Newt Gingrich To Obama: Let’s Debate, You Can Use Your Teleprompter

Video Courtesy the Shark Tank:

[youtube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0BQ6I4bdzGQ]

“I already said that if he wants to use a teleprompter, then it would be fine with me. It has to be fair. If you [were] to defend ObamaCare, wouldn’t you want a teleprompter?” Gingrich asked.

“Now, just for a second I’m going to go in the detour and I’ll try to explain why I’ve been and he’ll say yes. There are two reasons. The first, is ego. Can you imagine him looking in the mirror? Graduate from Columbia, Harvard Law, editor of the Law Review journal, the greatest articulator in a Democratic Party?”

“How is he going to say that he’s afraid to be on the same podium as a West Georgia College student?”

Herman Cain, it is time to get some staff that can get passed amateur hour

by Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton

You have got to be kidding:

Cain, who last week stumbled over questions about what he would do in Libya, seemed to know little about Cuba. His campaign kept reporters at bay, and when asked about the Cuban Adjustment Act and the so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy, Cain seemed stumped.  The policy allows Cuban immigrants who have made it to US soil to stay.

“Wet foot, dry foot policy?” Cain asked. His press handlers interrupted as Cain diverted his course and ducked back into the building. Later, when he emerged, he was asked again by another reporter. Cain wouldn’t answer. …

Cain, though, wouldn’t talk to reporters there, either. A FOX reporter asked Cain what he thought of President Obama’s easing of travel restrictions to Cuba. Cain said that was a “gotcha question.”

Miami Herald video of the question:

[youtube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDvEU788MG4]

I realize that I am a politics junkie as are most readers of Political Arena, so it is perfectly understandable that we know what Clinton’s Castro hugging “wet feet, dry feet” policy is. What is not understandable is how Cain’s staff let him go to South Florida without being up to speed on Cuban policy from the last 20 years? I can make this one pretty easy for our friends in Herman Cain’s staff. The policy stinks. The very notion that someone who risked their life to flee Marxist tyranny should be sent home because they were found by our Coast Guard is not just immoral on it’s face, but costs lives. People making that perilous journey in what ever boat they can make or find should not be but in further peril by trying to avoid the United States Coast Guard. Herman Cain talks about putting a solid team together when he gets to the White House. This does not inspire confidence.

Schlafly: Americas Decline, Candidates Just Don’t Get It.

This is a solid piece by Phyllis Schlafly, the matriarch of the conservative movement, where she makes what is perhaps the most important point in the campaign. The American people feel the nation’s decline and most people can feel the change in the national consciousness. Having recently finished a new degree I can tell you that even most students feel it. Talk radio has talked about how Obama is presiding over the nations decline and President Obama is telling is that American exceptionalism is no better than Greek exceptionalism. We are not getting this message with moral clarity and boldness from our candidates, or at least that is how it seems in the elite media.

For those of us who have been paying close attention though, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has been saying these things. He is the only candidate who calls out President Obama, and many in his staff, as the Saul Alinsky radicals they certainly are. The media does not like reporting it, but it is there and will be unavoidable if Newt is the nominee. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, while not a candidate, has been calling out Obama and his friends as Saul Alinsky neo-Marxist radicals since 2008. Mayor Giuliani is very falimiar with the violent radical left and their front groups such as SEIU and ACORN.

Phyllis Schlafly:

Despite the inordinate quantity of press coverage about next year’s presidential election and attention to TV debates, plus the consuming desire of the media to predict who will win in 2012, the polls show that no candidate in either party is reaching 50 percent public support.

Meanwhile, the NBC News/WallStreetJournal poll, conducted jointly by Democrats and Republicans, reports that 74 percent of Americans think our government is taking us in the wrong direction, and only 17 percent think we are on the right track.  Other polls are similar, with Gallup reporting 85 percent dissatisfied with the way our country is headed, and only 13 percent satisfied.

The locals are restless, the grassroots are demanding change, and the Tea Partiers are expecting results, but Congress is stalemated and President Obama spends his time fundraising and campaigning for his own reelection.  Why hasn’t any candidate been able to ride citizen dissatisfaction into majority support?

I recommend that every presidential candidate read three books to understand why they don’t get it.  First, they should read the best book about Barack Obama, Radical-in-Chief, which explains how he became a Socialist while attending Columbia University.

Nobody knew anything about what was called the “lost chapter” of Obama’s life until a real scholar, Stanley Kurtz, did the original research. The highlight was a 1985 Socialist Scholars Conference addressed by Frances Fox Piven, known for advocating the Cloward-Piven strategy of killing capitalism by loading more and more people on welfare.

The presidential candidates should then read two books that explain in depressing detail why grassroots Americans are convinced that our government is taking us in the wrong direction and over a cliff before our children and grandchildren will ever achieve the American dream.  Those two new books are Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? by Patrick J. Buchanan and After America: Get Ready for Armageddon by Mark Steyn.

