Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
General Ham replaced, from Tiger Droppings
Interesting Rumor Concerning General Carter Ham and Stand Down Order (Posted on 10/26/12 at 9:45 p.m.)
I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.
quote:
"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham's place as the head of Africon.
I found this story when I got home after hearing this story.
quote:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.
General Rodigues Nominated as Head of Africon
As I was typing this I heard John Bolton on Greta say that there are conflicting reports of General Ham's comments on this tragedy and why a rapid response unit was not deployed. Bolton says someone needs to find out what Ham was saying on 9/11/12.
Interesting to say the least.
educational administrative bloat
Bursting the administrative bubble
3 comments
Several blog readers have responded grumpily to my posts suggesting that states might be better off investing incremental education dollars in raising teacher salaries rather than hiring more teachers. Fair enough. But one point many of us have agreed on is that too much of the education budget has gone to hiring more and more administrators. I’ve linked to at least one study that supports this point. Now I’ve got much better ammunition!
According to today’s edition of the Education Gadfly Weekly (published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute), a new study has found that:
Between 1950 and 2009, the number of K-12 public school students increased by 96 percent. During that same period, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) school employees grew by 386 percent. Of those personnel, the number of teachers increased by 252 percent, while the ranks of administrators and other staff grew by 702 percent—more than 7 times the increase in students.http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-weekly/2012/october-25/the-school-staffing-surge.html#body
To put that in perspective, the same article notes that:
if student growth had matched that of non-teaching personnel from 1992 to 2009 and if the teaching force had only grown 1.5 times faster than the pupil enrollment, American public schools would have an additional $37.2 billion to spend per year—the equivalent of an $11,700 a year increase in salary for every American public school teacher.By the way, the study includes a state by state breakdown. From Fiscal Year 1992 to Fiscal Year 2009, the number of Utah public school students grew 23 percent. The number of Utah teachers grew 29 percent. The number of administrators and other staff grew 69 percent. So while Utah has not experienced the explosive education employment growth that many other states have witnessed (that won’t surprise any of you), the administrator increases still might offer some budget wiggle room.
The presidential candidates are currently dueling over how many new teachers school districts should hire (and, probably more importantly, which level of government should be making these hiring decisions.) Any chance we could spark a debate about how we could raise teacher salaries by thinning administrative ranks?
Here’s a direct link to the study.
http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/The-School-Staffing-Surge–Decades-of-Employment-Growth-in-Americas-Public-Schools.aspx
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Colin Powell
The Spectacle Blog
So.... Colin Powell, fulminating about the economy (as if he is an expert on that!) and avoiding all discussion of the incompetence and dishonesty of the Obama administration's handling of Libya, has endorsed Barack Obama again. Gee, what a surprise. This is a man still playing out his personal picque at some imagined sleights during the administration of Bush 43.
But this is a man without honor. This is a man who allowed the spending of millions of dollars in a witch-hunt of a law-enforcement investigation even while personally knowing that his own top aide had been the one who inadvertently leaked the name of a second-tier CIA agent with a dishonest and histrionic husband. One word from Colin Powell, and the "Valerie Plame" case would have come to an end with no prosecutions, but with a few days, maybe just one or two news cycles, of public admonishment of his office for its carelessness. But no... Powell remained silent, thus settling some score with vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and his boss, Vice President Richard Cheney -- letting Libby twist in the wind for an alleged cover-up of a non-crime for which Libby himself wasn't even responsible, but for which Powell's aide Dick Armitage was culpable instead. (Libby was convicted on a highly dubious perjury charge, based on a years-old conversation with newsman Tim Russert that Russert remembered differently. This was the same Tim Russert whose own memory had been shown to be horrifically wrong in another major court case, but who suddenly was supposed to be perfectly inerrant. Meanwhile, famed newsman Bob Woodward produced notes that Woodward himself said might tend to support Libby's recollection -- but no matter.)
So, in order to protect a tiny nick to his reputation and that of his aide, Armitage, and in order to achieve a "gotcha" against a bureaucratic opponent, Libby, Powell was willing to let Libby have his career ruined and possibly his freedom curtailed (he faced possible prison time). That is pathetically dishonorable behavior from Powell, and it discredits anything else he ever does. Today's endorsement comes from a man who built most of his reputation on one memorable turn of phrase about "cutting off the head" of the Iraqi army in 1991, but whose diplomacy so famously failed in gaining cooperation from longtime ally Turkey for the 2003 liberation of Iraq -- a failure that set back the mission in ways that harmed it for the next two years.
Headline: Failed, Dishonorable Former Diplomat Endorses Obama; Cites (Failed) Economy as Reason.
Nobody should give a fig about today's endorsement. Nobody
So.... Colin Powell, fulminating about the economy (as if he is an expert on that!) and avoiding all discussion of the incompetence and dishonesty of the Obama administration's handling of Libya, has endorsed Barack Obama again. Gee, what a surprise. This is a man still playing out his personal picque at some imagined sleights during the administration of Bush 43.
