Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it."
This, from the woman who started the year promising, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation."
Media coverage of WTP suit to restore free speech
WTP members and friends,
Be sure to stay up to date on WTP’s efforts to hold politicians accountable for their attacks on the West’s jobs and property rights. Below is a sample of some of the media coverage of Monday’s filing of a lawsuit to overturn Montana laws that prohibit political speech by employers.
WTP Free Speech Center: http://www.westerntradition.org/freespeech/
Helena Independent-Record: http://helenair.com/news/article_d79fd2d4-2b39-11df-bf03-001cc4c03286.html
BusinessWeek (AP): http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EB68A84.htm
Forbes (AP): http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/03/09/business-financial-impact-us-montana-campaign-finance-lawsuit_7418472.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews
Billings Gazette: http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_242f9c20-2b11-11df-b183-001cc4c03286.html
Bozeman Daily Chronicle: http://bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_4ca5b7b2-2b15-11df-8778-001cc4c03286.html
Missoula Missoulian: http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_10073dd2-2b22-11df-904c-001cc4c03286.html
KECI Channel 13: http://www.keci.com/Lawsuit-Seeks-to-Overturn-Montana-Ban-on-Political/6526321
Be sure to stay up to date on WTP’s efforts to hold politicians accountable for their attacks on the West’s jobs and property rights. Below is a sample of some of the media coverage of Monday’s filing of a lawsuit to overturn Montana laws that prohibit political speech by employers.
WTP Free Speech Center: http://www.westerntradition.org/freespeech/
Helena Independent-Record: http://helenair.com/news/article_d79fd2d4-2b39-11df-bf03-001cc4c03286.html
BusinessWeek (AP): http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EB68A84.htm
Forbes (AP): http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/03/09/business-financial-impact-us-montana-campaign-finance-lawsuit_7418472.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews
Billings Gazette: http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_242f9c20-2b11-11df-b183-001cc4c03286.html
Bozeman Daily Chronicle: http://bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_4ca5b7b2-2b15-11df-8778-001cc4c03286.html
Missoula Missoulian: http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_10073dd2-2b22-11df-904c-001cc4c03286.html
KECI Channel 13: http://www.keci.com/Lawsuit-Seeks-to-Overturn-Montana-Ban-on-Political/6526321
WTP Files Suit to Protect Free Speech in Montana
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, March 8, 2010
WTP files suit to protect free speech in Montana
Citizens’ lobby and small businessman seek to overturn political speech ban
BOZEMAN, MT – Citing a Supreme Court decision upholding Americans’ First Amendment rights, Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) and a local employer filed suit Friday in Montana state court seeking to overturn state laws prohibiting political speech by employers.
WTP and Bozeman small business Champion Painting filed the suit in state district court in Helena Mar. 5.
With rising spending, taxes and regulation threatening his business, Champion Painting owner Ken Champion would like to use his business’ financial resources to exercise First Amendment rights. Montana state code (Title 13, Chapter 35) prohibits a corporation from “mak(ing) a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party” unless it gets permission from the state through the establishment of a segregated fund.
“Just as you do not lose your right to religious expression when you freely assemble as a church, you do not lose your right to political expression when you assemble with others under a corporation. Speaking out about issues of taxation and regulation that threaten employers are central to creating jobs and prosperity,” said Donny Ferguson, WTP Director of Media and Public Relations. “Our republic and democratic process are only healthy when all sides can speak freely. One side of the argument, namely government officials, should not have a legally-enforced monopoly on speech.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Margot Barg of Bozeman’s Wittich Law Firm. Attorney General Steve Bullock and Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth are named as defendants.
The suit comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld First Amendment protections in a suit brought by the non-profit group Citizens United. The group was threatened by the Federal Election Commission with prosecution for distributing a movie, funded with corporate contributions, about former First Lady and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. The federal government admitted in court that laws prohibiting corporate expenditures on political speech could be used to go so far as to ban books if they contain a mention of an individual who later became a candidate for public office.
