Psychographic profile: Obama and Democrats don’t have the skills to govern

By: Jeffrey Klein

The long anticipated Republican federal budget has been submitted, and it is framed as a pathway away from our “dependent culture,” by author Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), according to a FOXNews article today.

As expected, the Democrat reactions are rich in sound bite vitriol. But, more importantly, their arguments, claims and conclusions fall apart easily–like a cheap suit.

Such as:

1. Democrats immediately blasted the plan as unbalanced and favoring corporations over Medicare recipients.

JK: Corporations are the real private sector economic generators of America, by far the greatest source of jobs, and the tax revenue–the life blood supporting Medicare, which would quickly cease to exist without them.

2. “It’s déjà vu all over again,” Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Tuesday. He said the plan would make Medicare unrecognizable compared with its original form.

JK: You mean the one on schedule to be bankrupt in 2022?

3. “The American people have already rejected this plan before — and this year will be no different,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“The Republican proposal would end the Medicare guarantee, shift costs to seniors, and let Medicare wither on the vine, while providing billions in tax breaks for Big Oil and special interests and destroying American jobs.”

JK: Whenever a Democrat claims the favor of the American people–they are lying.

American voters fired almost 20 percent of the Democrat party in November 2010–because they rejected their financial mis-management and demanded real, immediate change.

As to “billions in tax breaks for Big Oil,” the oil and gas drilling industry was formerly one of the fastest growing sources of high paying jobs in the U.S., rising to 90,000 until Obama was elected, after which it has slid to just 60,000.

According to an article in Master Resource, an oil and gas industry blog … “The oil and gas production business pays about $140 billion annually in royalties and corporate income taxes to the US government.

In comparison, far from being a beneficiary of government subsidies, oil and gas producers receive little–about $2.2 billion in 2008.

The major recipients of government energy largesse are wind, solar, refined coal, and ethanol with more than 60% of federal energy subsidies. And this money buys us just about 4% of domestic energy production.”

The growing pile of bankrupt “green energy” companies has robbed the American taxpayer of almost $2 billion because of DOE loan write-offs, and throwing the thousands of [short-time] employees into already over-stressed unemployment benefit lines.

As for “special interests,” Rep. Pelosi’s leader is the king in that regard.

In the above mentioned “green energy” company debacles, Obama has put the investments of his “crony-capitalist” campaign cash bundlers ahead of the American taxpayer.

In addition to the 30,000 oil and gas jobs Obama has killed, his position as the greatest source of new government regulation in history, including the roundly hated Obamacare, has led to the longest period of high unemployment in the U.S. since the Great Depression.

Finally, let’s not forget Obama’s scratching the Keystone Pipeline—that would have produced 20,000 high paying jobs immediately—versus his imaginary truckload of “shovel-ready” jobs.

The psychographic profile of Democrats suggests that they exist, mentally and emotionally, in an alternate Universe, where common sense and logic are absent. Consequently, it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to be associated with any real solutions–just long on rhetoric and criticism.

Now, thanks to Holly McKay’s FOXNews article yesterday, we have an operating hypothesis as to why–based on a group of professional’s analysis of the characteristics of many Hollywood celebrities, 99.95% of whom are Liberal Democrats.

Here are the five top reasons cited, with celebrity being interchangeable with Democrat.

5. They have no idea how money management works.

“Most celebrities have extremely creative minds. But in my experience, the most creative folks tend not to want to spend time dealing with business issues,” tax and business expert Joseph M. Doloboff, Partner at Blank Rome LLP in Los Angeles.

‘Don’t they hire financial planners and business managers?

“Most of them do, but at the end of the day, these accounts are still in a celebrities’ name, which gives them ultimate control over their wealth,” said Certified Financial Counselor for Financial Advice for the Artist, Erin Elizabeth Burns.

Which can mean big spending, big mistakes and…

4. Bad advice.

Pete Krainik, Founder and CEO of The CMO Club, noted that some celebrities do not have the skill sets to identify and determine the right business/financial managers [economic advisors, Czars, etc.] for their needs.

