"President Obama repays donors in tax dollars"

From Reince Priebus' op-ed in Politico:

. . . President Barack Obama, since taking officer, has showered his donors and allies with billions in federal dollars. A steady stream of grants and loans flows from the administration to Obama’s political cronies. And taxpayers foot the bill.
Energy investor Steve Westly is one such fundraiser who benefited royally. He bundled more than a half-million dollars for Obama’s 2008 campaign. Westly later won an appointment to the energy secretary’s advisory board. He chaired a board subcommittee on energy efficient building materials.
Conveniently, Westly’s investment firm invested heavily in firms that specialized in such products. Overall, Westly’s firms received more than $500 million from the Obama administration. That’s an awful lot of conflicts of interest for just one man.
Westly is not the only Obama fundraiser to be rewarded with plum appointments, insider access and taxpayer dollars. A 2011 investigation found that nearly 200 of Obama’s biggest political donors received jobs, advisory posts or federal contracts. The Washington Post reported earlier this year, “$3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.”
Crony capitalism is common practice in the Obama administration.  . . .

Obama's disapproval highest among Business Owners

It isn't too surprising that business owners so oppose Obama so intensely.  What is interesting is that manufacturing and production workers have the same percentages as managers and executives.  Is Obama really working to end class warfare?  From Gallup:

Although business owners represent just a small subset of the U.S. population, they are of course a critical component of the economy and overall economic optimism in the country. If business owners become more positive about Obama and his plans for the economy, that could potentially boost his approval ratings and broader U.S. economic confidence closer to the levels necessary for him to be well positioned for re-election. Conversely, further deterioration in his approval rating among business owners could certainly add to the perception that Obama is not doing enough to bolster small businesses in the country. . . .

Democrats face real big enthusiasm deficit this election, and it is getting worse

This article is from The Hill newspaper:

Democrats are far less enthusiastic about the 2012 election than they were in 2004 and 2008, according to a new poll released on Wednesday.   

A Gallup/USA Today poll found that only 39 percent of Democrats now say they are “more enthusiastic than usual” about the 2012 election. That’s down from 68 percent in 2004 and 61 in 2008.   

Republicans, conversely, have seen a sharp rise since 2008, when only 35 percent said they were “more enthusiastic than usual.” In the latest survey, 51 percent said they were enthusiastic about the upcoming election, a 12-point advantage over the Democrats.   

Also troubling for Democrats is that a significant portion of that drop has come since the general election race between President Obama and GOP candidate Mitt Romney kicked-off this year. In February, Democrats only trailed Republicans in enthusiasm by a margin of 53 to 45. . . .

Is the press protecting Obama?: Obama's controversial comments

Justice Scalia talks gun control

UPDATE: The Hill newspaper has this:

Justice Antonin Scalia said there “are some limitations that can be imposed” on the purchase of guns but would not say whether a legislature could ban semi-automatic weapons or 100-round magazines. “We’ll see,” the Supreme Court justice said Sunday when asked in an interview on Fox News whether a legislature could restrict the purchase of those items in the wake of the movie massacre in Aurora, Colo. Scalia authored the high court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms and invalidated a D.C. ban on handguns. Scalia noted that as to more specific restrictions on gun purchases, his opinion said those will have to be decided “in future cases.” “Some undoubtedly are [permissible], because there were some that were acknowledged at the time” of the writing of the Constitution, he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.” . . .

New op-ed at National Review Online: ‘Military-Style Weapons’: Function, not cosmetics, should govern gun policy

My newest piece starts this way:

‘AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities,” President Obama told the National Urban League on Wednesday. After the deadly attack in Colorado last Friday, the president’s concern is understandable. However, even — or perhaps especially — at such a time, distinctions need to be made.

The police in Aurora, Colo., reported that the killer used a Smith&Wesson M&P 15. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is “no reason” for such “military-style weapons” to be available to civilians.

Yes, the M&P 15 and the AK-47 are “military-style weapons.” But the key word is “style” — they are similar to military guns in their aesthetics, not in the way they actually operate. The guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban (which was enacted in 1994 and expired ten year later) were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military but semi-automatic versions of those guns. . . .

