Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Facebook Censors Navy SEALs to Protect Obama

Facebook Censors Navy SEALs to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate

Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.

The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.
I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc -- the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook  because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.
Here's what Ward told me:
We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested.
Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people -- all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.
Along with the re-posted meme, Ward put a link to the Facebook "feedback comment" inbox so visitors to the SOS page could send a message to Facebook if they were as outraged over the meme being jerked down as he was.

Ward said Facebook pulled the re-posted meme down within 7 or 8 hours and suspended the SOS account for 24 hours.
In other words, Facebook put the Navy SEALS in timeout in order to shield Obama.
How low can you go?

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Saving Birds

Sesame Workshop (formerly Children's Television Workshop) had direct sales of over $135 million last year. Licensing and merchandising alone brought in another $20 million.

Then there is the music, the videos the full length movies, royalties from nearly 40 years of production that has been running and churning out millions for nearly 40 year of 24-7 TV exposure.

Nope - Bert and Ernie - not to mention Big Bird - aren't hurting.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

"At Stake" Eastwood's plea for help to save America as we know it.

Clint Eastwood's latest video in support of Mitt Romney won't be wasted in bleeding-heart liberal-pinko states like mine.

It is posted here for your viewing pleasure

No matter what your politics are, Clint Eastwood is always a favorite - unless, of course, you are a weenie.

"There's not much time left, and the future of our country is at stake"
- Clint Eastwood

"Barack Obama is the least transparent president in the history of this country" - Donald Trump

Trump WILL NOT be $5 million poorer anytime soon.  Donald Trump said, on Wednesday, he would give $5 million to a charity of Obama's choice in exchange for the release of the commander in chief's college records and passport application.

"Barack Obama is the least transparent president in the history of this country," Trump said in a video shot from his New York office and uploaded to YouTube.

"I'm very honored to have gotten him to release his long-form birth certificate or whatever it may be." "I have a deal for the president," Trump continued. "If Barack Obama opens up and gives his college records and applications and if he gives his passport applications and records I will give to a charity of his choice—inner-city children in Chicago, American Cancer Society, AIDS research, anything he wants—a check immediately for $5 million."

Obama: I didn't mean to say what I meant, before I meant to say what I didn't mean"

In the last debate, Barrack (Benghazi) Obama said this: "I say what I mean, and I mean what I say".

Immediately following the Libyan Attack, and for nearly two weeks afterwards, the  President's mouthpiece said he didn't have information that said Terrorists conducted an attack against the American Embassy in Libya.

Obama and Carney said they didn't have any information as to who murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Obama and Carney said they didn't have any information as to who murdered  Information Officer Sean Smith.

Obama and Carney said they didn't have any information as to who murdered Navy Seal Glen Doherty.

Obama and Carney said they didn't have any information as to who murdered Navy Seal Tyrone Woods.
  •  The American Embassy in Libya told the White House they were under attack by Terrorists.
  • American Security Forces told the White House they were defending the Embassy against a Terrorist attack.
  • Libyan Security Forces told the White House they were defending the Embassy against a Terrorist attack.
  •  The Libyan Government told the White House Terrorists attacked the American Embassy in Libya.
  • The Terrorists told the White House they attacked the American Embassy in Libya.
The White House told the American people it was merely a demonstration by disgruntled Libyan citizens.  No signs of an organized Terrorist Attack.

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately (2 weeks later) acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, stubbornly  maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

The White House this morning (October 24) attempted to down-play the significance of emails sent to top national security officials during the attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, one of which suggested a known terrorist group claimed credit for the attack in its immediate aftermath.

As obtained by ABC News' John Parkinson and posted last night, the emails seem to be ones sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

One of the emails reported that officials that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and had threatened to attack the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

In the first couple weeks after the attack, the White House and Obama administration generally blamed the attack on a demonstration an anti-Muslim video that got out of control. On September 14, White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted that " we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack." Only later would the Obama administration say the attack was planned.

