Are you better off than you were 6 yrs ago????

Simple question - Easy answer for most. NO.

But I digress....Monday Political update

Monday SCOTUS rulings punish the fraud sitting in the White House. Awesome.

The political mood in America has never been worse.  The media and Dems said this same statement in 2008 and promised to make things better.  Another lie told to Voters.

Things are bad all over.  Latest economic news states economy shrank by 2.9% in the 1st qtr of 2014.  Damn, that is NOT GOOD.   White House reaction??  Blame it on bad winter weather.

This is one more sign that voters were stupid to elect the Moron in the White House in 2008 and stupider to do so again in 2012.  He's a total lame duck now and has been for some time.  He emboldens our enemies abroad as they see his weakness.  He's the biggest empty suit of all time....

Can't wait to see the 2014 Midterms - Hopefully, voters will turn out in force to strip DEMS of Senate majority and then start reversing the crappola that was voted through like OCare.... Can't happen quick enough....

Tweet of the Election Evening / A note to the people of NH

RT @lembas_n_coffee: We keep hearing "Too close to call" but what I'm hearing is "Too many Americans want free crap."
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) November 7, 2012
 

My personal note to the people of NH -

REALLY ???  REALLY ?? You voted for this idiot who is the opposite of what NH is all about.

 LIVE FREE OR DIE my arse.  NH is no longer part of the solution, they are a part of the problem.

Pay No Attention to the Burning Flags, Stormed Consulates, and Dead Americans . . .

Pretty Much sums it up - " It's all Bush's Fault" - Obama is a complete failure domestically and on Foreign Policy

National Review -The Corner

Pay No Attention to the Burning Flags, Stormed Consulates, and Dead Americans . . . By Victor Davis Hanson - National Review September 14, 2012

One of the ways of understanding the strange nonchalant response of the administration to prior warnings of trouble in the Arab Spring countries, and its contextualization of the violence on the anniversary of 9/11, is its belief that it is somehow separated from the object of the violence. Raging crowds and Islamic wrath could not possibly be connected to the enlightened Obama administration or, more generally to a U.S. that has been “reset” on his watch — given the three years of laborious Muslim outreach and the long-ago departure of George Bush. So we are to think away all those burning flags, stormed consulates, and dead Americans, and instead remember that the violence “is a response,” a sort of cry of the heart against a couple of America-residing video makers — and has nothing much to do with any anger at well-meaning Americans per se.

Apparently no one in charge seems to grasp that this latest video pretext is simply yet another tool, in a long line of many, for premodern Islamists to manipulate and galvanize their fury against the United States, whose success and power obsess them no end — no matter what we do or who happens to be in the White House, soaring Cairo speech and “leading from behind” or not.

Cf., for example, Jay Carney’s latest and perhaps most embarrassing explication yet:

"We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims."

Note to Mr. Carney: Radical Islamists really do not care whether “we” have judged some crackpot video “reprehensible and disgusting.” They have more important aims than distinguishing the Obama administration or its policies from the moronic Terry Jones.

If Jay Carney has any say at all in U.S. policy, then we are in real trouble.

Kabul Press calls Massachusetts more corrupt than Afghanistan

My wife and I were discussing the issue of the "Government Critters" on both sides of the world, and that there really is no real difference as the Government at home and the Government here are inhabited by the same level of ineffective and overpaid staff. They aren't very effective and are highly overpaid for the work that they do. It doesn't matter if you are in Afghanistan or the USA, these fools have taken over the Government that is supposed to work for us. Instead they have made it all about themselves.

Here's a point-of-view from the AFGHN side where the local press in Kabul describes how they see the State of Massachusetts as corrupt (if not more so)than those in Afghanistan.

With DEVAL PATRICK in charge in the State of Massachusetts, I can kinda see this guy's point. Governor Patrick is the best buddy with the President, who is the epitome of ineffective, bloated, overpaid Government. They are a pair of inept frauds who scammed their way into elective office. We would be much better off with both of them out of office and going back to some other line of work.

Massachusetts Corruption Dwarfs Afghan Corruption

International corruption statistics are distorted to protect Western nations and China - Saturday 18 August 2012, by Matthew J. Nasuti - Kabul Press http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article120954

Government corruption in the United States is hundreds of times more pervasive and costly than in Afghanistan. Every day American newspapers recount the scandals. One day it involves U.S. Customs officials, the next day it is the Secret Service, then the General Services Administration, then the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Every month there are new scandals involving foreign aid and other funds administered by the U.S. Department of State, the latest involved the waste of billions of dollars in “global warming” funds squandered by Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones and her predecessor, Claudia A. McMurray. Despite the State Department being perhaps worst administered agency in the Federal Government, no one dares utter even a whisper of criticism at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, so the corruption continues.

While billions of dollars in domestic spending and foreign aid are misappropriated, corruptly awarded and mismanaged each year, that corruption is easier to conceal, because the U.S. is a wealthy country with many distractions. Despite the publicity, few members of the public seem able to grasp the size and scope of the cancer of corruption and nepotism that is eating away at the country.

Internationally, government corruption is ranked under a flawed system established by such groups as “Transparency International.” They rank corruption in countries like Afghanistan and the United States based on subjective “perceptions” of corruption. Because the rankings are not based on the actual volume of corruption, this system unfairly maligns developing countries. If the system were based on the dollar amount of corruption, it would list many Western, Arab and Far East nations as the most corrupt.

