Wasting Money Green Jobs Pipe Dream Update

And another one bites the dust...despite lots of your money from the stimulus....and to think that the President thinks throwing more money at projects like this will add jobs. Didn't help add jobs to Solyndra:

Solyndra, a major manufacturer of solar technology in Fremont, has shut its doors, according to employees at the campus.

"I was told by a security guard to get my [stuff] and leave," one employee said. The company employs a little more than 1,000 employees worldwide, according to its website.Shortly after it opened a massive $700 million facility, it canceled plans for a public stock offering earlier this year and warned it would be in significant trouble if federal loan guarantees did not go through.

The company has said it will make a statement at 9am California time, though it's not clear what that statement will be. An NBC Bay Area photographer on the scene reports security guards are not letting visitors on campus. He says "people are standing around in disbelief." The employees have been given yellow envelopes with instructions on how to get their last checks.

Solyndra was touted by the Obama administration as a prime example of how green technology could deliver jobs. The President visited the facility in May of last year and said "it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that. "

The federal government offered $535 million in low cost loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. NBC Bay Area has contacted the White House asking for a statement.

Some Republicans have been very critical of the loans. "I am concerned that the DOE is providing loans and loan guarantees to firms that aren't capable of competing in the global market, even with government subsidies" Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns told the New York Times.

This doesn't bode well for Barry:

President Obama faces political catastrophe in the form of Solyndra -- a San Francisco Bay area solar company that he touted as a gleaming example of green technology. It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.

During a visit to the Fremont facility in spring of 2010, the President said the factory "is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. "

It's not his statements the administration will regret; it's the loan guarantees. The President was celebrating $535 million in federal promises from the Department of Energy to the solar startup. The administration didn't do its due diligence, says the Government Accountability Office. "There's a consequence if you don't follow a rigorous process that's transparent," Franklin Rusco of GAO told the website iWatch News.

The President touted the federally back money as a way to create jobs. The President's opponents immediately jumped on the deal as Solyndra made its first layoffs.

Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida warned, "I am concerned that the DOE is providing loans and loan guarantees to firms that aren't capable of competing in the global market, even with government subsidies."

Another critic, Fred Upton of Michigan: "The unfortunate reality is that loan guarantee highlights many of the systemic flaws associated with the stimulus in the mad dash to spend hundreds of billions of dollars."

Wow, the administration didn't do due dilligence? This was unexpected? Aren't these familiar themes in this joke of a presidency? Everything takes this administration by surprise, except when the rare good news happens, then it is all about the self-congratulations. Obama doesn't appear to do much research into where he puts OUR money. If he were a financial planner or broker, he would have been fired three times by now. Luckily, we have a chance to fire him in a little over a year.

Portage County TEA Party Changes The Meaning of Acronym

Release:

Kent, Ohio - The Portage County TEA Party announced today that it is changing the meaning of the “TEA” acronym which it has previously defined as meaning “Taxed Enough Already” since the formation of the organization in 2009. The new meaning of the acronym, effective immediately, will be “Totally Engaged Americans”. Tom Zawistowski, Executive Director of the organization, explained the decision by saying “While we certainly continue to believe that Americans are taxed enough already, as our movement has matured, we have realized that we are about much more than just unfair taxation. It is now apparent to all of us that the key to a strong and prosperous America is for all citizens to be totally engaged with our government at all levels.” The change was made after a vote to do so by the organizations officers, Township Captains and Committee Chairs earlier this month.

Zawistowski added, “We can not be a self-governing nation if the citizens are not engaged in the process of governance. The acronym “Totally Engaged Americans” is more descriptive of our membership and of our responsibility as Americans to do our civic duty, as provided in our Constitution, in order to protect our individual rights and freedoms.” Other TEA Party groups around the state and the nation have been or are making the same change.

The TEA Party is not a political party but a grassroots cultural movement. The movement is educating American citizens about the Constitution and the historical body of knowledge that our founders relied upon to create the uniquely American form of self-governance that has made our country so successful. Through this education, the movement is attempting to re-define what it means to be an American citizen by encouraging individual participation in governance at all levels to more closely align government with its traditional role as originally defined by the nation’s founders.

Yes, but do they have "leaders"?

Wasting Money: Green Jobs Pipe Dream Update

Some of this we have covered before on the radio show and here at WMD. However, the points need to be re-emphasized. This president has no clue. He talked about the coming Green economy. Spain tried it, failed. And all of Obama's spending has just been to line the pockets of supporters and cronies. All the green economy leads to is bankruptcy. First, from Fox News:

A green jobs program in one of America's greenest cities is being called a bust 16 months after a $20 million federal grant to weatherize homes in Seattle ended up putting just 14 people to work in mostly administrative jobs and upgrading only three homes in the area.

"The jobs are not there," Todd Myers, who wrote the book "Eco Fads," told Fox News. "So we're training people for jobs that don't exist."

Seattle is not alone. The Department of Energy has allocated $508 million to 41 states for its Better Buildings Neighborhood Program and 600 jobs have been created or retained.

"While communities are advancing their programs at different rates, we are pleased with the progress," the agency wrote in a recent statement.

One year into the three-year program, 9,000 homes have had energy audits and received some kind of upgrade. The goal is to weatherize 150,000 homes by 2013 and save consumers $65 million annually on energy bills.

But Myers and others say the biggest problem with the program is government is trying to create a market that consumers don't want. The average homeowner in the U.S. pays about $2,000 a year for energy.

The weatherization upgrades are aimed at saving 15 percent on energy consumption. If the retrofit costs $10,000 even with all the government incentives, it will take over 30 years to pay off through lower energy bills.

"The problem is the policies the politicians choose, whether green jobs or retrofits, are based on appearance," Myers said. "They choose things that look good, rather than what's best for the environment."

Among the other cities having trouble fulfilling the green jobs promise are Toledo, Kansas City and Phoenix. So far, those cities have created a combined 72 jobs with $65 million in grants.

The difficulty is magnified on the federal level. President Obama once said he wanted to create 5 million green jobs over 10 years. The 2009 stimulus package included $5 billion toward that goal.

A chunk of that money went for weatherization programs, but according to a Department of Energy inspector general report one year later, "only two of the 10 highest-funded recipients completed more than 2 percent of planned units."

Pleased with progress that only 3 homes are done, and that the only jobs created are 14 admin jobs. Sounds like a typical elitist liberal agency. But wait, there is more evidence of the green jobs/global warming scam:

Failed Policy: The Obama administration's jobs plan was based on a greening of the economy. But the green jobs aren't materializing, a fact driven home by the recent bankruptcy of a solar power company.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Barack Obama said he would create 5 million well-paying "green" jobs within 10 years.

Politico has reported that "he's spent considerable time since entering the White House trying to make that happen."

Indeed he has, though there has been no payoff. Yet he refuses give up on his quixotic quest. Last week Obama toured to much fanfare a Johnson Controls plant in Michigan where $300 million in conservation grants produced 150 jobs — at a cost of $2 million per position.

Stimulus funds intended to boost the green economy haven't been well spent. The latest example of this is Monday's bankruptcy filing by Evergreen Solar Inc.

The Massachusetts company that the White House once said "is hoping to hire 90 to 100 people" thanks to stimulus money has $485.6 million in debt. Evergreen closed a factory in March, reports the Boston Herald, and cut 800 jobs. A Michigan plant is to be shut down, as well, causing the loss of even more jobs.

Evergreen isn't the only supposed conservation company that can't make it even when fronted with piles of taxpayer money. Green Vehicles of Salinas, Calif., which has burned through more than $500,000 in money "invested" by the city, folded last month without having produced anything of significance. The company promised it would employ about 70 and pay back Salinas taxpayers with $700,000 a year in city taxes.

The sad part is that Evergreen had been failing for years, but in order to look like doing the right thing while throwing money into a black hole, Obama ignored what experts were saying:

Evergreen Solar, a public company specializing in solar energy, has filed for bankruptcy.

Enthusiasm for alternative energy seems to wax and wane in the U.S., but the financial health of Evergreen has been consistently waning for some time. Falling prices and competition with manufacturers based in China have pushed this company to the brink.

Closure of the company’s plant in Devens, Massachusetts, and the elimination of 800 jobs, represented a belated effort to bring down costs by shifting more production to China. The company received a “going concern” warning by its auditor in the spring. In the end the cash burn at Evergreen outran efforts by management to fix the cost structure.

A quick analysis of LTM financials paints a picture of a highly levered ($395.8 million in long-term debt as of the last quarterly filing) company with unsustainably low levels of profitability and working capital trends moving in the wrong direction. The highlights:

Sales of $295.6 million, with a gross margin of -28.2%
Operating margin of -163.5%, EBITDA margin of -45.9%
DSO of 135.8 (up from 57.8)
DIO of 111.2 (up from 55.3)

Given the financial performance of this company, the surprise it not that it filed for bankruptcy, the surprise is that it took so long to come to that obvious conclusion.

