Friday, May 18, 2012

Seven (7) women protest Rush for NOW's big day of protest!


The DC ^ | 5/18/2012 | Caroline May



Seven women participated in the National Organization for Women’s day of protest against Rush Limbaugh in front of Limbaugh’s D.C. affiliate WMAL, Friday.

NOW’s national protest day had been in the works since April 19, when the women’s advocacy group launched their “Enough Rush” campaign.

Pairing with media watchdog Media Matters for America NOW is targeting local affiliates and local advertisers, Friday’s demonstration was touted as the group’s big demonstration of opposition to Limbaugh with affiliates across the country participating in protests.

NOW has had Limbaugh in their crosshairs for nearly two decades, and they renewed their effort to get Limbaugh off the air as a response to the radio host’slate February insult of contraception activist Sandra Fluke.

Standing on a street corner in front of WMAL the seven women bearing signs such as “Enough Rush” and “Stop hate speech” received some honks and smiles.
Erin Matson, NOW action vice president explained to The Daily Caller that Limbaugh crossed the line with his comments about Fluke and that he needs to go.
“Rush captured a new generation of women’s attention when he went on a long sexist tirade against Sandra Fluke for daring to speak up for birth control access,” Matson explained, recalling Limbaugh’s characterization of Fluke as a “slut” and a prostitute.
According to Matson, the community is on NOW’s side, adding that “it is a smart business decision” for affiliates and advertisers to leave Rush.
“Women are the majority of consumers in this country and we influence or make over 80 percent of the consumer decisions,” she said, adding that Limbaugh has already lost a number of advertisers over his Fluke comments.
Still TheDC overheard pedestrian conversations scoffing at the fact NOW is still on Limbaugh’s case, over two months after his Fluke comments.
Last week Limbaugh launched a response to NOW’s campaign against him in the form of a Facebook group for his female listeners, “Rush Babes for America aka the National Organization for Rush Babes,” to show not all women adhere the NOW agenda. His Facebook group surpassed NOW’s Facebook “likes” in under 24 hours.
Matson shrugged off the women who have joined the “Rush Babe” Facebook group explaining that it is just an attempt by Rush to feed his ego.
Limbaugh ranked 19th in Forbes ranking of the 100 world’s most powerful celebrities released this week, just behind Simon Cowell, at 18th.
According to NOW, chapters in New York City, West Palm Beach, Fla., and Phoenix, Ariz., also held protests against Limbaugh today.
Follow Caroline on Twitter

Obama's 'Julia' says 'I do' to the hubby state!


St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 5/17/12 | Jessica Gavora



"The Life of Julia," the Obama campaign's new interactive Web ad, follows a cartoon everywoman, Julia, through the milestones of a middle-class American life: education, work, motherhood, retirement. One milestone is pointedly missing: marriage.

But, then again, why should Julia get married? She doesn't need to. Like a growing number of single women with children, Julia is married to the state.