Those books will help the candidates understand, and maybe even develop some empathy for the Americans whose votes they seek and must have if they are to win.

Buchanan explains how the America most adults grew up in is fast disappearing.  Americans resent the dictatorial, undemocratic way that elitists in the media, academia, the bureaucracy, and the courts have spit on the foundations of our culture.

Those elite opinion sources have carried on a war against our Judeo-Christian faith, traditional marriage, and our patriotic belief that America is exceptional and should be militarily superior.  They have trashed and tried to abolish symbols we cherish such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and a cross erected in a public place to honor our veterans.

Those same elitists, using the power of government, have destroyed the economic stability of the family by legalizing unilateral divorce, giving enormous taxpayer subsidies to single moms which discriminate against marriage, adopting so-called free-trade policies that shipped millions of good jobs overseas, importing millions of foreigners from Third World countries to take the remaining jobs away from Americans, and enforcing so-called affirmative action policies that discriminate against white men.  They are replacing e pluribus unum with what Theodore Roosevelt warned against: unrestrained immigration that will make us “a ‘polyglot boarding house‘ for the world.”

Buchanan is eloquent in describing the coordinated attack on Christian America and its replacement with the new religion of diversity, using the language of political correctness.  Equality, a French-Revolution word that does not appear in any of America’s founding documents, has been elevated to become our national goal instead of liberty.

Buchanan cherishes the hope that our political leaders will, in time, recognize that enough Americans still want to remain one nation under God and one people united by history, heritage and language.  He gives specific suggestions for how we can avoid driving off the cliff into national suicide.

Mark Steyn’s book delivers the same message, but in his uniquely different and delightful style.  As Ann Coulter said, “Only Mark Steyn can write about the decline of America and leave you laughing.”

Steyn is particularly critical of the failure of our educational system.  In 1940, a majority of Americans were schooled only from grade one to grade eight, and they grew up to be the greatest generation.

Now the plan is to keep kids in school from pre-Kindergarten until their mid or late twenties, laden with debt and coached to accept dependence rather than liberty.  And worse, it isn’t clear they have learned anything useful.

Steyn puts it to us bluntly: we can rediscover the animating principles of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the freedom to exploit our talents, or we can join the rest of the world in terminal decline.  His message is, “if you want a happy ending, it’s up to you.  Your call, America.”

Recent college grads sour on Obama, surveys say

School indoctrination doesn’t have much staying power when students graduate and are faced with reality.

Daily Caller:

A very large proportion of recent university graduates have soured on President Barack Obama, and many will vote GOP or stay at home in the 2012 election, according to two new surveys of younger voters.

“These rock-solid Obama constituents are free-agents,” said Kellyanne Conway, president of The Polling Company, based in Washington, D.C. She recently completed a large survey of college grads, and “they’re shopping around, considering their options, [and] a fair number will stay at home and sit it out,” she said.

The scope of this disengagement from Obama is suggested by an informal survey of 500 post-grads by Joe Maddalone, founder of Maddalone Global Strategies. Of his sample, 93 percent are aged between 22 and 28, 67 percent are male and 83 percent voted for Obama in 2008. But only 27 percent are committed to voting for Obama again, and 80 percent said they would consider voting for a Republican, said New York-based Maddalone.

That’s a drop of almost 60 points in support for Obama among this influential class of younger post-grad voters, who Maddalone recruited at conferences held at New York University and Thomson-Reuters’ New York headquarters.

The bad news for Obama was underlined May 19 with a report by a job-firm Adecco that roughly 60 percent of recent college-grads have not been able to find a full-time job in their preferred area. One-in-five graduates have taken jobs far from their training, one-in-six are dependent on their parents, and one-in-four say they’re in debt, according to the firm’s data.

Overall, roughly one-third of young voters have some college education, and one-half have college degrees, said Conway. Many are underemployed or unemployed, they’re worried about their debts and economic trends, and they’re worried about the value of their educations, she said. In 2012, she said, “I suspect a fair number will return to Obama, but maybe not enough, and not in the [swing] states where he needs them,” she said.

Those states include Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Indiana, Virginia and Iowa, she said. All were won by Obama in 2008, and all were lost in state-wide elections to GOP candidates in 2010, she said.

The GOP is making some progress towards earning their votes, Maddalone said. For example, 38 percent of his respondents said the GOP is “doing a good job addressing and engaging with young professionals,” and 58 percent said they would consider voting for the GOP “if you felt that Republicans were doing a good job addressing and engaging with young professionals.”

