumber and e-mail addresses to unions.

Ever since the 1960s,when unions have targeted companies for unionization through a NLRB-supervisedelection, employers have been required to turn over the list ofemployee names and their home addresses. The NLRB, in turn, promptly givesthe list of employee names and home addresses to the involved union(s).

This list, calledan Excelsior List,gives union organizers the ability to conduct intrusive home visits prior tothe NLRB election. As is often said, just as when any other salesperson doingdoor-to-door sales knocks at the door,targeted employees can invite theunion organizers into their homes, or they can sic the chihuahua onthem.

The requirement tofurnish the employees’ names and addresses list is mandatory. In fact, therefusal by an employer to furnish the list (or providing a list with too manyerrors) would typically result in the NLRB’s automatic overturning of anelection if a union were to lose. Again, this requirement has been the standardsince the 1960s.

Now, however, the unionappointees within the Obama NLRB want to expand the current Excelsior Listrequirement from the mere furnishing of names and addresses to also include furnishingemployees’ home telephone numbers and their e-mail addresses to enable unionsto perpetually propagandize employees.

Related: The Truth About False Union Promises.

According to the AP report:

“We keep our eye on the prize,” Pearce said in an interviewwith The Associated Press. “Our goal is to create a set of rules that eliminatea lot of waste of time, energy and money for the taxpayers.”
One change Pearce wants is to require businesses to hand overlists of employee phone numbers and emails to union leaders before an election.
He also wants the board to consider other rule changes itdidn’t have time to approve before it was on the verge of losing a quorum lastyear. That includes the use of electronic filings and quicker timetables forcertain procedures.
“My personal hope is that we take on all of these things andconsider each one of these rules,” Pearce said. “We presume theconstitutionality of the president’s appointments, and we go forward based onthat understanding.”

With ambush electionslooming on the horizon, as long as Obama’s NLRB continues its assault on union-freeemployers and their employees (and as long as Republicans remain unwilling to, or incapable of truly reining in therogue NLRB), as opposed to creating jobs Barack Obama’s alleged goal of creatingjobs will remain elusive. Still, the union bureaucrats within the federalapparatchik don’t seem to understand this simple fact.

Related: The Truth About False Union Promises.

According to the AP report:

_________________

“Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and preserve democracy.” Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor, 1918

Fastest rising book sales in history. In one day it rose from 285,568th to . . . . . .

2012-01-27T01:41:00.001-05:00

Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against SpecialInterests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America's Border

After herconfrontation with Obama, Jan Brewer'sbook rose from 285,568th in sales volume to #10 according to Fox News tonight. Good for her. She has taken enoughabuse. For trying to do her job, the Leftist slim machine sent herdeath threats, cursed her to her face, visited her home, andhumiliated her over and over again, in public. And they have theaudacity to criticize TEA party patriots for waving the flag and picking uptheir trash. Understand, Jan Brewer’s treatment is typicalto Left Wing social action.
This is thegame the Loser Left plays; been doing such since Goldwater. Timefor them to go to a country in which they can be proud. . . . . . . . certainlynot America. I, for one, will neversupport what they are trying to do. And if it becomesinstitutionalized, it will be undergroundtime for this old man.

After approaching the governor, she handed Obama this invitation and it went downhill from there.

2012-01-27T01:21:00.000-05:00

DearMr. President,
Welcome to Arizona!

You‘ve arrived in a state atthe forefront of America’s recovery — and her future. We were at the brink. Wewere at the bottom of the list in job creation. Today, we have a balancedbudget and we’re in the top 10 for job creation.
I’m proud of that hard-wonrecovery — the result of many tough decisions, courage and perseverance.
My hope is while you are hereyou will have a chance to see our tremendous results first hand.
We both love the greatcountry, but we fundamentally disagree on how to best make America grow andprosper once again. I‘d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve beenable to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the rightones.
And, of course, my offer tovisit the border — and buy lunch — still stands!

With respect,
Jan

Labor's first time benefits numbers.

2012-01-26T23:57:00.006-05:00

We have moved under the 400,000 barrier and consistently so. Great news. But, we do not reverse the loss of jobs until we post consistent numbers at 350,000 or less. We are getting close.

Week Ending:
.........Jan 21 377,000,an increase of 21,000 or 25,000 higher than the original report of the 14th.

........Jan 14 352,000 first Labor report: (week ending) firstreport numbers are 355,000 on Fox, 352,000 from Labor. A 2nd revision brought this week's number to 356,000

.....Jan 7 399,000 unadjusted. I expect this to be403,000 after revision.

The actual adjusted number was 402,000.

........Dec. 31 372,000 unadjusted (this report) . This wasrevised to 375,000.

........Dec. 24 387,000 adjusted from initial report of 381,000

........Dec. 17 366,000 / first adjust to 364,000 but laterreported back to 366,000

........Dec. 10 368,000 (I actually do not remember this report.)

See more to this story here.

Updated post: Santorum may have won the debate; Romney a close second; Newt, third and Paul is Paul

2012-01-26T23:33:00.001-05:00

Update: I really cannot say enough about how well MittRomney did in the CNN debate . . . . . . especially since I didn't say anythingabout his effort in the original text. Romney not only appeared the mostpresidential, he gave Newt a serious butt-kicking. As an example, after Newt came up with another anti-capitalist argument ("You[Mitt] invested in Goldman Sachs. How many Floridians have lost theirhomes because of Goldman Sachs") -- an idiot's argument comingfrom anyone, especially a supposed pro-growth Republican. He was actually criticizing Mitt for having invested in the stock market. Romneyresponded by turning and reminding the Speaker that, he too, had investment capital in Sachs and other Wall Street entities to which Gingrichhad absolutely no response.

At another momentin the debate, following Rick Santorum's scolding of Wolfe Blitzer forasking petty questions, Wolfe asked Newt to defend a criticism of Romneyleveled by Gingrich on local television, during the week. Newtdecided to refuse to defend his accusation, appealing to Santorum's criticismof Wolfe, just moments before. Newt raised his arms and somethingalong this line, "What say that we four move on from these trivialquestions and talk about substance." While Blitzer defended hisquestion in a brisk exchange with the speaker, Romney butted into theBlitzer/Gingrich exchange by saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if we didnot say things about the others that needed defending here?" orwords to that effect.

I thought thispoint was great. Gingrich was trying to create another South Carolinamoment, in which he jumped all over the major media host, and usedthat moment to propel himself into a huge victory in that state's primary. Romney was having nothing to do with that effort. And his timingwas perfect. Mitt injected himself into the conversation just before apositive response from the audience and took the moment away from Newt.

Anyway, MittRomney showed himself a superior debateman (word ??) and proved to me hisability to more than hang with Obama. He appeared presidential, asI said above, and, more than that, he was unflappable,maintaining a calm, level headed demeanor in the face of Newt's baselessassaults and Santorum's intense criticism, saying to Rick, "You don't have to get angry about it," leaving Santorumwith no rebuttal.