But this is a man without honor. This is a man who allowed the spending of millions of dollars in a witch-hunt of a law-enforcement investigation even while personally knowing that his own top aide had been the one who inadvertently leaked the name of a second-tier CIA agent with a dishonest and histrionic husband. One word from Colin Powell, and the "Valerie Plame" case would have come to an end with no prosecutions, but with a few days, maybe just one or two news cycles, of public admonishment of his office for its carelessness. But no... Powell remained silent, thus settling some score with vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and his boss, Vice President Richard Cheney -- letting Libby twist in the wind for an alleged cover-up of a non-crime for which Libby himself wasn't even responsible, but for which Powell's aide Dick Armitage was culpable instead. (Libby was convicted on a highly dubious perjury charge, based on a years-old conversation with newsman Tim Russert that Russert remembered differently. This was the same Tim Russert whose own memory had been shown to be horrifically wrong in another major court case, but who suddenly was supposed to be perfectly inerrant. Meanwhile, famed newsman Bob Woodward produced notes that Woodward himself said might tend to support Libby's recollection -- but no matter.)
So, in order to protect a tiny nick to his reputation and that of his aide, Armitage, and in order to achieve a "gotcha" against a bureaucratic opponent, Libby, Powell was willing to let Libby have his career ruined and possibly his freedom curtailed (he faced possible prison time). That is pathetically dishonorable behavior from Powell, and it discredits anything else he ever does. Today's endorsement comes from a man who built most of his reputation on one memorable turn of phrase about "cutting off the head" of the Iraqi army in 1991, but whose diplomacy so famously failed in gaining cooperation from longtime ally Turkey for the 2003 liberation of Iraq -- a failure that set back the mission in ways that harmed it for the next two years.
Headline: Failed, Dishonorable Former Diplomat Endorses Obama; Cites (Failed) Economy as Reason.
Nobody should give a fig about today's endorsement. Nobody
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Farewell to algebra
Farewell to algebra” . . . for minority kids?
I seem to have touched a raw nerve with my posts about (government-approved) lower educational standards for minority kids. Is it possible that the common core standards will similarly lower the bar, this time for math performance?
Common core critics have noted that California’s new law on math standards will roll back California’s decade long effort to move as many eighth graders as possible into Algebra. As Bill Evers and Ze’ev Wurman (both former Department of Education officials) note, the algebra reform dramatically increased the number of minority kids who took Algebra 1 and beyond . . . and raised their test scores.
Now, some math educators have argued, to my mind persuasively, that “algebra for all”, especially in middle school, poses a threat to math education, by encouraging schools to dumb down Algebra 1. Here’s a “repost” of my earlier (August 9) blog posting on the topic:
http://educatingourselves.blogs.deseretnews.com/2012/08/09/another-bite-at-a-farewell-to-algebra/
. . . today I read an intriguing, and somewhat disturbing, article by Jacob Vigdor, a public policy and economics professor at Duke University. He argues that the drive to teach algebra to more students and at an earlier age has hurt our most academically-gifted students, by dumbing down algebra courses. He also adds the following very interesting empirical information:”
But these research findings fail to absolve California, because the same new law that dilutes the algebra expectation also undermines math tracking. As Evers and Wurman explain,
I seem to have touched a raw nerve with my posts about (government-approved) lower educational standards for minority kids. Is it possible that the common core standards will similarly lower the bar, this time for math performance?
Common core critics have noted that California’s new law on math standards will roll back California’s decade long effort to move as many eighth graders as possible into Algebra. As Bill Evers and Ze’ev Wurman (both former Department of Education officials) note, the algebra reform dramatically increased the number of minority kids who took Algebra 1 and beyond . . . and raised their test scores.
The results are a rarely-told story of stunning success in public education. In 1998, only 17 percent, just 70,000 of our students, took Algebra by grade eight. But this year, 68 percent, or more than 324,000 did.This translates to almost quarter of a million more students taking Algebra by grade eight. Not only had we successfully quadrupled the fraction of Algebra-taking by grade eight — which is a major accomplishment for those students and their teachers — but an ever larger percentage of students have over time scored “proficient” and above.http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/10/22/new-law-dumbs-down-calif-math-performance/
The success of minorities and students in poverty increasing their Algebra 1 proficiency was the most significant achievement. In 2003, fewer than 1,700 African-Americans successfully took Algebra by grade 8. By 2012, more than 6,900 did; that was more than a four-fold increase
In 2003, slightly more than 10,000 Latino students successfully took Algebra by grade 8. By 2011, more than 63,000 did; that was more than six-fold increase. In fact, more Latino students scored proficient and advanced on Algebra in 2012 than the total number of Latino students who took Algebra in 2003.
