Sunday, May 13, 2012

Will hard times allow Mitt Romney to breach the Democrats’ formidable “blue wall” in November?


National Journal ^ | May 10, 2012 | Ron Brownstein,



As Democrats have solidified an upstairs-downstairs constituency of affluent, socially moderate white suburbanites and minorities (many economically strained), they have established a durable hold on states shaped by rising education levels and diversity. As Republicans have become a more monolithically conservative party, especially on social issues, they have tightened their control over heavily religious Southern and heartland states but watched more cosmopolitan states move at varying rates toward the Democrats in presidential races. “All of this is squeezing [and] compressing the map for Republicans,” says Steve Schmidt, the campaign manager for GOP nominee John McCain in 2008. In fact, since 1992, Republicans have won a smaller share of the available Electoral College votes outside the South than in any five-election sequence since the party’s founding in 1856.

Central to this role reversal is the rise of what I’ve called the “blue wall”: the 18 states that have voted Democratic in at least the past five consecutive presidential elections. Democrats have not won that many states so often since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman carried 22 in each election from 1932 to 1948.

The blue wall encompasses the 11 states from Maryland to Maine (except New Hampshire); the three West Coast states; and Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Hawaii (plus the District of Columbia). Republicans carried 12 of these states at least four times from 1968 to 1988. But common factors have shifted almost all of them toward the Democrats since then: a growing minority population and a tilt away from the GOP among socially moderate college-educated white voters. Over the past five elections in these 18 states, the GOP presidential nominee has finished within 5 percentage points of the Democrat just 10 times out of a possible 90 results.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...

Obama Calls Trash Collecting a ‘Green Job’!


FOX ^



Federal Report: ‘Green Jobs’ Include Trash Collectors

A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report counts 3.1 million green jobs in the U.S. economy, but the BLS defines these jobs so broadly that it includes even school bus drivers and trash collectors as “green” workers.

“Cheerleaders for the president’s program of green jobs mandates and spending point to the study as confirmation of green jobs’ economic importance,” said David W. Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...

MSNBC Guest Calls Ann Romney 'Insufferable', Her Mother's Day Op-Ed 'Creepy'


NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein



Snark on, Michelle! On the MSNBC show "Up With Chris Hayes" this morning, feminist author Michelle Goldberg attacked Ann Romney as "insufferable" and derided a phrase in Ann's op-ed on the subject of motherhood as "creepy."

Goldberg's "insufferable" shot drew approving laughter from the all-feminist panel. And surely the attacks on the Romneys for their traditional family values will play well with a certain segment of the electorate.

The problem for President Obama: that segment is one that is already almost entirely in his camp. But these sort of mean-spirited attacks are likely to alienate the very voters in the middle that PBO needs to persuade.

View the video here:  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/05/13/msnbc-guest-calls-ann-romney-insufferable-her-mothers-day-op-ed-cr

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

Driving Prices


Townhall.com ^ | May 13, 2012 | Rich Tucker



In these tumultuous times, Americans seem to have trouble finding common ground. But it’s safe to say that most of us can agree that gasoline, at around $4 per gallon, is uncomfortably expensive.

The law of supply and demand would seem to suggest an effective solution to our problem. An increase in long-term supply would lead to a long-term drop in prices.

But that’s far too cut-and-dried for President Obama. “There are politicians who say if we just drill more, gas prices will come down,” he told reporters recently. That won’t work, he insisted, because Americans “use more than 20 percent of the world’s oil and we only have 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.”

