Rush Jazzed!

In a World Net Daily exclusive we read these encouraging words-

WND EXCLUSIVE

Rush: Economy to rocket with Ryan win

'The moment it's known that Obama's out of office'

[EXCERPT.]

“I guarantee you, if Ryan and Romney win this election, you’re gonna see the stock market go through the roof,” Limbaugh said this afternoon. “You’re gonna see small businesses start to hire. It’s gonna happen so fast, you’re not gonna believe it, the moment it’s known that Obama’s out of office.”

Limbaugh, the top-rated voice of the political right in America, says a true conservative is finally on the presidential ticket.

“I like the fact that there’s somebody who’s gonna be on the news every day that can talk like I do,” he said.

“And I don’t mean to make this about me. That’s not the point. We’ve got somebody who can articulate what we believe. It’s in his heart. He doesn’t need crib notes, he doesn’t need briefings, he doesn’t need a consultant to tell him what to think or answer a question. He’s lived it. It’s his soul. That’s why I’m jazzed.”

Source-

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/rush-economy-to-rocket-with-ryan-win/

Noah David Simon

---

So, What DOES It Take to Get Fired By CNN, Fareed Zakaria? Posted: 13 Aug 2012 08:42 AM PDT Zakaria plagiarized a piece he wrote for TIME magazine (Breitbart)...He also posted the same plagiarism at CNN. As Friday wore on, CNN and TIME both went from "no comment" to suspending Zakaria, a journalist praised for his perspective on foreign policy. ...As a journalist he's especially known for his anti-Jewish sentiment.  (commentary) Fareed Zakaria is guilty of plagiarism. He has admitted copying a portion of a New Yorker essay andapologized. Time, where Zakaria works as a columnist, has suspended Zakaria for a month, and CNN—owned by the same parent company—has suspended him pending an investigation. This represents a mere slap on the wrist for someone whose standard speaking fee is$75,000. Yale University lecturer Jim Sleepernotes, however, Zakaria has a perch not only at CNN and Time, but also at Yale University, where he sits on the Yale Corporation, the University’s governing board and policy-making body. There is no greater academic sin than plagiarism. Students can be expelled for plagiarizing papers, and professors can be fired. To let Zakaria off the hook on his own recognizance would be to eviscerate the principle of academic integrity for which Yale says it stands. Whether Yale President Richard Levin will do the right thing, however, is another issue. While Levin has distinguished himself as a master fundraiser, he has also shown a disturbing willingness to undercut free speech (ironically, with Zakaria’s acquiescence), compromise academic integrity to foreign interests, and embrace fame over principle.

You are subscribed to email updates from #CriticalAnalyst To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

> A Las Vegas "odds  maker" opines on why Obama will get "killed" by Romney
> in November.  Interesting analysis and only a minute or so to  read.
>

>
> Most  political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or
> prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am
> neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a
> well-known Vegas odds maker with one of the most accurate records of  predicting
> political races.
>
> But as an oddsmaker with a pretty  remarkable track record of picking
> political races, I play no favorites. I  simply use common sense to call
> them as  I see them. Back in late December I  released my New Years Predictions. I
> predicted back then- before a single  GOP primary had been held, with
> Romney  trailing for months to almost every  GOP competitor from Rick Perry to
> Herman  Cain to Newt- that Romney would  easily rout his competition to win the
> GOP  nomination by a landslide. I also  predicted that the Presidential race
> between Obama and Romney would be very  close until election day. But that
> on election day Romney would win by a  landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in
> 1980.
>
> Understanding  history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding
> Romney victory. 32  years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by
> 9  points to Carter.  Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do
> most pollsters give  Obama the edge?
>
> First,  most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is
> my  gut  instinct.

Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will
> switch to  Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who
> voted  for an  unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or
> scared  about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad
> harbinger.
>
> Now to  an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S.  politics:

> *Black  voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His
> endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going
> Christians.  He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008.  This is
> not  good news for Obama.
>
> *Hispanic  voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If
> Romney  picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra
> 10% to 15%  of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news
> for  Obama.
>
> *Jewish  voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish
> voters  and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's
> Jewish  support  drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s. This is not good news for
> Obama.
>
> *Youth  voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4
> years ago  have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are
> disillusioned,  frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm
> is long gone.  Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual
> voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.
>
> *Catholic  voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t
> happen  again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with
> the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic
> Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.
>
> *Small  Business owners.Because I ran for Vice President last time around,
> and  I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small
> business  owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and
> supporters  voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a
> chance.” I warned  them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone
> who owned  a business...that he’d support unions over the private sector in a
> big  way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My
> friends  didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of
> small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good
> news for Obama.
>
> *Blue  collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White
> working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel
> about  the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.
>
> *Suburban  moms. The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay
> for  contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried
> about  putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future.
> This is  not good news for Obama.
>
> *Military  Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning
> by 24  points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more
> they  disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
>
> Add  it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008?
> Will  anyone in America wake up on election day saying “I didn’t vote for
> Obama 4  years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job, I can’t wait to
> vote for him  today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job
> more secure?
>
> Forget  the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense
> small  businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a
> world-class  repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda.
> It's Reagan-Carter all over again.
>
> But  I’ll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that
> familiarity  breeds contempt.
>

 BRILLIANTLY EXPLAINED.

This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political doublespeak we get.

It puts it into a much better perspective.

Lesson # 1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000

* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700

* Money the family spent: $38,200

* New debt on the credit card: $16,500

* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

Got It ?????

OK now Lesson # 2: Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

Let's say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood....and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do ......

Raise the ceilings, or pump out the shit?

Your choice is coming Nov. 2012.

FIVE RULES TO REMEMBER IN LIFE:  1. Money cannot buy happiness, but it's more comfortable to cry in a Corvette than on a bicycle. 2. Forgive your enemy, but remember the bastard's name. 3. Help someone when they are in trouble and they will remember you when they're in trouble again. 4. Many people are alive only because it's illegal to shoot them. 5. Trying to debate with Obama voters is like trying to pick up a turd by it's clean end.

Noonan: A Nation That Believes Nothing

Romney doesn't need to talk about America becoming like Europe. He needs to warn us about America becoming like California.

• By PEGGY NOONAN

The pro-Obama Super PAC ad that essentially blames Mitt Romney for a woman's death from cancer is over the line, and if it's allowed to stand the personal attacks that have marked the presidential campaign will probably get worse. If the president rebukes the PAC and renounces the ad—and he should, and he'd look better doing it than not doing it—then we'll all know there's an ethical floor below which things can't sink. The ad was a mistake for a number of reasons, one being that it makes the president look perfidious and weak: "Mudslinging is all we've got." It also may finally injure his much vaunted likability ratings.

Conservative critics are correct that the Romney campaign's pushback was weak. When someone suggests in the public arena that you are a killer you do have to respond with some force. Since media outlets have already pointed out the ad's claim is false, no one would think it out of bounds if Mr. Romney hit back with indignation and disgust.
Actually, that would be a public service. The ad's cynicism contributes to a phenomenon that increases each year, and that is that we are becoming a nation that believes nothing. Not in nothing, but nothing we're told by anyone in supposed authority.
Everyone knows what the word spin means; people use it in normal conversation. Everyone knows what going negative is; they talk about it on Real Housewives. Political technicians always think they're magicians whose genius few apprehend, but Americans now always know where the magician hid the rabbit. And we shouldn't be so proud of our skepticism, which has become our cynicism. Someday we'll be told something true that we need to know and we won't believe that, either.

I suspect some conservative used the Romney campaign's listless response as a stand-in for what they'd really like to say to Mr. Romney himself, which is, "Wake up, get mad, be human, we're fighting for our country here!"

Mr. Romney is not over-managed by others—he isn't surrounded by what George H.W. Bush called "gurus"—but he over-manages himself. He second guesses, doubts his own instincts. Up to a certain point that's good: Self-possession is a necessary quality in a political leader. But people don't choose a leader based solely on his ability to moderate himself. They're more interested in his confidence in his own judgment, or an ease that signals the candidate has an earned respect for his own instincts.