On point, Santorum had a great night, perhaps winning the night on substance but Romney was most impressive for all of the above and Newt was the night's Biggest Loser.

Original text:

Even with crowd noise, Newt was not able to pull off thatsense of the incredible that had been his in South Carolina. Two daysago, he was up on Romney by 6 points. Going into the debate, tonight, he was 8 points down and the debate did not help his cause.

While Santorum hadhis best debate of the campaign, even better than the Monday night event, he has so little money that he really has no chance except to win out ata brokered convention but he will have enough delegates at the National Convention in the end of August, to be a major player.

Ron Paul is in the race to gain ground for his cause and to strengthen the Libertarianposition and he is doing much better, this year, with that agendathan in the last campaign. He will go to the National Convention with ahealthy collective of delegates and make his presence known there, influencing the convention on matters important to him.

As things standtonight, Newt has 31 delegates and Romney has 32. After the Floridaprimary, one of the two will have an addition 50 delegates. Florida is awinner take all convention and "50" is the delegate count that is upfor grabs.

Here is what remainsbetween now and June 26.

February 4–11, 2012	Maine (caucus)
February 7, 2012	Colorado (caucus) Minnesota (caucus) Missouri (primary) – *See note below on Missouri
February 28, 2012	Arizona (primary) Michigan (primary)
March 3, 2012	Washington (caucus)
March 6, 2012 (Super Tuesday)	Alaska (caucus) Georgia (primary) Idaho (caucus) Massachusetts (primary) North Dakota (caucus) Ohio (primary) Oklahoma (primary) Tennessee (primary) Vermont (primary) Virginia (primary)
March 6-10, 2012	Wyoming (caucus)
March 10, 2012	Kansas (caucus) U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)
March 13, 2012	Alabama (primary) Hawaii (caucus) Mississippi (primary)
March 17, 2012	Missouri (GOP caucus) – *See note below on Missouri
March 18, 2012	Puerto Rico (primary)
March 20, 2012	Illinois (primary)
March 24, 2012	Louisiana (primary)
April 3, 2012	District of Columbia (primary) Maryland (primary) Wisconsin (primary) Texas (primary)
April 24, 2012	Connecticut (primary) Delaware (primary) New York (primary) Pennsylvania (primary) Rhode Island (primary)
May 8, 2012	Indiana (primary) North Carolina (primary) West Virginia (primary)
May 15, 2012	Nebraska (primary) Oregon (primary)
May 22, 2012	Arkansas (primary) Kentucky (primary)
June 5, 2012	California (primary) Montana (primary) New Jersey (primary) New Mexico (primary) South Dakota (primary)
June 26, 2012	Utah (primary)

It is to ouradvantage to drag this process out. The moment the Obama slandermachine sees who the GOP candidate is, it will begin its process of lies,lies and more lies. If we can put that off until well into the month ofMarch or the end of that month, we willbe able to go toe to toe with this bunch of Chicago based goons. There has been much talk of Obama spending a billiondollars in this campaign. What people don't know, apparently, is that he spent 3/4 of a billion last time plus another billion fromprivate money partners. Nothing will be new with this election in that regard.

But, because of Citizens United(Corporations are people too -- dang right !!!). the GOP will havePAC money in large enough amounts (hundreds of millions of dollars) to offsetthe Dark Side with its overseas accounts and hidden treasure.

First time benefits rose sharply by 25,000 over first estimates the week before.

2012-01-26T20:43:00.002-05:00

The Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Reportwas released this morning for last week. The 377,000 new claims is a 21,000 increase from an upward adjustment of 4,000 for the previous week (356K, previously 352K). The less volatile and closely watched four-week moving average came in at 377,500, the eleventh week below 400K after 29 consecutive weeks above that benchmark. Here is the official statement from the Department of Labor:

Note: the previous week was initially reported at 352,000 and adjusted twice before this week. "21,000" does not sound as bad as "25,000." - blog editor.

In the week ending January 21, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 377,000, an increase of 21,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 356,000. The 4-week moving average was 377,500, a decrease of 2,500 from the previous week's revised average of 380,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.8 percent for the week ending January 14, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending January 14, was 3,554,000, an increase of 88,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,466,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,569,000, a decrease of 15,750 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,584,750.

Today's seasonally adjusted number came in slightly above the Briefing.com consensus estimate of 375K and likewise Briefing.com's own estimate of 375K.

As we can see, there's a good bit of volatility in this indicator, which is why the 4-week moving average (shown in the callouts) is a more useful number than the weekly data.

Hillary and Obama for 2012? Not going to happen and here is why.

2012-01-26T20:31:00.002-05:00

The is an opinion blog, my opinion blog. Right now, one of the more visited single owner opinion only, non news blogs on thenet. We are currently addressing more than half a million folks per yearand still growing. Having said that, this is still an opinion blog.

Such is no morethe case than this post. In dealing with the Left's ultimate electoralfantasy, an Obama/Hillary ticket, I have an . . . . . . . . . . . .. opinion.

The chances ofHillary running for president with a man who is opinionated, dictatorial, in love with his several abilities, condescending toall those within his purview, angry, and in belief that the he is better suited to accomplish aparticular task than any in his administration, are zero. I could haveadded, "She is already married to all that," but, that isnot exactly true.

Anyway, take a second and think about why Obamapicked the Democrat primary’s big loser, Joe Biden . . . . . . and he was just that. At the end of theprimary process, both Hillary and Obama amassed 18 millionvotes each. Biden gathered 64,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . apathetic showing.

Understand thatHillary as First Lady, was the most prolific in history. There hasnever been a First Lady as involved as Hillary Clinton and she did nogardening. She is intelligent, more so than Obama, full ofideas, experienced far beyond Obama's skill set, a past intern ofSaul Alinsky but without the radical angst. She has served in more capacitiesthan any living First Lady in history. She is the most popularpolitician within the Democrat Party andhas the talking heads in that party, crying in their beer.

She and Obama arenot compatible liberals. Most important of all differences, outsideof the fact that she is smarter than he, is the fact that he does notbelieve in incrementalism to the same degree as Hillary. As aresult, he has cost his party majority rule and stands in doubtof continuing into a second term.

He was would never off the VP position to Hillary and she would never accept. I think that, ideologically, the two are as far apart as two liberals can get.

Romeny is 6 points up on Obama. In 2008, Obama won by 7 points.

2012-01-26T19:12:00.000-05:00

Despite Newt Gingrich’s momentum within the Republican Party, he would be a weaker contender than Mitt Romney in a general election contest against President Barack Obama, according to a Suffolk University/7NEWS (WSVN-Miami) poll of likely voters in Florida.