His preferred approach: greater federal intervention in oil markets.
The president wants to spend more than $50 million to hire more bureaucrats at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Obama calls that putting more “cops on the beat.” Here’s the problem with that approach: you can have as many cops as you want, but unless someone’s breaking the law, there’s nobody for them to arrest.
And there’s no evidence anyone is manipulating gas prices.
Last year, for example, the nation’s “top cop,” Attorney General Eric Holder, empaneled a working group to “explore whether there is any evidence of manipulation of oil and gas prices.” Holder hasn’t bothered to release a report, but it’s safe to say that he would have done so if his task force had identified any potential wrongdoing.
Just about every time gas prices go up, lawmakers demand an investigation into “price gouging.” And the results, time and again, come back negative. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Trade Commission investigated and “found no instances of illegal market manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time periods.” Other federal investigations over the years have reached the same conclusion.
Oil prices go up, and they come back down again. The increases are usually driven by a jump in demand, and the decreases are usually triggered by a jump in supply.
In early 1998, for example, oil-exporting countries ramped up production in the belief that prices were destined to remain high and that they could earn even higher profits by producing more oil. Instead, a recession in Asia led to an oversupply of crude, and the price tumbled to about $10 per barrel.
Over the years prices increased again, until something similar happened four years ago. The rise of China and years of economic growth drove the price of oil higher and higher. Crude topped $147 per barrel in July of 2008. Then, in the face of worldwide recession, it plunged. By Christmas it was as low as $32 per barrel.
So while prices are indeed high right now, it seems likely that, by the time Obama’s extra bureaucrats could even be hired, gas prices will have cycled down again.
In fact, it’s federal intervention that tends to foul up markets. In his book “The Quest,” energy expert Daniel Yergin explains that price controls, implemented under Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, didn’t help consumers.
“They did succeed in creating a whole new federal bureaucracy, an explosion in regulatory and litigation work for lawyers, and much political contention,” he writes. “But the controls did little for their stated goals of limiting inflation – and did nothing for energy security.” Not surprisingly, oil prices tumbled after President Reagan lifted price controls, which he did with his first executive order.
President Obama is certainly correct that drilling more today wouldn’t instantly decrease oil prices. It takes years, after all, to bring a new well online and begin generating oil from it. As former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister puts it, oil companies think in “energy time,” while our national leaders think in “political time.”
By blocking construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and by limiting offshore oil exploration, for example, the Obama administration has shown it’s more interested in rewarding its radical environmentalist supporters than in adding to future oil supplies.
The entire country will pay more for fuel because of those decisions in the years ahead: that’s “energy time.” Meanwhile, attacking non-existent price gougers happens in “political time.” Will voters allow the president to get away with such transparent pandering? Only time will tell.

Obama Campaign Strategy Reason for Federal Lawsuit Against Sheriff Arpaio


NewsBusters ^ | May 13, 2012 | P.J. Gladnick



Did you know that one of the reasons for the federal lawsuit against Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio was Obama political campaign strategy? Don't take my word for it. This assertion has been made by the Huffington Post editorial director Howard Fineman in his story excusing negative Obama campaign strategy by claiming they are merely taking pages from the GOP playbook:

Wedge Issues. The phrase is often misused. It means forcing the other party to defend an idea, policy or person in such a way that it divides the other party's base. The classic example, used for years if not decades by Reagan, was welfare, which split white and black working-class Democrats. Obama is trying to do the same thing to the GOP on immigration. His administration just filed suit against Arizona's controversial and, to many, egregiously anti-immigrant Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The goal is not just to bring him in line, but to make Republicans defend him.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

How Obama distanced himself from Gavin Newsom


San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/13/12 | Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnists



President Obama's position on same-sex marriages has indeed been "evolving" - back in 2004, he wouldn't even have his photo taken with Gavin Newsom, for fear that being pictured with the man who opened the City Hall wedding chapel to gays and lesbians would cost him votes back home in Illinois.
At the time, Obama was a mere state senator from Chicago looking to win a seat in the U.S. Senate. Like a lot of up-and-coming African American pols, he tapped Willie Brown to host a fundraiser here to score some badly needed cash.

Brown tossed a party at the Waterfront Restaurant, which turned out to be the biggest moneymaker in Obama's swing through California.

Naturally, Brown invited then-Mayor Newsom, who was taking fire even from some fellow Democrats for having defied state law by allowing same-sex couples to marry at City Hall.
Obama's handlers let it be known that they would appreciate it if there were no pictures of Obama and Newsom together.
"They said they were concerned about how it might play out in the southern part" of Illinois, Brown recalled.
And it didn't end there. When Obama was running for president, he and Newsom found themselves at the same fundraiser twice - and on both occasions, Obama did not get within 10 feet of the mayor.
As for the president's change of heart: "I'm proud of him," said now-Lt. Gov. Newsom. "There's a lot of courage being shown by doing this."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

Newsweek: Obama ‘The First Gay President’ of the United States!


