Archive for the ‘2012 Campaign’ Category

Obama Accepts Osama’s Donations

Posted: October 30, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Corruption, Crime

From WND:

WASHINGTON – Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.

The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

It’s a very sharp sting by the WND staff.  Obama’s campaign has been noted for accepting overseas donations and for not bothering to check to see if the money coming in is from legitimate sources.  Every time the campaign is asked, they dodge the question and work around it.  They’re all about taking foreign money and illegal campaign contributions.

To the left, the end always justifies any means.  In fact, it’s considered unethical not to use every means in order to achieve victory.

The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means.

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals pg 25-26

Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets

Posted: October 24, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Politics


But why has it taken this long to juxtapose the words that came out of both sides of his mouth?

On Bayonets and Horses

Posted: October 23, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Politics, US Military

One of the highlights of last night’s presidential debate was Obama, who can’t pronounce corpsman, smugly insulting Romney about what the military uses and doesn’t use.  The highlight of the highlight, was of course, horses and bayonets.

We don’t use horses, either, according to Obama.

This is where Obama’s stupid really meshes with other types of stupid.  The saying is that you always fight the last war.  For those unfamiliar with the saying, what it shows is that your military acquires experience based on one war, and then tries to reapply it.  Sometimes it works, other times it doesn’t.  Civil War and Napoleonic tactics weren’t up to the task of The Great War, WWI tactics and strategies and tools weren’t up to use in WWII, WWII tactics had to change for Korea, Korean ideas didn’t work in Vietnam, Vietnam didn’t work in Gulf War I, Gulf War I didn’t work in Afghanistan, Afghanistan didn’t work the same in Iraq, and Iraq’s successes don’t translate back to Afghanistan so well.  Generals had years to train on what they just fought, though, with up-and-coming officers and NCOs who set the culture of the military being those who fought the last war, so they apply that expertise and often forget the past.

Obama’s spiel about aircraft carriers was not only insulting to Romney, but it ignores that there are ways to make carriers go away.  A couple ASBMs and suddenly the carrier is a white elephant.  And with Obama’s pledge to slow development of future weapons systems and missile defense, we know we won’t have a defense against ASBMs.  The technology he wants to rely on he also wants to keep undeveloped.  You can’t have it both ways, Mr. President.   And you certainly can’t lecture us on technology you’re halting as the solution.  A large navy is very important to power projection.  Numbers of ships are important.

This dovetails into the recent news story about Congress putting money away for tanks the military says it doesn’t need.

Congress doesn’t want to kill any jobs in their districts and argue that tank production is “necessary to protect the industrial base.”

Not so necessary on the battlefield though, since the last real tank battle occurred in the First Gulf War. Since then tanks have largely been used for anti-personnel purposes, or for making new doors in structures to aid the movement of ground troops. Nevertheless, the U.S. hasn’t halted production since before World War II.

Congressmen not wanting to kill jobs and “protecting the industrial base” is stimulus and earmark pork nonsense.  They’re speaking Keynesian gibberish and want to keep govt. money flowing into their districts and that’s the best they can come up with.  Maintaining tooling and factories for production certainly isn’t a bad idea, but that has to be balanced with what the country should and should not be spending.

On the other hand, the argument that “the last real tank battle was 20 years ago” is precisely the “last war” mentality.  The “last war” is now Iraq and Afghanistan.  Suddenly, smart men with no wisdom declare we will never again need tanks because we didn’t need them this week.  There’s some semi-famous quote saying how military men are like children and how they’ll drop blankets when it’s warm and rain gear when the sky is clear because they can’t think for tommorow; and there are plenty of proverbs about prudent men vs foolish men.  Exactly opposite the article, we should be keeping up tank production and refurbishment exactly because they’re valuable military tools.  That they provide jobs in some congressman’s district is entirely irrelevant to the inherent military usefulness of a tank.

While it doesn’t float and is ultimately crewed by DATs, it’s a very useful tool.

Obama’s ignorance of the military isn’t just that we still use horses and bayonets, it’s that he doesn’t understand why we use them, nor does he understand that technology (that he’s trying to stop, no less) is not magic.

Update: HotAir has an excellent piece on how horses, bayonets, and most importantly ships still matter.  Ships are power projection, and that piece goes into much greater detail.  It’s worth the read.