Romney led Obama by 47 percent to 42 percent in the Florida survey, while Obama topped Gingrich by 9 points, 49 percent to 40 percent. Among independents, Obama led Romney 44 percent to 38 percent and opened up a 56 percent to 29 percent advantage over Gingrich. Gingrich grabbed 12 percent of registered Democrats, while Romney secured 18 percent of registered Democrats.

Here is why what is happening to Newt is happening to Newt.

2012-01-26T19:05:00.002-05:00

Note to Newt:

You really should not try to lie yourway out of marital disaster.

You really should not claim Reagan's mantel when opposed to much ofhis presidency.

You really should not claim the Soviet collapse when I had asmuch to do with that, as you did.

You really should not claim to be anti-Big Governmentwhen you voted for the Department of Education

You really should not claim to be a Reagan small government conservative when you see FDR as this nation's greatest president.

Latest Rasmussen Poll has Romney back on top in Florida: 39% to 31% (no article)

2012-01-26T18:54:00.001-05:00

Video: Newt sees FDR as greatest president. Is Newt a Conservative. Yes, but a big government conservative.

2012-01-26T14:57:00.000-05:00

Whilesome of you will see the obvious contradiction in the above headline, Ithink that Newt sees this as a viable political position. Certainly if itis, a rethinking of "conservatism" is the prevailing demand ofthe day which drives us to ask this: "Seriously, what are the differences between a Romney Presidency and a Newt Presidency? " Forget about where each came from, their individual histories; neither is all that impressive to a TEA party patriot. Forget all that !!! Ask yourself the question posed above. I say, the promised differences between the two does not amount to a pile of dust in my mother-in-law's home (hint: there is no dust in that woman's home !!). Be happy with this realization:

Neither Newt nor Romney nor Santorum will shape the future of the GOP. That mantel wholly lies with the TEA party grassroots movement. We are the one's with the power of the ballot box. When Colin Powell criticized TEA party types for a failure to compromise, he didn't know what he was talking about. We can and are compromising, even our principles, if you will, as we move to elect a candidate that does not fit our (TEA party) agenda. There are those who do "fit," such as Jim DeMint or Marco Rubio, or Sarah Palin, or Paul Ryan. But none of the above are in the contest. We are left with compromise, but that does not mean a desertion of our principles. In that sense, there can be no waivering.

Afterthe election, there will remain much work to be done. Our TEA partyhero's will still be there, just not sitting in our White House. Let's defeat this practicing atheist/secularist and get on with America.

Just keep these endorsements in mind: Nancy Reagan, Michael Reagan, Jake Tapper (Reagan's closest financial adviser). Again, Newt is a conservative but he tends to be more "big government" than we would prefer.

Feel any better about our choices? Good for you. I don't.

You are ten minutes away from a college education - electoral college, that is.

2012-01-26T12:22:00.000-05:00

blog editor's note: this came to me via my online inbox from Larry Sabato, the nationally known political prognosticator. It helps to explain the concern that many have concerning a Gingrich presidential candidacy. In addition to this, it shows us the electoral advantage Obama has over the Republicans, going into this campaign season. Understand that it is the electoral college vote count that is the critical measure in a presidential election . . . . and in a presidential elections only. Never forget that Alvin Gore won the popular vote count but lost the electoral vote. Some blamed the Florida election results for that. I disagree. If Gore had won his own state of Tennessee or Bill Clinton's state of Arkansas, he would have had enough electoral votes to win without Florida. Gore lost the 2000 election because he did not win his home state, period.

The following is tells us all just how much work needs to be done before the November elections.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball

THE GOP'S ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEWT-MARE

By Kyle Kondik, Geoffrey Skelley and Larry J. Sabato U.Va. Center for Politics

Let’s look at this a different way. Chart 1 shows the Crystal Ball’s Electoral College map. At this point, it is effectively a map pitting Obama vs. a generic Republican; such a race, we believe, would be close, given the president’s relative weakness.

Chart 1: Crystal Ball Electoral College map, Obama vs. generic Republican

Romney, were he the nominee, could potentially make this generic map even better for Republicans. He has no obvious weaknesses in any of the swing states, at least as measured by head to head polling, which we fully grant is not necessarily all that predictive at this stage. Also, he could potentially make some of the competitive states harder for Obama: He could mobilize the not-insignificant Mormon population in Nevada to help in that state and play off his relative home field advantages in Michigan (his father was governor of the state he grew up in) and New Hampshire (he served as governor of neighboring Massachusetts and has built deep bonds with the Granite State, which paid off in his recent primary romp there). In fact, if Romney were the nominee, we’d likely switch New Hampshire to "leans Republican" from toss up. While this only represents four electoral votes, consider this: take another five Obama states that went for George W. Bush twice (Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia) and put them in Romney’s column, and then add New Hampshire and all of John McCain’s states, and Romney is president.

Unlike Romney, we don’t see any competitive state where Gingrich would potentially perform better than a generic Republican. And, based on polling and our own thinking about the individual state-by-state contests, at this point we think he’d do worse than a generic Republican or Romney.

Again, polling at this early stage is not particularly trustworthy, but the differences between Romney and Gingrich head to head vs. Obama are telling. For instance, in Ohio, a recentQuinnipiac poll had Romney down only two -- but Gingrich down by 14. In December in Colorado, Public Policy Polling showed Obama up only two on Romney, but up eight on Gingrich. A Quinnipiac survey of Virginia showed Romney up two… and Gingrich down five.

Chart 2 shows the Obama v. Gingrich map, which is, needless to say, a nightmare for Republicans.

Chart 2: Crystal Ball Electoral College map, Obama vs. Gingrich

Notice, in particular, how this second map is much bluer in the crucial Midwestern states than the first map. Ohio, perhaps the nation’s key swing state, begins in the leans Democratic column. We also believe Gingrich would have little appeal to Hispanic voters, who are major voting blocs in a number of western swing states. Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, thus, are more Democratic in this map.

Henry Barbour, nephew of the former Mississippi governor and Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, drew flak recently for saying that he couldn’t support Gingrich because he said he liked having a Republican speaker of the House; that is, Gingrich would do poorly enough so that Obama’s coattails would elect a Democratic House.

With this map, one can understand his fears. In several Midwestern swing states, Republicans gained many House seats in 2010 that, thanks to their control of redistricting, they sought to lock in through aggressive remapping. Under this map, all of those states -- Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- would be tough territory for Gingrich. If his candidacy were a disaster, those new Republican gerrymanders could unravel. The close battle for the Senate could also be affected -- Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia all have competitive Senate races this year, and all of those states get bluer (or less red) on our map under a hypothetical Gingrich candidacy.

Forbes Magazine discovers that Buffet's secretary is hardly middle class.

2012-01-26T04:29:00.000-05:00

Here is an excerpt from the Forbes article. You will want to read the full article:

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between$100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand. . . . . .

