Black Obama Voter to Limbaugh: Will Vote Republican for the First Time Over Keystone

Obama’s veto of the Keystone oil deal with Canada is beyond stupid. It is instant jobs, instant oil from a friendly country in a strategically sound place. There is no sane reason to oppose it.

This is a great call into Rush today from a self-identified black man named Dennis who has finally abandoned not only his support for Obama but says he is considering dropping his support for the Democrat party too. And his tipping point was Obama’s pandering to environmentalists in rejecting the Keystone Pipeline.

Here’s the full call – VIDEO.

Whopping Lies: New Obama ad defends energy policy, Solyndra

This is amazing. The lies are so huge that I am about to break my own rule against Nazi comparisons: it smacks of Goebbles saying that the bigger the lie, the more people are likely to believe it. The lies in this video are beyond whopping and are easily demonstrated with readily available facts.

 

16 Scientists: No compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.

16 Scientists:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;

J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;

Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;

Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;

Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;

William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;

Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;

William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;

Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; 

James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;

Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;

Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;

Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;

Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;

Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;

Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

 

Palin Defends Newt Again: Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

For the second time in a week Sarah Palin has spoken out about the dishonest and unfair attacks against Newt Gingrich.

Sarah Palin:

Sarah Palin

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

Read more HERE.

Evidence that Romney Lied about Newt Lobbying Freddie Mac

PROOF that Mitt Romney lied about Newt Gingrich and Freddie Mac (Hat Tip Steven Tucker)

1.) READ this NY Times article from 2008 where Newt was working the House to oppose Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae’s interests: http://nyti.ms/wWcrUy 

2.) WATCH this video from 2008:  http://youtu.be/-uCRKm28cWw 

3.) READ – http://bit.ly/zlQSlr

4.) READ this article in the Washington Post where former Congressman J.C. Watts, who was the head of the Freddie mac watch group in the House, said that Newt never tried to influence on Freddie Mac while Watts was in the House.

Business Insider: 14 Bald-Faced Mitt Romney Flip-Flops That Were Dug Up By John McCain

Each lie is elaborated on in the article

Business Insider:

#1 On Immigration – For A Path To Citizenship, Then Against:

FLIP: “Gov. Mitt Romney expressed support … for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship … Romney said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship.”  (Evan Lehmann, “Romney Supports Immigration Program, But Not Granting ‘Amnesty’,” The Lowell Sun, 3/30/06)

FLOP: “[I] think I’m best off to describe my own positions. And my positions, I think I’ve just described for you – secure the border, employment verification and no special pathway to citizenship. I feel that’s the course we ought to take.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 5/22/07)

#2 On George W. Bush’s Tax-Cuts:

FLIP: “[R]omney spoke at the 10th annual legislative conference organized by U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) and met with the Massachusetts delegation. … Congressional sources said that a point of contention arose when Romney refused to take a position on Bush’s massive, 10-year tax cut plan.” (Noelle Straub, “Romney Talks Policy With Bush Staffers, Mass. Delegation,” Boston Herald, 4/11/03)

FLOP: “McCain opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, Romney noted. ‘I supported them,’ the former governor said.” (Lee Bandy, “Romney Targeting McCain,” The State [SC], 2/4/07)

#3 Anti-Reagan then, now Pro-Reagan:

FLIP: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan- Bush,” Mitt Romney said during a debate with Ted Kennedy

FLOP: “‘Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes,’ Romney said as he praised Reagan’s strategy for winning the Cold War: ‘We win; they lose.’” (Michael Levenson, “Romney Links Gay Marriage, US Prestige,” The Boston Globe, 2/26/05)

# 4 On The National Rifle Association And Gun Laws:

FLIP:  “[Romney] said he will take stands that put him at odds with some traditional ultra- conservative groups, and cited his support for the assault rifle ban and the Brady gun control law. ‘That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,’ he said. ‘I don’t line up with a lot of special interest groups.’” (Andrew Miga, “Mitt Rejects Right-Wing Aid,” Boston Herald, 9/23/94)

FLOP:  Romney told a Derry, N.H., audience, ‘I’m after the NRA’s endorsement. I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.’” (Glen Johnson, “Romney Calls Himself A Longtime Hunter,” The Associated Press, 4/5/07)

#5  On Whether He Even Owns A Gun (This story changed within just a few days):

FLIP: “I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I’m a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms,” Romney said. (Glenn And Helen Show, http://www.glennandhelenshow.com, 1/10/07)

FLOP“Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned a gun, Romney said he did not. He said one of his sons, Josh, keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah, and he uses them ‘from time to time.’” (Scott Helman, “Romney Retreats On Gun Control,” The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)

Read more HERE.

