Focus on the Family had two recent programs that featured some Christian ministries' aid to Sudan. Must listen to programs at Fight for Life in Sudan and another ministry at Opening Eyes to the Crisis in Sudan. Values Voter News highly recommends a listen to these ministries being interviewed in two links above. But below are links to the ministries themselves and some videos from the two groups.
I have to admit that if I had been sitting in the House chamber during President Obama’s State of the Union address, I would have had to fight the urge to have a Joe Wilson moment when the President unjustly criticized the Supreme Court, six of whose members were there. Why? Because the two claims President Obama made about the Court’s decision last week in the Citizens United case are categorically and undeniably false.
President Obama claimed that the Supreme Court had “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Alito seemed to shake his head and mouth the words “not true.” And well he should. The fact is that the Court overturned a federal ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, and in so doing, it rejected the proposition that the government can decide who gets to speak and can ban some from speaking at all.
First of all, the 100-year claim is completely wrong. In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act that banned direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates – there was no ban on independent political expenditures in the law. “Contributions” are funds given directly to candidates for their election campaigns; independent expenditures are funds spent by third parties on things like political advertisements without any coordination with the candidate.
The Tillman Act was sponsored by South Carolina Senator Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, probably the most vicious racist to ever serve in Congress. Tillman was a Democratic segregationist who was chiefly responsible for the imposition of Jim Crow in South Carolina after the end of Reconstruction when he was governor. This federal law, that so-called “progressives” like the President are constantly praising, was intended by Tillman to hurt the Republican Party – the party of abolition and Abraham Lincoln – because many corporations contributed to the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. These corporations did not like segregation in the South – it cost them money and made it more expensive to sell their goods and services.
Congress did not ban independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions until 1947. For three decades after the passage of that law, the Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid upholding its constitutionality, and the Court actually struck down a separate ban on independent expenditures as well as a state law prohibiting corporate expenditures on referenda. It was not until 1990 in the Austin case that the Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a state ban on independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (a trade association) in a case completely at odds with prior precedent. The actual electioneering communications provision at issue in the Citizens United case was part of the McCain-Feingold amendments to federal campaign finance law in 2002.
So the point is that the law the President claims has been in place for 100 years has been on the books since 1947, and the Supreme Court only issued a very odd decision twenty years ago upholding such a corporate ban in conflict with stare decisis (Quite tellingly, the government refused to defend the 1990 decision on the basis of its actual reasoning when it argued the Citizens United case). As Justice Kennedy said, “[n]o case before Austin had held that Congress could prohibit independent expenditures for political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.” While the Supreme Court in Citizens United found that the corporate ban on independent political expenditures is unconstitutional, it did not touch the ban on direct contributions to federal candidates. That is the ban that represents “a century of law” and it remains in force today contrary to the President’s assertion.
The President’s second point about those evil foreign corporations is also totally wrong. 2 U.S.C. § 441e bans all foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to a federal candidate or a political party. It also bans all foreign nationals from making any independent political expenditures – and this ban was not overturned by the Supreme Court. The term “foreign nationals” is defined to include individuals, foreign governments, foreign political parties, and corporations “organized under the laws or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.” It is simply not true that Citizens United freed foreign corporations to make independent expenditures in American elections.
Congress itself put an exemption into the law. If you are not a U.S. citizen but are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., this ban does not apply to you. The Federal Election Commission has interpreted this provision with regard to corporations to mean that only U.S. domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations can establish political action committees, and only if those PAC’s donations and disbursements derive entirely from funds generated by the U.S. operations of the subsidiary and all decisions concerning the donations and disbursements are made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. I was actually on the FEC as a commissioner when we considered an advisory opinion request from a Canadian company over its U.S. domestic subsidiary, and this was the rule followed by the FEC to implement federal law. Under current law, there are multiple layers of protection to prevent foreign influence on our elections.
This makes perfect sense. Foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in American elections. But their domestic subsidiaries that are American companies, employ American workers, have American officers, and pay American taxes, are able to participate in the American election process to the same extent as other U.S. companies as long as all of the money and all of the decisions are American.
The Citizens United decision did not even consider this ban on foreign nationals. So the President was completely out-of-line when he made the claim that foreign corporations would be able to spend without limit in our elections, a claim that seems to have become a talking point for critics of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The President should know better than to make these false claims. After all, he taught a voting rights class at the University of Chicago that loosely covered campaign finance law, and his new White House counsel is Bob Bauer, probably the leading Democratic campaign finance lawyer in Washington. Bauer even wrote one of the only books that exists explaining the nuts and bolts of federal campaign finance law.