TheWarren Rule? Phony baloney, plastic banana, rock and roll andlittle more. Kind of makes you wonder if Obama knows anyone who is reallypoor or middle class.

Remember all those Gingrich critics? "He will implode, sooner or later?" Maybe its sooner.

2012-01-26T04:06:00.001-05:00

Turns out he lied during the debate in which he castigated JohnKing of CNN. At the beginning of the debate, after blasting King intonext year, he cited the witness of two or three witnesses to his marriagewith Marianne as he denied an open affair with his mistress, Callista, now his wife.

At least, that is what is being reported in Politico. Let's remember that thePolitico editors could not care less about truth telling. It was Politicothat dug up those women used to bring Herman Cain down; four womenaccusing Herman of multiple affairs. After he quit the primary race, these four women completely disappeared, evidence of the Politico'simmoral intentions.

So, is thisanother lie from Politico? Time will tell, but the story from this lowlife media source is news, today.

See the storyhere, but wait to hear what comes next:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/01/gingrich-admits-abc-claim-was-false-112344.html

I am still thinking about Newt. His problem? He is not a conservative ideologue but he is a conservative.

2012-01-26T03:29:00.000-05:00

I find Newt's claim to be a "Reagan conservative" more than problematic. I turned 40 in the middle of the Reagan years. In 1987, Reagan vetoed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, a bill co-sponsored by Newt. After Reagan vetoed the bill, Newt joined an effort to over-ride the veto. Newt, a conservative? Yes, of course. A Reagan conservative? Not really.

In a related article written by one who was a part of the Reagan Administration, we have this testimony, setting the record straight in more exacting terms: http://www.creators.com/opinion/mark-shields/newt-rewrites-his-reagan-connection.html

And, there is my article here: http://meetsarahpalin.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-case-against-newt-i-announced-my.html

The point? Newt's claim to being a Reagan conservative is not accurate. I hasten to add that despite his "journey off the reservation" from time to time, his four-plus years as Speaker, were all about a marked conservatism that is without debate.

Here are eight points that were foundational to his "contract with America." You cannot review them without realizing Newt's conservative heart. "Reagan" is a buzz word. Newt was a young, conservative Representative during the Reagan days, with no more claim to the 16 million Reagan jobs created and the defeat of the Soviet Union than I, after all, we were both "there" and that seems to be Newt's only reason for making the claim.

But look at his "contract with America" ----

It was intended to

require alllaws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
selecta major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit ofCongress for waste, fraud or abuse;
cut thenumber of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
limit theterms of all committee chairs;
ban thecasting of proxy votes in committee;
requirecommittee meetings to be open to the public;
require athree-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
guarantee anhonest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zerobase-line budgeting.

The fact of the matter is this: Newt did more for theconservative cause in the 1990's than anyone in this primary contest. Wish he didn't feel the need to embellish the record.

Update: Regardless of what is being said about Newt by me and others, understand that there have been two conservative revolutions . . . . . well, threerevolutions counting the TEA party movement. The first and granddaddy of all, was the Reagan revolution. The second was the Gingrich revolution in the 1990's. And now, we have the TEA party grassroots revolution.

I do not understand why Gingrich does not run solely on his own merits. He is clearly attaching himself to Reagan's successes, specifically the fall of the Soviet Union and the creation of 16 million jobs during the Reagan years. While he was there, during the Reagan time, his vision of conservatism was different from that of Reagan's. He believed that Reagan's Soviet strategy was a failed strategy and was quite vocal in his opposition, BUT, he was a conservative, nonetheless. Reagan did not need the freshman congressman, Newt Gingrich, to make his points and run his conservative agenda. Did Newt help draft Reagan's speech or help chart his campaigns for president? Was it Newt's vision that brought the Kipper into the foreground? "No" to all of the above.

Newt should run on his own big government conservative agenda and stop with the "It was me and Ronnie" crap. That would be much closer to the truth.

Could she look more vindictive? Here is proof that she is willing to lie.

2012-01-26T01:28:00.000-05:00

Pelosi’s spokesperson said that the remarks were being misinterpreted, and that she was merely referring to things that were in a 1990s-era Ethics Committee report compiled on Gingrich, which is in the public record.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71941.html#ixzz1kXf0bWaw

That is their story. But those of us who actually saw her make her statement on CNN know that she expected everyone to believe that she had secret information that would bring Gingrich down. She was not "merely referring to things . . . . .in the public record." If her aids will lie about what we all witnessed, they will lie about anything. Just keep that in mind.

Quote of the Primary Campaign: Bob Dole to Newt.

2012-01-26T00:58:00.003-05:00

. . . . . . . This prompted an apocryphal Washington exchange between a perplexed Gingrich and Dole. "Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly explained: "Because it saves them time."

A great line, but keep in mind that Dole really was the Establishment candidate. It was "his turn" and no one believed that he ever had a chance of beating Clinton in his bid to win re-election. The GOP didn't even try. Dole, a wonderful man, got the nomination because he deserved the opportunity, period.

But it is funny line.

How many watched the State of the Union ?

2012-01-25T19:35:00.001-05:00

It was the lowesttotal of all four speeches, 37 million down from 52 million in 2009 and48 million in 2010. The number is significant because it certainlyrepresents an enthusiasm level that is nowhere near the levels of 2008, when he won the election by just 7% of the vote.

Brewer resists Obama's insults and Bobby Jindal complains about a threatening Obama.

2012-01-25T19:16:00.002-05:00

Governor JanBrewer is tired of being ignored and insulted by

thethin skin Chicago Organizer we have as a president.

Huh.Aren't we all !?

Drudgegives us this report: "I thought we probably would've talked about the things thatwere important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country isupside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I knowagain that he loves this country and I love this country."

It was clear from themoment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-millencounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she waspointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time,seemingly over each other.

He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and sheconfirmed that by saying she didn't finish her sentence.

Ah, my number one “pet pev,” someone walking away from me while I amtalking.

Jan Brewer was not the first GOP governor to be confronted by Obama, but she may be the first to let Obama how she feels about being ignored. Here is a story found in the Weekly Standard. It concerns an episode between Obama and Governor Bobby Jindal. You will want to read the Spectator story after reading Obama's final words of the encounter with Jindal:

But somehow, for some reason, President Obama had personalized this. And he was upset.

There was not a word about the oil spill. He was concerned about looking bad because of the letter. “Careful,” he said to me, “this is going to get bad for everyone.”

Quote of the Day from the midget at Fox, Greg Gutfeld

2012-01-25T17:04:00.002-05:00

If you had a drink for every mention of "fairness" in the State

of the Union, you would be drunk, naked, and hanging in a tree.

Why high speed rail and not the already approved Keystone Pipeline ?? That seems so wrong.

2012-01-25T16:59:00.001-05:00

More evident that Obama is the Anti-Investment/Business Candidate.

