Senate Candidate: My name is Darryl Glenn.

My name is Darryl Glenn. I am a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force, and last night I became the Republican nominee for US Senate in Colorado.

...And I am the Democratic Party’s absolutely worst nightmare.

Why is that?

Well, you see, I am a black conservative Republican running for the United States Senate against one of the most vulnerable Democrats in America in 2016. This race is the best chance Republicans have to pick up a seat and keep control of the Senate.

You see, I am a conservative. I believe in defending our borders, cutting our taxes, defending the sanctity of human life, and crushing Radical Islam. (Yes, I’m willing to say it even if our President will not.)

For many years now, the Democrat Party has sold the black community a bill of goods. Every single year, they know they cannot run on their record, so they try to make these campaigns about identity politics.

Well, I am tired of it. They can’t pull that with me. I intend to call the Democrats on their nonsense and hold their feet to the fire. Trust me that terrifies them. ...Because I have had it with the Democrat Party and the extreme liberal activists that run it.

The policies liberals have advocated for the past 30 years have not helped African Americans one bit—they haven’t helped ANY Americans—they’ve helped the liberal elites who run their corrupt party, and they have bankrupted our children. The Democratic Party isn’t the “Party of the little guy” it’s the party of the bosses and the liberal extremists.

White liberals have profited while the black community has been left behind. It’s been 50 years since LBJ’s “Great Society” programs were launched, and yet our poverty rate has stayed the same. Meanwhile, our inner cities are war zones, children are without fathers, we are bankrupt both morally and financially, and America is weaker than ever before.

So-called “black leaders” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have used their influence with black people in the Democrat Party in order to gain great personal power with the Democrats. It’s time for a new generation of “black leaders” who are ready to help rebuild America, as the strong, great nation we know it to be.

The fastest way for the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black community to end is to elect leaders who will tell the truth about how the Democrats failed policies have gravely injured the family in America.

They have absolutely expanded the federal government beyond our means to the point that we face a financial meltdown if we keep going like this.

They have crushed job creators.

...And through the Welfare State, they have nearly driven black fathers out of the home by creating an incentive for parents not to stay together. I’m sick of hearing white liberals claim that if you call them out for their failed liberal programs, you’re a racist. It makes my blood boil -- which is part of why I am running.

We’re not going to let them change the subject in this election because they can’t pull that stuff with me. I am going to make them run on their record, and let me tell you, when I do, the people of Colorado aren’t going to like the record that they see.

Netanyahu victory is a message to Republicans

Netanyahu victory is a message to Republicans

Yesterday’s election in Israel is a healthy reminder that the vote of the people matters. It is also a useful reminder that campaigns can make a big difference.

Prime Minister Netanyahu focused his campaign on national security. He argued that Israel’s very survival is at stake. His opponents wanted to emphasize the economy.

Forced to choose between their pocketbook and their lives, a large number of Israelis chose national security.

The bias of the media in this campaign was obvious and deeply anti-Netanyahu. Before Election Day, there were predictions that Netanyahu’s party, Likud, would only win 21 seats. Then the media decided based on exit polls that the race would be a tie with 24 seats for Likud and 24 for the left.

My guess is that media hostility to Netanyahu caused a significant number of those polled to refuse to admit they voted for him.

In the real results, it seems Likud won 30 seats for a surprisingly big gain in the complex world of Israeli politics. As the New York Post reported, “Not only was that shockingly good for Likud, it was a far stronger showing than in the last election.”

If Netanyahu was the biggest winner of the day, Speaker John Boehner may have been the second biggest winner. His decision to invite the Israeli Prime Minister to address a joint meeting of Congress created a close tie with the newly reelected Israeli leader.

President Obama publicly expressed disdain for Netanyahu and sent political operatives (not to mention, according to some allegations, taxpayer money) to defeat Likud. He lost.

This outcome is a good reminder that elections matter. The real vote was very different from the pre-election analysis which was off by 45% in the number of seats won. It was also “a far cry from the virtual dead heat that television exit polls had reported Tuesday evening,” as the Jerusalem Post put it.

Sometimes leaders have to make powerful, clear, emotional arguments buttressed by compelling and understandable facts. Something that Obama and the Democrats cannot do.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to say, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote."

This outcome has to worry Hillary Clinton, who saw Barack Obama win the 2007-2008 primary campaign even though she was far-and-away the frontrunner, in part because she had no argument to make. She seems to have the same problem today.

Republicans should take heart that a campaign that focuses on making an important fact based argument can lead to a good election outcome. 

There’s no mystery to the midterm shellacking

There’s no mystery to the midterm shellacking

By Kathleen Parker

Post election analysis falls somewhere between amusing and clueless.

In the amusing camp are Democratic strategists who intone that more Democrats would have won if only more people had voted. The gods surely blush with envy.

And of course, there’s the conventional wisdom that Democrats always suffer in midterms because they lack “intensity,” meaning they don’t care, and that presidents are always unpopular in their sixth year in office.

So much for insight.

Next we visit the clueless camp where professional pundits gather. The consensus here is that the election wasn’t a mandate for Republicans to overhaul government. I confess that I was one of these, but (mark your calendars) I was wrong. There is a difference between warning victors against the end-zone prance, as many of us did, and denying that Republicans were hired to do a job.

There’s also no denying that the midterms were a referendum on President Barack Obama. The president prefers to say they were a referendum on his policies, which is perhaps an easier pill to swallow. But Obama is his policies, which happen to rub many Republicans (and at least a few Democrats) the wrong way.