White House officials maintained that the emails don't contradict what the White House believed at that point, based on the intelligence community's assessment of the attack. The views of the intelligence community are valued far more than Facebook and twitter claims, officials said, describing that email as an unclassified ops alert email, not a vetted intelligence assessment. It was not definitive, but rather the act of flagging open source reporting referencing a Facebook post, and - officials noted - on September 17, Ansar al-Sharia denied responsibility for the attack.

Carney today told reporters that there were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack. "There was a variety of information coming in," Carney said. "The whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible."

Moreover, officials said, the intelligence community still believes there wasn't a tremendous amount of planning before the attack. A terrorist group carrying it out doesn't mean it wasn't an opportunistic attack, officials said.

The first email , with a subject line of "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack," sent about 25 minutes after the attack began, states: "Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (Chief of Mission) personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

The next email sent at 4:54 PM states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared, adding that a response team was "onsite attempting to locate COM personnel."

-Jake Tapper and John Parkinson

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Figures Don't Lie - But Obama Does Figure

And that doesn't even count the over 600,000 government jobs that were eliminated.
But is does include 360,000 "new" jobs that are forecast to miraculously appear according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Add this all up and the answer is a net loss of jobs since Obama took office.

In a new TV ad, President Obama makes an inflated claim to have added 5.2 million new jobs. The total added during his time in office is actually about 325,000.

In the ad, the president says “over 5 million new jobs” while the figure “5.2 million” appears on screen. But that’s a doubly misleading figure.

Viewers would need to pay close attention to the on-screen graphic to know that the ad refers only to employment gains starting in March 2010, omitting the 4.3 million jobs that were lost in the first year of Obama’s term.

And there’s no way a viewer would know that the total counts only private-sector jobs, omitting continuing losses in government employment.

According to the most recent employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy has eked out a net gain of 325,000 jobs since January 2009, when Obama took office. And that’s giving credit for roughly 386,000 jobs that the BLS has announced, on a preliminary basis, that it will be adding to this year’s employment totals next year, as a result of its routine annual “benchmarking” analysis.

Looking only at private-sector jobs, it’s true that the total has risen just under 5.2 million since February 2010 — provided that credit is given for roughly 453,000 private-sector jobs to be added next year through the BLS benchmarking process. But over Obama’s entire term, those private-sector jobs have gone up only 967,000, even counting benchmarking additions.

And viewers can judge for themselves how they feel about the “plan for the next four years” that the president briefly outlines in the ad, which is couched in broad generalities.

But viewers who follow the ad’s invitation to visit an Obama website for further information will find some false and misleading claims. There, the campaign, for example, states that “Mitt Romney criticized the end of the Iraq war as ‘tragic,’ and has offered no plan withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.”

Romney did not call the end of the Iraq war “tragic.” He used that word to describe the president’s pace of troop withdrawal, not ending a war. And more important, Romney said during the final presidential debate on the night before the ad was released: “[W]hen I’m president, we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014.”

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Unemployment Hits Capitol Hill

Vote early, and Vote Often! - Uncle Joe is smiling in his grave.

Here in Washington state, elections are exclusively Fraud Vote-by-Mail. Our ballots are filled out and will be dropped off in town tomorrow.

There is a believable chance that our votes will be either discarded or cancelled out by our fellow countrymen committing Voter Fraud. It is widely believed that both 2004 and 2008 Gubernatorial elections here in Washington were rife with fraud.  In 2004 the votes were counted Three times.  The counting didn't stop until the Democrat's candidate finally had more votes than the Republican.

Like good old uncle Joe (Stalin) mused, It isn't those who vote that count, it is those that count the votes.  How many of you know (or even care) who is appointed to local elections boards?

Past  Election Boards have tossed out some ballots because they arrived without the signature required on the outside of the return envelope. It rejected one that said “see inside” where the signature should have been. And it debated what to do with ballots in which the signature on the envelope did not quite match the one in the county’s files.

“This ‘r’ is not like that ‘r,’ ” Judge Augustus D. Aikens Jr. said, suggesting that a ballot should be rejected.

