Romney is the Right Man for the Time

Keep in mind that the race for President is now down to two choices:

• Sticking with President Obama for four more years 
• Electing Romney as they new President 

We have all experienced four years of Obama and there is no reason to expect any dramatic improvement in how he and his team (Biden-VP, Geithner-Treasury, Holder-'Justice', Solis-'Labor', Sebelius-HHS, Chu-Energy, Napolitano-Homeland Security, Jackson-EPA and Rice-UN) are running this country.

Perhaps President Obama's term would have been much better if he assumed office during good times. Then perhaps with nothing to fix, he could have run after his liberal agenda without the rest of the country suffering. As it so happens, his supporters blame the poor economy for the President's poor performance. However, Obama applied for the job of president knowing that the economy was a mess and that he was the man to fix it. Unfortunately for all of us, he was not.

So what can we expect with having Romney as President? How about a President with experience in fixing messes and turning around and transforming unprofitable businesses and events.

Take the Salt Lake City Olympics. The Olympics was setting up for a huge disaster. Mitt Romney was brought in to save the event, which went from being a huge money pit to actually turning a profit. Mitt Romney took control of the Olympic Games and turned them around from a disaster into a success.

Now picture Obama being put into the same situation. Might we have seen the same result. Or perhaps might he have turned a bad situation worse? Obama's experience has no examples of him doing anything similar. In fact, President Obama has little if any business experience. Instead, his presidency is full of examples where businesses have been targeted as the enemy. And remember that Obama and the Democrats Hate Your Job and your coal job.

Take his role in Bain Capital. He is being attacked for running a company that took businesses in trouble and either turned them around, restructured them to make a profit or closed them down if they were doomed.

Obama and the Democrats will have you think that the actions of Bain were somewhat bad. But lets think about this for a second. It is not like Bain was dismantling successful businesses. Let's face it businesses come and go, even successful ones. Remember Blockbuster Video? Borders Books? Reader's Digest? KB Toys? Bennigan's? Circuit City? Bethlehem Steel, Kodak? Polaroid? Sometimes it is nothing more than changing technology and a corporation's inability to adapt fast enough.

Take Polaroid and Kodak. they were experts at what they did, but have not been able to transition fast enough to survive the coming of digital cameras. Should the Government step in and save these companies? Should the Government save the jobs in these companies? Well what about all the new jobs being created as the new technology takes over from the old? Oh, you say that these new jobs are being created in China? Many are, but there is nothing that we can do about it. At least not until the living standards on those countries catches up to ours. Until then, companies are going to have to keep their manufacturing expenses as low as possible to ensure that the greatest number of people can afford their products. People in China need cars. Very few of them can afford any car made in the US or elsewhere in the first world. So they are going to have to be made in China and other low wage countries. But that fine because most Americans are not going to want to buy such a car. We are a different target market. This leaves room for other manufacturers to meet that demand.

As for jobs, I expect a Romney Administration to do the following to stimulate job creation:

• Stabilize the business and personal tax rates
• Replace all of Obama's political appointees
• 'Green light' the Keystone pipeline
• Open of more Government lands and offshore areas to drilling
• Ensure that new power plant applications are approved
• Stop attacking the:
• Banking Sector
• Insurance sector
• Medical sector

• End mandatory healthcare coverage

Ah, that last point. Stop forcing companies to pay for employee medical care. This requirement along with increasing the minimum wage are killing all sorts of jobs. One group (among many) that has suffered are the young. Raising of wages and increasing the expense of employing people, such as through forced benefits, has both eliminated jobs for teens and other young as well as displace young workers with older workers who now find those jobs more appealing. Take supermarkets. You used to see young people working in those jobs. Now the supermarkets are full of employees who are working these jobs as full-time workers. Partly because these jobs have been forced to compensate them better and partly because there are less jobs of other kinds out there. Unfortunatly, there are even less supermarket jobs because companies are replacing some of these workers with automatic checkout. Simply because you do not have to pay for medical coverage for a machine.