Moreover, people don’t like being insulted and misled, as many feel they have been by this administration. This is not just a feeling but a demonstrable fact, especially vis-avis the Affordable Care Act. And it’s not just the far-right fringe who object to the strategic misrepresentations along the way.

These obfuscations include telling the American people that they could keep the insurance they had if they liked it and also writing the law in such a way that the ACA’s mandate to purchase government-approved insurance was not a “tax,” despite the Internal Revenue Service’s role in policing its compliance.

The keep-your-insurance ruse is history now, but the memory still lingers in the minds of voters, who, contrary to what the Obama White House thinks, are not stupid.

There’s no dishonor – and it certainly isn’t stupid – to not understand the ACA. The then-Democratic-controlled Congress that passed the thing didn’t even understand it. I’d wager that most still don’t.

Punditry aside, there’s no mystery to the midterm shellacking.

It was a loud, clear shout-out to Congress to Just Stop It. Not only stop Obamacare, which more likely will end up being tweaked, but to stop executive overreach and disinformation to sway votes while betraying voters.

Those who feel defrauded by their own government got third-party confirmation recently when remarks by one of the ACA’s chief architects, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber – invoking the stupidity of voters and lauding the political advantage of a lack of transparency in government – went viral.

It is a beautiful thing when Truth trots out the door before Oops can catch him.

The comments were made on a panel about a year ago but were released a week after the midterms. Gruber was making the point that Obamacare never would have passed if the administration had been honest about the fact that the so-called “penalty” for noncompliance with the mandate was really a tax.

“And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing [Obamacare] to pass.” The irony is that the very thing the White House was trying to conceal (because the truth was just too complicated for regular folks), the Supreme Court essentially confirmed. Enforcement of the mandate constituted a tax, not a penalty. Thus spake Chief Justice John Roberts.

This ruling, indeed, was the reason the ACA was able to go forward, which is why so many Republicans were apoplectic with Robert’s siding with the liberals in a 5-4 ruling. In other words, Obama’s obfuscation was simultaneously revealed and rewarded by the court. And the American people were smacked with a health-system overhaul many more would have rejected had they known the truth.

Or would they? It’s hard to know what might have happened if truth had won the day. But we do know that truth squandered is trust lost.

We also know that once trust is gone, it’s very hard to restore. Over time, and not just during this administration, we have lost trust in one institution after another. But when we have lost faith in our government, we have lost faith in ourselves.

At their core, the midterms were really about restoring that trust. This, it seems, is the mandate that precedes all others and will require the good faith efforts of both Democrats and Republicans. 

Is The Man In the White House Mentally Ill?

Is The Man In the White House Mentally Ill?

By Dave Daubenmire 

I am not asking this with my tongue in my cheek. I am as serious as a judge. As I sit here and write, I am listening to Mr. Obama's press conference. Something is very wrong with this guy. He is either mentally ill or demon possessed. Either choice is a possibility. But something is definitely wrong with him. He seems somehow inhuman.

I've lived my entire life in a world of athletic competition. I understand the human emotion that is associated with winning and losing. I grew up with the opening theme of ABC's Wide World of Sports continuously playing in my head. (If I close my eyes I can hear the voice of Jim McKay bouncing around the corners of my brain.)

"Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of sports... the thrill of victory... and the agony of defeat... the human drama of athletic competition... This is "ABC's Wide World of Sports!"

The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat brings with it emotions. That is why we watch sports. We love the human drama of athletic competition. That's why we have press conferences after games. We love to hear the emotional reaction to winning and losing.

President Obama is a hollow man. He has no feelings. He feels no emotions. The human drama of competition seems to have no outward effect on him.

Can I be blunt? He got his butt kicked. Every talking head on the tube is pointing the finger at his unpopularity. "The bloom is off of the rose. It is a direct repudiation of his policies. The era of Obama is over." It is as if everyone knows it but him.

Politics is nothing more than a beauty contest, and Obama has been voted off of the island. But he acts as if he still owns the island. There seems to be no agony in his defeat. It is not normal. His emotions do not line up with reality. He is either sick, or he is possessed. I'm not laughing. I am serious.

His party rejected him. The American people rejected him. His fawning media has turned their affections in a different direction, yet he shows no emotion. I watch him on the TV. I watch him in his press conference. I watch his eyes as he responds to the media's questions. I believe he is a sick, dangerous man.

I Googled the word 'sociopath.' "A person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."

Bingo. That's him. That's the guy living the life of President of the United States.

I went a bit further and Googled "Characteristics of a Sociopath." Read it for yourself. Permit me to summarize. You recognize his/any mental illness by these traits.

-An oversized ego.

-Lying and showing manipulative behavior.

-Incapable of showing empathy.

-Lack of shame or remorse.

-Staying eerily calm in dangerous situations.

-Behaving irresponsibly or with extreme impulsivity.

-Having few close friends.

-Being charming ---but only superficially.

-Living by the pleasure principle.

-Showing disregard for societal norms.

-Having intense eyes.

The man is either sick or non-human. He does not react like a normal human being.

Consider this from the article:

"Sociopaths can be very charismatic and friendly -- because they know it will help them get what they want. "They are expert con artists and always have a secret agenda," Rosenberg said. "People are so amazed when they find that someone is a sociopath because they're so amazingly effective at blending in. They're masters of disguise. Their main tool to keep them from being discovered is a creation of an outer personality."

As M.E. Thomas described in a post for Psychology Today: "You would like me if you met me. I have the kind of smile that is common among television show characters and rare in real life, perfect in its sparkly teeth dimensions and ability to express pleasant invitation."

Reading that gives me the willies...how about you?