WTP is a fast-growing, grassroots-supported non-profit organization advocating rational, responsible natural resource development and land use policy. For more information on WTP’s efforts to fight for free speech, go to http://www.westerntradition.org/freespeech/
# # #
WTP also chalked up a victory for free speech in WTP, et al, vs. City of Longmont in Colorado in late 2009. So-called “progressives” had taken a majority on that City Council and ensconced themselves in a campaign finance scheme that WTP labeled an “incumbency protection act” — which a Federal judge promptly threw out on an injunction. Longmont later paid WTP nearly $70,000 in legal fees.
Click here and here for press stories covering the lawsuit and background on the long battle over property rights in Longmont, and here for WTP’s press release on the action. WTP was instrumental in mobilizing residents on the issues, and the anti-business majority was overthrown (story “Conservative Wipeout” here), while turnout swamped two countywide “green” tax boondoggles, whose defeat shocked Boulder liberals.
Monday, March 8, 2010
WTP files suit to protect free speech in Montana
Citizens’ lobby and small businessman seek to overturn political speech ban
BOZEMAN, MT – Citing a Supreme Court decision upholding Americans’ First Amendment rights, Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) and a local employer filed suit Friday in Montana state court seeking to overturn state laws prohibiting political speech by employers.
WTP and Bozeman small business Champion Painting filed the suit in state district court in Helena Mar. 5.
With rising spending, taxes and regulation threatening his business, Champion Painting owner Ken Champion would like to use his business’ financial resources to exercise First Amendment rights. Montana state code (Title 13, Chapter 35) prohibits a corporation from “mak(ing) a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party” unless it gets permission from the state through the establishment of a segregated fund.
“Just as you do not lose your right to religious expression when you freely assemble as a church, you do not lose your right to political expression when you assemble with others under a corporation. Speaking out about issues of taxation and regulation that threaten employers are central to creating jobs and prosperity,” said Donny Ferguson, WTP Director of Media and Public Relations. “Our republic and democratic process are only healthy when all sides can speak freely. One side of the argument, namely government officials, should not have a legally-enforced monopoly on speech.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Margot Barg of Bozeman’s Wittich Law Firm. Attorney General Steve Bullock and Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth are named as defendants.
The suit comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld First Amendment protections in a suit brought by the non-profit group Citizens United. The group was threatened by the Federal Election Commission with prosecution for distributing a movie, funded with corporate contributions, about former First Lady and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. The federal government admitted in court that laws prohibiting corporate expenditures on political speech could be used to go so far as to ban books if they contain a mention of an individual who later became a candidate for public office.
WTP is a fast-growing, grassroots-supported non-profit organization advocating rational, responsible natural resource development and land use policy. For more information on WTP’s efforts to fight for free speech, go to http://www.westerntradition.org/freespeech/
# # #
WTP also chalked up a victory for free speech in WTP, et al, vs. City of Longmont in Colorado in late 2009. So-called “progressives” had taken a majority on that City Council and ensconced themselves in a campaign finance scheme that WTP labeled an “incumbency protection act” — which a Federal judge promptly threw out on an injunction. Longmont later paid WTP nearly $70,000 in legal fees.
Click here and here for press stories covering the lawsuit and background on the long battle over property rights in Longmont, and here for WTP’s press release on the action. WTP was instrumental in mobilizing residents on the issues, and the anti-business majority was overthrown (story “Conservative Wipeout” here), while turnout swamped two countywide “green” tax boondoggles, whose defeat shocked Boulder liberals.
IOC investigates Canadian women's hockey team for political incorrectness
I had no problem supporting the Canadian women's hockey team over the United States because unlike their southern neighbor, Canada was not ashamed of their exceptional talent and refused to dial back the offense in the third period to avoid an "unfair" final score.
I'm so happy to see they rewarded my faith with a proper post-gold medal celebration.
Sadly, Team Canada apologized.
