Santorum's (in)Sanity.

He needs to keep his mouth shut before he blows it for the GOP.

 Another wild week of politics ,Rick Santorum looks crazier and crazier as time passes, as I figured he would.  In his latest blunder, it has come out that he is a man of faith, but not in the God that I worship:

Asked Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” how his faith fits in with his ideas about governing, Santorum said he disagreed with the “absolute separation” between church and state outlined by Kennedy in a 1960 speech.

Santorum said reading the speech made him want to “throw up.”

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

In case you are wondering what John F. Kennedy was talking about, since the quote was paraphrased, this is what he said:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

FOX  NEWS  said it best . O'REILLY: The problem for Rick Santorum is that he goes beyond defending people of faith and that's getting him into trouble. There is no question that the Obama Administration wants to impose secularism on everybody. Even going so far as demanding the Catholic Church affiliated non-profit organizations provide birth control and morning after pills to employees. That's an intrusion on a religious belief and Ronald Reagan would condemn it.
But Rick Santorum takes it a bit further saying that some policy matters should be decided on what is considered right and wrong in the religious realm. That would lead to anarchy because Americans are very diverse in their belief systems. If Santorum would simply pull back a bit and say to the federal government, "Hey, leave religious institutions alone, don't interfere with them", he would be on the side of the angels, pardon the pun. Because most Americans well understand that people like Nancy Pelosi have no clue that religion is protected by the Constitution.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

 Santorum, however, is determined to make the road to Tampa a fight for the soul of America. Unlike some of his fallen compatriots, he doesn't claim God told him to run for president. Rather, God is running with him for President. And you should know that neither of them is happy.

The Obama Faith.

 President Obama may not be a Christian or a Muslim , but he has no problem celebrating The Jewish Passover at the White House in 2010.

We have a lot of Bigots in our nation . In case in point here is the recently outrageous and Awkward and uncomfortable interviews aren’t rarities in the wonderful world of media. But Rev. Franklin Graham’s (son of famed evangelist Billy Graham) appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today certainly distinguishes itself, particularly due to the nature of the discussion: The faiths of President Barack Obama and the GOP presidential contenders.
“Do you believe that President Obama is a Christian?,” co-host Willie Geist asked.
“I think you have to ask President Obama…I think people have to ask Barack Obama — he‘s come out saying he’s a Christian. So, I think the question is ‘What is a Christian?,’” Graham responded.
Geist pushed the faith leader on the question, appearing visibly surprised by his refusal to say, definitively, that Obama is, indeed, a believer. In reaffirming his refusal to confirm Obama’s faith, Graham, cited the president’s description of how he became a Christian — a story that allegedly focused more upon his community organizing than it did a heartfelt connection to the Almighty.
“So therefore by your definition, he’s not a Christian?,” Geist continued, with Graham again saying that he cannot answer that question on the president’s behalf.

 Here's more of the diatribe interview:

Naturally, Geist asked why Graham was able to answer for Santorum, but not for Obama.

“Well, because [Santorum's] values are so clear on moral issues,” Graham responded (later in the interview, Graham also said that he believes Newt Gingrich is a Christian – based on the fact that he’s said he is).

“[That's] an amazing double standard that you just applied,” said so-host John Heilemann. “Your reaction to the difference — The question about Rick Santorum and President Obama, I think, just exposes an incredible double standard you’re applying to those people. They’re exactly the same situation!”

At one point in the middle of the interview, co-host Alex Witt chimed in, asking, “Reverend, what about Mitt Romney…is he a Christian?” Here‘s how the dialogue surrounding the top GOP contender’s faith unfolded:

Latter Day Saints are not Christian either?

GRAHAM: “He’s a Mormon.”
WITT: “But he‘s said that he’s part of the Judeo-Christian faith. Do you take him at his word?”
GRAHAM: “No, but most Christians would not recognize Mormonism as part of the Christian faith.”
WITT: “So, he is not a Christian?”
GRAHAM: “Of course they believe in Jesus Christ, but they have a lot of other things that we believe in, too, that we don’t accept theologically.”