The Daily Caller ^ | 13 May 2012 | Jeff Poor



If Time is going to feature a woman breastfeeding on its cover to foment attention for its magazine, Newsweek apparently isn’t going to sit still and allow Time to get all the attention.

On this week’s issue of Tina Brown’s Newsweek magazine, President Barack Obama is adorned with a rainbow halo, with the headline “The First Gay President,” an obvious play off commentary that former President Bill Clinton was “the first black president.”

The cover promotes the story by Andrew Sullivan, who admitted on his Daily Beast blog and on this weekend’s “The Chris Matthews Show” that the announcement was a very emotional one for him.

“I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how calculated it is,” Sullivan wrote. “What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn’t know what to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.”

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

IT'S OFFICIAL--John Boehner is stalling Fast and Furious contempt citation of Eric Holder!


Coach is Right ^ | 5/13/2012 | Doug Book



If Darrell Issa has any thoughts of the full House voting on his Oversight Committee’s citation of contempt against Eric Holder, he will first have to clear the idea with the Attorney General’s staunchest allies and political defenders—Republican Speaker John Boehner, Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Republican Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy.

Upon the Speaker’s office being provided a draft of the citation last week, a spokesman for the Republican leadership said “While there are very legitimate arguments to be made in favor of such an action, no decision has been made to move forward with one by the Speaker or by House Republican leaders.” (1)

But now it appears these stalwart souls have finally made that decision. They will “…slow [Issa’s] drive to hold the attorney general in contempt over the controversial Fast and Furious program…” for a period of “a month or even longer…” Apparently a year’s worth of testimony and documentation linking Obama Regime operatives to hundreds of deaths and the walking of some 2000 weapons across the Mexican border just haven’t been sufficient to convince Speaker Boehner that something is amiss. (2)

Republican leaders “…still don’t think the case is ‘rock solid…’ ” said an aide to...

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

Trolling for Dirt on the President's List [The Chicago Machine At Work!]


Wall St. J ^ | May 10, 2012 | KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL



May 10, 2012 Strassel: Trolling for Dirt on the President's List First a Romney supporter was named on an Obama campaign website. That was followed by the slimy trolling into a citizen's private life.

Here's what happens when the president of the United States publicly targets a private citizen for the crime of supporting his opponent:

Frank VanderSloot is the CEO of Melaleuca Inc. The 63-year-old has run that wellness-products company for 26 years out of tiny Idaho Falls, Idaho. Last August, Mr. VanderSloot gave $1 million to Restore Our Future, the Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney.

Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, "Keeping GOP Honest," took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney. Titled "Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney's donors," the post accused the eight of being "wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records." Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.
Mr. Wolf sent a fax to the clerk's office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a private cellphone number
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Hope and Change - 2008 vs 2012


Conservative Outcry ^ | 5/12/12



Let's reminiscence - A video compilation regarding why people voted for Obama in 2008.
In summary, he was elected either because he's black or because people were drawn to the "Hope & Change" he promised.

What's different now? Basically nothing. At the end of the day, the 2012 election will come down to he's black or "Hope & Change" again.


Those who voted merely on the basis of skin color will continue to support Obama. The problem for Obama is this group makes up a very small portion of the electorate, much smaller that even he and his advisors believe. The African American vote as a whole can no longer be taken for granted by the Democrats. African Americans have the same concerns as the rest of the nation, and can see with their own eyes that the "Hope and Change" promised in 2008 did not arrive. They also see through this administration's attempts to re-ignite racial flames from earlier times. Usually through emissaries like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who apparently still live in the 1960's. In short, African Americans are starting to see that the mere fact the Democrats take them for granted, makes them the racist party, not the Republicans.
While Sharpton and Jackson still have a following (the "small portion" mentioned above), their beliefs have become increasingly irrelevant to today's times. Blacks and whites (and Latinos and Asians, etc) live together now, and have done so for some time. They shop together, they go to school together, they work together, they even go to church together. And because they interact so frequently, they even engage in...wait for it...Interracial Relationships! Sometimes they even marry and have children! Maybe, before it's too late, Obama and his crew will realize it was never about skin color.
It was always the expectations of "Hope and Change" that put him in office. It was the same reason for the majority of African Americans, the Latinos, and the Asians, as it was for the millions upon millions of whites that voted for him in 2008. Yes, millions upon millions! Caucasians make up the majority of the American population, and without their vote, Obama would not be in office today.
While this fact is undeniable, President Obama and his buddies still attempt to cash in on the color of his skin. Either through his buddies Al and Jesse, who continue to spout their racial rhetoric, or Eric Holder and his shop and their practice of selective justice. Why President Obama would overtly try to offend the group that arguably put him in office is beyond me, and will likely be questioned for some time.
"Hope and Change" put him in office in 2008, and it's the reason that voters across all blocks will turn against him in 2012. "Hope and Change" never arrived.
Many will argue that it's the economy that will drive this election, and to that I say they're partially right. But the economy was always part of "Hope and Change", was it not?
For now, President Obama has locked up the votes of that "small portion" mentioned above, and the LGBT Community in light of his recent evolution. But that's not enough to swing the election.
He'll continue to look to favorable polling data from questionable sources for that feeling of invincibility, but I suspect it will not be until after the election that he realizes the continued "class-warfare" and 'racial rhetoric' bandied about by he and his supporters did nothing more than push away those still looking for the "Hope & Change" as promised.