Many Obama supporters are claiming that they do not want to take a risk on Romney. Well the country took a risk on Obama and we are all worse off. Will some people be worse off four years from now because of Romney? Sure. But we should not flush the whole country down the drain in defense of giving some people an ever-increasing basket of freebees. And this brings about the last important item - Benefit reform and passing a sustainable budget and budget plan. Romney and Ryan will be able to present a path forward. Obama has proven that he cannot and will not tackle the debt issue by failing to pass a budget in the last four years.

I understand that there are many reasons to vote for Obama, such as sticking it to rich people. Unfortunately, there are not enough rich people around to pay for our current spending and certainly not enough to pay for Obama's promise of 'FREE HEALTHCARE'. Things need to be paid for. In order to pay for as much as possible, more people need to be working. Romney will accomplish that. The first step is getting the Government's boot off the necks of the more prosperous half of the country.

Vote Romney. 

-------------------- --------------------

Libya Attack - Amazing that All The Americans Were Not Killed Or Taken Hostage!

Most Americans do not realize that there were two attacks in Benghazi the night of 9/11. One attack on the US Consulate and a second attack on the CIA Annex building in the City.

Those in the CIA Annex, called for help. Help was denied. Not only that, but they were ordered twice not to go and help those at the consulate.

At least three operatives disobeyed that order. Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was one of them and is one of the Americans who died later that night, about 7 hours after the attacks began. Most Americans believe that he was in the Consulate when the attack happened and that he died there. In fact he was at the CIA Annex. Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty also died while defending the CIA Annex.

With each day news of how the Administration completely mishandled the response to the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya just keeps getting worse. In recent days comes more troubling news that those on the group were pleading for help and there are claims that the requests for help were actively denied, by an as-yet unknown senior person in the Government, perhaps even the President himself or someone in his staff.

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down." - Fox News

It seems to be a huge stroke of luck that those at the CIA Annex disobeyed orders, went to the Consulate and rescued the majority of the Americans there otherwise it is possible that all of the Americans at the Consulate would have ended up dead. Where is the Administration hiding them? Kind of interesting that none of them have had an opportunity to give their version of the events.

Making this twist in the story even more interesting is the news out of the CIA that no one within the CIA would have denied a request for help.

the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No. It would have been a presidential decision. - Link

President Obama is damn lucky that only four Americans died during the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, not to mention all of the Americans there that survived the attacks. It is only due to the heroic efforts of those on the ground defending their location that they were not assassinated or kidnapped and made hostages in some sort of Tehran Embassy repeat. This attack could easily have ended up that way. It almost defies belief that over the course of the attack, no direct assistance was given.It is incredible and suggests to me that the President considered everyone on the ground that night expendable.

It certainly seems like the Administration is hiding a number of facts of the attacks, starting with the most basic details right to the lack of details of any response efforts made during the attack as well as what military assets might have been in the area to help. Were the predator drone in the area armed as it is suggested that at least one of them was? Was there a SPECTRE Gunship in the area as has been rumored? Finally, why where the Americans defending the CIA Annex lasing a target with the expectation that it would be hit from above? They would only do such a thing if they thought that there were military assets in the area with the capability of dropping a bomb or missile on their target. Might it be that they were told that help was coming? There just seem to be ever more questions regarding this attack..

One last thing. It is perfectly understandable that the Vice President and even the President would not know most of the details of this attack just after it happened, but one would think that weeks after they would be well briefed on the details of this terrorist attack. So it is somewhat inexcusable that Vice President Biden would have no idea that the Americans under attack in Benghazi had requested additional security in the month before the attack. Was the Vice President truly not briefed in these matters, or was he lying? Either way the answer does not bode well for the country.

-------------------- --------------------

Obama Administration Lying Is What Politicized The Benghazi Terror Attack

The Benghazi terrorist attack which killed the US Diplomat to Libya and three other Americans is a big deal. The Obama Administration has accused Mitt Romney of politicizing the attack. This is a load of bull. The Obama Administration has been lying about the attack for weeks and even to this day still can't give straight answers as to how it came about that the US Consulate has less security than the US Embassy in peaceful Helsinki, Finland. This is despite pleas from the Ambassador for more security.

In addition to the lax security question, also unanswered is why the Administration decided to do nothing when they learned about the attack. The attack was brought to the President's attention while it was underway. The Administration took a 'Wait and See' approach.