Department of Defense Offical Tyrannical, Spends Excessively on Self

Funny, I didn't think Michelle Obama was part of the Department of Defense. Doesn't this sound like the First Queen? But, sadly, it is not. However, it does appear to be symptomatic of the "let them eat rubbish while we party" mentality of many in the Obama administration. The latest comes from the chief of personnel:

The military’s personnel chief is under fire from Pentagon whistleblowers who have charged Clifford Stanley with incompetence, extravagant spending, cronyism and “tyrannical” management.

Pentagon employees have told DOD’s top investigator and senior lawmakers that Stanley spent nearly $400,000 on an “incredibly extravagant” conference room and inserted an old friend into a senior post. The whistleblowers also allege that he forced more than 20 senior executives out of his office and conducted electronic eavesdropping on employees. Stanley “has created a dysfunctional command marked by fear and mistrust through a capricious, tyrannical and arbitrary leadership,” according to a July 11 letter to the Pentagon inspector general. “Waste, fraud and abuse of power are rampant. Even if he were competent, his destructive leadership would assure [personnel and readiness office] mission failure.”

That same complaint also featured this blunt assessment: “He is incompetent.”

Those charges, and others, are spelled out in three anonymous complaints from Pentagon employees released Monday by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO).

Stanley has been undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness since February 2010.

Wow, those assessments sound like the entire Obama Administration. And to think this clown was a Marine. Obviously a pencil pusher. Sad state for the military personnel right now. Get this guy out.

Operation Fast and Furious: Heads Beginning to Roll...Where's Holder's?

The figurative guillotine is being fed in DC and Arizona. Two key people involved in the disastrous Operation Gunwalker/Fast and Furious are being replaced or asking for reassignments. The operation that was going to be used by the Obama Justice Dept. to incite a new era of gun control laws but only succeeded in arming drug cartels and leading to the deaths of 100s of civilians and 2 federal agents. From Fox News:

Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson has been reassigned to a lesser post in the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney for Arizona was also pushed out Tuesday as fallout from Operation Fast and Furious reached new heights.

Melson's step down from his role as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the position of senior adviser on forensic science in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Programs is effective by close of business Tuesday, administration officials announced. U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones will replace Melson.

U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke, one of the officials closely tied to Fast and Furious, is also a casualty in a shakeup tied to the botched gun-running program. Burke was on the hot seat last week with congressional investigators and, according to several sources, got physically sick during questioning and could not finish his session.

The purge of those responsible for the firearms trafficking scandal continued as new documents reveal a deeper involvement of federal agencies beyond ATF.

In Phoenix, Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who oversaw Fast and Furious on a day-to-day basis, was reassigned from the criminal to civil division. Also in Phoenix, three out of the four whistleblowers involved in the case have been reassigned to new positions outside Arizona. Two are headed to Florida, one to South Carolina.

Hurley's reassignment came after three ATF supervisors responsible for the operation were promoted. William G. McMahon, a former deputy director of operations, took over the Office of Professional Responsibility. Field supervisors William D. Newell and David Voth also moved up despite heavy criticism.

The moves follow a series of reports by Fox News detailing the face-off between Attorney General Eric Holder, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, whose investigators have recently broadened their probe. It now reportedly shows a deeper involvement of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

"While the reckless disregard for safety that took place in Operation Fast and Furious certainly merits changes within the Department of Justice, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will continue its investigation to ensure that blame isn't off-loaded on just a few individuals for a matter that involved much higher levels of the Justice Department," Issa, chairman of the House panel.

"There are still many questions to be answered about what happened in Operation Fast and Furious and who else bears responsibility, but these changes are warranted. ... I also remain very concerned by Acting Director Melson's statement that the Department of Justice is managing its response in a manner intended to protect its political appointees," Issa continued.

The cards are being reshuffled so as to hinder the investigation. This is a national and international disgrace. We disrupted law enforcement in Latin America so as to try and stick it to gun shop owners here in the states, and all our government did was provide aid and comfort to criminal drug lords, who then killed police officers, women, children, and at least two federal agents. Nice work, JustUs Department.

Obamacare: Hiding Costs and Passing them Along to You

President Barack Obama is a liar. I think that is very well established by now. The man has lied and obfuscated about so many things. One of the biggest is about the saving of the Obama health care plan which was ramrodded through the Congress into law. From the Daily Caller:

Federal payments required by President Barack Obama’s health care law are being understated by as much as $50 billion per year because official budget forecasts ignore the cost of insuring many employees’ spouses and children, according to a new analysis. The result could cost the U.S. Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars during the first ten years of the new health care law’s implementation.

“The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost-estimate of this [because] they were expressly told to do their modeling on single [person] coverage,” said Richard Burkhauser in a telephone interview Monday. Burkhauser is an economist who teaches in Cornell University’s department of policy analysis and management. On Monday the National Bureau of Economic Research published a working paper on the subject that Burkhauser co-authored with colleagues from Cornell and Indiana University.

Employees and employers can use the rules to their own advantage, he said. “A very large number of workers” will be able to apply for federal subsidies, “dramatically increasing the cost” of the law, he said.

In May a congressional committee set the accounting rules that determine who will qualify for federal health care subsidies under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. When the committee handed down the rules to the Congressional Budget Office, its formula excluded the health care costs of millions of workers’ spouses and children. The result was a final estimate for 2010 that hides those costs.

“This is a very important paper,” Heritage Foundation health care expert Paul Winfree told TheDC. These hidden costs, he said, “will almost certainly add to the deficit, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others have estimated.”

Discussion about this is timely, Winfree added, because Congress’s 12-member “super committee” is about to draft another round of cuts to 10-year spending plans.

Burkhauser says his paper will be expanded later this year because “we have gotten so much heat for this work, that in our final version we are more clearly explaining how we came to find out about the change in the Committee’s [the Joint Committee on Taxation’s] interpretation of the law.”

The president’s health care law provides government subsidies for, among others, private-sector employees who earn between 1.33 times and 4 times the poverty level, and who also spend more than 9.5 percent of their family income on health care.

On May 4, 2010, the Joint Committee on Taxation directed the Congressional Budget Office to ignore family members when determining whether employees actually pay more than 9.5 percent of their household income on insurance.

Go read the whole thing and see how accounting tricks hide the cost and pass it along to the rest of us who pay taxes. Disgusting!

The Scream Coming to Stump for Senator Charade Brown

Excuse me, I meant Sherrod. No, wait, I do mean Charade. Charade Brown has been a chameleon at times, pretending to be for a balanced budget amendment when it never had a chance of passing, then speaking against it now that he is a Senator. He shifts his views with the winds, does this Mr. Connie Schultz. Yes, he is married to "journalist" Connie Schultz, so don't take anything she writes as objective. Of course, this is Charade's second marriage. His first one ended badly, with allegations of abuse and drugs. Well, Sherrod is having a fundraiser and Dr. Dean is coming. From the Ohio Republican Party:

Ohio is 700 miles from Vermont, but it seems a lot closer when you look at Sherrod Brown's pals.



Sherrod Brown was recently rated by National Journal as one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate. In fact, Brown received the same liberal vote score (two years in a row) as the self-described socialist Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. While Brown's voting record is clearly outside of the mainstream, it's his affiliation with another highly controversial Vermonter which is particularly noteworthy.



Howard Dean has not gone away; in fact he is headlining a private $1,000 per plate fundraiser this evening to benefit Brown's reelection to the U.S. Senate. Some of the words Howard Dean has used to describe Republicans are "evil," "bad for democracy," "selfish," "self-absorbed," and "brain-dead." In fact, Howard Dean went so far as to say that he "hates Republicans, and everything they stand for."



Ouch! That's a pretty scathing attack on 1.6 million Ohioans.



What's so disturbing about these comments is that many Democrats have proactively, and very publicly, distanced themselves from Howard Dean's disturbing rhetoric - however, Sherrod Brown is not among their ranks.



Seeing that Howard Dean is coming to Columbus to fundraise for Brown, and endorse his reelection campaign, shouldn't Brown provide some insight as to whether or not he agrees with Howard Dean's long history of controversial comments?



In fact, just three weeks ago, the former Vermont Governor actually claimed that the U.S. credit downgrade was a "good thing." A GOOD THING? SERIOUSLY?



Liberal Howard Dean and socialist Bernie Sanders may share some pretty extreme viewpoints with Sherrod Brown, but they are not from Ohio. They don't have to face Ohio voters next year, or even be held to account for their records or radically extreme rhetoric. Sherrod Brown does, and Ohioans deserve to know if he embraces Dean's rhetoric as much as the campaign dollars the former governor brings in for his reelection campaign.



