Axelrod: Billionaire GOP Donor Sheldon Adelson Is Just Greedy

Now the Obama Administration is using what-used-to-be-thinly-veiled-and-is-now-becoming-more-overt-day-after-day anti-Semitism to attack Sheldon Adelson as greedy in their latest campaign email from David Axelrod.

It reads:

Sheldon Adelson, the conservative billionaire Las Vegas casino owner, has pledged to give up to $100 million -- whatever it takes -- to defeat Barack Obama.

Is there one of us with Adelson’s money who wouldn’t?

We know it's not out of love for Mitt Romney, so why part with so much money? As President Clinton reminded us last week, sometimes the answer is as simple as arithmetic.

This is despicable. Adelson has always been concerned about Israel, and Romney is clearly light-years more concerned about Israel than Obama. And just how many millions has Adleson given to charity compared to that Obama hack?

So let's do the math: According to a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Adelson could see up to $2 billion in savings under Mitt Romney's tax plan versus the President's plan. That's how much Romney's policies would favor millionaires and billionaires.

If Mitt Romney wins -- $2 billion more for Adelson. If Barack Obama wins, millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.

It's a highly cynical but straightforward calculation.

No, the one who has always been cynical is you, Axelrod.

Today, you can help write a different equation.

Donate $3 or more, and let's make sure this election is decided by millions of Americans, not a handful of billionaires.

Here's how it would work for Adelson in a Romney-Ryan administration:

Romney would keep in place the Bush tax cuts, and cut Adelson's income taxes by an additional 20 percent. Adelson savings: $1.5 million per year on income he earns as CEO.

    

Romney's plan eliminates taxes on foreign profits like the ones Adelson makes on his Asian casinos. Adelson savings: $1.2 billion.

Romney's plan maintains the current low tax rate on dividends. Adelson savings: $120 million per year.

Romney's plan removes the estate tax. Adelson heirs save: $8.9 billion.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Book: Justice Scalia ‘Enraged’ With Chief Justice Roberts Over Obamacare Decision

(THE BLAZE) A new book details how Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court to uphold President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul and says Justice Antonin Scalia was “enraged” at him for doing so.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court“ says the other four conservative justices on the court wanted to ”kill off the entire health care law,“ alienating Roberts who sought out a ”middle ground,” according to excerpts of the book published Saturday by Politico.

A lifelong Republican, Roberts originally intended to vote to overturn the law, but it became apparent to the other justices in April and May that he was going “wobbly,” Toobin wrote:

“The four conservatives had overplayed their hand with the chief justice. By demanding that Roberts kill off the entire health care law, they prompted him to look for some kind of middle ground. … [Justice Antonin ] Scalia was enraged at the chief.”

“Wobbly,” incidentally, is the same word sources used to describe Roberts in a major CBS News story published just days after the court announced its decision.

Part of the reason for Roberts’ switch, according to Toobin, is that he had two goals for his tenure as chief: “to push his own ideological agenda but also to preserve the court’s place as a respected final arbiter of the nation’s disputes.”

A complete nullification of the health care law on the eve of a presidential election would put the Court at the center of the campaign … Democrats, and perhaps Obama himself, would crusade against the Court, eroding its moral if not its legal authority. … Gradually, then with more urgency, Roberts began looking for a way out. …

Via: Pat Dollard

Continue Reading...

Nearly 40% Of Chicago Public School Teachers Send Their Kids To Private Schools

The Chicago teachers’ strike is an awkward dinner conversation between President Barack Obama and his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.   Many of the policy prescriptions in the new Chicago teachers’ contract designed to create more accountability are supported by the Obama administration.

As the Chicago teachers’ strike continues, we’ve learned that they make $71-76,000 a year and they turned down a 16% pay increase, which amounts to $11,360.  They work nine months out of the year, but say that this strike is benefits oriented.  However, given that ABC World News didn’t even air this story last Sunday and most of the media, with the exception of CBS, failing to mention the compensation statistics in their broadcast – suffice to say that the  media will probably ignore the fact that almost 40% of Chicago’s public school teachers send their kids to private schools.