Now, some math educators have argued, to my mind persuasively, that “algebra for all”, especially in middle school, poses a threat to math education, by encouraging schools to dumb down Algebra 1. Here’s a “repost” of my earlier (August 9) blog posting on the topic:
http://educatingourselves.blogs.deseretnews.com/2012/08/09/another-bite-at-a-farewell-to-algebra/
. . . today I read an intriguing, and somewhat disturbing, article by Jacob Vigdor, a public policy and economics professor at Duke University. He argues that the drive to teach algebra to more students and at an earlier age has hurt our most academically-gifted students, by dumbing down algebra courses. He also adds the following very interesting empirical information:”
With Duke colleagues Charles Clotfelter and Helen Ladd, I’ve recently conducted an evaluation of an algebra acceleration initiative that occurred about 10 years ago in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system. Students placed into algebra a year early ended up significantly less likely to complete a three-course college prep math curriculum – Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II by the time they completed high school.http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/08/08/does_your_job_really_require_algebra_99808.html
But these research findings fail to absolve California, because the same new law that dilutes the algebra expectation also undermines math tracking. As Evers and Wurman explain,
SB1200 is so poorly drafted that it doesn’t just roll back the expectation of Algebra 1 in grade eight. It does more than that by requiring “one set” of standards “at each grade level,” and precluding typical mathematics course options for students in high school.I don’t know how many eighth graders should take algebra, but I’m entirely persuaded, first, that we need to be ever vigilant about not lowering our expectations for disadvantaged kids, and second, that we need to be ever vigilant about not lowering our expectations for our most gifted students. Do these goals conflict? I hope not.
California high schools have always offered different math classes to students in the same grade who have different levels of preparation. Accordingly, California historically has adopted course-level math standards for high school — preserving local control at the district and school level to decide when it would be best to offer rigorous courses to each student based on the student’s ability. But SB 1200 would outlaw that practice by mandating only one set of mathematics curriculum- content standards, textbooks and training and teacher materials for all students in each K-12 grade.
Officials of Brown’s administration have offered rhetoric about how they will not have to implement the plain language of the law. But they do not have the statutory authority or capacity to violate the law’s provisions. Efforts to get around the wording of the law will lead to confusion about policy on curriculum, textbooks and testing — and hence invite lawsuits and re-ignite the math wars.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Barry's campaign borrows 15 million
Obama Campaign Borrows $15M from Bank of America
Warren Buffett invested $5B in BofA last year
BY:
Obama For America took out a $15 million loan from Bank of America last month, according to the campaign’s October monthly FEC report. The loan was incurred on September 4 and is due November 14, eight days after the election. OFA received an interest rate of 2.5% plus the current Libor rate.
Warren Buffett, Obama donor and namesake of the infamous “Buffett Rule,” invested $5 billion in Bank of America last year in an effort to help the ailing financial institution. Last month, two weeks after OFA took out the loan, Bank of America announced a plan that would lay off 16,000 workers by the end of the year.
Obama has a complicated relationship with Bank of America. The bank contributed $20 million toward the cost of the Democrat National Convention earlier this year. Bank of America stadium, home to the Carolina Panthers, was supposed to host Obama’s acceptance speech. At the last moment, the campaign switched to a significantly smaller venue. The campaign claimed that an impending storm would not allow the President to deliver his address. Many questioned whether move was made because the campaign was having trouble filling such a large stadium.
It is unclear why the first $1 billion campaign needed an extra $15 million for the final two months of the campaign.
Warren Buffett, Obama donor and namesake of the infamous “Buffett Rule,” invested $5 billion in Bank of America last year in an effort to help the ailing financial institution. Last month, two weeks after OFA took out the loan, Bank of America announced a plan that would lay off 16,000 workers by the end of the year.
Obama has a complicated relationship with Bank of America. The bank contributed $20 million toward the cost of the Democrat National Convention earlier this year. Bank of America stadium, home to the Carolina Panthers, was supposed to host Obama’s acceptance speech. At the last moment, the campaign switched to a significantly smaller venue. The campaign claimed that an impending storm would not allow the President to deliver his address. Many questioned whether move was made because the campaign was having trouble filling such a large stadium.
It is unclear why the first $1 billion campaign needed an extra $15 million for the final two months of the campaign.
©2012 All Rights Reserved
Friday, October 19, 2012
December Suprise?
By Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner
President Obama is among the slickest practitioners ever of the Washington Wink-Wink -- what professional politicians in both parties do when they say one thing while planning to do something else entirely.
There was, for example, Obama's 2008 campaign promise to "cut the federal deficit in half." And that "net federal spending cut" he would achieve by the end of his first term? Anybody think he didn't know then that his first term would explode the deficit and spending to historic highs?
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking minority member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, sees more of the same from Obama on the Environmental Protection Agency front, which the Oklahoma Republican described in a detailed report he issued yesterday.