 

 

 

 

 

Washington Post: Ron Paul Signed Off On Racist Newsletters

Editor’s Note – I was a radio talk show host for much of this time and some people would send me copies of his newsletter and indeed there were parts that were antisemitic and presented strange conspiracy theories. I was repulsed by those newsletters and by similar publications such as The Spotlight. Late night talk radio and the short wave programs talked about these Newsletters from time to time so it is unlikely in the extreme that the content did not get back to him. I do consider some of Ron Paul’s views to be antisemitic, but unfortunately too many of his supporters are antisemitic as I  have witnessed both online and at large GOP events where Ron Paul supporters are bused in such as CPAC.

Washington Post:

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

Yet a review of his enterprises reveals a sharp-eyed businessman who for nearly two decades oversaw the company and a nonprofit foundation, intertwining them with his political career. The newsletters, which were launched in the mid-1980s and bore such names as the Ron Paul Survival Report, were produced by a company Paul dissolved in 2001.

The company shared offices with his campaigns and foundation at various points, according to those familiar with the operation. Public records show Paul’s wife and daughter were officers of the newsletter company and foundation; his daughter also served as his campaign treasurer.

Jesse Benton, a presidential campaign spokesman, said that the accounts of Paul’s involvement were untrue and that Paul was practicing medicine full time when “the offensive material appeared under his name.” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,” Benton said. He did not comment on Paul’s business strategy.

Mark Elam, a longtime Paul associate whose company printed the newsletters, said Paul “was a busy man” at the time. “He was in demand as a speaker; he was traveling around the country,’’ Elam said in an interview coordinated by Paul’s campaign. “I just do not believe he was either writing or regularly editing this stuff.’’

Real GDP Tanked at 1.7%. Food Stamps and Welfare at Record Levels

Business Insider:

1.7%. That’s the final, pathetic growth number for 2011.

From the just-released GDP report:

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

The increase in real GDP in 2011 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from state and local government spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending.  Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

 

Business Insider:

Direct payments. The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.

Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Disability. The number of people on Social Security disability has steadily climbed since the 1970s, thanks mainly to easier eligibility rules. But their numbers jumped 10% in Obama’s first two years in office, according to the Social Security Administration. That sharp rise was due largely to meager job prospects since the recession ended in 2009. When employment opportunities are scarce, experts note, many who could otherwise work sign up for disability benefits instead.

 

Mark Levin Teams Up With Reagan Admin’s Jeffrey Lord In Defense Of Newt Gingrich

Note both Mark Levin and Jeffery Lord worked in the Ronald Reagan Administration. This video is a MUST see. 

Mini-UPDATE

Chuck DeVore:

Very disappointed in Elliott Abrams’ unjust smear of Newt Gingrich, claiming that he was somehow opposed to Reagan in a 1986 floor speech. In 1986 I was a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon where I worked as a Congressional liaison in the area of defense and foreign policy. I knew Gingrich then as an ally of Reagan, not an opponent or a squishy Republican.

 

Reagan Administration Official Jeffery Lord:

Newt Gingrich was at one with Ronald Reagan on values. I never heard Elliot Abrahms say the things he said about Newt – ever.

I find what Mitt and his surrogates are doing disturbing……

Mrs. Reagan and Michael Reagan insist that Newt was with Reagan the whole time. Rush Limbaugh says that he Remembers Newt Gingrich doing special orders in the House Well proclaiming Reaganism.

Jeffery Lord in American Spectator:

Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt

In fact, I’m sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really????

What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan? The pieces invariably following the Romney line that Newt had some version of nothing to do with Reagan.