Minor aside: Even some, such as Bill Kristol, have made misleading comments on this topic. Take Kristol's statement on Fox News Sunday:

People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles … I don’t think they have a right to semiautomatic, quasi–machine guns that can shoot hundred of bullets at a time. And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they are being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control. . . .

It might be possible to joke about Kristol being a "quasi" conservative.

Appearance on Dennis Miller's radio show from July 25th to discuss gun ownership

The audio file for the interview is available here. See the second hour starting at about 38:10.

Interview with Ezra Levant Sun TV: Would you put a ‘Gun Free Zone’ sign on

Ezra has a good discussion on Israel. There is no way that a killer could shot dozens of people without resistance.  "I've been to Israel, and I see that every other guy on the street has a gun, so if there was a mass shooting, someone would stop it after it got to one or two casualties, it would never get to 70 people shot."

Calls for more gun control

President Obama at the Urban League on Wednesday:

But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- (applause) -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense. . . .

From The Hill newspaper:

“I support what the president said yesterday,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “I thought his comments were very thoughtful [and] provided leadership when he said we need to build a national consensus to reduce violence in our country.” . . . “With the schedule we have, we’re not going to get into a debate on gun control,” [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] told reporters. "But I'm very happy, I'm glad the president made this statement, because it's something that needs to be done. But we're not going to address gun control." . . .

Mayor Bloomberg on police striking:

Well, I would take it one step further. I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, we're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.' After all, police officers want to go home to their families. And we're doing everything we can to make their job more difficult but, more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets. The only reason to have an armor-piercing bullet is to go through a bullet-resistant vest. The only people that wear bullet-resistant vest are our police officers. And that's true across this whole country. So we should -- at some point we have to understand this as our children or our grandchildren or us. But for the police officers, it's much more immediate. Because when you or I hear shots, we run away. They run towards it. . . .

"Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?"

From the WSJ:

. . . It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.
For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled "As We May Think," Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified."
That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect separate physical communications networks into one global network—a "world-wide web." The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks."
If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks.
But full credit goes to the company where Mr. Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox. . . .

Just a reminder why this is important.  Obama claimed (July 13, 2012):

They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)
     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. . . . 

UPDATE: Some letters to the editor in response to this piece can be found here.

Obama uses Colorado attack to call for more gun control

Well, at least Obama is more in the open now on this issue.  Who wins the presidency will have a major impact on gun control at least through their appointments to the Supreme Court.  From Fox News:

President Obama has added his voice to the push for stricter gun control in the wake of the massacre last week at a Colorado movie theater.
Obama, speaking Wednesday evening to the National Urban League, affirmed his belief in Americans' right to own guns, but he singled out assault rifles as better suited for the battlefield.
"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama said. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities."
The president, in making the comments, went further than he typically does in suggesting Washington open a new debate on gun control. It's a topic he has handled lightly in the past, but his remarks Wednesday night follow statements from vocal gun control advocates like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg calling for new restrictions.
Republicans, though, have largely said new laws are not the answer. Mitt Romney, pressed on the gun control issue in an NBC News interview during a visit to London, said changing laws won't "make all bad things go away."
"I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this ... young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening," he said. . . .

From the New York Daily News:

Obama says an AK-47 belongs in the hands of soldiers, not criminals. Republican rival Mitt Romney says America doesn't need new gun laws. . . .
While he called hunting and shooting part of the nation's “cherished national heritage,” Obama added that “a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”
"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller," he said during a speech to a supportive audience  National Urban League. "That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily."
"These steps shouldn't be controversial," Obama added. "They should be common sense." . . . 

The push for new laws has also spread to California and Illinois.

Democratic leaders in three big states have used this summer's Colorado mass shooting to push bills that would crack down on assault weapons and ammunition sales, rekindling a debate that has not gained much traction in Congress or the presidential campaign. 

In Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn proposed that his state enact a strict ban on assault weapons, similar to California's. New York lawmakers have proposed wide-ranging legislation that would limit weapons purchases. 

California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the Democratic state Senate leader back a bill that would make it more difficult and time-consuming to reload assault weapons. The chairmen of public safety committees in California's Assembly and Senate co-authored a bill that would require dealers to report purchases of large quantities of ammunition to law enforcement authorities. . . . 

Maryland temporarily becomes a right-to-carry state

From CBS Baltimore:

It will soon be easier to carry a concealed weapon in Maryland. A federal judge finds part of a state gun law unconstitutional. . . .
It’s a victory for opponents of gun control in Maryland.
A federal judge in Baltimore issues a ruling that affects Maryland’s concealed carry permit law.
Until now, gun owners needed to prove they had a good or substantial reason for a permit, but that has been struck down.
“Even without this good and substantial showing we have one of the most restrictive regimes in America, in Maryland here for getting a permit to carry a gun,” said attorney Carey Hansel. . . .

National budget problems and a single currency shouldn't be linked

I have always thought that the claim that saving the Euro was essential to saving the EU.  From the WSJ: 

Contrary to what is claimed daily in the media by politicians and many economists, there is no "euro crisis." The single currency doesn't have to be "saved" or else explode.

The present crisis is not a European monetary problem at all, but rather a debt problem in some countries—Greece, Spain and some others—that happen to be members of the euro zone. Specifically, these are public-debt problems, stemming from bad budget management by their governments. But there is no logical link between these countries' fiscal situations and the functioning of the euro system. . . .

The public debt problem becomes a euro problem only insofar as governments arbitrarily decide that there must be some "European solidarity" inside the euro zone. But how does mutual participation in the same currency logically imply that spendthrift governments should get help from the others? Whenever a state in the U.S. has a debt problem, one never hears that there is a "dollar crisis." There is simply a problem of budget management in that state. . . .

Is the individual mandate tax in Obamacare unenforceable?

Could Obamacare actually increase the number of uninsured people? Suppose that you believe Obama's claims about ending free-riding by people on health care. Well, it turns out that Obamacare might really make them pay anything. John Merline has this at IBD:

But the uninsured problem under ObamaCare could be much worse than the CBO projects.

What the report doesn't cover is the fact that the other legs of the ObamaCare stool designed to expand insurance coverage — the individual mandate, the employer mandate and the state insurance exchanges — are also buckling.

As a result, ObamaCare will likely cover far fewer uninsured than advertised. There's even a chance that, if all goes wrong, it could actually make the uninsured problem worse.

The individual mandate, for example, is a cornerstone of ObamaCare's effort to expand coverage. But tax experts who've studied how the IRS will enforce the mandate conclude that it's likely to be ineffective, because the law makes it virtually impossible for the IRS to collect the tax penalty from those who don't pay it.

Under normal circumstances, the IRS has broad powers to collect taxes from those who don't pay what they owe. It can charge civil and criminal penalties, impose liens, and seize assets and bank accounts.

But ObamaCare specifically blocks the IRS from using these enforcement tools when it comes to collecting any unpaid ObamaCare tax penalties. . . .

Gun sales in Colorado dramatically jump after Movie Theater attack

From the Denver Post:

Background checks for people wanting to buy guns in Colorado jumped more than 41 percent after Friday morning's shooting at an Aurora movie theater, and firearms instructors say they're also seeing increased interest in the training required for a concealed-carry permit. "It's been insane," Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, said Monday. When he arrived at work Friday morning — just hours after a gunman killed 12 and injured 58 others at the Century Aurora 16 theater — there already were 15 to 20 people waiting outside the store, Meyers said. He called Monday "probably the busiest Monday all year" and said the basic firearms classes that he and the store's owner teach are booked solid for the next three weeks, something that hadn't happened all year. . . .

Gun sales also apparently rise in other places.