Supposedly non-profit groups such as Transparency International are anything but transparent. Its co-founder, Michael Hershman, is a former official with USAID and he is also the chairman of the Fairfax Group. Fairfax makes it profits from the corruption that Transparency International “discovers.” Fairfax holds itself out as an expert consultant on foreign government corruption and as a result it has been awarded numerous U.S. government anti-corruption contracts. Transparency International’s U.S. Board of Directors and Advisory Council is filled with former government officials, lawyers for major Washington, D.C. law firms, government consultants and other representatives of organizations affiliated with the U.S. Department of State. Many of these people make money from or advance their careers by pointing the corruption finger overseas, rather than where it belongs, which is at the Federal, State and local governments in the United States.

In the United States, the systemic government corruption is not limited to the loss of public funds and cronyism, but extends to a wide range of dishonest and illegal practices which shield those with political connections. American is literally a land of two peoples; those to whom the law applies and those who are above the law. The problem is too large for a single article to examine, so just one of America’s 50 states (Massachusetts) was chosen for this article and even for that state, there is only space to summarize a tiny percentage of its public corruption.

Timothy Murray Scandal: The current state government in Massachusetts is called the Patrick/Murray Administration after Governor Duval Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray. On November 2, 2011, at 5:26 a.m. Murray was driving his State-owned Crown Victoria automobile in Sterling, Massachusetts, when he crashed the vehicle, completely destroying it. Murray told the police that he was driving at the legal speed limit of 55 miles per hour and lost control of the vehicle. He claimed to be on official business inspecting (in the dark) storm damage in the area. The police determined that he was driving at 108 miles per hour and fell asleep at the wheel. Every statement made to police by Murray was false. Despite that and Murray’s lack of remorse, local prosecutors refused to prosecute him for his false statements or for reckless endangerment. As a reward, Governor Patrick gave Murray a new $40,000.00 State automobile to replace the one he destroyed. Murray had previously been cited in 1992 and 2006 for speeding. Attempts by the Boston Herald to further investigate this scandal have been blocked by lawyers in the Governor’s Office, including E. Abim Thomas, who claims that the records are exempt from public release. ,br />
Chelsea Housing Authority Scandal: Massachusetts has 242 public housing authorities and some of the top jobs within these agencies have historically been patronage appointments, a system prone to abuse. For most of the past year, the Chelsea (Boston) Housing has been rocked by sandals. On June 15th of this year investigators questioned Lieutenant Governor Murray about allegations that Chelsea officials were illegally fundraising for him. Murray has refused to brief the people of Massachusetts regarding any of these allegations. Since then there have been no public updates. The concern is that this criminal investigation, like so many others, has been quietly dropped.

MBTA Scandal: On August 6, 2012, the Boston Globe reported that there were only two bidders on a $1 billion State MBTA transportation contract. Initially, 25 companies expressed an interest in bidding but except for the favored contractors (Mass Bay) and a little known French company, all the rest of the bidders ultimately declined to bid. The reason that 23 companies withdrew from the process is that there is a wide-spread belief that State officials had rigged the bidding in favor of Mass Bay. Governor Patrick has done nothing to dispel this apparently accurate assessment. Due to the lack of competition and in order to try and restore public confidence, Governor Patrick should withdraw bidding authority from MBTA General Manager Jonathan R. Davis, assign the bid evaluation to an independent panel and order that panel to rebid the work. This of course will never happen because the Governor seems quite content with the present corruption.

Deerfield River Levee Scandal: In the Fall of 2011, a group of wealthy agri-businesses in Deerfield, Massachusetts created several kilometers of sand levees along the Deerfield River in an attempt to prevent future flooding of their low-lying farm fields. The 10-15 foot levees, in some places push into tree-lines and right up to the river’s edge. The legal issue is that State law prohibits any construction work within 200 feet of a river without a permit, which the farmers failed to apply for. The Massachusetts River Protection Act is very clear and it mandates that the levees be removed. According to informed sources, inspectors for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recommended in 2011 that enforcement action be commenced against the violators. A letter was sent on December 15, 2011 to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley from Cynthia M. Pepyne of the Northwestern District Attorney’s Office requesting a State review of these potential environmental violations. To-date however nothing has happened. The reason is that the agri-businesses involved have close political ties to the Patrick-Murray Administration and party loyalty matters more to these State officials than the environment or the law. It is not clear who within Ms. Coakley’s office or the DEP quashed the enforcement action. The case is presently sitting on the desk of Brian Harrington, Assistant Administrator for DEP’s Western Region. It has been sidelined with the support of DEP attorney Kathleen Delaplain, but the real decision authorities may have been DEP Director Kenneth L. Kimmell and Western Regional Administrator Michael Gorski. In contacts with these officials, they claim that the enforcement action is still under “active consideration” but it is impossible to obtain the truth from any of these individuals.

