Wow, an honest ad from Mitt Romney. I was beginning to wonder if they were capable of it. This ad is spot on accurate.
Wow, an honest ad from Mitt Romney. I was beginning to wonder if they were capable of it. This ad is spot on accurate.
Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.
Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.
The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.
Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.
Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.
Doherty, a political science professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, has also analysed presidential travel to battleground or swing states, which change and fluctuate in number with each election cycle.
In their first years in office, Carter visited eight out of 18 battleground states and Reagan seven out of 17. Bush Snr, Clinton and Bush Jnr all visited around three-quarters of battleground states while Obama went to all 15 within his first 12 months.
In his State of the Union speech in January, Obama bemoaned the ‘corrosive influence of money in politics’. The following month, he reversed course and announced he was allowing cabinet members and top advisors to speak at big money events for so-called super PACs – unaccountable outside groups raising money for his re-election.
During the 2008 election, Obama abandoned a pledge to opt for public funding of his campaign, instead opting to raise an unlimited amount privately. He then raised and spent approximately $730million, almost double the campaign funds of Senator John McCain, his Republican opponent.
Up to the end of March, Obama had raised $191.6million for his re-election bid, compared to $86.6million raised by his Republican challenger Mitt Romney. His frenetic fundraising activities are in part because he is lagging behind campaign expectations. Early last year, some advisers spoke privately of raising $1billion.
President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending than the five presidents that came before him.
A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn’t reflect well on Obama.
“There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration,” David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. “Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus… but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level.”
Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade.
Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949. The last time spending was higher—in 1946, it was 24.8—the country was just coming down from the exorbitant rates of spending during World War II.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would cut federal spending down to just 17 percent of GDP.
President Obama is facing some heat over the economy Friday after a depressing job report showed the jobless rate climbed to 8.2 percent in May.
Of course, this is the same goal of the progressive secular left.
by Mohamed Akram
May 19, 1991
This May 1991 memo was written by Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the introductory letter, Akram referenced a “long-term plan…approved and adopted” by the Shura Council in 1987 and proposed this memo as a supplement to that plan and requested that the memo be added to the agenda for an upcoming Council meeting. Appended to the document is a list of all Muslim Brotherhood organizations in North America as of 1991.
The Weekly Standard has more details – LINK
Obama orders that the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House be removed and now this.
This is revolting. While young people may not know, Lech Walesa was THE resistance leader behind the Iron Curtain. People think of Ronald Reagan ending the Cold War, but Reagan was safe in DC. Lech Walesa was our ally behind The Wall. Walesa is a hero in every sense of the word. Walesa was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet System.
If a president were to bow to any man, this is the man to bow to. To be given this treatment is simply unforgivable.
Rory Cooper writes in National Review:
Lech Walesa, a hero in every sense of the word.
Lech Walesa was once a trade-union activist. He was often arrested for speaking his mind against Communist oppression behind the Iron Curtain in Poland and for defying the Soviet Union. He was an electrician who, with no higher education, led one of the most profound freedom movements of the 20th century — Solidarity. He became president of Poland and swept in reforms, pushing the Soviet Union out of his homeland and moving the country toward a free-market economy and individual liberty. And President Obama doesn’t want him to set foot in the White House.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Polish officials requested that Walesa accept the Medal of Freedom on behalf of Jan Karski, a member of the Polish Underground during World War II who was being honored posthumously this week. The request makes sense. Walesa and Karski shared a burning desire to rid Poland of tyrannical subjugation. But President Obama said no.
Administration officials told the Journal that Walesa is too “political.” A man who was arrested by Soviet officials for dissenting against the government for being “political” is being shunned by the United States of America for the same reason 30 years later.
Meanwhile, one of the recipients of the Medal was Dolores Huerta, the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. So socialist politics are acceptable, but not the politics of a man who stood up and fought socialism.
This revelation follows an eruption of outrage in Poland after President Obama referred in his remarks at the Medal of Freedom ceremony to “Polish death camps,” a phrase that Poles have battled since the end of the Cold War. The phrase suggests that Poles were complicit in Nazi concentration camps, which of course is not the case. In fact, Poles were exterminated in the camps.
The White House’s flippant response to the uproar caused the Polish president and prime minister to demand more thoughtful and personal reactions. But White HousePress Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president has no plans to reach out to his Polish counterparts and has shrugged off the outrage in Poland.
Ironically, Lech Walesa shares a distinction with President Obama: They both won Nobel Peace Prizes. Walesa earned his in 1983 after years of fighting for peace and freedom, and being monitored, harassed, and jailed for it. President Obama received his award in 2009. Some may think that this would be enough of a bond for President Obama to set aside political differences for the greater good. But instead, President Obama treated Walesa the same way he treated the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, who was ushered out the White House kitchen past piles of garbage in 2010.