Gun sales across the state are spiking in the wake of the Aurora movie massacre, and Florida is on its way to becoming the first in the nation to reach one million concealed weapons permits. . . .
State numbers also increased. According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, there were 2,386 concealed weapons background checks run on the Friday after the shootings, up 14 percent from the week before. . . .
Florida tops the nation with an estimated 950,000 active concealed weapons permits, according to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Between 10,000 and 12,000 permits are issued in Florida each month, and the state is on its way to becoming the first in the nation to reach one million active permits. . . . 

NBC-2.com WBBH News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung destroys evidence and internal documents show it deliberately copied Apple

Samsung was previously punished for the exact same type of evidence destruction eight years ago. As shown in the next story, despite that destruction, it is amazing how much evidence was still available.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal in San Jose, California, today agreed with Apple that jurors should be told that they can draw an “adverse inference” from Samsung’s failure to avoid auto-deleting e-mail Apple later sought as evidence. The jury instruction is a “modest” method of correcting for any harm suffered by Apple and deterring Samsung’s practices in the future, Grewal wrote.
“In effect, Samsung kept the shredder on long after it should have known about this litigation,” Grewal wrote. The judge said the “rolling basis” Samsung used for deletions resulted in a similar ruling against the company in case filed in 2004. . . .

 Now it becomes clear that even Google warned Samsung not to copy Apple.

. . . “Samsung’s documents show the similarity of Samsung’s products is no accident or, as Samsung would have it, a ‘natural evolution,’” Apple argues in its brief. “Rather, it results from Samsung’s deliberate plan to free-ride on the iPhone’s and iPad’s extraordinary success by copying their iconic designs and intuitive user interface. Apple will rely on Samsung’s own documents, which tell an unambiguous story.”Among those documents are a few purported to show that Samsung not only deliberately copied certain characteristics of the iPhone and iPad, but was also explicitily warned away from doing so by various third parties, including Google. . . .

• In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”

• In 2011, Samsung’s own Product Design Group noted that it is “regrettable” that the Galaxy S “looks similar” to older iPhone models.

• As part of a formal, Samsung-sponsored evaluation, famous designers warned Samsung that the Galaxy S “looked like it copied the iPhone too much,” and that “innovation is needed.” The designers explained that the appearance of the Galaxy S “[c]losely resembles the iPhone shape so as to have no distinguishable elements,” and “[a]ll you have to do is cover up the Samsung logo and it’s difficult to find anything different from the iPhone.” . . .

Meanwhile, it is funny that while this is occurring Google is claiming that some inventions are just too important to protect the intellectual property rights for.

In other words, Google’s view is that just as there are patents that are standards essential, there are also patents that are commercially essential — patents that cover features that are so popular as to have become ubiquitous. The latter are just as ripe for abuse as the former, and withholding them is just as harmful to consumers and the competitive marketplace. Viewed through that lens, multitouch technology or slide-to-unlock might be treated the same way as an industry standard patent on, say, a smartphone radio.
This argument, of course, has massive implications for Apple, which has developed a treasure trove of what might be considered by some as commercially essential IP around the iPhone and iPad. And the company was quick to take severe exception to it. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell rebutted Walker’s argument. “That a proprietary technology becomes quite popular does not transform it into a ‘standard’ subject to the same legal constraints as true standards,” he wrote. . . .

New op-ed in the New York Daily News: Concealed weapons save lives, The evidence is clear: Massacres are stopped by legally armed citizens

My newest piece there starts this way:

Friday’s horrible shooting in Colorado occurred in yet another place where guns are banned. And that’s consistent with a trend: With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.

The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, like others run by the chain around the country, displayed warning signs that it was illegal to carry guns into the theater.

This applied to all nonlaw enforcement personnel, including individuals with concealed handgun permits. In other words, despite more than 4% of the adult population of Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a gunman intent on killing a lot of people could be confident that law-abiding citizens there would be sitting ducks.

If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, . . .

Mayor Bloomberg has a competing piece also on guns in the same newspaper and his is "Gun Control Cannot Wait."

UPDATE:  There were some editorials that made use of part of this op-ed: the Orange County Register in its editorial available here and for the Appeal-Democrat. Other discussion of my work can be found in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Winnepeg Free Press and the Examiner.

