Monday, October 1, 2012

Newsday: Pro-freedom ads should come down because they might anger jihadis

From Jihad Watch


Yet another dhimmi commentator counsels submission to violent intimidation. Has everyone in the entire country forgotten that the only one responsible for one's actions is oneself? Has the entire world lost sight of the fact that if Muslims commit violence because of this ad or over any other pretext, the fault and responsibility will be theirs and theirs alone?

Joseph Dolman wants us to be silent, submissive slaves lest we anger our Muslim masters. What is even worse is that Newsday prints this suicidal nonsense.

"Dolman: Anti-jihad ads in subway may be legal, but they lack street-smarts," by Joseph Dolman for Newsday, September 24:
The unwritten code of the subway says that when a situation is fraught with danger, you never want to escalate it. You never want to challenge the angry-looking guy who’s staring at you from across the aisle and muttering under his breath. Is Armageddon erupting in his head? You don’t want to find out. 
Today I’m upset with Pamela Geller because she has broken the code. She has an ad going up in 10 New York subway stations that reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” As a New Yorker who was present in Manhattan on 9/11, I can promise you, I don’t like jihadists any more than she does.
But is it really wise to bait them? Right now? After what has happened in Egypt, Libya and Lower Manhattan (more than once)?...
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions we loathe and believe fraught with death, unless they pose such an imminent threat that an immediate check is required to save the country, wrote Justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. Who can say with certainty what the effect of Geller’s signs will be?
The issue isn’t the law. It’s common sense. Why bring this intractable psychodrama to the subway? Life is tough enough.

Obama’s Hidden Tax – Inflation 

By: Bruce Bialosky  / Townhall Daily / Columnist

Obama’s Hidden Tax – Inflation
The federal government – actually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) – just announced that the inflation rate for the year ending July 2012 was 1.4% Most of us had to rub our eyes in disbelief when we saw this number; have these people not entered a supermarket recently? How could they possibly release such a figure with prices skyrocketing all over? Which brings us to Ed Butowsky, who has had enough of what he believes are misleading numbers and has decided to do something about it.

Butowsky, who runs Chapwood Investments, got peeved about what he believes are intentionally understated government inflation calculations, and how they affect not only his investors, but seniors who receive retirement benefits. He decided to look around to see if anyone else shared his suspicions, and came upon research conducted by John Williams – not the Stars Wars composer – whose work can be found at www.shadowstats.com. Mr. Williams sells a newsletter that contains his calculations of the real inflation numbers. The pitch on his website states “Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP, and employment numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences? The problem lies in biased and often-manipulated government reporting.” Butowsky knew he was on to something.

We called the BLS to get an understanding of their procedure. They informed us that they analyze 80,000 costs every month, compare them to the equivalent costs for the prior year, and then perform a statistical weighting based on the relative impact of each item. For example, the largest component in their analysis is housing, which they claim has increased 2.8% since mid-2011. When we asked about the soaring costs of food, they replied that these prices had risen 1.9% for in-home food and 2.9% for dining out. Of course, these increases vary by region, and the BLS frankly admits that their price comparisons are not region-specific, but are intended to produce an aggregate, blended number for the nation.

Butowsky doesn’t buy it. He feels that even though the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has been revamped twice in the past 50 years, it’s still way off the mark. If investors merely aim to achieve returns that exceed an artificially low inflation rate, then the actual value of their investments ends up going down. More importantly, Butowsky stated “This is why people are more dependent on government.” If their earnings or pay increases are based on false inflationary numbers, they end up getting squeezed and must look elsewhere to balance their budgets.

Butowsky claims that “They have been manipulating the CPI to understate the amount of inflation for three decades.” He believes that the rationale for this distortion is to minimize entitlement payments, which have automatic cost of living increases that are based on the CPI. This is why seniors are having such challenges making ends meet. Butowsky is very clear on this: “It is an intentional attempt to manipulate transfer payments.”

To formalize his research, Butowsky developed the Chapwood Index, which measures cost changes of the top 500 items on which you spend money for each of the 50 largest metropolitan areas. He then calculates, on a quarterly basis, the actual price increases (inflation) that most Americans experience in their home areas.

He believes that testing 25,000 items quarterly provides a much clearer picture of the inflation we are experiencing. His index has the inflation rate for the first half of 2012 ranging from 3.6% in El Paso up to 8.3% in Fresno, with most metropolitan areas falling between 5.5% to 7.5%. Remember that is just the first six months of 2012.

Whether you believe the Chapwood Index or the BLS’s CPI depends on your own experience. For those of us who analyze these things, it is difficult to believe the government’s numbers purely on a macroeconomic basis. Since Mr. Obama was elected, the Federal Reserve has three times printed money under the quaint name of “quantitative easing” (QE1, QE2 and now QE3). They have injected a total of $1.5 trillion into the money supply with a commitment of $40 billion more per month until the economy returns to real growth.

When that happens, inflation has to take place, and, trust us, when OPEC sees actions like this they jack up the price of their oil because they know they’re getting paid in devalued dollars. You pay more for gas and the government gets money to pay its bills. It is Obama’s hidden tax and it falls principally on the middle class he tells us he is protecting.