2012-01-25T16:57:00.000-05:00

In Obama's State of the Union speech, on Tuesday night, he propose a 30% tax on the rich. What does that mean? Are the rich being taxed at a 36% rate, as it is?

The reason for the confusion is this: he was not talking about the "rich," per se. Rather, he was talking about the 15% folks make off dividends paid on their investment capital. Folks like Romney and Warren Buffet, live off their dividend checks, but the vast majority of investors, do not. However, "living off dividend income" is the ultimate goal of nearly all investors.

Understand, then, that Obama is talking about increasing taxes on investment capital at the dividend level. But that is not the end of his attack on investment capital. Add to this increase (from 15 to 30 percent) he wants to increase the taxes on corporate [investment] profits to 40%.

In the end, he wants to increase taxes on corporate profits at two levels, to a total of 70% !! And, yet, he pretends to be a friend of "venture" or investment funding.

Thought of the week and it has to do with protecting your wealth.

2012-01-25T13:44:00.004-05:00

Rush Limbaugh: "If you want to protect your riches,

become a liberal and your wealth is safe"

(words to this effect)

About inviting some to "sit in the booth" as a presidential function

2012-01-25T13:31:00.000-05:00

Understand that President Reagan began the tradition of inviting folks to sit in the presidential box, during the State of the Union address. His choice was a man who had risked life and limb in an attempt to rescue passengers in a downed aircraft. Reagan's choice was a non-partisan affair. No one to this day knows if the "hero of the day" was a Democrat or a Republican. The Reagan choice was a clear hero, by anyone's standards.

Last night, Obama adulterated that tradition, by asking Warren Buffet's secretary to sit next to Michelle Obama . . . . . . . . a woman who is about to join his Administration, a symbol of one of the most partisan campaign tactics (his war against class, in this country) of the current political cycle.

She is hardly a hero. In fact, on merit, she is no more distinguished than I am; no more qualified to sit in that box than your next door neighbor. But, she has become a tool of the Left as they push forward their strategy of class warfare.

Anyone want to bet that she makes more money than half this nation?

A shame.

UPDATED text to "Now, there is talk by Establishment GOP of replacing Newt should he win the primary count."

2012-01-25T05:50:00.001-05:00

Buchanan: The establishment can’t take the nomination away from the primary winner

That's the headline and Buchanan is right, for a change. This will blow up in the face of the Establishment GOP and spell the end of the Grand Old Party, not to mention the defeat of the party in the coming election.

Someone tell Chris Christie and Ann Coulter, the Mutt and Jeff of the GOP, to sit down and shut the hell up.

Updated text:

Understand this: Iused to have a statement on my blog that went something like this: "The blog is dedicated to returning America to itsroots. That cannot happen without bringing the GOP back to itsconservative values." I meant itback then (2008), but had no clue just how definitively importantthis statement would be. The GOP does not get to play the game the way ithas for the past several decades. And they don't like it and they thinkthe party is now in the hands of the Kook Fringe Right. Their (theEstablishment Right) collective arrogance blows. Apparently, theyhave no clue just how much their compromising values are disliked, evenhated, and how many there are in that category.

You should know that by “compromising” I have in mind a backing off fromConstitutional principles and Constitutionally driven solutions. I understand the need to compromise as tolegislative construct . . . . . . . . . . . as long as that compromise does noharm to the Founder’s Dream and the established rules for the advancement of anational governance.

If a Mitch Daniels was toenter the race, abiding by the rules, Isuppose that would be fine. If someonevisited a brokered national convention (“brokered” has to do with a conventionin which there is no clear 1^st ballot nominee), that would be fine --- in and of itself. But, if there is any sense that the Establishment Right is using the rules todefeat the will of the GOP conservative constituency, well, that is another matter; that is a declaration of war.

Most importantly, if, infact, we have a clear “winner” coming out of the primary process, we all needto agree on his candidacy and get in the game with gusto anddetermination.

Update: there are only 13 states open to adding names to their primary ballot. All primary ballots will be closed by the end of February.

State of the Union or the Obama "Wish List" A review.

2012-01-25T05:20:00.001-05:00

It was a wish list, not a to-do list.

This is campaign season. All 435 House representatives are up for election as well as 33 Senators. Understand that before congress can act on any of this, Obama has to write it into several proposals, submit them to the appropriated houses of congress and proceed from there . . . . . not going to happen; not enough time. And what is he going to do in his second term.? Why did he not reference that? To date, we have nothing from Obama about his next term. A wish list, indeed !!!

He pushed for;

1. an immigration overhaul that was promised during his first year – didn’t even try.

2. permanent college tuition tax credits that he asked for a year ago – ignored by his own.

3. familiar discouragements for companies that move overseas – again, no serious interest.

4. Increased tax (36 billion) on gas and oil profits - something that as failed twice before.

5. a “future where we’re in control of our own energy” yet has done nothing to advance this end and has no plans to increase domestic production.

6. a restoration of the economy “where everyone gets a fair shot” – but gave this “fair shot” any definition.

7. for increased taxation of the rich, saying “a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.” Actually the effective tax rate of folks making more than $250,000 per year is 31%, only 4.5% for the bottom half of the nation. - he has enact this increase and it does not seem likely during an election year.

8. for manufacturing to “Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.” No plan, no incentives – just a wish for voluntary compliance.

9. for punishing overseas manufacturing by US based companies via the tax code as a means of forcing them to return to this country, in spite of the fact that the jobs were created overseas, not taken from this country and moved to foreign markets. – this tax will never happen, of course. His own party will not support this.

10. national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. - of course tech and vocational schools are fairly numerous, the educational solutions are already in place.

11. a threat against higher education: let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. – of course this genius plan will only make matters worse for the cash strapped educational systems in this nation.

12. risk-taker and entrepreneur to “aspires to become the next Steve Jobs” and then, of course, he will tax the hell out of them.

13. “a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage” another bit of smoke and mirrors – “responsible homeowner” is one who is current on their loans for three months . This is his third such plan, the second while serving as president. The first two were miserable failures.

See the full text here. http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8286359728984061619#editor/target=post;postID=8445044452076179886

Supreme Court Justices did not attend the State of the Union speech, in mass.

2012-01-25T03:56:00.002-05:00

I don't know if you noticed, but there were only four HighCourt justices in the audience, tonight. I don't remember when sofew attended a presidential speech of this nature. Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy joined Justices Ruth BaderGinsburg, Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts was also at thespeech.

Not in attendance were Justice SoniaSotomayor, who Obama appointed to the court, Justices Samuel Alito, ClarenceThomas, John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia.

What does it mean to see 5 members of the HighCourt skip the single most important presidential speech of the year(typically) ? Honestly, I don't know but it is a surprisingdevelopment, to be sure. Very unusual.