Here's the first wink: "Obama has spent the past year punting on a slew of job-killing EPA regulations that will destroy millions of American jobs and cause energy prices to skyrocket even more," Inhofe said. "From greenhouse gas regulations to water guidance to the tightening of the ozone standard, the Obama-EPA has delayed the implementation of rule after rule because they don't want all those pink slips and price spikes to hit until after the election."
For the second wink, Inhofe quotes Obama's former White House environmental czar Carol Browner, who recently reassured impatient environmentalists with these words: "I can tell you, having spent two years in the White House with the president, that this is not a fad. The president believes deeply in these issues ... there is no doubt in my mind this will be a big part of his to-do list and he will remain committed in the next four years."
In other words, Browner was saying, just wait, because Obama fears he might not get re-elected if he went ahead with his EPA plans before the election.
Here are just a few of many examples cited by Inhofe of costly new Obama-inspired regulations that EPA will impose on the economy after Nov. 6:
• Greenhouse gas regulations, including the infamous "cow tax." The EPA will finalize proposed regulations that will virtually eliminate coal use in electricity generation, thus driving consumer electric bills sky-high. This cluster of new regulations will also impose an annual fee on farmers for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by their animals. The EPA estimates that 37,000 farms and ranches will have to pay on average a $23,000 annual "cow tax."
• New regulations will so severely reduce permissible ozone emissions that the EPA estimates the cost to the economy will be $90 billion per year. Other studies put the cost as high as $1 trillion. Split the difference between the estimates, and the result still means the loss of millions of jobs.
• New Tier III regulations will cut permissible sulfur emissions by two-thirds. That will add as much as 9 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas, according to Inhofe.
• The EPA's new coal ash regulation will cost as much as $110 billion over two decades and destroy more than 300,000 jobs, mostly in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri.
This week, the Columbia Journalism Review and Pro Publica released a report stating that Obama has proved more secretive in some respects than his immediate predecessor in the Oval Office, George W. Bush. One of those quoted by CJR/PP is Society of Environmental Journalists President Ken Ward Jr., a staff reporter for the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, who tweeted this yesterday: "The Obama EPA is the most difficult to get information and answers out of that I've covered in 20 years."
That's the kind of transparency we get from politicians who do the Washington Wink-Wink.
Mark Tapscott is executive editor of The Washington Examiner.
President Obama is among the slickest practitioners ever of the Washington Wink-Wink -- what professional politicians in both parties do when they say one thing while planning to do something else entirely.
There was, for example, Obama's 2008 campaign promise to "cut the federal deficit in half." And that "net federal spending cut" he would achieve by the end of his first term? Anybody think he didn't know then that his first term would explode the deficit and spending to historic highs?
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking minority member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, sees more of the same from Obama on the Environmental Protection Agency front, which the Oklahoma Republican described in a detailed report he issued yesterday.
Here's the first wink: "Obama has spent the past year punting on a slew of job-killing EPA regulations that will destroy millions of American jobs and cause energy prices to skyrocket even more," Inhofe said. "From greenhouse gas regulations to water guidance to the tightening of the ozone standard, the Obama-EPA has delayed the implementation of rule after rule because they don't want all those pink slips and price spikes to hit until after the election."
For the second wink, Inhofe quotes Obama's former White House environmental czar Carol Browner, who recently reassured impatient environmentalists with these words: "I can tell you, having spent two years in the White House with the president, that this is not a fad. The president believes deeply in these issues ... there is no doubt in my mind this will be a big part of his to-do list and he will remain committed in the next four years."
In other words, Browner was saying, just wait, because Obama fears he might not get re-elected if he went ahead with his EPA plans before the election.
Here are just a few of many examples cited by Inhofe of costly new Obama-inspired regulations that EPA will impose on the economy after Nov. 6:
• Greenhouse gas regulations, including the infamous "cow tax." The EPA will finalize proposed regulations that will virtually eliminate coal use in electricity generation, thus driving consumer electric bills sky-high. This cluster of new regulations will also impose an annual fee on farmers for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by their animals. The EPA estimates that 37,000 farms and ranches will have to pay on average a $23,000 annual "cow tax."
• New regulations will so severely reduce permissible ozone emissions that the EPA estimates the cost to the economy will be $90 billion per year. Other studies put the cost as high as $1 trillion. Split the difference between the estimates, and the result still means the loss of millions of jobs.
• New Tier III regulations will cut permissible sulfur emissions by two-thirds. That will add as much as 9 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas, according to Inhofe.
• The EPA's new coal ash regulation will cost as much as $110 billion over two decades and destroy more than 300,000 jobs, mostly in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri.