Department of Revenue Scandal: An investigation in early 2012 revealed that the Massachusetts Department of Revenue has a new tactic that it is using against the poor. It is called the “desk audit.” For wealthy and corporate taxpayers, the Department will conduct field audits in which revenue agents travel to the home or place of business of the wealthy to review the taxpayer’s records. However, for indigent taxpayers, the Department misuses a device called the desk audit and it orders the taxpayer to copy all of his or her records for one or multiple years and mail all of them to the desk auditor. If the taxpayer cannot afford to do this, the Department labels them as “refusing to comply with the law” and rejects all their deductions, imposing large penalties on them. If the indigent taxpayer tries to appeal this unjust assessment, he or she is hit with the one-two punch by the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (ATB). The ATB has ignored rulings from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and decided that it will not waive filing fees for the poor. As a result of this misconduct, some indigent taxpayers are barred from appealing State abuses. Even if the indigent could somehow obtain the required filing fees, the ATB requires that all hearings be held in Boston, a long trip for the elderly and in some cases an impossible trip for the poor. The ATB refuses to travel around the State in order to hear cases locally, however, the ATB will travel the circuit for wealthy parties who are contesting property tax assessments. It will hold court for property tax cases for the rich in such upscale western towns as Northampton, but it will not accommodate the poor by holding income tax hearings in Springfield or Greenfield. One of these indigent taxpayer cases is currently being prosecuted by Department of Revenue attorney John DeLosa. Commissioner of Revenue Amy Pitter and ATB Chairman Thomas W. Hammond, Jr. apparently are quite comfortable with these abuses, as they have done nothing to correct them. USDA - Massachusetts Scandal: There is an investigation currently underway by U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz and the FBI into the corrupt awarding of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Bill funds in Massachusetts. The case has been briefed to top officials in Tom Vilsack’s office. Mr. Vilsack is the Secretary of Agriculture for the United States. The evidence is that USDA officials in Massachusetts have been awarding grants primarily to friends, family members and to a small group of wealthy farmers with close ties to the Patrick/Murray Administration. The grants are under two programs called the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP). The public has not heard about this case and it will not be hearing about this case for a while because, unfortunately, the U.S. Attorney’s investigation appears to be on hold until after the November election, so as not to embarrass President Obama. Corruption at the Federal, State and local levels within the United States varies from agency to agency, from State to State and from town to town. Overall, the sheer magnitude of abuses outstrips anything present in Afghanistan. The American metrics far outpace Afghanistan on the dollar number of funds misappropriated, number of instances of corruption and number of people and companies who are immune from and above the law. This is not to condone the level of corruption within Afghanistan, which is believed to be considerable and unacceptable. Hypocracy has always been a staple of international diplomacy and therefore Afghanistan will have to live with the condescending arrogance of American diplomats who see corruption everywhere but in their own back yard

The Real Story - Romney is winning and the MEDIA is baised against him

The shite has already started from those in the LIB Media who want to keep Obama in office.  The stories are like the one posted in Newsweek ( You mean they are still in business??) with a story title like " The Obama Landslide ??" - Puhleeeeeze.

This crap about Obama winning is just that - CRAP.

Pro Publica analyzed the news over the last few months and found that news reports written about Romney were 84% negative...... 84% !!  That is from a non-biased organization dedicated to providing the facts. 

People are hurting, unemployment is outta control, the economy is teetering on a 2nd recession and the media thinks people believe that the Village Idiot from Chicago is going to get re-elected ??? 

Bull.  That's what this it is  -  out & out BULLSHITE.

The Media think putting down a self-made millionaire is going to work with people who see that the President has never held a job in the private sector in his adult life???  I vote for the candidate who knows how to make money in the private sector. All Obama wants to do is print up and hand out more federal dollars out of our pockets.

Read this and get a fresh perspective of what the media are trying to do.....then Vote the Idiot in the White House out of office.  If you care about our country, don't give Obama four more years to continue the crap he has wrought upon our nation.  He is not worthy and we, the American people deserve better.


The Real Poll Numbers
By Dick Morris on August 6, 2012 

The media is trying to create a sense of momentum and of inevitability about the Obama candidacy. One benighted Newsweek reporter even speculated about a possible Democratic landslide.

On Friday, I saw the real numbers. These state-by-state polls, taken by an organization I trust (after forty years of polling) show the real story. The tally is based on more than 600 likely voter interviews in each swing state within the past eight days.

The trend line is distinctly pro-Romney. Of the thirteen states studied, he improved or Obama slipped in nine states while the reverse happened in only four. To read the media, one would think that Romney had a terrible month. In fact, the exact reverse is true.

Romney is currently leading in every state McCain carried plus: Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, and Colorado. If he carries these states, he’ll have 228 electoral votes of the 270 he needs to win.

To win the election, Romney would then have to carry Florida where he trails by two points, and either Virginia (behind by two) or Ohio where he’s down by only one.

If he carries all three of these states and also wins all the others where Obama is now at 50% or less – Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey — he will get 351 electoral votes, a landslide about equal to Obama’s 363 vote tally in 2008.

The strong probability is that Romney does, in fact, carry Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and a share of the other states where Obama is below 50% of the vote.

So don’t believe the garbage being put out by the media. The attempt to portray Romney as not catching on and as dropping in the polls is ludicrous. It is, at best, the product of incompetent polling and, at worst, the result of deliberate media bias. But Romney is winning and expanding his lead each week. That’s the real story

Hard to tell who is the bigger dummy

Obama and Reid are a pair of Dummies.  If they think the American people believe anything they say, it proves they really are a pair of dummies - unethical and without honor. 

Time to go Mr. Obama and take Hapless Harry Reid with you.....

IT'S A TAX - Just what the DEMS and the President want

Just what the Idjit in charge wanted, the ability to tax the Middle Class right into the Poor House.

And then there's this - the Supreme Court pretty much ripped it up....Pissa.

The Missing Piece

The DEMS and their sycophants at the NY TIMES must be hitting the Kool-Aid pretty hard.

Take a look at this article - " Do Democrats Have A Shot At The House" by Nate Silver

Here's the link - http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/do-democrats-have-a-shot-at-the-house/

He talks about a number of factors like all polling shows the GOP handily keeping control of the House, redistricting, hope that an improving economy will boost DEMS chances, blah, blah, blah....