The hosts — particularly Geist — was flabbergasted, it seemed, that Graham was willing to reaffirm Christianity in Gingrich and Santorum’s lives, but that he was not willing to do the same for President Obama and Mitt Romney (it’s important to note that Graham has said numerous times that it is permissible for evangelicals to vote for Mormons). When Geist, once again, raised the issue and called out what he saw as a double standard, Graham spoke about the president’s focus on the “Muslims of the world.”
“Under…President Obama, the Muslims of the world — he seems more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries,” Graham responded

Holding hands and smiling despite the 37 degree temperatures, the President Obama and his family walked across the street from the White House to St. John’s Episcopal Church today to attend the 11 a.m. service

While the Obamas have not claimed a church as their own since moving to Washington 2009, the family has attended several different churches, including, on Easter Sunday this year, Shiloh Baptist Church.

St. John’s Church was founded in 1815 and, since James Madison, every presidents has attended at least one service there.

.

During the contentious interview, Graham declined to say whether he believes Obama is a Christian — a refusal that led to both confusion and angst among the show’s hosts. I personally don't care if Obama is not a Christian , I have had my suspicion that Obama is non practicing man of faith of sorts. He might be our FIRST JEWISH PRESIDENT ? 

NOTES & COMMENTS:

A Christian is a person who is trying to be a footstep follower of Jesus, the Christ (anointed one) of God.

Some do it better than others, but God will determine that who is a Christian.
Me, you, or anyone else, are not qualified to judge a man’s heart .Why does that matter to you? Doesn’t your religion teach you to “judge not, lest ye be judged”? I bet you NEVER asked that question of GW Bush or any other president. Going to church every Sunday doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. With the amount of sheer unmitigated and unfounded hatred directed at the president by you so-called Christians, it’s a wonder y’all don’t just burst into flames whenever you walk into a church………….

Pumped out @ the Pump.

Nothing drives voter sentiment like the price of gas – now averaging $3.56 a gallon, up 30 cents from the start of the year. It’s already hit $4 in some places. The last time gas topped $4 was 2008.

4 dollar a gallon Gas is back , and it's expected to go higher if you live in CALIFORNIA .  We'd been through this before back in 2008 , and everyone blamed BUSH . Now history repeats itself with indignation .Where are the outraged congressmen, senators, presidential candidates, governors and media, the so-called protectors of the people? Are they for real? Or are they simply in the pocket of the kings of the oil profits, the oil barons of the 21st century? Well the campaign contributions seem to indicate they have been bought off. So do the millions of dollars being spent on advertising by oil related industries. And nothing energizes Republicans like rising energy prices. Last week House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans to take advantage of voters’ looming anger over prices at the pump. On Thursday House Republicans passed a bill to expand offshore drilling and force the White House to issue a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The tumult prompted the Interior Department to announce on Friday expanded oil exploration in the Arctic.In a note to clients Tuesday, titled “Why this time could be different,” LaVorgna reminds us of his rule of thumb (which he shared with us before and during the 2008 crisis) for measuring the effect of run-ups at the pump: a one-cent increase in gasoline prices increases household energy consumption by about $1.4 billion. With the 29-cent jump in gas prices over the past two months, that would translate into about $40.6 billion in higher household energy costs .Gasoline prices in Canada rose Tuesday as oil prices hit their highest levels in nine months.According to the price-monitoring website Gasbuddy.com the average price for regular gas in Canada was $1.2443 a litre, up from $1.2430 Monday as crude oil for March delivery closed at $105.84 US a barrel, up $2.60, or 2.5 per cent, in New York.

The more widely traded April contract settled at $106.25, up $2.65, oil's highest price since May.Crude prices rose after European leaders agreed to lend Greece €130 billion ($172 billion Cdn) to avoid a debt default and as Iran laid out conditions for future oil exports to European countries.

