Republican women politicians look more feminine than Democratic women, a study has found.

Republican female politicians look more feminine than Democrats, study finds

Republican women politicians look more feminine than Democratic women, a study has found.
Two UCLA researchers compared faces and political stances of the U.S. House of Representatives - and also found volunteers could deduce the women's political leanings through their pictures.
'I suppose we could call it the Michele Bachmann effect,' said Kerri Johnson, an assistant professor at UCLA in a statement - referring to the primped GOP congresswoman from Minnesota.
The researchers considered the faces of the 424 Representatives by feeding their pictures into a computer modeling program that measures the different features and how close they are to the average for either gender.

Who is the fairest? A study has found that Republican women have facial features that are more feminine than Democrats, like Hillary Clinton (R). Michelle Bachmann (L) has highly feminine features, they found

It considers more than 100 dimensions, including the jaw line, the placement of cheek bones, the shape of eyes, measurements across the face and the fullness of the lips.
Through these assessments, each face was given a score based on how close they were to female or male norms; scores ranged from -40 (male typical) to +40 (female typical).

 

More...

• Michelle Obama in double denim? First Lady rocks Eighties look in snap from student days at Princeton University
• 'I love Ann': Young Romney's 1968 message of devotion written in the sand to his future wife
• Clinton pictured doodling on her UN speech notes . . . and what do they tell us about her?

No extra considerations - including hairstyle, jewellery or make up - were made, the researchers said.
As well as comparing these scores with the person's party affiliation, they also looked at how conservative or liberal the lawmaker was through voting choices they have previously made.
They found that, for women, Republicans' faces were twice as 'sex-typical' as those of Democrats.

Ladylike: They compared facial dimensions of the House of Representatives members with averages for the two genders. Reps Kay Granger (L) and Cathy McMorris (R) were among the most feminine Republicans

Republican representatives with highly feminine features including were Kay Granger (Texas), Cathy Rodgers McMorris (Washington) and Michele Bachmann (Minnesota).
Among the Democrats with the least gender typical faces were Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota), Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut) and Anna G. Eshoo (California).
Interestingly, among conservative lawmakers of both genders, women were 13 points more feminine than men were masculine while among more liberal politicians, women were five points more feminine than men were masculine, the research found.
'Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker's voting record,' added lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.

Findings: The researchers claimed Democratic Reps Anna Eshoo, left, and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, right, had faces that were not gender typical. Jewellery, make up and hair was not considered

'Non-traditional': Rep. Rosa DeLauro, pictured, was also a Democrat with less gender typical features, based on assessments of the jawline, eyebrow position and eye shape, among others

As the GOP is associated more often with traditional gender roles, he researchers also expected to find that male Republicans would be more masculine than their Democratic counterparts.
But in fact, they found the faces of male Republicans scored, on average, as less masculine than the faces of their Democratic counterparts.
'It may be unnecessary for Republican men to exhibit masculinity through their appearance,' Carpinella said. 'Their policy advocacy and leadership roles may already confer these characteristics on them.'
After this initial research, they then showed 120 undergraduates the photos of the politicians and asked them to guess the person's political affiliation.
Their guesses for the Republican politicians became more accurate the more feminine the face.

Study: The researchers at UCLA, pictured, then asked students to say the political affiliations of a person based on their facial features - and found the correlation continued

'The Democratic Party is associated with social liberal policies that aim to diminish gender disparities, whereas the Republican Party is associated with socially conservative policy issues that tend to bolster traditional sex roles,' Johnson said.
'These policy platforms are manifest in each party's image - apparently also in the physical characteristics exhibited by politicians.'

The study is to be printed in the peer-reviewed Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Read more:

• UCLA Newsroom -- The GOP has a feminine face, UCLA study finds

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209635/Republican-female-politicians-feminine-Democrats-according-study.html#ixzz27na0a4QR

Obama is a Natural Born Liar...The Economy SUCKS !! Here is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal

Bob Schieffer: "The fact is, unemployment is up. It is higher than when [President Obama] came to office, the economy is still in the dump. Some people say that is reason enough to make a change."

Bill Clinton: "It is if you believe that we could have been fully healed in four years. I don't know a single serious economist who believes that as much damage as we had could have been healed."

CBS's "Face the Nation," September 23, 2012

Well, let's see. We can think of several serious people who said we could heal the economy in four years. There's Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Christina Romer, Jared Bernstein, Mark Zandi, and, most importantly, President Obama himself.

Enlarge Image

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition." Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a "summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr. Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007. The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit (estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458 billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10 and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy. The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end up one-termers.)

The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for 2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr. Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.

When George W. Bush was elected, he inherited a mild recession from Mr. Clinton amid the bursting of the dot-com bubble, some $7 trillion of wealth eviscerated. Nine months later came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Yet by 2003 the economy was growing by more than 3% and eight million jobs were created over the next four years.

The Administration and its acolytes claim that the nature of the 2008 financial collapse was different from past recessions, and that it can take up to a decade to restore growth after such a financial crisis. Economist Michael Bordo rebuts that claim with historical economic evidence nearby.