What is CURIOUS to me as a reader is that he doesn't talk about the one factor that will compel all NOT to vote the DEMS into control of the HOUSE of REPS - NANCY PELOSI.

No one wants the Wicked Witch from SAN FRAN back in charge of the HOUSE.....no one.  That is because she presided over the most screwed up sessions of Congress on record.  The crap that went on under her "leadership" was pathetic.

So blather on DEM Dummies - Especially the NY TIMES idjits.

NO ONE is going to put that witch back in the roll of Speaker.  No how, no way.

Now maybe we can get Dorthy to drop a house on her......

News Item: Mad Cow Disease reported in California

Really...No kidding.  Many were already aware of this.....A "Mad Cow" has been there for far too long.

"Then it's your problem.." - Doctors who are retiring see Obamacare as a losing strategy for healthcare

Obamacare will cost double what was forecast and it is highly likely that Obama and his cohorts in the Democratic Congress knew this when they jammed it through on the American people.

Throwing money at an issue is NOT a solution.

Here is a more informed POV. The Supreme Court needs to reverse this travesty. We have the best healthcare system in the world and subjecting to one person's political views is wrong. There is need for improvement but this will be the ruin of the superior care we all recieve.

ObamaCare Still a Disaster -- No Matter How the Supreme Court Decides
By Larry Elder

"I am a refugee," my anesthesiologist told me after I had awakened from my third surgery in 12 years — one to repair a muscle tear in my left shoulder and two for the same disc in my lower back. "I am part of the British 'brain drain' of the late '60s. Doctors could not make any money. So I left." Britain's loss, my gain. The same surgery 12 years ago required a two-day stay in a hospital. Last week, after a two-hour surgery, I left the same day as an outpatient.

But under ObamaCare, we can expect a loss of talent and a decline in quality of care. Thousands of us, the doctor explained, abandoned England to practice medicine in America. "So, how's this?" my doctor said. "I left the U.K. to get away from the government telling me how to practice, what to charge — and now we are getting the same thing. ObamaCare stinks, and the people will regret it. What happened to the docs there will happen here."

Great Britain began practicing socialized medicine through the taxpayer-funded National Health Services in 1948. And indeed, one of the first U.K. studies on the emigration of their native-born physicians, "British Doctors at Home and Abroad," published in 1964, noted that, beginning in the 1950s, their docs were leaving for "high-income" countries at an alarming rate: "Many of them stressed the wider field of work they could undertake in general practice abroad and criticized the limited role of the general practitioner in England." And nearly half a century later, Britain's "brain drain" continues.

Medical advances require research and development. And as much as government spends on health care and medical research, the private sector spends much more. But ObamaCare places a tax on medical equipment manufacturers, to raise $20 billion for the federal coffers when it goes into full effect in 2013. As a result, some medical device manufacturers are already closing up shop or downsizing to reflect lower profits under ObamaCare. Some canceled plans for new U.S. plants, looking to other parts of the world. Many manufacturers have already announced significant layoffs, and most also look to other alternatives, including cutting research and development, and passing along the tax's costs to the patients.

In addition to the excise tax on medical device manufacturers, ObamaCare imposes many more taxes, including the following: an individual mandate excise tax for adults who don't purchase "qualifying" health insurance; an employer mandate tax for those companies who don't offer health coverage; and a surtax on investment income — making the rate as high as 43.4 percent on gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents and passive income for families making more than $250,000. Given this, will we see the same private-sector investments in the health care field, as ObamaCare imposes ever more regulations designed at increasing "accessibility" and "controlling costs"?

What about costs?

Obama promised that ObamaCare would "bend the cost curve" down. The Congressional Budget Office just released new figures on the 10-year cost of ObamaCare. Starting in 2010, government began taxing for ObamaCare to build up revenues. So for the first four years, ObamaCare takes in tax money but does not start spending in any significant amount until 2014. This was a tactic designed to make ObamaCare seem more "affordable."

But even with this gimmick, the CBO just doubled its original projections for the cost of ObamaCare. Now, the CBO pegs the cost to taxpayers at $1.76 trillion over the next decade. And, critics point out, this price tag is only for the cost of insurance subsidies, Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). It doesn't include implementation or other costs, which will likely send the taxpayers' bill soaring past $2 trillion.

Obama said his plan would save American families $2,500 a year on their insurance premiums. The new CBO report says premiums will rise 10 to 13 percent, and that up to 20 million people could lose their employer-provided health insurance every year from 2019 to 2022, a sharp revisal of its previous estimate of up to 3 million.

Oh, it all seems so lovely on paper, doesn't it?

Sen. Obama said that if he were "starting from scratch," he'd have a single-payer system. This is what they have in Canada. But when a high-ranking member of the Canadian government — and proponent of the Canadian health care system — needed surgery, he did not stay home. After having his 2010 heart surgery performed in Miami, Canadian Premier Danny Williams told reporters: "This was my heart, my choice, and my health. I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

Consider what the then-incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association said about their single-payer health care system: "(Our) system is imploding." Consider what the outgoing president said: "Competition should be welcomed, not feared."

My doctor remains cheerful. "I retire in a few years," he said. "Then it's your problem."

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host.

www.LarryElder.com.

On the DEMS watch

Funny how when gas went up to $4 a Gallon in 2004 & 2005, the DEMS howled in protest and blamed Bush...NOW, Obama says that higher gas prices are not his fault.

