Friday, May 11, 2012

DOJ’s ‘Proof’ of Sheriff Joe’s ‘Racial Discrimination’ is Photo of a Chihuahua? Seriously?


Stand With Arizona ^ | 05-11-2012 | John Hill



by John Hill
Stand With Arizona

If you needed a symbol of the utterly preposterous lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Maricopa County Sheriffs Department (MCSO), this may well be it.

On page 2 of the 32-page complaint, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, the Department of Justice references "insensitive" emails sent by MCSO employees. The prima fascie evidence? Read for yourself...
MCSO supervisors involved in immigration enforcement have expressed anti-Latino bias, in one instance widely distributing an email that included a photograph of a Chihuahua dog dressed in swimming gear with the caption “A Rare Photo of a Mexican Navy Seal.”
In case you missed this shocking, vicious, racist, "anti-Latino" photograph when it made the rounds on the interwebs years ago, here it is...

Huh? Seriously? THIS is supposed to prove racist "bias" against all "Latinos"?
What's next, a criminal indictment of the CEO of Taco Bell?
What kind of warped mind would see the harmless joke photo above as shockingly racist, but insist that two New Black Panther thugs with billy clubs, standing outside a Philly polling place on Election Day 2010, and shouting "What are you doing here, Cracker?" to a white poll-watcher, was not voter intimidation - and drop the case? Why Eric Holder's DOJ Civil Rights Division, of course!
PJMedia has a breakdown of the ultra-left wing activist DOJ lawyers who filed the suit. When you read their resumes, it all makes sense. These are 3 young lawyers who cut their teeth with some of the most radical non-profit groups in existence - and are steeped in the dirtiest racial politics America has ever seen.
This persecution of Sheriff Joe and his deputies is criminal. It must not stand. We stand with Joe.




JOIN US in Support of Joe: Click the Link Below to Sign the Petition and Support this American Hero...

Federal 'Stimulus' Spent $8.5 Million For 11 Wind Energy Jobs!


Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 5/10/2012 | Anne Schieber



If jobs are any measure, 14 Michigan "green" companies that were awarded $34.5 million in taxpayer funded grants and loans aren't generating much heat.

According to the Michigan Economic Development Corp., the companies have reported a total of 183 jobs. While a final report will not be issued until June, calls and emails to the companies indicate the total number will not be much higher.

The state awarded the grants and loans in 2009 and 2010 under its Clean Energy Advanced Manufacturing Program. The money came from federal stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The federal government handed out a total of $3.1 billion for state energy programs, of which Michigan got $82 million.

One company, Astraeus Wind Energy Inc. of Eaton Rapids, got a $7 million grant and a loan of $1.54 million and has created 11 jobs. If no other workers are hired, those jobs were created at a cost of $776,364 each.

Astraeus co-founder Roger Cope also defends the program, saying he believes the program gives the state its only opportunity for energy independence and that without government subsidies the alternative energy business has an extremely hard time getting off the ground...

(Excerpt) Read more at michigancapitolconfidential.com ...

Poll: 40 percent say Obama's gay marriage stance will affect vote (This ain't good news for OBama)


The Politico ^ | May 11, 2012 | Donovan Slack



Gallup is out with a new poll suggesting a whopping 40 percent of Americans say President Obama's newly public support of gay marriage will affect their votes.

Of those, 26 percent say it will make them less likely to vote for Obama, while 13 percent say it will make them more likely to vote for him.

The critical number in the poll, though is for independents - 23 percent of whom said the gay marriage support makes it less likely they will vote for Obama.

The survey is the first since the president publicly endorsed gay marriage on Wednesday with unknown political fallout.

Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones said that at first blush, it would appear the declaration is a "net minus" for Obama, although that could change....

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Institutional Arrogance (Oliver North rips Obama's hubris)


Creators Syndicate ^ | May 11, 2012 | Oliver North




WASHINGTON — Last week, this column described a deadly suicide attack by the Haqqani network on a secure compound outside Kabul, Afghanistan, and the failure of NATO officials to heed human intelligence that might have saved lives. I wrote, "The intel provided included information on how to precisely locate the terrorists. When I asked why the attack wasn't prevented, I was told: 'It was HUMINT. Nobody pays attention to HUMINT.'"

Shortly after the column appeared, a senior U.S. intelligence officer — and a friend — admonished me, "It's not just HUMINT." He described the problem as "institutional arrogance" and a failure to give credence "to information from outside the system."

"The system." Those two words describe a risk-averse, inertia-driven, leak-prone and politically correct bureaucracy now committed to "responsibly end" — not win — the war in Afghanistan. "The system" tells us that "the war on terror is over." But the institutional arrogance in "the system" goes well beyond simply ignoring information from "outside." It also creates complacency about vulnerabilities, jeopardizes our troops on the battlefield and exacerbates threats to American civilians anywhere on earth.
This week, before the so-called mainstream media plunged into a frenzy over President Barack Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage, Saudi Arabia's intelligence service retrieved a new "underwear bomb," which was intended to be worn and detonated by a suicide terrorist aboard a U.S.-bound airliner. According to published reports, the device — designed in Yemen by al-Qaida's master bomb builder, Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri — is much-improved over the version carried aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.
Though the new aircraft bomb is being analyzed by FBI explosives experts, the operation to obtain the device from Yemen was run by the Saudis. Nonetheless, the Obama administration immediately claimed credit, and in a now familiar pattern, details about the bomb and the Saudi double agent who penetrated al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, were leaked to the press. Aboard Air Force One, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the president is "pleased with the success of our intelligence and counterterrorism officials in foiling the attempt by al-Qaida to use this explosive device." He went on to insist, "At no time were Americans in danger as a result of this, and as you know, we were able to foil the attempt to use this device."
Prince Mohammed bin Nayef — head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service — has to wonder about the words "our" and "we" in the White House commentary. The prince has "skin in the game" when it comes to al-Qaida. In 2009, bin Nayef was nearly killed when an AQAP suicide terrorist detonated a "cavity bomb" during a royal audience. The bomber: al-Asiri's brother.
In an effort to reassure Americans who fly, the Obama administration maintains the capture of the new al-Qaida aircraft bomb demonstrates the effectiveness of "measures that we take to counter threats like this in the aviation industry" and is "indicative of the multifaceted approach" the O-Team is taking for "dealing with the threat." This, too, is institutional arrogance.
Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is concerned that there may well be more bombs and bombers out there. Officials from Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration — already under investigation for mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse — insist the latest scanners can detect the "new and improved" suicide bomb. But Mica has reason to be skeptical. Many overseas airports don't use sophisticated equipment to detect nonmetallic explosive devices.
Members of Congress from both parties are howling about the hemorrhage of classified details regarding how the Saudis penetrated AQAP and the bomb they recovered. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that the leaks "damage our ability to be able to pursue our intelligence efforts." James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, supposedly is conducting an "internal review" to determine whether classified information has been revealed. And just so everyone feels good about all this, an anonymous O-Team source leaked that the FBI has opened a criminal investigation on the leaks. You can't make this stuff up.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration's self-congratulatory "leaks" and hollow assertions about how safe we are from form-fitting exploding underwear mask an even more serious threat to commercial aviation. Four times over the past 10 months, this column has warned about man-portable anti-aircraft missiles missing from Moammar Gadhafi's arsenals in Libya. This week, David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post, revealed that 800 of the refurbished missiles are now in the hands of al-Qaida-affiliated groups in Africa.
The Obama administration's chest-thumping claim that it is "winning the fight against al-Qaida" is hubris. Worse, the "institutional arrogance" and rejection of "outside" information places anyone who flies in harm's way. 