As a character drawn and focus-grouped by political consultants, Julia is designed to remind voters of the government programs President Obama champions and likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney is ostensibly intent on taking away. Julia goes to school (with help from Headstart and federal student loans), she works (thank you, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and Small Business Administration), she has a son (free health screenings brought to her by Obamacare) and she retires (Social Security and Medicare pay the bills while she volunteers in a community garden).
But Julia is a more artful and nuanced creation than a simple tour guide to the utopia that awaits under a second Obama term. She is designed to appeal to a narrow but deep demographic: single women, especially single women with kids.
In 2007, the United States passed a significant demographic milestone, when the census reported that the majority of American households were headed by unmarried people. It was the crest of a wave that had been building for some time. Since 1960, the percentage of the population that is
older than 15 and unmarried had increased from 32 percent to 45 percent. If this trend continues, singles (including unmarried people who are cohabiting) will make up the majority of Americans in less than 15 years. And in this nation of swinging singles, women are dominant. Because women live longer than men, there are about 10 million more single women than single men, and their ranks are growing. While the number of voting-eligible married women grew by 7 percent between 2000 and 2010, the number of voting-eligible single women increased by 19 percent. This election year, unmarried voting-eligible women are estimated to number 55 million, more than 25 percent of the voting-eligible population.
It's that word -- "eligible" -- that Democrats are focused on. Although polls show that married women favor Romney over Obama, unmarried women are the most reliably Democratic voting group outside African Americans. They constituted a whopping 71-to-29 percent majority for Obama in 2008, earning them a place in what Democrats call their "rising American electorate" -- the people of color, the young, and the unmarried women who helped deliver the presidency for Obama in 2008 and who Democrats desperately want back in 2012.
The problem is, the rising American electorate is a reliable Democratic vote only when it bothers to register and show up. And even though they show a current 44-point preference for Obama, unmarried women -- especially those with children -- register and vote at lower rates than married women.
The turnout of unmarried women is so unreliable that, until the 2000 presidential election, Democrats generally wrote off the single female vote as not worth the effort. But in that razor-thin contest, strategists noticed for the first time that 22 million members of their most reliable cohort of voters did not go to the polls. If single women had cast ballots in the same proportions as married women, Al Gore probably would have received the punched chads of an additional 6 million voters, more than enough to have won him the White House.
The Democratic Party's answer to this missed opportunity has been to attempt to make singlehood cool and fresh and new. When focus groups told them that unmarried women regard the word "single" as a depressing term, strategists renamed them simply "unmarried" or, even better, "women on their own." When such strategists such as Ann Lewis, a longtime adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton, tried to call them "Single Anxious Females," liberal pundits quickly countered with more palatable evocations of "Sex and the City voters."
Julia is just the latest makeover. She is the Democrats' answer to Romney's family Christmas card. A nation of women on their own, after all, doesn't relate very well to fecund portraits of smiling white moms and dads with kids and golden retrievers underfoot. With her spare, faceless affect, Julia is meant to evoke a more modern, independent sensibility -- with the exception of her life of endless government dependency, that is.
Julia is Mary Tyler Moore on the government's dime. You're gonna make it after all, Julia! Just remember who's responsible on Election Day.
The problem is, like so much of our political rhetoric, Julia is not a composite; she's a myth. Some of the nation's single moms may be successful Web designers, but many are poor -- fully half have incomes of less than $30,000 a year, compared with just 15 percent of married women. It's not Pell grants and SBA loans these women rely on but Medicaid and food stamps. And it's not comfortable retirements in community gardens they contemplate but bleak old age.
Whereas government benefits were once the state's compassionate response to women who had lost their husbands, in Julia's world they are the unquestionable entitlement of women who never married. The decline of marriage and Democratic political opportunism have combined to transform what used to be a situation to be avoided -- single motherhood -- into a new and proud American demographic, citizens of Obama's Hubby State.
Gone is any acknowledgment that remaining single is a less than ideal situation for women -- or for men, for that matter -- or that raising children outside of marriage is anything less than these women's inalienable personal choice.
Strategists talk breathlessly of unmarried women becoming for the Democratic Party what evangelical Christians are for the Republicans: a large, awakened, reliable force for liberal social change. And for good reason. Women, as a group, look more approvingly on government social welfare programs and domestic spending than men do. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that women favor a more activist government than men by double digits -- a finding consistent since at least 2000. Higher percentages of women say government doesn't do enough for the elderly, children and the poor. Women endorse more government regulation of the workplace and the environment. Six in 10 women say helping the poor and needy should be the highest priority of government, compared with 46 percent of men. And when you consider only single women with kids, and this gap widens even further.
The Democratic project to coax single women to the polls is given urgency by an interesting political fact: Although single women vote overwhelmingly Democratic, their condition is not permanent. According to the work of University of Chicago demographer Tom Smith, once divorced people remarry, they start to vote like married people again. In 2004, George W. Bush had a 12-point advantage over John Kerry among married people. Kerry won divorced voters by three points and separated and never-married voters by 35 percent and 25 percent, respectively. But among remarried voters, Bush was back on top by 15 percent. It seems something about the institution of marriage makes people vote Republican.
Julia -- like the trumped-up GOP "war on women" -- is part of a Democratic get-out-the-vote effort aimed at single women. Boldly and openly, unmarried American women are being encouraged to substitute a relationship with a spouse for one with the state. The consequences of this choice are great, and they're not insignificant for the rest of us, either. After all, a husband who is a plumber can't raise our taxes. A husband who is the government can, especially if you want him to help out more raising the kids.

