Thursday, September 1
Charles Krauthammer: Obama Is "Clueless And, For Now, Irrelevant"
Obama may well be the dumbest President in U.S. history. The evidence is overwhelming.
His stuttering incoherent rants, plus his total lack of understanding of the world we live in, has proven him a national embarrassment.
Charles Krauthammer is not always right, but he is this time.
"We just heard that soundbite from Jay Carney in which he said, 'The president will have specific ideas on debt reduction.' Will have? This is after the government announced today that the deficit for this fiscal year -- we're only 10 months in, two months to go -- already has exceeded a trillion dollars. After '09 and '10, you add this year's deficit -- here's a president who has run up $4 trillion in debt in less than three years, and he still will 'later' have ideas on reducing the debt. He is clueless and, for now, irrelevant."
Gasoline close to record high before Labor Day
I can remember years ago this would been a problem with $3.68/gallon gasoline. Since many drivers are staying home and driving less, the pain isn't hurting them in the pockets. However, the price of gas is way to high to be considered the norm.
(Yahoo) NEW YORK (AP) -- Gasoline is nearly the highest it's ever been for this time of year, just ahead of the Labor Day weekend.
The run-up in oil prices this year, combined with a rash of refining problems throughout the U.S., has boosted pump prices. The national average on Thursday was $3.629 per gallon. Drivers will pay more for gasoline this Sept. 1 than in any other year except 2008, when pump prices hit an average of $3.686.
Retail gasoline prices are rising in the U.S. even though motorists are buying less. Analysts say they have been pushed higher by a steady rise in international gasoline demand. Americans may be using less, but drivers in developing nations are using more.
"It's all part of being in a global market," said Tom Kloza, publisher and chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service.
Americans are using so little gasoline that the U.S. has been a net exporter of refined fuels to other countries for the past nine weeks.
Ann Coulter Evolves Past Darwinism
Everyone has known this for years, but hats off to Ann Coulter for shoving it in the faces of the degenerate liberals.
The only thing that she left out was the Recapitulation or "Hopeful Monster Theory." This is where they try to explain away the lack of intermediates in the fossil record by saying that things evolved in such short spurts that the there was not enough time for them to be captured in strata.
You know it happens everyday; a hapless lizard is crawling along minding his own business, and then puff it turns into a horse in mid stride.
Be sure to clink here and read the rest of Ann's piece. You will enjoy imagining liberal heads exploding, as they realize that what she is saying is real science.
The only thing that she left out was the Recapitulation or "Hopeful Monster Theory." This is where they try to explain away the lack of intermediates in the fossil record by saying that things evolved in such short spurts that the there was not enough time for them to be captured in strata.
You know it happens everyday; a hapless lizard is crawling along minding his own business, and then puff it turns into a horse in mid stride.
Be sure to clink here and read the rest of Ann's piece. You will enjoy imagining liberal heads exploding, as they realize that what she is saying is real science.
But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.")
If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.
Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."
• THE JIMMY Z THURSDAY SHOW™
• THE JIMMY Z THURSDAY SHOW™
Andre Carson: The Tea Party wants to hang blacks
Black caucus very frustrated by inept black President
Mitt Romney to speak at Tea Party Express rally http://thejimmyzshow.blogspot.com/2011/09/jimmy-z-thursday-show.html
Kevin Jackson On Fox: Racist Blacks Voted For Obama Because He's Black, Not Because He's Qualified
Kevin Jackson (The Black Sphere) is a stand up guy who is not afraid to tell it like it is; his book is a must read.
Obama Comments On Sarah Palin And The 2012 Election
He, he, he, he , upt, upt, et et et, if if if duh! ... This guy is dumb as a box of rocks.
He did mention Palin but who knows what his point is? Not only is Obama a know nothing, I am not so sure he even suspects anything.
Pathetic
Bill Whittle: Afterburner: The Truth Is Out There
PJTV's Bill Whittle exposes the basic problems with leftist ideology and how it obfuscates the concept of "truth."
My Introduction to Ron Paul Supporters
By Thom Paine – the Independent Realist
Recently, well, actually yesterday, as I was on Facebook
I noticed a wall posting promoting Ron Paul. Although the posting was decidedly
biased in favor of Paul, I went ahead and read the post and watched to pro-Ron
Paul video that had been attached to it. Simply put, it was a nice presentation
of Ron Paul talking points, most (if not all) I had read before when I did my
review
of him.