The manipulation of the inflation rate certainly didn’t begin with Obama, and by the time he became president there was already systemic distortion. But Obama’s massive deficits and the Fed’s collusion have made things demonstrably worse.

My friends, when the government tells you an inflation number or an unemployment number or a GDP amount that doesn’t make sense, follow your instincts. Look elsewhere for solid information, because the figure out of Washington is probably bogus. And when President Obama states he has lowered middle class taxes remember his inflation caused by his reckless overspending has more than offset that in the devalued money you have in your pocket and the prices you pay at the pump and grocery store.


The Particulars of Polls 

By: Michael Barone  / Townhall Daily


As a recovering pollster (I worked for Democratic pollster Peter Hart from 1974 to 1981), let me weigh in on the controversy over whether the polls are accurate. Many conservatives are claiming that multiple polls have overly Democratic samples, and some charge that media pollsters are trying to discourage Republican voters.

First, some points about the limits of polls. Random sample polling is an imprecise instrument. There's an error margin of 3 or 4 percent, and polling theory tells us that one out of 20 polls is wrong, with results outside the margin of error.

Sometimes it's easy to spot such an outlier; sometimes not.

In addition, it's getting much harder for pollsters to get people to respond to interviews. The Pew Research Center reports that it's getting only 9 percent of the people it contacts to respond to its questions. That's compared to 36 percent in 1997.

Interestingly, response rates are much higher in new democracies. Americans, particularly in target states, may be getting poll fatigue. When a phone rings in New Hampshire, it might well be a pollster calling.

Are those 9 percent representative of the larger population? As that percentage declines, it seems increasingly possible that the sample is unrepresentative of the much larger voting public. One thing a poll can't tell us is the opinion of people who refuse to be polled.

Then there is the problem of cellphone-only households. In the 1930s and 1940s, pollsters conducted interviews in person because half of households had either no phone or (your grandparents can explain this) a party-line phone.

By the 1970s, phone ownership was well nigh universal, and pollsters mostly phased out in-person interviewing. Phone interviews are much cheaper and quicker.

But today the percentage of households without landline phones is increasing. Under federal law, cellphone numbers have to be hand-dialed rather than dialed by computer, as landline numbers are now even when live interviewers ask the questions.

Cellphone-only individuals tend to be younger and more Democratic than landline owners. Most pollsters are conducting a set number of interviews with cellphone-only households. But they can only guess at what percentage of the electorate they'll constitute. Oversample them, and you'll get overly Democratic results.

That, many conservatives are arguing, is what pollsters have been getting in polls this month. They point out that Mitt Romney is running ahead among Independents in many polls but trails overall.

This can only happen if Democrats have a big lead in party identification, as they did in 2008. In the exit poll then, 39 percent of voters identified themselves as Democrats and 32 percent as Republicans.

In contrast, exit polls showed an even break on party identification in 2004 and 2010. But many September polls and some earlier polls showed Democrats with an even bigger party identification lead than four years before.

That seems implausible. Party identification does change over time, as exit polls indicate. But it usually shifts gradually rather than suddenly, as current polls suggest.

There is evidence that since the Charlotte convention Democrats have become more motivated to vote and have narrowed the advantage in enthusiasm Republicans have had since 2010. In that case, more Democrats may be passing through screening questions and getting polled.

I don't believe that any of the media pollsters have been tilting their results in order to demoralize Republicans, though I do look with suspicion on the work of some partisan pollsters.

But I do have my doubts about whether samples with more Democratic party identification than in 2008 are accurate representations of the actual electorate. Many states with party registration have shown big drops in registered Democrats since then.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen, who weights his robocall results by party identification, adjusted monthly, has shown a much closer race than most pollsters who leave party identification numbers unweighted. So has the Susquehanna poll in Pennsylvania.

It may be that we're seeing the phenomenon we've seen for years in exit polls, which have consistently skewed Democratic (and toward Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries). Part of that is interviewer error:

Exit poll pioneer Warren Mitofsky found that the biggest discrepancies between exit polls and actual results were in precincts where the interviewers were female graduate students.

But he also found that Democrats were simply more willing to fill out the exit poll. That raises the question: Are we seeing the same thing in this month's polls?

So very true...


Happy Sukkot



The Shark Tank

Shark Tank Cameraman Accosted, Threatened at Sandra Fluke Event



By Javier Manjarres

The much anticipated Patrick Murphy event featuring Sandra “Government should pay for my birth control” Fluke was a big bust as the event was under-attended (about 75 attendees) and the proceedings went off without much incident Sunday afternoon in Fort Pierce. 

Minutes after Murphy’s amateurish campaign staffers told me that no videotaping would be allowed at the event, these same bush-league staffers asked the business owner who was hosting the event to give us the boot for no reason whatsoever. 

We felt bad for the owner because she told us she was asked to do it by the campaign, but she did have reservations about doing so because she did want to disobey orders from the Murphy campaign, nor did she want to bring any negative attention to her business. 