No emotions. Cold. Calculating. He doesn't even know that he lost. He is unaware that he has been rejected. He acts as if it is business as usual while the entire Democratic Party is wishing for a moving van out in front of the White House.

In my coaching career, I lost a lot of games. I know how it feels. I know how it makes you react. He has destroyed his party. His friends are running for cover, but he acts as if he has just won.

Sociopaths are dangerous. Some famous sociopaths in recent history include Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gazy.

You laugh at me. You ridicule what I say because I compare him to serial killers. Go ahead. Laugh. He displays all of the characteristics of the above mentioned goons. They were charismatic and likeable.

What kind of man plays golf after a young man's head is chopped off? What kind of man disappears for hours while some of his "employees" are being killed overseas? What kind of man permits a deadly disease to be freely introduced into a society? What kind of man acts as if he won when the whole world watched him lose? What kind of man believes his own lies?

President Obama is either sick or demon possessed. Red flags are everywhere we look. Will his own party stop him? Will anyone stop him? President Obama is a sick, dangerous man.

I just thought someone needed to point that out.

Obama and National Security: A Team of Bumblers?

Obama and National Security:Team of Bumblers?

Are Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel capable for today’s new national-security challenges?

When President Obama, after months of equivocation over how to respond to the takeover of parts of Iraq and Syria by radical militants, announced in September that the United States would “lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat,” the White House swung quickly into action, sending proposed legislation to train and equip Syrian rebels to Capitol Hill that same day. Unfortunately, the White House failed to consult with the Pentagon—which would be doing most of the rolling back—on the timing or details of the announcement.

According to multiple sources, behind the scenes a few things went badly awry in the launch of Obama’s new policy. First, the Pentagon was surprised by the president’s timing, according to a senior defense official. “We didn’t know it was going to be in the speech,” he said, referring to Obama’s Sept. 10 address to the nation. Second, the White House neglected to give Pentagon lawyers a chance to revise and approve the proposed legislative language before it went to the Hill, which is considered standard practice. Staffers working for Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said they were appalled by what they saw: language so sloppy that it failed to mention adequate protections against so-called “green-on-blue” attacks by trainees on American troops, and effectively left the Defense Department liable for funding the mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—even though the president was telling members of Congress he didn’t need money for this new mission, since the Saudis were putting it up. “What came over would have not have been a mission the DoD could have executed,” says a senior Republican committee staffer.

The Armed Services Committee later went directly to the Pentagon and worked out new language, the White House approved it, and Obama signed the legislation as part of a new Continuing Resolution on Sept. 19. But that was hardly the first instance in recent months when the White House failed to consult with the Pentagon. The Pentagon was not given a heads-up about that letter either, according to multiple sources. “We didn’t know it was going over there, and there were significant concerns about it,” said the senior defense official. “We had these authorities to go into Iraq under the 2002 AUMF, which is what she wanted repealed. We believed the authorities were still needed.”

But it’s clear the finger-pointing between the White House and Pentagon reflects no mere technicality. Both examples cited to me by well-placed sources close to the Defense Department offer new evidence of a criticism that has dogged this administration for most of its six and a half years: that Barack Obama’s White House is so insular and tightly controlled it often avoids “outside” consultation—including with its own cabinet secretaries and agencies. That’s especially true when the issue is one of this president’s least favorite things: opening up new hostilities in foreign lands.

Indeed, the Syrian-rebel incident recalled a more famous instance of White House surprise tactics a year earlier, when after a stroll on the White House lawn with chief of staff Denis McDonough, Obama embarrassed Kerry by abruptly deciding to ask for congressional approval for bombing the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad—only hours after Kerry had publicly declared that Assad was facing imminent action.

In their recent memoirs, former defense secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta also have described the White House-centric foreign policy of the Obama administration—in Panetta’s case, a White House that he said was so “eager to rid itself of Iraq” it rejected Pentagon advice about the need for residual troops in Iraq after 2011, opening the way for ISIL. 

Gates was even more pointed, writing that “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials—including the president and vice president—became a big problem for me.”

“I think this is the most insular White House national security team in recent history,” says Jim Thomas, vice president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a former senior Pentagon official, who added that the president’s most recent big decision, picking an “Ebola czar,” was “symptomatic of the problem.”.

The Ebola crisis has underscored what many of Obama’s critics—including those in his party—have been saying with increasing urgency in recent months, that the White House’s approach to national security does not instill confidence and seems more questionable than ever in the face of the muscular new challenges on the scene.

“It’s a pathetically weak team,” says one retired general who was in a senior command position, and who faults Hagel as much as Rice for some of the problems. The general said that military professionals were buzzing over Hagel’s absence from the recent public exchange between the White House and Dempsey, who in congressional testimony on Sept. 16 appeared to undercut the president’s vow to put no boots on the ground in Iraq by suggesting that “close combat advisers” might be needed. “There’s no energy, no sense that the OSD stands for anything,” says one administration official, referring to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “It’s all coming out of the Joint Chiefs.”

“An unlikely consensus is emerging across the ideological spectrum about the war against the Islamic State: President Obama’s strategy to ‘degrade and eventually destroy’ the terrorist entity is unworkable,” the Washington Post wrote in an editorial on Sunday. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., put it Sunday on “Face the Nation,” the U.S. effort now amounts to mere “pecks at a big problem,” and allies remain baffled by the lack of a larger U.S. strategy.

While Hagel defends the status quo, Rice continues to stumble in her infrequent TV appearances and to alienate potential Hill allies – as well as the Pentagon—with what critics describe as poor outreach to Republicans and coordination of policy with the Defense Department. “Our experience has been that the DoD and Capitol Hill are often taken by surprise at same time and on same issues” by the White House, says the senior Armed Services Committee staffer.