Arizona official: It's 'possible' Obama won't make ballot


LA Times ^ | 18 May 2012 | Kim Geiger



WASHINGTON -- In a revival of the controversy surrounding President Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate, a state official in Arizona says it’s “possible” that he’ll hold Obama’s name off the Arizona ballot if Hawaii officials don’t send him confirmation that the president was born there.

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, a Republican who is exploring a 2014 race for governor, says he waded into the issue after receiving more than 1,200 emails from people requesting that he verify Obama’s birth in Hawaii before placing the president’s name on the 2012 ballot.
“First of all, I’m not playing to the birthers,” Bennett said in a radio interview with KFYI radio host Mike Broomhead. “I’m not a birther. I believe that the president was born in Hawaii -- or at least I hope he was.”

“But my responsibility as Secretary of State is to make sure that the ballots in Arizona are correct and that those people whose names are on the ballots have met the qualifications for the office that they’re seeking,” he said.
Ever since Obama ran for president in 2008, some critics known as “birthers” have suggested, without proof, that he was born in Kenya. The Constitution states that only natural-born citizens can serve as president or vice president.
In an effort to put the issue to rest, the Obama campaign in 2008 released a certificate of live birth from the Hawaii Health Department. Still unsatisfied, Obama’s detractors demanded release of his original birth certificate, which is not considered a public record under Hawaii law.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...

Why the American woman is about to break up with Obama


Fox News ^ | May 18, 2012 | Mercedes V. Schlapp



For months, President Obama has been focused on courting the American woman. This week the latest CBS News/New York Times poll shows that she is not returning the love. In fact, it appears that she is seriously thinking about breaking up with him. In the last month, Romney has managed to close the gap with women voters and according to the CBS/New York Times poll now leads President Obama among women voters 46-44%.

While poll numbers will fluctuate through November, and the actual significance of the ballot question will start to be clearer after Labor Day, Romney’s growing strength with women voters is a reminder in just how a woman wants to be treated.

Romney’s strategy is to level with women on the serious nature of our economic collapse and what we need to do to pull ourselves out of this hole.

On the other hand, President Obama’s approach is to divide and conquer by slicing up the country into groups based on their income, gender, ethnicity and now sexual orientation. He hopes to entice women to vote for him by saying that the other guy will take away your rights and your access to “free” health care benefits.

In April, President Obama was touting his significant advantage with women voters, and his strategy was to solidify and grow with parts of the electorate with whom he is historically strong....

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

President Obama Draft Card: Selective Service System blocks access to records!


Washington Times ^ | May 17, 2012 | Alan Jones



Selective Service System officials are denying the public access to microfilm records of President Obama’s draft registration form.

In a dramatic jurisdictional showdown between local law enforcement and federal government, the Selective Service System is blocking investigators with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (Ariz.) Cold Case Posse, led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, from inspecting microfilm critical to determining if two previously released copies of President Obama’s selective service registration were forged.

In response to a May 9, 2012 emergency letter from lead investigator Michael Zullo to Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo, demanding to know if the agency is in possession of original microfilm and microfilm copies of President Obama’s draft registration records, Associate Director for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs Richard Flahavan responded with an evasive, general letter.

That response on March 10, 2012 provided general guidelines and regulations concerning draft registration records, but failed to clarify anything about President Obama’s records specifically.
The letter also failed to specifically address Zullo’s concerns that microfilm rolls which should hold Obama’s draft registration records could have been destroyed since being designated federal nonrecords under new privacy rules.

In their latest response, the Selective Service System did not provide Cold Case Posse investigators with requested specifics about the location of the record copy of microfilm registration records for men born after January 1, 1960, which would presumably include the registration records of President Obama, beyond a general statement that "they are stored at a secure Federal Records Center facility".

(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...

