What this woman is really saying...

Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone

...is that Ayn Rand was right and she behaves in a manner that is in her own best interest all other considerations be damned. And, what she wants is more of it.

Cognitive dissonance or racist behavior?

JAY-Z SUPPORTS BARACK OBAMA BUT THINKS “WE NEED LESS GOVERNMENT”

Hollywood fools

Matt Damon’s Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

Skin in the game is imortant

Fox News poll: 79 percent say all Americans should pay income taxes

The new paradigm with Israel

UN-Real… Obama UN Ambassador Rice Blew Off Netanyahu Speech Today Too (Video)

Barack Obama blew off Netanyahu this week. He refused to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister while he’s visiting the US. He said he was too busy but took the afternoon off on Thursday according to his schedule. He’s going to call Netanyahu between campaign stops today.

Meanwhile… Obama’s ambassador to the UN Susan Rice also blew off Netanyahu’s speech.
She went to lunch with Hillary and some other officials instead.

Greta Van Susteren broke the story on Thursday:

Weren't we recently told by the Administration that Al Qaeda had been marginalized?

Iraq militants attack Tikrit prison, freeing 90 inmates

Armed militants have attacked a prison in the Iraqi city of Tikrit, killing at least 12 guards and freeing about 90 inmates, officials have told the BBC.

They say a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb at the gates of Tasfirat prison and clashes between militants and security guards followed.

Some of the escaped inmates were reportedly al-Qaeda members.

The prison was later retaken from the gunmen by security forces, reports say. A curfew is now in place in the area.

The security forces are trying to re-capture the prisoners.

Tasfirat holds several hundred inmates, some of them condemned to death.

'Files destroyed'

The unidentified gunmen stormed the prison on Thursday night.

The attack lasted into the early hours of Friday, and at one stage the militants controlled all the gates of the Tasfirat prison, about 160km (100 miles) north-west of Baghdad.

But a source in the police command of Salaheddin province later said the security forces "took control of the prison", according to the AFP news agency.

Iraqi lawmaker Hakim al-Zamily was quoted in local media as saying that "hardcore" al-Qaeda militants were among those who managed to escape.

Mr Zamily, who is a member of the parliamentary security committee, said that the escapees seized documents identifying people who had provided information about them to the authorities.

The personal files on the inmates were also destroyed, he said, making it "impossible" to track them down.

In addition, the attackers reportedly took with them a police car and weapons seized from the guards.

The raid appeared to be well co-ordinated between the gunmen and some of the inmates, the BBC's Rami Ruhayem in Baghdad reports.

The prison has previously seen disturbances among the inmates. In April, police said they had uncovered a plan by some prisoners to escape.

Militants have previously targeted Iraqi prisons in similar operations.

Soros: who knows how much he really gives?

Soros donates $1.5 million to pro-Obama super PACs

By Dan Eggen, 

George Soros, the liberal billionaire investor who has largely laid low during the 2012 elections, announced $1.5 million in pledged donations Thursday to a trio of super PACs backing President Obama and congressional Democrats, PAC officials said.
Soros, who became nationally prominent in 2004 when he spent more than $20 million on independent groups supporting Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), will give $1 million to Priorities USA Action — which is supporting Obama — and $500,000 to Majority PAC and House Majority PAC, which are running ads on behalf of Democratic candidates for Congress.
The move could signal a softening of resistance by Soros and other wealthy liberals to contributing to super PACs and other independent groups that can accept unlimited donations. Soros had previously given $1 million to the American Bridge opposition-research group and smaller checks to other groups but had suggested that he was unlikely to get more directly involved.
Even with more than $2.5 million in total donations, Soros’s financial commitment pales in comparison with those of conservative donors such as casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who has said he will give up to $100 million to groups supporting Mitt Romney and other Republicans this year.
Other top Republican donors include Houston home builder Bob Perry ($16 million) and Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons ($15.8 million). The top Democratic giver on record so far is New York hedge fund manager Jim Simons, who has given a combined $4 million to the same super PACs to which Soros just agreed to contribute.
Soros’s new gifts were announced at a Thursday lunch sponsored by a group of liberal donors called the Democracy Alliance, according to the New York Times, which first reported the pledge. The event was headlined by former president Bill Clinton and attended by other prominent Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
Soros’s gift follows the announcement by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel this month that he was leaving his official perch at the Obama campaign to help raise money for Priorities USA Action.
Democrats have been worried about Republicans raising funds from wealthy conservatives, who have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a network of groups aimed at toppling Obama. Many wealthy liberals, by contrast, have sat on the sidelines, in part because they say they are discomfited by the influence of big money in politics.