Now, I would like to point out that I do agree with some
of Ron Paul’s views, and when I responded to the Facebook post, I indicated the
same. I then went on to explain the Ron Paul policies that I did not care for,
and I used my review of Paul (as well as the sources accompanying the review)
as a source for my response.
Although I would dearly love to include each and every
post in that Facebook debate, I cannot. The reason being, is that the Ron Paul
supporter (we’ll call him “John”) has either deleted the entire discussion, or
has since limited his “wall” posts to his Facebook friends only. Either way,
they are now unavailable to me. That being said, however, I was able to copy
all of his responses to my posts in this discussion, all but his original post,
and my first two responses. Read ahead to witness someone who is so enamored
with his political candidate of choice that he will eschew all rational
discussion and revert to insults, mockery, and belittlement. If this is any
indication of how the candidate himself thinks, then I can assure you that I
would rather eat barbed wire than vote for Ron Paul. [Note, I have included
those portions of the discussion that I was able retrieve verbatim. Please
excuse John’s spelling and grammatical errors, as I think I upset him].
Photo
of Ron Paul and "John" (face obscured for his privacy), from John’s Facebook
photo album
The first post by John contained little more than Ron
Paul talking points, and although it did not attack any other candidate or
point of view, I still responded with my view points (as is common on
Facebook), and I pointed out my disagreement with Paul’s stance that the 9/11
attacks were America’s fault, his condoning of embryonic stem cell research,
and his view that should individual states choose to legalize heroin, meth,
prostitution or shariah law, then that was okay by him. John’s response was:
John
wrote: "@ thom: you have completely distorted dr. paul's
views - for example: 9/11 is not our "fault", but we encourage
hostility by policing the world and nation-building! they don't hate us for our
"freedom" as some simpletons would have you believe, they focus their
irrational hated at us BECAUSE WE ARE IN THEIR COUNTRIES! how you would you
feel if china was policing our nation? why do we not follow dr. paul by return
to our conservative principles and pulling out of the UN and NATO and NOT
police the world and NOT nation-build (neither of which we can afford!), and
FOLLOW our Constitution by a congressional declaration of war which republicans
and democrats both neglected! "It is our true policy to steer clear of
entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of
conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial
relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
- Ggeorge Washington “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States
never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests
are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of
power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government,
are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war.” - Thomas Jefferson
(1823) "In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe
may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment,
is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." - George
Washington suggesting ron paul doesn't respect the life of an unborn baby is a
complete lie - you need to research dr. paul's record before you make such
accusations. che: Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research: http://www.facebook.com/l/tAQDoNZs3/www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8 ron
paul on stem cell: http://www.facebook.com/l/kAQB93InW/www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tNLcJ_RVWs&feature=related as
far as saying ron paul WANTS to legalize heroin, etc - it is another distortion
of the truth! what dr. paul wants IS TO FOLLOW OUR CONSTITUTION and let the
states regulate themselves on such matters! "The powers delegated by the
proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those
which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
- James Madison (Father of the US Constitution and author of Federalist No. 45)
how is following the advice of our founding fathers and sticking to our
constitutional restrictions of the federal government the same as obama? you
probably don't think obamacare is constitutional, but then you want to grow the
federal government's regulating powers beyond the insight of our founders and
cage of our constitution and strip the states of powers. can't pick and choose
when to follow the constitution when it suits you or when not to or you are
just as tyrannical as the left (and right). it's not just about dr. paul, but
the constitutional platform which he defends! show me any other candidate that
does so and i'll support them as well, but there is none... i'm serious about
that: i challenge you to show me which presidential candidate is as principled
and defends the conservative/constitutional platform as dr. paul - i'm all
ears!"
My response to this was to indicate that I had not
distorted Ron Paul’s views. I merely pointed out that in Paul saying that the
singular motivation behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11 was America’s presence
in a foreign country was akin to saying the attacks were our fault, which is
exactly what Paul is saying. We are there so they attacked us. If we were not
there, they would not have attacked us. I pointed out that I had studied the
koran and that the koran instructs all true muslims to attack and kill all
non-muslims whether they are in their country or not, and the subjugation of
all religions and all non-muslims is the goal if islam. This is what the koran
teaches. I did not say that Ron Paul wanted to legalize heroin, I said (and as
it was written, all John had to do was read what I wrote) that Paul’s viewpoint
was if a state wanted to legalize heroin it was okay by him. He would allow
that. I took that reasoning to its logical conclusion to point out that
following Paul’s line of reasoning, if a state wanted to legalize crack houses,
meth labs, or brothels next door to elementary schools, or if they wanted to
implement shariah law in their state, then he would do nothing to stop them. I
also provided a video link in which Ron Paul clearly states that as long as
embryonic stem cell research does not result in an abortion of the unborn baby,
then he says it is okay by him (Video Link Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jatLLsO3Ts).