Does Sherrod Brown Agree With Howard Dean That the U.S. Credit Downgrade Was a Good Thing?



"The firebrand Democrat and former Vermont governor said the Standard & Poor's downgrade of the nation's credit is 'a good thing' because it underscores the need to raise revenue to address the nation's fiscal crisis." (Julie Mason, "Dean: What's the tea party smoking?," Politico, 8/7/11)



Does Brown Agree with Howard Dean's Divisive Views On the Republican Party?



"You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.'' (Carla Marinucci, Dean: The mouth that won't stop roaring," The San Francisco Chronicle, 6/8/05)



Dean: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." (Dana Milbank, "Dean's Past As Prologue To DNC Future," The Washington Post, 1/29/05)



Dean: "The Republican Party is a party of self-absorption and selfishness ..." (Susan McDonough, "Dean, In Oakland, Invokes Morality," Oakland Tribune, 4/2/06)



Dean: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." (Joel Mathis, "Dean Roars Into Town," Lawrence [KS] Journal-World, 2/26/05)



Dean: "You think the RNC could get this many people of color into a single room?" [Dean] marvels. "Maybe if they got the hotel staff in there." (Mark Leibovich, "The Special-Interest Group Hug," The Washington Post, 2/12/05)



Dean: "These guys [Republicans] are bad for democracy. They are not interested in ideas but interested in power and they are not interested in the best interest of the American people." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/6/05)



Dean: "[R]epublicans ... a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." (DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Remarks at Campaign for America's Future "Take Back America Conference," DC, 6/2/05)



Dean: "Republicans are all about suppressing votes ..." (DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Remarks At Campaign For America's Future "Take Back America Conference," DC, 6/2/05)



Dean Called Republicans "Brain-Dead." (Peter Gorrie, "Spreading the Message," Toronto Star, 3/20/05)



Does Brown with Howard Dean's Views on National Security?



Dean: "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system.'" (Lisa Wangsness, "Dean's Secure In His View Of Saddam," Concord Monitor, 12/26/03)



Dean: "We've gotten rid of him [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose that's a good thing" (William Saletan and Avi Zenilman, "The Gaffes of Howard Dean," Slate.com, 9/25/03)



Does Brown Agree with His Fellow Democrats on Howard Dean?



"Republicans and Democrats alike have criticized Dean for the unnecessary harshness of his comments. Democratic senator Joe Biden distanced himself from the comments, saying that Dean 'doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric and I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats.'" ("Republicans "Never Made An Honest Living In Their Lives" Says Howard Dean," LifeSiteNews.com, 6/8/05)



"On Wednesday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that while Dean was 'doing a great job' as party chairman, 'I don't think the statement that the governor made was a helpful statement.' She later added that it 'is not a fair assessment to characterize the Republicans' the way Dean did." ("Dean defends view of GOP as 'Christian party'," Associated Press, 6/8/05)



"Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Tuesday that Dean is doing a good job, but is not the party's spokesman." ("Dean defends view of GOP as 'Christian party'," Associated Press, 6/8/05)



"[Joe] Biden, asked about Dean Wednesday during an interview on the Don Imus radio show ... said that Dean 'has views that are slightly different than mine ... But look, he's a lightning rod. ... It's probably good that there's a guy out there that's a lightning rod ... .' Biden, however, added that he thinks 'the rhetoric is counterproductive.'" ("Dean defends view of GOP as 'Christian party'," Associated Press , 6/8/05)

Turner vs. Austria in Primary?

Matt Lewis reports that he is hearing that Jim Jordan is safe in the redistricting fight and that attention has shifted to the Miami Valley area where my (former) Mayor, Mike Turner, may have to take on Steve Austria in a "moderate" Republican cage match.

I like them odds.

Also in the rumor mill, but I don't believe this at all because for the most part the folks who spout this line are Jean haters, is that OH-02's Rep. Schmidt is on the block. Naw...I don't believe that one either.

Team Jordan's protestations aside, nobody I know seriously put him in the cross-hairs for elimination.

Turner/Austria...that I buy.

EXIT QUESTION: If Democrats were in charge of this redistricting, who wants to bet that two GOP seats would be on the block?

Green Jobs: Pipe Dream

You know that your theology and religion is bad when even adherents call parts of it a "pipe dream." However, that is exactly what is going on with the supposed global warming crowd and the notion of a green jobs revolution. From the Orange County Register:

he faddish obsession with "green jobs" is being revealed as a massive waste of taxpayer money.

Pipe dreams eventually are revealed for what they are – unrealistic, wishful thinking. It didn't take long for Spain's touted green-job revolution to be revealed as a financial disaster, siphoning taxpayer subsidies and destroying 2.2 real jobs for every green job created.

Domestic green-job pipe dreams similarly drain U.S. taxpayers' money into economic sink holes. The millions of so-called green jobs promised by President Barack Obama and other champions of taxpayer-subsidized energy schemes not only haven't materialized, many that did, already are disappearing.It's truly a bad sign for the green-job revolution when failure becomes obvious even to acolytes.

"All this talk about the green jobs never materialized," liberal Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles recently complained.

The New York Times rubbed salt in the wound when it reported in July that the nonpartisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for only 2 percent of jobs nationwide. "Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show," according to a Times article from a San Francisco news outlet. Lowlights of the saga include the recent bankruptcy of Evergreen Solar Inc. of Massachusetts, recipient of $58 million in direct subsidies and tax breaks, including federal "stimulus" funding, but which cut 800 jobs and is now $485 million in debt, with more job losses to come with the closure of a Michigan plant. Green Vehicles of Salinas received $500,000 in city subsidies, but closed last month without having produced anything of significance, Human Events magazine reported. The company had promised to create 70 jobs and pay back local taxpayers $700,000 a year in taxes.
Seattle got a $20 million federal grant to weatherize 2,000 homes and create 2,000 jobs. After a year, three homes had been retrofitted and 14 new jobs created, many of them administrative. That's a return on investment of about one job per $1.4 million. In Michigan, Fisher Coachworks is out of business two years after being touted as part of the state's green future, and despite millions in state subsidies to sell buses bought with federal tax money.

The U.S. Forest Service awarded $490,000 in stimulus funding to Urban Forestry Revitalization Project in Clark County, Nev., to plant trees and other greenery in urban neighborhoods. It created 1.7 jobs, one of them a full-time temporary job, and 11 short-term and temporary.

Overall, estimates the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Chris Horner, $30 billion in green handouts in the stimulus bill cost taxpayers about $475,000 per job.
.

See, all that spending and stimulus and unicorn farting got us was more red ink, red tape, and less money in our coffers. More people are unemployed and out of work, but at least we tried to help the earth, right?

Obama=Carter: Jimmy had Billy, Barry has Omar

Brother Billy proved to be a huge embarrassment to President Jimmy Carter, another bullet point on a huge list of embarrassments. Well, not to be outdone or to show he is anything less than Carter 2.0, Barack Obama has a drunken uncle Omar. From the Washington Times:

Onyango Obama, 67, was arrested last week on Wednesday after he nearly rammed his SUV into a police car in Framingham, Massachusetts.

He was later charged with DUI among other violations. I spoke to Framingham Public Information Officer Lieutenant Delaney who told me that when Onyango Obama was asked at booking if he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail, the Kenyan immigrant replied: "I think I will call the White House." After the near crash, Onyango Obama, 67, told Officer Val Krishtal that Krishtal should have yielded to his Mitsubishi SUV, according to a report filed yesterday in Framingham District Court.

Krishtal said he and another driver had to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting the SUV, which rolled through a stop sign and took a quick left turn.

Obama said he doubted the officer slammed on his brakes because he did not hear the tires squeal, the report says.

Krishtal said he was on Waverly Street headed toward South Street when his police car was cut off. Krishtal pulled the SUV over around 7:10 p.m.

Obama failed several field sobriety tests and was arrested. At the police station, Obama failed a Breathalyzer test, registering .14. The state legal limit is .08.

Obama was charged with driving under the influence of liquor and driving to endanger. He was also cited for not using a turn signal.

According to article, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement has warrant for his arrest and ICE previously ordered him to be deported back to Kenya.

No wonder Obama's Director Of Homeland Security is doing an amnesty by fiat and not deporting illegals. It would cost Obama his family, like his aunt and now his drunken uncle. I bet uncle Omar and Michelle No Belle Obama would get along famously, since both seem to have an appetite for headlines and booze.

Powell: Loyalty Not in His Vocabulary, Could Throw Obama Under the Bus

Colin Powell served his country in the military. He served under Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and 43, and Bubba the boy President. I thank him for his service. That is about all I can nicely say about Colin Powell. He represents the worst bureaucratic mentality in military careerists. He is nothing more than a social climber, a man who threw what he claimed were his conservative values out the window to vote for a man simply because of the color of his skin. Now, he may be having buyers' remorse:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who famously crossed party lines to vote for President Obama in 2008, said today that he’s not necessarily supporting the president for reelection in 2012.