Isn't this the group you want to have more of your money!

EXCLUSIVE: As the UN opens its General Assembly session, it is already thinking up new global taxes

Life on your dime is good for the Won.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/#ixzz27guBOyNN

An In-Kind Contribution to the Obama Campaign

Polling shenanigans are not new for the extension of the Democratic party that is most of the MSM.

Dick Morris is right.

Here's his column on "Why the Polls Understate the Romney Vote."

Here's something Dick Morris doesn't mention. And he's charitable.

Remember when Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980?

That's right. Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980.

In a series of nine stories in 1980 on "Crucial States" -- battleground states as they are known today -- the New York Times repeatedly told readers then-President Carter was in a close and decidedly winnable race with the former California governor. And used polling data from the New York Times/CBS polls to back up its stories.

Four years later, it was the Washington Post that played the polling game -- and when called out by Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins a famous Post executive called his paper's polling an "in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign." Mondale, of course, being then-President Reagan's 1984 opponent and Carter's vice president.

All of which will doubtless serve as a reminder of just how blatantly polling data is manipulated by liberal media -- used essentially as a political weapon to support the liberal of the moment, whether Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 -- or Barack Obama in 2012. 

First the Times in 1980 and how it played the polling game.

The states involved, and the datelines for the stories:

• · California -- October 6, 1980
• · Texas -- October 8, 1980
• · Pennsylvania -- October 10, 1980
• · Illinois -- October 13, 1980
• · Ohio -- October 15, 1980
• · New Jersey -- October 16, 1980
• · Florida -- October 19, 1980
• · New York -- October 21, 1980
• · Michigan -- October 23, 1980

Of these nine only one was depicted as "likely" for Reagan: Reagan's own California. A second -- New Jersey -- was presented as a state that "appears to support" Reagan.

The Times led their readers to believe that each of the remaining seven states were "close" -- or the Times had Carter leading outright.

In every single case the Times was proven grossly wrong on election day. Reagan in fact carried every one of the nine states.

Here is how the Times played the game with the seven of the nine states in question.

• Texas: In a story datelined October 8 from Houston, the Times headlined:

Texas Looming as a Close Battle Between President and Reagan

The Reagan-Carter race in Texas, the paper claimed, had "suddenly tightened and now shapes up as a close, bruising battle to the finish." The paper said "a New York Times/CBS News Poll, the second of seven in crucial big states, showing the Reagan-Carter race now a virtual dead heat despite a string of earlier polls on both sides that had shown the state leaning toward Mr. Reagan."

The narrative? It was like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her friends stare in astonishment as dog Toto pulls back the curtain in the wizard's lair to reveal merely a man bellowing through a microphone. Causing the startled "wizard" caught in the act to frantically start yelling, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" In the case of the Times in its look at Texas in October of 1980 the paper dismissed "a string of earlier polls on both sides" that repeatedly showed Texas going for Reagan. Instead, the Times presented this data:

A survey of 1,050 registered voters, weighted to form a probable electorate, gave Mr. Carter 40 percent support, Mr. Reagan 39 percent, John. B. Anderson, the independent candidate, 3 percent, and 18 percent were undecided. The survey, conducted by telephone from Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In other words, the race in Texas is close, assures the Times, with Carter actually in the lead.

What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 13 points. It wasn't even close to close.

• Pennsylvania: The next "Crucial States" story focused on Pennsylvania on October 10. Here the headline read:

Undecided Voters May Prove Key

Reagan, said the Times, "appears to have failed thus far to establish many positive reasons for voting for him."

