Good Morning,

 

There are Four Lies About the Economy That Obama Needs YOU to Believe

 

FrontPage Magazine writes: President Barack Obama’s re-election turns on his ability to convince voters that 1) Obama inherited a “Great Recession,” 2) every “independent” economist supported the “stimulus,” 3) “bipartisan” economists agree that Obama’s stimulus worked, and 4) as actor Morgan Freeman puts it, racist Republicans say, “Screw the country … we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here” — nothing to do with deeply held policy differences.

That’s a lot of merchandise to push.

1) Take this “Great Recession” business.

Remember the “misery index”? The term, popularized by former President Jimmy Carter, used to mean inflation plus unemployment. Unfortunately for John Kerry, by the time he ran for president in 2004, the misery index stood at 7.4 midway into the election year, the same as when George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000. What to do? Change the definition. Kerry invented a new misery index, one that included only high-rising costs like college tuition, health care and gas prices.

Similarly, “bad economic times” used to mean, above all, high unemployment. Within a year of Obama’s presidency, unemployment climbed to 10.2 percent. Within three years of Reagan’s presidency, unemployment reached 10.8 percent. Under Obama, inflation has been — at least so far — rather modest. Early in Reagan’s presidency, inflation reached 13.5 percent. Rather than describe this era as the “Great-Recession-turned-around-by-Reagan’s-pro-growth-policies,” many pundits and scribes dismiss this period of extraordinary growth as the “me decade” or the “decade of greed.”

2) “There is no disagreement,” said then-President-elect Barack Obama, “that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy.”

What?! More than 200 economists, including several Nobel laureates, signed on to a full-page ad placed in major newspapers by the libertarian Cato Institute. Eventually, over 130 more economists became signatories to the ad.

It read: “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.

“More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s ’lost decade’ in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.

“To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

These 350 or so notable economists notwithstanding, Obama later doubled down: “This is what independent economists have said — not politicians, not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and for middle-class families all across America. And what these independent experts have also said is that if we don’t act, the opposite will be true. There will be fewer jobs; there will be weaker growth.”

3) Obama surrogate Steve Rattner recently said that Obama’s stimulus worked — as confirmed by “bipartisan” economists. As proof, Rattner offered the findings of “bipartisan economists Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder,” who “agree that … we would have had unemployment substantially higher than what we’ve had over the last two years.”

“Bipartisan”?

Blinder, a Democrat, served as a member of the Clinton administration and later advised presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. As for Zandi, he did serve as a presidential campaign advisor to John McCain. Like Blinder, Zandi is a self-described Democrat.

Zandi likes “maverick” McCain, a Republican who voted against the first George W. Bush tax cuts using the same left-wing argument about the cuts benefiting the rich. Zandi’s man, summoning his inner Dennis Kucinich, once said, “I cannot support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

As to the alleged unanimous expert opinion on the effectiveness of Obama’s stimulus, Stanford economist John Taylor debated this on NPR with Zandi. Taylor’s analysis, shared by many other economists: “I just don’t think there’s any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good.”

4) Democrats never tire of trotting out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said his “single most important political goal” was to make Obama “a one-term president.” Horrors! Why, doesn’t this just make McConnell the very personification of sinister! Republican opposition for the sole purpose of bringing down Obama, the first black president, yada, blah, etc.

Apparently, it is outside the brain capacity of people like Morgan Freeman to understand something: One way to defeat bad, leftist Democrats’ policies is to defeat bad, leftist Democrats, who seek to implement those bad, leftist policies. It’s not complicated.

Nothing personal.

 

 

 

Obama’s Rather Impressive List Of “Accomplishments”

Thank you to WesternJournalism for this ‘impressive’ list:

 

 

In what has the appearance of a coordinated media effort to pressure the Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, to change its membership policy and allow participation by open or avowed homosexuals, a slew of reports have been generated this week announcing the group is considering that idea. WND reports that’s not so and offers up the organizations online post which reads: “Contrary to media reports, the Boy Scouts of America has no plans to change its membership policy. The introduction of a resolution does not indicate the organization is ‘reviewing’ a policy or signal a change in direction.”

 

What happened this week was that pro-homosexual activists from the online petition organization change.org issued a press release claiming that unnamed “sources have confirmed Boy Scouts of America officials are considering a new policy for 2013 that would allow local charter organizations to decide whether or not to accept gay scouts and leaders.”

The press release from change.org also says that a petition WND reported on a few weeks ago regarding the reinstatement of a lesbian Scout leader Jennifer Tyrell was delivered to Darren Smith, public relations director for the Boy Scouts of America.

Smith said that because one individual delivered a resolution requesting a change in policy does not mean the request will go anywhere.

BSA has established procedures in place to review all proposals submitted by members regardless of the topic, and officials say that this proposal is no different.