In reality, the biggest difference between this recovery and others hasn't been the nature of the crisis, but the nature of the policy prescriptions. Mr. Obama's chief anti-recession idea was a near trillion-dollar leap of faith in the Keynesian "multiplier" effect of government spending. It was the same approach that didn't work in the 1930s, didn't work in the 1970s, didn't work in 2008, and didn't work in such other nations as Japan. It didn't work again in 2009.

Ronald Reagan also inherited an economy loaded with problems. The stock market had been flat for 12 years, inflation rates neared 14%, and mortgage rates almost 20%. The recession he endured in 1981-82 to cure inflation sent unemployment to 10.8%, higher than Mr. Obama's peak of 10%. But the business and jobs recovery by early 1983 was rapid and lasted seven years.

Reagan used tax-rate cuts, disinflationary monetary policy and deregulation to reignite growth—more or less the opposite of the Obama policy mix. Liberals tried to explain the Reagan boom that they said would never happen by arguing that there was nothing unusual about the growth spurt after such a deep recession. So why didn't that happen this time?

When campaigning to be President in 1960, John F. Kennedy denounced slow growth under Eisenhower and Nixon and said "We can do bettah." Growth was 7.2% in 1959 and 2.5% in 1960. Since the recession ended under Mr. Obama, growth has been 2.4% in 2010, 1.8% in 2011 and, after Thursday's downward revision for the second quarter, 1.7% in 2012.

Mr. Obama is running for re-election trying to convince Americans that an economy limping at less than 2% growth, 8% unemployment, real incomes down 5.7% since the recovery began, and deficits of more than $1 trillion is the best we could achieve. We liked it better when he stood for hope and change.

A version of this article appeared September 28, 2012, on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: As Good As It Gets?.

Obama Administration has been lying to the American people about Libya for weeks

Confirmed: OBAMA AND HIS CABAL ARE LIARS...SO WHATS NEW ??

Obama Administration has been lying to the American people about Libya for weeks

By: John Hayward
9/26/2012 12:36 PM

It should be the biggest story in the world, and if the incumbent President was a Republican, you can bet your bottom YouTube video that it would be: Eli Lake of the Daily Beast reports that “Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers.”
Three separate sources confirmed to Lake that “early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al-Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.”  The Libyans have been saying that all along, with an increasingly exasperated President Mohammed Magarief insisting once again, during an NBC News interview aired Wednesday, that the Benghazi attack was “a preplanned act of terrorism directed at American citizens,” conceived months ago but delayed to coincide with the September 11 anniversary.
Magarief repeated that the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video, blamed consistently and repeatedly by the Administration for causing a protest that escalated into the murder of the American ambassador and three of his staff, “had nothing to do with this attack.”
There is no way to spin this, no way to pretty it up, no way to interpret it through any lens that would make Obama and his team look better.  They willfully, aggressively, repeatedly lied to the American people about events in Benghazi.  As Lake points out, as recently as last Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs claimed that the Administration narrative was still evolving due to new information.
And U.N. ambassador Susan Rice was marched onto every TV show in America to insist That Damned Video was the cause of all the “spontaneous” violence.  When specifically asked about the Benghazi attack on Fox News, Rice stated, “This was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack.  What happened initially was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. People with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons – which, unfortunately, are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya – and that then spun out of control.”
That was a false statement.  The Administration knew it was a false statement.  What are we going to get from Obama apologists now – a load of bunk about how Susan Rice is an out-of-control loose cannon who speaks for no one but herself?  How empty does that chair in the Oval Office have to get?
Congressional hearings into the Administration’s conduct are planned.  It is absolutely inexcusable for the media to blow this off.  The reasons for Administration mendacity are obvious – they desperately needed to crawl through a few news cycles without answering tough questions about why Ambassador Stevens and his people were left so completely unprotected, in the face of obvious danger.  This is a titanic scandal, not a couple of confused mis-statements from random spokespeople.

ISLAM HOODWINKS THE AMERICAN LEFT AND THE PACIFIST CHRISTIAN TOO

YOU ARE BEING HOODWINKED BY ISLAM:


This was posted on the page, "Christians Against Obama's Re-Election," a few days ago. It has now made it's way into some of the online articles. This is serious.

"To the infidels of the West:

The Constitution for the new Islamic Republics of EuroArabia and AmerIslamia is under construction.

We will fight the infidel to death.

- Meanwhile American laws will protect us.
- Democrats and Leftist will support us.
- N.G.O.s will legitimize us.
- C.A.I.R. will incubate us.
- The A.C.L.U. will empower us.
- Western Universities will educate us.
- Mosques will shelter us
- O.P.E.C. will finance us
- Hollywood will love us.
- Kofi Annan and most of the United Nations will cover our asses.

Our children will immigrate from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia and even from India to the US and to the other Western countries. They will go to the West for education in full scholarship. America is paying and will continue to pay for our children’s educations and their upbringing in state funded Islamic schools.

We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad.

We will take the advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab them in the back. We will say one thing on the camera and teach another thing to our children at home. We will give subliminal messages to our children to uphold Islam at any cost. Our children in America will always care more about Islamic Country’s interest than US interest.