“I haven’t decided who I’m going to vote for,” Powell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “Just as was the case in 2008, I am going to watch the campaign unfold. In the course of my life I have voted for Democrats, I have voted for Republicans, I have changed from one four-year cycle to another.

“I’ve always felt it my responsibility as a citizen to take a look at the issues, examine the candidates, and pick the person that I think is best qualified for the office of the president in that year. And not just solely on the basis of party affiliation,” he said.

Asked about the Republican field, Powell said there are some “interesting candidates,” but no one who has “emerged into the leading position.”

“So let’s see if anybody else is going to join, and we’ve got a long way to go,” he added.

Basically, Powell is trying to get the GOP establishment to go for a Huntsman type candidate, so we can lose the conservative base. Then, he will end up still supporting Obama, simply because of the color of his skin, not the lack of depth or breadth in his character. Powell may have served his country in the military honorably, but he is not an honorable man.

Obama's Pick to Chair Economic Advisors Wants More Taxes

President Obama has tapped a socialist "labor" economist to head chair his council of economic advisors. If this does not indicate his prederelictions toward an oppressive command/socialist economy, I don't know what will. At a time when Obama himself said you should not raise taxes, this guy Krueger advocated for a VAT tax, or value added tax. First, the story on Mr. Krueger, then a jump into the wayback machine. From the AP:

President Barack Obama tapped labor economist Alan Krueger for a top administration post Monday as the White House scrambles for solutions to repair an ailing economy ahead of the 2012 election.

Obama announced Krueger's nomination to chair the White House Council of Economic Advisers in a Rose Garden ceremony Monday morning. The president said he expected Krueger, a former Treasury Department official and Princeton economist, to provide him with unvarnished economic guidance, not partisan political advice.

"That's more important than ever right now," Obama said. "We need folks in Washington to make decisions based on what's best for the country, not what's best for any political party or special interest."

The announcement rounding out the president's economic team comes a week ahead of Obama's highly-anticipated announcement on a new jobs initiative.

With the nation's unemployment rate stubbornly stuck above 9 percent and much of the public deeply dissatisfied with Obama's handling of the economy, the president has promised a new set of jobs proposals.

"Our great challenge as a nation remains how to get this economy growing faster," Obama said. "That's our urgent mission."

Obama has already called for an extension of a payroll tax cut that expires at the end of the year and he wants to continue jobless benefits. Aides are considering other measures, including tax incentives for businesses to hire and direct infusions of government money into construction projects. The president has said he intends to call for additional long-term deficit reduction to help pay for the short-term spending his proposals would require.In Krueger, Obama will gain an economist with expertise in unemployment and the labor market. If confirmed by the Senate, Krueger would replace previous CEA chair Austan Goolsbee, who left the administration earlier this month to return to the University of Chicago.

Goolsbee was the latest in a string of top White House economists to leave over the past year, forcing Obama to do a wholesale makeover of the economic team that came to the White House with him three years ago. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is the only remaining top official left l from Obama's original economics team. Last month, the Treasury Department announced that Geithner would stay on, ending speculation he would leave the administration.

Krueger spent the first two years of the Obama administration as an assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy. In 2010, he returned to Princeton University, where he has served on the faculty for more than 20 years.

While at Treasury, Krueger worked on the popular "Cash for Clunkers" program that gave people rebates for buying new, more fuel-efficient vehicles and the HIRE Act, which gave businesses tax incentives to give jobs to the unemployed.

OK, this guy was involved in the program that went broke how many times as Obama faked a recovery in the auto market? And the HIRE Act hasn't exactly been a barnburner. Both are more socialist leaning tendencies. But wait, then there is this editorial he penned in the NY Times in January 2009:

Any casual observer knows the United States faces enormous economic challenges in both the short and long run. These challenges — and the resphttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifective solutions that are being discussed — are somewhat in conflict, though.

On the one hand, the economy is contracting, people are cutting back on their spending and the economy faces a possible downward spiral with fear of job loss, causing consumers to spend even less, which in turn would cause more job loss — the so-called paradox of thrift. On the other hand, Americans save very little, critical infrastructure has been neglected, and the president-elect warned of government deficits in the trillion-dollar range for years to come.

Efforts to spur short-run consumption can worsen the long-run problems by increasing the government budget deficit and depleting personal savings.

Here is a suggestion to address both the short-run and long-run problems. I pose it only as a suggestion for serious discussion; I’m not sure it is the best way to go. But here goes: Why not pass a 5 percent consumption tax to take effect two years from now? There are many different ways to implement a consumption tax, but for simplicity think about a national sales tax.

In the short run, the anticipation of a consumption tax would encourage households to spend money now, rather than after the tax is in place. Along with the rest of the economic recovery package, this would help jump-start spending in the economy and thereby increase production and employment.

In the long run, a 5 percent consumption tax would raise approximately $500 billion a year, and fill a considerable hole in the budget outlook. In addition, a consumption tax would encourage more saving in the long run. Many economists consider a consumption tax an efficient way of raising tax revenue, especially in a global economy. The prospect of greater revenue flowing into federal coffers would probably help lower long-term interest rates because the government would need to borrow less down the road, and further bolster the economy.

The main downside of this proposal is that taxes reduce economic activity. But the government must make critical trade-offs, and a consumption tax could be the most efficient means to raise revenue to finance essential government functions. Over time, if the budget picture improved, income taxes or corporate taxes could be reduced and the revenue replaced by the consumption tax.

Another downside is that a consumption tax is a greater burden for the poor, who spend a relatively high share of their income. But this can be compensated by exempting essential items, like rent and nutritious, or by providing a rebate to low-income households.

OK, this guy thinks Cash for Clunkers is an essential program? Again, an economist who doesn't get that this country does not have a revenue problem. We have a spending and government expansion program. The government is like a tapeworm in the belly of the country. It takes up more and more and makes us spend more and more while the body deteriorates from hunger. This pick shows Obama still doesn't get it and that he is, in fact, a socialist.

Also, note how Krueger doesn't care that this harms the poor. And funny to think, I thought, that Dems claim to be for the little guy.....

ProgressOhio's Self-Promotional Criticisms Represent Height of Hypocrisy

Release:

Columbus - Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine released the following statement today in response to ProgressOhio's misleading press conference:

"Leave it to the liberal extremists at ProgressOhio to question the necessity and importance of job creation in Ohio," Chairman DeWine said.

"Where were their calls for transparency when labor unions funneled $10.6 million toward Ted Strickland while he issued executive orders mandating union membership expansion? Instead of holding misleading press conferences which only serve to vilify job creators, ProgressOhio should put their money where their mouth is. They should immediately open their books and disclose all of the money they have received from organizations which oppose the reasonable reforms of State Issue 2."

It's All About the Kids: Teacher Skip Day to Avoid Pay Penalty

So much for Ohio teachers saying it is all about the kids. Like the NEA chief, their true colors are showing:

Some Ohio teachers are missing the first days of classes in August to avoid penalties to their retirement payments.

The Plain Dealer in Cleveland reports state law requires full-time teachers who retire and are rehired to forfeit retirement payments for the month if they return less than 60 days after retiring. If an employee works in June, the Ohio's State Teacher Retirement System considers the retirement date to be July.

The newspaper said retirement system officials could not provide a statewide count of teachers rehired after retiring. Many of those teachers are "double dippers" who receive retirement payments and district paychecks.

The retirement system's rule leaves substitutes covering some rehired teachers' classes at the start of the year.

So, at the time when teachers are supposed to be getting to know their kids and establishing critical precedents and procedures for the start of the school year, many teachers are taking a flier? Oh, just those double dipping, I see.

Let me say this. I have a relative who retired and now has been rehired. I can safely say that she did this for all the right reasons. In fact, it saved her district money and allowed them to keep a teacher or two that they wouldn't have been able to, even at the cost of my relatve losing the chance to get the max retirement. That is the type of woman she is. For her, it really is about the kids. And where is my relative as school begins? Is she staying absent to avoid this penalty? Heck no. She is with her kids, teaching them the rules and procedures they need to be successful primary students, as she has for over 30++years. This woman has given her all to a district and administration that has never, ever fully appreciated her. Some of her students have come back to teach both at her district and around SW Ohio. She is one of the rarities of her generation: a teacher who still cares. She is one of my inspirations to go into education, just don't tell her that.

So, it galls me that these people are skipping out on such a critical time. Why come back at all if you are only going to hang around for cashola? This is why common sense reform is needed.

Hat tip to our good friend and former guest on the show Seth Morgan.