My view is that no unborn child should ever be used for experimental research.
Since John challenged me to provide him with the name of another presidential
candidate who is “principled and defends the conservative/constitutional
platform,” I offered up my candidate of choice, Herman Cain. John’s response,
as well as the remainder of our discussion – verbatim, is as follows:
John
wrote: "@ thom: i don't know how much more simple i can
present the fact our intervention in other countries is the reason they dislike
us. how do we know this? BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT'S WHY THEY DISLIKE US! if you
think they are lying about why (for some unknown reason), listen to the insight
of the Former CIA unit in charge of hunting Bin Laden, Michael Scheuer, who
said: "What they hate us for is the unusually virulent strain of obsessive
compulsive disorder that's present in the American governing class, and that's
called interventionism. That's what the cause of this war is." ...
"That's what the cause of this war is. And neither Mr. McCain, nor Mr.
Obama, nor Mrs. Clinton, nor any of the rest of them who are in the
campaign-except Mr. (Ron) Paul...", http://www.facebook.com/l/pAQD3bVbH/www.nolanchart.com/article2888_Michael_Scheuer_Says_Ron_Paul_Understands_Cause_of_Terrorism.html. apparently you know more
than the former CIA agent in charge of hunting bin laden... if you think they
still hate us for our "freedom", there is no reasoning with you. i do
find it hypocritical of you to think we should continue to abandon conservative
values by disregarding our constitution and police the world and
nation-building and continue to go further into debt in the process... as far
as states exercising their constitutional rights to potentially legalizing some
drugs - you described this as "Following this line of Ron Paul's
reasoning" - that reasoning is the reasoning of our founding fathers and
our constitutional! let's do a quick lesson in founding father history 101 -
again: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison (Father of the
US Constitution and author of Federalist No. 45) so let me get this straight -
if you had YOUR way, you would remove the leath of the constitution from the
federal government and allow the feds to absorp state rights and assume more
power... as long as you think it's ok, but obamacare is unconstitutional. you
are just as bad as democrats on ignoring our founding fathers and spitting on
our constitutiion. you have NO claim to our history and to Constitutional
principle. in your mind, somehow states are soooo incompetent, that they need
an unconstitutional federal government to stop them from having "crack
houses" next to schools. what state do you live in? how's this - i trust
my state far more than i trust an unconstitutional federal government, but
apparently you think that your "opinion" is more important than the
designs of our founders and our constitutiion. again, you must be a pretty
smart guy... as far as stem cell research - a medical dr. (ron paul) who has
the strongest pro-life record going talks about the complications of stem cell
research, but your apparently hermain cain declined to sign the pro-life
pledge. let's take a further look into hermain cain's record: Herman Cain's
political donation record (OpenSecrets.org): 1. Donated to NY Democrat Rep.
Jose E. Serrano - $250 on 12/23/1993 2. Donated to Nebraska Democrat Sen. Bob
Kerrey - $250 on 9/3/1993 3. Donated to Nebraska Democrat Rep. Peter Hoagland
(Nebraska ’s 2nd District) against Republican Jon Lynn Christensen in 1994. He
gave $500 to Hoagland – but Christensen won as part of the Republican
Revolution of 1994 anyway. 4. Donated to money to Democrat Ben Nelson ( Nebraska
) - $500 on 6/5/1996 and record: 1. Herman Cain supported the TARP bailouts. He
even wrote a column to vigorously argue in favor of the Wall Street bailout in
2008, writing: "Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in
America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a
problem." Cain derided opponents of the bailouts as "free market
purists." That sounds more like something Rachel Maddow would call Tea
Partiers than something a true Tea Partier would use as an insult. 2. Herman
Cain enthusiastically endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2008. Herman Cain
called Mitt Romney his "No. 1 choice" for president. Remember that
Mitt "RINO" brought socialized medicine to Massachusetts as governor,
and his "RomneyCare" legislation would eventually form the blueprint
for ObamaCare, which all true Tea Partiers strongly opposed! How can a
"Tea Party candidate" like Herman Cain endorse someone like Mitt
Romney for president? 3. Herman Cain opposes an audit of the Federal Reserve.