President Obama cashing in on gay marriage stance, selling QUEER merchandise


NY Daily News ^ | 5/12/12 | ALIYAH SHAHID



President Obama is banking on his endorsement of gay marriage to fill his campaign coffers.
His team is selling a slew of LGBT merchandise on BarackObama.com, just days after his historic backing of same-sex couples tying the knot.

The items include “I'm out for Obama" T-shirts, beer koozies that read "LGBT for Obama" and even baby onesies with messages like "My two moms support Obama.” The items cost anywhere from $10 to $40.

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

Why Oppose Gay Marriage?


Barack Obama has come out in favor of gay marriage (Again! He was in favor of it in Illinois before he was against it when he ran for president). He was “outed” when his vice-president and his education secretary recently took the same stance, forcing his hand. So the question being asked again is: What’s wrong with gay marriage, and why should we oppose it?
First, some background.

There are myriads of living arrangements today, from traditional marriage to cohabitation to domestic partnerships, all involving various combinations of male and female. There is an existing federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama refuses to defend as he is legally obligated to do. And citizens in 30 states have approved referendums which protect traditional marriage in their state constitutions. So why is marriage between one man and one woman so important that it needs to be preserved? I can recall one radio talk show host who regularly berates those who are opposed to gay marriage, challenging them to show how legalizing gay marriage would personally affect their lives. He reflects the attitude that many people have today, that this issue is a matter between consenting adults and it doesn’t affect those who feel differently.

It is a good idea when confronted with any question whose answer is not immediately apparent, to first define the terms of the question. It is appropriate to consult the Bible to define marriage because it is the earliest known reference on the subject, however there are good reasons why gay marriage should be rejected regardless of one’s religious beliefs. Marriage is much more than a physical union of a man and woman. A study of the original language of the Genesis account of the creation reveals that the woman was created as a “helper who was the opposite of the man,” i.e. a perfect compliment to him. From the beginning, this was a spiritual and emotional bond, and also a necessary union for the reproduction and upbringing of children. At no time during the six thousand plus years of recorded human history since then, did homosexuals seriously propose that a human right existed for them to be allowed to marry, even though they have been around since at least the days of Sodom four thousand years ago. And laws against sodomy had not been enforced for many years before the Supreme Court struck them down officially in 2003. So, since gays
have been allowed to go about their lifestyle for decades now without interference from anyone, why the push lately to legalize gay marriage. It is because they want official
sanction
for their lifestyle –the same reason they force their “diversity” propaganda on our school children in the name of anti-bullying. Of course, there are many politicians who are more than willing to oblige them in their quest to officially recognize their marriages.

