Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

           

Mitt Romney's 2011 Tax Return....

Obuma and his leftie-clowns want to get their hands on the enormous trove of data included in his full returns... 2011 actually included three separate returns for the Romneys' individual blind trusts and their family trust... so they can pick through it for little details they can pull out of context and drop into political attacks, secure in the knowledge that few in their audience will understand the extremely complicated tax laws governing a fortune of this size well enough to weed out disinformation, and the media certainly won't help them do it.

Like I said above, it has already started... that miserable, despicable, excuse of a man and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid flapping his (ass) cheeks about Romney's 2011 tax return.  "Joker" Reid seized on a quirk of Romney's 2011 taxes.... one of only two years the candidate has fully documented... to argue that Romney could be "manipulating" the data.

...Warph

[Warph]

                   


As Mr. Obama's World Turns
By Ken Blackwell

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/09/20/as_mr_obamas_world_turns/page/full/

It's been twenty years since Vice President Dan Quayle left town. He was hooted and booted out of office. The press had a field day with his misspelling of "potatoe," or rather, potato.

What a dunce, they wrote. Of course, that is standard treatment for conservatives, Christians, or anyone else who doesn't go along with the right thinking, which is to say, the left thinking legions of progressivism. No sooner had the former vice president left Washington for the greener golf courses of Arizona than social scientist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead took to the pages of The Atlantic. In April, 1993, she bravely wrote: "Dan Quayle was Right."

Dr. Whitehead could not be so easily dismissed. Her credentials as analyst and scholar are impeccable. The media could not distort her image or treat her with scorn. She was no Mr. Potato Head. So, she was largely ignored. Was that powerful article in The Atlantic the last time the liberal media addressed the issue of out-of-wedlock births with the sobriety it merits? Twenty years later, we see all the concerns of single parenthood that Dan Quayle addressed, and for which he was pilloried, growing and threatening our country. Dr. Whitehead's article bears re-reading--every year. [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/307015/]

The Family Research Council, is home to the Marriage and Religion Research Institute. Felicitously abbreviated MARRI, [www.marri.us] this serious think tank provides irrefutable evidence of the link between family formation, marital fidelity, and a healthy, growing economy. Those who think social issues--so-called--are mere "shiny objects" need to think again. The family is the seedbed of virtue and the basis for political stability and economic success.

Those in the pro-life movement thank God when a young mother chooses life. But no one should mistake the tragedy of children growing up without fathers in the home. Marriage itself is under a sustained assault. For a fast-food chain simply to state that marriage is good for mothers and fathers and their children, and seek to preserve that family forming institution, is to become suddenly "controversial." And to be exposed to brutal bullying by the politically correct. Single parenthood is the quickest way to poverty--for mother and child.

The Democratic Party has officially committed itself to ending traditional marriage. For what else can happen to marriage when two persons of the same sex can marry and the rest of us are forced to recognize these counterfeits as true? If two, why not three? There is no compelling reason why not.

No one doubts President Obama's formidable intellect. He has never been subjected to the kind of scorn and ridicule that met Dan Quayle's every utterance. After all, as presidential historian Michael Beschloss assures us, Barack Obama is the smartest man ever to occupy the Oval Office. Thus, we all sift through the golden rhetoric of this amazing man. Historian Michael Knox Beran found this nugget in Mr. Obama's second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope.

" came to appreciate how the earth rotated around the sun and the seasons came and went without any particular exertions on my part."

What becoming modesty: earth, sun, seasons. Wait! Did he say the earth rotates around the sun? Yes, he did. Where is our ready-to-pounce press corps on this one? I don't know how they taught in fifth grade science in Jakarta, but here in America I learned that the earth rotates on its axis and REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN. This is no small point. The rotation of the earth is tied to the movement of the tides. And the earth's revolution around the sun is the key to understanding the changing seasons.

Remember that bit about the seas ceasing to rise? Recall how climate change is a bigger threat than Islamists flying planes into buildings--or murdering our ambassadors?