Something else that is curious to me is the factthat Justice Ginsburg has announced that she has no intentions of retiring fromthe court before the November elections. She is 78 and, perhaps, the most liberal of the Associates. One would think that she wouldsee the advantage of retiring during the term of a liberal president.

Government has gotten small because of Obama's policies but not because of his intent.

2012-01-25T03:34:00.001-05:00

While Obama continues to grow the size of Process Government, tonight, for example, talking about adding three more agencies tothe burgeoning size of the Centralized Government, we have this headline: Post Office 'Needs to Cut 260,000Jobs'... Theineptness of government and its inability to revise itself in the face of arapidly changing world, makes the fact of its obesity unsustainable ashard times diminish federal revenues and, hence, the life blood offederal funding. Understand that all federal jobs are"administrative" or "regulatory." They are all"entitlement" positions, never judged on the basis of theirfiscal profitability. None of them are wealth producing jobs. Theyare not self sustaining position as are private sector jobs. Whilefederal wages expand GDP statistics, the tax dollars demanded to rungovernment are taken away from the private sector, money that could beused to create jobs, fund infrastructure, drive research and development as a private sector investment opportunity, rather than agovernment opportunity to pick winners and losers.

The size of theCentral Government is smaller, now, than a year ago by 30,000 governmentjobs. Over all, and at all levels (federal, state and local), government has lost500,000 jobs since 2007. . . . . a good thing, in andof itself.. Understand that if each job represents only$30,000 annually including wages and benefits, the currentreduction in the size of governments has saved the private sector taxpayer some30 billion dollars per year. Of course, that money does not go backinto the private sector. Rather, it is used to prop up our blotted governments(federal, state and local) and rescue themselves from their ownmismanaged debt. This is why the public should always refuse highertaxes. Such electoral decisions force government to streamline, despite partisan political agenda's.

The good thingabout "recession" is this: governments have no choice but todownsize their workforce and reduce or adjust payouts and benefit packages.

One of the bigdifferences between free market capitalism and a government entitlement systems (all government employees are part of a thing I call "entitlement economics"). In a capitalist society, people work for their advancement. In an entitlement society, folks like teachers and firemen, as important as they are, demand their advancement and the taxpayer has to shell out more and moreto meet these demands.

Barack Obama isthe King of Entitlements, and his speech, tonight, didnothing but confirm that opinion.

Think tonight's speech sounded familiar? The RNC complied this video to that point.

2012-01-25T02:32:00.000-05:00

Its only a 1.27sec long. Take a few and listen.

Obama's State of the Union: The Verdict per the Liberal and Conservative Networks.

2012-01-25T00:23:00.001-05:00

Post script: Theconclusion to all of the following is this: Obama truly ran out of ideasduring the fifth week of his first year.

******

(Tuesday after Obama speech) I took timeto listen to both CNN and Fox News in their analysis of the speech. TheFox coverage, was, by in large, predictable. The Luntz focusgroup said, "The speech was dark and divisive," and "more of thesame old, same old."

On CNN, David Gregen, a solidly Liberal Democrat, contrastedClinton's last speech before his re-election campaign, with this speech andObama's re-election strategy. Gergen made these points: "Clinton moved to the middle, worked with both parties and backedoff some of his more radical views." Gergen went on to say,"Obama has done the opposite, He has doubled down on his views. He may have made his base happy with this speech, but we shall seehow it is viewed by the larger population." There was a subtlenegativism to Gergen's comments . . . . perhaps a predictor of the comingelection.

Understandthat Obama wanted a debt commission and then, ignored its recommendations.

His signature legislation, the health care reform bill crammed through congress after a year of divisive compromise, is supported by only 38% of the electorate.

And tonight, he advanced his class warfare strategy as he called forhigher taxes on the rich and implied that those taxes are necessary to push forwardeducation,. a substantive military, healthcare and reductions in the nationaldebt --- again, all of this on the back of a one trilliondollar tax increase to the rich. In effect, he said "We can't have tax breaks for the rich and push forward those efforts critical to our best interests." Few seem to see the humor in thisnonsense, but a one trillion dollar tax increase on the "rich,"spread out over the course of 10 years, which is the Obama plan, amounts to 1/10th of the annual debt. While some will argue, "it is a start," the fact remains it amounts to empty rhetoricand a next to nothing "solution."

In hisspeech, tonight, he ignored addressing Medicare andMedicaid, Social Solution, the six trillion dollar debt crisis, and increasingly dangerous world, the increased threat of nuclear war in the Middle East, homeland energy strategy that bring down fuel prices, the failure to provide "shovel ready jobs" or substantially deal with the 15 million folks who have no job. But, he did made a plug for three more government agencies.

A well wordedbut pathetic speech.

J Smithson

Obama versus either Mitt or Newt : its a virtual tie according to Gallup

2012-01-24T22:56:00.003-05:00

GALLUP: OBAMA 50% NEWT 48% OBAMA 50% ROMNEY 48% You are looking at a virtual tie except for this story: Pelosi On A Gingrich Presidency: "That Will Never Happen . . . . there is something that I know." Link So there you have it; the extremely vindictive Nancy Pelosi claiming or pretending to "know something" about Gingrich that is so egregious, that his future as president of the United States is doomed. Embedded in this story is a Nancy Pelosi willing to take this country to the very Brink for the sake of partisan political gain. Complain as we do about this piece of white trash, there had better be no October surprise when it comes to Gingrich. From the talk, only Pelosi and Newt have knowledge of this circumstance. But we cannot forego the political process, our political process, on the basis of a rogue politician's (Pelosi) threat to sink the ship. Understand that Pelosi is perfectly willing to look folks in the camera'a eye and tell them, "If we pass this health care bill, we will see the creation of 400,000 jobs almost immediately." We know that while Speaker, she was actually feared; cross paths with her as a Democrat, and you sacrificed your committee positions and opportunities for upward advancement within the party. Right now, we have to wait and see. Can she keep your mindless mouth shut, or will fall to temptation and spill the beans before hand? Time will tell. As things stand at the present, that electability of Newt or Romney is no longer an issue.

Record setting day for Midknight Review.

2012-01-24T19:10:00.004-05:00

We had 1784 hits, today, as well as 423 hits on our SarahPalin site. Alex rankings have the Review in the top 2.87 % of all Googleblogs. The lesson, here, is, be careful of percentages. In my case, the "top 2.8 % " means there are 8 millionblog that have better stats than my.

I remain pleasedwith the new and improving numbers, however. I have grandiose notions of reaching three quarters of a million, this year.

Our previous Review record was 1756.

Maybe we have a reason for Obama's decision to turn down the Keystone pipeline.

2012-01-24T16:56:00.001-05:00

Human Events carries this AP story: It makes the case that, in lieu ofthe pipeline, the oil coming out of North Dakota, will have to be trucked to the gulf region. Guess who benefits from this arrangement? A trucking consortium whose principle owner is Warren Buffet.