$870,000 in debt the day he graduates from high school…..
By Charlie Kirk
In two weeks I will graduate from Wheeling High School. It is going to be a day to remember for the rest of my life. My principal will hand me a diploma, but that diploma is also an invoice for $870,000 – my share of America’s 2012 debt burden. The average American earns $1.3 million during their working career. When we factor in future deficit spending and interest, every single high school student owes the federal government more than they will ever earn in their lifetime. Since the day I was born, the United States has accrued eleven trillion dollars worth of new debt; and for those eighteen years of my existence, I haven’t even had a say in it.
Last August, as I watched our divided government tear our democracy apart, my friend Mike Diamond and I decided to take action against Washington’s disregard for the future of this country.
It all began as an idea, to speak for our generation, the one who will be paying for Washington’s massive debts and deficits.
Mike and I spoke at political organizations all across Illinois, working our way up the local political ladder. As we progressed we noticed individuals were very sympathetic to our cause; not only because we are students, but because it’s difficult to argue with common sense.
Growing up I was taught the basic principle of not spending money I don’t have. However, this traditional American value seems to have sunk in a sea of debt.
Over the past two months Mike and I began organizing a network of concerned students from all across the country. Through Facebook and Twitter we reached over four million people. Our message of fiscal responsibility and living within your means was resonating all across the country.
We decided, in collaboration with close friends and family, to name our organization SOS Liberty. SOS is the international distress call for help, which is appropriate since my generation is drowning in an ocean on debt. Without real solutions and reforms we will never be able turn this ship around. But first, the distress call has to be heard.
I noticed that politics was the last thing on my friends’ minds. “I’ll start caring about politics when I turn eighteen,” they would say. Unfortunately, most teenagers do not have an “on” and “off” switch that flips the day they turn eighteen, making them care about politics. Most teenagers don’t realize that they will be stuck with a tab that’s been running for generations. They don’t realize that every cent will have to be paid back — plus interest.
That’s where SOS Liberty comes in. Our goal is to change the conversation. Change the conversation of teenagers, so they realize the negative implications of such a large debt.
Be sure to see our previous post about labor participation rates.
(CNSNews.com) – The number of American women who are unemployed was 766,000 individuals greater in May 2012 than in January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In January 2009, there were approximately 5,005,000 unemployed women in the United States, according to BLS. In May 2012, there were 5,771,000.
The BLS derives its employment statistics from an overall number it calls the civilian non-institutional population. This includes all Americans 16 or over who are not on active duty in the military and who are not in an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home. From this civilian non-institutional population, BLS determines a subset it calls the civilian labor force, which includes all members of the civilian non-institutional population who are either employed or have made specific efforts to find work in the past four weeks. People who are not employed and who have not sought work in the past four weeks are considered by the BLS to have dropped out of the labor force.
Unemployed people are those who are in the labor force but do not have a job—despite having looked for one in the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is the percentage of the overall civilian labor force that does not have a job—that is, who have sought a job in the past four weeks and not found one.
In January 2009, according to BLS, the unemployment rate for American women was 7.0 percent. In May 2012, it was 7.9 percent.
When Obama took office in January 2009, the female civilian non-institutional population was 121,166,000. In May 2012, it hit 125,788,000—an increase of 4,622,000 since January 2012.
However, at the same time the female civilian non-institutional population was increasing, the percentage participating in the labor force was declining—following a long-term trend. In January 2009, 59.4 percent of women participated in the labor force, while in May 2012 it was 57.8.
May’s 57.8 percent female participation rate in the labor force was up from April’s rate of 57.6 percent—but that level (57.6 percent) was the lowest it had been since March 1993.Female participation in the labor force peaked at 60.3 percent in April 2000. The last time it was above 60 percent was March 2001, when it hit 60.2 percent.
Despite the increase in the female non-institutional population over the past three years, the actual number of women employed in the United States in May 2012 was about 83,000 lower than it was in January 2009. In January 2009, there were 66,969,000 women employed in the United States and in May 2012 there were 66,886,000.
The number of women employed in the United States peaked at 68,102,000 in April 2008, according to BLS. The number of women employed in the United States today is 1,216,000 less than that.
Case in point, government is not nearly as good at redistributing wealth as they are at destroying it.
How much of their wealth did you get?
America’s millionaire population declined last year for the first time since the financial crisis, according to a new report.
The population of U.S. millionaire households (households with investible assets of $1 million or more) fell to 5,134,000 from 5,263,000 in 2011, according to The Boston Consulting Group’s Global Wealth study.
Total private wealth in North America fell by 0.9 percent, to $38 trillion.
The ultra-rich were the largest losers in dollar terms. Households in North America with investible assets of more than $100 million saw their wealth decline 2.4 percent. Their population declined slightly to 2,928 from 2,989.