President Obama has similarly mixed up the social science on family. His administration has given us "Julia." She is the Every Woman fictional figure who spends her entire life looking to government for assistance, from Head Start through Social Security. The only man in Julia's life is Barack Obama.

Social science unambiguously reports that children thrive with mothers and fathers who are married and who worship regularly. President Obama's administration is not about that at all, although his own model family consists of a mother and father, married, with children who worship regularly.

I am not suggesting that we treat President Obama's scientific gaffe with the same derision that greeted Dan Quayle. Quayle was wrong about potato, but he never suggested using potatoes for ethanol. President Obama is pursuing policies that defy science. Science tells us human life begins at conception. Barack Obama says that question is "above my pay grade." Social Science tells us that children do best when raised in a loving family, with a married mother and father, especially a family that worships regularly.

The Obama administration is defying all of this, from its lavish spending on the abortionists of Planned Parenthood to its gutting of welfare reform. And most dangerous of all, this administration refuses to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act and actively seeks to end marriage.

Let's give the final word to Dr. Whitehead. It's a sobering one:

More than a century and a half ago Alexis de Tocqueville made the striking observation that an individualistic society depends on a communitarian institution like the family for its continued existence. The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized.

[Warph]

              

Who Should Americans Trust as the Medicare Messenger?

By Allen West
9/25/2012

http://townhall.com/columnists/allenwest/2012/09/25/who_should_americans_trust_as_the_medicare_messenger

Candidates running for election who love to use fear mongering and scare tactics to persuade voters are usually hiding their incompetency. This election cycle is no exception, and it has never been more apparent than when it comes to debating the issue of Medicare.

President Barack Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill are constantly telling Americans that Republicans want to "End Medicare as we know it." However, just by saying it does not make it true.

Republicans understand that America has a responsibility to its seniors to preserve and protect Medicare and we are committed to our future generations of Americans.

What seems to get lost in the scare tactics is the simple undeniable truth that Medicare is on a pathway to bankruptcy. The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees report has these programs going "belly up" in 2024 and 2033 respectively.

Just look at the numbers. Americans pay $110,000 -$115,000 into Medicare, but receive closer to $300,000 in benefits. This simply cannot sustain itself. In addition, Medicare is rife with widespread fraud, making the system even more insolvent.

While many on the left want you to believe Republicans will end Medicare, it is the Democrat-controlled Congress that enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with plans to slash $716 billion from Medicare over the next ten years. This is not a political talking point but comes directly from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

These cuts to Medicare cannot be disputed. President Obama and the Congressional Democrats want to use Medicare as a "slush fund" to pay for their massive government expansion into healthcare. Unfortunately, the money meant for seniors' health care will go directly into creating 159 new government agencies and bureaucracies.

The cuts include $517 billion to Part A (Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund) and $247 billion to Part B (Supplemental Medicare Insurance Trust Fund) as follows:

- $294 billion payment cuts to hospitals

- $156 billion cuts to Medicare Advantage affecting 25 percent of seniors nationwide

- $39 billion cuts to skilled nursing

- $17 billion cuts to hospice care

- $66 billion cuts to home healthcare

- $33 billion cuts to other providers

- $11 billion cuts resulting from the Independent Payment Advisory Board (the 15-member panel of unelected government bureaucrats making Medicare price control decisions).

The Democrats' approach thus far has been to deny the facts, demonize its opponents' solutions, and essentially do nothing. The Republicans, on the other hand, are working to solve the problem before it becomes unsolvable.

The House-passed budget plan does not affect Medicare for anyone 55 years of age and older. When younger Americans become eligible, Medicare will provide a premium-support payment and a list of guaranteed coverage options, including a traditional fee-for-service option. Medicare will be determined by a competitive bidding process, helping drive down prices and improving the quality of care for our future seniors. All of this will allow recipients to choose a plan that best suits their needs.