Ion Sancho, an elections supervisor, disagreed. “This ‘k’ is like that ‘k,’ ” he replied, and he persuaded his colleagues to count the vote.

Scenes like this will play out in many elections next month, because many states are swiftly moving from voting at a polling place toward voting by mail. In the last general election in Florida, in 2010, 23 percent of voters cast absentee ballots, up from 15 percent in the midterm election four years before. Nationwide, the use of absentee ballots and other forms of voting by mail has more than tripled since 1980 and now accounts for almost 20 percent of all votes.

Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.

“The more people you force to vote by mail,” Mr. Sancho said, “the more invalid ballots you will generate.”

Election experts say the challenges created by mailed ballots could well affect outcomes this fall and beyond. If the contests next month are close enough to be within what election lawyers call the margin of litigation, the grounds on which they will be fought will not be hanging chads but ballots cast away from the voting booth.

In 2008, 18 percent of the votes in the nine states likely to decide this year’s presidential election were cast by mail. That number will almost certainly rise this year, and voters in two-thirds of the states have already begun casting absentee ballots. In four Western states, voting by mail is the exclusive or dominant way to cast a ballot.

The trend will probably result in more uncounted votes, and it increases the potential for fraud. While fraud in voting by mail is far less common than innocent errors, it is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention, election administrators say.

In Florida, absentee-ballot scandals seem to arrive like clockwork around election time. Before this year’s primary, for example, a woman in Hialeah was charged with forging an elderly voter’s signature, a felony, and possessing 31 completed absentee ballots, 29 more than allowed under a local law.

The flaws of absentee voting raise questions about the most elementary promises of democracy. “The right to have one’s vote counted is as important as the act of voting itself,” Justice Paul H. Anderson of the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote while considering disputed absentee ballots in the close 2008 Senate election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman.

Voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner. The list includes the 2000 presidential election, in which problems with absentee ballots in Florida were a little-noticed footnote to other issues.

In the last presidential election, 35.5 million voters requested absentee ballots, but only 27.9 million absentee votes were counted, according to a study by Charles Stewart III, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He calculated that 3.9 million ballots requested by voters never reached them; that another 2.9 million ballots received by voters did not make it back to election officials; and that election officials rejected 800,000 ballots. That suggests an overall failure rate of as much as 21 percent.

Some voters presumably decided not to vote after receiving ballots, but Mr. Stewart said many others most likely tried to vote and were thwarted. “If 20 percent, or even 10 percent, of voters who stood in line on Election Day were turned away,” he wrote in the study, published in The Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, “there would be national outrage.”

The list of very close elections includes the 2008 Senate race in Minnesota, in which Mr. Franken’s victory over Mr. Coleman, the Republican incumbent, helped give Democrats the 60 votes in the Senate needed to pass President Obama’s health care bill. Mr. Franken won by 312 votes, while state officials rejected 12,000 absentee ballots. Recent primary elections in New York involving Republican state senators who had voted to allow same-sex marriage also hinged on absentee ballots.

Voting in person is more reliable, particularly since election administrators made improvements to voting equipment after the 2000 presidential election.

There have been other and more controversial changes since then, also in the name of reliability and efficiency. Lawmakers have cut back on early voting in person, cracked down on voter registration drives, imposed identification requirements, made it harder for students to cast ballots and proposed purging voter rolls in a way that critics have said would eliminate people who are eligible to vote.

But almost nothing has been done about the distinctive challenges posed by absentee ballots. To the contrary, Ohio’s Republican secretary of state recently sent absentee ballot applications to every registered voter in the state. And Republican lawmakers in Florida recently revised state law to allow ballots to be mailed wherever voters want, rather than typically to only their registered addresses.

There is a bipartisan consensus that voting by mail, whatever its impact, is more easily abused than other forms. In a 2005 report signed by President Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, who served as secretary of state under the first President George Bush, the Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded, “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

On the most basic level, absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system.

“Absentee voting is to voting in person,” Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has written, “as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.”