Witness Told Cops He Saw Trayvon Martin Straddling George Zimmerman And Punching Him "MMA Style"


thesmokinggun.com ^ | May 17, 2012



A witness told Florida cops that he saw Trayvon Martin straddling George Zimmerman and pummeling the neighborhood watch captain “MMA style” shortly before the unarmed teen was felled by a gunshot to the chest.

The witness’s account was included in Sanford Police Department reports released today.
Interviewed by cops about 90 minutes after the shooting, the witness--whose name was redacted from police documents--said that he was inside his home when he heard a “commotion coming from the walk way” behind his residence.

The man recalled seeing “a black male, wearing a dark colored ‘hoodie’ on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help.” The black male, he added, “was mounted on the white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.'”

The witness--who was in his living room and about 30 feet away from the confrontation-- said he called out to the two men that he was dialing 911. “He then heard a ‘pop,’” police reported, and saw the black male “laid out on the grass.”

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

Democrat media cheerleaders can’t talk away the truth: Obama is probably even losing Wisconsin!


coachisright.com ^ | May 18, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins



In 2008 Barack Obama won Wisconsin by a landslide 56/42, but according to a new Marquette Law School (MLS) poll, that was then, this is now and “now” isn’t looking very good for Obama.

Because the 2010 election of Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker represented a major defeat for unions in general and the state’s unions in particular there has been almost endless series of recalls of Republicans and some of Democrats.

All of these recalls provide a uniquely accurate picture of the sentiment of Wisconsin’s voters – by a reliable margin they don’t favor Democrats or unions.

The next recall election forces both Walker and his Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch to stand for election again. The Democrats are running Tom Barrett the Mayor of Milwaukee setting up a rematch of 2010’s election.

In that one Walker won by 5 points and after all of the nonstop attacks against him and tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours of work against him, Walker is now ahead by 6 points and the Democratic National Committee and the Democrat Governors Association have fled for their lives leaving local Democrats fuming and pointing fingers of blame.
When MLS questioned respondents about their enthusiasm to vote in the recall election, Republican Likely Voters said they were 91% “absolutely certain” to vote while only 83% of Likely Voting Democrats said the same.
Looking ahead to November, the MLS poll shows Obama and Mitt Romney tied at 46% …..improvement over just the last month when …….Obama leading 49/45.
This improvement in Romney’s position is easy to understand in light of the fact that 62% of Republicans say they have tried to persuade others to support Republican candidates, but only 54% of Democrats have done the same…..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Dems Disenfranchise Voters After Polls Show Obama in Close Primary Race


The Weekly Standard ^ | May 18, 2012 | Michael Warren



After a poll released this week showed President Barack Obama only beating his Democratic primary opponent John Wolfe Jr. by seven points, 45 percent to 38 percent, in Arkansas's Fourth Congressional District, state Democrats moved to practically disenfranchise Arkansas voters. "[D]elegates Wolfe might claim won't be recognized at the national convention," national party officials are telling state Democrats. Wolfe is being accused of not following the party rules.

“They want a coronation,” Wolfe tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD. “They’re conflating [Obama] with the party. Are we supposed to call him ‘Dear Leader’? Is this some kind of North Korea thing?”
Wolfe insists he’s done the due diligence to qualify for delegates and that the state party is making decisions ad hoc to get the results they desire. “This is ridiculous," he says. "These guys are trying to tamp down voter enthusiasm.”

If he's denied delegates he's rightfully won, Wolfe says, Democrats would be effectively disenfranchising those who chose him over President Obama. And if that happens, he’ll take his own party to court.
“They took my money and put my name on the ballot,” he says. “They’re trying to make people think it’s hopeless to vote against Obama.”

Wolfe is also on the ballot for Texas’s primary on May 29.

In Defiance of Senate Democrats, USPS Will Begin Office Closures


Townhall.com ^ | May 18, 2012 | Kevin Glass



The U.S. Postal Service will begin closing local offices and processing centers this summer as part of a downsizing plan that would put the USPS on more sound financial footing. There's still a long way to go, but this is good preliminary news.