Continue.

About time

Senators join suit over Obama’s constitutional powers

Th economics lesson the left never gets

Nanny dearest

Where’s Mike Bloomberg when you actually needa nanny?

Being a hypocrite — that’s where.

As The Post’s David Seifman reported yesterday, the city Parks Department has seen a precipitous drop in both membership and revenue over the past year at its neighborhood recreation centers.

That’s because in July 2011 the city sharply hiked the fees it charges for using those facilities.

Annual adult membership fees doubled from $50 to $100 at regular centers, and from $75 to $150 at those with swimming pools.

And rates for senior citizensmorethan doubled — from $10 to $25.

The net result: Fully 44.5 percent of non-senior adult members, and half of all seniors, gave up their memberships.

That’s more thaneight timeswhat the city’s numbers-crunchers predicted.

And it translates into a net revenue loss of some $212,000 for the city.

User fees aren’t exactly taxes, of course.

Yet when bureaucrats jack them up without reference to what the market will bear, they have the same destructive effect.

Ham-handed taxation drives out potential investors; excessive fees stifle demand.

Both are destructive.

But the real irony here is that such centers are where many New Yorkers — those who can’t afford pricey private health clubs — go to get regular physical workouts.

Of the kind that Nanny Mike has been honking about for years — even as he rations New Yorkers’ sugar, trans fats, large sodas, and so on and so forth.

You’d think that making centers for physical activity unaffordable for tens of thousands would be the last thing on the Bloomberg agenda.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, eh, Mike?

City Hall stands by the move, saying kids attend for free and there are more free exercise classes, so overall attendance is up.

But that misses the larger point.

If Mayor Mike is determined to force New Yorkers to live healthier lifestyles — whether they want to or not — why effectively remove their access to one place that actually helps them do so?

Why, indeed.

Hypocrite.

Read more:http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/nanny_dearest_HJD2SiQthxlGjhVySoc4ZL#ixzz27dvwKB9a

Well Hollywood will be pleased

Peru's coca cultivation increases again, says UN study

Now, everybody knows Obama and Hillary lied

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

by Eli Lake 

Sources say intelligence agencies knew within a day that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the attacks in Benghazi, Libya—they even knew where one of the attackers lived. Eli Lake reports.

Every minute of your life must be regulated by the beneficent government

FCC Chair Defends Regulations, Calls FCC a ‘Cop on the Beat’

A slogan to explain Obama's policies

Obama wants you to pay more so that more can pay less.

The Fiscal Costs of Non-Taxpayers

From the Tax Foundation:

There has been growing concern recently about the rapid increase in the number of “nonpayers”—those Americans who have no income tax liability because of the numerous credits and deductions in the code. As of 2010, 41 percent of tax filers—some 58 million in all—had no income tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. There are currently more Americans off the tax rolls than at any time since 1940, when the income tax became a “mass tax.”

Aside from the revenue impact of not having 58 million Americans pay income taxes, economists worry about the social and political effects of having so many people disconnected from the cost of government—a phenomenon known as fiscal illusion.[1] The concern is that when people perceive the cost of government to be cheaper than it really is, they will demand ever more government benefits because they either don’t feel the cost directly or believe that others will be paying those costs. Indeed, when one takes into account those who do not file, about half of all households pay no federal income tax, making the situation particularly worrisome in a majority-rule democracy.[2]

Despite these extensive concerns, there has been surprisingly little investigation of any possible linkage between the growth of nonpayers and the growth of government spending or government benefits. After tracking this trend for more than a decade, Tax Foundation economists set out to explore the fiscal consequences of the growing number of Americans being taken off the income tax rolls.

Continue here.

The anti Israel Jew haters in the Obama administration

Was Obama's Illegal War in Libya A Trial Run to Attack Israel?