But the real fun occurred across the street from the event when one of Murphy’s big supporters threatened Shark Tank cameraman Patrick Castronovo with bodily harm after he attempted to ask the man a question. 

His pal showed up and made an issue about Patrick not being on a sidewalk (which is public property) while videotaping, suggesting that he was videotaping from a location where he was not allowed to. But he then corrected himself and acknowledged that Castronovo was indeed standing on city property and within his rights to videotape. 
“Don’t turn that on me unless you want it up your ass.” - Bitter Clingin’ Patrick Murphy supporter wearing an orange shirt

Click below to see the altercation:
http://shark-tank.net/2012/09/30/shark-tank-cameraman-accosted-threatened-at-sandra-fluke-event/
Op-ed:
The debates...more important than the msm wants you to believe
By: Diane Sori

 
How important are the upcoming presidential debates really...

To me they’re very important because this is Mitt Romney’s chance to slam Obama on all fronts with something he knows nothing about...the truth!  He needs to sucker-punch Obama but good!

And while the main stream media keeps trying to convince ‘We the People’ that the debates really won’t affect the outcome of this presidential election I beg to differ, and point out that the debates were the turning point in the race between then President Jimmy Carter and Republican hopeful Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was trailing Carter by eight percentage points in late October 1980, and went on to win in a landslide because of his stellar debate performance during that campaign's one and only debate on Oct. 29th.

And so it shall be with Mitt Romney.

Romney is not only well prepared but he has the truth on his side.  And while the truth might NOT seem like it’s important in the onslaught of all Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s media sanctioned and approved lies, the bottom line is if Romney can win the first debate and move the current polls even a point or two back in his direction, it’s over.  

Why...because we all know the polls are skewed to favor Obama as the simple fact is the pollsters all poll more Democrats than Republicans in order to ‘fix’ the numbers for Obama.  The truth, which obviously is NOT being told, is that Mitt Romney is actually ahead of Obama, and an obvious debate win would be hard pressed for even the media to cover-up with skewed numbers.

But for a clear cut debate win, Romney does need to stay focused on his strongest selling feature...his economic knowledge and experience.   Romney knows business...he knows how to create jobs and jump start failing businesses.  And while his 59-point economic plan (and more recently his five-point plan) is out there for all to see, he needs to talk about specifics at the debates, real detailed specifics including answering the most asked question of how he would pay for his proposed tax cuts.

Also, in my opinion, Romney needs to stand strong on his 47% so-called ‘misspeak,’ because you know the fact is he got it right when he said 47% will NEVER vote for him, just as a certain percentage will NEVER vote for Obama.  There is nothing wrong with stating a fact even if some don’t like it, but there is a lot wrong with NOT having the courage to stand by your convictions, and Romney, above all else, must appear strong and forceful in these debates.

Romney also needs to, in no uncertain terms, call Obama to task for his miserable Mid-East policies...policies and lies that led to the deaths of a US ambassador and US personnel.  He needs to really let into Obama for his unabashed allegiance to the enemy; for his continued stabbing of Israel in the back even as he put on his best phony Cheshire grin smirk before the Useless Nations saying that he stands with Israel (he doesn’t); for his continued insistence that sanctions and diplomacy will disarm Iran (it won’t); and for his major military tactical blunder of telling the enemy our timetable for withdrawal which caused countless new American military deaths and casualties.  

Mitt Romney needs to show the American people that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NO Commander-in-Chief to the world’s greatest fighting force...he needs to show that Barack HUSSEIN Obama does NOT garner the respect of our troops both at home and overseas...and that Barack Hussein Obama caters and placates the enemy at the expense and lives of our current men and women in uniform.

Mitt Romney must show that he is a champion of the Constitution, our Second Amendment rights, and of freedom of speech, along with giving the American people his promise that the muslim brotherhood and their ilk will be expunged from all areas of our government.

And above all else Mitt Romney needs to prove that we are NOT better off today than we were four years ago.  He needs to counter Obama’s phony numbers with true numbers and statistics, quoting legitimate and respected sources if need be.  He needs to use his business savvy to show that under Barack HUSSEIN Obama our economy has stalled due to misdirected and unworkable policies, like the total and complete failure of a Stimulus Package that was forced down our throats, and that all the bailouts given are now coming back to bite us.  Romney needs to show the American people that the middle class, the very ones Obama is pandering to, will be the ones carrying the burden of the mother of all taxes...the dreaded ObamaCare. 

Mitt Romney has to attack Obama and expose his economic Achilles heel by catching him off guard with facts, facts, and more facts showing that this economy will NOT revive unless there is a change in leadership, and that America’s standing in the world will NOT improve until there is that same change in leadership. Yet he surely knows that he cannot attack Obama personally while doing this, because he must be dutifully careful NOT to alienate any swing voters.  


Is Romney up for this task...I believe he is and that he will deliver that knockout punch to Obama for Mitt Romney knows as well as we do that he is our last chance to save our beloved country from the grip of an egotistical, calculating, dictator wannabee. 

A heavy burden to carry for sure but one that Mitt Romney will carry well.