The facts are that the House-passed budget championed by Congressman Paul Ryan actually increases spending on Medicare over the next 10 years.

Through all the mudslinging and the political platitudes about who really wants to protect and preserve Medicare, the question is very simple. Whom shall Americans trust in this critical debate?

Will Americans trust those who stated, "We must pass the bill in order to know what is in the bill?"

Will Americans trust those who said the healthcare bill will only cost the American taxpayers $940 billion only to find out it now costs closer to $1.7 trillion?

Or will Americans trust those who said the individual mandate was not a tax, only to find out in order for it to be declared constitutional, the mandate must in fact be a tax?

*** The FACTS Are Clear *** Americans Should Trust Conservatives *** The FACTS Are Clear *** Americans Should Trust Conservatives ***


We've put forward a plan that protects Medicare exactly as it is for today's seniors and preserves Medicare for our future generations.

[Warph]

               

Limbaugh, Levin, Ingraham say media rigs coverage for Obama

By Paul BedardSeptember 25, 2012

http://washingtonexaminer.com/limbaugh-levin-ingraham-say-media-rigs-coverage-for-obama/article/2508960

More than 20 conservative leaders and media figures including Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin, on Tuesday accused ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN today of rigging coverage to help reelect President Obama.

"This election year, so much of the broadcast networks, their cable counterparts, and the major establishment print media are out of control with a deliberate and unmistakable leftist agenda. To put it bluntly: you are rigging this election and taking sides in order to pre-determine the outcome," they said in a letter to the networks that was organized by the conservative media watchdog Media Research Center.

"You have breached the public trust by willfully turning a blind eye to the government's public policy failures, both domestic and foreign, while openly and shamefully smearing Gov. Mitt Romney," said the letter signed by MRC President Brent Bozell and the others.

"It is time the American people turn you who are offending off, once and for all. You have betrayed their trust," they added.

Conservatives and the Romney campaign have recently expressed concern and anger with network coverage of the presidential race, charging that polls and news coverage are being skewed to help Obama. The networks, however, deny the charges. Conservatives also believe that Romney's gaffes are being covered far more than Obama's.

While the mainstream media is unlikely to react with changes as a result of the letter, the conservatives plan to mount a boycott of the networks.

Below is the letter just sent to the networks:


Movement to Media: "You are Rigging this Election"

Over 20 Conservative Leaders including Rush Limbaugh, Ed Meese, Mark Levin and Tony Perkins Call on Public to Tune out the Liberal Media!

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

This election year, so much of the broadcast networks, their cable counterparts, and the major establishment print media are out of control with a deliberate and unmistakable leftist agenda. To put it bluntly: you are rigging this election and taking sides in order to pre-determine the outcome. In the quarter century since the Media Research Center was established to document liberal media bias, there has never been a more brazen and complete attempt by the liberal so-called "news" media to decide the outcome of an election.

A free and balanced media are crucial to the health of this country. It is your duty as journalists - as outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics - to "distinguish between advocacy and news reporting," while simultaneously "seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues."

There is a reason why the media are viewed with such disdain by the American public, as evidenced by every recent poll on the issue.

You have breached the public trust by willfully turning a blind eye to the government's public policy failures, both domestic and foreign, while openly and shamefully smearing Gov. Mitt Romney. You are:

--Painting conservative ideas as extreme, while refusing to report the disastrous consequences of liberal programs enacted since 2008.

--Submerging the truly horrendous economic conditions America is facing and focusing only on minor political issues.

--Characterizing conservatives as cruel budget "slashers" instead of responsible officials trying to avoid a debt catastrophe.

--Focusing on alleged shortcomings in Romney's business record instead of Obama's record as the chief executive, whose policies contributed to a failed economy.

--Deliberately covering up embarrassing government failures and scandals, including the Solyndra debacle, Fast & Furious, and national security leaks which have put American lives in jeopardy.