Sorry, we (the American Consumer) know better than to believe the lies being put out by the DEMS. They have done little to increase domestic production and that is the one true " silver bullet" to getting us off of dependency to foreign oil.

Remember this when it comes time to vote in November. OMG - Obama Must Go.

Trying to have it both ways

The WSJ hits the nail on the head with this analysis of why the White House is all wet on the issue of Gas prices and a lack of action to help the average American.

We heard plenty of carping from the "loyal opposition" when prices spiked in the past. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we hear that criticism of the President is unfair. It is unfair for Americans to get screwed over on inflated prices that the Administration could help if they weren't dedicated to raising the price of energy.

Unfair to the President? REALLY ?? Take your medicine Mr. President. You and your ilk don't have a clue and this is one of many of the reasons why you don't deserve another term. What has occurred over the 3 1/2 years of your term in office is wholly unfair to those of us who know that you need to go back to privtae life and stop impeding the success of our nation.


'Stupid' and Oil Prices
Obama's Forrest Gump analysis of rising gas prices..
Wall Street Journal

'The American people aren't stupid," thundered President Obama yesterday in Miami, ridiculing Republicans who are blaming him for rising gasoline prices. Let's hope he's right, because not even Forrest Gump could believe the logic of what Mr. Obama is trying to sell.

To wit, that a) gasoline prices are beyond his control, but b) to the extent oil and gas production is rising in America, his energy policies deserve all the credit, and c) higher prices are one more reason to raise taxes on oil and gas drillers while handing even more subsidies to his friends in green energy. Where to begin?

It's true enough that oil prices can't be commanded from the Oval Office, so in that sense Mr. Obama's disavowal of blame is a rare show of humility in the face of market forces. Would that he showed similar modesty in trying to command the tides of home prices, car sales ("cash for clunkers"), or the production of electric batteries.

The oil price surge has several likely sources. One is the turmoil in the Middle East, especially new fears of a supply shock from a conflict with Iran. But it's worth recalling that Mr. Obama also blamed the last oil-price surge, in spring 2011, on the Libyan uprising. Moammar Gadhafi is now gone and Libyan oil production is coming back on stream, yet oil prices dipped only briefly below $90 a barrel and have been rising since October. Something else must be going on.

Mr. Obama yesterday blamed rising demand from the likes of Brazil and China, and there is something to that as well. But this energy demand is also not new, and if anything Chinese and Brazilian economic growth has been slowing in recent months.

Another suspect—one Mr. Obama doesn't like to mention—is U.S. monetary policy. Oil is traded in dollars, and its price therefore rises when the value of the dollar falls, all else being equal. The Federal Reserve throughout Mr. Obama's term has pursued the easiest monetary policy in modern times, expressly to revive the housing market. It has done so with the private support and urging of the White House and through Mr. Obama's appointees who are now a majority on the Fed's Board of Governors.

Oil staged its last price surge along with other commodity prices when the Fed revved up its second burst of "quantitative easing" in 2010-2011. Prices stabilized when QE2 ended. But in recent months the Fed has again signaled its commitment to near-zero interest rates first through 2013, and recently through 2014. Commodity prices, including oil, have since begun another surge, and hedge funds have begun to bet on commodity plays again. John Paulson says he's betting on gold, the ultimate hedge against a falling dollar.

Fed officials and Mr. Obama want to take credit for easy money if stock-market and housing prices rise, but then deny any responsibility if commodity prices rise too, causing food and energy prices to soar for consumers. They can't have it both ways, as not-so-stupid Americans intuitively understand when they buy groceries or gas. This is the double-edged sword of an economic recovery "built to last" on easy money rather than on sound fiscal and regulatory policies.

As for domestic energy, Mr. Obama rightly points to the rising share of U.S. oil consumption now produced at home. But this trend began in the late Bush Administration, which opened up large new areas on and offshore for oil and gas drilling that are now coming on stream. Mr. Obama sneered at expanded drilling as a candidate in 2008 and for most of his term has done little to expand it.

In early 2010, he proposed to open some new areas to drilling but shut that down after the Gulf oil spill. According to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permits Index for January 31, over the previous three months the feds issued an average of three deep-water drilling permits a month compared to the historical average of seven. Over the same three months, the feds approved an average of 4.7 shallow-water permits a month, compared to the historical average of 14.7.

Approval of an offshore drilling plan now takes 92 days, 31 more than the historical average. And so far in 2012, an average of 23% of all drilling plans have been approved, compared to the average of 73.4%.

Oh, and don't forget the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have increased the delivery of oil from Canada and North Dakota's Bakken Shale to Gulf Coast refineries, replacing oil from Venezuela.

The reality is that most of the increase in U.S. oil and gas production has come despite the Obama Administration. It is flowing from the shale boom, which is the result of private technological advances and investment. Mr. Obama has seen the energy sun rise and is crowing like a rooster that he made it happen.

Mr. Obama yesterday also repeated his proposal that now is the time to raise taxes on oil and gas companies, as if doing so will make them more likely to drill. He must not believe the economic truism that when you tax something you get less of it, including fewer of the new jobs they've created.

We'd almost feel sorry for Mr. Obama's gas-price predicament if it weren't a case of rough justice. The President has deliberately sought to raise the price of energy throughout the economy via his cap-and-trade agenda. He is now getting his wish, albeit a little too overtly for political comfort. Mr. Obama has also spent three years blaming George W. Bush for every economic ill. If Mr. Obama now feels frustrated by economic events beyond his control, perhaps he should call Mr. Bush for consolation.