KASICH: "NEW INCENTIVES WOULD SUPPORT POTENTIAL CHRYSLER INVESTMENT IN TOLEDO"

Release:

COLUMBUS – Gov. John R. Kasich announced today that the Ohio Department of Development has approved $10 million in tax credits and more than $2 million in grants for workforce training and new equipment intended to help create 1,100 new jobs and retain 1,700 existing jobs at Chrysler’s Toledo Assembly Complex. The incentives would support Chrysler’s potential $365 million investment at the facility.

“These incentives are part of my Administration’s efforts to help create needed new jobs in the Toledo area. Chrysler is a major asset to Toledo and Ohio and we’re doing everything we can to make the case that Ohio is the right place for the company to continue to invest and grow. I’m hopeful that we’re making progress and that Chrysler and other major manufacturers will see that Ohio is the place to be,” said Kasich.

The incentives approved today by the Department of Development for Chrysler’s potential investment come on the heels of the company’s $72 million investment at its Toledo Machining Plant in Perrysburg Township announced last week. That investment was supported by more than $4.1 million in state incentives, including more than $3.3 million in tax credits and $850,000 in grants for workforce training, machinery and equipment. That investment at Toledo Machining will retain 640 jobs.

Altogether, these collaborative efforts between Ohio and Chrysler would support more than 3,400 new or existing jobs for Ohioans.

WMD Program -- Show Notes and Live Blog

Please check out the TIB All-Stars tab for the link to connect to the show.

Bubp: Support Full Funding of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

St. Rep. Danny Bubp

On July 4, 2011, we marked the 235th birthday of our great nation. You may have celebrated by attending a fireworks display or perhaps barbequing with friends and family. During your celebrations, I hope you also took time to reflect on what makes America such a great nation.

This greatness comes from the courageous men and women who protect our freedoms and the principles our nation was founded upon. Our military has been able to protect our nation because of the support of the best technology available, and it is our duty to ensure that our servicemen and women continue to be given this advantage.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a key component in protecting America’s air superiority. This fifth generation, multi-role, stealth fighter air-craft is built with technology so advanced that it cannot be retrofitted into our older aircrafts, which have been flying for nearly three decades. Over a decade of investments in time and technology have led to this unprecedented aircraft.

Congress needs to support the full funding and production of the F-35. America cannot maintain our air superiority with an air fleet that is close to 30 years old while other nations are strengthening their air power capabilities. We do not have a monopoly on this technology, and we cannot risk the security of our nation or the safety of our soldiers.

The F-35 is not only good for our military, but it will also strengthen our economy. In fact, forty-six Ohio manufacturers contribute to the production of parts for the Joint Strike Fighter. Nearly 4,400 skilled and experienced Ohioans are employed, producing the technology for the F-35. One cannot ignore the economic impact this program has here in Ohio, which is currently around $400 million. These numbers will increase significantly when the F-35 reaches its full production rate of nearly one plane per day.

Reducing the funding and/or production of the F-35 now would be a disaster. It would put our military and nation at risk while preventing us from reaping the full benefits of our long-term investment in this project.

Sen. Inhofe Tells it Like it Is: Obama Destroying American Institutions

Sen. Inhofe lays it on the line:

President Barack Obama alone is to blame for the nation’s budget deficit – and just about everything else, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe told the Broken Arrow Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.

“We now have a president, and I don’t mean this disrespectfully, who is destroying these very institutions that made America great,” Inhofe, R-Okla., said.

Inhofe went on to say the Obama administration has “disarmed America,” is solely responsible for the federal budget deficit, mostly responsible for the nathttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifion’s dependence on imported oil and suffocating business with regulations.

He also said Obama engineered the House Republicans’ ban on earmarks in order to give himself more control of the budget.

“When they came along with this moratorium, you have to let the president run everything,” Inhofe said. “They conceded that authority to the president of the United States, so that’s why the president was behind the whole earmark thing."

Inhofe said the earmark ban allowed the administration to block a new $10 million control tower scheduled for Tinker Air Force Base.

He said military spending, as a share of gross domestic product, has declined during the Obama administration and criticized unflattering descriptions of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where terror suspects are held, saying, “You know the biggest problem for prisoners when they get to Gitmo? Obesity."

Inhofe said the idea that prisoners have been tortured there was invented by Obama and others “to make you think something bad is happening in America — the same thing he does and others do when they go around talking about how bad America is."

Inhofe said the deficit is Obama’s fault because “it’s the president’s budget. Period. That’s the end of it."

He said the recent debtlimit agreement is a sham that does little or nothing to reduce overall spending. One solution, he continued, would be to repeal the health-care reform law, which he said is an example of “social engineering” designed to make Americans more dependent on the federal government.

Inhofe also cited extended unemployment benefits, saying he saw no reason for them in Oklahoma because the state has “virtually full employment."

Inhofe laid out a long list of regulatory steps he said would cost taxpayers and employers billions of dollars in taxes and lost productivity, and said the country could be “totally independent from the Middle East in a matter of weeks, not years,” if the administration allowed unfettered oil and gas development on public lands.

Ron Paul Has Some Great Ideas, but Is Not a Conservative

Ron Paul has some good ideas that Conservatives agree with. His dedication to the the Constitution and his questioning of the Fed and other financial issues (tho his record is a bit porky, if you look at his own spending and bringing home the bacon to his district)are all admirable, but he is not a conservative on many, many issues. And his campaign is similar to Obama's in 2008 in that it wants to change many fundamental ideas that may not need to be or should be changed. From the American Spectator:

To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education.
-- Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul

Sigh.

Somebody needs to say this.

Does Ron Paul have a lot of interesting ideas he puts forward as a presidential candidate?

Yes. From his honestly libertarian views (he was the 1988 Libertarian presidential nominee, so he's been at this a long time) to his willingness to challenge the status quo on economics (questioning the role of everything from sugar subsidies to the Federal Reserve) to his emphasis on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, Congressman Paul has been fearless in sticking with his principles. And in bringing new ideas -- or old ideas -- to an American electorate that has been staggered by the far-left reality that is the Obama Administration.

But as complaints surface in the wake of his strong showing in the Iowa Straw Poll, complaints from Paul supporters and candidate Paul himself that he is not receiving the attention that is his due -- someone should say the Congressman and his supporters are correct. There should be -- must be -- more attention paid to the Paul campaign.

Why?

Because the Paul campaign is not just a campaign for president. This is a campaign -- a serious campaign -- to re-educate the American people to an alternate universe of reality. A campaign that goes far beyond whatever will happen at the polls in 2012.

And sorry to say, this re-education campaign does not present a pretty picture of itself.

Looming over the interesting and appealing ideas of the Paul campaign is a veritable political tornado of allegations involving anti-Semitism, racism, pacifism, far left-wingism and, at the edges, a tiny flicker of intimidation.

So let's spill it all out on the table and take a look.

Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul's views are, self-described, "non-interventionist."

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.
There is no great sin in Paul's non-interventionist stance (or "isolationist" stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul's idea of evil spawn -- the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)

The deception -- and it is a considerable deception -- is that almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist "Paulist" politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.

From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR's ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.

But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day.

Specifically this included the following prominent leaders of the non-interventionist/isolationist camp:

• Liberal Republican William Borah, the Senator from Idaho
• Liberal Republican George Norris, the Congressman and Senator from Nebraska
• Liberal Republican Gerald Nye, the Senator from North Dakota
• Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Sr., the Senator from Wisconsin
• Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Jr., the Senator from Wisconsin

To go back and re-read the arguments of these prominent GOP liberals as to why America should not intervene in World War I or World War II, striking dated references, and one would think one were reading the latest Ron Paul press release. George Norris and LaFollette Sr. were both vocal opponents of World War I, for instance, blaming "greed" (LaFollette) and "munition" makers, the early 20th century version of Paul's attacks on "neoconservatives" or the military-industrial complex.

These were all progressives of the day. And even Mr. Republican, Robert Taft, was wrong on this issue:

Snapped Taft's thoroughly conservative Uncle Horace Taft (brother of Taft's presidential father William Howard Taft) to conservative friends over his nephew's unwillingness to understand the danger posed by Adolph Hitler: He (Robert Taft) was "one of the best fellows in the world [but] dead wrong on foreign policy." As if to prove the point, Taft refused an endorsement request from Joe McCarthy -- supporting the liberal Republican and McCarthy primary opponent LaFollette, Jr. McCarthy won anyway.

So what? I mean McCain loved progressive Teddy Roosevelt. Was is this bit of history important?

Because Ron Paul, as noted, has deservedly developed a reputation for fiscal conservatism. Just as all of those Liberal Republicans from days long gone by were able to run and get elected as Republicans by developing enough of a conservative reputation for something seen as the conservative position in the time -- support for a tariff here or a government reform over there. All the while carrying the liberal flag for Bryan's left-wing Populism or Wilson's Progressive New Freedom or FDR's New Deal.