In the case of the Obama Administration, only 8% of political appointees have any private sector business experience–they are mostly people from academia…like the hyper successful [Green] Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu.

3. Theft and fraud.

Doloboff also said prominent factors in a celeb’s financial crumbling is their tendency to bring “friends” — or family — or wealthy campaign cash bundlers– into the fray.

“Many … want to help their friends while simultaneously helping themselves,” he said.

This is quintessential Obama, and “The Chicago Way.”

2. Drugs, booze, and bad habits.

“You are far more likely to make poor decisions when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”

The same goes for being drunk on power, while blinded by Narcissism.

1. Ridiculous overspending.

“Most celebrities have luxuries such as a cook, a driver, a personal stylist, a personal assistant etc.,” said Burns. “They become accustomed to this lifestyle.”

And it directly translates into the way they conduct business while in office.

Need I say more…?


What the Mailman Knows about Ayers and Obama

By: Jack Cashill
Gulag Bound


American Thinker
March 19, 2012

A few days ago I got a call asking whether I knew anything about the Ayers family mailman. I had heard of him, I said. I remembered liberal blogger Steven Diamond having interviewed the fellow a few years back but paid it little mind as the information seemed too limited to pursue.

The caller then sent me a video interview with the mailman by WND sleuth Jerome Corsi. The video made me sit up and pay attention. The mailman is a real person. His name is Alan Hulton. He seems entirely credible, and he has a story to tell.

Hulton delivered mail in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, from 1962 to 2001 with a couple years off to serve in the military. During roughly ten of those years he delivered mail to the home of Tom and Mary Ayers, Bill Ayers’s parents. Hulton talked to Tom once, Mary several times, their daughter-in-law Bernardine Dohrn a few times, and Bill Ayers not at all. Memorably, he talked once to one of their visitors, but more on that in a moment.

As Hulton tells Corsi—and he has sworn an affidavit to the same—he met Tom Ayers not long after the Ayers moved to the neighborhood. Until he retired in 1980 at the age of 65, Tom Ayers was the CEO and chairman of Commonwealth Edison. Tom, however, was not your garden-variety plutocrat. According to Diamond, who knows his way around Chicago politics, he was a “lifelong liberal,” one who was deeply involved in the same educational reform movement that engaged son Bill and, briefly, Barack Obama in 1988. Tom Ayers was comfortable enough with Bill’s lifestyle to live with him in Hyde Park until he died in 2007.

Thomas Ayers

When Hulton met Tom Ayers they talked about working conditions at the Post Office. “I couldn’t believe how he responded,” Hulton told Diamond. “He started to talk about workers having to struggle to survive and about peasants and the proletariat. It made me think later that he might be a Marxist!” Hulton would tell Corsi, “I had this uncomfortable feeling that he thought he knew about my situation as a working person better than I did, that he knew what was best for me.”

Hulton also recalls one particular conversation with Mary Ayers. “She was enthusiastically talking to me about this young black student that they were helping out,” he tells Corsi, “and she referred to him as a foreign student.” Adds Hulton, “I was taken back by how enthusiastic she was about him.” Within a year of this conversation, Hulton had a fateful meeting with the young man he presumed Mary was talking about it.

According to Hulton, he encountered the fellow on the sidewalk on the front of the Ayers home. In that it was extremely rare to see a black man in this tony neighborhood, Hulton believes the man felt the need to explain his visit to the Ayers household. Hulton describes him as friendly and neatly, although casually, dressed. Hulton tells Corsi, “I am absolutely positive that it was Barack Obama.”

Hulton was sympathetic. After he had come out of military service, he was a supporter of Martin Luther King, who had pressed for fair housing in the Chicago area in the 1960s. “I took some flak about my support for civil rights from my fellow workers at the time,” remembers Hulton.