At a news briefing, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said the agency's mail processing network had simply become too big, given declining first-class mail volume and mounting debt. It will now consolidate nearly 250 plants as originally proposed, including 48 this summer, but will stretch out the remainder over a longer time frame in 2013 and 2014. "To return to long-term profitability and financial stability while keeping mail affordable, we must match our network to the anticipated workload," Donahoe said. Failure to do so, he stressed, would "create a fiscal hole that the Postal Service will not be able to climb out of."
Under the modified approach, up to 140 processing centers will be consolidated by next February _ roughly 48 in August and about 90 next January and February. Closings would be suspended during the Postal Service's busy election and holiday mail season. Another 89 closings would occur in 2014.
The consolidations are initially expected to reduce postal staff by 13,000 and save the struggling mail agency roughly $1.2 billion annually. By the time the full round of cuts is implemented by late 2014, the post office will have 28,000 fewer employees with estimated annual savings of $2.1 billion.
The fact is that the USPS will be totally bankrupt by the end of the year and, despite this, legislators have been intransigent in their opposition. This year, more than half of Democrats in the Senate have announced their opposition to any bill that would result in closures, service cuts or job losses.
In spite of the massive roadblocks in Congress and the urgency of the problem, legislators recently wrote to Postmaster General Patrick Donohoe asking for more time for COngress to get their act together and pass a reform bill.
It's obvious that reform isn't coming from Congress. It's a good thing that Donohoe is moving forward with closing offices across the country. The USPS is a purveyor of a communications medium suited for the 20th century, and it needs to evolve or face complete bankruptcy.
I wrote about USPS reform for the May issue of Townhall Magazine, in which I outlined Donohoe's broader outlines for the agency:

In remarks to Congress in September 2011, Donahoe laid out the short-term plan to get the agency on its way to viability. This included the shuttering of over half of the agency’s 500 processing centers, the elimination of 35,000 Postal Service jobs and a review of 15,000 post offices that could be subject to closing. Donahoe also laid out the desire that the Postal Service have more autonomous control over its mail schedule to cut back on Saturday deliveries and save billions of dollars every year.
There's a long way to go in getting the Post Office to a sustainable structure, but this is a good start.

Why the Obama Campaign Is Blowing the Election


American Thinker ^ | 05/18/2012 | Jim Yardley



The great puzzle of President Obama's re-election campaign is why previously successful political pros are creating so many ineffective initiatives that blow up in their faces like exploding cigars.

Take, for example, the Obama campaign's insistence that they can sell the narrative that Republicans in general, and of course Mitt Romney in particular, are waging a "War on Women." How many different ways can they try and fail? They've used Hillary Rosen as a stalking horse, a cartoon named "Julia," and on and on and on. Most normal people (and I am including Team Obama among the "normal" simply for the sake of argument) would try something once. If it fails, then they might assume that whatever they were trying needs a bit of tweak, and they'll try again. If the second try also crashes and burns, they might do it one more time, but only after some radical changes are made to the original plan. After the third disaster, almost everyone would conclude that there is a flaw in the basic assumption or in the plan, or even both.

Not those geniuses who are running the Obama and Company effort to get the man re-elected. They just keep trying the same tired old theme again, and again, and again. There's an old saw about insanity being illustrated by someone trying the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. I disagree with those who assume that Obama and Company are simply insane. Are they hard to relate to for anyone on the right, and equally so for anyone on the left who finds himself within shouting distance of the center?

No question about that. But insane? No.

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

Gallup Analysis: Obama’s Chance of a Loss Greater Than a Win!


Newsmax ^ | MAY 17, 2012 | Henry J. Reske



With an approval rating stuck below 50 percent, a sour national mood, and polls showing him tied or trailing rival Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama's re-election bid faces an uncertain future.
Gallup polls show that Obama’s job approval rating in the first week of May averaged just 47 percent and a May 3-6 Gallup poll found only 24 percent of Americans were satisfied with the way things are going.

A poll released Thursday in the battleground state of North Carolina showed Romney leading the president, and the same day another poll showed Wisconsin — which Obama won handily in 2008 — is a toss-up, with Obama and Romney in a dead heat.