Sometimes, Obama Forgets How Bad the Recession Is: Let's Remind Him on November 6th!


Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 5-11-2012 | MOTUS



...And did you hear Big Guy say the other day that “Sometimes I forget the magnitude of the recession.” Really? I’m guessing that’s probably because our jobs and unemployment numbers are constantly improving. Or something.

Butt I guess there are still a lot of other ‘folks’ – just like Julia – who never forget. No sir, not when their unemployment has run out and they still can’t find a job in George W. Bush’s ongoing recession.

Unfortunately their perception is that it’s a magnitude 9.8.

So it looks like things are still hard out there for a pimp. Did you hear that J.P. Morgan Chase lost $2 billion in its hedging operations? I hope they aren’t too big to fail, because Ann Barnhardt scared the begeezus out of everyone trying to warn us about just this sort of thing. Although she seemed to focus on thieves like Jon Corzine stealing client funds at MF Capital. Yes - that Jon Corzine - Big Guy’s good friend and Wall Street bundler: Jon Corle-Ozine, the first person Big Guy and Joey B called when they drafted their economic recovery plan.

(Excerpt) Read more at michellesmirror.com ...

President Obama's former doctor claims that the president lacks passion, feeling and humanity!


Human Events ^ | 05/11/12 | Jarrett Stepman



In a revealing new book, The Amateur, author Edward Klein interviews President Barack Obama’s physician, Dr. David Scheiner, MD, who blasts the president’s health care plan and says that President Obama has an “academic detachment” that he could never break through.

The doctor fears that if the health care plan is “the failure” he believes it will be, because of runaway costs and other problems, then any health reform will be set back for years to come.

These are only a few of many reveals in Klein’s book, which makes the case that President Obama is not the political machine that people fear, but an amateur with a messianic complex who is completely out of his depth.

In an exclusive preview of The Amateur by Human Events, Obama’s longtime physician reveals the lack of humanity in Obama’s character and carelessness with which he enacted the entirely politicized health insurance reform, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often called ObamaCare.

(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...

Mom Enough?

Attached Parenting My Arse, Slap That Kid Off The Teat And Buy Him A Pair Of Hockey Skates!


Flopping Aces ^ | 05-11-12 | Skookum




Merriam Webster Metrosexual:: a usually urban heterosexual male given to enhancing his personal appearance by fastidious grooming, beauty treatments, and fashionable clothes.

We are all familiar with the phrase, “Metrosexual” and we all know at least a few who are willing to assume this role of a man who takes on feminine characteristics to fulfill a new role in our society, just how far he is willing to go in the assumption of this semi-feminine identity while maintaining a dainty masculine image varies, but we can be sure the image is being promoted by our faithful media. No, I am not speaking of the men who easily fulfill the Gary Cooper role model of FA men; I am talking about the effeminate “Straight” men who are pleased to have you question their sexual identity and the women who create these confused weaklings. The women, who perpetuate the myth that men are evil and dirty, then smother their boys with motherly attention, not for the sake of the boys, but to cater to their own feminine insecurities and neurotic weaknesses.

Some are quick to call our president a Metrosexual, but, I'd rather focus on the economy and jobs, than worry over his dubious manhood, it is the younger male demographic that I am speaking of and their mothers.

We've all heard and seen these boys in the public whining like little girls to their parents, instead of watching little girls.

This late breast feeding is labeled attached parenting. The woman in the photo carries it to more of an extreme by sleeping with her son. She says that hopefully this will be his last year. Now we are wondering who is in charge of this bizarre situation.

There is no scientific proof, but if we compile the anecdotal experiences of objective people who have begun to question this new gender bending concept in our society, the results will be persuasive. It is primarily a Liberal trait, but there are exceptions, Like the Whore Hopping serial rapist, President Clinton and the waitress sandwich boys Chris Dodd and Teddy Kennedy.

It's true, enjoying the assets of a tasty waitress in a menage a trois can bring up images of indirect latent homosexuality at the very least. However, Dodd and Kennedy were more old school in their perversions; they would never pretend to have a feminine side and would never pretend to have homosexual desires, even while they are exhibiting those same tendencies during their brotherly love sessions. The Metrosexual is more than willing to expose his feminine nature to the world and maybe even partake of the forbidden fruit.

What is wrong with this, you might ask, nothing if you are gay, but if you were designed to be a straight man by the genetics in your DNA and you have a “gay side” because of perverted parenting, it is a tragedy. A tragedy not only to the individual, but to our culture as well.



(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

No Joke: House Dems Take Training Course On Playing The Race Card!


The Washington Examiner ^ | may 11, 2012 | Joel Gehrke




House Democrats received training this week on how to address the issue of race to defend government programs, according to training materials obtained by The Washington Examiner.

The prepared content of a Tuesday presentation to the House Democratic Caucus and staff indicates that Democrats will seek to portray apparently neutral free-market rhetoric as being charged with racial bias, conscious or unconscious.

In her distributed remarks, Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion criticized "conservative messages [that are] racially 'coded' and had images of people of color that we commonly see used" and proposed tactics for countering the Republicans' (presumably) racially-coded rhetoric.

According to Wiley's group's website, "right-wing rhetoric has dominated debates of racial justice – undermining efforts to create a more equal society, and tearing apart the social safety net in the process" for over 25 years. Wiley had been invited to run the Democrats "through their strategy and how they message and talk about stuff" pertaining to race and fiscal policy, a staffer for Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif

(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...

White House Lied, Jobs Died: The story behind the drilling moratorium


National Review ^ | 5/11/12 | Michelle Malkin



While the White House and its media water-carriers try to distract the American public with gay-marriage talk and half-century-old tales of Mitt Romney’s prep-school pranks, the inconvenient truth remains: President Obama is responsible for perpetrating jaw-dropping, job-killing scientific fraud. 

And his minions are still trying to cover it up.

New internal e-mails disclosed by the House Natural Resources Committee this week show that a supposedly exculpatory report on the administration’s doctored drilling moratorium analysis — issued by the Department of Interior’s inspector general’s office — was itself incomplete, misleading, and unsubstantiated. Even more damning, the documents reveal that the White House actively blocked investigators and refuses to comply with subpoenas.