Rice is rarely heard in public except when she very occasionally appears on the Sunday talk shows—and then more times than not, it seems, in a bumbling way. (Most recently, by saying Turkey would supply bases for strikes against ISIL, only to be undercut by Ankara’s denial hours later; that followed a much-criticized performance describing former Taliban captive Bowe Bergdahl’s Army service as “honorable” despite the murky circumstances of his disappearance and capture; and her now-infamous explanation of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, after which she was blasted by Republicans for appearing to play down terrorism links.)

"There is a sense that the NSC is run a little like beehive ball soccer, where everyone storms to wherever the ball is moving around the field,” according to another recently departed senior administration official. “They are managing by crisis rather than strategy.… It’s Syria one day, Iraq the next, North Korea the next, and so on. The NSC is finding multitasking very hard these days.

According to the federal government’s 2014 personnel survey, civilian defense employees have grown increasingly dissatisfied with their jobs, with ratings dropping in 47 of 84 categories from last year. And the larger question is whether Hagel’s mostly inward focus on budget and morale issues at the Pentagon is the right focus now—instead of helping to project American power abroad amidst spiraling global crises.

But what might be missing most from the administration—at least according to its critics—is a forceful strategist who is able to push the president (who remains, for the most part, his own No. 1 strategist) to be more decisive.

Of course, no one knows Obama’s thinking on national security better than Rice, who has been with him longer than any senior official in the administration with the exception of McDonough, his chief of staff. And as we’ve discovered during six-plus years of studying Obama’s MO, that counts for a lot with this president. Keeping America out of any more disastrous wars is his mission, and it may well be that his allegedly bumbling team is doing nothing more than implementing his desires. Whether that is any longer a policy appropriate to the times, given the resilience of ISIL—and whether he’s getting the kind of advice he needs to hear, rather than the kind he wants to hear—is another question, one for the pundits to debate.

But as one former senior Pentagon official puts it, “When you select for personal loyalty, that may be all you get.”

Restoring The Dream 2014: Message to black voters

Restoring The Dream 2014: Message to black voters

To many on the left, it came as surprise that a conservative Tea Party organization launched the most ambitious effort in anyone's memory to engage and educate minority community on just how they have been duped by the so called progressive left into thinking that only government could answer their problems.

TheTeaParty.net along with the Dr. Alveda King, the Congress of Racial Equality and several others knew that "Restore the Dream 2014" was critical to our efforts to turn America back to our founding principles of liberty and personal responsibility. Friday, we were in Ferguson, Missouri, were we were joined by hundreds of residents and community leaders.

Our message is simple. Stop listening to the lies of President Obama, Jessie Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton. They want the minority community to believe that by keeping them rich and in power, they will provide a few scraps in the way of handouts to buy a vote. The harm done to the black community, and minorities in general has devastated communities and left individuals believing there is no other hope.

Restore the Dream 2014 is changing that and the left is having a fit. They see it as a turf war with "how dare you invade our voting block and start telling the truth" Well, the truth must be told and it is long overdue. The Democrats have never been the champions of civil rights yet they somehow managed to take the work of Republicans and make people believe it was their doing when they knew they were defeated.
 

Help Restore the Dream and offer a vision forward for all Americans. This is what the Tea Party was born to do and is not going to let anything stand in the way. Your support is what will decide how far and  how fast we can move forward. 

Barack Obama demonstrates the antithesis of what the leadership of an all powerful government should be!

Barack Obama demonstrates the antithesis of what the leadership of an all powerful government should be!

Charles Krauthammer

The president is upset. Very upset. Frustrated and angry. Seething about the government’s handling of Ebola, said the front-page headline in the New York Times last Saturday.

There’s only one problem with this pose, so obligingly transcribed for him by the Times. It’s his government. He’s president. Has been for six years. Yet Barack Obama reflexively insists on playing the shocked outsider when something goes wrong within his own administration.

IRS? “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” he thundered in May 2013 when the story broke of the agency targeting conservative groups. “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency.”

Except that within nine months, Obama had grown far more tolerant, retroactively declaring this to be a phony scandal without “a smidgen of corruption.”

Obamacare rollout? “Nobody is more frustrated by that than I am,” said an aggrieved Obama about the botching of the central element of his signature legislative achievement. “Nobody is madder than me.”

Veterans Affairs scandal? Presidential Chief of Staff Denis McDonough explained: “Secretary (Eric) Shinseki said yesterday ... that he’s mad as hell and the president is madder than hell.” A nice touch – taking anger to the next level.

The president himself declared: “I will not stand for it.” But since the administration itself said the problem was long-standing, indeed predating Obama, this means he had stood for it for five and a half years.

The one scandal where you could credit the president with genuine anger and obliviousness involves the recent breaches of White House Secret Service protection. The Washington Post described the first lady and president as “angry and upset,” and no doubt they were. But the first Secret Service scandal – the hookers of Cartagena – evinced this from the president: “If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I’ll be angry.” An innovation in ostentatious distancing: future conditional indignation.

These shows of calculated outrage – and thus distance – are becoming not just unconvincing but un-amusing. In our system, the president is both head of state and head of government. Obama seems to enjoy the monarchial parts, but when it comes to the actual business of running government, he shows little interest and even less aptitude.

His principal job, after all, is to administer the government and to get the right people to do it. (That’s why we typically send governors rather than senators to the White House.) That’s called management. Obama had never managed anything before running for the biggest management job on earth. It shows.