“The BSA policy is: ‘While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA,’” the group said.

The change.org statement has proclaimed, “PRESS RELEASE-BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA OFFICIALS PROPOSE ALLOWING LOCAL TROOPS TO ACCEPT GAY YOUTH AND LEADERS AFTER EAGLE SCOUT DELIVERS 275,000 PETITIONS AT NATIONAL ANNUAL MEETING.”

A multitude of recent media reports have echoed the statement.

Calls to change.org confirmed that the organization did issue the press release, but the media contact, Mike Jones, was unavailable to comment on the Boy Scouts’ assertion that the information in the release is false.

The “unnamed sources” cited by change.org remain a mystery, since the Boy Scouts say that there are no plans to change the policy just because a procedure is in place to accept and review proposals.

The Boy Scouts clarified that one individual did submit a resolution “asking the Boy Scouts to consider amending its policy on not granting membership to open or avowed homosexuals.”

“The resolution asked that the policy be amended to allow local units to determine their own standards,” the organization said.

Smith said resolutions on this topic have been proposed since the 2000 Supreme Court decision affirming the Boy Scouts have the right to restrict membership.

“Those resolutions were handled in the same manner,” he said.

“Scouting’s voting members may submit resolutions, which represent that individual’s personal viewpoint, for consideration at the national annual business meeting.”

Smith explains that a resolution committee reviews these individual proposals, and presents a report to the National Executive Board.

The plans to consider changing policy simply don’t exist.

But that hasn’t stopped media outlets from widely reporting on the change.org press release as fact, with Fox News running the headline, “Boy Scouts to review ban on gays,” over a story reporting that the Boy Scouts will review the policy, but failing to mention the BSA assertion that the organization simply is following an established procedure for all proposed resolutions.

Instead the Fox News story quotes Scout member Zach Wahls, who was raised by lesbian mothers and speaks out on “gay” issues as saying, “Up to the day they end this policy, they’ll be saying they have no plans to do so.”

The report goes on to reveal Wahl’s plans to organize support to build pressure on the Boy Scouts.

GLAAD also features a story touting the change.org press release as “getting the attention” of the Boy Scouts of America, because of the success of the online petition campaign.

ABC News also featured the headline “Boy Scouts to Consider Opening Organization to Gays.”

Few media outlets have reported the facts as outlined by the Boy Scouts of America, instead offering sensational headlines without the support of fact.

On the BSA Facebook page, supporters are asked to read the clarification regarding the media reports, with many taking the time to comment on both sides of the issue.

Many of the organization’s supporters are encouraging the BSA to remain true to its heritage, with one fan summing it up like this: “Give into one group and eventually you will have to give in to all.”

It was in 2000 that the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization is private, and it is allowed to bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

The 5-4 decision overturned a ruling from New Jersey that said the dismissal of a homosexual Scout leader was illegal under the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

Forcing someone else’s beliefs on the organization would be a violation of the organization’s right to freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment.

The case was launched by James Dale, who wanted to become a Scout leader, telling him his homosexuality was contrary to the organization’s core values.

I always wonder about these stories. WHY would a homosexual WANT to join the BS or the GS? I mean – their codes are out there for all to read. Much like going to a Catholic college then complaining you are being taught about GOD, it just doesn’t add up. Or does it? This, in my opinion, is NOT ABOUT wanting to be included – this is about CHANGING what is good and pure. If there is such a cry for the LGBT community to become a GS or a BS, then perhaps they should start their own version of it – to teach morals, self responsibility and more vs trying to CHANGE something that DOES NOT need to be changed. The day of 1 person demanding CHANGE – be it taking GOD out of school; the 10 Commandments out of school; inclusion into something that clearly is not in line with their lifestyle must END. Much like gay marriage – OUR indispensible social pillars are being undermined and marginalized in our national discourse. A note to our conservative leaders/groups – DO NOT BACK DOWN in your defense – NO CONCESSIONS are necessary.

 

 

 

Senate Democratic leaders are politically paralyzed on how to proceed on the Bush-era tax rates.

With five months to go before the election, President Obama and key congressional Democrats remain at odds on whether the threshold for extending the George W. Bush-era rates for families should be $250,000 per year or $1 million annually. Obama backs the former while most Democratic leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), support the higher threshold.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has no immediate plans to advance a bill allowing Bush-era tax rates for the wealthy to expire, and instead will let House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) move first on the Bush rates. Boehner plans to move a bill before the August recess.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/231661-democrats-paralyzed-on-tax-cuts

 

 

 

RS writes: Please stop and read this post at Hot Air right now.

Go on. I’ll wait for you to come back. It is required reading this morning.

Go on . . . . .

Welcome back.