This week, the Columbia Journalism Review and Pro Publica released a report stating that Obama has proved more secretive in some respects than his immediate predecessor in the Oval Office, George W. Bush. One of those quoted by CJR/PP is Society of Environmental Journalists President Ken Ward Jr., a staff reporter for the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, who tweeted this yesterday: "The Obama EPA is the most difficult to get information and answers out of that I've covered in 20 years."
That's the kind of transparency we get from politicians who do the Washington Wink-Wink.
Mark Tapscott is executive editor of The Washington Examiner.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Ross Perot returns
H. Ross Perot: We can't afford Obama
An anti-Obama political sign is posted along the main street in Hillsboro, Va., near Leesburg. / Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
H. ROSS PEROT SR., a legendary Texas businessman, is a two-time third-party candidate for president, in 1992 and 1996.
H. ROSS PEROT SR., a legendary Texas businessman, is a two-time third-party candidate for president, in 1992 and 1996.
More
Ads by Pulse 360
Master's in Education
Is Teaching Your Passion? Earn Your Master's in Education.Start Now!
www.advanced-degrees.com
FHA Cuts Refi Requirement
If You Owe Less Than $625,000, the Fed Wants You to Refinance!
Learn more...
1 Shocking Tip To Kill Belly Fat
Celebrity Doctor Uncovers 1 Simple Trick To A Flat Stomach.
Read More...
Our country faces a momentous choice. The fact is the United States is on an unsustainable course. At stake is nothing less than our position in the world, our standard of living at home and our constitutional freedoms.
That is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney for president. We can’t afford four more years in which debt mushrooms out of control, our government grows and our military is weakened.
For the past four years, we have squandered one opportunity after the next to turn things around. The longer we delay acting, the steeper the price we will have to pay.
Let’s look at the country as it is now.
The American economy is stagnant. Economic growth is insufficient to create enough jobs for a country whose population is growing. The result is unemployment stuck over 8 percent for every single month of Barack Obama’s presidency. We have 23 million Americans who are looking for work and either can’t find a full-time job, can’t find a job at all, or who have given up looking. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.
At the same time, and not unrelated, is the extraordinary explosion of federal deficits and federal debt. In the last four years during Obama’s presidency, he’s added around $5 trillion to our national debt, more than any previous president. This was accomplished by successive federal budgets that each ran deficits exceeding $1 trillion a year. It is this massive deficit spending that threatens to undermine our future standard of living. To pay for our government’s massive debts, Washington’s profligacy, our children and grandchildren will be paying interest and principal on the nation’s debt for untold years into the future. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.
Even as we have engaged in runaway domestic spending, the country has been put on the path to massive cuts in the defense budget. President Obama’s own Secretary of Defense has called the proposed cuts “devastating” to our nation’s security. History teaches that the price of military weakness always exceeds the price of preparedness. And yet at a moment when turbulence is sweeping critical regions of the world, we are increasingly unprepared. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.
It is for these reasons that I am endorsing Mitt Romney. He has spent most of his career in the private sector. He understands how jobs are created. He understands how government can get in the way of that process. As a president, he would do what this administration has been unable to do, which is reform our federal government, pare it back, and — most critically — keep it from acting as a brake on economic growth.
Equally important, as a governor, Mitt Romney balanced the budget of his state for four straight years without raising taxes. Writing in all caps is called shouting, and that fact is something that deserves to be shouted from the rooftops. I should add that Gov. Romney accomplished this feat while working with a legislature that was overwhelmingly under the control of the Democratic Party in one of the most liberal states in the country. In short, although he is a rock-solid conservative, he knows how to reach across the aisle and make common cause with those with whom he disagrees.
These are leadership qualities that are sorely needed in Washington today. President Obama promised a great deal. He has had his chance. The results are visible for all to see. It is time for a new beginning. It is time for Mitt Romney.
That is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney for president. We can’t afford four more years in which debt mushrooms out of control, our government grows and our military is weakened.
For the past four years, we have squandered one opportunity after the next to turn things around. The longer we delay acting, the steeper the price we will have to pay.
Let’s look at the country as it is now.
The American economy is stagnant. Economic growth is insufficient to create enough jobs for a country whose population is growing. The result is unemployment stuck over 8 percent for every single month of Barack Obama’s presidency. We have 23 million Americans who are looking for work and either can’t find a full-time job, can’t find a job at all, or who have given up looking. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.
At the same time, and not unrelated, is the extraordinary explosion of federal deficits and federal debt. In the last four years during Obama’s presidency, he’s added around $5 trillion to our national debt, more than any previous president. This was accomplished by successive federal budgets that each ran deficits exceeding $1 trillion a year. It is this massive deficit spending that threatens to undermine our future standard of living. To pay for our government’s massive debts, Washington’s profligacy, our children and grandchildren will be paying interest and principal on the nation’s debt for untold years into the future. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.