Vote Fraud stories

Registering people who aren't eligible in Virginia?  From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.
The errant mailings from the Washington-based nonprofit group Voter Participation Center have befuddled many Virginia residents, leading to hundreds of complaints.
The organization has been mass-mailing the forms — pre-populated with key information such as names and addresses — to primarily Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as young adults, unmarried women, African-Americans and Latinos.
In a letter to Cuccinelli's office and the State Board of Elections, Kathryn Bieber, an attorney for the Romney campaign, calls for an investigation into the matter by law-enforcement officials, claiming that the mailings appear to violate "at least one and maybe several Virginia laws aimed at ensuring a fair election." . . .

From Fox News: Drug money funds voter fraud in Kentucky

That is where in some cases, major cocaine and marijuana dealers admitted to buying votes to steal elections, and the result is the corruption of American democracy. The government continues to mete out justice in the scandal, as two people convicted in April in a vote-buying case face sentencing this week, and another public official pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy.
"We believe that drug money did buy votes," Kerry B. Harvey, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, said of a separate vote-buying case.
He described a stunning vote-buying scheme that includes "very extensive, organized criminal activity, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in many cases that involves drug money." . . .

BREAKING NEWS: TEXT OF UN ARMS TRADE TREATY

A copy of the treaty is available here.  It does include restrictions on small arms.

UPDATE: From Fox News:

But even without amendments, there is plenty for the U.S. not to like in the draft, say critics. The treaty could set the stage for legal challenges to U.S. aid to allies like Israel and Taiwan, and it could also expose private information about U.S. gun owners.  . . .
But release of the draft so close to Friday’s deadline for a final text sends a strong signal that the treaty’s broad strokes are already set, observers say.
While critics say U.S. gun owners and interests would be left exposed by the draft, it has drawn criticism on other fronts. Activists on the political left say it is a gift to illicit gunrunners around the world, and the only group that seems to like it is the rogue states leading talks, say critics. . . .

Colorado governor on gun control and shooting

This is good, but I wish that he would understand that gun control with gun-free zones caused the problem.  From MSNBC:

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper expressed skepticism that tougher gun laws could have prevented Friday's massacre in Aurora, Colorado. 

"I think that [gun control] debate's going to happen, it has already started. But you look at this person, again, almost a creature, if he couldn't have gotten access to guns, what kind of bomb he would have manufactured. We're at a time an information age where there's access to all kinds of information," he said. "I think he was almost a terrorist that wanted to take away not just from the people here, but from the country, our ability to enjoy life, to go to a movie theater. Which for most of us is a refuge where we can get away from the pressures of life. It's a human issue. How are we not able to identify someone like this who is so deeply, deeply disturbed?"  

The Hill notes that Hickenlooper also seemed to dismiss calls for tougher gun controlduring an interview on CNN's State of the Union. "This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy's going to find something. Right? He's going to know how to create a bomb," he said.

"2011Shock at 'un-Dutch' mass shooting"

A multiple victim public shooting in the Netherlands from October 2011:

The Netherlands was in shock Sunday after a gunman killed six people and wounded 11 in a packed shopping mall before committing suicide in an act the media dubbed "un-Dutch". 

"Alphen aan den Rijn will never be the same," said one of about 5,400 messages on an electronic condolence register opened in the town where the 24-year-old man went on the rampage on Saturday. 

"Why? We are incredulous and shocked," said another. "The Netherlands lost its innocence." 

Gunman Tristan van der Vlis entered the De Ridderhof shopping mall in the town about 40 kilometres (25 miles) southwest of Amsterdam at around lunchtime on Saturday when it was packed with children and their parents. 

Witnesses said he opened fire with an automatic firearm on shoppers and merchants, striding around without haste. Dutch authorities have not identified the victims. 

The man then shot himself, taking the motive for the mass killing with him to the grave. 

In a farewell letter to his parents made public overnight, Van der Vlis said he was unhappy and wanted to commit suicide but made no mention of killing others. . . .