Some of the unperturbed sunniness you see modern political figures attempting to enact may be traceable to Ronald Reagan, the happy warrior who set a template for how winners act. But the Reagan of the 1950s and '60s was often indignant, even angry. When he allowed himself to get mad, or knew he should be mad and so decided to feign anger, it was a sight to behold. "I'm paying for this microphone," he famously snapped to the moderator of the 1980 primary campaign debate in Nashua, N.H. He didn't win that crucial state by being sunny.

A lot of politicians misunderstand this part of their art. A few months ago I talked with a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. I asked to hear the outlines of the candidate's planned appeal to voters. The candidate leaned forward and said with some intensity, "I'm going to tell them I can get along with people. I can work with the other side."
This was a great example of confusing the cart with the horse. Why would anyone vote for you, especially during a crisis, only because you play well with the other children? What are your issues, where do you stand, what will you do when you get to Washington? If you believe in something and mean to move it forward, the people will give you a fair hearing, and if you make clear that you hope to make progress with the help of a knack for human relations, that's good too.
But this cult of equability, this enforced, smiley, bland dispassion—Guys, we're in a crisis, you've got to know how to fight, too.

And you've got to fight on the issues.

Both candidates wasted some time this week calling each other names in a sort of cheesy, noneffective, goofy way. "Obamaloney." "Romney Hood." Actually goofy isn't the right word because goofy is fun, and there's no wit or slash in what they were doing.
Calling Mr. Romney's economic plans Romney Hood was dim because everyone likes Robin Hood, so Romney Hood sounds kind of like a compliment. Now and then the foes of a candidate accidentally do him a good turn. The Soviets thought they were disparaging Margaret Thatcher when they called her the Iron Lady. She was cold, wouldn't bend, couldn't compromise. The British heard the epithet and thought: Exactly! And exactly what we need!
An admiring nickname meant as an insult was born. Mr. Romney should go with it, lay out how he'll save taxpayers from the predators of the liberal left and call that Romney Hood.
But he and his supporters should drop the argument that if we don't change our ways we'll wind up like Europe. That's a mistake because Americans like Europe, and in some complicated ways wouldn't mind being a little more like it. In the past 40 years, jumbo jets, reduced fares and rising affluence allowed a lot of Americans, especially the sort who vote, to go there. The great capitals of Europe are glamorous, elegant and old, the outlands are exquisite. What remains of the old Catholic European ethic that business isn't everything, life is everything and it's a sin not to enjoy it, still has a lure. Americans sometimes think of it as they eat their grim salads and drink from their plastic water bottles.
When Americans go to Europe they see everything but the taxes. The taxes are terrible. But that's Europe's business and they'll have to figure it out. Yes what happens there has implications for us but still, they're there and we're here.
What Americans are worried about, take as a warning sign, and are heavily invested in is California—that mythic place where Sutter struck gold, where the movies were invented, where the geniuses of the Internet age planted their flag, built their campuses, changed our world.
We care about California. We read every day of the bankruptcies, the reduced city services, the businesses fleeing. California is going down. How amazing is it that this is happening in the middle of a presidential campaign and our candidates aren't even talking about it?
Mitt Romney should speak about the states that work and the states that don't, why they work and why they don't, and how we have to take the ways that work and apply them nationally.
Barack Obama can't talk about these things. You can't question the blue-state model when your whole campaign promises more blue-state thinking.
But Mr. Romney can talk about it.
Both campaigns are afraid of being serious, of really grappling with the things Americans rightly fear. But there's no safety in not being serious. It only leaves voters wondering if you're even capable of seriousness. Letting them wonder that is a mistake.

A version of this article appeared August 11, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Gun History

After reading the following historical facts, read the part
  About Switzerland twice.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
  In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to
1953,
  About 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded
  Up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
Of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
Rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
Educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
Because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
You won't see this data on the U.S. evening news, or hear politicians
Disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
Of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
Most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message
To all of your friends.

 

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT TO WHOM THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

 

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, please forward.

 

(Just think how powerful our government is getting! Do you really trust the Obama Administration?)