Even as we have engaged in runaway domestic spending, the country has been put on the path to massive cuts in the defense budget. President Obama’s own Secretary of Defense has called the proposed cuts “devastating” to our nation’s security. History teaches that the price of military weakness always exceeds the price of preparedness. And yet at a moment when turbulence is sweeping critical regions of the world, we are increasingly unprepared. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.
It is for these reasons that I am endorsing Mitt Romney. He has spent most of his career in the private sector. He understands how jobs are created. He understands how government can get in the way of that process. As a president, he would do what this administration has been unable to do, which is reform our federal government, pare it back, and — most critically — keep it from acting as a brake on economic growth.
Equally important, as a governor, Mitt Romney balanced the budget of his state for four straight years without raising taxes. Writing in all caps is called shouting, and that fact is something that deserves to be shouted from the rooftops. I should add that Gov. Romney accomplished this feat while working with a legislature that was overwhelmingly under the control of the Democratic Party in one of the most liberal states in the country. In short, although he is a rock-solid conservative, he knows how to reach across the aisle and make common cause with those with whom he disagrees.
These are leadership qualities that are sorely needed in Washington today. President Obama promised a great deal. He has had his chance. The results are visible for all to see. It is time for a new beginning. It is time for Mitt Romney.
UAW-Gangsters
October 15, 2012 in 2012 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Obama Administration Scandals
The United Auto Workers donated $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC and another million to super PACs that support Congressional Democrats in September, with millions more to be spent before Election Day. Well, of course. How many millions–or billions–of dollars did Obama slide to the corrupt UAW with his illegal bondholder cramdown in bankruptcy? Gangster government has its rewards. When the Godfather calls in his markers, the unions have every reason to fork over, whatever their members may think.
A Gangster Quid Pro Quo
The United Auto Workers donated $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC and another million to super PACs that support Congressional Democrats in September, with millions more to be spent before Election Day. Well, of course. How many millions–or billions–of dollars did Obama slide to the corrupt UAW with his illegal bondholder cramdown in bankruptcy? Gangster government has its rewards. When the Godfather calls in his markers, the unions have every reason to fork over, whatever their members may think.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
A Rant on Supposed Racism
A Rant on Supposed Racism
Posted By Charlie Martin On October 13, 2012 @ 11:31 pm In Politics | 51 Comments
So today’s little furor is some ass at a Romney rally who worked his way around, right in front of the press, and showed off a pretty obviously racist shirt. Now, as Stacy McCain has pointed out, there’s good reason to think the was a troll, a false-flag operation. We’ve been seeing them, organized and disorganized, since the first Tea Party demonstrations — remember “Crash the Tea Party“?
But you know what? Forget that. I’m tired of idiots trying to make one asshole in the back row of a Romney rally the issue. You want to talk racism? Well, let’s talk about this:
It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said “Segregation Forever”.
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. — and Grand Kleagle Byrd.
(And no, the Dixiecrats didn’t join the Republican Party – most of them remained Democrats.)
It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.
It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a “house nigger”.
It was Democrats who called Condi Rice — who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats — an “Aunt Jemima” and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.
It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion.
It’s the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.
So when the Democrats stop having Andrew Jackson dinners, and take Wilson’s name off the bridge in DC, and start taking Grand Kleagle Byrd’s name off of the hundred things named after him, then we can talk about one asshole in the back row of a Romney rally.
But you know what? Forget that. I’m tired of idiots trying to make one asshole in the back row of a Romney rally the issue. You want to talk racism? Well, let’s talk about this:
It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said “Segregation Forever”.
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. — and Grand Kleagle Byrd.
(And no, the Dixiecrats didn’t join the Republican Party – most of them remained Democrats.)
It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.
It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a “house nigger”.
It was Democrats who called Condi Rice — who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats — an “Aunt Jemima” and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.
It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion.
It’s the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.
So when the Democrats stop having Andrew Jackson dinners, and take Wilson’s name off the bridge in DC, and start taking Grand Kleagle Byrd’s name off of the hundred things named after him, then we can talk about one asshole in the back row of a Romney rally.
Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pjmedia.com/tatler
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/13/a-rant-on-supposed-racism/
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Slow Joe will need more time
Biden Takes 6 Days Off Campaign Trail
Debate prep?
11:41 AM, Oct 7, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
With just about a month until Election Day, Vice President Joe Biden is in the middle of taking nearly a week off the campaign trail. He will return to doing campaign events on Thursday, when he will debate Rep. Paul Ryan in the vice presidential debate.
On Friday, October 5, according to the White House, Biden spent the day working. In the morning, he was scheduled to attend the presidential daily briefing in the Oval Office, with President Obama. That afternoon Biden was to "meet with senior advisors," according to the White House.
For this weekend, the White House provided the following guidance: "The Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."
As for the next three days, Biden will remain in Delaware. "On Monday through Wednesday, the Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."