Fraud Easier Via Mail

Election administrators have a shorthand name for a central weakness of voting by mail. They call it granny farming.

“The problem,” said Murray A. Greenberg, a former county attorney in Miami, “is really with the collection of absentee ballots at the senior citizen centers.” In Florida, people affiliated with political campaigns “help people vote absentee,” he said. “And help is in quotation marks.”

Voters in nursing homes can be subjected to subtle pressure, outright intimidation or fraud. The secrecy of their voting is easily compromised. And their ballots can be intercepted both coming and going.

The problem is not limited to the elderly, of course. Absentee ballots also make it much easier to buy and sell votes. In recent years, courts have invalidated mayoral elections in Illinois and Indiana because of fraudulent absentee ballots.

Voting by mail also played a crucial role in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, when the margin between George W. Bush and Al Gore was razor thin and hundreds of absentee ballots were counted in apparent violation of state law. The flawed ballots, from Americans living abroad, included some without postmarks, some postmarked after the election, some without witness signatures, some mailed from within the United States and some sent by people who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state’s election laws been strictly enforced.

In the recent primary here, almost 40 percent of ballots were not cast in the voting booth on the day of the election. They were split between early votes cast at polling places, which Mr. Sancho, the Leon County elections supervisor, favors, and absentee ballots, which make him nervous.

 Mr. Sancho said. “The only cases of election fraud have been in absentee ballots.”

Efforts to prevent fraud at polling places have an ironic consequence, Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, told the Senate Judiciary Committee September last year. They will, he said, “drive more voters into the absentee system, where fraud and coercion have been documented to be real and legitimate concerns.”

“That is,” he said, “a law ostensibly designed to reduce the incidence of fraud is likely to increase the rate at which voters utilize a system known to succumb to fraud more frequently.”

Clarity Brings Better Results

In 2008, Minnesota officials rejected 12,000 absentee ballots, about 4 percent of all such votes, for the myriad reasons that make voting by mail far less reliable than voting in person.

Absentee ballots have been rejected in Minnesota and elsewhere for countless reasons. Signatures from older people, sloppy writers or stroke victims may not match those on file. The envelopes and forms may not have been configured in the right sequence. People may have moved, and addresses may not match. Witnesses may not be registered to vote. The mail may be late.

Security dictates that voters visit a polling place on Election Day or beforehand so that errors and misunderstandings can be corrected and the potential for fraud minimized.

“If you vote by mail, where is that coming from?” Sancho asked. “Is there intimidation going on?”

Last November, Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, suspended a school board member in Madison County, not far from here, after she was arrested on charges including absentee ballot fraud.

The board member, Abra Hill Johnson, won the school board race “by what appeared to be a disproportionate amount of absentee votes,” the arrest affidavit said. The vote was 675 to 647, but Ms. Johnson had 217 absentee votes to her opponent’s 86. Officials said that 80 absentee ballots had been requested at just nine addresses. Law enforcement agents interviewed 64 of the voters whose ballots were sent; only two recognized the address.

Ms. Johnson has pleaded not guilty.

Election law experts say that pulling off in-person voter fraud on a scale large enough to swing an election, with scores if not hundreds of people committing a felony in public by pretending to be someone else, is hard to imagine, to say nothing of exceptionally risky.

There are much simpler and more effective alternatives to commit fraud on such a scale, said Heather Gerken, a law professor at Yale.

“You could steal some absentee ballots or stuff a ballot box or bribe an election administrator or fiddle with an electronic voting machine,” she said. That explains, she said, “why all the evidence of stolen elections involves absentee ballots and the like.”

Uncle Joe is smiling in his grave.

You Picked a Fine Time to Lead Us, Barack

Found by our Friend, Robin.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Quarter - Billion Taxpayer Dollars Flushed Down the Green Tube

Every week another corrupt bunch of boobs goes belly up while wallowing in the largesse of  Obama graft.

$249 Million dollars makes going belly up less painful - except to taxpayers.