Obama explained to Hulton that he had taken the train out from Chicago to Glen Ellyn in order “to thank the Ayers family personally for helping him with his education.” What shocked Hulton was that when casually inquiring into the young man’s plans for the future, Obama answered, “I am going to be president of the United States.” As Hulton tells Corsi, “It came across like this was something that’s already been determined.” Adds Hulton, “I was speechless.”

Hulton told Diamond and Corsi essentially the same story. What gives the Corsi interview added value is that we see Hulton tell it. Although just a year older than Bill Ayers, he seems to come from a different generation. He has little to gain—and a lot to risk—by going public. Corsi warns Hulton that by quoting Mary’s comment that Obama was a “foreign student,” he put himself at some risk. Says Hulton, “I am only telling you what I distinctly remember her saying—that he was a foreign student.”

Hulton’s interviews with Diamond and Corsi are consistent in every major detail save for dates. Hulton suggested to Diamond that the sidewalk meeting took place in the mid-80s, but Corsi suggests to Hulton that it was in the early 1990s, and Hulton does not correct him. Hulton clearly does not remember the date. If I were to speculate, I would guess 1988, the year Obama started Harvard Law School. Presuming Hulton actually met Obama, the “education” in question would almost surely had to have been law school.

There is a good deal at stake here. According to Snopes and the other fact check sites, Bill Ayers and Obama did not meet until the mid-1990s. This is a talking point that both Ayers and Obama have upheld. When Ayers appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America in 2008, he put the date of their first meeting in 1995 at a fundraiser in Ayers’s own home. “I think he was probably in 20 homes that day as far as I know,” said Ayers. “But that was the first time I really met him.”

As it happens, I stumbled into my own discovery of Ayers’s involvement in the writing of Obama’s 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, when I was investigating how Obama got into Harvard Law School and who paid his way. What had piqued my interest was an interview with veteran New York power broker Percy Sutton on a local New York City show called “Inside City Hall.” The interview took place in late March 2008 but did not surface until August 2008.

Sutton told how twenty years prior he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.” The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.” Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

A few months before the election it should have mattered that a respected black political figure like Sutton had publicly announced that a fanatic black separatist, backed by an ambitious Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years. It did to the Obama-friendly media, but not in a way it would have to real journalists. Moving in swiftly to kill the story were Politico, an insider DC journal run by Washington Post alums, and Media Matters for America, an alleged watchdog group founded by the recovering Troopergate author, David Brock.

Ben Smith of Politico took the lead. Shortly after the story broke, Smith ran the disclaimer that “Barack Obama’s campaign is flatly denying a story told by former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton.” After some conspicuous waffling, al Mansour denied the story as well. A self-appointed “spokesman for Sutton’s family” by the name of Kevin Wardally sent an email to Smith that read in part: “As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”

For Smith, even though Wardally had gotten Sutton’s age wrong by two years, this email was proof enough that Sutton’s highly specific claim was manufactured. Wrote Smith, Wardally’s email “seems to put the story to rest for good.” Media Matters meanwhile scolded those conservative bloggers that did not accept the various denials at face value.

Like the man about to be carted away in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, the Percy Sutton story was not quite dead yet. Sutton’s son and daughter told conservative reporter, Ken Timmerman, that no one in their family even knew who Kevin Wardally was, let alone authorized him to speak on behalf of the family. “I’m getting better,” pled Monty Python’s nearly dead man. No he wasn’t. Nor was this story. With Hillary out of the race, no newsroom in America felt compelled to dig up dirt that could sully Obama.

About that time, I found a diary entry that caught my attention. Radical-turned-actor Peter Coyote entered it at the time of the 1996 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Coyote wrote, “I inform Martha that I’m dragging her to the apartment of old friends, ex-Weathermen, Bernadine (sic) Dohrn and Bill Ayers, hosting a party for Senator Leahy. Perhaps Edward Said will be there.”