I’m not against public education, but the fact that these teachers make enough to send their kids to private schools shows that Chicago’s public teachers are aware of the serial failure within the system.  Second, it shows that these teachers have zero confidence in their own respective school district.  Why are the teachers going on strike?  Aren’t the contentious measures they’re squabbling about aimed at enhancing accountability that will make their institutions of learning better for the students?  It appears this strike, like most union strikes, are defined by these three words: give. me. more.

However, given the state of public education and that of Chicago, it’s not alien for public school teachers to ship their kids to private institutions.  According to The Washington Times in September of 2004, they quoted the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which found that:

 More than 1 in 5 public school teachers said their children attend private schools.

In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.

In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading...

CBS: OBAMA LEADS IN OUR D+13 POLL

Anyone following the presidential campaign through the prism of media polls is doing themselves a serious disservice. Virtually every one uses a polling sample that is so heavily-skewed towards Democrats that it distorts the actual state of the campaign. Of course, that is a feature, not a bug of the polls. The polls are specifically designed to drive a narrative that Obama is surging and Romney is struggling. Increasingly, though, the polls are having to go to ridiculous efforts to support this meme. Friday's CBS/New York Times poll, for example, uses a D+13 sample of registered voters. This is absurd. 

In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. Repeat after me; the Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 model than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama's support. 

CBS does apply a Likely Voter screen to the head-to-head match up. The LV sample is D+6, similar to the make up of the 08 election. In that, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points, 49-46. In the RV sample, which more than doubles the proportion of Democrats to D+13, Obama leads by 8 points, 51-43. See the simple relationship there? 

Let's try a simple thought experiment. Imagine if, for a week, all media polls decided to use a sample that replicated the 2004 electorate--a D+0 model. Given the GOP's enthusiasm edge--even the CBS poll found Republicans voters with a double-digit lead on enthusiasm for the election--the electorate is going to look a lot more like 2004 than 2008. Imagine how the narrative of the campaign would change. The CBS poll found Romney beating Obama among Independents by 11 points. With a balanced partisan sample, Romney would likely post consistent leads against Obama. 

A week of this and Politico would run out of fuel for its daily "Romney is struggling" theme. Which is why the media will never adjust its samples. This election, it isn't so much about polling as propaganda. The polls are simply a tool being used by the media to try to depress GOP turnout and give a powerful lift to Obama's obviously lackluster campaign. 

The polls confirm that the media aren't really biased. Rather, they are active players for the other team. 

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Obama can be sued over insulting film: Iran official

A senior Iranian official says US President Barack Obama could face legal action in connection with the production of an anti-Islam movie by an American Jew.

“A complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for respect of faiths,” Javad Mohammadi, the deputy head of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR), said on Sunday. 

“Article 18 and 27 of the ICCPR, adopted by the United Nation, stipulate that the religion and the rights of the minorities should be respected,” Mohammadi said. 

The US government is a signatory to this covenant and has to respect it. Therefore, an individual or an NGO (non-governmental organization) can file a lawsuit against the president of the country for breach of the covenant, he added. 

Mohammadi heaped praise on the Muslims for their massive protests against the movie, noting “Protest against insults to religious sanctities should not be limited to time, place and customary reactions and we should undertake legal measures.” 

“The world’s elite know pretty well that Islam is a divine religion and Muslims have always respected divine religions and messengers and would never remain silent vis-à-vis any desecration,” the official said.

The controversial movie that has sparked outrage in the Muslim world has been produced by anti-Islam Israeli-American Sam Bacile. 

Bacile has assumed responsibility for the direction and production of the blasphemous film, which he said was made thanks to Jewish donations totaling USD 5 million.

Via: Press TV

Continue Reading...