--Pouncing on real and perceived missteps by conservatives, portraying them as bumbling incompetents, while suppressing embarrassing and incendiary remarks made by Vice President Joe Biden to prevent him from becoming a liability.

--Portraying conservative opposition to tax hikes as an impediment to deficit reduction while failing to highlight how liberal tax increase policies will cause massive damage to the economy and cause the deficit to explode.

--"Fact-checking" conservatives in order to discredit their arguments while regularly refusing to "fact-check" liberals who are distorting the truth.

We the undersigned - representing millions of Americans from our respective organizations - are now publicly urging our members to seek out alternative sources of political news in order to make an intelligent, well-informed decision on November 6.
It is time the American people turn you who are offending off, once and for all. You have betrayed their trust.

Sincerely,

L. Brent Bozell, III
President
Media Research Center


Co-Signed:

Gary Bauer - President Campaign for American Values

Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell - Former, U.S. ambassador
U.N. Human Rights Commission

Morton Blackwell - Chairman of The Weyrich Lunch
David Bozell - Executive Director For America

Brian Brown - President National Organization for Marriage

Al Cardenas - Chairman, American Conservative Union

Marjorie Dannenfelser - President, Susan B. Anthony List

Becky Norton Dunlop - Former Reagan Official

Colin Hanna - President, Let Freedom Ring

Laura Ingraham - National Radio Host

Matt Kibbe - President and CEO, Freedom Works

Amy Kremer - Chairman, Tea Party Express

Curt Levey - Committee for Justice

Mark Levin - Author and National Radio Host

Rush Limbaugh - National Radio Host

Jenny Beth Martin
Co-Founder
Tea Party Patriots

Ed Meese III, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy,
Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Heritage Foundation

Mike Needham - Chief Executive Officer
Heritage Action

Karl Otteson - U. S. Federation of Small Businesses Inc

William Pascoe - Executive Vice President
Citizens for the Republic

Tony Perkins - President, Family Research Council

Alfred S. Regnery - Paul Revere Project

Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Richard Viguerie - Chairman, Conservative HQ.com

[Warph]

     

Why Obama Is A Third World President

By: Ian de Silva
9/13/2012 01:32 pm

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/13/why-obama-is-a-third-world-president/

Just when the furor over the socialist sentiments in President Obama's "you didn't build that" speech seemed to subside, Paul Ryan has charismatically and cogently revived the issue in his newly-minted VP candidacy, thus rightfully keeping the issue alive as we approach the election. But even Ryan, as articulate as he is, is omitting the underlying point. And that point is that not only does Obama have socialist thoughts—but he is also a Third World thinker.

While some critics may hurl any accusation at Obama without any rhyme or reason, my assertion that he is a Third World thinker is based on my unapologetic patriotism for America and my own immigrant experience. As a naturalized American who grew up in the Third World, I saw firsthand the shenanigans that Third World leaders (who should at best be called misleaders) used on their people.

Consequently, I am much more concerned about preserving America's greatness than about conforming to the mindless mantra among many minorities that this president is a great leader. He is not. I came to America when Ronald Reagan was president. He was a great leader. And he was a president who was unmistakably proud to be American—not a man who went around the world apologizing for America.

A mainstay in the propaganda of Third World leaders is the relentless assault on the wealthy—and Obama is a master at that. In fact, many Third World leaders, despite being well-off themselves, are particularly adept at haranguing the public into thinking that wealth is an evil. And Obama, despite being a millionaire himself, is inimitably adept at public castigation of the wealthy.

In fact, Obama's Third World socialist proclivities were evident even before he became president. Recall the famous "Joe the Plumber" moment during the 2008 campaign, when Obama declared that he wanted to "spread the wealth around." That is what Third World dictators do—take things from people who earned them and give them to those who did not.