A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines — which it did — by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.

Not so fast.

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Read the rest HERE.

Editor’s Florida Debate II Thoughts….

CSteven Tucker:

“Over the top rhetoric” coming from MITTENS? You’ve GOT to be KIDDING ME!

 

Editor:

Romney says “follow the law” that is a nice sound bite, but when Obama starts running ads saying that Romney is coming after the Latina grandma we will see Romney adopt Newt’s position real fast.

 

Editor:

You know, if Romney hadn’t gone hack ‘n slash ‘n lie in Iowa onward none of this would be going on like this. Newt tried to be positive but when you have millions in attack ads launched against you one has to fight back.

Now Romney says “follow the law” when it comes to illegals in the country. That is a nice sound bite, but when Obama starts running ads saying that Romney is coming after the Latina grandma we will see Romney adopt Newt’s position so fast it will make our heads spin.

While there is a degree of demagoguery going on by everyone, that one from Romney was just over the top.

Also Mitt Romney was on Meet The Press just a couple of years ago calling for amnesty and in the first debate told Rick Perry that one not be too against illegal immigration. It is maddening and why doesn’t CNN ask Mitt about that?

 

Chuck DeVore:

CNN Debate: Newt Gingrich: my goal is to shrink government to fit the revenue, not increase the revenue to fit the government.

 

Editor:

Newt: What does NASA do now that it has mismanaged itself into having no space vehicle? Does it sit down and think space? – Great!

 

Editor:

Santorum is going after everyone with some degree of effectiveness.

Santorum – We cannot give up this issue to Obama, this is about fundamental freedom! Santorum is right about Romney.

The issue is that RomneyCare was so inflationary that most of the private guys fled the state.

Go Rick Go!! That is absolutely right and the study [that talks about the expense of RomneyCare] is on my web site! – LINK

 

Editor:

Almost every question Wolf asks keeps Obama out of criticism……..and when Santorum went after Obama it was “Move on….”

Good answer from Mitt Romney on Israel/Palestine.

 

Final Thoughts:

Romney had a good night, but make no mistake, he is trying to be above the fray while his surrogates smear everyone and if Rick Santorum does well in Florida he will be next.

Newt was unwise to go after Mitt on the Freddie/Fannie stock. Millions of people had those stocks….. Who the heck is his communications team?

I didn’t ask for a neat and tidy campaign, I am asking for something a little less revolting… I can play rough. But destroying the Republican Party in the process is not a great plan going into the general as evidenced by the fact that Obama’s poll numbers are up three points in the last two weeks… this kind of smear crap damages the entire Republican brand and Mitt doesn’t care.

That is bad for the general, but that also says something about what his leadership style will be, it is ALL about HIM.

Newt was unwise to go after Mitt on the Freddie/Fannie stock. Millions of people had those stocks….. Who the heck is his communications team? I would never have made such a mistake.Newt should fire his comm director and hire me.

The first time Obama nails Mitt with “You will send ICE after Latina grandmothers” Mitt will adopt Newt’s position so fast it will make our head’s spin. And really all, that exchange on what to do about illegals is SO indicative of these two men. Newt is absolutely right. Mitt can say “Just follow the law” and you know… that sounds so nice. It is so easy to say. Well Speaker Gingrich understands full well the difference between the law and the law applied.

Of course so does Mitt Romney and that shows how incredibly disingenuous he is. I could not do what Mitt did and look in the eyes of my kids at night.

Just remember what this picture did to Bill Clinton and Janet Reno… I guarantee you David Axelrod will use something similar against Mitt Romney and he will lose the Hispanic vote just like that…

Mitt Romney's Illegal Immigration Solution: Self-deport or....

 

Palin: Establishment trying to crucify Newt, rewrite history (video)

Washington Examiner:

“I sure am….he is not the only one vilified, though, look at Newt Gingrich, what’s going on with him, via the establishment’s attacks. They’re trying to crucify this man and rewrite history, and rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years. It’s not just Ron Paul. I believe it is also Newt Gingrich that the establishment, that the liberal media, certainly that the progressives and Democrats don’t like.”