The President owes Justice Alito and the other justices of the Supreme Court an apology for completely mischaracterizing their opinion, an opinion that helped restore the full protections of the First Amendment. It was a decision that upheld some of our most basic principles, principles about the freedom to engage in political speech that are incorporated into the Constitution, a document that the critics of this decision seem all to willing to ignore when its requirements don’t fit their political objectives."
California is in a precarious position, with a 12.3 percent unemployment rate (more than two points higher than the national average) and a budget $20 billion in the red (only months after the last budget fix closed a large deficit). Productive Californians are leaving for states with less-punishing regulatory and tax regimes.
Yet so far there isn't a broad consensus to do much about those who have prodded the state into its current position: public employee unions that drive costs up and fight to block spending cuts, says Steven Greenhut, Director of the Pacific Research Institute's journalism center.
Consider:
Approximately 85 percent of the state's 235,000 employees (not including higher education employees) are unionized.
As the governor noted during his $83 billion budget roll-out, over the past decade pension costs for public employees increased 2,000 percent; state revenues increased only 24 percent over the same period.
An advisor for Gov. Schwarzenegger wrote in the San Jose Mercury News last week that, "This year alone, $3 billion was diverted to pension costs from other programs."
There are now more than 15,000 government retirees statewide who receive pensions that exceed $100,000 a year, according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.
Many of these retirees are former police officers, firefighters, and prison guards who can retire at age 50 with a pension that equals 90 percent of their final year's pay. The pensions for these (and all other retirees) increase each year with inflation and are guaranteed by taxpayers forever -- regardless of what happens in the economy or whether the state's pensions funds have been fully funded (which they haven't been).
A 2008 state commission pegged California's unfunded pension liability at $63.5 billion, which will be amortized over several decades. That liability, released before the precipitous drop in stock-market and real-estate values, certainly will soar, says Greenhut.
Source: Steven Greenhut, "Public Employee Unions Are Sinking California," Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2010.
"It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.
But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.
Not only that but he broke a campaign promise to work with Republicans to use only public financing. In an article from CNSNews.com titled Obama Criticizes ‘Special Interest’ Money in Politics Despite Big Money 2008 Campaign which starts off with: "President Barack Obama was highly critical last week of the Supreme Court’s ruling in a First Amendment case that rolled back government restrictions on political speech, despite his own record-breaking fundraising for his successful 2008 campaign race for the White House, and despite his reversal in 2008 to stick with public financing for his campaign."
Continues with: "...But when Obama’s campaign became a fundraising juggernaut in 2008, the Democratic nominee reversed himself from a pledge he had made during his party’s primary contest.
In a Common Cause questionnaire dated Nov. 27, 2007, then-Senator Obama said, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
But Obama held a different view on June 19, 2008, making a Web video on his campaign site, proclaiming to have created a “parallel” public financing system.
“We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign, they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful,” Obama said.
Yet the numbers were hardly parallel. Obama’s presidential campaign raised $452.8 million compared to McCain, who raised $204.4 million.
That was largely because McCain was constrained by the same public financing system used by both presidential nominees in the 2004 race: Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry. In 2004, Bush raised $256 million compared to Kerry’s $215.9 million...."
As you read below watch or listen to video below on many local town hall meetings during the State of the Union address American's for Prosperity which largely oppose our Presidents agenda.
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama touted his efforts to bar lobbyists from his administration.
"We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions," he said on Jan. 27, 2010.
That rang a bell with us because we have tracked a campaign promise he made on that topic. He had promised that "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."
We rated that one a Promise Broken because his policy has substantial loopholes that have allowed Obama to essentially decide when he wants to ignore the rule.
He's right that on his first day in office, he signed an executive order to bar lobbyists from his administration.
But the order also included a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. Waivers are granted by the administration itself, so they are little more than the administration saying it's okay for the lobbyist to work for the administration. The executive order says a waiver may be granted if "the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction" or "it is in the public interest. ... The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy." Another provision allows lobbyists to serve if they agree to recuse themselves from discussions related to their former jobs.
Still, open government groups have given Obama high marks for reducing the number of lobbyists at the White House and for making the process more transparent than other administrations.
"I think that by any fair measure ... the reported number is certainly much fewer," said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center. "In fact, I'd say the waivers are good. It allows them to go in and say, 'Here's someone we think has unique skills.' "
One of the first Obama appointees to get a waiver was William J. Lynn to be deputy secretary of defense, the No. 2 position at the Pentagon. Lynn was a Raytheon lobbyist for six years, lobbying extensively on a broad range of defense-related issues.