It behooves us to take a closer look at what else he said in the recent speech where he made the "you didn't build that" remark. Here is what he said about those who believe their success is due to their own efforts: "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. [Yes, he repeated it.] I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I [i.e., they] was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Even a rabid communist in a Third World banana republic could not have done a more vehement denunciation of individual initiative than Obama did in that speech on July 13 at Roanoke, Va. As an immigrant who realized the American Dream with my own hard work, I am stunned by such anti-capitalist poppycock coming from an American president.

Such open contempt for the successful is a common occurrence in the Third World. That is why Third World countries are as destitute as they are—for along with such contempt comes disrespect for private property, and where private property is not respected, no private investment takes place. And without such investment, prosperity is impossible.

Obama apparently lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the role that individual initiative plays in American success stories. His canonization of government as the benefactor of progress is downright delusional. What government program helped Edison invent the light bulb? What program helped the Wright brothers launch the first flight? What program helped Henry Ford build his first car?

By Obama's logic, almost anyone you ever came in contact with deserves credit for your success. Thus, in my case, it would begin with the pilot of the plane that brought me to America. And then the immigration officer who inspected me. Then the landlords I rented from. Then the banks that I borrowed from. And of course all the workers who built the roads and bridges that connected the towns and cities where I have done business. Oh, I forgot to mention the cashiers who bagged my food at the grocery stores. Oops, I also forgot to include the car salesmen who sold me the cars in which I commuted to work over the years. So, you see how ridiculous Obama's logic is!

It is a fact of life that before you can expect someone to help you, you must help yourself first. You must demonstrate to others that you are a worthy risk—for a loan, job, etc. And when such conduct brings you success, you fully deserve it, because it was your conduct that made others willing to lend you money, employ you, or support your business.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about this whole affair is the affirmative response Obama has received in some corners. Many Americans are unabashed in their support for what he said. Of course, they are not a majority, but they are nevertheless a sizable portion of the public. That in itself is sufficient evidence of how Obama has managed to Third-Worldize the minds of many Americans.

[Warph]

Unbiased' Stories Do Not Exist

In the modern age, the general public expects their news to be "objective" and "unbiased." We want...

           

A free press, not a fair press...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/a-free-press-not-a-fair-press/

Of course, most astute observers understand that the media leans left. Tim Groseclose wrote a book on the issue in 2011. Conservative media outlets consistently hammer their liberal counterparts on their bias, only to receive jabs from the president and other liberal politicians for their "venomous" behavior.

To those who have grown up with the fantasy that American media has, until recently, been the mecca for objectivity, it seems our media outlets are falling apart, warped by the same supposed partisanship that clouds the American political process. If only we could return to the glory days of early news reporting when we could trust the "facts" and receive the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They need a swift kick of reality. The First Amendment — and the 50 state amendments on the issue — guarantee a free press, but not a fair press. The press has always been a snake pit.

George Washington was savagely attacked in the press, with Thomas Paine, his one-time ally, publicly wishing for his death. The relentless attacks in the press against John Adams in 1800 were financed by his long-time friend Thomas Jefferson. In return, Jefferson was publicly roasted by James Callender, the man he paid to filet Adams. In the mid-nineteenth century, Thomas Ritchie, editor of the Richmond Enquirer, was a one-man wrecking ball against his political opponents. Horace Greeley used his New York Tribune as a sounding board for the Republican Party and his various social crusades in the ante and post bellum periods. Some of these newspapers were in fact financed by the members of Congress that their editors supported! Everyone knew it and no one expected an "unbiased" story, for as historians have understood for years, "unbiased" stories do not exist. Even reporters' story selection shows bias.

Yet, Americans like biased news. Historical data proves it, as do the current television cable news and talk-show ratings. We like to know what our "newsmen" think before they give us the scoop. People like to hear their own thoughts reaffirmed and echoed. As long as the press remains free — and the Internet is the key — then Americans will generally gravitate toward the news that suits their worldview. This should come as no surprise, and Americans should and do embrace it. Let the "mainstream" media tarnish its image by cozying up to the Obama administration. There are counterweights, and Americans have found them in large numbers. The founding generation and those that followed in the nineteenth century understood that only a free press mattered. Fair was subjective and unnecessary.

