Kerry Picket Notices Obamaduplicitousness and deceit.

Obama – Business owners not responsible for their own success but I killed bin Laden

by Kerry Picket   at the Washington Times:

President Barack Obama is taking heat for slamming business owners who credit themselves for their own successes. He told supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Friday:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I 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.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. 

During his over 5000 word speech, Obama used the words: “I”  143 times, “my” 22 times, and “me” 14 times. This is the same President Obama whose campaign aired an ad in April touting that he killed Osama bin Laden.

In fact, back in April, during the one year anniversary of the Navy SEALS killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, President Obama said, “As far as my personal role and what other folks would do, I just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements. in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan [and] take out bin Laden. I assume people meant what they said when they said it. That’s been at least my practice.”

Obama then said, “I said I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain.”

As a side note, as of June 26 President Obama has played 101 rounds of golf since he became president. Perhaps, the president has been too busy on the greens to focus on bringing back a successful economy. 

“I’ve Got to be Honest”, the Lying Obama says…….and spits out Another Lie

Obama cites a “nonpartisan economist” —

 who also happens to be a campaign donor

by Erika Johnsen      at HotAir

“We have not found any serious economic study that says Governor Romney’s economic plan would actually create jobs, until today,” Obama said. “I’ve got to be honest: Today we found out, there’s a new study out by [a] non-partisan economist that says Governor Romney’s economic plan would in fact create 800,000 jobs. There’s only one problem: The jobs wouldn’t be in America. They would not be in America.”

So… does that mean that Democratic campaign donors now qualify as “nonpartisan” sources? From the Weekly Standard:

At a speech earlier today in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Obama cited economic analysis conducted by one of his campaign donors, Kimberly Clausing, and called her a “non-partisan economist.” Clausing, a college professor from Reed College, has donated to President Obama and several Democratic politicians and causes over the last dozen years. …

As we detailed earlier, “Clausing, according to donor records, gave Obama for America $250 on May 18, 2012. Likewise, on September 14, 2011, Clausing gave $242 to Obama for America, records reveal.” …

In addition to her financial support for Obama, Clausing has donated money to the Democratic Party of Oregon ($250), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($500), the Democratic National Committee ($500), John Kerry for President ($1,000), Dean for America ($300), Gore and Gore/Lieberman ($1,500), and many others.

You’d probably be hard-pressed to find any well-off academic who hasn’t made a campaign contribution of some sort in their lifetime, but why does President Obama feel the need to insist that his sources are “nonpartisan”? (I, for one, will always remain highly skeptical that the elusive “nonpartisan” beast actually exists.) As Daniel Halper points out, chalk it up to “crony economics.”

Comment:   For another  Obamalie in action click below to view video:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/16/obama-cites-a-nonpartisan-economist-who-also-happens-to-be-a-campaign-donor/

Obama iNVESTS $100,000,000 in Ohio in GUTTER SNIPING and LIES

 

Obama’s Spending on Attack Ads Soars

By David Espo –   AT REALCLERPOLITICS

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s campaign has spent nearly $100 million on television commercials in selected battleground states, unleashing a sustained early barrage designed to create lasting, negative impressions of Republican Mitt Romney before he and his allies ramp up for the fall.

In a reflection of campaign strategy, more than one-fifth of the president’s ad spending has been in Ohio, a state that looms as a must-win for Romney more so than for Obama. Florida ranks second and Virginia third, according to organizations that track media spending and other sources.

 

About three-quarters of the president’s advertising has been critical of Romney as Obama struggles to turn the election into a choice between him and his rival, rather than a referendum on his own handling of the weak economy. Obama’s television ad spending dwarfs the Romney campaign’s so far by a ratio of 4-to-1 or more. It is at rough parity with the Republican challenger and several outside GOP-led organizations combined. They appear positioned to outspend the president and his allies this fall, perhaps heavily.

The latest attack ad, released on Saturday, includes Romney singing an off-key rendition of “America the Beautiful.” Pictures and signs scroll by that say his companies shipped jobs to Mexico and China, Massachusetts state jobs went to India while he was governor and he has personal investments in Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Democrats and even some Republicans agree the effort to cast Romney as an unfit steward for the economy shows sign of making some headway. Yet GOP strategists hasten to add that the former Massachusetts governor has ample time to counter, particularly with recent signs of a struggling economy and the fall campaign yet to begin.

“Despite all of the negative advertising from the Obama campaign, polling numbers are exactly where they were before they started this onslaught,” the Romney campaign said in a memo distributed last week, referring to a rolling average of polls.

Romney accused the president’s campaign of making false accusations on Friday and demanded an apology.

He also released an ad of his own on Thursday designed to respond to some of Obama’s charges, the sort of rebuttal that often can signal concern that an attack is hitting home. In 2008, “candidate Obama lied about Hillary Clinton,” the ad said, adding there was no truth to the charges that Romney was associated with companies that outsourced jobs.