By Stella Paul

Hey, Obama Lovers, now that our Ambassador is dead, our Benghazi consulate is a smoldering ruin, and its top secret documents have been snatched by Al Qaeda, do you still think your hero's Libyan war is a smashing success?
Because I sure do. Not from America's point of view, of course; it's a nightmare for our national security.
But from the perspective of Obama's biggest donor, the convicted felon and renowned Israel-hater George Soros, the Libyan War is a triumph.  Why? Because Obama waged it illegally and without the consent of Congress. And he did it in the name of the political philosophy that Soros bought and paid for: Responsibility to Protect, or, as it's so zippily dubbed by our global elites, R2P.
Let's lay the big facts on the table: Soros paid a flame-haired foreign policy vixen named Samantha Power to develop and popularize Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a catchy tool to invade countries that he feels like invading.
See for yourself: Soros's Open Society Institute is a major donor of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, a terribly high-minded international institute of terribly high-minded people pledging terribly high-minded interventions with our military.       
Despite her busy schedule of posing provocatively for Men's Vogue, Samantha Power found the time to serve as Obama's top policy advisor on Libya. And in that glorious capacity, she persuaded him to send our military to Libya for the first self-proclaimed R2P intervention.
Before I go much farther into our Libyan disaster, I want to tell you some pertinent facts about Samantha Power, a.k.a. Mrs. Cass ("The Most Dangerous Man in America") Sunstein.
Samantha Power doesn't like Jews very much, and she really doesn't like Israel, probably because so many Jews live there. Like Stephen Walt, her anti-Semitic colleague at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Power regards American Jews as a subversive element pushing America to side with its enemy, Israel.
Chillingly, in 2002, Ms. Power told a television interviewer that America should use its military to invade Israel to protect the Palestinians. Alas, said Ms. Power with a rueful chuckle, that would require "alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import" - i.e., Jews.

You see where this is going, right? Ms. Power proposes that America invade Israel on humanitarian grounds.  Soros then pays her to develop this insanity into the benign-sounding "Responsibility to Protect," and creates a lofty international institute to promote it.  Obama then hires Power to try out R2P in Libya and, thereby get everybody desensitized to the concept. 
Here are the monumentally terrifying words that Obama said, as he sent our forces to Libya:

"And that's why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally."

Dear George Washington, will you ever forgive us? In her infinite wisdom, America elected Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama, who offers up our best and bravest to be "volunteered by others." And Obama got away with it.
Sure, a few editorials squawked about Obama waging war illegally, on the basis of a United Nations Security Council Resolution, instead of a Congressional vote. The New York Times even scolded him for "legal machinations" that "set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience -- free of legislative checks and balances."
I'm sure Obama was quaking in his golf shoes when he read those words -- not.  He was too busy plunging ahead in the next phase of his attack on Israel: unleashing his bare-fanged, unconcealed hatred.
Nobody can accuse Obama of pandering for Jewish seniors' votes in Florida this time round. He refuses to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and denigrates Israel's concerns about Iranian threats of nuclear annihilation as "noise." (Perhaps Obama and Ahmadinejad share the same press agent, because, oddly, that's what the Nazi dwarf called it, too.)
Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey even proclaimed he doesn't want to be "complicit" in an Israeli strike on Iran, equating Israel's potential self-defense against genocide with a crime.
Meanwhile, the "international community," of which Obama is so fond, continues its ceaseless work of demonizing Israel. If Obama gets a second term with "more flexibility," it's not much of a stretch to imagine the day when the United Nations and its assorted culture warriors screech that the poor Palestinians need R2P! And whether the American people want it or not, Obama will eagerly offer up our military "to be volunteered by others" to attack Israel.
As the "catastrophic intelligence loss" of our Benghazi assets reverberates, it's clear that Obama wasn't defending American interests in Libya. His "responsibility to protect" didn't even extend to our Ambassador. Even now, two weeks after the attacks, Obama hasn't bothered to secure the consulate.
But, Allah be praised, Obama still scored big in Libya. He and Soros are significantly closer to creating a United States of Islam to encircle Israel, and they're armed with a proven doctrine to get America in for the kill.

The Queen asks a good question. Why hasn't he been extradited?