[Warph]

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

By Alex Pappas

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in "Presidential Perks Gone Royal" that Obama isn't the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the "total cost of the presidency," factoring the cost of the "biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever," a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One "running with the frequency of a scheduled air line."

"The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election," Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

"The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president's expenses," Gray told TheDC.

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama's re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

When the trip is deemed political, it's customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.

"When the United States' billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president's campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard 'for political purposes?'" Gray asks in the book.

"And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?"

In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.

"There is no mechanism for anyone's objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year," he told TheDC. "And nothing but a president's conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money."

Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for "unanticipated needs," he notes.

Here is a sample of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president:

The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 "czars."

The president can vacation for free at Camp David: Gray writes that each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It's also estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.

The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater: Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in case anyone needs to see a movie. "Compared to the 450 times President Carter used the movie theater in his four years in the White House, the average American citizen, according to industry statistics, goes out to see a movie slightly less than five times a year," Gray writes.

The president's family's gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: "First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year."

The president's dog gets its own high-paid staffer: "Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine," Gray wrote about the Obama family dog. "It has been reported that the first family's dog handler was paid $102,000, last year."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/#ixzz27dzaEJpd

[Warph]

                         

Obama Ad: Hey, Here Are Some 'New' Promises I Didn't Keep Last Time I Made Them

By Guy Benson
9/27/2012
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/09/27/obamas_new_twominute_ad_hey_here_are_some_recycled_promises

As the economy teeters on the brink, President Obama has released a new, two-minute television ad, urging voters to basically ignore the news and focus on his words:

This spot has a "closing argument" feel to it, even though it's not even October yet. In it, he makes four "new" promises, all of which we've heard before:

(1) His "plan" is to magically create a million manufacturing jobs. Never mind the fact that the manufacturing sector has shed well over half a million jobs during his tenure, including 15,000 last month alone. Focus on the words.

(2) He pledges increased energy independence. Never mind that he made similar unfulfilled promises during his last campaign, that he's manipulated science and unilaterally blocked domestic energy projects that his green allies don't like. Focus on the words.

(3) He calls for new "investments" to help build our economy. Never mind that his investment record (using our money and borrowed funds) has been piss poor over the last four years, and that we're trillions in the hole because of it. Focus on the words.

(4) He says he'll reduce the deficit through a "balanced" approach. Never mind that he's shattered his first-term promise to halve the deficit by now, and that his claimed war "savings" have been pummeled by fact-checkers as a thoroughly unerious gimmick. Focus on the words.

He closes by talking up "a new economic patriotism." What he means is that successful American families and small businesses should pony up more cash in taxes so he can fund ever-higher levels of federal spending. This "patriotism" will hurt the economy and kill jobs. It's funny how his definition of economic patriotism seems to have evolved over four years. In 2008, he also spoke about economic patriotism -- or the lack thereof -- from his predecessor:

Since then, he's added more than $5 trillion to that sum over less than half of the time it took Bush to hit $4 trillion. Every single American's share of the national debt has spiked from roughly $35,000 to more than $51,000. And he's still trying to blame others for his own failures, making excuses that even the Washington Post's fact-checker has felt obligated to award "Four Pinocchios:"

We are not trying to make excuses for the fiscal excesses of the Bush administration — and Congress — in the last decade. But at some point, a president has to take ownership of his own actions. Obama certainly inherited an economic mess, and that accounts for a large part of the deficit. But Obama pushed for spending increases and tax cuts that also have contributed in important ways to the nation's fiscal deterioration. He certainly could argue that these were necessary and important steps to take, but he can't blithely suggest that 90 percent of the current deficit "is as a consequence" of his predecessor's policies — and not his own. As for the citing of the discredited MarketWatch column, we have repeatedly urged the administration to rely on estimates from official government agencies, such as the White House budget office. It is astonishing to see the president repeat this faulty claim once again, as if it were an established fact. Four Pinocchios.