So if Ron Paul is conservative on domestic issues, but of a like mind with liberal non-interventionists of both parties, what precisely is Ron Paul?

The right term is certainly not conservative.The proper term for Paul and his followers, then, would take into account this political half horse/half man philosophical creativity. Conservative on domestic policy, a staunch advocate of historically liberal views on foreign policy.

Ron Paul is what might be called a "Neo-Liberal." Or even a "Quasi-Conservative."

But it gets worse. The problem, as the author notes, is in who do the Paulites blame for when intervention happens or the impetus for intervention. It is not a particularly nonracist one:

While one is free to disagree with his views, taken alone there's nothing off the tracks here. But unfortunately, Paul's views are not a stand-alone. If, to get right to the point, one is a self-described "non-interventionist" in foreign policy, history shows non-interventionists have been historically incapable of resisting what they clearly see as the next step after making the non-interventionist case. That next step?

Finding someone to blame for the calls to intervene in this or that war or international situation.

And right here is where Paul and his neolibs, in the style of his neolib predecessors, begin going off the rails.

• Anti-Semitism

Disturbingly, the history of Neoliberalism is replete with charges of anti-Semitism.

While this is a charge in today's political dialogue that has been thrown repeatedly at Paul and his neolib followers (more of which shortly), it has reared its ugly head with earlier neolibs long before Paul was on the political scene. It is a charge that appears to be inevitable when the core premise of non-interventionism is that some dark force somewhere is pushing America into an unconstitutional interventionist war.

All too often that dark force for the Neoliberals turns out to be the scapegoat of hard-leftists everywhere in the world: the Jews.

A story from history.

Before Pearl Harbor, as the war in America over going to war in Europe raged, the once fierce opposition by the American people to taking on Hitler and the Nazis began to change as Hitler's relentless march through Europe picked up speed. This opposition also began to change in Hollywood, and soon a small raft of anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi films began to appear. These included Confessions of a Nazi Spy starring Edward G. Robinson (1939), Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 Foreign Correspondent and, hilariously, Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator (1940).

Neolibs were furious.

Senator Gerald Nye, the liberal Republican non-interventionist, took to the radio airwaves in August 1941to accuse Hollywood studios of serving as "gigantic engines of propaganda… to influence public sentiment in the direction of participation by the United States in the present European war." The speech, take note, was mostly written for Nye by one John T. Flynn, a former editor of the progressive New Republic magazine. (We'll come back to Mr. Flynn in moment.)


Literally before the day was out Nye had a resolution on the Senate floor demanding an investigation of Hollywood studios. In little over a month -- September 9, 1941 -- the liberal Democrat non-interventionist Senator Wheeler had ginned up that Senate investigation and it was opened for business. Harry Warner, one of the legendary Warner Brothers -- and yes, but of course, a Jew -- was dragged before a United States Senate subcommittee to explain himself. So too was the Jewish Nicholas Schenck of Loew's made to appear. And the great filmmaker Darryl Zanuck, then a vice-president at Twentieth Century Fox -- who was not Jewish. The witnesses against the three? That would include Senator Nye himself -- and John T. Flynn.

It was a headlining investigation that had as its unmistakable context an investigation into the Jewish influence in Hollywood. This, mind you, a full eight years after Hitler opened his first concentration camp at Dachau, the war already underway.

Fortunately, Americans increasingly aware of Hitler's lethal anti-Jewish obsessions, protested the hearing. The Republican New York Herald Tribune thundered at what it called an "inquisition." The Chicago Sentinel, an American Jewish newspaper, fingered the investigation for what it was. (And, notably, Senator Taft never involved himself with this. Taft's friendship and support from the Ohio Jewish community was the stuff of Ohio political legend.)

What does this old history have to do with what might be called the dark side of the Paul campaign?

In his book The Revolution: A Manifesto, Congressman Paul includes at the end a section called "A Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America." And on that recommended reading list? Here's the entry, in full:

Flynn, John T. As We Go Marching. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1944. Flynn, an accomplished journalist, analyzes fascism in Italy and Germany and concludes by considering the state of America in his day.

That's right. Congressman Paul is recommending the writings of a man who, in his day, was seen as a driving force behind the anti-Semitic liberal Republican Senator Nye and the Senate investigation into Jewish influence in Hollywood.

Wonder if Kevin Coughlin is a Paulite? After all, he blames Mandel raising money on a vast Jewish conspiracy...hmmm....but wait, there's more:

There's no need to expand on the obvious. But suffice to say, when a Paul supporter like Newark Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine repeatedly zeroes in on conservative talk radio host Mark Levin​, always dismissing the Jewish Mr. Levin as a neocon this or a neocon that, to these Protestant ears, fairly or unfairly Mulshine seems to be conjuring the ghosts of Ron Paul's favorite, John T. Flynn. Levin, for example, is targeted by Mulshine for "neocon nuttiness." The topic of Flynn's "Jews in Hollywood" speech written by Flynn and delivered by Gerald Nye​ that launched an anti-Jewish Senate witch hunt? "Our Madness Increases As Our Emergency Shrinks." And who caused that increasing madness? That's right: Jews. Jewish madness with Harry Warner and Darryl Zanuck yesterday, neocon nuttiness with Mark Levin today. The circle game goes round and round.

In historical fact, self-identified "neoconservatives" hold beliefs that are both straightforward and have nothing whatsoever to do with being Jewish.

But the real show of how Paulites are not conservative come in what Paul supporters have said about...conservatives:

But anti-Semitism aside, perhaps the real key to understanding the decided left-leaning tendencies of neoliberals is their considerable dislike of… Conservatives

You read that right.

Here are the views of various prominent Paul supporters about some conservatives you may be familiar with.

• Ronald Reagan: Here the late Paulist Murray Rothbard labels the conservative presidential icon as a "cretin," Reagan's two-terms in office described as "eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years."

• William F. Buckley, Jr.: The man who became the very gold standard of the American conservative movement is viewed as a "defacto totalitarian" here, again in another Rothbard selection from ex-Paul chief of staff Lew Rockwell's site, a site for which Paul himself has written.

• Antonin Scalia: Justice Scalia is not only no conservative in Paulville, he is -- sitting down? -- "a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire." This gem was penned by ex-Paul chief of staff Rockwell himself.

• Sarah Palin: That's right. This business of Sarah Palin being a conservative, according to Rockwell, is just a ruse. In fact, Governor Palin is really a "double agent" for the "regime." From the same article as above. Oh yes… don't forget Governor Palin is quite possibly a "puppet" (as seen here by Jack Hunter, now the Paul campaign's "official blogger"). Oh, and Mr. Mulshine, the Paulist columnist? To him Palin is "just another whiny liberal claiming victimization."

• Edwin Meese: The former Reagan Attorney General beloved of conservative activists is described in Paulville as the "mouthpiece" for fascists

• The Koch Brothers: The fascists for whom Ed Meese is the fascist mouthpiece? That would be the libertarian Koch brothers who, apparently, aren't libertarian at all in the eyes of Paulville. In Paulville, libertarian conservatives David and Charles Koch are said to be supporters of a "fascist regime." Same post as above. It is surely no coincidence that the Koch brothers were targeted earlier this year by the far-left hacking group Anonymous. As seen in this Politico story. Once again, the right/left neoliberal profile surfaces.

• Clarence Thomas: Dubbed part of a fascist "tag team" by Paul supporters. Why? Because Justice Thomas, along with fellow Justice Scalia, spoke at that gathering sponsored by those fascist Koch brothers. Where Ed Meese was covering as the mouthpiece for the fascists.

• Rush Limbaugh: Rush? Rush Limbaugh? That Rush Limbaugh isn't a conservative? Nope. Not in Paulville. In the eyes of Paulvillians the Rush Limbaugh so many millions of conservatives thought they knew and loved turns out to be a man with "Stalinist tendencies" -- aka a commie. Read all about it here.

So, what can we conclude? From the author:

The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present.

Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a free market liberal who thinks that Jews and Zionists are the cause of everything bad in the world and who hates conservatives who don't think America should let genocide stand.

Jobless Claims Up: Media Says it is Verizon Union Strike's Fault!

You know, I have my issues with unions and the huge amount of overreach they have done. I believe in the right to organize. I believe unions served and can still serve a valuable role. The problem I have is in how they are run and how union dues are used to support agendas that members don't necessarily agree with. And there are other issues. The media, seeking to protect Obama's failed economic agenda, is now blaming union strikes for the rise in jobless claims this week:

New U.S. claims for jobless benefits rose last week, lifted by striking workers at Verizon Communications, according to government data that showed little sign of layoffs in response to plunging share prices. Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 417,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. The level suggests the job market is still having trouble gaining momentum, but it falls well short of a recession signal.

Striking Verizon [VZ 35.77 -0.70 (-1.92%) ] workers filed 8,500 claims for jobless benefits last week, after submitting 12,500 applications the previous week, which covered the period for the August nonfarm payrolls survey.