We should vigorously resist this trend for several reasons. The first is that we are a nation of laws, and all of them reflect our values. We would be rejecting traditions that have worked well for thousands of years in civilized cultures by officially endorsing lifestyles that have brought degradation and destruction of that society wherever they have been practiced. Even today, despite what the media wants us to believe, most nations on earth do not tolerate
homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. Secondly, the law is a teacher, and sanctioning what used to be called perversion, will remove the stigma that used to accompany such behavior. When society no longer officially considers an act taboo, it unofficially encourages experimentation and expansion of such behavior by others. There are dozens of examples of this, from drug use to gambling to teen pregnancies, which have all exploded once laws were relaxed and/or the stigma was removed. And whether they admit it or not, many of those promoting liberalization of marriage laws, also favor eliminating restrictions on transgender “rights”(sports gender distinctions, unisex bathrooms, etc.), homosexual adoptions, and lowering the sexual age of consent from 18 to 14. Legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope indeed. Third, those who promote such policies are not content to just live their
lifestyle in peace. Wherever they are in power, such as in California, the United Nations, and in public schools, they have proven to be much more intolerant than they accuse the rest of us as being. They have used the heavy hand of government to pass laws intended to not just indoctrinate, but actively recruit our children into the gay lifestyle.

For those who understand the Truth of the Bible, there are additional reasons to oppose gay marriage. God says that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34) Sin, which includes both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity, will bring God’s judgment. There is a difference, however, between individuals sinning, for which they will have to account to God, and a nation sinning by giving official sanction to what God calls an abomination. God will surely judge a nation that makes an abomination official government policy, and we all have a stake in that. Those who have abused God's precious purpose for marriage and the family, whether they are gay or straight, need to repent and seek God and cry out to Him to save our nation

New theory: Maybe Obama’s too smart and sensitive to be a good president!


Hot Air ^ | 11 May 2012 | Allahpundit



If this is what the left needs to tell itself to come to terms with the prospect of defeat, so be it. We all find our own paths through the Kubler-Ross model, my friends. Don’t mock someone just because they’re momentarily stuck on stage one.

Bill Clinton allegedly thinks O’s “incompetent” and an “amateur,” but I guess this theory works too:

As devotees of Barack Obama know all too well, qualities that made him so attractive as a candidate — an affinity for subtle arguments, a tendency to carefully weigh his options — have at times proved less useful in his role as president. That carefulness has been read as indecisiveness. The subtle arguments have sounded, to some ears, like hedging. In response, the president has simplified his rhetoric…

To many who were feverishly devoted to Obama’s candidacy four years ago, what was most exciting wasn’t just the idea that American voters could elect a black man. It was the idea that we could elect — and be represented by — someone who was unapologetically intellectual. But in the current political climate, intellectual can too often equal ineffectual. Thanks to a system that’s broken by partisanship and pandering to the lowest common denominator, being in politics — even being the president — may have less to do with holding your ground than holding your nose.

It’s hard not to come away from the Vanity Fair article without feeling, strangely enough, that the White House is holding Obama back.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

Trayvon Martin’s Mother Got 8 Months of Donated Vacation Time (Martin's Family To Be Paid Advocates)


The Miami Herald ^ | Friday, May 11, 2012 | Frances Robles



The mother of slain teenager Trayvon Martin will be able to take about eight months of paid leave from her county job, thanks to the generosity of county employees.

Sybrina Fulton, who has worked at the Miami-Dade County housing authority for 23 years, collected $40,825 worth of donated vacation time, county records show. The paid time off is in addition to the nearly $100,000 the family raised on wepay.com and at rallies, which will be used to launch a criminal justice advocacy foundation in Trayvon’s name....SNIP

“They are using the money to continue the legacy of their son,” said Michael Hall, a graphic designer and marketing specialist who helped launch the Justice for Trayvon Martin Foundation. The parents created the nonprofit in March in response to their son’s killing. “They didn’t want a situation where people could say they were profiting off the loss of their son.”
Hall said Trayvon’s parents will become paid employees of the foundation, compensated for their time conducting speaking engagements and other advocacy work. He stressed that the foundation would keep Fulton and her ex-husband, Tracy Martin, at the levels of income they already made — not higher....SNIP
Tracy Martin is a truck driver, and it’s unclear whether he has been on paid or unpaid leave. He and Fulton were in England this week speaking at the University of London and were unavailable for comment.
“Don’t forget there are two people who need to be taken care of here,” Hall said. “A lot of the media focuses on Sybrina and forgets that Trayvon had a father, who lived here and co-parented.”
Hall is the unpaid interim executive director of the foundation. He expects to employ both parents and Trayvon’s older brother Jahvaris Fulton, who is working as an intern on the foundation’s social media strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...