From Washington Times:

The super PAC backing President Obama raised $15 million last month, including $300,000 from Samuel Rawlings Walton, an heir to Wal-Mart, a traditional Republican-leaning organization.

Also contributing $1 million to Priorities USA was filmmaker Steven Spielberg, whose colleague Jeffrey Katzenberg is an Obama bundler and gave $1 million himself. Fred Eychaner, who has raised at least half a million dollars from acquaintances for the Obama campaign, gave $2 million personally to the super PAC.

And Washington Examiner via Drudge:

My favorite detail, though, is this Washington Times report by data hound Luke Rosiak: Wal-Mart Chairman Sam Walton has apparently given big to Obama’s SuperPAC.

This is at first surprising for a couple of reasons. First, the Waltons tend to be Republican. Second, the conventional wisdom is that megacorps like Wal-Mart are a Republican thing.

But Sam Walton gave the maximum $30,800 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008, and $40,000 to the OVF this election.

Seems surprising, given that Walmart has been socially a bit conservative for decades.  But then you have to remember what Milton Friedman has said about big business; and what Don Rumsfeld said waaay back during Friedman’s Free To Choose series.  Their point was basically that businesses don’t have an ideology beyond profit for owners & shareholders.  In general, wholly unethical businesses will be punished by the market as people will stop buying their products, so the people running them are rarely monsters, but a business sees nothing wrong with buying favoritism from government.  Government is supposed to set up the rules of the game, and businesses, if given the opportunity, will readily bribe the officials running the game in any legal way in order to increase their own standing.  Plus if one business doesn’t, another will.

Policy-wise, there’s plenty of reason for Sam Walton to like Barack Obama:

  1. Wal-Mart endorsed the employer mandate in ObamaCare, which gives Wal-Mart an advantage by crushing smaller competitors.
  2. Wal-Mart has profited from Dodd-Frank, which fixes the price Wal-Mart has to pay banks for processing debit cards.
  3. Wal-Mart has lobbied for and profits from higher minimum wage.
  4. Wal-Mart is a top beneficiary of eminent domain takings, a government power protected by the types of judges Obama appoints.
  5. Big Business generally benefits from Big Government.

Walmart, ultimately, is looking out for its interests.  Obama’s big government sets up barriers to entry to competitors, and favors big businesses that he favors quite a bit.  Putting folks like GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt in positions of power at the White House, while GE is getting favored contracts in wind power subsidies and other politically favored anti-Manbearpig grants and such ultimately establishes barriers to entry, and improves the standing of certain big businesses by giving them power.

Walmart could also just be covering its bases.  No business wants to throw all-in with a loser and end up punished by the administration.  They saying goes “if you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re on the menu”.

Worth looking at is the “Heavy Hitters” list of political donations at  Note ActBlue is a Democrat organization.  Also very much worth looking at are the numbers from a few years ago, showing who gave to Obama/Dems in 2008.

When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.

- Proverbs 29:9

During the first presidential debate, Romney mentioned that he’d cut public funding for PBS, which really is kinda outside the mandate of the Constitution.  Sure, there might be a way to squeeze it in under Article I Section 8 with “promoting science and the useful arts”… if you completely ignored the end of that sentence, but basically the point was that PBS’s 7% or so funding received from the government is a waste of money.  It’s especially a waste when the govt. needs to tighten its belt and leave taxpayers more of their money, in order to leave people to spur the economy on.  Big Bird can stand on his own two huge feet because he’s plenty marketable, and something like 93% of Sesame Street’s money comes in from merchandising.  What’s merchandising, you ask?

Heck, as a coworker pointed out to me, Abelardo Montoya, as in Big Bird in Mexico (from Plaza Sesamo) is so well off as to have a section of a Formula One track running through (or immediately adjacent to) the big Sesame Street theme park in Monterrey.  He also has a nice fountain.

This guy survives through being something people love and want, and are willing to buy stuff from.

Why does American Big Bird make $314,000/year and still need money from taxpayers?

It was all meant as an explanation of how spending taxpayer money is supposed to be for important constitutional functions, not for just throwing at “things we feel we want”.

And naturally, the Dems took it overboard, to the point of alienating everyone.

And now, as HotAir reports, they’re doubling down on stupid.

