PK'S NOTE: No, I won't be watching the SOTU tonight. I refuse to listen to any more of his lies.
Obama's Bogus State of the Union Promises
Take a look at some of the promises Obama made back in 2009 during his first State of the Union.
“I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.”
During his first State of the Union, newly inaugurated President Obama vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead, Obama has averaged deficits nearly three times that of his predecessor.
For those who were concerned with President George W. Bush’s $4 trillion national debt, this pledge may have seemed like the “hope and change” the American people voted for in 2008. However, the reality of America’s additional debt over the past four years under the Obama Administration is staggering—almost $6 trillion in four years, on track to triple the amount Bush accumulated over his eight years as President. Now that Obama is heading into his second term, we’ve seen quite a change from the Barack Obama who thought $4 trillion in debt was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.”
“Over the next two years, this [stimulus] plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.”
The President promised great things from the stimulus plan, but as Heritage’s J.D. Foster has said, we have to look at his record. He may have promised 3.5 million new jobs, but he’s 7.7 million jobs in the hole instead.
“…we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue.”
President Obama’s promise that Obamacare would provide health insurance for every American has been proven false. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 30 million Americans are projected to remain uninsured even after Obamacare is fully implemented.
The idea that Obamacare would improve the “efficiencies” of the health care system is laughable. Obama’s plan for "efficiencies" in the system was just slashing Medicare provider reimbursement rates to the tune of $716 billion to help pay for Obamacare. The mammoth law is going to take 127 million hours of paperwork per year for Americans to comply with it. And Members of Congress are already walking back their support for the law—they are grumbling about several parts of it and even repealed one part in the fiscal cliff deal.
“We will invest $15 billion a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.”
When President Obama starts talking about “investing” taxpayer money, beware. Successful companies do not need taxpayer investment. The now-infamous energy company Solyndra is the most popular example of “investing” in energy companies gone wrong. The government subsidies to the green energy company lost the American taxpayers $627 million. While Solyndra is the most famous green failure, Heritage has exposed 19 taxpayer-funded failures in the Green Graveyard series. According to Heritage research, the government “invested” $2.6 billion in companies that then went bankrupt.
We have a massive federal deficit and millions of missing jobs. Obamacare is a bureaucratic nightmare that isn’t helping people get health care. The President’s “investments” have flushed taxpayers’ hard-earned money down the toilet.
We can only imagine…what will he promise tonight?
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/12/morning-bell-obamas-state-of-the-union-promises-four-years-ago/?roi=echo3-14543211131-11377895-04ac4dbb7f4af8ab39a0fb6d6140d1e9&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
PK'S NOTE: For those who don't know, I live in Montana, so this is relevant to me and some readers
The Left Wing Conspiracy Comes to Montana
Governor opposed to ‘dark money’ groups benefitted heavily from them
Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock led Montana’s efforts during his tenure as the state’s attorney general to undermine legal protections for private corporations and nonprofits that speak publicly about political issues.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Montana law in June championed by Bullock that prohibited independent political communications by corporations.
Bullock has continued his crusade since winning the governorship in November.
“We have seen the rise of so-called ‘dark money’ groups that target candidates, yet refuse to tell the voting public who they really are and what they really represent,” he said in his Jan. 30 State of the State address.
“They hide behind made-up names and made-up newspapers. They operate out of P.O. boxes or Washington, D.C. office buildings. They falsely proclaim themselves the guardians of Montana’s traditions.”
The headquarters of the Democratic consulting firm Hilltop Public Solutions appears to be one such Washington, D.C. office building: It serves as the mailing address for a number of pro-Bullock independent expenditure groups that were active during his election campaign.
Meanwhile, Hilltop was receiving payments directly from the Bullock campaign. Disclosure forms show that the Bullock campaign paid Hilltop for travel expenses and a series of conference calls throughout the year, as first reported by Media Trackers. Hilltop’s involvement in the conference calls themselves is not clear.
The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment. However, Kevin O’Brien, the governor’s deputy chief of staff and former campaign manager, told USA Today correspondent John Adams that allegations of coordination between the campaign and independent expenditure groups are “unsubstantiated and misleading,” though O’Brien declined to directly deny the allegations.
Hilltop did not respond to questions about its involvement in Montana’s gubernatorial race. However, publicly available information suggests that the group was coordinating a large effort through both direct work for the campaign and a web of “independent” groups to elect Bullock.
Shortly after receiving payments for those campaign-related conference calls, Hilltop began work for a pair of political action committees, soliciting fees in exchange for work supporting Bullock’s campaign.