That suggests the strike, which has ended, would have a negative affect on the payrolls count to be released on Sept. 2. The department will provide a more definitive reading of the strike's impact in its monthly strike report on Friday.

So, in order to protect their messiah, the media now turns on one of its own allies in order to try to hide the fact that Obama's economic policies have done nothing to help create jobs.

AP Report: 1 in 10 Employers Will Stop Offering Healthcare under ObamaCare..And ORP Reax

Another day, another lie revealed...still...whatever....Looks like that whole "if you like your coverage you can keep it" was the B.S. we always thought it was. From USA Today:

Nearly one in 10 midsize or large employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers once federal insurance exchanges start in 2014, according to a survey from a large benefits consultant.Towers Watson also found in a survey completed last month that an additional 20% of companies are unsure about what they will do.

Another big benefits consultant, Mercer, found in a June survey of large and smaller employers that 8% are either "likely" or "very likely" to end health benefits once the exchanges start.

Employer-sponsored health insurance has long been the backbone of the nation's health insurance system. But the studies suggest some employers, especially retailers or those paying low wages, feel they will be better off paying fines and taxes than continuing to provide benefits that eat up a growing portion of their budget every year.Such a move comes with potential payroll-tax headaches and could subject firms to fines. It also would give their employees a steep compensation cut if companies don't raise pay in exchange for ending coverage.

"Dropping coverage is going to be very difficult for these (companies) to do," said Laszewski, a consultant who was not involved with the studies.

Either way, folks, YOU, the taxpayer, are going to get screwed.
The ORP issued the following reaction:

Columbus - Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine released the following statement this morning in response to an Associated Press report that one in ten employers expect to stop offering health care coverage to workers once Obamacare exchanges begin in 2014:



"We don't need another study to confirm for us what we already know, in order to protect jobs and health care coverage in Ohio, Obamacare must be repealed. That begins by passing State Issue 3, the Health Care Freedom Amendment, in November, and ends with retiring Barack Obama and his left-hand man, Sherrod Brown, in 2012," Chairman DeWine said.



What they promised us then...



SHERROD BROWN: "If you like the coverage you have, you can keep it." (Senator Sherrod Brown, Newsletter, 07/20/09)



BARACK OBAMA: "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." (President Barack Obama, Remarks To The American Medical Assoc., Chicago, IL, 6/15/2009)



What we know now...



ASSOCIATED PRESS: "Survey: Almost 10% of employers may end health insurance." "Nearly one in 10 midsize or large employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers once federal insurance exchanges start in 2014, according to a survey from a large benefits consultant." (Tom Murphy, "Survey: Almost 10% of employers may end health insurance," Associated Press, 8/24/2011)



MCKINSEY QUARTERLY: "Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014....Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent. Health care reform fundamentally alters the social contract inherent in employer-sponsored medical benefits and how employees value health insurance as a form of compensation." ("How US Health Care Reform Will Affect Employee Benefits," McKinsey Report, 6/7/11)



Obamacare was about securing political legacy for Obama and Sherrod Brown. "[T]his law was never about sound policy. It was about politics and presidential bragging rights. A Democratic congressional majority used a moment of dominance to impose a hugely expensive and widely opposed new social program on the nation. The president saw it as the keystone of his legacy." (Editorial, "Extreme Demand," Columbus Dispatch 6/29/11)

Many times the chairman and I have had our disagreements, but on this one; he is totally correct! This policy was and is a disaster for the economy and for taxpayers and customers of healthcare. It will destroy the best system in the world, when all what was needed was just reform.

Heritage Legislative Scorecard

Not surprised at all to find Jim Jordan at the top of the list for Ohio. Note, Speaker Boehner was not rated.

Queen Michelle NoBelle Obama: $10Million for Massages and Booze

This woman is a modern day Marie Antoinette. While the people are starving, she is living in the lap of luxury....ON YOUR DIME. Seriously:

The Obamas' summer break on Martha's Vineyard has already been branded a PR disaster after the couple arrived four hours apart on separate government jets.

But according to new reports, this is the least of their extravagances.

White House sources today claimed that the First Lady has spent $10million of U.S. taxpayers' money on vacations alone in the past year.

Branding her 'disgusting' and 'a vacation junkie', they say the 47-year-old mother-of-two has been indulging in five-star hotels, where she splashes out on expensive massages and alcohol.

'It's disgusting. Michelle is taking advantage of her privileged position while the most hardworking Americans can barely afford a week or two off work.

'When it's all added up, she's spent more than $10million in taxpayers' money on her vacations.'

The First Lady is believed to have taken 42 days of holiday in the past year, including a $375,000 break in Spain and a four-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado, where she spent $2,000 a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel.

And the first family's nine-day stay in Martha's Vineyard is also proving costly, with rental of the Blue Heron Farm property alone costing an estimated $50,000 a week.

The source continued: 'Michelle also enjoys drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favours martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.

'The vacations are totally Michelle's idea. She's like a junkie. She can't schedule enough getaways, and she lives from one to the next - all the while sticking it to hardworking Americans.'
But the situation sparked further anger after he and his wife elected to fly separately to the Massachusetts retreat - despite travelling on the same day.

Mr Obama left the White House aboard Marine One on his way to Andrews Air Force base to hitch a lift aboard Air Force One - along with First Dog Bo.

After landing at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, he then took a final helicopter to his holiday destination to complete the remarkable 500-mile journey.

His wife and daughters, who arrived just four hours earlier, were also travelling from Washington, but took a specially designed military aircraft.

They would also have had their own motorcade from the airport to the vacation residence.

Disgusting. This woman is lavishing on herself at a time when she and her husband want all the rest of us to engage in "shared sacrifice?" Child, please!

Of course, with her propensity for the expensive booze and the 'massages', maybe this is more appropro:

Dear Conservative Presidential Candidates and Voters: Don't Believe the Polls...See Reagan, Ronald

Folks, many of us in the conservative movement may be feeling a bit low right now. Many of us may have seen the latest Rasmussen Reports sahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifying that a conservative stalwart like Sarah Palin loses to Obama 50 to 33, or that or that Perry loses to Obama by a point or two, or that Bachmann faces a similar result as Palin. Don't believe the polls right now. The media is trumpeting them to discourage you. They are trying to tear you down. Look, the field of GOP candidates is in the double digits. There haven't been any head to head debates. The media is trying, as they have in the past, to sow the seeds of doubt so we end up with a Gerald Ford or John McCain again. Don't believe it. Look to history. Time Magazine, March, 11, 1980:

For several decades, it has been an article of faith among politicians and political analysts that no candidate can win a U.S. presidential election unless he can dominate the broad center of the spectrum, that all candidates on the edges of the left or right are doomed. Barry Goldwater's "extremism . . . is no vice" campaign of 1964 provides the classic evidence, reinforced by George McGovern's 1972 defeat in 49 out of 50 states. And since G.O.P. Front Runner Ronald Reagan relies upon a base of support that is on the far right wing of the Republican Party, some experts have long declared that if he wins the nomination, the G.O.P. would simply be repeating the suicidal Goldwater campaign. Ex-President Gerald Ford left no doubt about his views when he warned last month: "A very conservative Republican cannot win in a national election."

But last week, after Ford gave up his own ambitions and Reagan's nomination took on a look of inevitability, a reassessment was under way across the country. The consensus was that although many hazards lie ahead, Ronald Reagan indeed has a chance to be elected as the 40th President of the U.S.

National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle.

See that, folks? This is just 8 months before election day, not over a year. And Reagan was down 25 points to Carter. There had been no debates yet. There had been no flurry of campaign ads. Continuing with the Time Article:

As recently as last month, before Reagan's New Hampshire victory, White House advisers looked forward with relish to the possibility of Reagan as their target. No longer. Says one Georgian: "People like what Reagan's saying about the economy, about foreign policy. He's offering simple solutions and that's what people want." Adds another White House aide: "To dismiss Ronald Reagan as a right-wing nut would be a very serious error—for us or anybody else."

California Pollster Mervin Field, who just last fall felt that Reagan's nomination would lead to a Republican disaster, has changed his mind. Says Field: "I just don't see how you could dispassionately and factually argue that it will be a Carter victory. It's going to be a very close race."

Unlike the situation in 1964, when Democratic Incumbent Lyndon Johnson was still very popular, Reagan confronts a Democratic President who, after a temporary surge in the national polls because of the crises in Iran and Afghanistan, is now plagued by declining job ratings. The odds are that by fall, Carter will be trying to defend his management of an economy with double-digit inflation and rising unemployment, gasoline prices of upwards of $2 per gal. and a reduced budget that offends many of the traditional Democratic-constituencies.