Obama Administration: No Security Lapse In Libya

"The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place."

Susan Rice, the Obama administration's UN ambassador, said this morning on ABC's This Week that the Benghazi consulate, where four Americans were killed on September 11, had the level of security the State Department thought was needed.

"The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place," Rice told ABC's Jake Tapper. "We'll see when the investigation unfolds whether what transpired in Benghazi might have unfolded differently in different circumstances."

"We had substantial presence," Rice said, "with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans there killed were providing security. That was their function. And indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them. It obviously didn't prove sufficient to the nature of the attack and sufficient in that moment." 

Rice did not say how many U.S. security personnel were at the consulate in Benghazi.

Here's a transcript of the exchange between Rice and Tapper: 

TAPPER: Why was there such a security breakdown? Why was there not better security at the compound in Benghazi? Why were there not U.S. Marines at the embassy in Tripoli?

AMB. RICE: First of all, we had substantial presence with our --

TAPPER: Not substantial enough --

Via: The Weekly Standard

Continue Reading... 

Bill Press: Anti-Islam Filmmakers 'As Guilty as the Terrorists' Who Killed Americans in Libya

Radio host Bill Press is determined to win the title of most useful idiot to the jihad.

With his most recent lunacy this past Friday, Press is well on his way. (Audio clip after page break)

Behold, what passes for wisdom from the warped wasteland known as liberal radio (audio) --

Now here's the question though and the question that I ask you and it's not an easy one, I understand that.  What, if anything, should happen to the people who made this video? I gotta tell you, I think they are as guilty, that's my opinion, I think they are as guilty as the terrorists who carried out those attacks against our embassy in Libya. Look, we don't know everybody who was involved, but we've seen, I've seen some of them on television. This is a group of extremist, Muslim-hating, so-called Christians in southern California who are using their religion to stir up hatred against Islam. They're basing this on their Christian beliefs. They are, I believe, every bit as guilty as al Qaeda members who, think about it, who use the Koran and abuse their religion to stir up hatred against the United States. These so-called Christians, anybody who uses religion to stir up hate, is not a true believer. And certainly Christians who do so are not true Christians.

So these so-called Christians using their faith to stir up hatred against another of the world's great religions, it is absolutely disgusting and they've gotta know, they had to know what would result in that. After what happened with those Danish cartoons, right, or cartoons drawn for that Danish newspaper. After what happened with that nutjob Terry Jones down in Florida burning the Koran and people getting killed in Afghanistan over the protest that that, that that triggered. After what happened when we saw the video of American troops urinating on Muslim soldiers, right? After that, you had, they had to know that a video like this, not saying that the Muslims are not overreacting. I mean, they're hypersensitive about this stuff, I mean, Jesus, you know, just cool it, right? I mean, we show Jesus naked all the time hanging on the cross.

But, at any rate, their reaction is way overblown. But these, I hate to call them Christians, these so-called Christians had to know that that video would result in certain parts of the world, it would result in violence, it would result in lives being lost. I think, again, they are every bit as guilty and I think the United States, this is not freedom of speech. It's just the old thing, you can't cry fire in a crowded theater and have people trampled to death and say, oh, I was just exercising my freedom of speech. This is an abuse of the First Amendment. It's using, abusing their freedom of speech to cost innocent lives and to cause the taking of innocent lives in certain parts of the world. So, I think the United States ought to identify, yeah, we oughta be going after these terrorists that carried out the attacks in Libya and we are. I think we also ought to be identifying the people who made this video and go after them with the full force of the law and lock their ass up.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading... 

OBAMA-ROMNEY: THE BIG FIGHT IN VEGAS

President Barack Obama’s fundraising trip to Las Vegas on Wednesday--shameful though it may have been, in the midst of a deadly foreign policy crisis--was a sign of how important Nevada remains to his re-election prospects. 

