Sad to say, I’m underwhelmed by the new World Trade Center.

I was looking for something really spectacular.

It’s certainly a nice looking building. But it’s the same height as the old World Trade Center. The old one was 1,368 feet.

The new one is 1,368 feet. That’s the height of the highest roof. If you add the antenna spire, it’s 1776 feet — again, about the same as the old World Trade Center.

But the old World Trade Center was TWIN TOWERS.

This is ONE TOWER.

It also looks thinner than either of the old TWIN TOWERS.

The new One World Trade Center is an attractive structure — no doubt about it. Architect David Childs is very good. It’s a gorgeous building.

But the new One World Trade Center is not even as tall as Chicago’s Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower). Soon the Chicago Spire will go up.

The roof on that structure will be 2,000 feet, and will dwarf One World Trade Center.

So my question is this: Why not make the roof on One World Trade Center 1776 feet?

That would be pretty cool.

The current structure’s antenna goes up to 1776 feet, but that doesn’t count.

In fact, that reinforces the point that America can’t build a real building that’s 1776 feet tall. We need to put up a little stick that goes that high.

Heck, I could put up a stick that goes up 2,000 feet. But that’s not really a building, is it?

Frankly, why didn’t we just make it the tallest building in the world?

And I’m talking about roof structure here — not a stick on top of the building.

Literally make this thing a monstrosity that can be seen from outer space.

Right now, the Great Wall of China is the only human structure that can be seen from outer space.

Why not have One World Trade Center also carry this distinction?

I was looking for something really big — really spectacular — something that would send a message to the world that “America is Back.”

Instead, we got this.

So now we have One World Trade Center that is about the same height as the old World Trade Center. But it’s one tower, not two.

To me, this appears to be a victory for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

The World Trade Center is now half the size it was.

So bin Laden (dead though he may be) has managed to cut the World Trade Center down to its current size . . . and, by extension, also cut America down to size. So bin Laden is the big winner here. He achieved what he wanted to achieve — diminish America: Show the world that America is no longer the power it used to be.

This is a sad commentary on America’s current political leadership — whether Barack Obama or Michael Bloomberg.

These leaders seem to want a smaller America.

They want an America with a smaller footprint in the world.

Well, we certainly have that now with One World Trade Center.

This is a far cry from John F. Kennedy’s promise that America would land on the moon within 10 years.

Now, we no longer even have a space program . . . of any kind.

America used to be able to do big things, big projects.

That no longer appears to be the case.

It’s more than disappointing that we had to wait more than a decade for this.

The Empire State building stands 1,250 feet to the highest roof, 1,445 to the tip.

It was the tallest building in the world from 1931 to 1972.

The Empire State Building took 15 months to build from start to finish.

One World Trade Center took more than a decade to build.

It’s sad how far America has fallen.  We really can’t do anything big anymore.

We’ve become a lot like, well, France.

File this piece under “America’s Decline.”

When will Romney start using these numbers in his speeches?

Since Obama took office, the workforce has shrunk to its lowest level in 30 years.

Hey, if no one is looking for a job because there are no jobs, we can have a 0% unemployment rate. Maybe this is the Obama economic plan.

JAMES PETHOKOUKIS: If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.6% today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 11.1%.

Now, this doesn’t take into account the aging of the Baby Boomers, which should lower the participation due to rising retirements. But is that still a valid assumption given the drop in wealth since 2006?

If you take into account the aging of the Baby Boomers, the participation rate should be trending lower. Indeed, it has been doing just that since 2000. Before the Great Recession, the Congressional Budget Office predicted what the partipation rate would be in 2012, assuming such demographic changes. Using that number, the real unemployment rate would be 10.7%.

If the participation rate just stayed where it was last month, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.4%.

Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.5%.

The employment-population ratio dipped to 58.4% vs. 61% in December 2008. An historically and alarmingly low level of the U.S. population is actually working.

And given that real disposable income has been flat the past two years, it stands to reason that many of the jobs being created are in low-wage sectors. Indeed, hiring in sectors such as retail and leisure has accounted for a whopping 40 percent of the jobs added over the past two years.

The labor market remains in sad shape—despite Obama White House claims that it’s “continuing to heal”—and it is unlikely to improve much if the economy continues to grow around 2% or so.

Read more here >>>

Barack Obama kicked off his campaign at an Ohio State University basketball arena, which was half empty. This arena seats about 19,000. Presumably, his campaign chose that venue because they figured they could fill up this basketball arena with Ohio State University’s 60,000-plus students who could be coaxed and bribed to show up. They didn’t.

Read more here >>>

Workforce participation rate falls to lowest level since 1981. Just 115,000 new jobs added in April. Anemic.

Employers in the U.S. added fewer workers than forecast in April and the jobless rate unexpectedly declined as people left the labor force, underscoring concern the world’s largest economy may be losing speed.
Payrolls climbed 115,000, the smallest gain in six months, after a revised 154,000 rise in March that was more than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate of 85 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 160,000 advance. The jobless rate fell to a three-year low of 8.1 percent and earnings stagnated.

Read more here >>>

UK TELEGRAPH: There was a brief media firestorm yesterday when Vanity Fair broke the news that Obama’s famous “New York girlfriend” was a fiction. She appears in his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father, described in some detail by her appearance, voice and mannerisms. But a new biography of Obama – with an excerpt published in Vanity Fair – “reveals” that she was actually an amalgam of several different women. Politico immediately ran with “Obama: ‘New York girlfriend’ was composite” and Drudge headlined with “Obama Admits Fabricating Girlfriend in a Memoir.” Coming hot on the heels of the news that the Pres once ate a dog, his weirdo factor seems to have hit the roof.