Hard to Believe...He taught Constitutional Law in College ? Really ?

Something President Obama needs to review:

The Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Based on the way he is acting, he is in violation of the oath he took and has decided to treat the US Constitution the way he has treated the will of the people; with disdain and a condescending attitude. The DEMS used to howl about how they felt that President Bush mistreating the law as President, but Barry from Chicago gets a free pass from his own party.

It is hard to believe this man taught Constitutional Law in college. This poser has got to go. 11 months until election day and not soon enough until the American voters can deliver a strong message to the "Lecturer in Chief" and his attitudinal spouse.

Time to Go Mr. President. You have embarrassed our country enough.


Acting Like A King Isn't Among The President's Duties
Investros Business Daily
01/04/2012

Leadership: A spokesman says the president "can't wait for Congress to act" and promised that he's "going to take action." This is the president who was "ready to rule" in 2008. Is he an elected chief executive or an emperor?

In November 2008, shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of his transition team, appeared on "Meet the Press." She told host Tom Brokaw that "Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."

Shouldn't someone who had reached the political heights that Jarrett had reached know that kings rule but presidents are elected to serve and are accountable to Congress, the courts and the voters?

One would think that she and the rest of the administration are aware of a president's legal limitations, but simply aren't interested in respecting them.

A little more than three years after Jarrett declared Obama's majesty, his spokesman Jay Carney warned on the day of the Iowa caucuses that "if Republicans choose the path of obstruction rather than cooperation, then the president is not going to sit here . .. he's going to take the actions that he can take using his executive authority."

Within a day, Obama made good on the threat. On Wednesday, he bypassed the congressional approval process and named Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The appointment, made while the Senate is in a pro forma session and not in recess, came after that chamber blocked Cordray's confirmation last month.

Not only is Obama trampling precedent that says recess appointments are to be done only after the Senate has been out of session for 10 days or more, he's also trying to circumvent legislation.

As noted by Mark Calabria of the Cato Institute, the Dodd-Frank bill that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requires the CFPB's authority to remain with the Treasury secretary until the CFPB director is "confirmed by the Senate." Cordray still lacks that confirmation.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast Apparently feeling like a gambler on a roll, Obama followed up the Cordray appointment by placing Sharon Block, Terence Flynn and Richard Griffin on the National Labor Relations Board. Of little concern to Obama are the wishes of the Senate Republicans, who had blocked these appointments, which they have the right to do within our system.

Clearly our American arrangement of checks and balances written into the Constitution is an impediment to this president. Before Carney made his statement Tuesday, Obama himself said in October that "we can no longer wait for Congress to do its job. ... So where Congress won't act, I will."

He, of course, is talking more about the House, which voters turned over to the Republicans in 2010, than the Senate, which is still in Democrats' hands.

The president might not like it that he no longer has a Democratic majority in the House to help him ram through legislation. But he should stay within the constitutional obstructions that the opposition party is expected to place in front of him.

In Wednesday's Cleveland speech when he announced the CFPB and NLRB appointments, Obama said anyone who "plays by the rules can get ahead." Yet the president is playing outside the rules and pretending he's doing it as a favor for the country. His motives, though, are clear. He wants to wield power that exceeds what the Constitution delegated to the president.

Maybe First Lady Michelle Obama wasn't acting when she said on a kids television sitcom that she enjoyed being called "your excellency." Maybe she was speaking for her husband, too.

Business as usual...heading into 2012

OMG...I concur

Let's get ready to rumble.....U.S. Rep. Barney Frank will not seek re-election

Let the games begin....There are 5 professional sports in Massachusetts - Baseball, Football, Hockey, Basketball and POLITICS (with the latter being a blood-sport)

Rep. Frank stepping down will set off a donnybrook of candidates vying for this open seat. The DEMS (statewide, Ms. Pelosi and The President) are likely wetting themselves with worry as there is a real possibility that this open seat could go to the GOP.

Well sit back and watch the fireworks as this story will dominate the political news here like the Patriots running up on the Super Bowl. Let's hope we get someone who can do more for the taxpayers than Barney did as he was a tool of the DEMS and ineffective as a watch guard of the taxpayer's money. His record will be seen as a major reason Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae were able to waste Billions of taxpayers $$$.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out Barney.


U.S. Rep. Barney Frank will not seek re-election
By Hillary Chabot And Natalie Sherman Monday, November 28, 2011 http://www.bostonherald.com U.S. Politics

Longtime U.S. Rep. Barney Frank won’t be running for re-election in 2012 ending a sometimes controversial, all the time outspoken tenure.

Frank, 71, has served in Congress since 1980. He will take questions about his decision to relinquish his seat at 1 p.m. today at Newton’s City Hall, his office said.

Frank represents the 4th Congressional District, which was redrawn this fall as part of a series of redistricting changes prompted by the state’s relatively slow population growth.

Frank’s district, which previously looped from Brookline around some of the more conservative suburbs down to New Bedford, lost that Democratic stronghold. The map also eliminated one of the state’s 10 seats in the House, a change that had prompted widespread speculation that the 16-term congressman could retire.

In 2010, Frank faced an unusually tough re-election campaign against Republican Sean Bielat, a former Marine and already, Republican Elizabeth Childs of Brookline, a state mental health commissioner under former Gov. Mitt Romney, had announced her intention to challenge Frank in next year’s race.

Bielat said the changes made during the redistricting process likely made re-election more difficult for Frank.