The Administration openly blamed a stupid internet video. Even though they are downplaying the link now that the association has so opening been seen a lie, they are still holding the producer of the video in jail, not to be brought before a judge until after the election.

Then the Administration waited weeks before securing the Consulate site, leaving classified material free for the taking, even by the news media.

So the next time Obama declares that Mitt Romney politicized the Benghazi terror attack, hopefully someone will point out that it was the weeks of the Administration lying about the attack that politicized it.

Then there is the other Obama foreign relations disaster with a body count, that being 'Fast and Furious'. I hope that comes up for discussion during the last Presidential debate. Along with kicking our long-term friends the UK, Canada, Australia, Israel, Poland, Taiwan and other to the curb, while at the same time embracing Russia, the UN's despot-controlled 'Human Rights Council' and groups traditionally seen as supporters of terrorism.

-------------------- --------------------

Obama's Sandra Fluke vs Clinton's Monica

First, there would have been no point to this story. But the Democrats had to insist in forcing companies and religious institutions to provide birth control to adults at no charge despite 'lack of access to birth control' not even being listed as any of the major reasons why women get accidentally pregnant.

One of Obama's major vote for free birth control warriors is Sandra Fluke. She has been activly promoted by Obama's re-election team, even given a speaking spot at the Democrat National Convention. Personally I do not know why, as the message of a 31 year old law graduate whining about her need to get free birth control does not really ring with me. It actually rings pretty hollow when you find out that a month's worth of birth control costs about $10. Everyone can pony up $10. The fact that Sandra can't gather a crowd of more than ten persons at an Obama re-election rally is pretty good evidence that her 15 minutes of fame is about over.

(Photo found at Ace of Spades)

Now take Monica Lewinsky. I had a chance to see her back in 1999 when she appeared in Helsinki Finland for her book signing. This was her second appearance that day and all of the people packed into the bookstore are trying to get a glimpse of her. the first bookstore was so packed that you could not get into it. All of this is 3 years after the scandal that made her famous.

So maybe Obama should ask Monica if she can help him campaign. Because Sandra's message is just not cutting it.

-------------------- --------------------

'Hope' Is no Way to Protect American Embassies

With each passing day it seems that the Obama Administration is looking more and more responsible for the success of the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Take the following developments since the initial news of the attack:

• The Obama Administration initially blamed the attack on protests against some crudely made internet video
• Prior to the terrorist attack, there were no protests outside the Consulate. The attack started at 9:40 PM.
• The Administration claimed to have no intelligence information suggesting any impending attacks, however they were informed both internally and from foreign sources.
• The attack happened on 9/11
• The Administration, including the President,  met during the attack and decided to take a 'wait-and-see' posture, deciding against sending forces to defend the consulate.
• The Ambassador himself alerted the State Department regarding threats to his life.
• The Ambassador had repeatedly requesting additional security.
• The requests were denied.
• the requests and the denials were kept from the public.
• The State Department even told the Ambassador to stop asking for additional support.
• It took weeks before the Consulate was investigated by the FBI. To this day, there is no evidence that the State Department did anything to secure the site or any confidential information still remaining in the Consulate.

 How is it possible, other than through a case of negligence, possibly bordering on criminal negligence, or through some huge misguided social experiment in 'Hope' is is possible for a consulate in a country full of persons violently hostile to Americans to have less security than the US Embassy in peaceful Helsinki, Finland. How is that possible? It's possible when you put a President in charge who does not believe in a strong defense. A President who believes that a strong defensive posture is what drives hate against Americans. 

All I can say to that is that letting those who hate America destroy our Embassies and kill Americans is not going to extinguish the hate. All it will do is make America look weak and fan the flames of more hate.

This is just one more reason to elect Mitt Romney as the next President. The haters around the world will hate us no matter who is President. We can however minimize the threat by having a strong a proud President at the helm.

This is just the latest example of how much of a failure President Obama's soft stance against terrorism is. Hugging terrorists does not reform them. It never will. The Obama Administration will never understand this. The only 'extremists' they can recognize are members of the 'Tea Party.'