We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from the very childhood. We will teach them not to compromise with Infidel. Once we do that from the very early age our children won’t hesitate to be martyr. We will take over the Europe first and then US will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the US.

Our children will marry Caucasian in Europe and in America. We will be mixed within the intricate fabric of the Western society but still will remember to Jihad when time comes. Who are we?

We are the “sleeper cells”.

We will raise our children to be loyal to Islam and Mohammad only. Everything else is secondary.

At the time of the real fight we will hold our own children as our armor. When American or Israeli troops shoot at us the world will be watching. Imagine,… Imagine the news in the world “Death of Muslim babies by infidels”.

We know CNN, ABC, CBS are broadcasting live. Al-Jazeera will pour gasoline on the fire. The news will spread like wildfire. “Americans killed 6 babies, 10 babies”. “Jews killed two women”,

Keep your Nukes in your curio cabinets. Keep your aircraft carrier or high-tech weaponry in the showcase. You can't use them against us because of your own higher moral standard. We will take the advantage of your higher moral standard and use it against you. We won’t hesitate to use our children as suicide bombers against you.

Visualize the news flash all over the world, …Moslem mother is sobbing, ….crying. ….Her babies are killed by Jews and Americans, the whole world is watching live. Hundreds of millions of Muslims all around the world are boiling. They will march through Europe. We will use our women to produce more babies who will in turn be used as armor/shield. Our babies are the gift from Allah for Jihad.

The West manufactures their tanks in the factory. We will manufacture our military force by natural means, by producing more babies. That is the way it is cheaper.

You infidels at this site cannot defeat us. We are 1.2 billion. We will double again. Do you have enough bullets to kill us?

On the camera:

- We will always say, “Islam is the religion of Peace.”
- We will say, “Jihad is actually inner Jihad.”
- Moderate Muslims will say there is no link between Islam and Terrorism and the
West will believe it because the West is so gullible.
- Moderate Muslims all over the world will incubate Jihadists by their talk by defending Islam.
- Using Western Legal system we will assert our Sharia Laws, slowly but surely.
- We will increase in number. We will double again.

You will be impressed when you meet a moderate Muslim personally. As your next-door neighbor, coworker, student, teacher, engineer, professionals you may even like us. You will find us well mannered, polite, humble, and that will make you say, “Wow, Muslims are good and peaceful people”, But, we will stab you in your back when you are sleeping as we did on 911.

There will be more 911’s in Europe and in America. We will say, “We do not support terrorism but America got what it deserved.”

Muslims, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and other international Islamic Organizations will unite. We will partner with Leftists, ACLU, with Koffi Annan, and the UN, and if we have to then even with France. Fasten your seatbelt. The war of civilizations has just begun.

We will recite the Quran and say Allah-Hu-Akbar before beheading infidels, as we have been doing it. We will video tape those and send it to all infidels to watch. They will surrender - ISLAM means surrender.

We will use your own values of kindness against you.

You are destined to lose."

Lower Capital Gains increases Revenue... Numbers do NOT Lie...!

LOWER CAPITAL GAINS TAXES ARE BETTER FOR A HEALTHY GROWING ECONOMY:

An important, but too often overlooked, argument against higher taxes on capital gains is the actual amount of revenue generated by arbitrarily determined tax rates.

In a paper titled "Federal Capital Gains Tax Collections, 1954-2008," the Tax Foundation reports that federal capital gains tax receipts in 1978, the last year the maximum long-term tax rate on capital gains was 39.87%, totaled $9.14 billion. The next year the capital gains tax rate was reduced to 28%. Capital gains tax receipts increased immediately. Three years later the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 reduced the maximum capital gains tax rate again, this time to 20%. By 1983, the second year of lower tax treatment of capital gains, capital gains tax receipts rose 45% to $18.7 billion. By 1986, five years after implementation of lower tax treatment of capital gains, capital gains tax receipts hit $52.9 billion, an increase of 313% over 1981, the last year of the maximum 28% long-term capital gains tax rate.

One year later, in 1987, the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains returned to 28% and capital gains tax receipts promptly fell 36% to $33.7 billion. Capital gains tax receipts didn't exceed the high-water mark of 1986 until 1996, a full decade later, when receipts totaled $66.3 billion. That 10-year period (1987-1996) saw total GDP increase 75%, to $7.8 trillion, yet capital gains tax receipts fell as the maximum long-term capital gains tax rate was increased, first to 28% (1987), then to 29.19% (1993).

Capital gains tax rates were lowered a year later in 1997. As a result, capital gains tax receipts rose 60% through 2000. Despite a sharp decline over the next two years caused largely by the 45% drop in the stock market, capital gains tax receipts rose 42% from $49.1 billion in 2002 to $73.2 billion in 2004, the first year of reduced capital gains tax rates legislated in 2003. By 2007, the fourth year of lower capital gains tax rates mandated by the 2003 Bush tax cuts, total capital gains tax receipts hit $137 billion, an all-time high, despite the lowest capital gains tax rates since 1933.

There may be more high-income earners paying capital gains taxes on carried interest today than in years past, but clearly there is no evidence that raising tax rates on capital gains creates more capital gains tax receipts.