Now, as one senior IG agent warned his bosses, “the chickens may be coming home to roost.”
A quick refresher: After the BP oil spill in 2010, the White House imposed a radical six-month moratorium on America’s entire deepwater-drilling industry. The overbroad ban — inserted into a technical safety document in the middle of the night by Obama’s green extremists — cost an estimated 19,000 jobs and $1.1 billion in lost wages.
The anti-drilling administration based its draconian order on recommendations from an expert oil-spill panel. But that panel’s own members (along with the federal judiciary) called out then–eco czar Carol Browner for misleading the public about the scientific evidence and “contributing to the perception that the government’s findings were more exact than they actually were.” Browner and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar oversaw the rewriting of the drilling-ban report to completely misrepresent the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict. Federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana blasted the Obama Interior Department for defying his May 2010 order to lift its fraudulent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. He called out the administration’s culture of contempt and “determined disregard” for the law.
Ever since, GOP watchdogs have attempted to hold administration officials accountable for the drilling-ban fraud. In November 2010, the DOI inspector general issued a report cited by Salazar to argue that any editing of the drilling-ban report was unintentional and mistaken. But e-mails from IG senior agent Richard Larrabee released by the House Natural Resources Committee flatly contradict Salazar.
“I truly believe the editing WAS intentional — by an overzealous staffer at the White House. And, if asked, I, as the case agent, would be happy to state that opinion to anyone interested,” Larrabee wrote.
He noted that the IG report failed to mention that investigators were unable to independently validate e-mails supplied by Salazar’s office — and that the report was “simply silent” about how the White House blocked investigators’ attempts to interview one of Browner’s chief henchmen, Joe Aldy. “Well, it will be interesting to see if anyone picks up on these things, or cares about them,” Larrabee wrote.
Well, House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings (R., Wash.) cares. In a letter to the DOI inspector general’s office, Hastings blasted the stonewallers who have hid in the dark for more than a year. “The IG report is being used by the Obama Administration and others as a defense that this matter has already been investigated and resolved. These emails contradict that claim and raise new questions on whether the IG’s investigation was as thorough and complete as it should have been,” Hastings wrote.
The actual drafts of the drilling-moratorium report and the communications between senior Interior Department officials and White House political appointees remain out of public view. “To date, the Interior Department has never had to disclose documents to the IG or to Congress,” Hastings noted. “Despite the President’s pledge of transparency, this Administration has not answered questions by anyone on how this decision was made that forced thousands of Americans out of work and cost millions of dollars in lost economic activity.”
This election isn’t just about jobs, jobs, jobs. It’s about the lies, lies, lies that have led to massive job destruction — and the ruthless corruptocrats using our tax dollars to whitewash their radical green agenda.

Obama and the Hypocrisy of Liberals on Gay Marriage



 by The Anti-Democrat

Since it took the "coolest man in America" years of soul-searching and some "unwelcome prompting" from Dimwit Biden to finally come out of the closet on gay marriage, one must wonder:

(1) how can liberal media chatterheards and their leftist Hollywood phonies be so quick to condemn anyone who opposes gay marriage when their standard bearer (who is eminently smarter than the rest of us) took years to see the light;

(2) why is Biden being forced to apologize for (allegedly) forcing Obama to simply "do the courageous" thing - shouldn't he receive praise for prompting the otherwise cowardly Prez; and

(3) are all DemoRats who still oppose gay marriage now haters who must be excoriated like GOPers are? Of course, we who can see through the phoniness of this week's "historic" announcement know the answers to these questions.

Russia Wants Obama Re-Elected


FrontPage Magazine ^ | May 11, 2012 | David Meir-Levi



- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -


Posted By David Meir-Levi On May 11, 2012 @ 12:46 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | No Comments

Well, now we know what the “hot mic” incident was all about. The Wall Street Journal’s “Moscow Raises Alarm over Missile-Defense Plan for Europe” (Friday, May 4, 2012), makes the connection.
At an international conference on Thursday, May 3, organized at Russia’s initiative, the Russian delegates showed computer-generated images of a hypothetical Russian pre-emptive missile attack on segments of a missile defense shield and early warning system that the US and NATO want to put in place in Turkey, Rumania and Poland. Quite a scary threat from the former USSR’s 900-pound gorilla and one-time global nuclear super-power.
NATO says that the missile defense system is meant to counter Iran’s threats of a WMD Shi’ite Armageddon. However, the Russians are not comforted, because they fear that the NATO anti-missile missiles could also be used to shoot down Russian nuclear-armed missiles aimed at the West; and such a potential threat from the west could “undermine their country’s nuclear deterrent[.]”
The Russians organized the Thursday conference in order to place their threat on the table, loud and clear, and make public their demand that they get a written agreement that the West will never use its missiles against Russia. Currently, the USA and NATO have refused to put such a promise in writing, although Russia-NATO agreements on missile defense cooperation date back to 2010. The timing of this meeting is important. It comes shortly before a NATO conference due to take place in Chicago later this month at which NATO will publicize its success in getting its missile-defense system up and running. Russia’s pre-emptive threat of a missile war against the West if the West does not agree to its demands puts a big kink in the Chicago conference.
But according to the Wall Street Journal article, Russia’s alarming saber-rattling is really a façade to hide a “tacit agreement to put off serious talks until next year,” by which time Obama, if re-elected, could “clear the way for a deal” and work on Russia’s behalf against NATO to find ways to accommodate the Russian demands. The Russian presenter on Thursday was direct and unambiguous that Russia prefers to work with Obama as a second-term president, and to cooperate with his vision of a “reset” in the USA- Russia relationship, rather than to joust with Romney whose election they feel will make things “surely … more difficult.”
So what the Russians have actually said is: if you want to keep the Russian bear from getting aggressive, elect Obama, not Romney. This is an unusually overt attempt by a foreign power to influence American elections, but it is not surprising since Romney has been harshly critical of Obama’s “reset” vision.
The Wall Street Journal made the obvious connection between this impasse and the “hot mic” incident in March where Obama told Russian Prime Minister Medvedev to tell Russian soon-to-be President Vladimir Putin to temporarily back off regarding this issue since Obama would have “more flexibility” to deal with it after the November 6 elections.
As reporters gathered for a news conference in Seoul, South Korea, Obama leaned over to his Russian counterpart. Without realizing a microphone was open, he said: “This is my last election and after my last election I have more flexibility,” …referring to his ability to reach a deal with Russia on missile defense. Medvedev replied: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” a reference to the incoming Russian president, Vladimir Putin.
Obama attempted to weasel out of the implications of his gaffe by explaining to reporters in Korea that arms control negotiations are extremely complex and require bipartisan cooperation in the U.S.; so they cannot be a public issue just months before presidential and congressional elections. But “I don’t think it’s any surprise that you can’t start that a few months before a presidential and congressional elections in the United States,” simply does not address the core problem. His intention to hide his willingness to be flexible toward Russia about Russian demands couched in cold-war terminology relating to the possibility of nuclear war bespeak his awareness that these intentions will not be acceptable to the American voting public; and this is all the more reason to make them public.
Romney said it was alarming that Obama was “looking for greater flexibility where he doesn’t have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia … [Russia is] without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world’s worst actor. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed.”
The New York Times version of this issue made no mention of the “hot mic” incident but did point out that Russian leaders have refused Obama’s request that the Kremlin pressure Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to comply with the UN’s cease-fire plans. The Times also noted that Obama himself stalled the progress of the NATO plans for the early warning and missile defense system because he sought a “reset” in the USA’s relationship with Russia, and Russian concerns about the NATO early warning system were a stumbling block to Obama’s plans. Obama’s willingness to be flexible toward the Russian demands may stem in part from the desire to co-opt the Kremlin into pressuring Assad; but it also seems clear that Obama, not knowing that he was speaking to Medvedev in front of a hot microphone, did not want to let the American electorate know of his intentions for flexibility toward Russia regarding the NATO missile defense system impasse. In other words, his flexibility toward Russia, if it were made public, might hinder his re-election.
And the Russians are not ungrateful. Obama’s pay-back for his willingness to be flexible next year is Russia’s endorsement of his re-election by telling the world, at this conference, that if the USA elects Romney, there might be war with Russia.
An American special envoy to the Russian conference indicated that the American delegation was not sympathetic to the Russian demands and unwilling to offer the limitations that Russia wants. She stated: “There’s nothing I can imagine that will stop us making these deployments on time.”
Well, actually there is: Obama’s re-election.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/11/russia-wants-obama-re-elected/
Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

Justice Dept. Wants to Track All Cellphones Without a Warrant


New American ^ | 5-11-12 | Bob Adelmann



In its relentless never-ending quest for more power to track and follow American citizens through their cellphones, the Department of Justice (DoJ) requested last week that Congress give them easier access to location data stored by cellphone service providers.