One of those committees, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, paid Hilltop for salaried canvassers, mailings, and “management fees” in support of the Bullock campaign. Hilltop associate Molly Bell also coordinated hiring for Planned Parenthood activists during the campaign, according to a post on the group’s Facebook page.
A union-backed 527 called the Build Montana PAC paid Hilltop $9,000 for graphic design services that appear to be associated with a mailer supporting Bullock’s campaign, for which printing and mailing fees were paid to another vendor on the same day.
Build Montana PAC also enlisted the services of a firm called Brushfire Strategies, whose founding partner, Marco Guido, is a principal at Hilltop. Build Montana paid Brushfire more than $12,000 for phone banking in support of Bullock. That payment was mailed to Hilltop’s Washington D.C. office, at 1000 Potomac St. NW, Suite 500.
A state environmentalist group called Montana Conservation Voters (MCV) also hired Hilltop to support Bullock’s campaign, making multiple payments for campaign mailers. Hilltop associate Joe Splinter was MCV’s development director until 2011.
MCV also paid Brushfire Strategies for Bullock phone-banking. Those payments were also mailed to Hilltop’s office.
Splinter was also listed as the treasurer for an independent expenditure group called Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund, which was active in the 2012 Montana Senate race. That group paid Brushfire to conduct get-out-the-vote calls in November, and mailed the payment to Hilltop’s headquarters.
The Bullock campaign also paid tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic media firm Three Point Media, which was founded by Hilltop partner Mo Elleithee, for multiple television ads.
Those payments, made over the course of several months, were also mailed to the office at Potomac St., which Three Point Media lists as its headquarters.
Three Point Media has done work for a 501(c)(4) group called the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund (CSS Fund), producing multiple ads for the group during the 2012 election cycle. The CSS Fund was created by Hilltop in 2009 to advance liberal health care proposals.
The Bullock campaign also mailed payments for an opposition research vendor to Hilltop’s office. Campaign finance disclosures show two payments to Eric Ohlsen, who heads the Democratic research firm Ohlsen Research.
Ohlsen’s relationship with Hilltop is not clear, but the metadata for the group’s website includes the phrase “Hilltop Public Solutions” and its website lists an office at Hilltop’s Potomac St. address. Ohlsen’s clients also include a group called Citizens for Strength and Security (distinct from the CSS Fund), which also has ties to Hilltop.
Citizens for Strength and Security came up in Bullock’s effort to undermine First Amendment protections for corporations and nonprofit groups. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) and John McCain (R., Ariz.) cited the group in a brief supporting Bullock’s argument to bolster their claim that disclosure requirements for independent expenditure groups “are inadequate.”
Bullock was more forceful in his State of the State address.
“These groups believe they can violate our laws and corrupt our government in order to create a system that benefits their special interests,” Bullock said. “Montanans deserve better.”
However, Bullock himself appears to have supported the organization behind Citizens for Strength and Security and a host of other shadowy liberal groups.
None of the groups contacted for comment by the Washington Free Beacon responded, but the many links between them suggest Hilltop played a significant role in coordinating both independent and campaign-related activities that led to Bullock’s electoral victory.
A larger version of the graphic can be viewed here.
[Hilltop’s involvement in the Montana Senate race was documented in prior Washington Free Beacon coverage of the group. Additional information concerning its ties to the Foundation for Patient Rights can be found here.]
http://freebeacon.com/the-left-wing-conspiracy-comes-to-montana/
Brennan should leave public life
Benghazi was a retaliation raid in a war nobody, including Stevens and Petraeus, knew Brennan was waging
A co-author of the new book “Benghazi: The definitive report” told Human Events John O. Brennan, assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, was the mastermind behind a secret war in North Africa, which led to the Sept. 11 raid on our mission in Benghazi.The Senate should not confirm him as the new director of the CIA and Brennan should not continue in public life, said Jack Murphy, who wrote the book with Brandon Webb. “I think we need to let this guy go.”
Brennan spent more than 20 years in the CIA and Jan. 7 President Barack Obama nominated him to be the agency’s director.
In addition to his direction of black ops that raised the security threat to Americans without taking steps manage the increased risk, Brennan is the champion of the drone attack, which cause horrific civilian casualties and generate ill-will towards the United States, he said.