As you can see, it is a flat out lie that the left was outspent 7 to 1 in Wisconsin. In fact, considering the money unions spent on things like “voter education”, which are not even tabulated as political activity, the unions probably outspent everyone. We don’t know because they don’t exactly have to disclose it all right now.

But the more important question is “why?” Why did the left immediately seize on this idea that they lost because they were outspent.

They did so for the same reason people are protesting the Bilderbergers this week. They did it for the same reason Ron Paul fanatics blame the media for Ron Paul’s lack of success. They did it for the reason most everyone in the world concocts conspiracy theories to explain their defeats.

They did it because if they did not they would have to admit that the American public has rejected them and their ideas.

Ron Paul’s supporters say that if only the media would cover Ron Paul, he would be winning. But when the media covers Ron Paul, they claim the media is biased against him. In reality, Ron Paul comes off sounding like your loony uncle you keep in the attic. You and your “Who is John Galt?” bumper sticker don’t come off much better.

It’s not that politics is lost in Ron Paul. It’s that Ron Paul is lost in politics.

People are protesting the Bilderbergers this week because they are convinced the Bilderbergers are puppet masters pulling strings wrecking havoc in the economy and their lives. No, the odds are the people protesting have crummy lives because of the choices they themselves made. But instead of confronting those life choices like the unemployed Occupy kid with the degree in puppetry arts, they’d rather blame the Bilderbergers or Wall Street or The Man.

On CNN Tuesday night, a leftwing activist cried out in anguish that democracy had died. Democracy is alive and well. But it was far easier for this person to believe democracy died because the voters were duped by the Koch Brothers than to believe voters rejected his preferred policy solution into which he had poured his heart and soul.

In 2010, the Republicans made massive gains at the local, state, and federal level. That November night, I was on CNN with a bunch of Democrats claiming they had gotten the policy right and the message wrong.

They could not bring themselves to admit they had been destroyed because of their policies.

People tell themselves lies big and small and convince themselves that someone did them wrong or there was a conspiracy against them when the lose. The truth is often too painful to face — it really isn’t them, it’s you.

The Koch Brothers did not buy the Wisconsin election. The right will not buy the White House in November. The left will tell themselves that and the media will report is as gospel. Otherwise, both the media and the left, but I repeat myself, would have to fact the cold, hard truth of reality — the majority of Americans really don’t like them and their preferred policy solutions.

 

 

 

If you read the WSJ – you read this interesting piece yesterday (h/t Chip): What happened in Wisconsin signals a shift in political mood and assumption. Public employee unions were beaten back and defeated in a state with a long progressive tradition. The unions and their allies put everything they had into “one of their most aggressive grass-roots campaigns ever,” as the Washington Post’s Paul Whoriskey and Dan Balz reported in a day-after piece. Fifty thousand volunteers made phone calls and knocked on 1.4 million doors to get out the vote against Gov. Scott Walker. Mr. Walker’s supporters, less deeply organized on the ground, had a considerable advantage in money.

But organization and money aren’t the headline. The shift in mood and assumption is. The vote was a blow to the power and prestige not only of the unions but of the blue-state budgetary model, which for two generations has been: Public-employee unions with their manpower, money and clout, get what they want. If you move against them, you will be crushed. Mr. Walker was not crushed. He was buoyed, winning by a solid seven points in a high-turnout race.

Governors and local leaders will now have help in controlling budgets. Down the road there will be fewer contracts in which you work for, say, 23 years for a city, then retire with full salary and free health care for the rest of your life—paid for by taxpayers who cannot afford such plans for themselves, and who sometimes have no pension at all. The big meaning of Wisconsin is that a public injustice is in the process of being righted because a public mood is changing.

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452793597495290.html

 

 

Ned and brother Drew Ryun write: This week, America saw what real hope and change actually looks like.  The Wisconsin recall fight wasn’t about Republicans and Democrats.  It wasn’t about Obama.  It was about the power of the majority of taxpayers who stood up against being fleeced by the very public employee union bosses who have put them on the hook for trillions of debt.  Beginning fifteen months ago and culminating with the recall victory, the conservative movement struck back in Wisconsin and redefined the national fight for America’s future.  Now is not a time for celebration.  It’s time to take the fight to the next level.

Last year, after weeks of union protestors occupying the state capitol in Madison, American Majority and local Tea Party groups completely changed the narrative by drawing 10,000 citizens to defend Walker’s pro-growth reforms.  It was the beginning of a historic effort to take on the size of government and the disproportionate control of public employee unions.  Since that day, fiscal conservatives and outraged taxpayers have been waging a war for their future.  It’s been a fight between the vast silent majority and the public employee union bosses who have burdened not just Wisconsinites but Americans from coast to coast with massive unfunded obligations and debts.