What makes the problem even more acute is that Obama represents not just the party of government but a grandiose conception of government as the prime mover of social and economic life. The very theme of his presidency is that government can and should be trusted to do great things. And therefore society should be prepared to hand over large chunks of its operations – from health care (one-sixth of the economy) to carbon regulation down to free contraception – to the central administrative state.

But this presupposes a Leviathan not just benign but competent. When it then turns out that vast, faceless bureaucracies tend to be incapable, inadequate, hopelessly inefficient and often corrupt, Obama resorts to expressions of angry surprise.

He must. He’s not simply protecting his own political fortunes. He’s trying to protect faith in the entitlement state by portraying its repeated failures as shocking anomalies.

Unfortunately, the pretense has the opposite effect. It produces not reassurance but anxiety. Obama’s determined detachment conveys the feeling that nobody’s home. No one leading. Not even from behind.

A poll conducted two weeks ago showed that 64 percent of likely voters (in competitive races) think that “things in the U.S. feel like they are out of control.” This is one degree of anxiety beyond thinking the country is on the wrong track. That’s been negative for years, and it’s a reflection of failed policies that in principle can be changed. Regaining control, the other hand, is a far dicier proposition.

With events in the saddle and a sense of disorder growing – the summer border crisis, Ferguson, the rise of the Islamic State, Ebola – the nation expects from the White House not miracles but competence. At a minimum, mere presence. An observer presidency with its bewildered-bystander pose only adds to the unease. 

Liberals ignore basic economics claiming the "law of demand" does not apply to jobs

Liberals ignore basic economics claiming the "law of demand" does not apply to jobs

By Walter E. Williams
So as to give some perspective, I’m going to ask readers for their guesses about human behavior before explaining my embarrassment by some of my fellow economists.

Suppose the prices of ladies jewelry rose by 100 percent. What would you predict would happen to sales?

What about a 25 or 50 percent price increase?

I’m going to guess that the average person would predict that sales would fall.

Would you make the same prediction about auto sales if cars’ prices rose by 100 percent or 25 or 50 percent? Suppose that you’re the CEO of General Motors and your sales manager tells you the company could increase auto sales by advertising a 100 percent or 50 percent price increase.

I’m guessing that you’d fire the sales manager for both lunacy and incompetency.

Let’s try one more. What would you predict would happen to housing sales if prices rose by 50 percent?

I’m guessing you’d predict a decline in sales.

You say, “OK, Williams, you’re really trying our patience with these obvious questions. What’s your point?”

It turns out that there’s a law in economics known as the first fundamental law of demand, to which there are no known real-world exceptions.

The law states that the higher the price of something the less people will take of it and vice versa. Another way of stating this very simple law is: There exists a price whereby people can be induced to take more of something, and there exists a price whereby people will take less of something.

Some people suggest that if the price of something is raised, buyers will take more or the same amount.

That’s silly because there’d be no limit to the price that sellers would charge. For example, if a grocer knew he would sell more – or the same amount of – milk at $8 a gallon than at $4 a gallon, why in the world would he sell it at $4? Then the question becomes: Why would he sell it at $8 if people would buy the same amount at a higher price?

There are economists, most notably Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who suggest that the law of demand applies to everything except labor prices (wages) of low-skilled workers. Krugman says that paying fast-food workers $15 an hour wouldn’t cause big companies such as McDonald’s to cut jobs. In other words, Krugman argues that raising the minimum wage doesn’t change employer behavior.

Before we address Krugman’s fallacious argument, think about this: One of Galileo’s laws says the influence of gravity on a falling body in a vacuum is to cause it to accelerate at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. That applies to a falling rock, steel ball or feather. What would you think of the reasoning capacity of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who’d argue that because human beings are not rocks, steel balls or feathers, Galileo’s law of falling bodies doesn’t apply to them?

Krugman says that most minimum- wage workers are employed in what he calls non-tradable industries – industries that can’t move to China.

He says that there are few mechanization opportunities where minimumwage workers are employed – for example, fast-food restaurants, hotels, etc. That being the case, he contends, seeing as there aren’t good substitutes for minimum-wage workers, they won’t suffer unemployment from increases in the minimum wage. In other words, the law of demand doesn’t apply to them.

Let’s look at some of the history of some of Krugman’s non-tradable industries. During the 1940s and ’50s, there were very few self-serve gasoline stations. There were also theater ushers to show patrons to their seats. In 1900, 41 percent of the U.S. labor force was employed in agriculture.

Now most gas stations are self-serve.

Theater ushers disappeared. And only 2 percent of today’s labor force works in agricultural jobs. There are many other examples of buyers of labor services seeking and ultimately finding substitutes when labor prices rise. It’s economic malpractice for economists to suggest that they don’t. 

Democrats use "Gangster Government" To Win Elections

Democrats use "Gangster Government" To Win Elections

By George Will

The early morning paramilitary- style raids on citizens’ homes were conducted by law enforcement officers, sometimes wearing bulletproof vests and lugging battering rams, pounding on doors and issuing threats. Spouses were separated as the police seized computers, including those of children still in pajamas. Clothes drawers, including the children’s, were ransacked, cell phones were confiscated and the citizens were told it would be a crime to tell anyone of the raids.

Some raids were precursors of, others were parts of, the nastiest episode of this unlovely political season, an episode that has occurred in an unlikely place. This attempted criminalization of politics in order to silence persons occupying just one portion of the political spectrum has happened in Wisconsin, which often has conducted robust political arguments with Midwestern civility.