"Thoserail shipments are expected to “increase exponentially with increased oilproduction and the shortage of pipelines,” according to Justin Kringstad,director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. That’s going to be quitea windfall for the railroad companies, isn’t it? Asit happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakotais handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unitof Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. What a coincidence!"

And tonight, during Obama'sState of the Campaign speech, Buffet's much talked about secretary, the one who pays more taxes than her boss, willjoin Michelle Obama in the box overlooking the floor of the House. Shehas, also, just joined the Obama Administration.

One would think these clownswould, at least, make some sort of effort not to be soobvious.

Obama - most frugal president: Obama's social media strategy is already underway. Here is what came to my wife's facebook

2012-01-24T15:11:00.004-05:00

Obama intends on flooding social media with this sort of garbage.

This is soridiculous as to be laughably stupid.

It came to my wife's site, unsolicited, andwas

sent by a black activist out of Chicago. Here is her facebook address:

http://www.facebook.com/BarbaraWrightPryorWilliams

Using this idiotic chart, Dems mightbe inclined to argue that

Obama is themost frugal president of modern times.

I think theyshould run on that point.

Here is the problem with Obama's politics of envy: no one cares according to Gallup

2012-01-24T13:44:00.002-05:00

Inthe most recent survey taken by Gallup, only 2% care about thedebate over rich versus middle class. Two percent !! Yet, themulti-millionaire, Barack Obama, is making class envy a central issue inhis campaign, beginning with tonights State of the Union address. Time will tell if he can pull off this scam tactic.

There is a private sector bank financed bail-out under way (story developing)

2012-01-24T13:27:00.001-05:00

Gingrich threaten to skip debates where applause is not permitted

2012-01-24T13:19:00.000-05:00

Gingrich won't ‘allow’ moderators to silence crowd at futuredebates —

So Brian Williams runs atight ship. So what. Since I don't understand why our side of the debateallows the MSM to run the debates and set procedural standards, why wouldI respect Williams for ordering the audience to silence? After all, it really is not "The NBC debate," it is the GOP PrimaryDebate." Our guys are the stars of the show and Brian Williams along withthe rest of Obama's stooges deserve no quarter for their participation, except, of course, the millions they make off commercialadvertisement.

If the Democrats cancheer and applaud and whoop it up at the memorial funeral service for those killedand wounded in the Arizona shootings, why can't patriots cheer at theirown debates?

Anyone remember the PaulWellstone memorial service back in 2002? I do. Nothing short of a full blown political peprally. It was so bad, the next morning, staffers for the Wellstone family held a press conference and apologizedfor the raucous nature of the "ceremony." So to, did the state's governor and the state's Democrat chairman offer apologies. In fact, itwas so bad, that Wellstone's Democrat replacement went from nearly 20 pointsahead, in some polls during the special election, to loosing the election to the GOP by 8 points just six dayslater.

Gingrich is righteous in his complaint and the Commission on Presidential Politics has no business treating audience members as if they were children in need of discipline. Hope he sticks to his guns. If nothing else, the audience can challenge the rules.

Young Life News: Abortion is safer than birthing according to studies.

2012-01-24T10:29:00.000-05:00

(Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

That's the headline for the opening round of reporting. My only comment is this: abortion is not safer for the infant. Understand that an abortion often involves the tearing apart of a living being as in pulling a head or an arm or a leg off the body, "its" extraction from the womb, and its entry onto a log counting "successful" abortions. 1.4 million abortions last year -- all but a few hundred done just for the hell of it; the mother's health not being threaten. And they call this "family planning."

Amazing. Genocide is now considered "family planning" by the pointie headed academics on the Left and they are smarter than us common folk !!!!???

Why Mitch Daniels, Jim DeMint and Paul Ryan should not enter the GOP primary race.

2012-01-24T10:20:00.001-05:00

Calling Mitch Daniels — For months now, even as the rest of the conservative commentariat has gradually resigned itself to the existing presidential field, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol has continued to pine — publicly, unstintingly, immune to either embarrassment or fatigue— for another candidate to jump into the race . . . . . . . .

I like Mitch Daniels. He is the retiring governor of Indiana (term limits) and would be “available” to run for the presidency. But he has declined to do so, in convincing terms, I might add. Besides, while he might look like that spotless, controversy free candidate we all seem to be looking for, we know that if he were to “declare,” the press would immediately begin their small minded game of character assassination.

Let’s get this vetting business over with and with the folks who have shown a willingness to serve.

You should know that the press is no longer deserving of the protections it has under the first amendment, but there it is. On several occasions, I have actually heard pundits on CNN and MSNBC challenge the need to be “objective” in their reporting with the remark, “this is just too important a time to be objective” is the repeated comment. I remember Sean Hannity asserting that “this is the year the objective media died.” That was back in 2008, well before Obama’s advent to the throne. His statement seemed somewhat contrived, to me, at the time. Yet, as it turned out, he could not have been more to the truth of the matter. You know that Hannity has hit a home run on the issue when the Lap Dogs in the MSM, in effect, agree.

So our war is not with Obama, alone, but with a media that is hell bent on picking winners and losers as it participates in the fundamental transformation of this country.

But, the good guys have a healthy and well develop alternative media in place, as well. And, while it is not perfect, by any means, we can discover the facts and move truth forward in our struggle to recapture the vitality of the Founders’ vision.

If Mitch Daniels came into the race, at this juncture, or Paul Ryan or Sarah Palin or Marco Rubio or Jim DeMint, the press would simply shift gears and turn the dogs loose on these American heroes. In short order, the frustration we now feel, would be revisited upon us.

Let’s insist that our candidates be open and honest with us, hunker down for the fight ahead, and remain united in the effort to drive the thriving evil influence that are the Communalist/One Worlders, from our midst.

I never thought I would ever say this, but I actually long for the day when we have to deal with a normal liberal. Are there any left? I think so, but they are unwilling to speak up, for the most part. Diane Feinstein is a committed liberal but not a radicalized liberal. She is a Senator from my home state, and is regarded as a friend to farming, when all is said and done. Evan Bayh is another example of a Democrat that still believes in this nation’s historicity.

Understand that the Liberal – Big Government politician has been with us from the very beginnings of this nations time. That is a historical fact. Some of the Founders, indeed, favored a more centralized governance than did other Founders. I think we have lost track of that part of the original polemic that was aspect of this nation’s earliest debates and rhetorical challenges.

Understand that the Democrat party’s leadership is not driven by the same social science as those Democrats just 60 years ago. JFK would have been a moderate Republican by today’s political standards. The radicalization of the Democrat Party really shifted into full gear, as far as I am concerned, with the work of Hillary Clinton (I say Hillary, not Bill) and blossomed into full flower with the blooming idiot, Nancy Pelosi.