UPDATE 10 October 2012

Above I had mentioned the possibility that persons in the State Department might have been criminally negligent. Well, take a look at this Congressional hearing questioning Charlene R. Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs. Here is a summary of what she is responsible for:

Diplomatic Security Senior Leadership » Lamb, Charlene R - Assistant Director for International Programs Biography Other Releases Bureau of Diplomatic Security Washington, DC Share on facebookShare on google_plusone Share Charlene R. Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs As the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs, Ms. Lamb is a key member of the DS management team, responsible for providing strategic planning, management support, and establishing budget priorities to senior DS management. Ms. Lamb manages more than $1.2 billion in security assets and programs and thousands of personnel dedicated to that purpose. She is also responsible for the safety and security of over 285 overseas Embassies and Consulates and oversees the 550 special agent/security professionals posted at those locations. - US State Department

That is a pretty impressive set os responsibilities. You know what else is impressive, her past history. Go ahead and read the rest of her bio which includes postings in a number of hot spots. It sounds like this is exactly the kind of person you would want overseeing embassy safety and security. Which makes this testimony all the more bizarre and I dare say damning. How on earth did she come to the conclusion that security in the consulate was anywhere near acceptable, especially considering that embassies in peaceful countries have much better security. 

Found here.
-------------------- --------------------

WTF!?!?! Up to 35% of Americans Qualify for a Free Obama Phone???

OK, so there is a program that telephone and cellular phone subscribers pay for that gives away cellular phones to the poor and dare I say 'near-poor'. The money comes from Universal Service Fund fees that are tacked onto most phone bills. The Universal Service Fund is:

The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner; there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should, generally, have access to advanced telecommunications services; and finally, that the Federal-State Joint Board and the FCC should determine those other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to protect the public interest. As of the third quarter of 2012, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.7 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues - Wiki

One of the approved uses of this money is to give free cellular phones, and cellular phone service to people who qualify. Who qualifies? Well, according to the Obama Phone website up to 35% of all Americans

If you, or members in your household are, receiving the following benefits you automatically qualify for the Lifeline program. Those interested in the program must have an income of less than 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. (For example in the 48 Contiguous States and D.C the income level is $22,350 per year for a family of four.)

• Food Stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
• Medicaid
• Supplemental Security Income – commonly known as SSI
• Health Benefit Coverage under Child Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)
• The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program.
• Low-Income Energy Assistance Program – LIHEAP
• Federal Public Housing Assistance ( Section 8 )
• If you are a low-income Eligible Resident of Tribal Lands
• Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – TANF

Qualifications can vary by state. - The Obama Phone

You have got to be kidding me. That is a huge number of people. And in certain areas of the country, I guess people could claim that everyone has an Obama Phone like was done in the video from Cleveland, Ohio earlier this week...

So where do I sign up for free alcohol? But seriously, I do not have a land line phone. The cable company is more than willing to give me one for free, but I gave that phone up years ago because the 'Free' phone cost me about $10 a month in taxes. Part of those taxes was to fund this program which is probably being abused all to hell. What's next? Free internet? Apparently this is the direction that we are headed. 

Keep this in mind the next time you look at your phone bill. What other programs are you paying for through fees in your phone bill.You might find some surprising things. Take the NY City area. Their phone bills also include a surtax for the Metropolitan Transit Authority. All of this you pay for to subsidize other people.

Yes, some people should get help. But I bet that people will be surprised at just how much help poor people already get as they cry to politicians to put their hands into your pockets yet again... Don't wait for any accountability anytime soon. They only want to audit the rich. There is no interest in auditing what happens to the money when it it given to the poor (in exchange for votes).

-------------------- --------------------

US Spending Problem Explained

I was forwarded this and enjoyed it enough to share. If only President Obama and his follow Democrats could understand and confront this problem. I am not saying that the Republicans are blameless here. However, they are the only ones that both sides will hold to account regarding future spending....

----------------------------------
This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political doublespeak we get.
It puts it into a much better perspective.