.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

One of the ways he has gone about this is to push for less oil and gas production. He seems to think that if oil and gasoline are not readily available, or so expensive that many Americans can not afford to drive, we will automatically fall in love with the Chevrolet Volt and other alternative energy vehicles. Where’s my evidence of that, you may ask? It’s fairly simply, really. Let us look first at the BP explosion and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Analysts blame political tensions in the Middle East, particularly involving Iran.

The price of barrel of oil has shot up, and that, in turn, impacts gas prices.

The average price of a gallon of regular, unleaded gas in L.A. is now $4.06, according to GasBuddy.com.

That's 19 cents higher than last week, 33 cents higher than last month and 52 cents higher than the same time last year.

The average price in California is $4.02 per gallon, and the nationwide average is $3.52 per gallon.
The price went up to $106.25 for crude to be delivered in April - i.e. it hasn't even been refined yet. The gasoline coming out of the pump today was refined from crude purchased at the previous, lower price. Can you say price gouging.

Where in hell are the government agencies that are supposed to protect us from this BS? Oh wait. The government itself benefits from this in the form of higher tax revenue. And don't hold your breath waiting for the Harper Government (tm) to take a stand against big oil
What was Obama’s first reaction? He placed an illegal moratorium on any further oil exploration and drilling in the Gulf. Even after a court ruling ordered him to cease and desist with his actions, he ignored the ruling. He went on his merry way and did what he wanted to do. He kept the moratorium in place for six long months. Never mind what the courts ordered him to do. I wonder if that had anything to do with the price of gasoline going even higher?
To be fair, not all of this is Obama’s fault. We have been far too dependent on foreign oil for far too long. The actions of many administrations before him had taken their toll on our energy policy. However, that does not remove the responsibility of President Obama and the energy policy he has established since taking office. From the beginning, he stated that energy prices would necessarily have to skyrocket to further his agenda of cap and trade. In 2008, he made the statement that he would have preferred to see a more gradual adjustment of the price of gasoline, but he said nothing about it actually going up.
What conclusion are we supposed to draw from his actions? He nominated Steven Chu for Energy Secretary and we all know the statements he has made. He has made it no secret that he believes the government needs to come up with a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels they are seeing in Europe. He says the price of gasoline should be expected to go up over the long haul. What does Obama say? “I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now.”
.

Uncovered: Obama’s $35,800/Plate Dinner?

Blogger “Zombie” has struck again. Earlier this week, he uncovered some “phony populism” at a leftist rally. Today, he‘s uncovered the guest list from President Obama’s closed-door $35,800/plate fundraising dinner.
The names are not necessarily shocking. But the fact that a blogger was able to snap pictures of the list will surely satisfy the curiosity of those wanting an insider glance.
Zombie writes:

Craig Newmark, Cissie Swig, Steve Westly and will.i.am each happily dropped $35,800 to dine with President Obama at billionaire Marc Benioff’s San Francisco home Wednesday evening. These are just some of the 85 famous names on the fundraiser’s guest list which was plainly visible to rubberneckers as attendees checked in. Combined, Obama’s take for the 90-minute event was a cool $3 million — or $3,043,000 to be exact (85 guests x $35,800 each).

This is some of what he snapped:

Page 1

Page 2

See more pages and pictures, as well as a complete list of the names, here.

Obama & Jerry Brown's China deal.

 Please it's not  about China Bashing . It's how America dose business , short changing Americans .

Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping . Here is some retrospect on his visit . Big Communist China is America's Boss .

Obama borrows money from China
...then gives a lot of it to GM and calls it a stimulus.


GM then takes the stimulus and buys Chinese steel.

GM then spends $500 million to Mexico so Mexican workers can build engines.

Then Obama stands up and tells the nation how well he and the dems are doing for America!!!

Isn't it great with Obama's blessing that the unions love and support him as they stimulate the hell out of China and Mexico job markets?

How's that unemployment rate hope and change thing going for you?