“I think the realities of this district are a lot less favorable now and he had a tough time last time,” said Beilat, who isn’t sure whether he will run again. He and his wife just had a baby. “I’m still making up my mind about that. We’re talking very seriously about it, but we haven’t made any decisions.”

Frank sits on powerful committees in Washington, including the Financial Services Committee and in 2010, he ushered through the landmark financial regulation bill that bears his name. But his ties to mortgage agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made him a target for Republicans.

One Year Out

One Year out from the 2012 Election.

A lot of things can happen in a year. The way news is produced, reported and distributed, we have now have a 24/7 news cycle. That means a year's worth of issues, analysis and discussion, some which is worthy of attention, some not.

Politics around the world now drives our issues as our economy is connected as the goods, services and trade of other nations causes ripples in our approach to our own country problems. Most businesses still work on the 5 day week model, but the way economies around the world are connected, news occurs overnight and affects the daily political & business discussion even while one 1/2 of the world sleeps or takes a weekend.

Greece fails to act on their financial issues, Europe reacts and that "wave" washes ashore here before people are out of their beds. The overseas markets rise or fall and Wall Street has to expect the market here to be on a up or down push before the traders are in place.

The President rightly faces an uphill fight as his handling of our economy has been patently poor. He spent the first two years focusing on his own narrow political wants & desires instead of putting the needs of the nation first. He went on a spending spree that benefited his political allies (unions, public employees and "green" businesses like Solyndra) which wound being sinkholes for the taxpayers money. The billions spent on TARP by his Czars and others did not yield jobs. It fattened up the coffers of his political pals but left the majority of citizens without any jobs.

A year is a long time in our country's election cycle. Those who looked strong 6 months ago when they announced their candidacy ( Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, etc.) have not been able to create any real sustained drive. This left voters seeking someone who could have enough "buzz" to get them excited about supporting a candidate. In the end, we have seen all but Slick Mitt get some push but due to self inflicted errors, fall as quickly as they rose. Mitt has made some real stupid remarks too but he seems to have enough $$$ and support from the GOP party establishment that his blandness is given a pass.

So, where does that put the voter one year out? In a very untenable position. No real choice for voters between the President (who is a failure) and a GOP candidate (who will not be the best choice, but rather what we are offered.)

This week has seen Nancy Pelosi deluding herself about recapturing the House from the GOP. The GOP candidates make position statements but hardly anyone pays attention. The President denounces the GOP house for reaffirming the nation's motto of " In God we trust" which inflames those who see him as not in line with the majority of voters beliefs and moral values. The primary schedule was solidified and the NH voters will go first, as they should, on January 10th. Unemployment stays solid at 9% because companies refuse to hire more workers and are hording cash.

When you add up all the +'s and -'s in the mix, the President is heading for a historic arse-kicking. He keeps alienating the middle, the suburban voters that have swung the election for the last 40 years. The GOP will likely fall in behind Slick Mitt not based on his being the best candidate but because he is the blandest and least offensive of all the GOP contenders. If NJ Governor Chris Christie had jumped in, this would have been a vastly different political landscape.

The next 365 days will be a roller coaster of ups & downs for the country and the voters. The economy will likely stay pat and not provide the President with anything that will show his pitiful efforts can make a difference. The GOP will not want to give him any political victories in this next year. His continued whining about the " Jobs Bill" is not gaining traction as most see it for what it is - another chance for him to funnel millions to his union supporters and a 2nd stimulus bill. No one wants to allow him a 2nd spending spree when the first yielded no real change in unemployment. We can hardly afford this type of one-sided spending in our current fiscal status.

I don't see how any issue that is presented helps the present administration. They are truly an unlikable bunch - Biden sticking his foot in his mouth daily, Napolitano acting like people are guilty until proven innocent, Holder ignoring crimes when it is his political allies who have done something & acting counter to what you would expect from an attorney general, The Administration spokesman giving people the "stonewall" treatment when the press asks for answers.....it goes on & on.

Those who are aligned hard left or hard right will not change their votes. The MIDDLE is where the action will be and presently, the MIDDLE has been getting slammed for the past three years. This is not a recipe for victory for the DEMS as they have been in charge for the past three years.

Time will tell the tale but right now, it looks like we will have to choose between the President ( a known failure ) and a GOP candidate ( bland, blander & blandest of POLS). If the DEMS are dumped, they will not take the rejection of the voters as they should (a learning moment on what they need to do better next time) but will make sure that they obstruct anything new the GOP proposes. This is the main challenge the new President will face as he will be "on the clock" and watched very, very closely to make a difference in short order.

Either way, the country is in a tough place with a year to get off the "train to nowhere" we have been on since Obama got in....stand by for rough seas. Rougher than we have been on presently, which is making quite a statement.

Suffering from delusions of grandeur....

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) of California should get a "check-up-from-the-neck-up"

She seems to be suffering from GD or a Grandiose Delusion

Grandiose delusion or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder (GD)

Grandiose delusions are distinct from grandiosity, in that the sufferer does not have insight into his loss of touch with reality.

In colloquial usage, one who overestimates one's own abilities, talents, stature or situation is sometimes said to have 'delusions of grandeur'. This is generally due to excessive pride, rather than any actual delusions.

IF she actually believes that the DEMS will recapture the House in 2012, she is a confirmed case of delusions of grandeur....The old crow is certifiably delusional.

Pelosi: Democrats can win House majority in 2012
November 3, 2011 - Boston Globe

WASHINGTON—Democrats have a chance of reclaiming control of the House in next year's election, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

The California Democrat told reporters that the Republican-controlled House has not created any new jobs in the weak economy. She also says Democrats have raised more money than GOP candidates so far this year.