Some surveys suggest shifts in the electoral landscape. A recent poll by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that Romney has lost ground in the past month on the question of which candidate was better able to improve the economy.

“They wanted to define Romney before he could define himself, and by every indication they’re doing a very effective job of that,” said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist who was campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004.

According to strategists in both parties, focus groups with voters indicate the public knows relatively little about Romney’s background, making the subject generally fertile territory for anyone trying to create an impression.

Romney has twice run for president. But even in this year’s Republican primaries, his own campaign spent less money on television ads than Restore Our Future, a superPAC that aided him. Most of the outside group’s efforts consisted of attacks on Romney’s GOP rivals, rather than testimonials to his own background and character.

While outside groups make a difference, “what campaigns said about the candidates is the most important thing” in a race, said Terry Nelson, a Republican strategist.

Another Republican strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid offending the campaign, said Obama’s commercials attacking Romney are quickly defining him, and the strategy is effective.

But Carl Forti, one of the strategists involved with Restore Our Future, said Obama’s strategy is more defensive than it might appear.

“I don’t think he’s got a choice. He has to try to change the dynamic now, but the polling indicates it’s not working. He doesn’t appear to be making any headway in the polls,” he said.

There is no dispute about the intensity of the general election ads, which began in April with Rick Santorum’s withdrawal from the race for the Republican nomination.

“There are more advertisers in fewer markets, spending more money and advertising at a higher frequency than in previous elections,” said Elizabeth Wilner, vice president of Kantar Media/CMAG, which monitors advertising.

 

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. 

California: Political…Financial, Cultural Bankruptcy

Welcome to California: America

without Republicans

 by Conn Carroll    at the Washington Examiner: 

“I believe that if we’re successful in this election,” President Obama told campaign donors in Minnesota last month, “that the fever may break, because there’s a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that.”

Apparently Obama believes that if he wins this November, Republicans on Capitol Hill will all begin to act like Chief Justice John Roberts by betraying their conservative beliefs and signing on to Obama’s unprecedented expansion of the federal welfare state. But what would America look like if the Republican “fever” did break?

We already know. It would look a lot like the state of California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been governor since 1996. Democrats have also enjoyed complete control of the state legislature since 1997. And they have governed exactly the way you’d expect Democrats to govern.

Spending has more than doubled, from $45.4 billion in 1996 to more than $92.5 billion today. Income, sales and car taxes have all been hiked. As a result, California has the most progressive income tax system in the nation, with seven income tax brackets, and the second-highest top marginal rate.

Even with all those tax hikes, California’s 2012 budget is still $15.7 billion in the red. So what does Gov. Jerry Brown want to do? Raise taxes again, of course. He has proposed a ballot initiative that would: 1) raise sales taxes on everyone and 2) raise incomes taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year (like Obama has proposed to do nationally). But even this $8.5 billion tax hike would still leave the state $7.5 billion short. Where will California get that money? Who knows?

And that is not the only spending binge California Democrats haven’t paid for. Just this month, the state legislature approved a $2.6 billion bond sale in order to fund construction on a scaled-back $68.4 billion high-speed rail project that will supposedly connect San Francisco and Los Angeles.

If California begins construction on the train before this December 31 (a big if), Obama has agreed to give the state $3.5 billion in federal money to help. But that still leaves a $62.3 billion hole. Where does California plan to get that money? Who knows?

With all of this unfunded government spending, Keynesian-Democratic thinking would predict that California’s economy should be booming.

It isn’t.

At 10.8 percent, California has the third-highest unemployment rate in the country. There are fewer private-sector jobs in the state today, 11.9 million, then there were in 2000, 12.2 million.

And thanks to liberal welfare requirements, a third of all the nation’s welfare recipients live in California despite the state only containing one-eighth of the national population.

Contrast those numbers with Republican-controlled Texas, where private-sector jobs have grown from 7.8 million in 2000 to 9 million today.

Long before it became the nation’s 31st state in 1850, California had been a target destination for Americans looking for a better life. Not anymore.

According to the last census, for the first time ever, the number of Californians born in other states actually decreased, falling from 7.6 million in 2000 to 6.6 million in 2010. And where did all those Californians flee? Many of them ended up in Texas, where the number of residents born in other states grew by almost 1 million.

The California dream is dead. Democrats killed it. Middle-class families can’t escape the state fast enough. Conservatives must fight Obama and his agenda at every turn so that Californians still have other states to flee to.

Conn Carroll (ccarroll@washingtonexaminer.com) is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. Follow him on Twitter at @conncarroll.