Taxpayers are taking it buns-up kneelin'


No company has embodied Washington's hope for an American-built electric vehicle business like A123 Systems. The Massachusetts-based company was supposed to become the leading home-grown supplier of lithium-ion batteries for automakers in the United States and around the world -- fueled in part by a $249 million grant from the Obama administration. Today, A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy, saying much of its assets would be sold after losing $857 million over the past several years. Here's why it failed.

That photo above comes from an April 2010 speech in the Rose Garden of the White House, where President Barack Obama hailed A123 with Chief Executive David Vieux on his left, for its plans to create 2,000 jobs by 2012. A123 also won $125 million in grants and tax credits from Michigan state officials for building plants there. I was in the audience covering the event, and walked out of the White House while talking to two new A123 employees -- both grateful engineers who had lost jobs in the recession and spent months e-mailing resumes with few responses.

When A123 opened its plant in Michigan later that year, Obama called again to congratulate Vieux: "This is about the birth of an entire new industry in America -- an industry that's going to be central to the next generation of cars," Obama said according to a transcript released by the White House. "When folks lift up their hoods on the cars of the future, I want them to see engines and batteries that are stamped: Made in America."

But A123 was never able to turn the promise of its creation by MIT students and faculty into real-world products. It lost out on supplying batteries for the Chevrolet Volt to South Korea's LG Chem, with General Motors executives at the time citing the more established firm as a safer bet. A123 did eventually win a GM contract for batteries in the upcoming Chevrolet Spark EV, but that wasn't expected to be a high-volume model.

A123's biggest bet lay with Fisker Automotive, and when the Fisker Karma suffered a series of launch delays and sales far below expectations, A123's finances began to take a hit. The company also had to spend $66 million on a recall of its Karma battery packs in 2011 due to a charging defect. While it tried to find other uses for its batteries outside the auto industry, none came close to generating the kind of revenue a major automotive supply contract might.

Since that Rose Garden speech, American have proven far less excited about electric vehicles than what the Obama administration expected. President Obama's goal of having one million plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles on the road by 2015 looks like it will come up short by some 600,000 vehicles, according to Pike Research. So far this year, Americans have bought about 31,000 all-electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids -- and all of their batteries were made by suppliers outside the United States.

A123 says in its bankruptcy filing that its assets will be bought for $125 million by supplier Johnson Controls. Its failure will only strengthen arguments from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that the Obama administration wasted millions of dollars in its pursuit of green jobs. Obama was right on the broader point: Batteries will be essential to future vehicles around the world. But that change won't happen as quickly as he expected, and every nation that builds cars in volume will have its own favored firms vying for the same opportunity. Voters will have to decide whether the chase was worth the charge.

President “All Of The Above” Bans Oil Production in PETROLEUM Preserve

Not content to merely bankrupt the coal industry, His Wholly Reluctance has decided that all energy prices need to “necessarily skyrocket.”

To that end he has ordered his minion Ken Salazar to put 11 million acres specifically set aside by congress for oil production off-limits to…wait for it…oil production.
Salazar says his plan “will help the industry bring energy safely to market from this remote location, while also protecting wildlife and subsistence rights of Alaska Natives.” He added that the proposal will expand “safe and responsible oil and gas development, and builds on our efforts to help companies develop the infrastructure that’s needed to bring supplies online.”
And what is he putting on federal land instead? You guessed it–Batshredders and Unicorn Fart Collectors.
The Interior Department set aside about 285,000 acres for commercial-scale solar in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The federal government will offer incentives for development, help facilitate access to existing or planned electric infrastructure and ease the permitting process in the 17 zones.
This bastard not only needs to be defeated in November, he needs to be dragged from the White House, pilloried, and cornholed with the flaming phallus of a syphilitic stag horn…repeatedly…on live stream.

(Another tidbit taken from Soylent Green)

High Praise for Romney - So much for the “Chicago Way.