Read more here >>>

BEN SAYS: The WASHINGTON TIMES article below is good on how Obama’s new campaign slogan, “Forward”, has extensive ties to Communism. But the TIMES article leaves out Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” and MSNBC’s “Lean Forward” ad campaign. Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” killed 45 million Chinese over a three-year period (1958-1961). So MSNBC doesn’t quite want a “Great Leap Forward” (like Mao). MSNBC just wants to “Lean Forward” — that is “lean” toward Maoist Communism. But Obama apparently wants to go all the way. Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan “Forward” is the name of Vladimir Lenin’s publication. It’s also the name of a number of other prominent Marxist magazines and journals. “Progressive” is a variation of the “Forward” Communist theme. Progressive is a kinder, gentler version of “Forward.” Obama apparently prefers “Forward” to “Progressive.” “Forward” is serious.

WASHINGTON TIMES: The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new

campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication “Vpered” (the Russian word for “forward”) in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as “Forward, Soviet” (though also and more literally as “Stride, Soviet”).

Conservative critics of the Obama administration have noted numerous ties to radicalism and socialists throughout Mr. Obama’s history, from his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former Weather Underground members, to appointing as green jobs czar Van Jones, a self-described communist.

Read more here >>>

Who the Hell Would Not Have Killed Bin Laden? It’s No-Brainer. But Obama Dithered for 16 Hours Over Whether to Give the Green Light to Let the SEALs Kill the Terrorist.

U.K. DAILY MAIL: Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.

Read more here >>>

KIMBERLY STRASSEL-WALL STREET JOURNAL: Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Read more here >>>

Why pay speechwriters to keep turning in the same speech all the time?

By Rick Santorum

Mitt Romney highlights his business experience in the private sector but tries to hide his economic record in the public sector. He was a failed one-term Governor of Massachusetts, and by any objective measure, he would receive an F for his faulty fiscal stewardship there. Indeed, his economic record would not put him in the ring as a featherweight — let alone a lightweight — in any contest.

As heavyweight champ Joe Lewis once said, “He can run, but he can’t hide.” And in Mitt Romney’s case, past performance really does indicate future results. Here’s a start.

D in Spending when graded against other governors according to the 2005 Fiscal Policy Report Card produced by the non-partisan Cato Institute.

F in Job Creation as the Massachusetts state economy ground to a halt with Romney as its steward and ranked 47th out of 50 states.

F in Entitlements and Growing Government as Romney created a brand new entitlement (RomneyCare) and then mandated that all individuals purchase health insurance and all employers with 11 or more employees provide it.

F in Health Insurance Costs as, according to Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, state health expenditures increased by $414 million, private health insurance costs increased by $4.311 billion, federal Medicaid for Massachusetts increased by $2.418 billion, and Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion for a total increase of $8.569 billion in RomneyCare’s first 5 years.

F on Cap and Trade as he appointed litigation-happy environmentalists to key government jobs, flip-flopped on cap and trade, flip-flopped on carbon taxes, and made the following promise about a coal-fired plant: “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people.”

F on Wall Street Bailouts as he supported giving taxpayers the Wall Street bailout tab –even though they already paid dearly for the abuses and excesses with their retirement savings losses.
F for Raising Taxes as he increased fees and taxes by over $740 million in his only term as governor.

While Mitt Romney could legitimately argue that he should get an A for consistency, his record of economic irresponsibility clearly shows he cannot legitimately argue that he can fix the economy.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported major regulatory expansions in the healthcare environment almost identical to Obama’s unconstitutional overreach.

Romney’s inability to advance economic freedom while Governor of Massachusetts gives little comfort that he will do so as President of the United States.

However, I understand that healthy families and economic freedom go hand in hand, and each reinforces the other. High taxes and massive overregulation hamper economic freedom. Only Washington insiders and crony capitalists benefit from those policies. That’s why as President, from day one I will focus on giving American families the opportunity to thrive in a vibrant economy.

Each element of my vision is tied together by a focus on economic freedom. Here are 5 of its pillars:

Help working families — don’t punish them — through the tax code: I’ll immediately work with Congress to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and triple the personal deduction for children. I’ll also reduce and simplify the system with just two marginal income tax rates of 10% and 28%.

Unleash America’s energy: I’ll immediately approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. It will provide Americans with thousands of truly shovel-ready jobs and transport ethical oil from our Canadian friends. An American President should never again bow before Middle East interests. I will also immediately rescind all Obama EPA regulations that burden the economy by more than $100 million per year.

Reinvigorate America’s competitiveness: I will eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturing activity and halve it to a flat rate of 17.5% for all others. I will also purge the crony capitalists in Washington and ensure that every American plays on a level economic field. Our Founding Fathers understood that markets should reward those who actually add value to society, not those who gain through political favoritism and back-room deals. Our Republic depends on a fair market system where everyone has equal footing.

Get spending under control: For the past 3 years, American families have been working hard and living with their means. Is it too much to expect Washington to do the same? I will balance the budget in my first term. My budgets will spend less each year than prior years, and I’ll reduce the non-defense-related federal work force by at least10%. I will also call on Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

Repeal and replace ObamaCare: I’ll submit legislation to repeal ObamaCare, and on day one issue an executive order ending related regulatory obligations on the states which was inspired by the freedom offending and health care cost raising RomneyCare. Replacing ObamaCare with the previous system will not suffice. As the father of a large family, I know the trials and tribulations so many undergo when a loved one enters the medical system. I will work with all stakeholders to produce a healthcare system that prioritizes the patient, not the bureaucrats and the moneyed interests behind them.

America’s greatest days can be ahead — if we work together to create an economic system where equal opportunity is provided for all, where everyone’s children can surpass their parents, and where traditional values are rewarded.

We only need the courage to remain true to our Constitution and the principles of freedom and unleash the innovation and potential of the American people.