US Tax revenue:  $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget:         $3,820,000,000,000
New debt:             $1,650,000,000,000
National debt:   $16,000,000,000,000
Recent budget cut:   $38,500,000,000

Now let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget

Annual family income:                             $21,700
Money the family spent:                           $38,200
New debt on the credit card:                    $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $160,000
Total budget cuts:                                          $385


OK, now Lesson # 2:

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

Let's say … you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood and your home has sewage all the way up to the ceilings.

What do you think you should do ......

Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap?
----------------------------------

-------------------- --------------------

Obama and Democrats Hate Your Job - Coal Edition

When the Democrats talk about creating jobs, they only talk about jobs in sectors that traditionally support Democrats. It is really a kind of self-supporting loop. 

These jobs:

• Firefighters 
• Policemen (Sometimes)
• Teachers 
• More Government workers 

 These jobs all sound good, but employing ever more of them requires more tax revenue. That is because all of these workers are supported by taxes. Now President Obama and the Democrats would like you to believe that these jobs are supported by Federal Taxes. However, outside of Federal Government workers, this is a huge lie. Most firefighters, policemen and teachers are supported by State and local taxes. So when President Obama hits Romney in an ad for wanting to drastically slash funding for public schools 20 percent, it is a deceptive claim given that 90% of school funding comes from local sources, such as property taxes. In reality slashing the Government portion by 20% only reduces the overall amount 2 percent. But if the Democrats told you this, most every reasonable person would say that a 2% overall cut is not bad. Anyway, this is one reason that teachers and firefighters get laid off. The Government gives stimulus money to hire extra workers. The stimulus money runs out. These extra workers are laid off. Obama and the Democrats howl about these laid off workers without noting that they were ever needed to begin with.

Now take the other jobs. Those that pay taxes to support the jobs above. Take coal jobs. The coal mining industry is being killed under this Administration. And they are nowhere near done. We have had people knocking on our door multiple times in the last couple of months asking us to sign petitions to encourage the President, Congress, the EPA, etc.. to push to get rid of dirty coal, with the excuse that they are pushing to get this done for the children. Even my children.

Now, we really do have a good and relatively clean country. The air and water are better than ever before. Remember acid rain? How about leaded gasoline and lead paint. I do. Surely there are pollutants associated with coal fired power plants, but now we have gotten to the point apparently that the remaining issues are either relatively trivial or rare that they don't even have a name to scare people with and certainly nothing to point at. So instead we just have to be confronted with the idea that coal is bad because this is something we can all believe. Remember that acid rain.... Well, there are are huge consequences for continuing a 'War on Coal' and coal mining jobs:

President Obama’s war on coal is real. Don’t believe us? Come to Brilliant, Ohio or Clay, West Virginia and we’ll show you coal mines that were closed as a result of President Obama’s assault on hardworking Americans who work in the coal industry. Coal is a cheap, abundant, and reliable source of power. Almost 90% of Ohio’s power comes from coal and just across the Ohio River in West Virginia, over 95% of its power comes from coal. Needless to say, coal plays a vital role in not only powering the Buckeye and Mountain states, but coal generates nearly half of America’s electricity. So why would President Obama want to destroy such a vital part of America’s economy?

President Obama’s war on coal is nothing new. Even before President Obama took the oath of office, he was pretty clear with his plans for America’s coal industry. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” If there’s one thing we can say about the Obama Administration, when it comes to assaulting the coal industry, its actions match its words. - By Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), The Hill

It is senseless to drive what was a productive industry out of business. Worse, it is reckless to destroy energy production not only for households but also for businesses. Some industries, like steal production rely on cheap electricity. Pushing those businesses out of the US will just result in much dirtier production in China not to mention much higher electric bills in the US. Want to pay more for electricity? How do you like the light of those CFL bulbs? Me, I like lighting up my world.

Lighting up the night was a huge innovation. It is somewhat sad that many people are now so concerned about their high electric bills that they no longer keep on a front light. Kind of a shame really and we only have the Government and Global warming fanatics to blame. We can hopefully put a stop to this with a change of occupants in the White House. 

This President wants to talk about outsourcing to China. He accuses Mitt Romney of outsourcing jobs to China. Well Obama and the Democrats are outsourcing our pollution to China. That is the worse crime. Their actions are literally killing people over there. Not only that, by making electricity more expensive over here, along with everything else, it is just one more reason we are losing jobs in America.