From the progressivism of Robert La Follette to the conservatism of Gov. Scott Walker today, Wisconsin has been fertile soil for conviction politics. Today, the state’s senators are the very conservative Ron Johnson and the very liberal Tammy Baldwin. Now, however, Wisconsin, which to its chagrin produced Republican Sen. Joe McCarthy, has been embarrassed by Milwaukee County’s Democratic district attorney, John Chisholm. He has used Wisconsin’s uniquely odious “John Doe” process to launch sweeping and virtually unsupervised investigations while imposing gag orders to prevent investigated persons from defending themselves or rebutting politically motivated leaks, which have occurred.

According to several published reports, Chisholm told members of his staff subordinates that his wife, a teachers union shop steward at her school, is anguished by her detestation of Walker’s restrictions on government employees unions, so Chisholm considers it his duty to help defeat Walker.

In collaboration with Wisconsin’s misbegotten Government Accountability Board, which exists to regulate political speech, Chisholm has misinterpreted Wisconsin campaign law in a way that looks willful. He has done so to justify a “John Doe” process that has searched for evidence of “coordination” between Walker’s campaign and conservative issue advocacy groups.

On Oct. 14, much too late in the campaign season to rescue the political participation rights of conservative groups, a federal judge affirmed what Chisholm surely has known all along: Since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago, the only coordination that is forbidden is between candidates and independent groups that go beyond issue advocacy to “express advocacy” – explicitly advocating the election or defeat of a particular candidate.

But Chisholm’s aim – to have a chilling effect on conservative speech – has been achieved by bombarding Walker supporters with raids and subpoenas: Instead of raising funds to disseminate their political speech, conservative individuals and groups, harassed and intimidated, have gone into a defensive crouch, raising little money and spending much money on defensive litigation. Liberal groups have not been targeted for their activities that are indistinguishable from those of their conservative counterparts.

Such misbehavior takes a toll on something that already is in short supply – belief in government’s legitimacy. The federal government’s most intrusive and potentially punitive institution, the IRS, unquestionably worked for Barack Obama’s re-election by suppressing activities by conservative groups. Would he have won if the government he heads had not impeded political participation by many opposition groups? We will never know.

Would the race between Walker and Democrat Mary Burke be as close as it is if a process susceptible to abuse had not been so flagrantly abused to silence groups on one side of Wisconsin’s debate? Surely not.

Gangster government – Michael Barone’s description of using government machinery to punish political opponents or reward supporters – has stained Wisconsin, illustrating this truth: The regulation of campaigns in the name of political hygiene (combating “corruption” or the “appearance” of it) inevitably involves bad laws and bad bureaucracies susceptible to abuse by bad people.

Because of Chisholm’s recklessness, the candidate he is trying to elect, Burke, can only win a tainted victory, and if she wins she will govern with a taint of illegitimacy. No known evidence demonstrates any complicity in Chisholm’s scheme, but in a new ad she exploits his manufactured atmosphere of synthetic scandal in a manner best described as McCarthyite. Indeed, one probable purpose of Chisholm’s antics was to generate content for anti-Walker ads.

Wisconsin can repair its reputation by dismantling the “John Doe” process and disciplining those who have abused it. About one of them, this can be said: Having achieved political suppression by threatening criminal liability based on vague theories of “coordination,” Chisholm has inadvertently but powerfully made the case for deregulating politics. 

Hillary Clinton says Corporations and Businesses Don't Create Jobs & Liberals Agree!

Hillary Clinton says Corporations and Businesses Don't Create Jobs

Multi-millionaire Hillary Clinton told a crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel that corporations and businesses” don’t “create jobs.” I wonder if the workers and owners of the Park Plaza Hotel know that.

I also wonder how the $100 million that Bill and Hillary have earned since they left the White House account for their windfall? Did it fall from heaven in baskets, or did it grow on their backyard money trees. Maybe Hillary had just watched Irene Dunne in It Grows on Trees (1952).

'The story is about a couple who discover two trees in their backyard that grow money. One morning a few days after Polly Baxter (Dunne) purchased a couple of trees and planted them in her backyard, a $5 bill floats in through an open window, spurring a curious turn of luck to her family's ongoing financial concerns."

I'm convinced this how liberals believe we get money. who needs corporations and businesses? We have our own money tree. It's called the printing press. If corporations and businesses don’t create jobs, then who or what does? Government? Governments don’t create jobs. All government jobs are “created” by taking money from businesses, corporations, and workers through taxes. If businesses and corporations didn’t exist, government wouldn’t have any money to tax, thus, there wouldn’t be any government jobs.

Microsoft was founded in 1975. Prior to this date, Microsoft did not employ anybody. Today, Microsoft employs 126,000 people worldwide. Microsoft does not stand alone as a corporation. Millions of other people are employed indirectly from a company like Microsoft. This is but one corporation!

The same is true of Apple, General Electric, Wal-Mart, and every other big company that liberals seem to hate for their “greed.”

Hillary’s “corporations and businesses” don’t “create jobs” comments is reminiscent of President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” claim. Remember?

Liberals tried to make excuses for Obama’s comment like they will try to do for Hillary. Hillary is their person for 2016.

Here’s how the folks at FactCheck.org tried to bail out the President:

“There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about. He spoke of government — including government-funded education, infrastructure and research — assisting businesses to make what he called ‘this unbelievable American system that we have.’

“In summary, he said: ‘The point is … that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.’”

I thought Obama was the smartest man in the world? I thought he was a near god. How could he have been “unartful” in what he said? It was Jamie Foxx who told an audience to “‘give honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama.’ He repeated the president’s name to the applause of attendees.”

There is no money for government without people who make money. Government is the great inhibitor of economic growth.