Actually a former chairman of the Federal Reserve bank of Kansas City, Herman
Cain opposes an audit of the Federal Reserve bank and supports its continued
existence and manipulation of our dollar. This isn't even just a Tea Party
issue. 80% of ALL AMERICANS want an audit of the Fed. Herman Cain doesn't. on
second thought, hermain cain's record is clearly conservative and
principled/consistent - if one was a political bisexual (and i hate to insult
bisexuals with that comparison)... strange cain only got 140 votes in the Iowa
Straw Poll..."
Chasing Jefferson--"Tea Party" Racism . . . Not!
How long has this been goin’ on?
How long has this been goin’ on?
Well your friends with their fancy persuasion
Don’t admit that it’s part of the scheme.
But I can’t help but have my suspicion,‘Cause I ain’t quite as dumb as I seem.
—Ace, How Long
Congressional Black Caucus Whip Andre Carson, referring to the “Tea Party” told a group in Miami last week:
“The Tea Party is stopping that change . . . This is the effort that we’re seeing of Jim Crow. Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us [black people] as second-class citizens . . . Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree.”
This is a consistent message now being trumpeted across the country by the Left and particularly members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and it’s obvious it’s going to be the centerpiece of their 2012 campaign: the Tea Party is a bunch of racists at war with and out to lynch black people. And we can all go straight to hell for it.
Racism. Jim Crow. Lynching. War. You, American Citizen, can go to hell. From Congressmen. Where, oh, where, is the Annointed One, the Great Uniter, the Post-Racial President who has repeatedly called for toning down overheated rhetoric? Maybe this is on his “to-do” list if and when he ever gets off the damn golf course.
While we wait for President Obama, let’s clear up a couple of things, because Representative Carson and his Black Caucus colleagues are exposing a startling level of ignorance. First, there is no “Tea Party” as such. It isn’t an entity, and it has no organization, structure, or official leadership. The “Tea Party” is a philosophy or world view that in the last couple of years has manifested itself in a true grass roots movement as people of like persuasion have become fed up with the way business is done in the District.
And what, exactly, is that philosophy or world view, you ask?
It’s quite simple, really. What the people who make up the Tea Party movement are about is restoring liberty—for everyone—by reducing the size and influence of the federal government, and reducing taxes and spending. That’s it. Indeed, the moniker “Tea Party” had its origins as “T.E.A.” Party, meaning Taxed Enough Already. The idea is that we all—again, that’s everyone, including black people—prosper when government gets out of the way and allows us the freedom to apply our individual efforts and talents to take responsibility for ourselves and to provide for ourselves. When Tea Party advocates speak of “restoring” the government to its constitutional moorings, we're not expressing a wistful longing for the glory days of 1950s segregation or 1850s slavery (and lest I be misconstrued and called a racist yet again, I use the phrase “glory days” as a sarcastic caricature of what we’re accused of); we're referring solely to returning government to the size and scope it was originally intended. It has absolutely nothing to do with race, and it isn’t in any way aimed at black people except insofar as they are included in the “all of us” who would benefit from smaller government and greater liberty.
Let me repeat: what Tea Party folks want is to reduce the size of government and let people keep more of what they earn so they can better take responsibility for themselves.
Second, by so lightly throwing the term “Jim Crow” at the Tea Party movement, 36 year old Representative Carson demonstrates that he’s not old enough to have any idea of what Jim Crow actually was. “Jim Crow” referred to the separate-but-equal policy of segregation in the South following Reconstruction. This policy was enforced through things like discriminatory voting restrictions and laws maintaining separate school systems and public facilities (John Lewis was at least using the term in its correct context, even if he was wrong in its application). These things were outlawed by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education and by Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I’m not so naïve to think that there is isn’t still racism around, but Jim Crow simply doesn’t exist, and it hasn’t since long before Representative Carson was born.
But more importantly, Jim Crow has nothing to do with what the Tea Party movement is about. Advocating for smaller government and lower taxes is not a call for segregation; there is simply no connection between the two. It’s a non sequitur. And by attempting to make that connection where it doesn’t exist, Carson and others trivialize the work and achievement of those who fought the real civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s, and mock the suffering of those who—unlike Carson—actually did bear the heinous brunt of Jim Crow.