Sound familiar? Doesn't that sound like where we are now? Therefore, don't lose heart. Don't believe the Karl Rove/Bill Kristol/Dick Morris nonsense. A real conservative can win. People want simple answers because there really are some simple, but perhaps difficult to stomach for some, solutions. Don't believe that we have to pick a squish like Huntsman or a chameleon like Romney to win. We have seen that before and failed. Don't lose heart.

Conservative candidates, you need to be able to articulate the message that this is just not an economic crisis, but a crisis of the American spirit. That the American spirit itself, the spirit of entrepeneurship, innovation, and pride is being hampered by an out of control government. You need to be able to articulate that America is and can maintain being the best nation in the world. Articulate the problem, but present positive solutions. For, we know, despite the efforts of Time and others, that it IS POSSIBLE. Reagan did win. And people will go for truth over a shell game every time. Check out this last excerpt from the TIME piece:

Yankelovich believes that the American electorate has already shown a predisposition to replace Carter. This was manifested in the early eagerness for a Kennedy candidacy, which proved so disappointing when it became a reality. The brief bubbling of support for a Ford candidacy was part of the same feeling. If popular unhappiness with domestic and world problems finally comes to rest at Carter's doorstep, voters may begin to see all sorts of previously invisible virtues in Ronald Reagan.

Not only does Reagan face a weakened President, he also presents a less frightening prospect than the apparently more reckless Goldwater. Says TIME Washington Bureau Chief Robert Ajemian: "To many people, Reagan is reassuring, almost parental. He is too fatalistic and too modest to be a crusader."

So far in this campaign, Reagan has done little to damage that image. Says Florida National Committeewoman Paula Hawkins, a John Connally supporter: "He has been dignified, professional under stress. He responds well when he gets punched. He's gentlemanly, answers with humor and with enough acid to let you know he has heard."

There is evidence that voters other than Republican archconservatives are beginning to support Reagan. In last week's Illinois primary, according to one poll, 40% of the Republican vote was cast by Democratic and Independent crossovers, and roughly 30% of these went to Reagan.

Just as the Republican Party is closer to Reagan's point of view than it was eight or even four years ago, the country as a whole has moved right. Reagan's reach for the center will be shorter now than before. Says Pollster Yankelovich: "Reagan should not assume this is a mandate to define a right-wing program for the country. Rather it is a chance to define a new policy for the center."

But to say that Reagan can be elected is by no means to say that he will be. On the contrary, he looks very much the underdog. Some party operatives are plainly unhappy with his selection. In Massachusetts, where both Bush and Anderson defeated Reagan, party leaders are not yet reconciled to the Reagan candidacy. Says one: "There's a vacuum of leadership at the national level; and what appears to be the Republican Party's response? A 69-year-old man who has done virtually nothing for years. We're at the same stage the Whigs were. There's no choice."

Don't believe those like Rove, who had no relationship to Reagan during the revolution, or the others who now hold up Reagan but then snubbed him. They were wrong and he was right. Read the whole article and use it as inspiration. We don't have to settle, folks. As Mr. Reagan himself said, we have it in our power to begin the world over again, a line from Paine's Common Sense that applied to Paine, to Reagan, and to us now.

So, Bachmann, you have a shot. Perry, so do you. Palin, as much as they want to destroy you, you too can still win. Find that determined but positive message and stay true to those principles. It can be done. It has been done. It needs to be done again. We cannot survive another Obama term.

WMD Thought Chabot Could Do No Wrong

Over the years, I have heard what a conservative saint Steve Chabot has been throughout his long, and storied career in the United States House of Representatives. The headline really isn't much of a stretch as there are some folks in the Greater Cincinnati area who put this guy up as the paragon of all things a Member of Congress ought to be and is.

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy a lot, but stuff like this is just a dumb unforced error.

If anybody on Team Chabot would care to explain why on Earth they thought it was a good idea to have police confiscate cell phones at a Townhall, I'd love to hear it. I can be reached at wmdtvmatt - at - yahoo - dot - com.

AFP-Ohio Continues Statewide Series of Taxpayer Town Halls in Tiffin

Release:

TIFFIN- Americans for Prosperity-Ohio continues a statewide series of Taxpayer Town Halls on Thursday, September 1st in Tiffin. The North Central Ohio Conservatives are partnering with AFP-Ohio on this town hall, which will feature Buckeye Institute President Matt Mayer, Seneca County Commissioner Jeff Wagner, and Waterville Mayor Derek Merrin as panelists.

The panel will be moderated by former State Representative and AFP-Ohio Policy Director Seth Morgan, and will focus on the financial crises faced by many of our cities, townships, villages, and schools, how these crises could affect Ohio's jobs and citizens, and how State Issue 2 can help solve these crises.

“Federal and state governments are facing major financial troubles – our local schools and governments are no different," said AFP-Ohio Policy Director Seth Morgan. "Citizens see this every election cycle with endless tax increase proposals throughout the State. Local citizens should have the ability to impact the spending policies of their governments. State Issue 2 is a vote for or against that ability. It is time that citizens take control of their future – learning the truth about State Issue 2 is where to start.”

AFP-Ohio and the North Central Ohio Conservatives encourage citizens to attend the town hall.

What: Taxpayer Town Hall
When: Thursday, September 1, 2011, 6:30pm
Where: Camden Falls Conference Center, 2460 S. S.R. 231, Tiffin, OH 44883
Speakers: Matt Mayer, President of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy
Jeff Wagner, Seneca County Commissioner
Derek Merrin, Mayor of Waterville
Jim Green, President of North Central Ohio Conservatives
Seth Morgan, former State Representative and AFP-Ohio Policy Director
Rebecca Heimlich, AFP-Ohio State Director
Registration: www.AmericansforProsperity.org/Ohio (although registration is appreciated, it is not required)

Over the next few weeks, AFP-Ohio will partner with Tea Parties, 9/12 groups, and other liberty organizations to host Taxpayer Town halls in Troy, the Greater Cincinnati Area-West, Norwalk, Zanesville, Canton, the Greater Toledo Area, and additional locations to be announced.
"Our Taxpayer Town Halls will dispel myths and misinformation being spread by special interests and union leaders about Issue 2, and will educate citizens about what Issue 2 really does," said AFP-Ohio State Director Rebecca Heimlich. "Issue 2 will help restore fairness, accountability and the voice of the people in how our tax dollars are spent."

To learn more about Americans for Prosperity-Ohio and our statewide series of Taxpayer Town Halls, please go to www.americansforprosperity.org/ohio. To learn more about the North Central Ohio Conservatives, please visit www.northcentralohioconservatives.com.

Resistance Was Futile: Mecklenborg Pleads Guilty

The Cincinnati Enquirer has the story.

While I think a legislator who makes laws ought to get the maximum allowable punishment for breaking said laws, my guess is dude gets a slap on the wrist and a minor inconvenience...

Congressman Jim Jordan endorses Ohio Treasurer and Marine Veteran Josh Mandel for U.S. Senate

Release:

COLUMBUS, OHIO — Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) today announced his endorsement of Josh Mandel for U.S. Senate in Ohio, recognizing Mandel for his leadership as current State Treasurer of Ohio and commitment to restoring fiscal sanity to government.

“Our nation’s AAA credit rating was downgraded because liberals like Sherrod Brown, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi think we can borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow,” said Jordan. “In order to stop the out-of-control borrowing and spending before it bankrupts our country, we need to change control of the Senate and the White House. I believe Treasurer Josh Mandel is a fiscal conservative who is committed to changing the deficit culture in Washington. Josh understands that the federal government should balance its budget just like families and small businesses have to do every day – just as Josh did as State Treasurer,” Jordan continued.

Treasurer Mandel ended the fiscal year with a $400,000 surplus in the Treasurer’s office and reduced general revenue fund operating expenses by $1.2 million over the next two years.

"Jim Jordan is a tireless advocate for fiscal restraint and pro-growth policies in Congress and I am truly honored to receive his endorsement,” said Mandel. “I was proud to lend my vocal support in favor of the ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ plan championed by Rep. Jordan. It is crucial that we stop spending money we don’t have by mortgaging our children and grandchildren’s future to do it,” Mandel continued.

Representative Jim Jordan’s endorsement adds to the many endorsements Mandel has received from conservative grassroots leaders and Tea Party leaders throughout Ohio and nationally. Mandel has also earned the endorsements of Senator Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund, the powerful free-market organization Club for Growth, and Ohio’s Republican Senator Rob Portman.

Jordan’s endorsement helps build upon momentum Mandel gained by outraising ultra-liberal incumbent Sherrod Brown, $2.3 million to $1.5 million, in the last fundraising quarter. As a conservative from the heavily Democratic Cleveland area, and as the top-vote getter of all statewide executive candidates in the last election, Mandel is well positioned to beat the vulnerable Brown in the increasingly anti-incumbent environment.