Smartest President Ever Proves Incompetent Again

 

Where Obama failed in the Middle East

by Paul Mirengoff    at  PowerLine

I.     That’s the title of a lead story in today’s Washington Post regarding the president’s hugely unsuccessful effort to bring about a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. That Obama failed is a given. As the Post puts it: “After a year and a half of politically costly pressure on Israel, Obama had nothing to show for it, except far less capital to work with at home and a damaged reputation among the Middle East veterans directly involved.”

Why Obama failed is not difficult to explain. As the Post’s article makes clear, Obama was clueless about the Middle East. As we and many others have argued since Obama first took on his fool’s errand, “the enduring traits of the conflict [between Israel and the Palestinians], whose resolution Obama elevated to ‘a vital security interest of the United States,’ made it particularly resistant to [Obama’s] preferred method of diplomacy,” namely “appeals to the shared interest of countries at war and at peace.”

The Post also finds a connection between this particular failure and Obama’s first term as president:

The way Obama managed the Israeli-Palestinian issue exhibited many of the hallmarks that have defined his first term. It began with a bid for historic change. But it foundered ultimately on his political and tactical misjudgments, on a lack of trusted relationships and on an outdated view of a conflict that many of his closest advisers imparted to him. And those advisers — veterans of the Middle East peace issue — clashed among themselves over tactics and turf.

Thus has our “smartest president” turned out to be one of our most foolish.

II.   The Washington Post’s report on President Obama’s failure in his dealings with Israel and the Palestinians is worth reading in its entirely. But I want to call attention to a statement by Obama that is quoted earlier in the article. As Obama was setting out on his not so excellent adventure, he met with American Jewish leaders. According to the Post, the following exchange occurred:

“If you want Israel to take risks, then its leaders must know that the United States is right next to them,” Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told the president. Obama politely but firmly disagreed.

“Look at the past eight years,” he said, referring to the George W. Bush administration’s relationship with Israel. “During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”

Obama’s response reflects either his usual dishonesty or a stunning ignorance of the previous eight years. During Bush’s second term, thanks in large part to Secretary of State Rice, there certainly was “distance” between Israel and the U.S. Moreover, under the Bush administration, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Whatever the wisdom of that withdrawal, it constitutes more gain for the Palestinians than they have obtained as a result of Obama’s flawed approach to the Middle East.

In fact, those who read the entire Post article will see Obama’s claim about the Bush years exposed as false. The Post points to the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza during Bush’s presidency. And Obama himself says that his policy regarding Israeli settlements is the same as the stated policy of the Bush administration.

Given Obama’s willfully ignorant understanding of the Middle East, he was destined to make a fool of himself the minute he injected himself into this area of the world. Unfortunately, the same thing is true about many of his other foreign policy initiatives.

Medieval Rome Warmer than Italy’s Rome Today….

Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times

 than now: Study

from the Register:

IPCC has got it all wrong, say boffins

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Energy, 10th July 2012 11:44 GMT

Americans sweltering in the recent record-breaking heatwave may not believe it – but it seems that our ancestors suffered through much hotter summers in times gone by, several of them within the last 2,000 years.

Phew, what a scorcher, Marcus. Let’s get in the frigidarium

A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today – despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

“We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,” says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. “Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy.”

They certainly are, as it is a central plank of climate policy worldwide that the current temperatures are the highest ever seen for many millennia, and that this results from rising levels of atmospheric CO₂ emitted by human activities such as industry, transport etc.

If it is the case that actually the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO₂ emissions having taken place – suggesting that CO₂ emissions simply aren’t that important – the case for huge efforts to cut those emissions largely disappears.

Needless to say, prominent alarmist scientists and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not taken this view, arguing instead that the well-documented Roman and medieval warm periods may have taken place but either weren’t very warm or only happened in limited regions (though this latter idea has lately been seriously undermined by research in Antarctica).

In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up – perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous “hockey stick” graph.

The new study indicates that that’s quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen – and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth’s path around it.

“This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,” says Esper. “However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.”

According to the scientists’ new paper, published in hefty climate journal Nature Climate Change, the cooling effect of orbital shifting on the climate has been up to four times as powerful as anthropogenic (human-caused) warming pressures. ®

(Article sent by Andrew Fischer.)

Comment:   And do the indoor Obama Marxists, including chief poobah himself,  know that within the last 500 years the NORTH SEA FROZE?

Obama’s Record is So Poor, He Turns to Rape, Pillage, and Burn Strategy against Romney

Why Obama’s Strategy Is To “Kill Romney”

Barack Obama is obliterating all records for spending on attack ads, and it is not hard to understand why. He can’t defend his record in office. He came close to admitting as much during an interview on CBS this morning:

click below for the video:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/why-obamas-strategy-is-to-kill-romney.php

Obama will never quite admit that his administration has been a failure, of course. But actions speak louder than words. If he had a record he could talk about truthfully, that is what he would do.