Jason Weinstein, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s criminal division, argued that requiring a search warrant to gain such access would “cripple” his department’s efforts to investigate crime and criminals. Said Weinstein.

There is really no fairness and no justice when the law applies differently to different people depending on which courthouse you’re sitting in.

For that reason alone, we think Congress should clarify the legal standard.
In other words, because the laws protecting privacy vary somewhat depending upon where an individual citizen lives, Congress should come along and override them all and provide a federal, looser standard, all in the name of security.
The increasing sophistication of cellphone and communications technology in general allows service providers to track virtually every movement of an individual, day or night, at home or work, in a bar or on a golf course. Malte Spitz, a German politician and privacy advocate, obtained his own tracking records from Deutsche Telekom (DT), his service provider, and then published what he found.
From August 2009 to February 2010 DT collected 35,831 pieces of location information which was used to build an interactive map of his movements, revealing a virtual profile of his life:
This profile reveals when Spitz walked down the street, when he took a train, when he was in an airplane. It shows where he was in the cities he visited. It shows when he worked and when he slept, when he could be reached by phone and when [he] was unavailable. It shows when he preferred to talk on his phone and when he preferred to send a text message. It shows which beer gardens he liked to visit in his free time. All in all, it reveals an entire life.
And this is the information the Department of Justice wants access to, just without the hassle of obtaining a search warrant — as required under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution — before doing so.
The DoJ claims that the Stored Information Act (SCA) should be the model for Congress to follow which allows a lower standard to be applied rather than that of “probable cause” in the Fourth Amendment. Under the SCA only a subpoena issued by an administrative agency along with prior notice of such snooping is necessary which then avoids “crippling” the Department of Justice’s pursuit of justice. The reasoning behind the law is the “third party doctrine”: when a person “knowingly reveals information to a third party [he] relinquishes Fourth Amendment protection in that information.”
Weinstein’s comments have created a significant and growing protest against such demands, especially from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
For years, we've been arguing that cell phone location data should only be accessible to law enforcement with a search warrant. After all, as web enabled smart phones become more prevalent, this location data reveals an incredibly revealing portrait of your every move. As we've waged this legal battle, the government has naturally disagreed with us, claiming that the Stored Communications Act authorizes the disclosure of cell phone location data with a lesser showing than the probable cause requirement demanded by a search warrant…
The problem with the DOJ's position is that it fails to take into account privacy. The only way to ensure "fairness" and "justice," is to demand that our Fourth Amendment rights not be violated by law enforcement…without your knowledge.
In January, the Supreme Court rule in United States v Jones that it was illegal for FBI agents to plant a GPS device on Antoine Jones’ car without first obtaining a search warrant, and then following him around as part of their investigation of his activities. In that case, Justice Sonia Sotomayer came down on the right side:
I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, [not] entitled to Fourth Amendment protection.
Congress isn’t likely to grant the DoJ such access, at least before the election. On the contrary, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) have proposed a bill that would require the DoJ or any other agency to obtain a search warrant first before proceeding with their tracking of individuals.
It failed to gain traction but it shows the mood of Congress in granting the DoJ any more power in their never-ending quest to track and follow the nation’s sovereign citizens through their cellphones.

ObamaCare’s Muslim Exemption


PJ Media ^ | May 11, 2012 | Herbert London



Laws almost always create unanticipated consequences. This is certainly likely to be the case when politicians bend over backwards to accommodate the currents of political correctness.

ObamaCare uses the Social Security language of the Internal Revenue Code to determine who is eligible for “religious conscience” objection to the insurance mandate. Specifically, the law provides exemptions for adherents of “recognized religious sects” that are “conscientiously opposed” to accepting benefits from any insurance, public or private.

As a consequence of this provision, Muslims may claim a religious exemption that is denied Christians and Jews. Since Islam believes insurance is haraam (forbidden) and likens insurance to gambling, the religion is excluded from requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Others who fall into this category are the Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists. Although the U.S. Constitution grants all Americans equal protection of the law, some Americans are more equal than others.

ObamaCare is specifically written not to apply equally to everyone. It is in most respects a law intended to discriminate — what some might call an extended Jim Crow law. If this seems exaggerated, consider: Jim Crow laws were based on racial discrimination, while ObamaCare is predicated on religious discrimination. Government acted based on a preconceived and arbitrary understanding of what is right.
For example, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus indicated that the purpose of ObamaCare is as much about redistributing income as it is about reforming health care. This is an application of government’s iron fist, putting income distribution and religious discrimination in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
By any reasonable standard, ObamaCare (and the Congress that enacted it) is completely unfettered from the Constitution. If logic — Washington logic — accommodates Sharia’s prohibition against gambling and hence insurance, Christians and Jews should claim that the state’s ability to expropriate property under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby legitimating an exemption for these groups as well.
Muslims are given exemptions from law everyone else must follow. What has actually been enacted is a wedge between Muslims and Christians and Jews. Americans are pitted against Americans, Christian against Muslim, the Torah against the Koran.
In a curious way the privilege granted Muslims and denied to most others translates into what Muslims call “dhimmitude,” or the taxing of non-Muslims in exchange for the acceptance of their presence. Intentionally or not, ObamaCare allows for the establishment of this practice and Sharia dictates in the United States. Conversely, if a Christian refuses to pay for required health care insurance, liens can be placed against assets and hard prison time could accompany noncompliance. Non-Muslims are, in effect, paying a tax to subsidize Muslims.
This is precisely the issue ObamaCare has insinuated into the national health care debate. Whether one accepts the proposition, cross-subsidization is built into the law: the young are coerced into underwriting the elderly and non-Muslims are being coerced into subsidizing Muslims. Taking from Peter to give to Paul usually pleases Paul. But the question of fairness remains, as does the “equal protection” clause in the Constitution. Ultimately the public will ask why some should be favored to the exclusion of others.
It is certainly odd that the U.S. circa 2012 has become Animal Farm, with privilege granted to some and not others. Equal protection is now simply one of those clichés honored more in the breach than in practice. There may be many reasons for opposing ObamaCare, but none is more important than the illogic of differential treatment.
In the 1960s, civil rights legislation attempted to redress the wrongs of the past by arguing race should neither be a preference nor a handicap. As I see it, this is not only a fair standard, but a distinctly American standard. By offering privilege to some and denying it to others, contemporary legislators have embraced the Orwellian perversion that is fundamentally incompatible with our traditions, notwithstanding moments when aberrational behavior was in the ascendancy.
By arguing the Muslim view that insurance is haraam, legislators open themselves to the thin edge of the wedge. What is likely to be next? Are there other concerns Muslims consider inappropriate because of the demands of Sharia? At what point does this form of “soft extortion” end? The answers are not apparent; neither is there justification for an Animal Farm scenario that defies equal treatment before the law.