The campaign against Al Qaeda in the Islamic Meghreb and Ansar Al-Shari in North Africa was full-blown kinetic operation, he said. When AQIM and Ansar Al-Shari retaliated with the Benghazi raid nobody was prepared because Brennan never let anyone know how hot and heavy his personal war was getting
“It definitely had shades of the whole Iran-Iraq scandal, where you had the National Security Council running its own operation,” said Murphy, a former Army Ranger and Green Beret. With Webb, who is a former Navy SEAL, the two men run the SOFREP.com, website for the special operations community. Webb was best friends with former SEAL Glen Doherty, who was killed at Benghazi.
The central narrative of the book is that Brennan ran a secret war, independent of the Pentagon, exercising direct control of the Joint Special Operations Command, the senior command echelon for special operational units from all services.
Murphy said he was disappointed that coverage of the book has focused on the one-page aside that described how long-tenured CIA bureaucrats and his own personal security detail fanned the controversy that cost retired Army Gen. David H. Petraeus his job as CIA director. “That’s what you get when you are dealing with tabloids.”
Murphy said the black ops in Eastern Libya were mainly to secure dangerous war materiel still loose from the country’s 2011 revolution against Kaddafi and to take out members of the Al Qaeda network. The problem was that some of the raids upset certain militia who operate independent of the central government in Tripoli, he said.
The White House gave Congress the bare minimum of information to fulfill the letter of the law and whoever got those briefings just rubberstamped them, he said. “As I understand, it was off the books.”
Brennan’s secret war is not rogue, he said. It is an officially sanctioned campaign.
The controversy in Egypt and the riots over the YouTube video did help the local organizers of the Benghazi raid motivate foreign fighters and others to join in the battle, he said.
“The main contributing factor, and what broke the camel’s back, was the JSOC operations going in Libya,” he said. “It is what pushed them over the top.”
Amb. J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on American diplomatic and para-military facilities in Benghazi, Libya, was aware of the general outline of Brennan’s operations, but Murphy said Stevens did not fully realize the animosity that Brennan was fomenting.
“I don’t want to say ‘arrogant,’ but Stevens may have been overconfident,” he said. “I question how good a read he had on the situation and how well he really understood what was going on over there.”
The ambassador was a highly-skilled diplomat, who was personally popular with the Libyans, he said. The fact that he spoke Arabic and preferred to move around the country without heavy personal security made him more vulnerable than he realized.
Stevens was kept in the dark about many things, he said. “I think because he was such a smart guy, so familiar with the whole political situation, he had an idea about what was going on—he was smart enough to put two-and-two together, but he was not read on to these operations, and my understanding is neither was Petraeus.,” he said. “They both probably had an idea about what the White House was up to, but I don’t think it really hit home until that night,” he said.
The former Ranger and Green Beret said Stevens was focused on convincing militia to enter civil society and reduce the number of weapons in circulation in Libya. “I really believe he was involved in the consolidation of the weapons, because he knew so much about the weapons and what was going on in the country going all the way back to Kaddafi.”
One of the narratives to come out of Libya after the raids on Benghazi was that Stevens was in the business of transferring the weapons he collected and sending them to Syria to support the rebellion there. Murphy said he is skeptical that the ambassador was involved in sending weapons to the Syrian rebels.
The American facilities at Benghazi were classified simply as a “temporary mission facility,” which was the walled compound, where the diplomatic business took place and the “mission annex,” which was the CIA safe house and operations center, he said. The installations never had the status of “consulate.”
Murphy said both American operators from the CIA, State Department and their associated contractors, swarmed in and out of the installations with a high operations tempo and sheer size of force that belied the “mission” nomenclature. “That was a very significant operation being run out of the annex,” he said.
“The fact that they got blown out of there that night is a huge deal,” he said. “Petraeus must have been extremely angry. He was not being told what was going on, and it intended up getting a couple of his guys killed and completely destroying that entire operation.”
Keeping the mission nomenclature also meant that State Department bureaucrats, unaware of what was going on there, did not fully appreciate the need for security at Benghazi, because he said. They just looked up the required security packages for missions and met those requirements.
“Essentially, they opened up what was notionally a State Department facility and they jammed packed it with special operations operatives,” he said.
“It was a very ad hoc situation,” he said. Stevens wanted to upgrade the Benghazi mission to a consulate, so it could require more security, but it never happened. There was never the money or resources allocated to meet the real threat.
Further compounding the problem, personnel from State’s Diplomatic Secret Service rotated in and out so quickly, there was never institutional memory and reference points, he said. “You can imagine what it is like if there is a new guy every week.