Common-sense punishment for taunting and "hot-dogging" make sense, but Team Canada have always conducted themselves with respect and sports(wo)manship. So not only are are athletes not supposed to be too exceptional, any celebration is supposed to be muted an inoffensive.
I'm so happy to see they rewarded my faith with a proper post-gold medal celebration.
The International Olympic Committee will investigate the actions of Canadian women's hockey players who celebrated their gold medal victory Thursday night by swigging beer and smoking cigars on the ice in Vancouver...
...Gilbert Felli, the IOC's executive director of the Olympic Games, said that drinking in public was "not what we want to see" from athletes at an Olympic venue. The organization will investigate the actions and will speak with the international hockey federation and Canadian Olympic Committee and ask them to "act accordingly."
Sadly, Team Canada apologized.
Common-sense punishment for taunting and "hot-dogging" make sense, but Team Canada have always conducted themselves with respect and sports(wo)manship. So not only are are athletes not supposed to be too exceptional, any celebration is supposed to be muted an inoffensive.
Obama lifts offshore drilling ban…but only for Soros
From my Western Tradition Partnership blog:
In his Feb. 15, 2010 column, Michael Barone, Washington Examiner senior political analyst and co-author of the respected Almanac of American Politics, warned “Under Obama, crony capitalism again rules the day.” Barone went on to document how the Obama administration is manipulating health care and banking policy, and the automotive industry, to benefit friends of the White House.
President Obama’s disturbing policy on off-shore energy exploration should give Mr. Barone a lot more to write about.
The Obama administration is fighting off-shore energy exploration here in the United States, robbing workers of badly-needed jobs in a double-digit unemployment market and driving up energy and consumer prices as wages stagnate or fall.
But Obama is much kinder to Brazil, and one of his biggest personal moneymen. The Obama-controlled U.S. Import-Export Bank announced in Aug. 2009 it is shipping $2 billion in tax dollars to the socialist-run country’s government-run oil company to finance oil drilling in the massive off-shore Tupi oil basin, according to The Wall Street Journal.
And that $2 billion in taxpayer cash is just a down payment, as the Obama administration has talked with socialist President Lula da Silva about increasing that amount to Petrobras.
The real scandal is who gets rich off Obama’s decision to wire $2 billion in taxpayer cash to socialist Brazil while American energy workers collect unemployment and workers whose jobs depend on the energy industry join them on the unemployment line.
Bloomberg Financial News reports as of June 30, 2008, Hungarian left-wing financier George Soros purchased an $811 million stake in Petrobras. In just the last few years, Soros has funneled close to $100 million to various radical left-wing groups that support Obama and the radical environmentalist agenda.
After Soros’ purchase of Petrobras stock, Obama would loan the company $2 billion in taxpayer cash to boost profits largely held by Soros.
And it’s all but certain that a chunk of those taxpayer-funded Soros profits will be funneled into the campaign accounts of Obama, radical environmentalist groups and Obama’s Democrat cronies.
So while American workers suffer wage stagnation, rising prices and growing unemployment because of the Obama administration’s refusal to allow off-shore energy development in the United States, left-wing moneyman George Soros and Brazil’s state-run oil company will reap windfall profits, guaranteed by mountains of American taxpayer cash, that will find their way into liberal campaign accounts.
Seven months later, Obama refuses to budge — denying jobs to American workers and punishing families with higher prices while using public policy to benefit his political allies.
Americans workers may not be able to write the kind of checks to fund radical activity that Soros can, but WTP members ask Obama to do one simple thing — just allow Americans to develop the massive energy reserve we already own off our own shores.
Barone was right. The Obama administration is charging hard to write public policy to line the pockets of the president’s friends, knowing some of that cash will shake its way down to the president and his friends.
WTP members ask Obama to do one simple thing, give American workers just a fraction of the attention he showers on socialist regimes and leftist political moneymen.
They don’t want an Obama bailout. Or Obama to nationalize their industry. Or wire $2 billion in taxpayer cash to their offshore accounts.
WTP members, and millions of unemployed Americans, have one request — simply allow Americans to develop the massive energy reserves we already own off our own shores.