Meanwhile, Thursday, October 11, is a big day for Biden. "On Thursday, the Vice President and Dr. Jill Biden will travel to Danville, Kentucky. In the evening, the Vice President will participate in the Vice Presidential Debate at Centre College. Dr. Biden will also attend. This event is open to pre-credentialed media."
So while Biden is taking 6 days off the campaign trail at a crucial time in the presidential campaign, it's likely that he isn't completely off. He's most likely spending the time with David Axelrod preparing for Thursday's debate.
For this weekend, the White House provided the following guidance: "The Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."
As for the next three days, Biden will remain in Delaware. "On Monday through Wednesday, the Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."
Meanwhile, Thursday, October 11, is a big day for Biden. "On Thursday, the Vice President and Dr. Jill Biden will travel to Danville, Kentucky. In the evening, the Vice President will participate in the Vice Presidential Debate at Centre College. Dr. Biden will also attend. This event is open to pre-credentialed media."
So while Biden is taking 6 days off the campaign trail at a crucial time in the presidential campaign, it's likely that he isn't completely off. He's most likely spending the time with David Axelrod preparing for Thursday's debate.
Biden Takes 6 Days Off Campaign Trail
Debate prep?
11:41 AM, Oct 7, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
With just about a month until Election Day, Vice President Joe Biden is in the middle of taking nearly a week off the campaign trail. He will return to doing campaign events on Thursday, when he will debate Rep. Paul Ryan in the vice presidential debate.
On Friday, October 5, according to the White House, Biden spent the day working. In the morning, he was scheduled to attend the presidential daily briefing in the Oval Office, with President Obama. That afternoon Biden was to "meet with senior advisors," according to the White House.
For this weekend, the White House provided the following guidance: "The Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."
As for the next three days, Biden will remain in Delaware. "On Monday through Wednesday, the Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."
Meanwhile, Thursday, October 11, is a big day for Biden. "On Thursday, the Vice President and Dr. Jill Biden will travel to Danville, Kentucky. In the evening, the Vice President will participate in the Vice Presidential Debate at Centre College. Dr. Biden will also attend. This event is open to pre-credentialed media."
So while Biden is taking 6 days off the campaign trail at a crucial time in the presidential campaign, it's likely that he isn't completely off. He's most likely spending the time with David Axelrod preparing for Thursday's debate.
For this weekend, the White House provided the following guidance: "The Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."
As for the next three days, Biden will remain in Delaware. "On Monday through Wednesday, the Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."
Meanwhile, Thursday, October 11, is a big day for Biden. "On Thursday, the Vice President and Dr. Jill Biden will travel to Danville, Kentucky. In the evening, the Vice President will participate in the Vice Presidential Debate at Centre College. Dr. Biden will also attend. This event is open to pre-credentialed media."
So while Biden is taking 6 days off the campaign trail at a crucial time in the presidential campaign, it's likely that he isn't completely off. He's most likely spending the time with David Axelrod preparing for Thursday's debate.
Barry's Questionable Fundraising
by Mike Flynn6 Oct 2012, 9:23 AM PDT544post a comment
Its really a tale of two worlds. 35k people gave an average of $2,600, while just over 1.7 million people gave an average of $53. Half the campaign's haul came from people giving around the maximum amount and half from people who don't have to be disclosed. Seems a bit odd.
The average of $53 from small donors is particularly noteworthy. Contributions under $200 don't have to be disclosed, but the campaign still has to keep track of the donor's name, in case subsequent donations push their contribution over the reporting threshold.
For contributions under $50, however, the campaign doesn't even have to keep track of the donor's name. It is effectively considered a "petty cash" donation. A person could theoretically make 10 $49 donations and never be reported, even though their total contributions are above the FEC's reporting threshold.
With an average donation of $53 from small donors, Obama has A LOT of donors who will never be disclosed and whose names aren't even known to the campaign. Tens of millions of dollars worth.
Today's report certainly adds a great deal of interest to this news story from last week
The Obama campaign dropped a bombshell this morning. It announced that, combined with the DNC, the campaign raised a staggering $181 million in September. The windfall is a huge increase over July and August, when the campaign raised around $100 million, although it is slightly down from the $193 million it raised in September 2008. The news should raise eyebrows.
The campaign said that just over 1.8 million people made donations to the campaign last month. According to the campaign, over 500k of these were brand-new donors, having neither given in 2008 nor 2012. 98% of contributions were under the reporting threshold of $250. Of these, the average contribution was $53.Its really a tale of two worlds. 35k people gave an average of $2,600, while just over 1.7 million people gave an average of $53. Half the campaign's haul came from people giving around the maximum amount and half from people who don't have to be disclosed. Seems a bit odd.
The average of $53 from small donors is particularly noteworthy. Contributions under $200 don't have to be disclosed, but the campaign still has to keep track of the donor's name, in case subsequent donations push their contribution over the reporting threshold.