Barack and Hillary are cut from the same Marxist cloth.

The more government grows and controls the economy, the better everybody is. Like their Marxist comrades, Barack and Hillary see themselves as a special class, two of many philosopher kings who deserve a much larger share of “evil” corporate profits. They need the money, influence, and power in order to make things right for people who do not have access to the corridors of power.

The sad part in all of this is how many corporations that Barack and Hillary love to hate suck up to these false messiahs. Then there’s this: “Liberals who most want Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to run for president are wealthy white males.”

These are liberals’ useful idiots, and like the useful idiots in the heyday of the rise of Communism, they are dangerous to all of us.

TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

 

#10.  I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

 

#9.  I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

 

#8.  I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

 

#7.  I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

 

#6.  I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.  I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

 

#5.  I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

 

#4.  I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

 

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves.  They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

 

#2.  I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

 

#1..… And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America.  We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries. 

Proof of waste Democrats cannot defend: Wasteful spending versus raising taxes

Coburn’s Wastebook highlights $25 billion in wasteful spending

  

Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) released his final Wastebook on Wednesday, and it did not disappoint.

Dr. Coburn, who is retiring after this term, chronicled $25 billion spent on 100 “silly, unnecessary, and low priority projects,” this year. The report touches nearly every agency, finding that the federal government is still spending taxpayer dollars to put animals on treadmills and subsidize wine.

“Washington politicians are more focused on their own political futures than the future of our country,” Coburn writes in the introduction of the fifth-annual Wastebook. “And with no one watching over the vast bureaucracy, the problem again isn’t just what Washington isn’t doing, but what it is doing.”

The 182-page report documents waste big and small, from a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant to produce and distribute “chile-infused” wine, to $48.6 million spent on thousands of vehicles that sit idly in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) parking lots.

The report included numerous examples of waste at the National Science Foundation (NSF), including a $331,000 study that found spouses stab voodoo dolls more often when they’re “hangry”—that is, hungry and angry at the same time.

“Over the course of twenty-one consecutive evenings, 107 couples were given a chance to stick up to 51 pins into a voodoo doll representing their spouse,” the report explained of the government-funded study.

The results: “Hungry people are cranky and aggressive,” the lead researcher said.

The NSF also financed synchronized swimming for sea monkeys at a cost of $50,000; a $41,000 study for how Penn State can boost morale after the Jerry Sandusky scandal; and a $171,361 project that studied the gambling habits of monkeys.

The government is also still interested in the theater, doling out grants through the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to support a play about Bruce Lee ($70,000), and a “marijuana themed musical” in Colorado ($15,000).

The NEA also awarded $10,000 to produce a musical about a young zombie searching for true love, and another $10,000 for a play about two lesbians who think they are Elvis Presley and Theodore Roosevelt.

“The National Science Foundation (NSF) taught monkeys how to play video games and gamble,” Coburn wrote. “USDA got into the business of butterfly farming. The Department of Interior even paid people to watch grass to see how quickly it grows. The State Department spent money to dispel the perception abroad that Americans are fat and rude.”

“But the real shock and awe may have been the $1 billion price tag the Pentagon paid to destroy $16 billion worth of ammunition, enough to pay a full years’ salary for over 54,000 Army privates,” he said.

After already putting monkeys, rats, cows, and goats on treadmills for past research, the NSF decided to test mountain lions skills at a cost of $856,000.

After eight months of training the mountain lions were able to walk on treadmills, though the research concluded that they “do not have the aerobic capacity for sustained high-energy activity.”

Waste was also found in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, including $1,552,145 to create a video game that teaches parents how to feed their kids vegetables. Another $371,026 project investigates if mothers have a different emotional reaction to pictures of their dogs over pictures of their children by monitoring their brains.

Wastebook also highlighted a Washington Free Beacon story on an NIH study that is texting drunksto tell them to stop drinking.

“Btw, don’t have 2 much 2 drink,” offered Coburn as an example.

Other Free Beacon reports cited in Wastebook included a $202,000 NSF study on why Wikipedia is sexist, the Justice Department spending $544,338 to enhance its company profile on LinkedIn, and$450,000 for state of the art gym memberships for desk workers at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The report included some literal examples of government waste, such as a $50,000 USDA grant to process, package, and market “Poop Paks,” plant fertilizer made from Alpaca manure.

A housing authority in California also received $27 million despite the deplorable living conditions of its units, which were found to be full of bed bugs, “handfuls of half-dead mice,” “drug dealers,” and “blue and green mold.”

“I just got tired of the poop falling on me,” the report quoted a tenant of the Hacienda as saying.

Coburn attempted to submit an amendment that would revoke funding for any housing authority that persisted in maintaining uninhabitable conditions, but Senate Democrats blocked it.

Coburn did highlight some victories at curbing waste, such as the “Bridge to Nowhere” never being built due to public outrage, the shutdown of an unused Oklahoma airport that received $500,000 in subsidies each year, and the closing of a taxpayer-funded global warming musical.

“What I have learned from these experiences is Washington will never change itself,” Coburn said. “But even if the politicians won’t stop stupid spending, taxpayers always have the last word.”

Coburn has unearthed $91 billion in government waste since Wastebook began in 2010. The future of the project will not be known until next year, according to Keith Ashdown, chief investigator for Coburn on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee.

“While Coburn hopes every member of Congress will start making waste watching part of their job, it is hard work and not very rewarding,” he told the Free Beacon. “He says answers to how Wastebookwill continue and in what format will have to wait to next year, but notes it doesn’t require a sitting member of Congress to identify waste.”