The jobs and lower prices that off-shore energy development bring should be available to all, not just a privilege to be enjoyed by the president’s friends on the taxpayer’s dime.
In his Feb. 15, 2010 column, Michael Barone, Washington Examiner senior political analyst and co-author of the respected Almanac of American Politics, warned “Under Obama, crony capitalism again rules the day.” Barone went on to document how the Obama administration is manipulating health care and banking policy, and the automotive industry, to benefit friends of the White House.
President Obama’s disturbing policy on off-shore energy exploration should give Mr. Barone a lot more to write about.
The Obama administration is fighting off-shore energy exploration here in the United States, robbing workers of badly-needed jobs in a double-digit unemployment market and driving up energy and consumer prices as wages stagnate or fall.
But Obama is much kinder to Brazil, and one of his biggest personal moneymen. The Obama-controlled U.S. Import-Export Bank announced in Aug. 2009 it is shipping $2 billion in tax dollars to the socialist-run country’s government-run oil company to finance oil drilling in the massive off-shore Tupi oil basin, according to The Wall Street Journal.
And that $2 billion in taxpayer cash is just a down payment, as the Obama administration has talked with socialist President Lula da Silva about increasing that amount to Petrobras.
The real scandal is who gets rich off Obama’s decision to wire $2 billion in taxpayer cash to socialist Brazil while American energy workers collect unemployment and workers whose jobs depend on the energy industry join them on the unemployment line.
Bloomberg Financial News reports as of June 30, 2008, Hungarian left-wing financier George Soros purchased an $811 million stake in Petrobras. In just the last few years, Soros has funneled close to $100 million to various radical left-wing groups that support Obama and the radical environmentalist agenda.
After Soros’ purchase of Petrobras stock, Obama would loan the company $2 billion in taxpayer cash to boost profits largely held by Soros.
And it’s all but certain that a chunk of those taxpayer-funded Soros profits will be funneled into the campaign accounts of Obama, radical environmentalist groups and Obama’s Democrat cronies.
So while American workers suffer wage stagnation, rising prices and growing unemployment because of the Obama administration’s refusal to allow off-shore energy development in the United States, left-wing moneyman George Soros and Brazil’s state-run oil company will reap windfall profits, guaranteed by mountains of American taxpayer cash, that will find their way into liberal campaign accounts.
Seven months later, Obama refuses to budge — denying jobs to American workers and punishing families with higher prices while using public policy to benefit his political allies.
Americans workers may not be able to write the kind of checks to fund radical activity that Soros can, but WTP members ask Obama to do one simple thing — just allow Americans to develop the massive energy reserve we already own off our own shores.
Barone was right. The Obama administration is charging hard to write public policy to line the pockets of the president’s friends, knowing some of that cash will shake its way down to the president and his friends.
WTP members ask Obama to do one simple thing, give American workers just a fraction of the attention he showers on socialist regimes and leftist political moneymen.
They don’t want an Obama bailout. Or Obama to nationalize their industry. Or wire $2 billion in taxpayer cash to their offshore accounts.
WTP members, and millions of unemployed Americans, have one request — simply allow Americans to develop the massive energy reserves we already own off our own shores.
The jobs and lower prices that off-shore energy development bring should be available to all, not just a privilege to be enjoyed by the president’s friends on the taxpayer’s dime.
Government-run health care programs begin banning mammograms
From Reuters:
Democrats claim the mammogram bans are standard procedure in Canada and Europe.
But what they intentionally neglect to say is women there die from breast cancer at rates much higher than in the United States.
Because of early detection, only 20 percent of American women diagnosed with breast cancer die from the disease. But because of rationing like that now seen in America's government-run health care systems, the death rate in France and Germany is 33 percent and a whopping 50 percent in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
Since socialized medicine cannot function without rationing and denying care to the elderly or those with chronic illnesses, patients are denied care and even advised to commit suicide (as Oregon's government-run system suggested to patients via a form letter) when government accountants find they are a net financial loss.