Black Pastor Likens Obama’s Gay Marriage Stance To al-Qaeda Attack (God bless him)


newsone ^ | May 11, 2012 | D.L. Chandler



Some prominent Black pastors have become staunchly critical of President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage, with some who formerly backed and celebrated his ascent now turning their backs.

A Texas pastor who once led the Southern Baptist Convention in introducing a resolution that recognized Obama’s historic achievement has voiced his displeasure with the president’s support and approval of gays, reports the Associated Baptist Press.

A Texas pastor who once led the Southern Baptist Convention in introducing a resolution that recognized Obama’s historic achievement has voiced his displeasure with the president’s support and approval of gays, reports the Associated Baptist Press.

Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, wrote in a blog on May 9 that Obama’s statements is worthy of incurring wrath of biblical proportions.
From McKissic’s blog:
“President Obama has betrayed the Bible and the Black Church with his endorsement of same-sex marriage. The Bible is crystal clear on this subject, and the Black Church strongly opposes same-sex marriage. His endorsement is an inadvertent attack on the Christian Faith. America is now a candidate for the same judgment received by Sodom and Gomorrah. This was a sad, sad day and a very bad decision, by our beloved President. The moral impact of this day and decision is equal to the military impact of AL-Queda when they attacked the Twin Towers on 911. Today’s announcement is a moral earthquake equivalent to a tsunami or hurricane that will have far more devastating results than Katrina.”
McKissic’s stance mirrors that of many other Black church leaders who feel Obama’s support of gay marriage is a direct slight to one of the major tenets of the Christian faith. So far, Rev. Al Sharpton has been the only visible religious leader to defend the president’s decision to publicly address this hot-button issue.
With many pastors speaking out against Obama, will his brave decision to support gay marriage be his downfall in November? And will Black people still support Obama in droves, despite the Black church’s displeasure with his gay marriage stance?

(Activist) Obama Calls for 'Common-Sense Policies' to Move Economy


Yahoo ^ | 5/12/12 | Devin Dwyer




Continuing to cast himself as an activist president defying slim odds for election-year legislative compromises, President Obama in his weekly address pushes "a few common-sense policies that would make a difference" with the economy.


"There are things we can do - right now - to help create jobs and restore some of the financial security that so many families have lost," Obama says.


The list of initiatives - which the White House has billed as Congress' "To-Do list" - includes elimination of tax breaks for companies that outsource; a mandated expansion of mortgage refinancing eligibility; tax credits for clean energy companies and small businesses that hire new workers; and creation of a new veterans job corps.


The Democratic proposals have received little or only lukewarm support from Republicans. But Obama has continued to tout them at a series of official events in an attempt to appeal to voters.

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

Naomi Schaefer Riley and the Corruption of the Academy

 
The American Thinker ^ | May 13, 2012 | Abraham H. Miller



Even though The ChronicleofHigherEducation long ago reflected the leftist agenda of its readership, I never could have imagined it would stoop so low as to fire someone for writing a piece at variance with the political correctness it has come to uphold. But it did. The Chronicle fired Naomi Schaefer Riley for revealing what almost everyone on any campus knows, but is reluctant to say, about black studies: it is a political cause masquerading as an academic discipline, and if there were real intellectual, and not political, standards on campus, it would be shut down.

There is, however,a larger issue: not only is what Schaefer Riley says true about why black studies should be closed down, but her statements could also be easily extended to many fields in the social sciences and humanities. The vulnerability of the campus on this issue is why the Chronicle chose the unseemly and totally inappropriate device of censorship. It was so willing to placate its audience of ideological leftists massing with pitchforks in hand that it inadvertently gave Riley's exposé on black studies far and away more visibility than it would otherwise have achieved.

[NSR]exposed not just black studies; indirectly, she exposed the bubble that is academia. Academia in the liberal arts and sciences has become a therapeutic society for angry leftists able to act out in class under the guise of academic freedom, and higher education has deteriorated into a propaganda mill for those seeking their own brand of social justice. Although nearly everyone knows what academia has become, just as everyone knew about Walker Hill, there is a large vested interest in not having it splattered on billboards for the world to see. [NSR] had the courage to run afoul of those interests. The academic world needs more truth-telling.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Enforcement Issues

Extinction

Cheer Up

Cover-up

Stick with me...

Worry!

Tea Party

The Distraction, Stupid

Queer Divorce

Queer Thanks

Time Bomb