EEOC Issues Job Guidelines That Limit Background Checks


Afro ^ | 5/9/12 | George E. Curry



WASHINGTON (NNPA) — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued updated recommendations that urge employers not to misuse criminal background checks in filling job openings.

By a vote of 4-1 last week, the commissioners noted that African-Americans and Latinos may find it more difficult to find employment because of the widespread use of background checks. “Arrest and incarceration rates are particularly high for African-American and Hispanic men,” the EEOC report stated. “African Americans and Hispanics are arrested at a rate that is 2 to 3 times their proportion of the general population. Assuming that current incarnation rates remain unchanged, about 1 in 17 White men are expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime; by contrast, this rate climbs to 1 in 6 for Hispanic men; and 1 in 3 for African-American men.”

Those numbers have increased as the proportion of Americans who have had contact with the criminal justice system has risen over the past two decades. According to the EEOC report, only 1.8 percent of the adult U.S. population in 1991 had served time in prison. By 2001, that figure had risen to 2.7 percent and to 3.2 percent (1 in every 31) by the end of 2007. If that trend continues, 6.6 percent of all persons in the United States born in 2001 will serve time in a state or federal prison during their lifetimes.
Using background checks to screen job applicants – especially for jobs that are not in such sensitive areas such as banking or law enforcement – could have an intended effect of discriminating against people of color. “An employer’s use of an individual’s criminal history in making employment decisions may, in some instances, violate the prohibition against employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, as amended,” the EEOC report states.
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. “A covered employer is liable for violating Title VII when the plaintiff demonstrates that the employer’s neutral policy or practice has the effect of disproportionately screening out a Title VII-protected group and the employer fails to demonstrate that the policy or practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity,” the report observed.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which has ongoing projects aimed at eliminating the overuse of criminal background and credit checks in employment, praised the EEOC’s new guidances.
“The use of arrest records, including arrests that occurred decades earlier or had not resulted in convictions, to screen people applying for jobs contributes significantly to the unemployment of African American, Latinos and Native Americans,” said Executive Director Barbara R. Arwine.
NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said, “The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s decision will help balance the playing field for job applicants with a criminal history. Our criminal justice system is deeply biased against people of color, and that disparity can carry over to the job search. These guidelines will discourage employers from discriminating against applicants who have paid their debt to society.”
Arwine said the EEOC needs to take additional action to level the jobs playing field. She said, “We will also continue to urge the EEOC to issue long awaited guidance on the misuse of credit history to deny employment, a practice which falls most heavily on minorities and the unemployed.”
The EEOC noted that 92 percent of companies run criminal background checks on some or all job applicants. Such information is easily attainable, either from third-party suppliers or a check of the Internet. “Information about federal crimes such as interstate drug trafficking, financial fraud, bank robbery, and crimes against the government may be found online in federal court records by searching the federal courts’ Public Access to Court Electronic Records or Case Management/Electronic Case Files,” the report said.
The FBI’s extensive record system can be accessed for employment purposes by those seeking jobs in banking, nursing homes, securities, nuclear energy, security guards, transportation, federal agencies and other sensitive areas.
A major problem with these records, according to EEOC, is that half of the entries do not contain final disposition of cases. Therefore, a person could have been charged with a crime and acquitted, yet that wouldn’t be reflected in the data bases.
A similar problem exists with state records.
Even if a person has committed a crime in the past, the EEOC noted, employers should look at the nature of the crime, the time elapsed and the nature of the job held or being sought. “We salute the EEOC’s bipartisan effort to update its guidelines to ensure that employers are not unfairly excluding otherwise qualified applicants from the job market,” said Debo Adegbile, Acting president and director-counsel NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “No one should be penalized for the rest of their life for mistakes that they made in the past. Our whole nation benefits when we open up opportunities for people who are willing and able to become contributing members of our society.”

How the Rich Make Us All Better Off


Fiscal Times ^ | 05/11/2012 | Bruce Bartlett



Sunday’s New York Times Magazine contained a controversial article about a former partner of Mitt Romney’s at Bain Capital named Edward Conrad. Sounding a bit like the libertarian novelist Ayn Rand, Conrad argues, forcefully, that we are all better off because of rich people.

Rich people, Conrad says, do most of the saving and investing. They provide the capital that creates new businesses and industries, finances inventions and discoveries, and are willing to take many risks and lose a lot of money for every one that pays off spectacularly. If the rich didn’t do these things, we would all be worse off.

Conrad concentrates on rich people as investors. But the wealthy also provide enormous benefits as consumers. Think of all the inventions of recent years that were enormously expensive when the first ones came on the market: personal computers, high definition televisions, cellular telephones, tablets, and so many others.
I still remember the first time I ever saw a mobile phone back in the 1980s. My friend Wayne Valis, a lobbyist, had one. It was the size of a car battery and had to be carried with a strap over his shoulder because it was so bulky and heavy. I don’t think it was even a cellular phone, but a radio telephone. It undoubtedly cost several thousand dollars at the time, probably equivalent to about $10,000 today. Nevertheless, it was extraordinarily valuable to Wayne in his work to have instant contact with his office and clients back in the days of beepers and phone booths.
Today, of course, almost everyone has a cell phone. Basic ones with prepaid service cost less than $20. They are a Godsend to people in developing countries that would never have phone service if the only option was a land line. Fancy cell phones are like mini-computers with a staggering array of capabilities.
The point is that unless well-to-do people like my friend Wayne weren’t willing to pay exorbitant prices for early, primitive mobile phones, we wouldn’t have cheap throw-away phones today. People like him effectively underwrote the enormous cost of creating the first cell phone – not just the research and development and industrial capability of manufacturing one, but the enormous infrastructure of cell phone towers so that it can be used.
If you think about it, the same thing is true of every important technological development you can think of. The first person to have electricity in his home was undoubtedly a very rich person. Same goes for radio, television, microwave ovens, air conditioning and all kinds of other things that even poor people take for granted.
Economists have long recognized that “conspicuous consumption” by the wealthy served the beneficial social and economic purpose of creating initial markets for products that later became necessities of life used by everyone. As the economist Ludwig von Mises put it in his 1927 book, Liberalism:
The luxury of today is the necessity of tomorrow. Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone. Luxury consumption provides industry with the stimulus to discover and introduce new things. It is one of the dynamic factors in our economy. To it we owe the progressive innovations by which the standard of living of all strata of the population has been gradually raised.
This fact is illustrated in a 2006 Pew study, which looked at a range of products and the extent to which they had gone from being luxuries to necessities. For example, air conditioning was considered to be a luxury by 72 percent of people in 1973, with only 26 percent saying it was a necessity. By 2006, those numbers were reversed, with 70 percent of people saying that air conditioning was a necessity and only 29 percent viewing it as a luxury. Between 1996 and 2006, microwave ovens went from being considered a luxury by 68 percent of people to being considered a necessity by 68 percent of people.
In his famous 1889 essay, “Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie, who sold his steel company in 1901 for the equivalent of $325 billion in today’s dollars, agreed that the wealthy aided society both as investors and consumers. But at the same time, he said that the ownership of great wealth bestowed a heavy obligation on those with it.
Carnegie had no respect at all for those who merely inherited their wealth and simply sat on it; and he thought it was irresponsible for those who made great fortunes to leave them to those who didn’t earn it. He believed strongly in an archaic concept known as noblesse oblige, which means that great privilege brings with it great responsibility.
Carnegie believed that not only should wealthy men leave little to their heirs, he also disdained those who left their fortunes to foundations, universities and such, viewing them as monuments to vanity. While the latter was better than the former, Carnegie felt that rich men ought to use the same skills that made them wealthy to properly dispose of their fortunes while they lived. The man who dies rich, he said, dies disgraced.
I think Carnegie would disagree strongly with Conrad, who appears to think that the responsibility of the rich man begins and ends with making a fortune. Sadly, far more rich people today appear to agree with Conrad than Carnegie.