Jocelyn Frye, director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, also got a waiver. Previously, Frye lobbied for the National Partnership for Women and Families from 2001 to 2008. The organization advocates for fairness in the workplace, access to health care and "policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family."
And Cecilia Muñoz, director of intergovernmental affairs in the Executive Office of the President, manages the White House's relationships with state and local governments and is a principal liaison to the Hispanic community. Formerly, Muñoz formerly lobbied for National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization.
The White House has issued seven waivers to its ethics rules, which apply to lobbyists as well as to people who served as officers and directors of a company or organization. And agencies have issued 15. The White House has said these waivers are quite rare -- less than 1 percent of the thousands of appointments that have been made.
What about those recusals we mentioned earlier? The administration has not made public how many of these have been issued. We do know that Mark Patterson, the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, took one -- but that information was only released by the White House after lawmakers and media reports started asking questions. Public records show Patterson worked as a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs in 2008.
Obama said that he has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." But that's not the case. We know of at least four that have taken on policymaking roles in the Obama administration -- Frye's title even contains the word "policy." While these appointments may be few and far between, and while those who made the cut have signed special waivers, we give Obama a False on this claim.
David Bereit speech at same event. David Bereit is founder of 40 days for life which God used as Abby above speaks of to help her get out of the abortion industry.
"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior." -- 1 Timothy 2:1-3
CBS has been criticized by many on the left over a soon to air ad to air during the Super Bowl that is suppose to share some of Tebow's story at the expense of Focus on the Family. Below is video of Tim's response. If you wish to email Tebow in support of what he is doing click here. Either way the Tebow story will continue and Lord willing it could be in a Super Bowl some day with some verse painted under his eyes.
With all the controversy set aside here is the story of Tim Tebow as aired on ESPN.
Just happen to run across this video from CBS back in '07 when Tebow was the first Sophmore ever to win the Heisman Trophy.
Humor aside our President is actually taking a good step in possibly proposing a spending "freeze" in tonight's State of the Union Address. President Obama is expected to announce a spending freeze which sounds very conservative and what the American public wants. However, coming from President Obama one has a right to be somewhat skeptical with many broken campaign promises on health care and the continued out of control spending. One of the leading conservative think tanks is The Heritage Foundation. On it's blog from this morning is this post titled Morning Bell: President Obama Is Right, We Have A Spending Problem in which is written the following concerns and I insert in italics some comments:
"Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is expected to propose a “freeze” on government spending. Obama’s spending “freeze” will only last three years, will not start until 2011 (interesting enough Democrats will be unable to get most of what they want passed in 2011 anyways after many of them will be gone as expected by current trends with November elections just 9 months away so this is to no loss to the Obama agenda which makes one wonder if this was not the current trend would a spending freeze be on the table tonight), will only apply to a $447 billion slice of the federal government’s $3.5 trillion budget, and will not apply to any of the unspent $862 billion stimulus plan, his health care plan or the House of Representatives’ additional $156 billion stimulus plan. Despite all the loopholes, time limits and procrastination, the President should still be commended for beginning to acknowledge reality. And as a new report issued yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows, the reality is this: the U.S. government has an insatiable spending problem.
The CBO’s summary of the report is bad enough: “Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting … accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 54% of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67% of GDP.” But as bad as those numbers are, our fiscal health is actually worse. The CBO is forced by Congress to make a number of unrealistic assumptions about future revenue and spending changes. But their report makes up for this by including alternative projections that make more realistic assumptions. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl crunched those numbers and found:
The public debt — $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 — is projected to triple to $22.1 trillion by 2020.
Over what would be President Obama’s eight years in office if re-elected, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $9.7 trillion — nearly triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President George W. Bush.
By 2020, the budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 98 percent of GDP and annual net interest spending surpassing $1 trillion.
Our country simply cannot afford to be spending $1 trillion in net interest in 2020. So what is the driving force behind these unsustainable deficits? Unprecedented rises in government spending. More Riedl numbers:
Since World War II, federal spending has generally remained between 18 and 22 percent of GDP. During the Bush Administration, spending increased from 18.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP.
Discretionary spending has increased 25 percent in three years — not even counting the $311 billion in discretionary stimulus spending and approximately $150 billion in annual spending on the global war against terrorists.
In 2009, federal spending reached 24.7 percent of GDP — the highest level in American history outside of World War II. Non-defense spending reached an all-time record of 20.1 percent of GDP.