Because of the covert nature of the operations at the Benghazi compound and the relative low-status of the “mission,” Marines were not an option, either, he said.
Putting the book together, Murphy said it was not hard to get people to talk to him about the general situation in Libya or even about FBI or State Department functions. “When you start getting into JSOC and CIA covert operations, it gets really difficult to find out what is going on.”
Because of the sensitivities involved, the authors double-source the claims in the book, he said. Many more stories were left out because there was no independent confirmation.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/11/murphy-brennan-needs-to-leave-public-life/
Democratic House chairwoman Wasserman Schultz caught in deception with reporters
Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz attempted a bit of deception Monday in an effort to criticize GOP rising star Marco Rubio ahead of his State of the Union rebuttal Tuesday night. But on this occasion, the press wasn't falling for it.In a conference call Monday, Wasserman Schultz enlisted the help of Annette Capella, described by party officials as a "Medicare recipient from Florida," to warn of the "extreme budget priorities," they believe Rubio is likely to outline in his televised response to President Obama's address.
Capella gave a lengthy and unflattering statement about Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida and Tea Party favorite. She admitted he is an attractive politician but one who would make life more difficult for seniors by supporting a plan to alter Medicare by reducing benefits.
It turns out, however, that Capella is hardly your standard Medicare-dependent Floridian. She's the Democratic Party's state committeewoman for St. Johns County.
The truth was uncovered when the call was opened up to questions. The first query came from a Palm Beach Post reporter, who asked Wasserman Schultz if Capella was the same person listed as the head of the St. Johns Democratic Party.
Wasserman Schultz paused for a moment but then said she would let Capella answer the question. Capella corrected the reporter, saying she'd stepped down from that role and is now represents the county as the party's state committeewoman for St. Johns, located in northeastern Florida.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521195#.URlXEZUi_1c.twitter
Google: The Democrat’s Private Intelligence Agency
Last week, Neil Stevens raised the alarm about Google selling out conservatives on policy issues. He’s right, but a number of conservatives and Republicans think there is an even bigger problem for GOP.Remember that enormous, sophisticated data operation the Obama campaign had? The one that gave them massive daily data on public opinion trends in almost every segment of potential voters.
It’s almost as if Democrats had access to some sort of huge database of real time information about what the public was reading or writing online. The kind of breathtakingly large, real-time data that could be used for real-time trend analysis, predictive modeling and even behavioral manipulation.
On a completely unrelated note, former RNC eCampaign Director Michael Turk wrote Monday that “the frightening advantage the left has is in a less touted entity known as the Analyst Institute (AI) and a consortium of behavioral scientists” who are “concerned not only with your characteristics and voting behavior, but how they can manipulate that behavior.”
Now, combine Obama’s political campaign with Google’s near-comprehensive real-time data and the left’s behavioral analysis. What do you get? Beat.
This goes beyond just campaigns. Google likes to brag that they can detect flu outbreaks two weeks before the CDC based on search volume. Eric Schmidt once bragged that the company could predict stock market movements.
Imagine how much more could be learned if Google’s computer algorithms combined not only search data but also all of the data they get by reading everything written in or sent to Gmail and whatever you store on Google docs and Google Drive. Then imagine what Democratic voter data groups like Catalist (which launched as a for-profit operation, allowing it much more latitude in working with outside groups….or companies) could do with that data.
With a few tweaks to their algorithms Google could easily have near perfect insights into the voting behaviors and patterns of the U.S. population at large down to specific precincts, neighborhoods or even households.
The threat isn’t just that Google openly supports left wing politicians and policies. That’s obvious, and that relationship goes both ways. Google+ hosted Joe Biden for a “fireside chat” about gun control and Obama is doing a Google+ “hangout” immediately following his State of the Union speech tonight.
The real threat is that Google, or perhaps just a few people within the leadership of Google, may be quietly operating as a private intelligence agency for the left.
And every time you use Google or Gmail you could be contributing just a little bit more of your behavioral data to the left.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/12/google-the-democrats-private-intelligence-agency/
Millions improperly claimed Obamaphones
The federal program that supplies poor people with wireless service gave millions of recipients phones despite the fact that they weren't eligible under guidelines established by the FTC.Wall Street Journal:
The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion last year to provide phones to low-income Americans, but a Wall Street Journal review of the program shows that a large number of those who received the phones haven't proved they are eligible to receive them.
The Lifeline program-begun in 1984 to ensure that poor people aren't cut off from jobs, families and emergency services-is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every landline and wireless-phone customer. Payouts under the program have shot up from $819 million in 2008, as more wireless carriers have persuaded regulators to let them offer the service.