Said had taught Obama at least one class at Columbia. I had earlier seen a photo taken during an Arab-American community dinner in Chicago in 1998 on the fiftieth anniversary of the Palestinian nakba, or disaster. The photo shows Obama sitting next to Said, seemingly engaged in an animated conversation at dinner. The intimacy surprised me. At the time of the photo, Obama was an obscure state senator while Said, according to the Nation, was “probably the best-known intellectual in the world” and star of that evening’s show. He would speak on this occasion, as the Los Angeles Times would later report, “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”

All of this got me to wondering whether an Ayers-Obama-Said-al Mansour cabal had formed in the early 1980s back in New York City. If so, such a combine might have generated enough momentum to push Obama’s career along. To see if Obama and Ayers had crossed paths before Chicago, I ordered a copy of Bill Ayers’ 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. It was then that I began to realize the depth of Ayers’s involvement in Obama’s rise to power.

Obama would have needed help to get into Harvard. Friendly biographer David Remnick tells us that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school. A Northwestern University professor, John L. McKnight, although a friend of Obama’s and a fellow Alinskyite, reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.” As to Obama’s LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa’s body will be unearthed before those are.

How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject the media have chosen not to explore. Nor have they asked how Obama paid for that education. Maybe, it is time they ask the mailman.

Jack Cashill is the author of numerous books which reveal important facts about the powerful and their sometimes clandestine power moves. Deconstructing Obama is among his latest.

He is also an independent writer and Emmy winning producer, and has written for Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, American Thinker, also regularly for WorldNetDaily. Jack may be contacted at Cashill.com.


Gulag Notice: Come back in a bit for more on this.


MSNBC Planning to Have Matthews & Co. Host This Year’s Election Coverage

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Unlike in 2008, MSNBC is planning to have Chris Matthews, along with the rest of the primetime lineup of MSNBC, host the 2012 presidential election coverage. This includes the presidential debates in September and October, and election night itself.

When it came up in 2008, MSNBC decided to pull their two top hosts, Matthews and Keith Olbermann, from anchoring the presidential debates and election night. But this year is different. The primetime lineup is going to be doing anchoring and analysis; one stop shopping. Despite repeated requests for further explanation, so far we have gotten no answer.

The big question is, can Matthews resist revealing the “thrill going up my leg” when President Obama speaks. How about Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Rachel Maddow? Is there no concern at the network that every one of their hosts are strongly partisan Obama supporters, and extremely hostile to all things conservative and Republican? Watch any of their shows on any night if you have any doubts. (Keith Olbermann has moved on to Al Gore’s Learning-Impaired Channel, also known as Current-TV.)

In early September of 2008, shortly after the two parties had completed their conventions, MSNBC stated on its website that it would “replace the team of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann as anchors of its live political coverage for the rest of the presidential campaign season. David Gregory, NBC News’ chief White House correspondent, will be the primary host of coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates coming up over the next two months, as well as election night, said Phil Griffin, MSNBC’s president.”

The New York Times Brian Stelter reported on the story and found that there was a lot more to it: “The change,” wrote Stelter, “which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle—is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.”

Stelter cited Davidson Goldin, the former editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin: “The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming.”

Stelter reported that executives at MSNBC parent company, NBC Universal, “had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks.”

For the article, the Times talked to 10 current and former staff members who said that “long-simmering tensions between MSNBC and NBC reached a boiling point during the conventions. ‘MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict,’ one senior staff member observed. ‘They’re living from fix to fix and swearing they’ll go into rehab the next week.’”

He added that even Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of NBC Nightly News, have “told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening…Mr. Brokaw acknowledged that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews had ‘gone too far’ at times…”

Stelter wrote that the company’s top executives are “known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC’s partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day.”

And this was four years ago. Today the bleeding is complete, with the addition of daytime hosts like Martin Bashir, Alex Wagner, Tamron Hall, and Andrea Mitchell, who works as a commentator by day, and correspondent on NBC Nightly News by night.