What folks do not know is that Hillary worked as an intern for none other than Saul Alinsky. If you do not know who that is, shame on you. At this late date, you are so far behind the game as to be embarrassing.

Hillary served as an Alinsky intern and wrote her Bachelors thesis on aspects of his life (1969). She was a young Republican, back then, but there can be no doubt the influence Alinsky had on her life. She lived the life, back in a time when Alinsky was teaching and writing (Rules for Radicals) . He died in 1978.

Obama is only a student of this man’s radical challenge. And Pelosi, anything but a student of radicalism, is one at heart, kind of the “dumb blonde” of the far far Left.

We are where we are today, more because of these three than any other grouping of leadership. They are still alive. This is all very recent. There is time to reverse their influence, but NOW is that time. Another ten years, and the Establishment GOP will be a fact of life and surrender to the One World Leftist Cause will be an accomplished fact.

We have work to do, in the name of all those who thought this country would continue. And when I say "we," I mean to include those Democats who care about this nation's traditions, history and conversation.

Did Ron Paul offer a little support to Newt as Speaker? I think he did.

2012-01-24T02:42:00.001-05:00

At one point in the debate, Ron Paul offered his explanationas to Newt's stepping down as speaker. After pointing out that he wasthere, as a House member, during the 1990's, he made it clearthat Gingrich did not quit in disgrace. The House censure happened in1997 and Newt continued as Speaker after that event. He quite in 1999, when it became clear that he no longer had the membership needed tocontinue his agenda. The GOP had lost a few seats in the 1998 election, weakening the GOP majority and preventing Newt from finishing the work hehad in mind.

After the debate, some idiot babe onMSNBC charged that Paul had undercut Newt's explanation, that under Newt's leadership, the House hadlost seats, that after the censure, he was kicked out as Speaker. Thatis what she said of Paul's comment. A flat out lie. It is verydiscouraging to know that these network sources actually employ media whores todo their dirty work.

It is a matter of record.

I will double check my memory against the record, as soon as someone produces the debate's transcript.

I have to tell you that, to date, the criticism of Newt by the MSM has been specious at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. If that is all they've, Newt will survive their onslaught.

Andrea Mitchell caught in a whopper about Mitt.

2012-01-24T02:20:00.000-05:00

Andrea Mitchell onMitt Romney’s Ancestors: ‘They Crossed the Border Illegally’

This was mentioned in the NBC debate tonight. The truth of the matter is this: his grandfather had gone to Mexico and later returned to this country. He re-entered the US as an American citizen, not as an illegal alien.

Apparently the MSM is now, into reporting the latest gossip as "news."

Case closed on that matter.

Gingrich releases his copy of the 2006 contract with Freddie Mac.

2012-01-23T22:49:00.001-05:00

In a story found in Bloomberg, today, Newt Gingrich released his copy of a contract he had with Freddie Mac in 2006. The GSE does not have that contract. The institution could not find his earlier contract (1999 - 2002), either. Apparently Newt does not have a copy of the contract for that first term of employment, as well.

One thing thatcame out in the Bloomberg report was the fact that Newt did not register asa lobbyist, which is required by law, and especially (I think)if the agency he is representing is one of the two GSE's. Unless we have reason to believe otherwise, we must conclude that he was, in fact, not a lobbyist. To date, no one has come forward with anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I would have thought this would be the case, if he had worked as lobbyist, de facto or otherwise.

Whatever the case, understand that it is not Gingrich who has lost track of the contracts. While we would think that he would have kept copies as he did in for thesecond employment cycle at the GSE, the primary responsibility forproducing those docs surely must lay with the agency. Newt is required to keep track of his tax returns, and, apparently, he has done so. He is not required to keep copies of contracts that are 10 to 12 years old.

He did not register as a lobbyist and there is nothing to indicate that he served in that capacity.

Case closed as far as I am concerned.

Fred Thompson endorses Newt Gingrich on the Hannity Fox Show, tonight !!!

2012-01-23T21:38:00.001-05:00

Never forget that John McCain said this about TEA Party conservatives.

2012-01-23T19:31:00.001-05:00

“The ideaseems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a defaultcrisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn enmasse against Barack Obama….Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass abalanced budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea partyhobbits could return to Middle-earth…This is the kind of crack politicalthinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell into GOP nominees. Thereality is the debt limit will be raised one way or another." July 27, 2011.

This Arizona moron forgets that the TEA party savedthe party's butt in 2010 and changed the debate to one of cutting taxes andincreasing spending savings. Without the TEA party babe, SarahPalin, this idiot would have lost the 2008 election by 15 points insteadof 7.

Sarah tells Fox: "Christie has panties in a wad - a rookie mistake." I love it.

2012-01-23T19:22:00.002-05:00

Sarah: "Poor Chris? This was a rookie mistake. He played right into the media’s hand. Sometimes, if your candidate loses, in just one step along this path as was the case when Romney lost to Newt the other night and of course Romney is Chris Christie’s guy, well you kinda get your panties in a wad and you may say things that you regret later. And I think that’s what Chris Christie did."

Updated: tonight (Monday 1/22) our First Lady defended her comments about Christie, The gist of her remarks included the thinking that Christie had played into the hands of the major and opposing media; that he had responded in just the way the Marxist Media prefers. She made the point that Christie had handed the Obamanites a campaign commercial. She reminded Hannity's listeners of Christie's decision to take a state paid helicopter to one of his children's soccer games, that such was an "embarrassment" to the party" in the same way that some of what Gingrich has done in some of his past dealings. It is apparent to me that Sarah is leaning towards Gingrich. Time will tell.

This is all so very frustrating, isn't it, especially if you are a TEA party patriot. It has come down to two fellows who have a lot of issues as relates to conservative issues. Lately, I have been on the rampage concerning Gingrich, not giving him any credit for what he did accomplish. While he claims more than he has a right to claim, still, helping to balance a budget four years running was not minor deal. And organizing for a GOP congressional majority (both houses of congress) in 1994 in the most surprising elections in my life-time is specifically the work of Newt Gingrich. While I have backed off my support of Newt, I have only moved back into the realm the non-committed.

I do think that Gingrich's win in South Carolina is extremely significant. The women are very conservative, yet they voted in mass for Gingrich, the adulterer. The evangelical community is substantial, yet it voted for Newt, as well. He won over Independents and took a close second with Moderates, bridging the "likability" gap that should have worked against him in those categories. And his 31 point swing in Florida is stunning. He seems to be proving the point that his message is more important than all the negatives his name brings to mind. He definitely is not Establishment. Can he beat Obama? Well, some are screaming "Hell no!" But, I seem to remember polls of a couple of months ago, polls that have Newt running right on the heels of the Slickmeister. So we wait and see. After all, there are 47 remaining primaries, including Florida.