Comparing our government’s prolific spending habits with the decline in revenues from the recession, Riedl concludes: “Between 2010 and 2020, recession-depleted revenues are projected to gradually rebound to 17.6 percent of GDP (slightly below the 18.3 historical average). Spending is projected expand to 25.9 percent of GDP — well above 20.7 historical average. Compared to those averages, 88 percent of all additional deficits by 2020 come from additional spending (5.2 percent of GDP above average), and only 12 percent comes from low revenues (0.7 percent of GDP below average).”
Due to the fact that President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus failed to stem job losses, the Congressional Budget Office now says the scheme will cost American taxpayers $862 billion, thanks to a higher than expected unemployment benefits total.
Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) say they won’t support a deal with the House to pass selective parts of their health care bill through the Senate using reconciliation, and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) says Congress should start over entirely.
The leaders of the 9/11 Commission — former-New Jersey Gov. Thomas Keane (R) and former-Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) — told a Senate panel Tuesday the Obama administration mishandled the interrogation of the failed Christmas Day airline bomber.
Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jim Webb (D-VA) signed on to a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder condemning the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court.
An online article at Time (partnered with CNN) has this headline Fox: The Most Trusted Name in Newswith this statement "Fox News is the only outfit trusted by more people than distrust it.". This article also says, "Because we are talking the media and politics, and this is the Internet, someone is probably about to ask if the poll is a conservative setup. PPP, in fact, is a mainly Democratic-affiliated polling firm." This is evidenced by the fact that in there conclusion they mention nothing about Independents favoring Fox News over any other network which would be a very curious inquiry for most. At least that was my first thought even as a conservative Republican. And also evidenced by their interpretation of the results. "A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news...but now they're turning more to the outlets that tell them what they want to hear."-For poll results and summary click here.
Here is the Time writers response to this and I think it is a better response then the PPP poll summary: "I think what we're seeing here is that Fox viewers are more likely to believe that all news outlets are biased—and either they don't mind it, or they at least accept that such is the way of the world. And they either simply prefer to watch a channel they see as being biased in their direction, or they believe it is a necessary counterbalance to the (unacknowledged) liberal bias of all other TV news, or they believe other channels are hypocrites for denying being biased, or all of the above. Whereas the rest of the news audience either still sees neutrality as possible, or at least still values it as an ideal."
I am not sure that one should blindly trust any organization claiming neutrality, fairness and balance. The only way one will know if the reporter is being neutral and unbiased is if that one knows the argument themselves. There are two ways to do this.
2) Since then Values Voter News has set up a site titled AvoidtheBias.com where both sides are heard and sometimes more than just two sides on many issues. Another solution is CSPAN where you can watch the health care debates and other issues debated right on the Senate and House floor and instead of learning what the debate consists of by having to trust in any media network interpreting the debate for you you can interpret it yourself. At AvoidtheBias.com you will find many debates on the House and Senate floor and elsewhere on various current issues.
I myself do not have cable so I do not watch either CNN or Fox News but I sure am not happy with ABC, NBC and CBS. But online and for free CSPAN provides both sides of the issues. CSPAN is where AvoidtheBias.com gets a lot of its embedded video.
AvoidtheBias.com claims "A tri-partisan solution to media bias." and on its about page it reads:
Why Avoid the Bias?
1) To get different sides of the issues without the influence of media bias so that one can make his or her own decision about the issues untainted by media bias.
2) To know the different sides of the issues without bias so that one can be able to better detect bias in the media and be aware of when they are being biased against or for a certain side of the issue.
Avoid the Bias assumes that as its readers know the different sides of the issues and can get the different sides of the issues without media bias then the readers of Avoid the Bias will be better informed as to bias in our media and will be better informed themselves on the issues then the media itself."
"Found these excellent links that document how any congressman or woman voted on any bill for the past 10 plus years and watch video of any congressman or woman that debated on the floor concerning any subject or bill for the past 10 plus years.
As much as it is important to know how a congressman or woman voted on a bill it is also important to know why. That is why the third link above will be of some use as to why one voted for or against a certain bill. Even if a congressman or woman did not speak on the floor in a debate over a bill most of the time you can get a flavor as to why by watching the debate from both sides on the bill. And sometimes there are many different sides concerning a bill not just two.
This is another reason for AvoidtheBias.com. You will find many debates on the issues in and outside of the Floor debates and many committee discussions/debates and much more so that the readers of AvoidtheBias.com will have a better understanding of the issues and the debate without media bias. See more on AvoidtheBias.com at About."
Government employees have turned themselves into a coddled class that lives better than its private-sector counterpart, and with more impunity. In effect, the public's servants have become our masters, says Steven Greenhut, a columnists with the Orange County Register.