Under Obama's proposal, women would be refused cancer screenings until it is too late to save their lives because, as Margaret Thatcher put it, you eventually run out of other people's money. And under the Obama proposal there are no alternatives, as it is designed to eliminate all competing private health care alternatives.
Barack Obama told Americans he wouldn't enact the recommendation of a government health care board to deny cancer screening to women. He didn't need to. He knows the government bureaucrats that operate the current government-run systems, and would operate his European-style socialized system, will have no choice but to enact it themselves.
Government rationing of life-saving care is already common practice for many Americans, and Barack Obama wants to impose it on all women. His health care proposal is nothing more than a stimulus package for the funeral home industry.
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
CHICAGO - Some U.S. states have begun using controversial new breast cancer screening guidelines to stop offering routine mammograms for uninsured women in their 40s, a survey by the Avon Foundation for Women released on Monday found.
The Avon survey of more than 150 breast cancer health educators and providers from 48 states and Washington, D.C. found a quarter of the states have either cut or eliminated screening mammography and other early detection services for women under 50.
The survey renewed concerns that the guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which raised the recommended age for women to start getting screened for breast cancer to 50, might be used to deny health coverage for women...
...The programs, funded by both state and federal dollars, offer low-income, uninsured, and underserved women access to breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services.
Democrats claim the mammogram bans are standard procedure in Canada and Europe.
But what they intentionally neglect to say is women there die from breast cancer at rates much higher than in the United States.
Because of early detection, only 20 percent of American women diagnosed with breast cancer die from the disease. But because of rationing like that now seen in America's government-run health care systems, the death rate in France and Germany is 33 percent and a whopping 50 percent in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
Since socialized medicine cannot function without rationing and denying care to the elderly or those with chronic illnesses, patients are denied care and even advised to commit suicide (as Oregon's government-run system suggested to patients via a form letter) when government accountants find they are a net financial loss.
Under Obama's proposal, women would be refused cancer screenings until it is too late to save their lives because, as Margaret Thatcher put it, you eventually run out of other people's money. And under the Obama proposal there are no alternatives, as it is designed to eliminate all competing private health care alternatives.
Barack Obama told Americans he wouldn't enact the recommendation of a government health care board to deny cancer screening to women. He didn't need to. He knows the government bureaucrats that operate the current government-run systems, and would operate his European-style socialized system, will have no choice but to enact it themselves.
Government rationing of life-saving care is already common practice for many Americans, and Barack Obama wants to impose it on all women. His health care proposal is nothing more than a stimulus package for the funeral home industry.
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
If the women's hockey gold medal match comes down to Canada and the United States, I may have to support Canada.
The United States refuses to press the in the third period because they feel it's wrong to score too many more goals than the other team. The Canadian team, however, has no problem with the concept of individual exceptionalism and refuses to hide their talents to avoid offending the lesser-talented.
Up 13-0 on Russia on 32 shots after two periods, the United States women only took two shots in the third and refused to score any more goals. Up 13-0 on Slovakia on 46 shots after two periods, the Canadian women took another 21 shots in the third to score five more goals and put the final score at 18-0.
To the United States' program an 13-0 uneven distribution of goals is something to be ashamed of and suppressed because it isn't "fair." The Canadian womens' program sees a 13-0 lead as a testament to the hard work they have put in to being singularly exceptional and something to be celebrated by doing even better.
Is there anything more American than that?
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
The United States refuses to press the in the third period because they feel it's wrong to score too many more goals than the other team. The Canadian team, however, has no problem with the concept of individual exceptionalism and refuses to hide their talents to avoid offending the lesser-talented.
Up 13-0 on Russia on 32 shots after two periods, the United States women only took two shots in the third and refused to score any more goals. Up 13-0 on Slovakia on 46 shots after two periods, the Canadian women took another 21 shots in the third to score five more goals and put the final score at 18-0.