I understand you may disagree from a policy standpoint, but trying to reduce government spending and debt is the same thing as lynching? Really?
Listen to what so-called black leaders like Andre Carson, Cedric Richmond, and Maxine Waters are saying: the Tea Party movement is inherently racist. Well, for that to be so, it must be that the idea the Tea Party movement advocates—reducing government so people can take responsibility for themselves—is in itself inherently racist. And if that idea is inherently racist, what they’re really telling you is that black people are incapable of taking responsibility for and providing for themselves. They can’t make their own decisions. They need government to provide for them and to make decisions for them as though they are a bunch of children.
Who’s the racist now?
The only ones who benefit by selling black people short and keeping them addicted to the public teat are these very leaders who lead the life of Riley in the District while spewing this victim mentality nonsense. As long as the black community continues to listen to the Carsons and Richmonds and Waters of the world, all they’ve done is trade the master’s chains and plantation rations for those of their black overseer.
Mindlessly throwing around accusations of racism against a nameless, faceless group is the act of a coward. Mr. Carson, I double-dog dare you to go to the House floor and name names. Call them out to their face. If members of Congress really are racists who want to lynch blacks, then tell us who.
I’ll wait.
For more like this, check us out at Chasing Jefferson.
DARYL HANNAH vs BILL O'REILLY
If you want to know why we have not come out of this recession, look no farther than this dip-wad. It is moonbats like her that are making it impossible to stay competitive with the rest of the world.
Obama Abusing The Bully Pulpit
Obama Abusing The Bully Pulpit
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress concerning jobs is nothing more that a campaign speech. This is more of Obama abusing the powers of the Office of the President and conservatives in the Congress should boycott it. It is just high political theatre and frankly it is another tasteless move by the White House.
Scheduling the speech on the same evening as the GOP debate at the Reagan Library (the first debate in which Rick Perry will take part) is a deliberate maneuver to create a press boycott of the debate. It is juvenile and heavy handed. It is beneath the Office of the Presidency. As we folks down south say: “It is tacky!”
The White House’s explanation that the scheduling was merely a coincidence is pure bovine scatology! See, the President, and his coterie of imps, continue to believe that you and I are so dumb we will believe that sort of elementary school pabulum. It is out and out nonsense.
I urge the House of Representatives to refuse passage of the resolution allowing the President to speak to a joint session. It is certain the Senate will pass such a resolution. But in order for the event to happen, BOTH houses of Congress must pass the resolution. I hope the House has the good sense to deny it passage.
Speaker Boehner sent a letter to President Obama in which he said the following: “As you know, the House of Representatives and Senate are each required to adopt a Concurrent Resolution to allow for a Joint Session of Congress to receive the President. And as the Majority Leader announced more than a month ago, the House will not be in session until Wednesday, September 7, with votes at 6:30 that evening.” The Speaker continued: “It is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening [Thursday], when we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your remarks.” (You may read the entire letter from Speaker Boehner to President Obama HERE.)
It looks like what it is: A bully in the Bully Pulpit!
I get the feeling this President actually LIKES throwing his weight around. He never misses a chance to remind us HE is the President with his multiple usage of the words “me” and “I” and “mine.”
In his letter to the Congress, the President said: ““It is my intention to lay out a series of bipartisan proposals that the Congress can take immediately to continue to rebuild the American economy by strengthening small businesses, helping Americans get back to work, and putting more money in the paychecks of the Middle Class and working Americans, while still reducing our deficit and getting our fiscal house in order.” Obama continued by saying: “It is our responsibility to find bipartisan solutions to help grow our economy, and if we are willing to put country before party, I am confident we can do just that.” (SOURCE)
It is pure boilerplate. It is just more of the same.
The President wants the American people to perceive him as doing something. In fact his “doing something” is what has kept the country in a mess and made that mess even messier. His actions and that of his regulatory agencies and his democrat cohort in the Senate have created an atmosphere of uncertainty in the American business community and frozen business in its tracks. Business cannot grow and jobs in the private sector cannot be created when risk is perceived to be too high due to the uncertainty the Obama Administration has brought down on the job creators in America.
If, and when, Obama and his regulatory agencies get out of the way, the American economy will grow by leaps and bounds. Jobs will not be created until that happens.