Suspecting that many of the new subscribers were ineligible, the Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules last year and required carriers to verify that existing subscribers were eligible. The agency estimated 15% of users would be weeded out, but far more were dropped.
A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.
[...]
The program is open to people who meet federal poverty guidelines or are on food stamps, Medicaid or other assistance programs, and only one Lifeline subscriber is allowed per household.
The program, which is administered by the nonprofit Universal Service Administrative Co., has grown rapidly as wireless carriers persuaded regulators to let people use the program for cellphone service. It pays carriers $9.25 a customer per month toward free or discounted wireless service.
Americans pay an average of $2.50 a month per household to fund a number of subsidized communications programs, including Lifeline.
First of all, what do you make of the FTC going ahead and administering a program where even they admit there is at least 15% of recipients engaged in fraud?
Until last year, FCC rules didn't require carriers to certify to the FCC that subscribers were eligible. Consumers could self-certify, and in many states documentation wasn't required.
"Self-certify?" A two billion dollar program and the only fraud prevention measure is trusting people to tell the truth? Nutzo.
Secondly, let's not put the entire blame on government. Wireless companies realized a government sponsored gold mine and went for it:
For the carriers, the program is a chance for them to sign up more subscribers and make a small profit, plus more money if customers go over their small initial allotment and need to buy more minutes or text messages. Carriers can set prices for their Lifeline subscribers as the companies wish.
[...]
Lifeline users have been a source of subscriber growth in the otherwise saturated U.S. market and helped fuel the expansion of companies like TracFone, now the fifth-largest U.S. wireless carrier.
So the carriers took the most irresponsible consumers in the country - people who have difficulty managing the paltry subsidies the government gives them in the first place - and then jacks up the price when they inevitably go over minutes or limits on text messages. Classic exploitation.
A recipient could receive the free cell phone for their entire lifetime because "subscribers didn't have to recertify once they were enrolled in the program, and there were few checks on whether households signed up for more than one cellphone."
And the FTC's response?
The program rules we inherited were designed for the age of the rotary phone and failed to protect the program from abuse," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.Rotary phones went out in the 1970's. Is the FTC trying to claim that that they didn't have enough time to rewrite the rules to minimally protect the taxpayer's money?
I agree with the notion that a telephone is not a convenience or a luxury. In the 21st century, it is a necessity. Those who truly can't afford service should be subsidized. However, I greatly doubt whether there are $2.2 billion that needs to go to pay for service for people who can't afford it.
If you can afford cable or satellite TV, you can afford a phone.
Student who received "C+" sues university for $1.3 million
She claims sex discrimination and breach of contract. Lehigh University says the suit is outrageous?Do we really want either side to win in this case?
Daily Caller:
A graduate of Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. has sued the school for $1.3 million because she is unhappy that she got a C+ in a class in 2009.
Megan Thode, 27, says the grade ruined her dream of becoming a licensed professional counselor, reports The Morning Call, an Allentown-based newspaper. Her civil suit alleges breach of contract and sexual discrimination. It contends that the grade was part of a broader attempt to force her to abandon the graduate degree she was pursuing.
Trial proceedings began Monday in Northampton County and could last the rest of this week.
Thode was in the last year of a master's in counseling and human services in Lehigh's College of Education. She needed a B in the course at issue - a fieldwork class - to qualify for another round of field work, which was required to obtain the degree.
Thode's lawyer, Richard J. Orloski, maintains that she deserved a higher grade. However, her professor, Amanda Carr, awarded her a big, fat zero for classroom participation. That zero brought her grade down.
Orloski has also alleged that Carr and Nicholas Ladany (who was the director of the degree program
The suit also charges that the course
Thode did graduate from Lehigh with a master's degree, but not the one she aspired to have. According to Orloski, the $1.3 million Thode seeks in damages represents the money she'll lose over the course of her career because she isn't able to be a state-certified counselor.
The attorney for the school sounded incredulous in court:
"I think if your honor changed the grade, you'd be the first court in the history of jurisprudence to change an academic grade," Hamburg told the judge presiding over the case. "She has to get through the program. She has to meet the academic standards."Next, she's going to sue the bank that gave her the student loan because they should have known she was a loser.
But how satisfying is it to see a university squirm? Imagine if a couple of hundred thousand students sued their schools for "breach of contract?" That might change things for the better in a hurry.
Also Reads:
No comments:
Post a Comment