There was a time when government work offered lower salaries than comparable jobs in the private sector but more security and somewhat better benefits. These days, government workers fare better than private-sector workers in almost every area -- pay, benefits, time off, and job security:
According to a 2007 analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Asbury Park Press, the average federal worker made $59,864 in 2005, compared with the average salary of $40,505 in the private sector.
Across comparable jobs, the federal government paid higher salaries than the private sector three times out of four, the paper found.
The Obama administration has extended the hiring binge started by President Bush:
The executive branch employment (excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department) slated to grow by 2 percent in 2010 -- and more than 15 percent if you count temporary Census workers.
The average federal salary (including benefits) is set to grow from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 in 2010, CBS reported.
But the real action isn't in what government employees are being paid today; it's in what they're being promised for tomorrow, says Greenhut:
Public pensions have swollen to unrecognizable proportions during the last decade.
In June 2005, BusinessWeek reported that more than 14 million public servants and 6 million retirees are owed $2.37 trillion by more than 2,000 different states, cities and agencies, numbers that have risen since then.
State and local pension payouts, the magazine found, had increased 50 percent in just five years.
People who are supposed to serve the public have become privileged elite that exploit political power for financial gain and special perks. It is a two-tier system in which the rulers are making steady gains at the expense of the ruled. The predictable results: Higher taxes, eroded public services, unsustainable levels of debt, and massive roadblocks to reforming even the poorest performing agencies and school systems. If this system is left to grow unchecked, we will end up with a pale imitation of the free society envisioned by the Founders, says Greenhut.
Source: Steven Greenhut, "Class War: How Public Servants Became our Masters," Reason, February 2010.
The scientists who said that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 have admitted the claim has as much credibility as sightings of the mythical Yeti. It's their fraudulent claims that are melting away, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N. body tasked with scaring us to death about global warming, has admitted that the claim in its 2007 report about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing was not based on any scientific study or research. It was instead based on one scientist's speculation in a telephone interview with a reporter.
The IPCC claimed: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate."
As it turns out, the earth hasn't been warming at all, at least not in the last decade, and reputable scientists have said it may continue to cool for decades to come.
Even if it was warming, glaciologists insist, the sheer mass of Himalayan glaciers made such a prediction laughable.
According to Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University:
Even a small glacier, such as the Dokriani glacier, is up to 120 meters (394 feet) thick; a big one would be several hundred meters thick and tens of kilometers long.
The average glacier is 300 meters thick, so to melt one even at the rate of five meters a year would take half a century.
That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now, so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high; the current maximum observed rate of glacier melt worldwide is two to three meters a year.
Like the infamous "hockey stick" graph purporting to show sudden and man-induced warming, and the Climate-gate e-mails showing the efforts by researchers associated with Britain's Climate Research unit to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, the Himalayan glacier claim, like the IPCC report itself, is science fiction and not science fact, says IBD.
Rasmussen is Values Voter News personal favorite for accuracy when it comes to elections so far. Pollster.com is another great resource. Rasmussen as you will note in chart below was the first to report that Brown was within 9 points 2 weeks before the election while the Boston Globe reported a 17 point difference. Then the next week Rasmussen showed Brown down by only 2 points. Unfortunately, Rasmussen did not do a poll before the election for us to know what they polled then.
Rasmussen also states this in defense of their polling on many of their Obama approval rating updates:
"Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
In the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment,“If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!” During Election 2008, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results)."
Florida Man Caught Who Paid for Abortion After Sexually Abusing Teen
Land O' Lakes, FL (LifeNews.com) -- A 45-year-old meat market owner wanted on a charge of having sex with a 16-year-old girl was caught at the Canadian border, according to the Pasco County Sheriff's Office. Ramon A. Ventura was extradited to Pasco County on Wednesday. Ventura, who told authorities he owns A&R Meat Market in St. Petersburg, is charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor.
According to court records, the teen skipped school and ended up at Ventura's house in Land O'Lakes sometime between April and June 2009. At the home, Ventura had sex with the girl, who later found out she was pregnant, records state. The girl's mother confronted Ventura, and he paid $2,400 for the girl to get an abortion, records state. The victim's name and relationship to Ventura were not disclosed due to the nature of the crime.
A judge signed the warrant for Ventura's arrest on Dec. 11, court records state. According to The Buffalo News, Ventura tried to flee to Canada as a passenger in a taxi on Jan. 7. He was arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, who seized $13,000 in cash Ventura had on him, the News states. He was turned over to the Buffalo police, incarcerated and extradited to Pasco. Ventura has been released from the Pasco County jail on $25,000 bail.