Mitt Romney was in the state the day before, giving a foreign policy address to the National Guard in Reno, though keeping his pledge not to attack his opponent on the anniversary of 9/11.

Obama drew a smaller crowd at the Cashman Center this year than in 2008--just 8,000 attendees inside the 10,000-seat arena, as opposed to the 11,000 he drew last time at the outdoor Cashman Field. 

The rest of the Democratic ticket in the state is also looking weaker than it has in recent years. Harry Reid may have survived Sharron Angle’s bid in 2010, but Rep. Shelley Berkley is struggling in her campaign against Sen. Dean Heller.

Both parties are bombarding the state’s weary television viewers with advertisements. The Democrats are targeting women in particular with commercials claiming that their opponents “opposed funding for Planned Parenthood,” leaving out the crucial word “federal,” creating the impression that Romney and the Republicans would wipe out the organization entirely. Other ads misrepresent Romney’s position on abortion entirely.

Social issues are all the Democrats have to run on in a state where unemployment is sky-high and the physical evidence of the bust are evident even on the Las Vegas Strip. Beyond the shiny Fashion Show complex and the glittering Trump International hotel lies the unfinished Echelon, which even Reid could not save. The many unfinished projects in the region have even inspired their own macabre art exhibitions.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Constitution First, Democracy Second

Hillsdale College this week held one of its on-campus seminars, Center for Constructive Alternatives (CCA). The college holds two each semester, each on a different topic, showcasing expert lecturers from across the country. This week’s seminar was entitled, “The Supreme Court: History and Current Controversies.” As usual, the speakers were enlightening, making the general point that the Supreme Court is entrusted with the responsibility of defending the Constitution.

Sometimes the Court has proven more successful than others.

Two major topics of current interest were campaign finance regulation, as in the Citizens United case, and issues with respect to the Commerce Clause – most recently per the Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

As I listened to the lectures I kept thinking of the arguments made by the winner of the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics, Friedrich Hayek in his 1960 book, “The Constitution of Liberty.” One of Hayek’s points was that democracy only makes sense when individuals can make arguments and arrive at decisions independent of what they are told by their government. How can we possibly decide on whom to elect – and what policies to support – if our only source of information are those in power?

That is one reason we find various rights protected in the Constitution such as the right to free speech, the right to peaceable assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of the press. (As an aside, one might wonder how a system of government education fits into this – but that is a topic for another column.) Capital University Law School Professor Brad Smith, in supporting the Court’s decision in Citizens United, made a compelling argument for the importance of protecting the freedom of political speech .

The Commerce Clause has been used as in a major way to stretch the bounds of the Constitution. Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University Law School gave a history of the use of the Commerce Clause from the New Deal to Obamacare. Lund made the salient point that, although Justice Roberts ultimately found another way to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare, we can take some comfort that a majority on the Court held that interstate commerce does not include not buying things.

Via: CA Political Review

Continue Reading...

Fat, Poor, Liberal, and Stupid

A recent study of obesity in children suggests that being overweight when young reduces the child’s intelligence. Researchers at the NYU Langone School of Medicine claim to have found that obese toddlers wind up being, well, stupid teenagers.

I would be apt to dismiss this Federally-funded study (see abstracthere ) as junk science, since the researchers do not simply claim a statistically small difference in I.Q. between obese children and their peers but a whopping 5 to 15% test score difference. Still, it does dovetail with other studies that give similar results, so for the sake of argument let us assume it is accurate.

(Interestingly enough, little was made of a recent study showing similar effects on children from high levels of fluoridation of water.)