To the United States' program an 13-0 uneven distribution of goals is something to be ashamed of and suppressed because it isn't "fair." The Canadian womens' program sees a 13-0 lead as a testament to the hard work they have put in to being singularly exceptional and something to be celebrated by doing even better.
Is there anything more American than that?
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
Final Canadian WWI veteran dies
From the BBC:
This leaves American Frank Buckles, Briton Florence Green of the Women's Royal Air Force and Australian Claude Choules as the only three surviving World War I veterans.
There is still no official national monument to World War I veterans.
If you're in D.C., we do have a monument on the Mall to District residents who served I highly recommend you visit. It was dedicated on Armistice Day, 1931 and my hometown congressman, Ted Poe, has filed legislation to expand it and designate it as the official memorial.
The last Canadian veteran of World War I has died at the age of 109.
John Babcock enlisted at the age of 15 after lying about his age. He trained in Canada and England but the war ended before he reached the French frontline.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Mr Babcock was Canada's last living link to the Great War...
...He moved to the US in the 1920s, serving in the United States Army between 1921 and 1924 before becoming an electrician.
He died in Spokane, Washington, where he had lived since 1932, according to a statement from Mr Harper.
Mr Babcock tried to enlist in the US military again in 1941 but failed when it was discovered he had never become a US citizen.
He was naturalised as a US citizen in 1946.
This leaves American Frank Buckles, Briton Florence Green of the Women's Royal Air Force and Australian Claude Choules as the only three surviving World War I veterans.
There is still no official national monument to World War I veterans.
If you're in D.C., we do have a monument on the Mall to District residents who served I highly recommend you visit. It was dedicated on Armistice Day, 1931 and my hometown congressman, Ted Poe, has filed legislation to expand it and designate it as the official memorial.
Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll
Big news from CPAC. Not only was the event dominated by libertarians, Ron Paul takes home a surprising win the the annual Republican presidential nominee preference straw poll. Paul' 31 percent was nearly 10 point ahead of Mitt Romney's 22 percent, breaking his three-year winning streak. Sarah Palin was a distant third with just eight percent.
More numbers.
* Anti-Paul factions claim the Campaign for Liberty spammed straw poll with students. Nothing could be further from the truth. 48 percent of those who voted this year were students, a dropoff from last year when 52 percent of those who cast ballots were students. 54 percent were less than 25 years old, a drop from last year when they made up 64 percent.
* With 2,395 registered attendees voting, it is easily the biggest "turnout" for a CPAC poll, crushing 2009's total of 1,757.
* 80 percent of CPAC attendees say their "most important goal is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of citizens." Only nine percent said government should protect "traditional values" and only seven percent said government's most important goal is security.
* 52 percent said "reducing the size of federal government" was their most- or second-most important issue followed by "reducing spending." The "war on terror" got just 18 percent, "illegal immigration" just five percent and "stopping gay marriage" just one percent.
More numbers.
* Anti-Paul factions claim the Campaign for Liberty spammed straw poll with students. Nothing could be further from the truth. 48 percent of those who voted this year were students, a dropoff from last year when 52 percent of those who cast ballots were students. 54 percent were less than 25 years old, a drop from last year when they made up 64 percent.
* With 2,395 registered attendees voting, it is easily the biggest "turnout" for a CPAC poll, crushing 2009's total of 1,757.
* 80 percent of CPAC attendees say their "most important goal is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of citizens." Only nine percent said government should protect "traditional values" and only seven percent said government's most important goal is security.
* 52 percent said "reducing the size of federal government" was their most- or second-most important issue followed by "reducing spending." The "war on terror" got just 18 percent, "illegal immigration" just five percent and "stopping gay marriage" just one percent.