"We have definitely put the House in play," she said.

Paul Lindsey, spokesman for the House Republican campaign committee, said that "returning to the speaker's chair may be a dream for Nancy Pelosi, but it is a nightmare for middle-class Americans who are still suffering from the job-killing policies she helped put in place."

Republicans currently have a 242-192 House majority, with one vacancy

Pretty much sums it up.....

Avoiding him like the Plague.....

DEMS are avoiding Obama like the Plague. The idiot Governor of Massachusetts is his best friend so the President will be hanging around here but it seems as the last thing DEMS anywhere else want is a picture of them standing side-by-side with the CHUMP who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as he is proven to be a ineffective and unpopular President. And rightly so based on how poor he has done in the position.

IF he was a CEO in the private sector, he would have been let go a year or more ago....we are stuck with him until January 2013.....ugh.

The down side is the GOP has no real shining stars to offer and in the end, any other POL could not be worse than the poser we have right now.


US Democrats wary of their unpopular president
2011-10-11 By Reuters

WASHINGTON - Four years ago, Senator Claire McCaskill was one of Barack Obama's biggest boosters in his presidential campaign.

But when he recently visited her state of Missouri, she did not have time to join him.

Many of McCaskill's fellow Democrats in Congress may also decide they are too busy to be with Obama, whose approval rating of about 40 percent as the economy struggles threatens to be a drag on their own reelection chances next year.

"You may see a number of Democrats say 'Sorry, I have a scheduling conflict,'" said a senior Democratic lawmaker.

Democrats face a big decision about whether to stand by their man in the November 2012 elections.

Many, particularly those in difficult campaigns like McCaskill, are tempted to keep their distance.

But others figure they can survive any anti-Obama backlash in their predominantly Democratic states. And they want to help their party's top star and fundraiser defeat whoever the Republicans throw at him.

More importantly, Democrats believe their best shot at retaining the Senate and taking back the House of Representatives is to help Obama rally and win a second term.

"If the president does well, we will do well," said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

"I don't know what others will do but I say we need to run as a team," said Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, facing a tough reelection race in Ohio. "Let's look ahead."

House Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia said: "The question is how vigorously we embrace him in terms of going the extra mile to get our people to knock on doors."

"I think we will. But the passionate idealism that we were gripped with when he was first elected has dissipated a little bit."

Some Democrats believe Obama has lost so much of his "hope and change" magic that they intend to stay away. That is particularly true if they are from a traditionally Republican or swing state, like West Virginia, hard hit by the weak economy that dogs Obama.

"In West Virginia, politics is not a team sport -- meaning hang on and do the best for yourself," said the state's first-term Democratic senator, Joe Manchin.

WILL DEMOCRATS DUCK OBAMA?

Unpopular presidents traditionally hurt their party in Congress.

Voter discontent with Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994 and with Republican President George W. Bush in 2006 were key to their parties losing control of the House and Senate those years.

It's too early to know how many Democrats will duck Obama in 2012. But it could be at least a few dozen, analysts say.

The number may rise or fall in line with how his approval rating, now at 42 percent, and the US jobless rate, at 9.1 percent, move between now and Election Day.

A top Democratic aide, noting polls show most voters like Obama even though they do not approve of his job performance, said: "If his approval rating tops 50 percent and the economy improves, a lot of Democrats will want to be seen with the president."

But congressional Democrats are upset, even angry, with Obama right now.

They complain he has not consulted them, he moved toward the political right after Republicans won the House in the 2010 election and often has not distinguished between them and Republicans in blasting an even more unpopular Congress.

"There's a lot of resentment," one Democratic lawmaker said. "We are the ones who have put our necks on the line for him."

Ethan Siegal of The Washington Exchange, a private firm that tracks Washington for institutional investors, downplays tension between Obama and congressional Democrats.

"A political party is like a family. Some days you get along. Some days you don't. But you're still family," Siegal said. "The challenge for Obama is to gin up Democrats and get them to really want to go out there and campaign for him."

Back on Capitol Hill, Democrat McGovern said: "Every time I look at the Republican alternatives, my enthusiasm for Obama gets stronger and stronger and stronger. God Almighty, the Republicans are awful."

To the relief of Democrats, Obama recently got feistier. He took on Republicans with a populist $447 billion jobs package that he wants to fund largely with tax hikes on the rich.

Liberal Democrats want to see if he keeps fighting.

Dozens of Democrats, primarily House moderates, kept their distance from Obama in the 2010 election dominated by a near double-digit jobless rate. But most lost anyway in a Republican tidal wave aided by the Tea Party movement.

There are now about two dozen moderate Democrats left in the House. Most are expected to stay away from Obama next year. Currently, a half dozen or so of what will be 33 Senate Democratic nominees are likely to campaign without Obama.

McCaskill was an early backer of Obama in 2008. Yet with her state seen as leaning Republican, she stayed in Washington when Obama made a campaign visit to Missouri on Oct. 4.

Republicans ran an ad mocking McCaskill for declining to join the president. The spot showed her endorsing him with the words "Our economy needs Barack Obama as president."

McCaskill said she could not go back to Missouri because of a scheduling conflict and dismissed criticism as unfounded.

"People making a big deal of this is silly," McCaskill said. "They don't know me very well if they think I'm going to run away from the president. I'm not."

One of her Democratic colleagues sounded skeptical.

"If Obama's approval rating was at 70 percent, she would have been there in a heartbeat," the lawmaker said.