Money Primary (In desperate bid to raise more campaign cash, Obama moves further left)


National Review ^ | 05/11/2012 | Jonah Goldberg



For most of 2012, President Obama has been running in the Democratic primary. I know that seems odd, given that he’s essentially running unopposed — though don’t tell that to West Virginia Democrats, who cast nearly half of their votes for Keith Judd, an inmate currently serving time in a Texarkana, Texas, prison. Judd received 41 percent of the vote; in 1968, Eugene McCarthy received 42 percent of the vote in New Hampshire and forced incumbent Lyndon Johnson from the race.

But that’s not what I’m talking about. It’s important to remember that primaries serve other functions than just picking the nominee. Primaries force party bosses, activists, and strategists to test their messaging, update their databases, and, most especially, get the party’s fundraising apparatus going.
During the real Republican primary, all of that stuff was going on behind the curtain while everyone was busy watching the actual contest. The Republicans didn’t need to fake anything in order to switch on the party machinery. They had a primary season that made a wacky Mexican soap opera seem like Masterpiece Theatre by comparison. Republicans, for good and ill, were paying a lot of attention. And so was the press corps. There were enough GOP debates alone to program a new cable network.

Meanwhile, Obama was politically sidelined. Sure, he got attention; presidents always do. But the rank and file wasn’t engaging in the contest enough.
Nearly everything we’ve seen from Obama in the last five months has been an attempt to re-create the institutional benefits of a primary season without having an actual opponent.
Peddling “stop the war on women” propaganda, visiting college campuses often enough to get on the meal plan, making the “Buffett Rule” into the centerpiece of his domestic policy, trying to bribe students with breaks on their student loans, inserting himself into the Trayvon Martin case: These were all efforts to get the base of the Democratic party reengaged with the presidential race.
And to raise cash, of course. There’s a “money primary” for incumbents, too, as evidenced by Obama’s unprecedented fundraising efforts. Indeed, according to data compiled by Brendan J. Doherty for his new book, The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign, Obama has had more reelection fundraising events than all the previous incumbent presidents since Richard Nixon — combined.
And that’s where the irony of Obama’s entirely disingenuous about-face on gay marriage really kicks in. Oh, I don’t think Obama is disingenuous about his support for gay marriage; if anything, he supports it far more than he admitted to ABC News. I think he’s disingenuous about its being an about-face.
Obama had to admit he was in favor of gay marriage because he was, in effect, forced to by an unexpected money-primary opponent: Joe Biden. Biden’s off-message support for gay marriage on Meet the Press made the figurative Democratic primary seem almost literal for a second. Biden got to Obama’s left, and it was killing the president with the segment of his base that matters most to him right now: super-rich liberal donors. These donors care about gay marriage a lot, and not just because roughly one out of six of Obama’s biggest bundlers are openly gay, according to the Washington Post.
Obama’s fundraiser at George Clooney’s house promised to be a tense and less than lucrative affair if he continued to let his vice president make him look like a politically vacillating wimp or a bigot in the eyes of his supporters. And so he ’fessed up to supporting gay marriage. His claim that he considers it a states’-rights issue is surely hogwash. (If he believed that, his administration would still be defending the Defense of Marriage Act.) But he said the words, which is all he needs to get the money spigots turned back on.
The question now is whether he moved too far left in the virtual Democratic primary to get back to the center in the real general election. In 2008, Obama never really pivoted to the center, because he didn’t need to. As a post-partisan higher being, he could claim to be above the old-fashioned politics of triangulation. Now he’s an incumbent president with a very shaky record, running as the authentic left-winger his critics always believed him to be. Indeed, he may have no interest in moving to the center at all.
– Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of The Tyranny of Clichés.

The lies that Barack Hussein Obama has told about his past


The rightscoop/GBTV ^ | May 10, 2012 | The Right Scoop



This clip from GBTV tonight is actually something you’ll all want to watch. Beck goes back though Obama’s statements about his past and points out the lies he’s told, including some in his big 2004 DNC speech. According to my tipster, Beck did this in light of the WAPO hit piece on Romney today.

It’s quite revealing:
video clip

Backlash Poll : Obama Trails Romney 7 %


Rasmussen Reports ^ | MAY 11, 2012 | Rasmussen Reports



The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.

Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
This is the first time Romney has reached the 50% level of support and is his largest lead ever over the president. It comes a week after a disappointing jobs report that raised new questions about the state of the economy. See tracking history.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) give the president good or excellent marks for his handling of the economy. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he’s doing a poor job. Consumer confidence has slipped four points since last week’s government report on job creation and unemployment. The number who believe their personal finances are getting better slipped from 30% a week ago to 28% today. The number who fear their finances are getting worse increased from 43% before the jobs report to 47% today.

(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...

Why are McCain and Kyl merely watching Obama and Holder’s war on America’s Sheriff?


coachisright.com ^ | May 11, 2012 | George Splevin, staff writer



Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder are going all in with their fight to silence America’s Sheriff, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County Arizona. Reports from Arizona are pulling back the curtain on the staggering amount of taxpayer money along with unlimited leftist private funds being thrown against Arpaio.

“Obama has joined forces with George Soros and LaRaza-not to mention the ENTIRE Leftwing liberal political establishment-in a multi-million dollar smear campaign to DESTROY AND DISCREDIT Sheriff Joe,” says blogger Conservative Patriot.

Unbelievable here is the abject silence of Arizona’s two “conservative” Republican Senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl!