 Here is one NEWS source said:

The governor will attend several official events today and Friday tied to Xi's visit, including a tour this afternoon of the China Shipping Terminal at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro.

Xi is scheduled to arrive at LAX at 1:30 p.m., about two hours after Air Force One is set to leave the airport for San Francisco. President Barack Obama, who met with Xi earlier this week at the White House, is continuing his West Coast fundraising trip with a visit to the Bay Area.

Obama's calendar includes a dinner at the Pacific Heights home of novelist Robert Mailer Anderson (think "Boonville"), followed by a reception at the Masonic Center where Grammy winner Chris Cornell (think Soundgarden) will perform.

Vice President Biden  wants to send your kids to collage in China :

Biden told the students that the U.S.-China relationship is the single most important relationship the country has in the 21st century. He said he and President Barack Obama believe that the most significant factor in improving U.S.-China ties is increasing educational opportunity for American students in China.

Under the 100,000 Strong Initiative, the White House aims to have at least that many American students studying in China.

The BANKS!

Mr. Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore), the richest man in Bedford Falls and owner of half of it, sporting his omnipresent scowl. Fictional as it seems in the Capra film . Reflects the Banks of today.

The recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp is likely to bring foreclosures to a crawl, resulting in a further destabilizing of housing markets.  The Court ruling is a major win for debtors and a severe blow for creditors trying to clear a backlog of millions of defaulted mortgages. California, New York, Nevada, Florida and Massachusetts are among the states that haven’t signed off on a settlement with banks over foreclosure abuses, according to state officials and two people familiar with the talks.The holdouts include some with the highest rates of foreclosures. More than 6 percent of Nevada housing units had at least one foreclosure filing in 2011, the nation’s highest rate, according to RealtyTrac. California was third-highest with more than 3 percent, said the firm, which tracks foreclosures.California Attorney General Kamala Harris and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who have been among the most outspoken in pushing for changes to the accord, were among those who hadn’t joined as of a Feb. 6 deadline. More than 40 states signed on, said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is helping to lead talks with the banksThe Massachusetts Court set aside two foreclosure sales, citing failure by the banks involved to prove that they actually owned the mortgages at the time of foreclosure.  The Court’s ruling stated that “We agree with the judge that the plaintiffs, who were not the original mortgagees, failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. As a result, they did not demonstrate that the foreclosure sales were valid to convey title to the subject properties, and their requests for a declaration of clear title were properly denied.”The court ruling centers on paperwork errors made when mortgages were purchased from lenders and combined into pools that were assigned to a trustee to be converted into mortgage backed securities (MBS) which were then sold to investors.  During this securitization process, mortgages were commonly assigned multiple times before winding up in a trust.  Often times, the assignment did not follow proper procedures or was not done at all, calling into question the legal right of the trustee to take title in foreclosure.Due to the vast numbers of mortgages that were securitized during the mortgage mania, the foreclosure mess could become catastrophic for the banks, housing market and financial system.  According to Wikipedia, “There is about $14.2 trillion in total U.S. mortgage debt outstanding.  There are about $8.9 trillion in total U.S. mortgage-related securities.  The volume of pooled mortgages stands at about $7.5 trillion.  About $5 trillion of that is securitized by government sponsored enterprises or government agencies, the remaining $2.5 trillion pooled by private mortgage conduits”.

“Adding more numbers probably improves the political dimension of the settlement from the standpoint of the attorneys general,” said Ken Scott, a Stanford University law professor. “If you can say there were only a handful of diehards that didn’t sign on, that gives you some political protection.”

All 50 states announced almost 16 months ago they were investigating bank foreclosure practices following disclosures that faulty documents were being used to seize homes. Officials from states and federal agencies, including the Justice Department, have since negotiated terms of a proposed settlement with five banks that is said to be worth as much as $25 billion.