The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and the lead author is founder of the BODY Project :

“Dr. Convit’s focus on combating and raising awareness about the impact of childhood obesity led him to create the The BODY Project, a program that works with New York City schools and parents to evaluate students’ height, weight, blood pressure, test for insulin resistance and record other measures of health, giving parents an overview of their child’s health status”

Which leads one to believe that perhaps Dr. Convit and his team are perhaps crusaders. Increasingly, science - particularly government funded science - serves political purposes and finds what the paymasters want them to find. This is particularly evident in Climatology where researchers produce voluminous bodies of work showing that the world is doomed when the actual world conditions show nothing of the sort. The way it works is simple; liberal activists get into controlling positions in science journals and professional organizations and reject papers that do not comport with their views, while promoting those that do. Once a paper is published it is used as a building block for another piece of research finding the same results, and the whole house of cards grows like a cancer, with no rebuttals allowed in the establishment system. Researchers understand this, and tailor their work to fit the new paradigm. It ultimately goes back to an excess of government funding.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading... 

Report: Government employees work less than private sector employees

New research suggests that there is something to the stereotype that government employees work less than their private sector counterparts.

A study from the conservative Heritage Foundation shows that government employees work three hours less per week and roughly one month less per year than private sector workers.

“The ‘underworked’ government employee should be of concern to taxpayers who expect private-sector levels of work in the public sector in exchange for private-sector levels of compensation,” the report says.

During a typical work week, private sector employees work 41.4 hours while federal government employees only work 38.7 hours. State and local government employees work even less, only 38.1 hours during a typical work-week.

This adds up over time and means that federal employees work 3.8 weeks less than private sector workers and state and local employees work 4.7 weeks less than those in the private sector.

“More generally, work time differences are a reminder to lawmakers that they should ensure that public employees’ work time and compensation are generally in line with those of private-sector employees,” the study concludes.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

ANTI-ISLAM FILMMAKER DONATED MILLION DOLLARS TO OBAMA CAMPAIGN

Blame the movie.

Blame the movie.

Blame the movie.

Even though "the movie" was on YouTube for months prior to the collective indignation of thousands of Middle Eastern Islamists all coming together on the eleventh anniversary of September 11th  (through a wild coincidence, no doubt), we are being told by our government and our media overlords that we must blame the movie.

You see, if we blame the movie for the burning of our foreign outposts and the brutal murders of four Americans (including our Libyan ambassador who was reportedly raped), we won't blame the burners and the looters and the murderers and the rapists.

You see, if we blame the movie for the Middle East burning, we won't blame the Islamists who are doing the burning and looting and raping and murdering.

Which means we won't further connect the dots and blame Obama's failed Middle East policy; the Obama Doctrine of backing away from the region and allowing events to unfold as America stands idly by -- as the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood grab hold of power in Egypt, a country that was once our largest and closest ally.

Blame the filmmaker.

Hunt him.

 Out him.

Demonize him.

Burn the straw man!

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

State Of California Asking Hollywood To Write Obamacare Into TV Show Plots…

California Tries to Guide the Way on Health Law

SACRAMENTO — The meeting came to order, the five members of the California Health Benefit Exchange seated onstage with dozens of consumer advocates and others looking on. On the agenda: what to name the online marketplace where millions of residents will be able to shop for medical coverage under President Obama’s health care law.

An adviser presented the options, meant to be memorable, appealing and clear. What about CaliHealth? Or Healthifornia?

Or Avocado?

“I am kind of drawn to Avocado,” declared Kim Belshé, a member of the exchange’s board of directors, which is hustling to make dozens of decisions as the clock ticks toward deadlines set by the law.

Delay and outright resistance to the health care overhaul might be the norm in much of the country, but not here. California — home to seven million uninsured people, more than any other state — is at the forefront of preparations for January 2014, when a controversial requirement that most Americans have medical coverage or pay a penalty takes effect.

So far, only 13 states and the District of Columbia have told the Obama administration they intend to set up the insurance exchanges that are supposed to provide a marketplace for people to buy health plans. None are being watched as closely as California, whose singular challenges, from the size, diversity and geographic spread of its uninsured population to its vast budget problems, make it stand out. Many feel a successful rollout here could convince other states with high numbers of uninsured residents that the law can be made to work for them.