Don't kid yourself. This is by Democrat design. They actually think they are doing you and your family a favor by killing off coal jobs and other jobs like steel production. Lets face it, they are hard nasty jobs. They would never do these jobs. So, you're welcome...

You're Not Going to Get Job Stimulus From Democrats - They Hate Your Job
 
-------------------- --------------------

'The Hope and the Change' - Movie Trailer for Dissillusioned 2008 Obama Voters

'The Hope and the Change' is a documentary profiling a number of independants and Democrats who voted for President Obama in 2008 and are disillusioned over his Presidency, what he promised and what was actually delivered. 

It looks like a powerful movie. Interestingly enough, it will be shown on TV during the next couple of weeks.

Keep in mind, this is a President, along with his fellow Democrats, who Hate Your Job, who could have created 9,000 millionaires with the stimulus money, who very well might have gotten Osama despite his team working against him and whose Obamacare legislation did nothing to improve healthcare in America and in the process used such accounting trickery to make the numbers 'work' that if it was done in a publicly traded company probably would have landed people in jail.

I do not think the documentary has anything to do with the issues I pointed out above. It appears to deal on a more basic level, where the President made some simple promises and failed to keep even them.

And while we are at it, don't forget the 'Fast and Furious' gun running to criminals fiasco. I stand by my prediction that people are going to jail for this. However it will probably require a change in leadership for any read investigation to determine who will have to pay for the dead people this program left in its wake.

-------------------- --------------------

Obama - The Petty President - Stuck on Tax Returns

I predict that by the time this election is all over, President Obama will be seen as the petty, disaster of a President that he really is. As it is, after a week of facing damaging campaigning, criticizing his raid of Medicare, failure to pass a budget during his presidency, and failure to even attempt to get Government spending under control, all he has to offer is more demands that candidate Romney release more of his tax returns.

Barack Obama's re-election campaign kept up pressure against Republican rival Mitt Romney on two fronts Friday, launching a new ad defending the president's record on Medicare while challenging Romney to release at least five years of tax returns. - MyWay News

Perhaps Romney should offer to release more tax returns in exchange for Obama releasing his Columbia transcripts.

After all, one of Obama's own Columbia classmates makes some serious allegations concerning the President's time at Columbia:

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not. If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of? If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses. It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff. - The Blaze

Lets face it, all of this is one huge distraction. This is Obama's re-election campaign plan. Basically to attack his opponent and scare voters. He has to do this because he has no record to run on. At least none that win anyone over.... And not for anything, I doubt there is much that will change the mind if his current supporters. Their thinking is just not right...

P.S. Below is a screenshot of the actual Drudge homepage. The one above is a mockup.

-------------------- --------------------

"A federal law requiring advance notice of mass layoffs does not apply to" Government Layoffs...

I have never worked for the Government, other than my time in the US Navy Reserves. I have worked for a US Government contractor. This was on my last ship, the USNS SILAS BENT. At the time the management of the ship had just passed to a company called Dyne Marine Services. The company was eager to win over the merchant marine crew that they were going to send to the ship. They even flew us to their headquarters to tell us how great they were and how we were a part of the team. What they didn't tell us, was that the Fair Labor Standards Act didn't apply to the jobs that we were about to take.

The Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 (abbreviated as FLSA; also referred to as the Wages and Hours Bill) is a federal statute of the United States. The FLSA established a national minimum wage, guaranteed 'time-and-a-half' for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor," a term that is defined in the statute. It applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. - Wiki

Now, I have no proof that their omission was done on purpose, but given that I personally asked if work over 8 hours a day and over 40 hours a week considered overtime in a room full of seafarers and company bigwigs to get confirmation that my comments were correct. What I did not ask, and what they did not offer, BUT MUST HAVE KNOWN, was that overtime would be paid as straight pay, not at 'time-and-a-half'. And why ask given that overtime for sailors means just that. Unless some sneaky bastard figures that their company can manage Government owned ships at a cheaper rate by screwing sailors out of their pay And keep in mind that sailing is 24/7, so we were all counting on a minimum of 16 hours overtime a week for simply standing watch on weekends. 