Obama declares: ‘We tried our plan -- and it worked"

Is this out of touch?  From Obama's speech in Oakland, California on July 24, 2012:

But here’s the problem -- we tried that and it didn’t work. (Applause.)  It’s not what you believe, it’s not what I believe, it’s not what most Americans believe will actually make a difference.  This country was not built from the top down; it was built from the middle class out, from the bottom up.  (Applause.) That’s how we became the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  That’s the path that you can choose for America in this election.  And that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States. . . . 

Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan -- and it worked.  That’s the difference.  (Applause.)  That’s the choice in this election.  That’s why I’m running for a second term.  

When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse, more than 1 million jobs were on the line, Governor Romney said, we should just "let Detroit go bankrupt." . . .

Two new radio interviews on the Colorado attack

Today I was interviewed on Sean Hannity's show from about 5:05 to 5:20, and you can listen to it here. Yesterday, I was interviewed on Mark Levin's show from 6:35 to about 6:50, and you can listen to that interview here.

Probably the weirdest interview that I have ever had

I have been interviewed by Howard Stern, and I thought that was pretty strange.  This interview was even more bizarre.  Mediaite has the entire 16 minute video available here (please scroll down the page part way).  How does Mediaite describe the interview:

Morgan kept grilling Lott over his premise that gun control will not help stem violence, and that having more guns out there will lead to less crime. Lott tried to rebut the points Dershowitz and Morgan were making, but Morgan repeatedly interrupted him to get Lott to answer his questions and telling Lott that he was spouting “nonsense.”
Lott tried to explain the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons to Morgan, while Morgan and Dershowitz argued that civilians should not be allowed access to guns with that speed and ammo capacity. Another point Lott tried to make during the interview was that while England has less gun deaths per year than the United States, they had much less before they implemented gun control. . . .

You can see what Piers' own viewers thought of the interview right here.  Their discussion of the interview is quite interesting.  Dershowitz's comments are reported to some degree at CNN available here.  It also has more viewers' thoughts on the interview.

Dershowitz claimed that "Your conclusions are paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association" or "This [my research] is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association" or that "It [the NRA] only funds research that will lead to these conclusions."

Ratings: CNN in general did better than usual for this show. Morgan got

1,023,000 total, 514,000 in the demo.

One of the comments that I got after the show due to Dershowitz's attacks.

Here is a CNN transcript, though it does not catch the full flavor of the debate.

UPDATE: Here is some very important information about the Aurora shooting that I had known about at the time of this interview.

Permit holder accidentally fires handgun

The permit holder made two big mistakes.  Besides dropping the concealed handgun, he made things much, much worse for himself by running away.  Fortunately, no one was seriously harmed.

Police have arrested 23-year-old Todd Canady after he dropped a handgun while on line at a Dallas Walmart . . . . Police said Canady left the store and then fled when they tried to question him about the incident. He had a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but was booked Tuesday on charges of evading arrest and injury to a child.
Investigators said . . . when he reached for his wallet, the gun fell from his holster and went off.
The bullet first grazed Canady in the back of his leg before ricocheting off the ground. Debris struck two children and a woman's ankle as they were standing in line. They were not seriously hurt.

More on the costs of single parent families

Dr. Keith Ablow has this article on "the psychological impact of single parenting." My past research has looked at the dramatic increase in single parent families from the liberalization of abortion rules.

Evidence of a recession coming?

This is depressing. From CNBC:

. . . Estimates for the third and fourth quarters have been dropped to levels not seen since the days of the 2008 financial crisis, below even the muted 2 percent expected level of inflation.

That's an ominous recession sign for an economy that has barely managed to attain positive growth this year even with the strong level of earnings beats, according to an analysis by Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at ConvergEx in New York.

"Revenue estimates for the back half of 2012 have been slowly working their way lower this year," Colas said. "This trend, however, has accelerated to the downside over the past 30 days and we are fast approaching levels where these estimates are unambiguously pointing to the risk of a U.S./global recession later into 2012 and 2013." . . .