As prominent Democrat Dick Harpootlian put it, “Big Bird is iconic. He — or it — she — I don’t know what it is — is an icon with a whole generation or two of Americans.” Well said. If Mitt Romney won’t stand up for giant muppets, who will he stand up for?

And Dems are running with it even though Sesame Street wants nothing to do with this and sent a cease-and-desist order.

Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.

Big Bird is successful without government money.  Oh, and Big Bird in the US also has theme parks.  Big Bird doesn’t need big government subsidies.  He’s not too Big Bird to fail, he’ll fly on his own.

It’s real.  Really real.

From the story:

The U.S. has created 12 million jobs in 4 years 3 times before.  The first was during World War Two, from August 1939 to July 1943.

More recent history provides us with two examples. The first was from September 1983 to August 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s term in office, when economic growth averaged 4.5%.  The second time was between August 1996 and July 2000, under Bill Clinton, when GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

The U.S. is nowhere near that now, and won’t be anytime soon.

Well, wait, how did Reagan pull that off, after inheriting Jimmy Carter’s stagflation?  CNN isn’t bothering to look at the stark difference between Obama’s anticolonialist anti-American anti-jobs policies and those that Romney (while imperfect) would get started, which might parallel Reagan’s – Republican governor of leftist state who offers compromise to get good things done.  (Of course also bad things, like closing the MG registry, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.)

From the Weekly Standard, via Drudge:

This morning’s jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is being met with skepticism. The report found that, from August to September, the unemployment rate dropped from just above 8 percent to 7.8 percent.

In fact, when Labor Secretary Hilda Solis appeared on CNBC this morning, the first two questions for her were whether the books have been cooked:

Worth noting that her story is very strange, considering what was looked at yesterday.

Update: Via HotAir:

Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist both express skepticism over the “major tickdown to 7.8 percent” in the unemployment rate from the addition of only 114,000 jobs — which isn’t enough to keep up with population growth.  What happened?

What is the issue, then?  Kevin Hassett reminds us at The Corner that BLS uses two surveys, the Household survey and the Establishments survey, and the +873K number comes from the former while the +114K number comes from the latter.  The media usually reminds readers/viewers that the Household survey is considered less reliable than the Establishments survey … at least during Republican administrations

Via Newsbusters:

The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, a number certain to impact the presidential race.

Pundits have been saying for months this number had to drop below 8 percent for it not to be a hindrance to President Obama’s reelection chances.

The economy added 114,000 nonfarm payrolls in the month according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with gains in healthcare, transportation and warehousing.

Truly shocking in the report was that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 to  12.1 million.

Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983.

Hmm… Obama needs numbers below 8% to be reelected.  After 4 years of “unexpected” hikes in unemployment that never seemed to match predictions, suddenly the biggest one month jump in 30 years hits.  Amazing.

As such, total employment now stands at the highest level it’s been since December 2008 before Obama was inaugurated.

But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.

The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September – resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate – while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.

Isn’t that interesting.  It’s almost as if the numbers were massaged again, like removing people who quit looking for work from the unemployment rolls, as if those who’ve given up were suddenly employed, and now, suddenly, there’s almost a million more people employed.

Gee, isn’t that just… really, really, really convenient for Obama?

HotAir notes that the U-6 number is around 14.7%.  The U-6 is the unemployment rate that includes the total unemployed, discouraged workers who aren’t looking for work, the “loosely attached” who are looking for work kinda sorta, and the underemployed who are working part time but want to work full-time.

Basically, a bunch of crappy part-time jobs that aren’t going to sustain people are bumping up the U-3 unemployment rate.

As noted here on an article:

Republican Party chairman Reince Priebushad this to say on Twitter

Important fact to note – if the workforce was the same size as it was back when Obama took office, unemployment would be closer to 11%

Contained in the data are some disturbing numbers. The labor force participation rate remained near its recent low from August, with a September rate of 63.6 percent. The increase in the number of people employed is primarily due to people who found part time work but want a full time job. The number of people in that category rose by 600,000 to 8.6 million.

About 12.1 million workers remain unemployed. The number of workers unemployed for 27 weeks or more showed little change at 4.8 million. These hard core unemployed now represent 40 percent of all those unemployed. The average number of weeks unemployed rose for the third month in a row to 38.8 weeks.

Figures lie, liars figure.

Obama’s Smirk

Posted: October 4, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Politics