They say nothing about Obama’s documents problems, as they go about trying to look useful. Why do they say nothing about use of taxpayer dollars for partisan election tactics to protect the amnesty crowd and illegal minions who many observers fear will swell Obama’s vote totals in November?
Kyl is ending his run having done extremely well off of Arizona taxpayers and only McCain’s own huge war chest put him back in for another six years. Term limits are vitally needed because Americans deserve better.
Yet these two fat cats have no compassion for the 79 year old lawman with over 50 years of experience internationally and nationally as an honest law enforcement officer and sheriff. Arpaio proudly declares, “I work for the people.”
The opprobrium of America’s citizens need to be brought to bear on Arizona’s two do nothings. They can be called toll free at 1-877-762-8762. This federal vendetta against the people’s sheriff needs to stop now!
“…of Arpaio, “He’s obviously getting to Obama! The American people want Obama to answer why his records are forged and missing.
“The only way they know how to stop people from finding out is to attack Arpaio.”…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Socialism: YUMMY!

Posted Image

The Solution

Posted Image

War On Terror is OVER?

Posted Image

Boxers, Briefs or Bombers?

Posted Image

What Kind Of Dumb Ass...

Posted Image

Flip-Flop vs. Evolving

Posted Image

Thanking The Clown

Posted Image

Your Stance

Posted Image

You Swamp Bastard

Posted Image

Smart Eloquence

Posted Image

Who Wins?

Posted Image

Two Queers

Posted Image

Don't leave home without...

Posted Image

words have consequences

Posted Image

Down The Tubes

Posted Image

Better In Person

Posted Image

Who's In Charge?

Posted Image

Toilet Reading

Posted Image

Media Puppets

Posted Image

"Let Me Remind You"

Posted Image

Sen. Cornyn: Holder’s ‘arrogance knows no bounds’


The Daily Caller ^ | May 9, 2012 | Matthew Boyle



Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that he thinks Attorney General Eric Holder needs to comply with the congressional subpoena demanding documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious.

Cornyn also said he thinks Holder’s demonstrable failure to comply with House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa’s subpoena for Fast and Furious documents is an indicator of his overall disregard for congressional oversight. “It’s abundantly clear that when it comes to cooperating with Congress, the Attorney General’s arrogance knows no bounds,” Cornyn told TheDC.

President Barack Obama now has a responsibility to step forward and make Holder comply with the subpoena, Cornyn added. He said Obama and Holder owe it the family of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, who was murdered more than a year ago with Fast and Furious weapons the Obama administration allowed to get into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
“President Obama should show leadership and direct the Attorney General to provide the Terry family with answers,” Cornyn said.
Issa served Holder with a subpoena on Oct. 12, 2011. The Attorney General has so far failed to comply with all 22 categories of the subpoena that requires him to provide Congress with documents relating to Fast and Furious. With 13 of the categories, Holder (has provided no documents) When it comes to the other nine subpoena categories, Holder (is still far from compliant,) , as TheDC reported late last week.
Contempt of Congress proceedings for Holder appear to be on the immediate horizon if he continues failing to comply with the subpoena.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Render Unto Caesar: Troops Fight On Obama's Behalf?


IBD ^ | May 10, 2012 | Editor



Leadership: Lost in his gay marriage flip-flop was the president's claim that our armed forces fight for him, not their country. It was like following his spiking of the football over the Osama bin Laden kill with an end-zone dance.


Few caught the revealing Freudian slip during President Obama's interview with Robin Roberts of ABC News in which he said he no longer considered what he described to evangelist Rick Warren in the election year of 2008 as the "sacred union" of marriage to be just between one man and one woman.

But there it was, from the lips of the man who considers the Navy SEALs as stage props in his re-election bid and whose use of the first person pronoun "I" has set some sort of Guinness Book world record.

"I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors," he said, "who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage."


This arrogant statement is reminiscent of the days of Imperial Rome, when the legions pledged their personal loyalty to the emperor. More modern tyrants have demanded and received such pledges of loyalty. But Obama surely must know that while he is their civilian commander in chief, he is not an emperor commanding his Roman legions.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

No Confidence will Kill Obama Reelection Chances


Townhall.com ^ | May 11, 2012 | John Hawkins



While economists agonize about unemployment, jobs created, money supply, stimulus, and the budget deficit, they often ignore one number that will in all likelihood matter most to voters in November.

Consumer confidence numbers have been slipping since reaching an anemic high back in February of 2012 according to several measurements of consumer confidence, including the Bloomberg Comfort Index. .

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...

American optimism on economy and on Obama’s ability to handle it well is fading, poll shows


WASHINGTON POST ^ | 5/11/2012 | ap



Americans are growing more pessimistic about the economy and handling it remains President Barack Obama’s weak spot and biggest challenge in his bid for a second term, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

And the gloomier outlook extends across party lines, including a steep decline in the share of Democrats who call the economy “good,” down from 48 percent in February to just 31 percent now.
Almost two-thirds of Americans — 65 percent — disapprove of Obama’s handling of gas prices, up from 58 percent in February. Nearly half, 44 percent, “strongly disapprove.” And just 30 percent said they approve, down from 39 percent in February.
These findings come despite a steady decline in gas prices in recent weeks after a surge earlier in the year. The national average for a gallon of gasoline stood at $3.75, down from a 2012 peak of $3.94 on April 1.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

Time for Republicans To Take the Offensive


Townhall.com ^ | May 11, 2012 | David Limbaugh



Two very important things happened in politics this week. First, the elections underscored just how fed up mainstream America is with extreme liberalism. Second, President Obama, with his formal endorsement of same-sex marriage, is openly casting his lot with his extremist base.

The question is: How will putative GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney interpret and respond to these events? Will he fall into the usual Republican trap of thinking he has to follow his Democratic opponent leftward to appear more moderate? Or will he show his confidence in the reasonableness of conservatism and in the American people to embrace him if he clearly articulates it?

To some extent, we are all products of our environments. We get our sense of what is "normal" from those with whom we most frequently associate, which at least partially explains liberal media figures believing that their minority views are mainstream.

They uniformly ridicule traditional American values on national TV as if they are held only by flyover throwbacks who haven't yet been exposed to the enlightened wisdom of the coasts. How else do you explain Chris Matthews' brazen characterization of the GOP as the "grand wizard" party and as flat-earthers and those who don't believe in science? Or candidate Obama's derisive portrayal of small-town Americans as bitter clingers, apparently clueless that the statement would reveal him, not those he described, as extreme?
There are countless other examples, including liberals and ex-liberals who've said that until they reached a certain age, they'd never met a Republican or conservative in their lives. And we've all seen the statistics on the staggeringly high percentage of atheism among Beltway journalists and media figures compared with the rest of the American people.
Yet with their megaphones, these liberals have been preaching that their worldview is the majority position and that those not subscribing to it are wrongheaded, immoral and standing athwart the progress of history.
On top of these pressures, Romney has doubtlessly been conditioned by Massachusetts voters to some degree to think that center-left is center and that mainstream right is extreme right. I just hope he realizes the significance of polling data showing that for decades, twice as many Americans have identified themselves as conservatives, as well as the significance of state elections consistently rejecting same-sex marriage despite enormous media and leftist cultural pressure to shame states into legalizing it.
Romney is not alone. Even many center-right pundits seem vulnerable to mainstream media, Hollywood and other cultural propaganda bombarding us with the message that liberalism is morally superior. Is it not amazing that during the budget ceiling debates between President Obama and House Republicans, it was the Republicans -- you know, the ones who merely wanted to reduce the rate of increase in federal spending -- who were painted as the extremists? Couldn't you feel the palpable fear -- even among many a right-wing pundit -- that if House Republicans held their ground, they would make Obama look like the reasonable party and increase his chances for re-election?
What I'm saying is that Romney and other Republicans need to show a little more confidence in the reasonableness of conservative policies and in the American people to support them when they are plainly explained. Romney does not need to apologize for his monetary success; he doesn't need to strip high-income earners of legitimate tax deductions; he doesn't need to throw bones to the global warming zealots; and he doesn't need to pander to Democrats on student loan extensions.
If Republican candidates insist on allowing Democrats to make this election a contest over which party cares more about the American people, then perhaps they ought to make the case that compassion means we quit spending the nation and our children into bankruptcy and that we should re-establish economic policies that history has proved lead to economic growth.
But they mustn't stop there. They must also take the offensive and show that it is the Democratic Party and its left-wing media echo chamber that have been taken over not merely by liberals but by extremist liberals, most notably typified by President Barack Obama. They no longer have to rely on his past radical associations. They can point to his record of extremism in office across the board.
Obama's record is as radical as it gets (given the center-right beliefs of the electorate), and his policies have manifestly failed -- unarguably. It's imperative that Republicans make that case aggressively and unapologetically. If they do so, they'll have to spend much less time agonizing over whether they look extreme themselves.
Stop the navel gazing and read the tea leaves, GOP. Shine the spotlight on Obama and his unacceptable extremism.