NOTES & COMMENTS:
Another point is that banks don't want any one to own their homes , the fixed rates in mortgagees 30 years for example is too high for any one to pay off and own . The BANKS PROFIT FROM HIGH FIXED MORTGAGEES .

Very good point – many view the banks as the tip of the spear in the real estate/mortgage fiasco.

It becomes harder to point the finger, however, when viewed in the larger context. The banks were front and center in the mortgage boom and real estate crash but they couldn’t have done it without a large supporting cast including underwriters, mortgage originators, real estate agents, appraisers, credit agencies, Wall Street, Fannie, Freddie, federal regulators, the Federal Reserve, home buyers – the list goes on. As the mortgage lending and real estate bubble expanded, the prospect of easy wealth via real estate appreciation captured the entire nation.
The problem now is how to repair the damage that was done without creating another financial crisis.

Meanwhile, under the theory that all the bad news is already discounted, financial stocks continue to rally. Go figure.

Obama's Hardline.

 

Obama turns rightface in a signifacant move to fight terror disappointing many.

In one of his final acts of 2011, on Dec. 31, President Barack Obama signed into law a bill allowing the U.S. military to indefinitely detain any American citizen it suspects of participating in or substantially supporting terrorist activities, without any due process, jury trial, or presumption of innocence.

The bill passed the U.S. Senate in December by an 86-13 margin. In all, six Republicans, six Democrats and one independent opposed the measure. Both Wisconsin senators, Republican Ron Johnson and Democrat Herb Kohl, supported it.The language, embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, has prompted withering criticism of Obama from both the right and the left.

On the left, the ACLU led the charge, saying the act would stain Obama's historical reputation.

"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."

On the right, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) said the U.S. government should not be granted the right to detain citizens without a jury trial.Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations.  It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

So here is a resolution better than losing weight this year . . . make 2012 the year you regained your rights.

National Shame : The Poor.

 "There nothing wrong about being "wealthy" , but what are you going to do with all those poor?"

 ** Romney has been taking a drubbing about his remarks in a CNN interview that he is “not worried about the very poor…we have a safety net there…If it needs a repair, I will fix it.” And then going on to say it is “..middle income Americans…that are really struggling…” that are his concern that the gap between rich and poor has been widening in the U.S. and Britain is old news. What’s new, according to a recent OECD report (PDF), is that in the last 30 years the income gap has been growing even faster in unlikely places: Sweden, Denmark and Germany. Despite their notoriously generous welfare systems, the three have seen the split between top and bottom incomes grow faster than anywhere else in the OECD in the past decade. (Canada also registered a sizable increase in its Gini coefficient, the standard measure of income inequality.)So why are the rich doing disproportionately better than everyone else? The report highlights an interesting trio of possible causes:
(a) Freer trade is pushing up the wages of skilled workers. This what trade theory predicts will happen in rich countries with increased trade integration. Technological progress is having a similar effect, putting a premium on education and skills, and making many low-skill jobs obsolete.
(b) Rich people are marrying rich people, thus significantly increasing the wealth of households in the top income bracket. In other words, doctors are marrying doctors—not nurses—and lawyers other lawyers—not housewives. I wonder if this is a bizarre side effect of women’s emancipation.
(c) Across the board, governments have been withdrawing from the markets, leading to lower minimum wages compared to average wages, sinking union membership, and fewer state-owned enterprises. Though these changes raised employment levels, they also likely weakened the redistributive mechanisms that used to restrain the gap between rich and poor.

The OECD says it will produce a more in-depth study to look at these factors, and how much they actually contributed to accelerating inequality. In the meantime, the new findings make for the topic of an interesting debate over whether the best way to tackle inequality is shutting our borders or thinking up a new and better way to ensure that the wealth actually trickles down.To hear Democrats (and much of the media) tell it, President Barack Obama is a man on the rebound. The president turned in a strong State of the Union speech, picked a smart political fight over taxing the rich and authorized another heroic Navy SEAL mission in terrorist territory. Sounds like a recipe for reelection, they say. There is a big problem with this Pollyanna punditry: There are a bunch of real-time numbers coming in that tell a much different tale.