“We are the example,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, an advocacy group. “If it can be done here, it can be done anywhere.”

The California Health Benefit Exchange has already hired 50 employees and is poised to hire 50 more. Construction of the Web portal through which some three million people are expected to buy insurance by 2019, and through which many others will likely enroll in Medicaid, is under way.

Via:NYT

Continue Reading...

Jewish senator lashes out at Netanyahu for attacking Obama on Iran

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) says she’s deeply disappointed over remarks that call into question US support for Israel

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Barbara Boxer, a top Jewish U.S. senator and the sponsor of major pro-Israel legislation, blasted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for lashing out at President Obama on Iran.

“I write to you as one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in Congress to express my deep disappointment over your remarks that call into question our country’s support for Israel and commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Boxer (D-Calif.) said in a letter sent Wednesday in a rare instance of a pro-Israel lawmaker making public an unhappiness with an Israeli leader. “Your remarks are utterly contrary to the extraordinary United States-Israel alliance, evidenced by President Obama’s record and the record of Congress.”

Boxer apparently was referring to Netanyahu’s remarks in Jerusalem on Tuesday in which he decried a lack of clarity from the “international community” — seen in Israel as code for the Obama administration — for failing to make clear what would trigger a U.S. strike on Iran as that country reportedly nears obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“The world tells Israel, ‘Wait, there’s still time’,” Netanyahu said in English at a ceremony in which he greeted Bulgaria’s prime minister. “And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

Boxer, rebuking Netanyahu, cited a law signed by Obama this summer that enhances security cooperation between Israel and the United States. Boxer authored the legislation. She wrote that the law addresses many of Israel’s top security priorities, including extending loan guarantees to Israel and increasing the U.S. weapons stockpile in Israel, “which is available for Israel’s use in the event of a crisis.”

The California lawmaker listed other actions by Obama, including his leading increased isolation of Iran and his recognition of Israel’s right to defend itself as it sees fit against any Iranian threat.

Via:The Times of Israel

Continue Reading...

Obama: ‘One Of The Proudest Things Of My Three Years In Office Is Helping To Restore A Sense Of Respect For America Around The World’

President Obama has said that elevating the image of the United States around the world was one of his proudest foreign policy accomplishments, but those remarks could boomerang and hamper his reelection bid.

The violence and anti-American protests throughout the Middle East are bringing fresh attacks on the president’s foreign policies as Muslim rage is intensifying in the region.

The protests that have spread could undercut one of the key tenants of Obama's foreign policy argument that he has restored the U.S. image in the Middle East.

In February, Obama said, “One of the proudest things of my three years in office is helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the world, a belief that we are not just defined by the size of our military.”

Three years ago in Cairo, Obama stressed his leadership would be dramatically different than former President George W. Bush’s: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading...

OBAMA DOCTRINE: MIDDLE EAST CHAOS, SOARING OIL PRICES SPARK GLOBAL RECESSION FEARS

The turmoil in the Middle East, the Federal Reserve's decision to further devalue the U.S. dollar through a third round of "quantitative easing" (QE3), and rising oil prices are combining to create a toxic economic brew that could send the global economy into recession. 

That was the assessment of International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol. "I see the [oil] prices today, in this economic context, as unbearable for consumers," said Birol on Friday. "High prices together with other factors could push the global economy back into recession." 

Mr. Birol's comments come as U.S. oil prices hit a four-month high on Friday:

Since late June, the price of crude oil has climbed about 25 percent, fueling a 16-cent increase in the average price of regular gasoline and adding to the economic headwinds facing President Obama in the final weeks of the election campaign.

Industry experts believe that President Barack Obama may use the Middle East uprisings and soaring fuel costs to justify tapping the nation's 700 million-barrel emergency Strategic Petroleum Reserve, similar to what Mr. Obama did last year to no lasting effect.