Fact: A reincarnated alien in a rhinestone jumpsuit is more credible than Obama's economic policies
34% - Americans who believe in UFOs (1)29% - Americans who believe in astrology (2)
25% - Americans who believe in reincarnation (3)
24% - Americans who believe in witches (4)
22% - Americans who say they've seen or felt a ghost (5)
11% - Americans who believe Elvis may still be alive (6)
9% - Americans adults who still believe in Santa Claus (7)
6% - Americans who believe the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center with explosives on Sept. 11 (8)
6% - Americans who believe the Pentagon was struck by a missile on Sept. 11 (9)
6% - Americans who believe Barack Obama's "stimulus" created jobs (10)
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
1 - FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, Jun. 18, 2004
2 - FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, Jun. 18, 2004
3 - FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, Jun. 18, 2004
4 - FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, Jun. 18, 2004
5 - CBS News, Oct. 30, 2005
6 - FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, Aug. 14, 2002
7 - U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 1996
8 - Scripps Howard/Ohio University, July 2006
9 - Scripps Howard/Ohio University, July 2006
10 - CBS News/New York Times, Feb. 11, 2010
Another Obama success story
From an e-mail:
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
A 15 mpg clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A 25 mpg vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 clunkers were turned-in, so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
CBS, without the laugh track.
Ever wonder how funny a typical CBS "sitcom" is without using its heavily-abused laugh track as a crutch? Check out this clip with the laugh track removed, and see if you can tell where the jokes are.
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
How big a fraud is autotune?
This is "Tik Tok," sung by a 52-year-old Long Islander with an awful voice. She had never heard the song before. It actually sounds a little better than Ke$ha.
Independent voters not buying Obama's rhetoric
I guess I wasn't the only one.
A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds most Americans do not believe key assertions Barack Obama made about the economy in Thursday's address to Congress.
Most people only look at a poll's overall findings. While still the accurate snapshot of the total picture, they are influenced by the partisan beliefs of Democrats and Republicans which are largely immobile and not what drives most change in poll numbers.
That factor is independent voters. And for a president elected on a much-ballyhooed power to win independent voters, the numbers don't look good.
"We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families."
Only 21 percent of voters believe that misleading assertion. 53 percent say it is simply not true and other polls show a majority of voters believe Obama will eventually raise their taxes.
Rasmussen finds very, very few independent voters thought Obama was telling the truth (I don't have the exact figure because I'm too cheap to spring for the $19.95 subscription to get crosstabs.) Obama should be deeply disturbed by the fact even Democrats can't agree if he's telling the truth. According to the poll's findings "34 percent [of Democrats] say the tax cuts have been delivered, 29 percent say they haven’t, and 38 percent are not sure."
"There are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed."
Only 35 percent of voters believe that misleading statement. Fifty (50) percent say it is simply false.
The numbers are even worse for Obama among voters who decide elections. Just 24 percent of independent voters say that statement is true. Fifty-nine (59) percent say Obama's statement was false.
“After two years of recession, the economy is growing again.”
Just 35 percent of voters believe that misleading statement is true. Again, 50 percent say it is false. While new numbers show what appears to be growth in the economy, most of it is figures on inventory which are not necessarily indicitive of healthy growth.
Oddly enough, when Obama first proposed his "stimulus" package a year ago, economists predicted that had it not passed, the economy would begin growing at the end of 2009.
Among independent voters, a whopping 60 percent said Obama was not telling the truth when he said the economy was growing again.
Other poll findings
* Obama is trying to sell a college loan program that cuts sweetheart deals for government workers at a time when 51 percent of Americans, and likely an even larger share of voters, say government employees are paid too much.
* Why is Obama now offering empty words about tax cuts after stubborn insistence that only government bloat could rejuvenate the economy? Sixty-one (61) percent of voters say tax cuts are good for the economy and 53 percent say the same about cutting government spending. Both of those are growing numbers.
Overall, it's not a pretty picture for a president elected on a promise to govern as a centrist, only to aggressively ram through Congress a left-wing agenda badly out of step with the American electorate.
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds most Americans do not believe key assertions Barack Obama made about the economy in Thursday's address to Congress.
Most people only look at a poll's overall findings. While still the accurate snapshot of the total picture, they are influenced by the partisan beliefs of Democrats and Republicans which are largely immobile and not what drives most change in poll numbers.