At one point, back in 2008, the situation got so bad that, according to the Times, “Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC Universal, and Steve Capus, president of NBC News, considered flying to the Republican convention in Minnesota…to address the lingering tensions.”

Since then, majority ownership has transferred to Comcast Corporation, with GE still hanging on to 49% of NBC Universal. Perhaps new management decided that with Obama still in power, the nation had moved to the left, and thus the views of Matthews, Maddow and the rest are somehow mainstream.

But the question remains, will that lineup of partisan pundits dispassionately analyze comments critical of President Obama and his policies, and resist jumping to his defense? Not likely. Someone in management should step up and make the journalistically sound move, like they did in 2008, of putting less partisan newsmen, like David Gregory or Brian Williams, in the anchor chairs for this year’s election coverage.

To the extent that GE has any say, this remains a possibility. Today’s New York Post is reporting that GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt, a life-long Republican who has been serving as the head of President Obama’s Jobs Council and as an economic adviser, has told friends that he is privately pulling for Mitt Romney to get the Republican nomination and to defeat President Obama. According to the article, by Charles Gasparino, Immelt won’t admit it publicly, but privately he is “dismayed that, even after three years on the job, President Obama hasn’t moved to the center, but instead further left.” He says that Immelt is “appalled by everything from the president’s class-warfare to his continued belief that big government is the key to economic salvation.” GE responded by simply saying, “Mr. Immelt has not decided to support Gov. Romney.”

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at [email protected].


US Secret Service Says No Anti-Obama Rallies Allowed!

By: Sher Ziev
Gulag Bound

Over the weekend I received an email from my local TEA Party Director that Barack Hussein Obama would fly into Carlsbad, NM airport on Wednesday 21 March, in order to “make an appearance at the South Easter NM oilfields.” However, apparently after hearing that an immediate anti-Obama rally had been planned, Obama and his entourage changed the landing location to Roswell, NM… a city 77 miles from Carlsbad.

Note: Interesting as, despite the fear and trepidation Obama is trying valiantly to instill into the American people, his own panic seems to be showing.

When the US Secret Service discovered that the enterprising group of our Southeast New Mexico Patriots had, also, switched their plans and would drive to Roswell to engage in peaceful and Constitutionally allowed dissent against the Obama policies of the destruction of the United States of America, the SS began to put their respective feet down. First, the SS made a strong request that the anti-Obama rally not occur…at all. When the TEA Party members advised them that they still planned to do so, it was announced that the main road (Earl Cummings Loop) into and out of the Roswell airport would be closed. In other words, only the planned Obama sycophants, adherents and Adoration Groups will be allowed in…all others no longer have any free speech.

Note: Considering Obama’s recent “Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness,” which was changed and vastly expanded to allow him to seize all U.S. resources–including those of private citizens–this latest shut down of free speech shouldn’t come as a real surprise.

Question: Can you imagine what would have happened if President G.W. Bush had pulled something like this?

I spoke with one of the founders of the Chavez County (NM) TEA Party, Bob Mitzel, who appropriately asked: “Is the President afraid of the American people or is he just afraid of the truth?” Excellent question, Bob.

If anyone is in the Roswell, NM area on Wednesday 21 March (or can plan to be there) and would like to join the protest, it is now being held at The New Mexico Youth Challenge Academy-131 Earl Cummings Loop (Roswell, NM) at 3:00 p.m. MT. Isn’t it time to end Obama’s decimation of our Bill of Rights and Reign of Terror? If not now…when?


Loudon in California

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

I will be in California from approximately March 27 to April 6 for research, interviews and some speaking engagements.

I will be in the Bay Area to speak on Friday March 30th at 11:30 am at Sharon Heights Golf & Country Club, Menlo Park, California. www.sharonheightscc.com, sponsored by the Peninsula Republican Women Federated.

For information, please contact Elsie Gufler,

[email protected]

I also plan to be in California in mid-May and again during my Fall tour, August to October.