The crew had various ways of dealing with this financial setback. Many refused to work any non-mandatory overtime. I took the opportunity to work as many hours as possible. The Third Mate mad it a habit of being right at the gangway to welcome all new crew with the question 'Hey, did they tell you that overtime was at straight pay?' I have to say that it was pretty amusing to watch the smiles disappear off the faces of newly joining crew, even before they got off the gangway. (Given that this went on for 6 months, kind of suggests that the guys in the office doing the hiring were intentionally not informing new crew. It just goes to show you you really need to beware when a company tells you how great they are. They might be hiding something.) 

The reason I bring this up is the news that the Government is trying to delay layoff notices from going out to thousands of Government contractor employees until after the Presidential Election.

Under the WARN Act -- The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act -- companies with more than 100 employees must give 60 days' notice if there is to be a mass layoff during any 30-day period for 500 or more employees (or for 50-499 employees if they make up at least 33% of the employer's active workforce). But in guidance issued on Monday, Assistant Labor Secretary Jane Oates said never mind about those pink slips: "Questions have recently been raised as to whether the WARN Act requires Federal contractors...whose contracts may be terminated or reduced in the event of sequestration on January 2, 2013, to provide WARN Act notices 60 days before that date to their workers employed under government contracts funded from sequestrable accounts. The answer to this question is 'no.' In fact, to provide such notice would be inconsistent with the purpose of the WARN Act." - CNSNews.com

The excuse given for this is that despite the cuts that are currently law, it is not possible to WARN anyone of layoffs because no specific projects or contracts have been officially notified that they would be part of the spending cut. Plus, Congress MIGHT actually repeal sequestration.

5. Application of WARN Act to Potential Sequestration. Although it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration. Thus, even the occurrence of sequestration is not necessarily foreseeable. In addition, the sequester’s impact on particular accounts will depend at least in part on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding that Congress has not yet enacted. Perhaps more importantly, Federal agencies also have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur. Given that Federal agencies, including DOD, have not announced which contracts will be affected by sequestration were it to occur, and that many contracts may be completely unaffected, the actual contract terminations or cutbacks that will occur in the event of sequestration are unknown. Thus, in the absence of any additional information, potential plant closings or layoffs resulting from such contract terminations or cutbacks are speculative and unforeseeable. - US Govt Notice (PDF)

I have to admit that this makes sense. Yes thousands of people are going to get laid off. You know that you are going to be one of them. And yet, nobody will know for sure until the very last minute. That is, unless their employers send them a courtesy warning in advance of any mandated by the law. Apparently this is something that employers can do. Imagine if you as a taxpayer or as a business owner started behaving on how Congress might act. You might end up receiving a fine or worse some jail time. But the Government, the rules do not apply to them, ESPECIALLY if there is a Democrat in office. Not that rules apply to a Republican in office, it is just that the Democrats (and the media) are very vocal in making sure Republicans don't get away with breaking the laws.

Anyway, I suspect that is is just some wasteful posturing on behalf of a Government lackey who either is trying to keep the current president in office or truly believes that in this case it's perfectly OK not to tell people that they are going to be without a job shortly after the election.

What I would like to see is the DOD actually announce which programs they plan to cut because of sequestration. Then the pink slips can go out, as they should. (Note: I am not in support of suck cuts to our National Defense. As it is, the DOD was the only Government Dept that I know of that was actively cutting their spending before this mess. The ax needs to fall elsewhere.)
 

-------------------- --------------------

About Those Trillions Being Held In Tax Havens Around The World...

Given that about half of all Americans are not paying taxes and are now receiving benefits from the Government, and with things even worse in other countries, politicians and the press are trying to place blame on the lack of an unlimited supply of money to pay for these social programs on rich people who are somehow hiding assets from taxation in tax havens around the world:

The Tax Justice Network, a campaign group, estimated last weekend that as much as $21 to $32 trillion of financial assets are sheltered in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax. - CNBC

First, while it sounds like a very large number, it is very deceptive. That is because, while some of the money is illicit and the beneficial owners are hiding the money from taxation, much of this money is there legally and that the beneficial owners do not owe any additional tax on these funds. 