All this signals bad news for the incumbent president.

“Comparing today's economic and political ratings with those from previous years when presidents sought re-election reveals that today's climate is more similar to years when incumbents lost than when they won,” Gallup noted.

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

Elizabeth Warren’s goose is cooked No morsel of truth in her Indian identity!


Boston Herald ^



If I might make one suggestion before the updated version of the “Pow Wow Chow” cookbook is released: Next time, Liz, hold the mayo.

Even if you were 1/1000th Native American — which you’re not — and even if Cherokees did hold pow wows — which Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes told the Herald yesterday they don’t — even then, your contribution to authentic teepee cuisine is “Crab With Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing?”

Why didn’t you throw in Tuna Casserole and Some Twinkies while you’re at it?

Like her recipe (“serve salad with remaining mayo on the side”), everything about Liz Warren screams “I’m white!”

In fact, I doubt you know anyone who is more “white” than Professor Pow Wow Chow. Her blond hair, her blue eyes, her pale, freckled skin, her wealth, her white-collar job at a “white-kid” Ivy League college, her liberal-suburbs-white-lady politics — Liz Warren is a walking, talking tribute to “Guilty, Affluent White People Who Listen To NPR” American culture.
Which is why it’s so offensively shocking to read report after report about Warren as a “woman of color.” That’s the exact phrase used 15 years ago in an in-depth article from the Fordham University Law Review about minority women in academia: “Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”
And she’s got the cookbook to prove it!
Nobody cares that Liz Warren is not really 1/32nd or 1/64th Native American. What’s off-putting is that Warren is so clearly not a minority member in any meaningful sense of the word.
When this article and others were published describing Warren this way, she should have objected. She should have corrected the record on behalf of those Americans who have truly suffered because of their race. But instead she spent her career, as she put it, “checking the box.”
Here’s the reaction to Warren’s self-serving box-checking from “Polly’s Granddaughter,” a Cherokee Indian and genealogist in an open letter to Harvard Law’s “first woman of color”:
“You say you only ‘checked the box’ in an attempt to meet others like you, but that doesn’t make sense. If one is claiming to be Cherokee and wants to meet other Cherokees, they don’t ‘check a box’ on a job application or in a directory for their profession! They go to where Cherokees are.”
“You are from Oklahoma!” (emphasis in original)
Polly’s Granddaughter is absolutely right. As I’ve written previously, my mom was born in Oklahoma, and her great-grandmother, Nancy Hill, was a Cherokee from the Oklahoma territories. I also attended college in Tulsa, Okla. Meeting Indians in Oklahoma is as easy as knocking on a neighbor’s door and saying “Hi, wanna come over for some crab-and-mayonnaise salad?”
Being from Oklahoma also means there’s a good chance Warren also encountered anti-Indian prejudice first-hand. I only lived there a few years, and I did. I ran into some Okies who spoke about Native Americans the way the worst Southern whites talked about black Americans.
Those are the Native Americans the phrase “person of color” is intended for, not “Former member of ABBA” look-alike Liz Warren.
She knows this. She’s known it her whole life. Yet she’s chosen to play the role of suffering minority member, thereby making a mockery of the real suffering of others

Travon Martin's family attorney giving orders to MSM how to spin story



Fox News Latino ^ | May 18, 2012 | Fox News Latino



"The police concluded that none of this would have happened if George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car," said attorney Ben Crump. "If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car, they say it was completely avoidable. That is the headline."

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

The uninvited

Posted Image

Auction

Posted Image

Out of control...

Posted Image

Queer Enough?

Posted Image

Birds of a feather...

Posted Image

It's Not the Same-Sex Marriage, Stupid!


Townhall.com ^ | May 18, 2012 | David Limbaugh



People have asked what Obama could possibly have been thinking to announce the final step in his "evolution" in favor of same-sex marriage right after another state resoundingly rejected the notion and despite the fact that most Americans oppose it.

Whether or not Joe Biden forced Obama's hand on the issue, which I doubt, there is little question that Obama was going to make the announcement. The only question was when.