“In fact, sometimes they are ones least able to do so since they are responsible for it to begin with,” Ashdown said.

Obama Is Campaigning for Republicans

Obama Is Campaigning for Republicans

To the chagrin of Democrats everywhere, Barack Obama recently said his policies were on this year's ballot. Now the narcissist in chief has again placed himself front and center in this election. 

On Al Sharpton's MSNBC show, he said of embattled Democrat senators, "The bottom line is, though, these are all folks who vote with me -- they have supported my agenda in Congress." Translation: A vote for those senators is a vote for Barack Obama. 

Never mind politicians like Alison Lundergan Grimes, who can't even say if she voted for the man. Obama understands it's all politics. "This isn't about my feelings being hurt," he continued. "These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me. And I tell them, I said, 'You know what, you do what you need to to win. I will be responsible for making sure that our voters turn up.'" Whose voters? Because Obama just gave Republicans the best fodder for a get-out-and-vote ad conservatives could ever hope for

Poor performance needs to be punished.

Poor performance needs to be punished.

And it’s time to send Democrats their pink slip.

You have been asked to speak up before, but the truth is this: it’s different this time.

• Can you afford the cost of executive amnesty? 
• Can you afford six more years of low wages and high unemployment?
• Can you afford another decade of American foreign policy leading from behind?
• Can you afford a second Clinton administration in 2016?
• Can you afford more of the Democrats sitting on critical legislation in the Senate?
• Can you afford Obama appointing more extreme leftist into key positions including the courts?

If you answered “no” to any of the above, then you cannot afford to be silent.

Vote Red in November!

 

Why A Senate GOP Majority Can Make All The Difference

Why A Senate GOP Majority Can Make All The Difference

By DICK MORRIS

As Republicans close in on a Senate majority, the question looms: What difference would it make?  With the White House still at the ready to veto anything the GOP Congress passes, is not a Republican Senate merely another formulation likely to trigger gridlock in Washington?

No!  Control of the Senate can be the key to pushing back Obama's goal of creating a nation ruled by one dominant party in perpetuity, which I discuss in my new book Power Grab.

Control of the Senate hands the Republicans control over the budget.  If they overreach and try again to hit a grand slam by zero funding ObamaCare, they will strike out as they did in October of 2013.  Obama will simply veto the budget, let the government shut down, and blame the Republicans.  We already know how that will turn out -- a bit GOP loss.

But if the Republicans use their Senate majority to play small ball and make limited but very important advances, they can use their budgetary power to achieve great ends.

Because Congress has the ability to vote on each line of the budget while the President, lacking the line item veto, can only sign or veto the whole thing, Republicans can advance their agenda one line at a time.  Each advance would be important, but they would not rise collectively to enough to justify a presidential veto and a government closure.

For example:

•  Republicans can attach to the Homeland Security budget a requirement of a quarantine banning all travelers who have recently been to an Ebola-afflicted nation from coming into the United States.

•  They could insert in the ICE budget language overriding the President's coming executive order ending deportations.

•  They could put in the HHS budget provisions killing the death panel (Medicare Payment Advisory Board) and the excise tax on medical devices.

•  They can include language Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has gotten in the current budget banning enforcement of the Small Arms Limitation agreement signed by the US at the urging of the UN.

By this "small ball" strategy of using the budget to effect important but limited modifications in Obama's policies, we can bring the Obama power grab to a screeching halt.

A Republican Senate can also block the confirmation of partisan liberal Democratic judges, using their power either to bargain for better selections or to keep the post vacant until a Republican president takes over.  Similarly, they can use their confirmation power to block overly partisan appointments to federal regulatory boards or executive branch agencies.

Having jammed through the elimination of the 60 vote requirement for confirmations, the Democrats will now be shot with their own bullet and be unable to block Republican sway over nominations and confirmations.  Turnabout is fair play.

Finally, the Republican Senate should bring to the floor and reject all executive branch power grab treaties Obama and others have signed.  These treaties, failing Senate disapproval, remain in effect as a result of the presidential signature under the Vienna Convention.

The treaties we must kill are:

•  The Law of the Sea Treaty.
•  The Small Arms Trade Treaty.
•  The International Criminal Court Treaty.
•  The Code of Conduct in Outer Space.
•  The Rights of the Disabled Treaty.
•  And any Global Climate Change treaty the Administration negotiates.

Some of these treaties are bad ideas.  Others, like the Disability Treaty, are not objectionable except that they usurp American jurisdiction and take away our right to legislate for ourselves in this area.

Control of the Senate can make a vast difference.  Let's hope Republicans get it and turn out in large numbers to bring it about.

President Obama and the Democrats are hoping you fail to come through.

President Obama and the Democrats are hoping you fail to come through.

I don't know any other way to put it.

Obama sees the same polls we do.

While Republicans have a good shot to win a majority in the Senate, victory is far from assured.

In fact, The New York Times' forecasting model just said Republicans haven't yet locked down the 51 seats they would need for a majority.

Obama's counting on the same Democrat smear machine and get-out-the-vote program to drag Democrats to victory just like in 2012.

And with Democrats pouring millions into suddenly close races in red states like Georgia and South Dakota, they could steal victory.

That's why you must get out the vote: drag a friend to the poll or have a block voting van pool!
Or, make a last minute contribution into one of the battle ground states.

This is our last chance to stop President Obama's scheme to "fundamentally transform America," it's vital America is able to count on you now!

We're less than 3 weeks from election day, so it's crucial conservatives unite for one push before the midterms. I hope my message and yours will fuse our party's core values of freedom and virtue to construct a winning coalition.