The Queen: why couldn't we arrest Abu Hamza?

Hook hand and his dodgy mates.

Like many razor-sharp 86-year-olds, the Queen must spend an awful lot of time wondering what the hell became of the Britain she knew in her youth, and of all those commonsense values and that basic decency which saw us through trials like the Second World War.

Unlike the rest of her generation, she is constitutionally prevented from saying this aloud. But just occasionally her private views slip out. And when they do, my how you wish she was actually running the country herself rather than leaving it to idiots like her useless fifth cousin Dave.

Take her views on the evil, hook-handed terrorist Abu Hamza. According to the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner (himself a victim of the kind of Islamist violence Hamza so heartily advocates) the Queen thinks that he's a bad thing. So much so that she once lobbied the then Home Secretary to have him put away.

Gardner told the Today programme:

“She spoke to the Home Secretary at the time and said, ‘surely this man must have broken some laws, my goodness, why is he still at large?’

“Because he was conducting these radical activities, he called Britain a toilet, he was incredibly anti-British, and yet he was sucking up money from this country for a long time. He was a huge embarrassment to Muslims, who condemned him.”

The Queen was right, of course.

Abu Hamza is the terrorist who our legal authorities refused to extradite to Yemen for his involvement in a bomb plot (for which his sons were convicted), continued to preach hate against the adoptive country which was paying him £500 a month in incapacity benefits (for his hook hand) and ended up radicalising the 7/7 bombers thus indirectly causing the deaths of 52 innocent people.

According to the Taxpayer's Alliance this charming father-of-eight has so far cost us all £2.75 million in welfare payments, council housing, NHS and prison bills, trials and legal appeals.

Yet for years he has been playing the system, abusing the generosity of the British taxpayer, exploiting EU-driven Human Rights law and almost literally getting away with murder.

But the question we should surely be asking ourselves is: if it's so obvious to the Queen – and all the rest of us – why it so un-obvious to our elected representatives. Why do they fail our interests again and again? Isn't that the point of representative democracy: that the politicians are the servants of the people, there to embody the popular will?

At the moment they're not doing their job. Not in the slightest. In the 1640s I would have sided with parliament against the monarchy. Right now (at least till Charles takes over), I'd happily take up arms against Westminster on behalf of our glorious monarch.

Obamacare: promises vs reality

THANK YOU, OBAMACARE: FAMILIES PAY $3000 MORE FOR INSURANCE; OBAMA PROMISED $2500 DECREASE

President Barack Obama promised that Obamacare would cut family health insurance premiums by $2,500 by the end of the first term--but instead they have risen by $3,000, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation study cited by Investor’s Business Daily. 

The cost of health insurance today is more than 50% higher than Obama promised it would be--and the costs are expected to continue to rise as Obamacare is impemented.

John Merline of Investor's Business Daily notes the rising costs specifically contradict a campaign promise Obama reiterated several times, including in debates with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and at events along the 2008 campaign trail. 

Furthermore, the data show that the rise in family premium costs, largely attributable to the costs of complying with Obamacare, has outpaced the rise in costs under eight years of George W. Bush. 

Health insurance companies have already been required to provide additional coverage for so-called “children” up to age 26, among other changes. That coverage is described by Obama as “free,” but in fact the costs are borne by other patients. 

Obamacare also does nothing to change the underlying incentives driving the rising costs of health care, and in fact makes them worse by adding mandates and reducing patients’ choices.

Over the next four years, if Obama is re-elected and Obamacare is not repealed, the federal government will have to apply cost controls, resulting in the rationing of health care by bureaucrats and/or hospitals. 

That is why the Obama administration placed such a heavy emphasis on the Independent Payments Advisory Board--and why vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has spent so much time attacking it.

Regardless, the central promise of Obamacare--that it would “bend the cost curve down,” not just overall but on a family level--has been broken, as critics said it would be.  

The question “are you better off than you were four years ago” is answered with a clear “no” for American families when it comes to health insurance prices--along with rising gas prices and declining household wealth. Four more years will likely be even worse.