Many assume he decided to do it before the election to increase his fundraising among Hollywood liberals and other leftists. But all the funds in the world might not help if you are going to campaign on policies that are unpopular with the voters. So what gives?

The question isn't how popular same-sex marriage is; it's what percentage of people will pick their presidential candidate based on Obama's announced change in position.
Everyone paying attention knew already that Obama favors same-sex marriage, and his actions -- which should speak louder than his words -- have strongly supported it, as his Justice Department has been at war against states outlawing the practice. Only certain trusting and naive people believed Obama when he said he was evolving -- as opposed to pretending to oppose same-sex marriage for political reasons until he decided to make his announcement.
But his announcement did embolden and energize the LGBT community and its strong advocates. It looks as though it sparked an increase in his fundraising, at least for now, and it is likely that it will help intensify his turnout among social liberals and other strong leftists.
What about the downside? How many people did he alienate with this move? Well, some are saying that he threw the black community under the bus in favor of his gay constituency. But I'm betting Obama is banking on the fact that it will take a lot more than that to keep blacks from voting for him. So he took a calculated and probably minimal risk there.
How about nonblack Democrats who still consider themselves social conservatives? Obama's militant support of abortion didn't alienate too many of them, and neither will this.
There are two main voter blocs whose votes will be strongly influenced by social issues: those social conservatives and social liberals for whom social issues are the most important issues. Those numbers may be substantial when you include the abortion issue, which drives Christian conservatives on the right and feminists and other women, among others, on the left. But they shrink greatly when you just include those whose votes will be determined primarily by the same-sex marriage issue. Those who oppose same-sex marriage strongly enough to base their vote on Obama's stance on it are already entrenched for or against him, irrespective of his announcement. Ultimately, he probably lost very few votes but gained much in fundraising and voter intensity.
Most people, even most social conservatives, are going to vote primarily on economic, budgetary and debt issues. Here, Obama has no positive record to run on, so he will try to change the subject, obfuscate and use Alinsky tactics to turn his conventional class warfare into an all-out nuclear affair.
He'll portray Republicans as fat cat 1 percenters and their enablers and as people who don't care about the poor, the sick, or clean air or water. They have theirs, so they don't care about those who don't.
He'll continue to play the race card and to promote his manufactured GOP "war against women" to paint Republicans as sexists. Likewise, with the help of the old media, he'll depict Republicans as bigots and homophobes for their opposition to same-sex marriage.
He'll claim that the economy is steadily recovering because of his policies -- never mind that it's the slowest recovery in decades -- and he'll say that though much work remains to be done, that's only because the "mess" Bush bequeathed "him" was worse than he thought and because selfish, obstructionist Republicans have prevented him from doing more.
This self-styled uniter will do everything in his power to make Republicans appear to be against everything that's good, compassionate and reasonable -- health care, entitlements, the environment, gays, blacks, women and the downtrodden -- and for everything that's evil, such as insurance companies, corporations, banks, Wall Street, the privileged, private jet owners and torture.
Mitt Romney will be caricatured as Obama's poster boy for conservative privilege, elitism and heartlessness. We're already seeing it with Team Obama's Bain Capital attack ads, and it's only May.
The way I see it, Romney will be fine as long as he resists the temptation to go soft on Obama and provided he doesn't allow Obama to set the campaign narrative by making this an election over who cares the most -- as opposed to whose policies would be best for America and the American people.
This election should be about Obama's record and how Romney would radically alter the disastrous course on which Obama has set America.

Obama 'Kenya' Lit Booklet Raises Question MSM Will Refuse to Ask


Breitbart ^ | MAY 17, 2012 | John Nolte



Never once have I doubted that President Obama was born in Hawaii. There's no way in the world that little constitutional issue would ever have got past the Clintons during the 2008 Democratic primary. Now that we're clear on that...

The exclusive story published by Breitbart News today about a 1991 booklet released by Obama's literary agent that falsely claims the President was born in Kenya, is about many things NOT having to do with where our President was born. And one of those things is the abject failure of the mainstream media to vet properly the man they so desperately wanted to be president.