Awesome: Iron Worker Hangs Romney Banner Atop Sears Tower

Elevated (heh) from the comments for Awesome:
John Rukavina, 74, a Local 1 ironworker — who claims to have put up “every antenna and tower in Chicago since Marina Towers in 1974” — affixed a Romney banner as well as an American flag on the ABC antenna on Willis Tower minutes after it was completed Sept. 30.
“The flag is a symbol — an old ironworker’s custom — which is hung if the job went well,” said Rukavina, who said he worked on the Sears Tower antenna in 1978. He’s also worked on the John Hancock Center and New York’s World Trade Center.
“I promised my sister, Anna, a year ago I would use the burial flag of her husband, a World War II Navy veteran, when we topped off the antenna,” he told Sneed.
“But I didn’t tell anyone I was going to put up the Romney poster. I did that on my own and it was hard going. The wind was blowing like crazy that day,” he said. “But I wanted to make that gesture the last thing I did.
So much for the “Chicago Way.” Bwuhahahahahahaha.

(Stolen from Soylent Green)

Saturday, October 13, 2012

When Grade School was Politically Incorrect.

School 1962 vs. 2012

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fight after school.

1962 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends.
2012 - Police called, and they arrest Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it. Both children go to anger management programs for 3 months. School Board holds meeting to implement bullying prevention programs.

Scenario:  Robbie won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1962 - Robbie is sent to the office and given six of the best by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2012 - Robbie given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADHD - result deemed to be positive. Robbie's parents get monthly disability payments and school gets extra funding from government because Robbie has a disability. 

Scenario:  Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a spanking with his belt.

1962 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

 2012 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care; joins a gang; ends up in jail. 

Scenario:  Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1962 - Mark gets glass of water from Principal to take aspirin with. Passes Exams, becomes a Lawyer.

2012 - Police called, sholl locked-down and searched for drugs and weapons. Principal is fired. Mark expelled from school for taking drugs. Ends up as a drop out. 

Scenario:  Johnny takes apart leftover fireworks from July 4th Celebration, puts them in a paint can and blows up a wasp's nest.

1962 - Wasps die.

2012 - Police and Anti-Terrorism SWAT team called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism,  parents are investigated, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated. Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly in an airplane again. 

Scenario:  Johnny falls down while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mrs. Wiggins. She hugs Johnny to comfort him.

1962 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing football. No damage done.

2012 - Mrs. Wiggins is accused of being a child molestor and loses her job. She faces 3 years in prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy and ends up gay.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

T'was the night before elections

T'was the night before elections,
And all thru' the town,
Tempers were flaring
Emotions ran up and down.

I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap,
Had shut off the TV,
tired of political crap.

When all of a sudden,
There arose such a noise,
I peered out my window,
Saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet,
They wanted my pay
To hand out to others
Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money,
And quick as a wink,
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink.

He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart.
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!

"On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, on Pelosi"
He screamed at the pairs!

They took off for his cause,
And as they flew out of sight,
I heard him laugh at a nation
Who wouldn't stand up and fight!

 So I leave you to think
on this one final note...
If you don't want socialism
Get out and Vote!

God Bless America -
Our only hope
Wave our Flag high and,
Get rid of that Dope!

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Voices Without a Vote.

Voices Without a Vote.  Found by my brother and provided here for your patriotic viewing pleasure.

Monday, October 8, 2012

What is the difference between a Romney supporter and an Obama supporter?

The difference between a Romney supporter and an Obama supporter is really very simple.

A Romney supporter signs his checks on the front.
An Obama supporter signs his checks on the back.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Take Monday Off - Columbus Day

Even if you don't like Mitt Romney, here is a good explanation of why to vote for him anyway.  I took this from a Yahoo e-mail group 

Good morning, Star Troopers, and welcome to one of the more puzzling holidays on our nation’s calendar.  Although I guess we have to give Christopher Columbus his props for having the b.s., not to mention the ‘nads, to talk a bunch of his buddies into getting in three of those little rickety ships and sail half-way around the world without really knowing where they were going, kind of like Miller at Grand Lake but without benefit of beer, you really can’t get too excited about the guy considering that when he finally got here he treated the natives like he owned the place.  Maybe that’s where it started – the thought that as Americans we’re pretty much right most of the time.  At any rate, I suppose taking a day off to celebrate the guy is as good an excuse for a day off as any.