OK. Obama has proven he knows how to create government jobs. But those jobs have only made private job creators even more reluctant to put their necks and their cash on the line.
Look. It is becoming ever clearer as the days go by that America is frozen in place until the Obama Administration is shown the door. American business is ready to roar back to life. They are in a leaning forward posture … but … not until Obama and his administration is out of the way.
Whatever Obama says in his speech to the joint session of Congress will be of no import to anyone but Obama and his campaign.
We have warned time and again that this campaign will likely be the dirtiest in history. Obama’s shock troops, the labor unions, don’t mind rolling in the gutter to get their man across the finish line first.
Republicans had better sit up and take notice. The GOP had better field a nominee with the ability to fight with bare knuckles and even hit below the belt when it is advantageous. This campaign will make a barroom brawl look like a Sunday School picnic.
The GOP needs a brawler not a mild mannered impeccably coiffed, manicured, “nice guy” with a gleaming smile. What is called for is a nominee to carry the GOP banner and attack, attack, and attack, and keep Obama reeling and unable to organize a counter-attack. You can be sure the democrats will adopt the aforesaid strategy. And they are darned good at it.
America needs a warrior and not a limp-wristed lawyer to lead this nation back to her place as the engine of democracy and the guiding light for all men everywhere who seek freedom and a fair shake at fulfilling their dreams.
We NEED America back. The WORLD NEEDS America back.
Obama’s Approval Hits All-Time Low Among Women
Obama is losing the base that propelled him to the White House in 2008. Women and Independents woke up to the nightmare Obama has done in three short years in the Oval Office. There are many Independents and women who are appalled that they were duped by Obama. Honestly, it was white guilt that took Obama into the White House, but that is something to write about one day. It seems the only groups that support Obama are the Black vote and the Muslim vote. Since the 2012 election won't be base on Obama's accomplishments, it will be base on scare tactics, lies, and character assassination of the GOP presidential nominee.
(CNSNews.com) - Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain 56 percent to 43 percent among female voters in the 2008 presidential election, according to the network exit poll, and Obama’s job performance as president won the support of 70 percent of women early in his tenure.
But Gallup polling last week showed that only 41 percent of women now say they approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president. That is an all-time low--down from the previous low of 43 percent, which is what Obama’s approval had been among women in each of the previous three weeks.
Obama’s approval has dropped 11 points among women over the past three months. In the last week of May, according to the Gallup poll, the president’s approval among females was at 52 percent.
Obama’s approval among women peaked at 70 percent in the week of Jan. 26-Feb. 1, 2009, his first full week in office.
Green Jobs Permanently Gone Due to Expensive Technology
Green Technology is not ready to go mainstream. There are more green companies going bankrupt or "belly-up." The bottom line is that the technology is too expensive to make. The technology needs more research and refinement. If green energy is expensive to make, the technology would be unattractive to the consumer after a cost mark-up is added to it. Hence, electric cars and CFL light bulbs are not in public demand.
(Mercury News) Solyndra, a Fremont-based solar panel manufacturer that flared then sputtered, abruptly ceased operations on Wednesday and immediately laid off all 1,100 of its workers.
The shutdown marks a high-profile collapse of a company that received more than $1.6 billion in federal and private funding in recent years.
"This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate," Brian Harrison, Solyndra's president and chief executive, said.
The company received $535 million in taxpayer money from the U.S. Department of Energy and $1.1 billion in private venture capital funding.
Solyndra workers who were laid off on Wednesday were dismissed without layoff packages.
Solyndra was founded in 2005 by Chris Gronet, a veteran of Applied Materials who earned his Ph.D. at Stanford University.
President Barack Obama touted Solyndra as a poster child for clean energy after the company received the federal funds.
"Companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future," Obama said during a 2010 visit to the company's Fremont headquarters.
Although Solyndra was buttressed by VC and federal money, the company struggled. Among the challenges that doomed Solyndra: Low-cost Chinese manufacturers backed by large subsidies from the government are building massive factories that have rapidly driven down the price of solar panels and shifted more than 50 percent of production to China.
Yet analysts also noted that Solyndra had failed to curb its manufacturing costs. Industry watchers pointed out that Solyndra's solar tubes were still about two or three times as expensive as the standard costs for solar manufacturers in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Newest
CBC NEWS
Posts