Breitbart News is a scrappy, upstart organization less than four years old, and the fact that this is our exclusive is great for us. However, more importantly, it is a condemnation of a media that most certainly had the resources to find this story...had they wanted to. And who knows, maybe someone in the media did come across it but chose to cover it up.

The booklet in question that falsely states the President of the United States was born in Kenya is only 21 years old. It's less than half as young as the now-discredited story that ran in The Washington Post last week about Mitt Romney's supposed bullying as a teenager in high school.

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

Obama, Barnard and Women


Townhall.com ^ | May 18, 2012 | Mona Charen



The president dropped by Barnard College (my alma mater) this week to deliver the commencement address. It wasn't long planned. No, the college had lined-up a woman speaker -- Jill Abramson, editor of The New York Times. But in March, as part of the "war on women" gambit, the White House decided it needed a friendly female audience before whom the president could strut his feminist stuff. Barnard, bastion of women's rights, dumped the Times gal for him in a New York minute.

The speech got scant coverage. The main takeaway seemed to be that a member of the audience shouted out that Obama should do the "moonwalk" when he happened to mention it. Thrilling. The press is keen to remind us that Obama remains cool to the kids. Chris Matthews, call your office.

I don't care for cool. I'd prefer competent. But as someone who once sat where the graduates were (Toni Morrison was our speaker), I was curious to see what the president would do with the opportunity.

President Obama graduated from Columbia (Barnard's brother school) in 1983. Unwisely, in my judgment, the president reminisced: "For we, too, were heading out into a world at a moment when our country was still recovering from a particularly severe economic recession. It was a time of change. It was a time of uncertainty."

Yes, but in 1983, thanks to Reaganomics, the economy was adding 430,000 jobs per month. What was the job-growth figure for April again? Wasn't it 115,000? And hasn't the population grown by 25 percent since then?
Continuing down memory lane, the president recalled that when he was a student, "We had Walkmen, not iPods. Some of the streets around here were not quite so inviting. Times Square was not a family destination."
So true Mr. President! I remember dodging the hooligans myself. Funny you should mention that, because New York was suffering from the liberal policies that had been enacted by Democrats and liberal Republicans (John Lindsay) for decades. Good liberals just like you ran the city into the ground. They believed that crime shouldn't be punished severely because it was the understandable response to injustice. They believed that high taxes and heavy regulation were the right approach to business, because businesses were based upon greed. They believed that welfare was the least we could do for blacks and others who had been persecuted for centuries. They believed that government employees made life better and that accordingly, we should have many more of them. It was only with the election in 1993 of a conservative Republican mayor, Rudy Giuliani, that New York -- including the iconic Times Square -- was transformed. Thanks so much for reminding us that conservative reform can make such a dramatic difference in such a short time.
That the president would pander to the female audience with talk of how bright and creative and essential they are is neither surprising nor offensive. Less excusable were the outright falsehoods he cited in making the tired liberal argument about how persecuted women were in America until liberals saved them.
"Before women like Barbara Mikulski and Olympia Snowe ... got to Congress," Obama told the graduates, "much of federally-funded research on diseases focused solely on their (sic) effects on men." A hoary untruth. The National Institutes of Health retracted its claim that women were excluded from clinical trials back in 2001. As Dr. Sally Satel noted, "Back in 1979, 268 of the 293 NIH-funded clinical trials contained female subjects. Food and Drug Administration surveys in 1983 and 1988 found that 'both sexes had substantial representation in clinical trials.'" Also, "breast cancer is one of the five most generously funded diseases. ... The other four are heart disease, dementia, AIDS and diabetes."
Despite four years of his leadership, the world these young women are entering continues to be blighted by sexism. They will face "unique challenges," the president warned, "like whether you'll be able to earn equal pay for equal work ... whether you'll be able fully to control decisions about your own health." This is claptrap. Equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since the 1960s. And to fully "control decisions about your own health" is Obamacode for religious institutions cleaving to their constitutional right to free exercise in the face of his administration's assault.
The pander, like the liberal governance in New York City, appears to be failing. The latest CBS News/New York Times poll shows Obama trailing Mitt Romney by three points among women.