We've heard endless talk and promises from this guy. In 2008, he got away with it because he had no significant record to speak of. Now there are real results against which to measure his surplus of words (Obama's only surplus).

Fool us once, shame on him. Fool us twice, shame on us.



UPDATE - For what it's worth, here's Mitt Romney's latest ad, punching back hard against Obama's coal-related attacks. Attention, Ohio and Virginia voters:

President Obama is attacking Mitt Romney because Mitt Romney supports coal miners.

In 2008, Barack Obama said building a coal-powered plant will bankrupt you.

President Obama wages war on coal while we lose jobs to China. We can't afford four more years.
http://www.mittromney.com/forms/bankrupt
         

[jarhead]

650,000 troops in Afghanistan ? Holy moly, that "surge" was a little bigger that Obama said it was going to be !!


Biden hits Romney on 47 percent, fumbles troops number
by Joy Lin | September 21, 2012


Manchester, N.H. - Vice President Joe Biden dedicated his speeches Friday to delivering a blistering rebuttal of Mitt Romney's comments that 47 percent of Americans who don't pay income tax are "dependent on the government" -- but not without fumbling a key riff about U.S. combat troops.

"Those dependent people [Romney] refers to, those 47 percent, they include the 650,000 troops still left in Afghanistan who because they are in combat, being shot at, injured, they do not have to pay any federal income tax on their salary," Biden said in a state where veterans are an influential voting bloc. "I don't call that dependency. I call that ingratitude to not recognize they are a part of that 47%."

When the speech on the steps of the New Hampshire State House concluded, a Biden aide told reporters that the vice president had intended to say 68 thousand, not 650 thousand U.S. troops, are serving in Afghanistan.

[Warph]

650,000 troops in Afghanistan ? Holy moly, that "surge" was a little bigger that Obama said it was going to be !!

LOL... If Biden had a thought in his head, it would get lonely!

Btw Jar, have you got your free ObumaPhone yet.  Check this out: http://obamaphone.net/

Just a hunch, but I suspect this is who Romney had in mind with his 47% comment.  

How'd you like to come home each night to that      

Oh Lord... lol... this... uh.. thing could cancel out your vote!           [/font] [/size]



The ObumaPhone



But what makes this program even more miraculous is that while the monthly charges
go directly to the taxpayer, an illusion is created that the phones are given to the entitled
voters personally by the Oprah-like President Obama: "You get a phone! And you get a phone!"



But wait, there's more! Our researchers have compiled the following list of features
that distinguish the free ObumaPhone from a regular cell phone:

---It automatically rejects calls from people with a different opinion.
---Every time you take a picture, it produces a grimmer image of America.
---It doesn't have a plan; it just keeps telling you how bad the other guy's plan is.
---When it crashes, it blames your previous phone.
---All 3 AM calls go directly to voicemail.
---It has a really useless app called "Biden."
---Pairing it with another device sucks all the energy out of the other unit.
---Type in "job search" and it gives you directions to the welfare office.
---The navigation feature covers all 57 States.
---The default ringtone for international calls is "I'm sorry, so sorry, please accept my apology."
---The healthcare app downloads and installs itself without your permission.
---When you make a call, a teleprompter pops up to help you speak.
---Restaurant reviews are all written by Michelle Obama.
---There are never any winners on Angry Birds.
---Instagram takes two months to process a photo and you have to fill out 3 PDFs to do so.
---Paypal app is replaced with ReceivePal app.
---You can't find "Jerusalem" on Google maps.
---It turns all your Facebook friends into enemies and all your enemies into friends.
---Don't want to work?  There's an app for that, too.
---It automatically bows down to phones made by foreign companies.
---When you watch a YouTube video, a US ambassador gets killed.
---When you dial "home", it calls Kenya.
---As opposed to the iPhone, it's called the mePhone.