 

 

NYT: Students lose enthusiasm for Obama

 

New York Times News Service:

LAS VEGAS, Nev. — For much of the presidential election of 2008, Barack Obama’s campaign was Emma Guerrero’s life. She was one of a dozen volunteers who showed up at an Obama campaign office here every night, taking time from her studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to be part of what she still remembers as the most exciting period of her life.

It was largely because of Guerrero — and hundreds of other college students like her across the country — that Obama assembled a formidable machine that helped him roll to victory in 2008, a triumph that included putting Nevada into the Democratic column for the first time in 12 years.

“We did everything,” she said. “We went canvassing. Phone banking. Cleaning the offices. Taking out my bosses’ dry cleaning. Whatever they needed. It was such an amazing time because we all believed and wanted him to get elected.”

Guerrero said that she did not blame Obama for the 13.4 percent unemployment rate that has gripped this state, and that she was still likely to vote for him. But as she looks to graduation this June and her job hunt ahead, the emotion she feels is fear, and she cannot imagine having the time or spirit to work for Obama.

“I don’t think I could do it anymore,” she said. “That campaign was an amazing experience. But I don’t think I’m in the same mind-set anymore. He hasn’t really addressed the young people, and we helped him to get elected.”

Across this state — and in others where young voters were the fuel of the Obama organization, voting for him 2-to-1 over John McCain — the enthusiastic engine of the 2008 campaign has run up against the reality of a deadened job market for college students.

Interviews here and across the country suggest that most of his college supporters of 2008 are still inclined to vote for him. But the Obama ground army of 2008 is hardly ready to jump back into the trenches, potentially depriving Obama of what had been an important force in his victory.

Obama’s advisers, while acknowledging the shift, said they were confident that the loss of these workers would be negated by an influx of new students who have turned of voting age since 2008. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, said there had been 8 million voters ages 18 to 21 registered since the last election, most of whom were Democrats.

“Their brothers and sisters started it, and they are going to finish it,” Messina said Monday. “They are storming into our office. Our volunteer numbers are up from where we thought they would be.”

Yet even Obama’s supporters say it seems unlikely that the president — given the difficulties of these past three years and the mood of the electorate of all ages — will ever be able to replicate the youthful energy that became such a defining hallmark of his campaign.

In the last election, Sandra Allen hosted a group of fellow Brown University students at her home to call voters in North Carolina and Indiana on Election Day, a common practice in the Obama campaign. Obama won those states to the shock of Republicans.

Asked if she would be doing similar work for Obama this time, Allen responded: “Not now. And I will not be streaking across the main green of any campus with hundreds of thrilled people were he to be re-elected next year.”

Allen graduated last year and, after surveying the job market, decided to take refuge in graduate school to wait things out.

“I’m not optimistic,” she said.

Jason Tieg, 22, a student at Brigham Young University-Idaho, voted for Obama with great enthusiasm in 2008. But now, struggling to find a part-time job to help him through school, he is not even sure he would do that again.

“I got a job in July as a custodian on campus, but I lost it again when they needed to cut down,” he said. “I don’t know if I’ll support him next year.”

It is hard to find a state that more vividly illustrates the danger to Obama from declining enthusiasm among young voters than Nevada. Few parts of the country have been harder hit by this recession, with stubborn double-digit unemployment, an unending wave of mortgage foreclosures and huge numbers of homeless. And there are few states where young voters were so crucial to Obama’s victory.

Mark Triola, who was president of Young Democrats of Nevada in 2008, said at the time, the Democratic organization at UNLV was about three times as big as the Republican organization. By last year, he said, they were about equal, a trend that students there say has not changed this year.

(For his part, Triola graduated in the spring and found a job in the communications industry — “ideally probably not what I was looking for, but I don’t have any room to complain given what’s going on,” he said.)

Jolie Glaser, a gung-ho supporter of Obama in 2008 when she attended college here, has taken to doing volunteer work for a golf charity as she looks for a job in the nonprofit sector. Her enthusiasm for the president has dampened.

“It’s hard to be a passionate follower of him,” she said. “It’s easier to be a thoughtful supporter.”

 

EU Government and 21 Scientists: Drinking Water Does Not Hydrate

You cannot make this stuff up folks. The European Union Government after a three year study by 21 appointed scientists concluded that labels on drinking water saying that drinking water can help prevent dehydration was a false claim and have banned the claim with with penalty of jail time:

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Just when you think you have seen it all…

UK Telegraph:

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was   no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and   will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into   force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common   sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible.”

German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.

They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.

They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.

However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.

He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.

“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into   serious legal bother.

EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.

Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.

Prof Hahn, from the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University, said the European Commission had made another mistake with its latest ruling.

“What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.

“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and ho has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”

Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water [Stop drinking water or cut your fliud intake in half and see how fast you start to feel the effects of dehydration – Political Arena Editor].

He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.