In Wisconsin, these engaged citizens won because they not only were courageous and right on the issues, but because they stopped relying upon the Republican Party to fight the battle.  In Wisconsin, we saw conservatives band together, get organized, embrace and implement professional political tactics to ensure Walker’s reforms survived.

Big Labor and others grasped years ago that with an efficient and effective ground game, they could catapult their supporters into office.  They won thousands of elections with union dues and union members pounding the pavement.  Then without regard to the majority’s ability to pay, negotiated contract after contract that today are bankrupting governments across the country.

After all, people with bad ideas and great organization will often beat people with great ideas and bad organization. The Left’s approach to organizing has relegated America’s once powerful private sector to a position subservient to a growing number of government institutions.

However, what we saw in the weeks leading up to the Wisconsin recall was the makings of a pitched battle between that vaunted labor union ground game against the Tea Party movement as the Tea Party moved from simply protesting to actually organizing.

Here in lies a key lesson from Wisconsin. For too long conservatives have given themselves false assurance that good ideas alone win. They do not. However, ideas powered by effective and efficient on the ground organization can, and will, win time and time again.

This is why American Majority Action teamed with Tea Party groups on the ground in Wisconsin and using the Gravity database system effectively surveyed and turned out conservatives so that instead of buckling under the onslaught of the labor unions, the Tea Party and taxpayers rose to the occasion and provided an example for the conservative movement that we can beat the beast-if we organize and implement.

Wisconsin now gives us a glimpse into the fight yet to come.  According to a recent Marquette University poll, public employee union households supported Barrett by more than 2 to1.  However in households where at least one person was a private sector union member, Walker was within the margin of error.  This is significant.

Conservatives should be careful not to alienate private sector trade unions.  They are feeling the pinch of government spending just like the average American.  They don’t have guaranteed work or job security.  The more money the public employee unions suck out of the system for benefits and pay increases, the less money exists for government-funded projects.  The more debt and higher taxation necessary to pay public employee unions, the less money private enterprise has for a host of projects that put food on the table of trade union workers.

Not all unions are created equal.  Not all unions are bankrupting America.  The divide between the private sector trades unions and their gluttonous public sector counterparts must be widened to deprive the taxpayer-funded unions of a crutch they’ve long relied on for public support of irresponsible policies.  As conservatives, we should drive the message that private sector unions are fueled by a thriving economy and embrace the idea that their members are also feeling the ill effects of bad deals and unfair advantages.

In Wisconsin, more than 40% in exit polls had an unfavorable opinion of public employee unions.  Expect that number to rise as more and more Americans begin to realize that these unions have saddled governments across the country with trillions in debt that will continue to stifle the economy.  This rise in public opposition is one more reason why trades union workers should align themselves with reforms and cease to be used as pawns in a political game that only benefits those on the public payroll.

Finally, with union power on the ropes, it’s time to divide and conquer.  Fiscal conservatives, concerned taxpayers, business owners, and yes, trades union members who care about a European-style debt crisis on our shores should begin to organize similar efforts in five or six states simultaneously. The national union bosses who raise and dole out funds to support liberal candidates will be forced to defend their members at the state level.  But here’s the catch – after pouring millions into Wisconsin and failing, they won’t have the financial resources to defend multiple fronts at the same time this year or next.

Mounting Wisconsin-style reform efforts in multiple states will divide financial resources and human capital of the big government unions allowing more conservative candidates and policies to have a shot even in the heart of true blue territory.

We have proven that the majority will vote for common sense and against the continued blind acquiescence for this protected class of citizens.  Now is not the time to celebrate.  Now is the time to bleed the taxpayer-funded unions dry and enact reforms that will safeguard the taxpayer and strengthen our economy.  American Majority and American Majority Action have been in the middle of this fight since its inception and we’re ready for more.

The MOOD is changing – American’s are FINALLY awake and saying NO MORE.

 

 

 

 

Democrats, Media In Denial Over Obama’s Socialist Beliefs   http://wp.me/P2qIo2-P

 

 

 

 

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Hope….and Change:

The Devil Votes Obama: Anna Wintours bizarre endorsement and other Obama campaign blunders:

“He is becoming the male Kim Kardashian” – Rush Limbaugh. Team Obama is pushing celebrity status as Obama’s election theme. Well there is not much else to push is there?

Rep. Darrell Issa’s patience is running out on Holder’s stonewalling in the gun smuggling scandal. Continuing to disregard the congressional subpoena for more information Attorney General Eric Holder and senior DOJ officials were shown to have known about the gun smuggling scandal because wire tap warrants were signed by a senior DOJ official. Holder continues protecting the president from the gun smuggling scheme which killed a US agent.

Enjoy your weekend – keep Talking – keep Thinking!

Lisa