 NOTES & COMMENTS:

**Trust me, he's not worried about either.

And many of us understood well what he said.

Instead of having a safety net down there to help the poor, why not make it so so that they can lift themselves out of poverty?

He has no ideas how to help them to rise out of poverty and have no plans of ever coming up with any.

And the way states cut education budgets right left and center, leaving it up to the states to mete out funds for Medicaid will be the worse thing any President can ever doHelping the middle class helps the lower class. He thinks the lower class has plenty of resources and that the middle class needs more attention. Middle class is the majority of America.
I believe his intentions are good, he just didn't say it very well..

.

Mitt's Win .&Obama Chart.

•  The Delegate counts follows as :
• Mitt Romney 87
• Newt Gingrich 26
• Rick Santorum 14
• Ron Paul 4
• Jon Huntsman 2
• Rick Perry 2

So After an utterly devastating week, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came back in style on Monday night during the latest chapter of the game show that is the Republican presidential nominating process.Mitt's win is setting off most of the GOP hopefuls . What's left will be 3 Add all those up and you get a total of 135 delegates out of a possible 1,144 awarded after four contests. That’s around 5 percent.  Florida, with its winner-take-all system, is an outlier when it comes to most primary contests before April, because the vast majority of the races before then award their delegates in some proportional manner. Some of the races that are coming up are more complicated as their elections and caucuses are only the first step in selecting delegates for the convention in August. The races do not revert to winner-take-all until much later in the race, the biggest prize among those later states is California with 172 delegates at stake.. The statistics are MOST CHALLENGING HERE. I present some research , graphs to point

As pundits’ attention shifts now from the Republican primary race, where Romney is our presumptive nominee, to the general election where Romney is the presumptive challenger, we are going to be inundated with data. Polling on a national level. On a state level. On a demographic level. Polling about potential Vice Presidential candidates. Electoral vote totals. Swing state data. County-by-county matchups. Historical trends. Power rankings. Exit polls.

There will be no shortage of numbers to crunch and statistics to drool over in the coming months. But for all the amusement and information they will provide, there are really only two numbers that matter now: Barack Obama’s approval rating as measured by Gallup, and the national unemployment rate.Those two intertwined numbers will tell you all you need to know about who will win come November. Why? Because history shows that to be the case. Allow me to repost a couple of graphics from an old post of mine entitled, “The Two Most Important Charts I’ve Seen“:

The first chart tracks, over time, an incumbent President’s chance of winning re-election based solely on his job approval numbers. The second chart provides the historical context for such predictive ability. (Both charts are taken from a piece Nate Silver wrote last January.)

When we take this data into consideration, it would appear that we are treading into unknown territory with Barack Obama. At the moment, his Gallup approval rating rests at 44%. We are about nine months out from the election. Plotting that on the first graph above nets us a 50/50 chance of Obama’s re-election.

Of course, what happens during the next nine months to that 44% number is ultimately the key. If it stays at 44%, Obama will lose to Romney. If it rises a few points, then the picture gets very murky. If it rises to 48% or above, then he will defeat Romney.

Amidst all the campaigning, debating, gaffes, speeches, advertisements and other campaign trappings, it really is that simple.

And the number one thing that will move that 44% up or down is the unemployment rate. There are ten more updates of the national unemployment rate due between now and Election Day (including one a day and a half from now). Ten more times to move the needle as Americans digest an improving or weakening economy. Although the American economy is richly complex with a million moving parts, for an overwhelming percentage of the American electorate the economy is comprised of this single, simple number.

If it continues going down, Obama’s job approval will go up, and he will win – and vice versa.

So over the coming nine months, have fun with all the polls and data points you will be presented with. But remember, ultimately this race will come down to these two numbers. Keep your eye on the Gallup job approval and the unemployment rate, and you will be ahead of the rest of the pundits out there.