For contributions under $50, however, the campaign doesn't even have to keep track of the donor's name. It is effectively considered a "petty cash" donation. A person could theoretically make 10 $49 donations and never be reported, even though their total contributions are above the FEC's reporting threshold.
With an average donation of $53 from small donors, Obama has A LOT of donors who will never be disclosed and whose names aren't even known to the campaign. Tens of millions of dollars worth.
Today's report certainly adds a great deal of interest to this news story from last week
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
From Daily Caller, An honest debate about gun violence
An honest debate about gun violence
The absolute worst time to engage in such a debate is in the immediate aftermath of a shooting, with our emotions still raw, and with images of the carnage still fresh in our minds — which, of course, is the reason the political left wants to have the debate while the yellow police tape is still up at the crime scenes. But as time passes, the potential for a saner debate increases. To ask, for example, whether a civilian should be allowed to purchase a high-capacity “drum magazine” for a semi-automatic weapon, as the Colorado shooter was allegedly able to do, is not to dismantle the Second Amendment. Would such a restriction be the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent? Maybe. But it’s not an unreasonable question to ask.
That debate, however, has nothing to do with the broader problem of gun violence in the United States. Though both the Colorado and Wisconsin massacres were violent and did involve guns, they were aberrations. Legislation aimed at reducing the likelihood or deadliness of such incidents will have little or no impact on how many Americans get shot and killed from year to year.
Gun control advocates want to yoke their efforts to ban many types of firearms, including semi-automatic weapons with legitimate self-defense uses, onto our collective revulsion at the bloodshed wrought by a couple of maniacs. They argue that America has become a shooting gallery — at least when compared with other industrialized nations. If only Americans would stop clinging irrationally to their Second Amendment right to bear arms, we could cut gun violence down to, say, Canadian levels.
The argument seems plausible, at least at first glance. Canada has long had some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and in 2007 Americans were almost six times more likely to be the victim of a gun homicide than Canadians were. The rate in Canada was 0.6 per 100,000 people; in America, it was 3.4 per 100,000.
End of discussion, right?
Except if you dig down into the numbers, the issue becomes more complicated. The plague of gun violence in the U.S., it turns out, is not as widespread or as random as many gun control advocates would have us believe. Indeed, gun violence in America largely consists of black and Hispanic males shooting other black and Hispanic males. According to a study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, based on data collected by the Center for Disease Control, 1.5 white Americans in 100,000 were shot and killed in 2007 — still higher than the Canadian rate of 0.6, but, given the population densities of the two nations, at least in the same ballpark. On the other hand, the rate for Hispanic Americans was an alarming 5.2 per 100,000 — more than three times the rate among whites Americans. The rate for African Americans was a grotesque 18.1 per 100,000, or roughly 12 times the rate among whites Americans. The rate for African-American males was an obscene 37.59 per 100,000.
Those are the victim rates. The ethnic disparities among gun homicide offenders mirror the disparities among victims. Though blacks make up less than 13% of the U.S. population, year after year they commit more than half of all gun homicides. The numbers for Hispanic offenders are harder to pin down since law enforcement agencies tend to group them with white offenders — perhaps to make the black-white contrast seem less stark. But given the high rate of Hispanic victimization, and the fact that more than half of all homicide victims in the U.S. are acquainted with their killers, it seems safe to conclude that Hispanic offenders also commit gun homicides at substantially elevated rates.
Any honest discussion of gun violence, therefore, begins with the inconvenient truth that it’s disproportionately a black and Hispanic phenomenon. That makes last summer’s horrors in Colorado and Wisconsin exceptional on at least three levels: first, because of the body count; second, because of the weaponry; third, and most critically, because of the demographics of shooters and their victims.
Recognizing the centrality of ethnicity to the problem of gun violence is just another way of saying, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” But it also underscores the gnarly politics of dealing with the issue. You likely could significantly reduce incidents of gun violence in the U.S., and save many black and Hispanic lives in the process, with mandatory sentencing. So, for example, if you’re convicted of using a gun to commit a crime, we could tack an extra five years onto the end of your sentence. If you discharge a gun while committing a crime, make it 15. If you shoot someone, make it 25. No exceptions. No plea bargains. No mercy.
If states began to adopt such sentencing guidelines, you likely would have a drastic reduction in gun homicides — not because violent criminals would necessarily be deterred, but because, once they’re caught and convicted, they’d be incarcerated for much longer periods. It would therefore be a boon to the overwhelming majority of blacks and Hispanics, who are law-abiding citizens. But it would also require building many more prisons and filling them with mostly black and Hispanic males — which means that most blacks and Hispanics would oppose the effort. So too would every left-of-center advocacy group that fancies itself a guardian of minority interests.
So, yes, by all means, now that our emotions are no longer raw, let’s have a national conversation about gun violence. But for once, how about an honest one?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/an-honest-debate-about-gun-violence/#ixzz28BEXzeNf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)