“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”

Nothing “special about bottled water” except that it has water in it you pinheads. Of course these scientists and government appointees know that water hydrates. What this is about is an assault on the free market. If they have the power to put you in jail for claiming that water hydrates they can do anything. These are the kinds of people who want to run your health care.

Professor Gary Wolfram: ‘Occupy’ College Students Blind to Benefits of Capitalism

By Gary Wolfram William Simon Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Hillsdale College

 

Whenever  I watch media coverage of another Occupy Wall Street event I am reminded of an  exchange between Jewish protesters in the 1979 Monte Python movie Life  of Brian. One of the protesters asks another what the Romans have brought  to the area and the conversation goes like this:

Question: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? Answer: Brought peace? Response: Oh, peace – shut up!

The  point is that the Roman institutions brought a good deal to the area that was being overlooked by the protesters. The Wall Street  protesters, in their hatred of capitalism, overlook things including the  fact that over the last 100 years capitalism has reduced poverty more and  increased life expectancy more than in the 100,000 years prior.

Every semester  I ask my students: “What would you rather be? King of England in 1263  or you?” Turns out, students would rather be themselves. They enjoy using their iPhone, indoor plumbing, central heating,  refrigerators and electric lighting. All of these things are available  to the average person in America today and none of them were available to the  aristocracy when the West operated under the feudal system.

How  is it that for thousands of years mankind made very little progress in  increasing the standard of living and yet today half of the goods and  services you use in the next week did not exist when I was born? It wasn’t that there  was some change in the DNA such that we got smarter. The Greeks knew  how to make a steam engine 3,000 years ago and never made one. The difference  is in how we organize our economic system. The advent of market  capitalism in the mid 18th century made all of the difference.

We need not just  rely on historical data. Look at cross-section evidence. I try another experiment with my students. I tell them they are about to be born and  they can choose whatever country in the world they would like to be born  in. The only caveat is they will be the poorest person in that country.  Every student picks a country that is primarily organized in a market  capitalist system. No one picks a centrally planned state. No one says, “I want to  be the poorest person in North Korea, Cuba, or Zimbabwe,” countries which are at the bottom of the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic  Freedom.

What does it mean to be poor in our capitalist society that the Occupy Wall Street crowd so hates? Robert Rector of the  Heritage Foundation has several studies of those classified as poor by  the U.S. Census Bureau. He found that 80 percent of poor persons in the  United States in 2010 had air conditioning, nearly three quarters of  them had a car or truck, nearly two-thirds had satellite or cable television, half  had a personal computer and more than two-thirds had at least two rooms  per person.

Contrast this with what it means to be poor in Mumbai,  India, a country that is moving rapidly towards market capitalism but was burdened for decades with a socialist system. A recent story in The  Economist described Dharavi, a slum in Mumbai, where for many families  half of the family members must sleep on their sides in order for the entire  family to squeeze into its living space.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has shown a lack of understanding of how the market capitalist  system works. They appear to think that the cell phones they use, food  they eat, hotels they stay in, cars they drive, gasoline that powers the cars  they drive and all the myriad goods and services they consume every day  would be there under a different system, perhaps in more abundance.

But  there is no evidence this could be or ever has been the case. The  reason is that only market capitalism solves the two major problems that face  any economy-how to provide an incentive to innovate and how to solve the problem of decentralized information. The reason there is so much  innovation in a market system compared to socialism or other forms of  central planning is that profit provides the incentive for innovators to take  the risk needed to come up with new products.

My mother never once complained that we did not have access to the latest Soviet washing  machine. We never desired a new Soviet car. The socialist system relies  on what Adam Smith referred to as the benevolent butcher and while there  will undoubtedly be benevolent butchers out there, clearly a system that provides monetary rewards for innovators is much more dynamic and  successful. The profit that the Occupy Wall Street protesters decry is  the reason the world has access to clean water and anti-viral drugs.

The  other major problem that must be solved by any economic system is how to  deal with the fact that information is so decentralized. There is no way for a  central planner to know how many hot dogs 300 million Americans are  going to want at every moment in time. A central planner cannot know the relative  value of resources in the production of various goods and services.  Market capitalism solves that problem through the price system. If there are  too few hot dogs, the price of hot dogs will rise and more hot dogs will  be produced. If too many hot dogs are produced, the price of hot dogs will  fall and fewer will be produced.

Market capitalism is the key to the wealth of the masses. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in his 1920 book,  Socialism, only market capitalism can make the poor wealthy. Nobel  Laureate Friedrich Hayek in his famous 1945 paper, The Use of Knowledge in  Society, showed that only the price system in capitalism can create the  spontaneous order that ensures that goods will be allocated in a way that ensures  consumers determine the use of resources. The Occupy Wall Street  movement would make best use of its time and energy in protesting the encroachment of  the centrally planned state that led to the disaster of the Soviet  Union, fascist Germany, and dictatorial North Korea.