That factor is independent voters. And for a president elected on a much-ballyhooed power to win independent voters, the numbers don't look good.
"We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families."
Only 21 percent of voters believe that misleading assertion. 53 percent say it is simply not true and other polls show a majority of voters believe Obama will eventually raise their taxes.
Rasmussen finds very, very few independent voters thought Obama was telling the truth (I don't have the exact figure because I'm too cheap to spring for the $19.95 subscription to get crosstabs.) Obama should be deeply disturbed by the fact even Democrats can't agree if he's telling the truth. According to the poll's findings "34 percent [of Democrats] say the tax cuts have been delivered, 29 percent say they haven’t, and 38 percent are not sure."
"There are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed."
Only 35 percent of voters believe that misleading statement. Fifty (50) percent say it is simply false.
The numbers are even worse for Obama among voters who decide elections. Just 24 percent of independent voters say that statement is true. Fifty-nine (59) percent say Obama's statement was false.
“After two years of recession, the economy is growing again.”
Just 35 percent of voters believe that misleading statement is true. Again, 50 percent say it is false. While new numbers show what appears to be growth in the economy, most of it is figures on inventory which are not necessarily indicitive of healthy growth.
Oddly enough, when Obama first proposed his "stimulus" package a year ago, economists predicted that had it not passed, the economy would begin growing at the end of 2009.
Among independent voters, a whopping 60 percent said Obama was not telling the truth when he said the economy was growing again.
Other poll findings
* Obama is trying to sell a college loan program that cuts sweetheart deals for government workers at a time when 51 percent of Americans, and likely an even larger share of voters, say government employees are paid too much.
* Why is Obama now offering empty words about tax cuts after stubborn insistence that only government bloat could rejuvenate the economy? Sixty-one (61) percent of voters say tax cuts are good for the economy and 53 percent say the same about cutting government spending. Both of those are growing numbers.
Overall, it's not a pretty picture for a president elected on a promise to govern as a centrist, only to aggressively ram through Congress a left-wing agenda badly out of step with the American electorate.
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
Obama's slanderous attack on the Court an opening shot in war on dissenting speech
Why did Alito mouth "not true" when Obama said the Supreme Court made it legal for foreign corporations to spend money in elections?
Because Obama blatantly lied.
It is illegal for foreign corporations to spend money to influence elections. That federal law that was not changed, overturned or touched by the court's ruling.
The Citizens United ruling concerned a law regulating speech by corporations already allowed to engage in speech. The question was, is there a limit? The Court ruled, when it comes to corporations allowed to make political speech in elections, there is no limit on the amount of speech.
It did not create new classes of corporations that could speak and did not remove the prohibition on foreign bodies influencing elections.
It was an orchestrated moment of theater and an intentional lie. Obama hopes to frighten people, and bully other federal judges, into backing limits on speech by people who plan to speak out against his policies.
After all the boogeyman fictional bedtime stories of foreign leaders being allowed to influence American policy, Obama's rhetorically phony attack intended to legalize the quashing of dissent is ironically the kind of factless bombast only a Hugo Chavez could appreciate.
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
Because Obama blatantly lied.
It is illegal for foreign corporations to spend money to influence elections. That federal law that was not changed, overturned or touched by the court's ruling.
The Citizens United ruling concerned a law regulating speech by corporations already allowed to engage in speech. The question was, is there a limit? The Court ruled, when it comes to corporations allowed to make political speech in elections, there is no limit on the amount of speech.
It did not create new classes of corporations that could speak and did not remove the prohibition on foreign bodies influencing elections.
It was an orchestrated moment of theater and an intentional lie. Obama hopes to frighten people, and bully other federal judges, into backing limits on speech by people who plan to speak out against his policies.
After all the boogeyman fictional bedtime stories of foreign leaders being allowed to influence American policy, Obama's rhetorically phony attack intended to legalize the quashing of dissent is ironically the kind of factless bombast only a Hugo Chavez could appreciate.
http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)