Obama's Discredited Policies Are Symbols of the Tired Past


Townhall.com ^ | May 11, 2012 | Donald Lambro



WASHINGTON -- President Obama sent a warmed-over, five-point "to-do list" to Congress this week that he said will create jobs and spur growth.

There was nothing new in any of the ideas. He's offered these same ideas before, but Congress rejected all of them.

In a gimmicky performance before an audience at the State University of New York in Albany, Obama unveiled his plan on two large flat-screen television monitors in the form of a green Post-it Note with five unchecked boxes next to each proposal.

It was a desperate, hastily slapped-together video show in the wake of last week's bleak unemployment report that showed few jobs were being created and the Obama economy was slowing down, again.
The stock market was tanking, sharply reducing worker retirement savings. Foreclosures were still at severe levels. The real unemployment rate was at 18 percent, including the unemployed, underemployed in temp jobs, and 3 million discouraged workers who have stopped looking for work.
The frustrated president said he'd offer new ideas to deal with the jobless crisis, and his advisers came up with the Post-it Note gimmick to portray Congress as an obstructionist body that was blocking his efforts to get the economy growing again.
Did the White House truly believe Congress was going to take this plate of leftovers seriously?
Three years and four months into his presidency, with little more than six months remaining before the election, Obama is without a plan to put America back to work, without an agenda for the next four years, or any fresh plan of action for economic growth.
His Post-it-Note gambit served as a pathetic symbol of the emptiness of his ideas to deal with a $15 trillion economy. He is still offering small proposals for a big problem.
Obstructionism on Capitol Hill is not his problem. It's his economic policies and the deepening uncertainty infecting the business community that has stymied investment and growth.
One of the bromides on his Post-it Note would give a 10 percent income tax cut to businesses that create new jobs or give workers pay raises.
He offered this idea early in his presidency when the economy was struggling to climb out of the recession and when business had few, if any, resources to hire anyone, let alone raise wages.
Cash-strapped employers could not hire any more workers until they saw more business coming through the door. But Obama's advisers never understood that simple rule of cost control and cash flow.
Only someone who has never run a business or spent time with people who have would propose such a silly, illogical idea. Even members of his party shook their heads in disbelief.
But the idea defined the core of Obamanomics: If you do what we tell you to do, no matter what your financial problems are, we will give you a tax cut.
All of this has led to the fourth year of Obama's remedial presidency when we are struggling with a weak economy, high unemployment, declining wages, severe gas prices and fewer job opportunities to get ahead.
The Gallup Poll this week reported that 32 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds in the American workforce said they were underemployed (in temp jobs or low-paying counter work) in April.
Unemployment among young adults rose to 13.6 percent in April, up from 12.5 percent in March, the same level that it was in April of 2011, Gallup said.
Other surveys say about half of all college grads cannot find full-time jobs commensurate with their skill and education levels.
But Obama isn't dealing with any of these economic problems, as his dismissive little Post-It Note makes abundantly clear. And, if you haven't noticed, he isn't talking about them, either.
And he has nothing to say about the monster debt and trillion-dollar budget deficits he has rung up on his watch, nor any mention about the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Instead, he is running a campaign by talking about special-interest group issues, hoping to piece together enough voter blocs to squeeze into a second term, such as low interest rates on student loans to win back the youth vote that has soured on him. And more recently, same-sex marriages to appeal to the gay community and their supporters on this issue.
He's cherry-picking single-interest groups in the hope of skirting the bread-and-butter economic issues that his handlers know are losers for him politically.
But while he can run from his economic record, he cannot hide from it, because his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, is pounding him every day on the one issue that is going to decide this election.
Notably, the former governor has begun comparing Obama's failed record to Bill Clinton's pro-growth and pro-jobs agenda: expanding export markets with free trade agreements and cutting capital gains taxes to boost investment in emerging new technologies.
It's a lethal comparison. The unemployment rate under Clinton fell to 4 percent versus the official 8.1 percent rate under Obama.
Obama's failed economic agenda comes right out of the ancient New Deal era of public works spending that didn't work then and isn't working now. "His are the policies of the past," Romney said in Lansing, Mich., this week.
"Looking backward won't solve the problems of today, nor will it take advantage of the opportunities of tomorrow," he said.
The past versus the future: That's what this election is going to be all about.

Massachusetts To Give Obama's OUI Illegal Immigrant Uncle His Drivers License Today!


Boston Herald ^ | May 11, 2012 | Michael Graham



Sometime today, Onyango “Uncle Omar” Obama — who was ordered deported from the United States back during the first Bush’s presidency — will be given a driver’s license by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles. All he has to do is show up.

When this criminal alien walks into the RMV waiting room, he’ll be walking past American citizens — many of them fighting a tooth-and-claw battle with the bureaucracy to get back the license to which they are legally entitled. Every day, Registrar Rachel Kaprielian’s legion of government hacks screw over legal citizens with legitimate complaints — all because these people can’t legally prove their identity or driving status.

But when a known illegal immigrant whose picture has been on the front page of the Boston Herald for breaking the law walks in, these very same RMV bureaucrats will happily hand over a driver’s license they know he’s not legally entitled to have.

Why? Why the heck would the same Registry stooges who have soccer moms locked up for forgetting to renew their licenses knowingly hand an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?
Kaprielian was unavailable for comment when the Herald called about Obama Wednesday, but has said in the past that it’s not the Registry’s job to check immigration status or determine if someone is legally qualified to drive.
“Obama presented a valid Social Security number and proof of residency,” an RMV spokesperson told reporters when Onyango was first busted for operating under the influence in Framingham last year.
OK, so maybe he broke the law and tricked the Registry into issuing a driver’s license 20 years ago — maybe back then the RMV didn’t know any better.
But why is Kaprielian renewing his license...today?
Yes we know...
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...