But it was the Federal Reserve's decision to pump $40 billion so-called "stimulus" dollars a month into the U.S. economy in the form of buying mortgage-backed securities that ultimately may prove to be the match that lit the economic powder keg. As the value of the U.S. dollar goes down, oil prices go up. That means slower economic growth and higher consumer prices. 

As Reuters explains, the confluence of all these economic factors is producing a chain reaction of higher consumer prices, plunging industrial production, and soaring gas prices:

Highlighting the risk to the economy from surging oil prices, a jump in gasoline costs pushed up U.S. consumer prices in August at the fastest pace in more than three years and squeezed spending on other items, threatening to slow economic growth.

Industrial production dropped 1.2 percent in August, the biggest decline since March 2009. The consumer price index increased 0.6 percent, the first rise in five months and the biggest since June 2009.

Gasoline prices, which also recorded their largest increase since June 2009, accounted for about 80 percent of the rise in consumer inflation last month, the Labor Department said.

Via: Breitbart
Continue Reading... 

’12 Million Illegals need documents so they can unionize’- Rep Sherman

As this week wore on, the news kept getting grimmer. So many topics, so little time, and how many care. But I shall buck up today. It is a beautiful day here at the Bunker. Crystal blue skies, a nip in the air.

As if our country cannot go down the tubes fast enough what with Bernanke insuring rampant inflation, and who knows what all, I bring this good news. As if our unemployment rate was not high enough, lets bring in more illegals and by the way, by all means have them unionize. What a strange world we are living in. Here we go:

California Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman said at a press conference on  immigration outside the Capitol Friday afternoon that America needs immigration  reform to help those here illegally while also allowing them unionize for better  wages.

“We need a regular process by which the 12 million people who are part of our  society can be fully part of our society, and they need documents,” the  congressman said. “It’s important for the labor market of this country because  as long as there are 12 million people without documents, there are 12 million  people who can’t stand up for their rights as workers, and that means there are  12 million people who can be used by unscrupulous employers to keep down wages  and to prevent unions from organizing.”

Sherman was joined at the press conference by Rep. Judy Chu, Rep. Sheila Jackson  Lee and Rep. Lloyd Doggett. Each member thanked President Obama for his  executive order to stop the deportation of certain illegal immigrants, but they  said it was only the first step in a process Congress needs to finish.

Video at link below:

Read more:  Daily Caller

Rep.  Sherman: 12 million illegals ‘need documents’ to be able to unionize [VIDEO]

Via: Bunkerville

Continue Reading...

Sounding and Acting Like Reagan, Romney Has Them Terrified

I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. And Mitt Romney is reminding me an awful lot of Ronald Reagan.

The comments for which Romney is being so relentlessly and viciously scorned by Barack Obama and his merry band of media puppets sounds to me exactly like comments Ronald Reagan would have made.

It is indeed "disgraceful" for the US government to respond to the threat of an attack against an American embassy by issuing a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" and denouncing hurting their feelings as an "abuse" of free speech - and then as the embassy was being overrun and our flag burned issuing another statement saying they stand by that.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Mitt Romney was simply but forcefully expressing, as Ronald Reagan so often did, what most Americans think and how they feel. And you can bet the Obama campaign realized this and found it frightening.

They said that they were "shocked" that Romney "would choose to launch a political attack" -- the usual and expected sort of political statement gibberish -- but isn't it revealing what they did?  The Obama White House asked its media allies to report that the statement that Romney took such exception to "doesn't reflect the views of the U.S. government."

What? Isn't a U.S. Embassy an important part of the U.S. government, and all the more so when that embassy happens to be located in a country of great consequence to U.S. national interests? Isn't the U.S. Ambassador who leads that embassy - as anyone who is or ever has been one loves to remind people - the personal representative of the President of the United States?  Wasn't the Obama Administration claiming that the U.S. government does not reflect the views of the U.S. government?

No matter. The media fell in line and trumpeted the charade.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...