Speaking of one thing that we definitely get right, it’s elections.  In case you’ve been living in your office hustling or underwriting or funding or selling or shipping or insuring loans 24 hours a day for the past couple of months, we have a presidential election coming up here in a few weeks, which makes it one of, if not THE, most important dates on our national calendar, and perhaps the event of which, as Americans, we can be most proud.  Think most people around the world wouldn’t like to have a say in who runs the show?  

I know you’ve likely heard about both presidential candidates’ attributes and shortcomings, what the talking heads on TV and radio prognosticate that each would do if elected, and how the country will work or maybe not. For those of you who have already made up your minds on who to support, congratulations and go ahead and take Monday off.  But if you haven’t yet decided, because it’s so important a decision I’d like to share my views briefly. This is not an invitation for a debate, it’s just my opinion so nobody needs to get your shorts in a knot and start firing off rebuttals.

I’ll admit I don’t know much, but I’ve been around long enough to know a couple of truths: 1) In a pragmatic (as opposed to idealistic) sense, America is America principally because of its economic greatness and our economy works because of the free market structure that allows it to work.  Simply put, we can’t do the stuff we do (defense, welfare relief, infrastructure enhancements, foreign aid, etc.) without first being financially sound.  When our economy is curtailed or a perception of uncertainty prevails, we’re all adversely affected.  One has to look no further than the unemployment rate (which, in reality, persistently remains close to 11%, not the white-washed version which is published as 8% and change), or the obscenely large and impossible-to-sustain national debt to recognize that we are, and have been for a time now, struggling economically.  While the economy is a discussion in and of itself, in my view the principal reason that we’re going through the slowest recovery on record after a recession is because under the current Administration we experienced a significant change in our regulatory approach to national economic matters, particularly when the activity provides the fuel which runs the economy, financial services. 

Historically, our economy has grown and shrunk based essentially on market demand for goods and services, both domestically and internationally, with many of the activities that fueled the markets, like financial services, being regulated by the federal government, and rightfully so.  Under our current President’s direction, however, instead of simply regulating the activity and allowing the market to decide winners and losers, the Administration sees it as their responsibility to undertake an expanded role to dictate to the market participants which activities they may undertake and what those markets should look like.  One needs to look no further than our own industry, in which the overseers seek to tell the market participants what types of loans we can and can’t originate, and who and how those market participants can get compensated for that activity. 

This is dramatically different than simply regulating a free market activity.  If you’d like a second, and even more dramatic example, under the current Administration the federal government actually NATIONALIZED the entire student loan industry, taking away from private lenders and banks an activity that had historically been a market activity.  So I trust you can see the difference in approach, and by way of cause and effect, why market participants are so leery of entry and/or expansion.  It really has been an unprecedented change in approach to governing a wide range of activities and, quite frankly, a new level of federal involvement into the private sector. The phrase, “I’m here from the government and I’m here to help you” has never been more ominous.      

2) The president (not this one in particular) doesn’t have all the power that is often attributed to him.  If he did, then the President wouldn’t be president at all, he’d be prime minister, king, whatever.  That said, because the President is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, he provides tempo, tone, and a general direction that he’d like to pursue, and if he’s good at what he does he has to recognize and understand that he is the starting point for legislative compromise.  He has to be (or at least should be) willing to listen to both sides.  In our current President’s case, while he had control of both houses of Congress, President Obama rammed through the largest tax increase in our country’s history, the National Healthcare Act, and under Dodd- Frank created an agency in the federal government to oversee and control financial services that has no traditional oversight and essentially answers only to the Treasury Department, which is a proxy for the White House.  Both were done against significant and in some areas majority opposition from both the Congress and from the population at large.  The first event was an unprecedented reach into the lives of private citizens, the second created massive uncertainly in the marketplace by stemming the flow of capital where it was needed.     