Worse, look at the study's own estimate of lost tax revenue: 'up to $280 billion in lost income tax'. While in itself a large amount, it is still a mere 1% of the total. At the very least this story is just more evidence that the real problem is excess spending and not enough taxation (other than the growing percentage of the population escaping taxation entirely, and that is not the rich who already pay and pay more...).

Even worse, the potential amount of last tax revenue, assuming the 'best case' scenario, is not even 1/4 of the US 2012 budget deficit of 1.2 Trillion dollars. So even if this lost income tax could be recovered AND IF the US got all of the proceeds, it would not even make a difference in stemming the US's march towards bankruptcy. Greece itself would need just about  the whole amount to help dig itself out of their current fiscal crisis.

-------------------- --------------------

Video - 'Obama Isn't Working'

Here is a grassroots campaign video making the case against re-electing President Obama.

As found on Ace of Spades Blog.

-------------------- --------------------

$9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ - 910 Jobs OR 9,000 Millionaires...

The latest stimulus news is out and it is yet one more confirmation on what a disaster the program is/was:

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs. - CNS News

You know what else this money could have been used to do - It could have simply been given to 9,000 Americans in million dollar chunks, in effect creating 9,000 millionaires. 

Worse, the story notes that the $9 billion also created 4,600 indirect jobs, which when added to the direct number is still thousands less than if the Government simply gave the money away as part of a lottery. 

My 2009 post 'Better way to Spend $825 Billion in the Name of Stimulus' notes that instead of using the stimulus money for projects, that it just might be better to simply use it for a lottery where there were 800,000 first prizes of a million dollars each.Would this have been fair? I think it would have been more fair than giving huge amounts of money to politically connected companies like Solyndra who just turned around and burned the cash.

-------------------- --------------------

Obama's 'Gutsy Call' - Not Even At The Table

President Obama is once again using the killing of Osama Bin Laden as a prop in his reelection campaign. I have no problem with the President point to this as one of the accomplishments of his Presidency. After all, it is one of the few actual accomplishments that most Americans give him credit for. However, for some reason, the President's campaign staff are now suggesting that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would not have given the go-ahead to kill Bin Laden, distorting a comment of his as their evidence. Mitt Romney's comment is so taken out of context as his actual statement is that killing any one terrorist is not not a strategy, but a starting point. Basically he is advocating a much stronger response than the assassination of one man. 

Lets not forget that the President's 'Gutsy Call'  was given only after sleeping on it, a full 16 hours after being asked. Now maybe Mitt Romney would have said no, but I seriously doubt he's take a nap first. (Mitt Romney in response to the Obama Campaign allegation notes that even Carter would have made the call to take out Osama.)

The Obama campaign's outright lying of the facts reminded me of the photo of President Obama in the Situation room observing the mission as it happened. For making such a 'Gutsy Call', the President does not even have a seat at the table. Why exactly is that? How many other White House photos have you seen where the President does not have a prominent place at the table? Any table? I am no fan of the President, but if I had him over for dinner, I'd give him the honor of my place at the table, if for no reason than one of respect.

Now take the following story that appeared on the internet shortly after this photo appeared that comments on the situation leading up to the photo, keeping in mind that there is nothing to back up the allegations made in the story:

I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room. - Socyberty (White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden)

Go read the entire article which notes how much of an obstacle Valerie Jarrett was on behalf of the President and how those interested in actually fighting a war on terrorism managed to work around the President. Providing that there is any truth to this story.

Interestingly enough, the recent Times article on the raid, provides a copy of the mission order Leon Panetta issued (At least his note of it). This part of the official story just happens to fit into the storyline above.

Given that the President's campaign is all interested in discussing the raid on Bin Laden, perhaps they would like to explain why the President is sitting in the corner during one of the most important meetings of his Presidency. Perhaps, this was to give him easy access for the door in case the raid did not end so well. I wonder, are there any photos of this meeting where the President is not seated in the room...

I suspect that we will be returning to this photo before November's Election.

-------------------- --------------------