So I find it kind of disingenuous that he can complain that things aren’t getting done now because he’s not getting any co-operation from Congress.  In fact, if you look at our President’s voting record while he was a Senator, he voted for his party’s position more than 94% of the time, regardless of issue.  That’s probably a good way to get your party’s nomination for President, but doesn’t say much about taking the high road when needed.  Certainly doesn’t seem to be much of a history of willingness to compromise there.  In our business, we use our applicants’ prior acts and actions to try to predict future results, right?  Well, if that’s the test, why would we believe that our current President would behave differently in a second term? 

As I mentioned, the President, whoever he is, has to set the tempo, tone and general direction which, to be effective, needs to include all members of Congress, not just those of his own party.  Our current President has played the divide and conquer game since his election by pitting entire segments of our population against each other.  With him, it goes way beyond a decision made by the “compare and contrast” of ideas.  This might be good politics, but it is just bad management strategy because it’s unsustainable. Is he the only President to have governed in such a way?  Clearly, no.  But he’s the one today we’re being asked to consider supporting.  To be perfectly fair, I’m not sure why we’re surprised by what we’ve seen in the last 4 years.  In reality, in 2008 we elected a man to be the Chief Executive Officer of the United States who had precious little management experience at any level.  It just seemed like a good idea at the time to the majority of American voters. 

But our Founders were pretty damn smart.  In the WWII based movie “Kelly’s Heroes”, Clint Eastwood’s (yes, the one from the Republican Convention) character asks Donald Sutherland’s character who was a tank commander named Oddball why his tank was designed to run backwards as fast as it could forwards.  Oddball says, “Ooh baby, it’s because we like to think we can get out of trouble as fast as we got into it.”  That’s what the Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to do. 

What happened in 2008 was that the majority of America wanted a change in direction.    Quite frankly, I can understand that because I didn’t much like the way the Republicans handled their day in the sun either when they owned three legs of the stool.  But I really don’t like what’s happening today economically speaking, and in my view we should make a similar change as we did in 2008.  We have literally no recovery from a bad recession, persistent and sustained high unemployment, and worst of all a record and massive national debt that’s growing at the fastest pace in our history.  And a President who, in the face of all of this, continues to fail to offer an olive branch in compromise.  It’s still clearly his way or the highway.  Overall, not a very tasty cocktail. 

The candidates have both said this election is about two separate visions and we have a choice.  As flawed a concept as it is, if prior behavior can be used to predict future actions, I believe that Mr. Romney would prove to be a much more effect CEO for the country based on his experiences.  Most likely, under a Romney administration, business activities would be more apt to believe that we would revert to something that resembles a market approach to things, expansion would happen and the government would regulate those activities instead of trying to force markets into something one small group believes they should look like.  And I believe that Mr. Romney, who, based on his record might just be the most left-leaning of all of the Republican national leaders would, at least in my view, do a much better job of “reaching across the aisle” as they say in Washington, to work toward a consensus on issues than President Obama has demonstrated in his almost 4 years on the job.            

At the end of the day, most of the campaign promises that you’re hearing from either candidate are just that: campaign promises, which are designed to make you feel warm and fuzzy.  But we know that the odds of most of these promises turning to reality are worse than playing Pai Gow poker in Vegas.  It’s a question of qualification, and just being experienced in something doesn’t make you the most qualified.  No question that Mr. Romney has the experiences in his background, in both the private and public sectors, which make him the better selection from an economic point of view as the CEO of the country.  And, as I mentioned earlier, America is an economic entity and our strength truly lies in a strong economic model. 

Thus endeth the epistle.  Thank you for your indulgence, and if you haven’t decided who to support, I’d appreciate it if you’d consider Mr. Romney.  OK, either way, you get Monday off anyhow.

Everyone have a great and well deserved long Columbus Day.  That old Chris – he was a character wasn’t he?  

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Obama Hates Whitey and Praises Reverend Wright.

In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.
 “The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family.”
  The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement.

The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

Read more: