Monday, May 28, 2012

Romney’s Electoral College prospects bright — still

The Washington Post's Right Turn ^ | May 28, 2012 | Jennifer Rubin

Not too long ago pundits were arguing that Mitt Romney’s path to 270 electoral votes was “narrow.” We didn’t buy it.

Lo and behold, conventional wisdom has now changed. The Associated Press writes: “Warning signs for Obama on tight path to 270.” The AP explains:

Obama’s new worries about North Carolina and Wisconsin offer opportunities for Republican Mitt Romney, who must peel off states Obama won in 2008 if he’s to cobble together the 270 electoral votes needed to oust the incumbent in November.
Iowa, which kicked off the campaign in January, is now expected to be tight to the finish, while New Mexico, thought early to be pivotal, seems to be drifting into Democratic territory.
If the election were today, Obama would likely win 247 electoral votes to Romney’s 206, according to an Associated Press analysis of polls, ad spending and key developments in states, along with interviews with more than a dozen Republican and Democratic strategists both inside and outside of the two campaigns.
Seven states, offering a combined 85 electoral votes, are viewed as too close to give either candidate a meaningful advantage: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia.
Among that group, you have to like Romney’s chance in Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia, with Iowa and Colorado going to the President Obama. That puts Romney’s total at 276....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Rep. Allen West: Remembering our guardians at the gate!

Human Events ^ | 05/28/201218 | Rep. Allen West

The solemn act of honoring those who have fallen in battle is a custom that seems to have faded in importance to our nation over time.
Nowadays, many Americans have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At cemeteries across the country, the graves of the fallen are sadly ignored, and worse, neglected.
While there are towns and cities still planning Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some think the day is for honoring anyone who has died, not just those fallen in service to our country.
Perhaps they do not know how deeply our nation once appreciated those who sacrificed their lives in defense of the principles we hold most dear. Perhaps those very principles of individual sovereignty, freedom and liberty are no longer so important.
It was not always so.
In 1868, on May 5th, Memorial Day, originally called “Decoration Day,” was officially proclaimed by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11.
General Logan asked that we cherish “tenderly the memory of our heroic dead, who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes. Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders.”
But times change. In the 1960s our warriors were not welcomed back from battle with parades and cheers, and the fallen were not honored as they had been in the past.
Perhaps reflecting those times, the Uniform Holidays Bill was passed in 1968 as part of a move to use federal holidays to create three-day weekends – time for fun and recreation, rather than remembrance and reflection.
Thus, from 1971 onwards, the Memorial Day holiday was officially observed on the last Monday in May and became the unofficial start of the summer, with barbecues, blockbuster movie openings and mattress sales.
No less than the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization was later moved to say “Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public’s nonchalant observance of Memorial Day.”
It was around that time as well that defense spending began a steep decline, and in 1976, for the first time, entitlement spending exceeded defense spending. It is a trend that has rapidly accelerated, with spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid more than double that of national defense, a core constitutional function of government.
Nonetheless, the United States of America still possesses the greatest military force the world has ever known. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen volunteer to protect and defend this country and all its citizens, and do so with honor, integrity and excellence. Our nation continually asks them to do more and more, with less and less.
We must never forget why we have, and why we need our military. Our armed forces exist solely to ensure our nation is safe, so that each and every one of us can sleep soundly at night, knowing we have “guardians at the gate.”
Those who serve today deserve our gratitude, those who are returning from the battlefield deserve our open arms, and those who will never return deserve our thoughts, tributes and remembrance.
In 2000, President Clinton passed a resolution asking all Americans to observe a “National Moment of Remembrance” at 3 p.m. on each Memorial Day “to remember and reflect on the sacrifices made by so many to provide freedom for all.” I know what I will be doing at 3 p.m. this Memorial Day. I hope I will not be alone.
For as General Logan proclaimed, “Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.”
They were steadfast and loyal.
Congressman Allen West is the U.S. representative for Florida's 22nd congressional district and a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel. 

Obama's reelection campaign fell down and can't get up!

The Examiner ^ | 5/25/2012 | Jeffrey Klein

President Barack Obama made his second pilgrimage to Iowa in a month and has already spent $2.6 million airing anti-Romney and evil-Bain Capital TV ads there, as aggressively as in any other battleground state, "seeking to rekindle the all-but-faded Iowa magic that launched him in 2008," according to Ken Thomas in his Associated Press article yesterday.

President Obama has been stepping up his attacks on Gov. Mitt Romney, lately labeling him as a "vampire" venture capitalist, which he claims isn't adequate preparation for the presidency.

In his first sentence, Obama confessed that private equity firms 'can sometimes create jobs.'

This solo positive and true statement must have been in an apparent nod to his large, private-equity firm "bundlers," like Jonathan Lavine, a current managing director at Bain Capital, who has raised between $100,000 and $200,000 for Obama's re-election effort, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; and Blackstone Group president Tony James, who held a fund raiser for Obama at his New York apartment just the week before, as reported in Hans Nichols' May 16, 2012 Bloomberg article.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Target Corp. Announces T-Shirt Campaign for Homosexual Marriage

New American ^ | 28 May 2012 | Dave Bohon

Pro-family groups are taking major U.S. merchandiser Target Corporation to task for its recently announced initiative to raise money for homosexual activism.

Two years after getting into hot water with homosexual groups for backing Republican Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who supported a state amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, the Minnesota-based Target Corp. is now “inching into the gay-pride market,” reported the St. Paul Pioneer Press, “offering 10 rainbow-themed T-shirts for sale online and promising to donate 100 percent of the proceeds to the Family Equality Council [FEC], a group for gay and lesbian families.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama's Sons: They Are Real for Him!

The American Thinker ^ | 5-28-12 | Daren Jonescu

Much has been said, here at American Thinker and elsewhere, about Barack Obama's recent pair of teleprompted references to his (presumably) non-existent sons.

Thomas Lifson toys with the notion that Obama might in fact have secret sons, as a way of making sense of the seeming insanity of it. Selwyn Duke suggests it might indicate brain damage from Obama's (presumably) past drug use. (Funny, isn't it, how often one is left no choice but merely to presume about the Cipher-in-Chief.) David Paulin asks whether Obama might be the victim of a teleprompting prankster/saboteur.

All of these are reasonable speculations -- which is, in itself, reason to be perturbed about America's current devolved state. However, I would like to throw one more possibility into the mix, more straightforward, but no less bizarre, than the others. I believe it is likely that Obama compared the future prospects of "my daughters" to that of "my sons" precisely according to a sincerely prepared and carefully vetted script.

Watching the two instances on video, it is clear that he does not blink in either case, suggesting that he doesn't think he is making an error. True, he didn't blink when he heard himself talking about 57 states, either. But of course that one could plausibly be chalked up to genuine ignorance. After all, why should a 47 year-old man, serving as one of the 100 elected members of a body comprised of exactly 2 people from each U.S. state, himself famously (and presumably) born in the 50th state, and running for President, necessarily know how many states there are?

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Cowardly, pro-Obama judges a particular disgrace on this day

Coach is Right ^ | 5/28/2012 | Doug Book

“When men have died horrible deaths on foreign soil to protect the Constitution, can any man be forgiven when he ignores the Constitution to save his career?” (1)
In late January, Liberty Legal Foundation lead attorney Van Irion argued before Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi that Barack Obama was constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of president because he did NOT satisfy the Article II requirement of being a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Irion’s argument was based on precedent derived from an 1875 Supreme Court ruling which stated:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (2)
On February 3rd, Judge Malihi ignored this precedent of the 1875 court along with the language of the Constitution itself, claiming...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Shows Vulnerability Among Dems!

Dick Morris ^ | 5/28/2012 | Dick Morris

President Obama’s pathetic showing in the Democratic Primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky last Tuesday shows a serious lack of enthusiasm – or even of support – among Democratic voters. Running unopposed, Obama got only 57% of the vote in the Kentucky primary (the rest went to “uncommitted”) and 59% in Arkansas (41% went to an unknown candidate who did not campaign and had just filed to be on the ballot as a lark). Earlier in the primary season, Obama garnered only 59% of the Democratic vote in West Virginia, running against an inmate of a Texas prison and 57% of the Oklahoma Democratic vote against various nominal candidates.
To put this terrible performance in its proper perspective, consider that President Lyndon Johnson withdrew from the 1968 presidential race after winning just 58% of the vote in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary against antiwar candidate Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn). And McCarthy was no nominal opponent. The focus of the antiwar movement at the height of the Vietnam conflict, his candidacy galvanized young activists throughout the country (including me).
The fact that Obama ran so poorly in these states is very significant. The Obama campaign is spinning that none of these are states the president has a chance to carry in November. But Clinton carried both Kentucky and Arkansas in both of his presidential races.
But, more important, Obama does expect to carry the vast bulk of Democrats throughout the country. Such tepid approval anywhere in the country among his partisans has to be deeply worrying for him.
Bear in mind that this president hopes to win re-election primarily by generating huge turnouts among his base which includes young, black, and Latino voters. To not only fail to produce a high turnout but also to lose significant portions of his voter base is an ominous sign for the Obama campaign.
Sean Trende, writing in, notes that the only presidents who have “received less than 60 percent of the vote in any primary were: Taft ’12, Coolidge ’24, Hoover ’32, Johnson ’68, Ford ’76, Carter ’80 and Bush ’92.” All but Coolidge were defeated for re-election.

Romney Acknowledges Heritage Of Greatness!

On this Memorial Day, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a new video. In the 50 second spot simply entitled Thank You, Mr. Romney acknowledges the "heritage of greatness" shared by all those who have defended American liberty.

Also included is the message that "We're going to keep America strong and worthy of the great sacrifice of America's veterans and those young men and women who put their lives on the line for us even today."
On a related note, a new Gallup poll released today shows that in the upcoming presidential race, US veterans support Mr. Romney over President Barack Obama by a wide margin (58% to 34%). Those veterans make up approximately 13% of the adult population.

Primary Voters: If You Value Your Vote, Then Vote Your Values!

Graewoulf | May 28, 2012 | Graewoulf

Now is the time for all good men and women to put Country above Party. For far to long the RINO Wing of the Republican Party has been in control of losing National Elections.

The time has come to cast aside the hold-your-nose clothespins that the RINOs expect us to use when we vote for their tweedle-dumb or tweedle-dumber Candidates.

To all Primary voters: List the top 10 demonstrated positive values for each Candidate for all offices, and vote accordingly.

If there is no Candidate that meets your values for a given office, then leave that slot blank. This will then be a "None-Of-The-Above," or ABSTAIN vote, AND the fact that you voted in the election will be counted, as you turn in your ballot.

EVEN if you turn in a totally unmarked ballot for any Candidate for any office your ballot will be recorded as a vote in the election.


The worst thing that you could do is to stay home and not vote.
The RINOs love it when we do not vote, as it means to them that we are just "apathetic," and thus the RINOs know that we will let them do anything that they want to.
To throw off the stranglehold RINO yoke, we need a massive voter turnout on Primary election day!
Vote FOR the VALUES that has made America great!

Vanishing Americans

 (St. Louis Chapter)
The Thinking Housewife ^ | May 25, 2012 | Laura Wood

ALAN writes:
"On a recent Sunday afternoon, I had the most incredible experience: I sat in a roomful of 50 men and women who had lunch, talked, reminisced, and enjoyed themselves for four hours. The incredible part was that they did all that without cell phones, without liquor, without vulgar language, without loud “music,” without blaring TV screens, and without wrecking the place. All of them are white. All of them are decent and disciplined. They are, therefore, atypical 21st-century Americans. They grew up in the 1930s, ‘40s, and ‘50s. They are Old School. They are not “cool” or trendy; if they were, I would have known I had walked into the wrong room.
The occasion was a reunion of people who attended schools in the neighborhood in south St. Louis where my father lived as a boy. He organized the first such reunion in 1988. One man was so grateful for the reunions that he sent my father a four-page handwritten letter describing his memories of schoolmates in the 1920s.
This year’s event, the 25th annual reunion was the last – because the people who do the most work are tired and beset with health concerns, and because younger people have no interest in such reunions.
All of those people grew up in two old, adjacent, working-class neighborhoods that were largely self-sufficient: Grocery stores, bakeries, meat markets, confectionaries, drug stores, a farmer’s market, clothing stores, hat shops, jewelry stores, medical and dental offices, barber shops, beauty shops, hardware stores, corner taverns, city parks, a swimming pool, a library, churches, schools, movie theatres, and places of employment all stood within those neighborhoods. Virtually everything they needed could be found within walking distance from where they lived. Everyone walked everywhere.
It was an area of cold-water flats and breadboxes in front of corner markets; of railroad tracks and factories near the Mississippi River; where shop-owners lived above their shops; where saloon-keepers bounced customers who used vulgar language; and where families went window-shopping on Saturday nights along a street lined with stores. Many of them did not own an automobile or a telephone.
In contrast, many modern Americans are awash in excess and have little moral fiber. The people at the reunion did it the other way around: Excess was never a part of their lives, but they had moral fiber in abundance. None of them lived on Easy Street. Many of them were poor in material comforts. But they were not poor in things that matter: Imagination, self-discipline, common sense, self-reliance, loyalty to their families, schools, churches, and neighborhood, and a determination to pull their own weight. “It was customary not to ask for help. You stood or fell on your own,” wrote Betty Pavlige in her book Growing Up In Soulard (1980, pp. 24-25). She grew up there in the 1920s-‘30s and then operated a beauty shop there for 49 years.
There was no moral relativism in their lives. Because many of them were poor, medical care was often beyond their reach, and injuries and death were no strangers to them. “The stern facts of life had strong influence on our moral standards and the code of ethics that we lived by – or violated with terrible feelings of risk,” she wrote. “Dependability was a high virtue, and we regarded a lie, even a little white lie, as one of the serious offenses. …The lie even became a kind of allegory of death, because it submerged truth, covered it over and contaminated it. This was taught in our homes, and it was reinforced by consensus among the children wherever we gathered to play – the schoolyard, the streets, the river.” (p. 89)
They learned early in life to appreciate simple pleasures: “We believed that one step below heaven on a hot summer day was to have the 5 cents to put in the Coca-Cola machine and bring out that small frosty bottle…” (p. 93)
For heat in the winter, they burned coal. For air-conditioning in the summer, they opened the windows.
For entertainment on weekends, they walked a few blocks to watch boat and barge traffic on the river, or played softball or baseball on vacant corner lots, or walked to any of three unpretentious movie houses to enjoy the B-Westerns of Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, or Hopalong Cassidy, or listened every Saturday evening to radio’s “Your Hit Parade”.
They were not perfect, but they had enough sense to uphold form, proportion, perspective, balance, and hierarchy in their lives – which is considerably more sense than many Americans have today.
My Aunt Helen attended a public school there a hundred years ago. Her 8th-grade graduation photo from 1915 shows her in a white dress with a serrated hem well below the knee, a string of pearls, white dress shoes, and a white ribbon in her hair. In one hand she holds a “Certificate of Scholarship.” Try to imagine that degree of refinement in any public school ceremony today. In that picture, she projects more dignity at age 14 than many women do today at age 30 or 40. In the 1920s, she worked as an elevator operator in a handsome office building in the heart of downtown St. Louis that has now stood abandoned and deteriorating for two decades.
I spoke with a lady at the reunion who graduated from a parochial school in 1949. She has wonderful memories of that parish and its beautiful, German Gothic church. But she told me it has been thoroughly modernized: All the pews were taken out and replaced with seating “in the round”, and services are now in English, not Latin, and include hand-clapping. She did not think favorably of those changes. I could only agree.
Attachment to a particular place is something many modern Americans will never feel or understand. But these people understood it well, half a century after they moved away when large portions of that neighborhood were demolished. My father understood it: Never lured by the modern rat race, he was content to live for 73 years within five blocks from where his boyhood home had stood. Photos from that old neighborhood were displayed at the reunion, along with class graduation pictures from the 1950s. The dress and demeanor of boys and girls in those pictures are a moral universe removed from – and better than – what is seen in schools today.
It was a bittersweet afternoon for me. I knew I was in a roomful of the best kind of men and women: Hard-working, reliable, down-to-earth, plain-spoken, straight-shooting men and women who never expected or asked for any special favors from anyone, and who never imagined that anyone owed them anything. And I knew that their code of moral standards and self-discipline are fast disappearing from the American landscape. Such people are a glorious contrast to the pampered, overeducated, miseducated, and ill-mannered people we see so often today. The difference is that they were teenagers once but got over it and grew up – whereas modern Americans prefer to remain teenagers.
In 1997, the Reunion Committee gave my father a certificate of appreciation to express gratitude to him for his work in organizing the early school reunions.
In 2012, I gave each member of that Committee a certificate of appreciation to express my gratitude to them for their labor of love in continuing those annual reunions for a quarter-century.
I knew that this last reunion marked the end of an era for those good people. It was an honor to sit among them.

Gingrich's Defense of Bain Capital Far Superior to Anything You Ever Hear Coming from Romney

Reaganite Republican ^ | May 28, 2012 | Reaganite Republican

"How can you be the president with the worst
unemployment record since the Great Depression
-and pick a fight over job creation?
There's a point where this becomes ludicrous..."
"Bain as an issue doesn't work, because people look at it on balance... and they say 'wait a second -yeah- you can pick a couple companies that lost. You can pick a lot of companies that succeeded.' And as even as the governor of Massachusetts said last week, it is a good company."

"This is going to fall flat on its face ... Obama picking a fight on the economy is probably the worst possible strategy for his campaign."

"(Cory Booker) described what I think is a big reality for him as the Mayor of Newark: that that free enterprise system has been creating jobs, paying taxes, improving his city."

Re. Newt's own (primary) attacks on Mitt's record at Bain: "I think Governor Perry will tell you when he tried to use it, it didn't work... when I went head-to-head with Mitt over it didn't work...
I'm a little surprised Obama is trying it"

"In effect, what Obama is saying is that government investment is smarter than private equity -and if you look at their track record of losing billions on various solar companies -$2.1B on one company alone- you'd have to say Obama's a pretty bad venture capitalist.

And remember, he's doing it with your money... for better or worse, Romney was taking a risk as a private person, with private money, in the private sector... Obama's been throwing our money as taxpayers away, and our children's and grandchildren's in the national debt"

"I think private equity on balance creates far more jobs that it kills... I think private equity creates a far better future... look at the rise of Google, of Apple."

"Private equity in general has been a force that has overwhelmingly been more effective at creating jobs than any socialist government in history. So if I had to choose between private equity and socialism, I'd choose private equity every time.

Countries that use private equity get richer, and countries that follow socialism get poorer.... Obama's frankly a pretty good case study in that: his examples of public equity -investing in Solyndra, investing in other failing companies -I mean he's thrown-away billions of dollars of taxpayers' money- because it turns-out that bureaucrats don't make very good venture capitalists."


Veterans Give Romney Big Lead Over Obama (58% to 34%)

Vote Preferences by Veteran Status, April-May 2012
Vote Preferences by Gender and Veteran Status, April-May 2012

Gallup ^ | 05/27/2012 | Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. veterans, about 13% of the adult population and consisting mostly of older men, support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama for president by 58% to 34%, while nonveterans give Obama a four-percentage-point edge.

These data, from an analysis of Gallup Daily tracking interviews conducted April 11-May 24, show that 24% of all adult men are veterans, compared with 2% of adult women.

Obama and Romney are tied overall at 46% apiece among all registered voters in this sample. Men give Romney an eight-point edge, while women opt for Obama over Romney by seven points. It turns out that the male skew for Romney is driven almost entirely by veterans. Romney leads by one point among nonveteran men, contrasted with the 28-point edge Romney receives among male veterans.

The small percentage of female veterans in the U.S., in contrast to their male counterparts, do not differ significantly in their presidential vote choice from the vast majority of women who are not veterans.

The proportion of U.S. men who are armed forces veterans rises dramatically among those who are 60 and older. The military draft was in force in the U.S. from shortly before the U.S. entry into World War II until the early 1970s. A majority of men now 70 to 89 served in the military, including almost three-quarters of those aged 80 to 89. Less than a fifth of men younger than 50 have served in the military.

There is little variation in military service among women across these age groups.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why the Job Numbers Are So Bad(Recovery Unemployment: 4/5 is a Drop in Labor Force Participation)

CNBC ^ | 4 May 2012 | Peter Morici

The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent because another 522,000 adults quit looking for work and are no longer counted.
In the weakest recovery since the Great Depression more than four-fifths of the reduction in unemployment has been accomplished by a dropping adult labor force participation rate—essentially, persuading adults they don’t need a job, or the job they could find is not worth having.
In the first quarter, growth slowed to 2.2 percent and was largely sustained by consumers taking on more debt, and additions to business inventory.
Gains in manufacturing production have not instigated stronger improvements in employment largely because so much of the growth is focused in high-value activity. Assembly work, outside the auto patch, remains handicapped by the exchange rate situation with the Chinese yuan.
And concerns about the durability of the recovery and health care costs when Obama Care is fully implemented make employers very cautious about adding to headcount.
Overall, the situation with the yuan is the single largest impediment to more robust growth in manufacturing and its broader multiplier effects for the rest of the economy; the Obama Administration indicated it has no intention of challenging China on this issue, but presumptive GOP standard bearer Mitt Romney promises a harder line.
Factoring in those discouraged adults and others working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is about 14.5 percent. Adding college graduates in low skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks, and the unemployment rate is likely closer to 18 percent
Growth is weak and jobs are in jeopardy, because temporary tax cuts, stimulus spending, large federal deficits, expensive but ineffective business regulations, and costly health care mandates do not address structural problems holding back dynamic growth and jobs creation—the huge trade deficit and dysfunctional energy policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why It Doesn’t Pay To Cooperate With Police

May 21, 2012 by

Why It Doesn’t Pay To Cooperate With Police
Keep your car free from clutter and conceal everything that you want to keep private.
Police officers are trained manipulators. They take classes to learn how to read people’s body language and how to ask open-ended and innocent-sounding questions in order to surreptitiously obtain information they can use against you.

They also have a knowledge of the laws that you don’t possess — and laws differ from State to State, and even from one jurisdiction in a State to another. Police have also been known to invent “laws,” place “evidence” that can be linked to you and twist your words into meaning something you did not intend.
For that reason you should never consent to a police search of your vehicle and never volunteer information when being questioned. Of course, not consenting doesn’t mean you won’t be subjected to an unConstitutional and illegal search, as Nancy Genovese learned.

But two recent cases drive home the point of why it doesn’t pay to cooperate with police: that of Army Lt. Augustine Kim and that of Diane Avera.
Before being deployed to Afghanistan, Kim left his gun collection with his parents in New Jersey. In the summer of 2010, Kim was back in the United States after being injured in a vehicle crash in Afghanistan. He had a medical appointment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and decided to work a trip from his South Carolina home to his parent’s New Jersey home around the medical center appointment.
He loaded his guns plus some spare parts in the trunk of his Honda Civic and headed to his medical appointment. He got lost in downtown Washington, D.C., and was pulled over by police. The officer said his license had been suspended, but Kim said he was not aware that it had been. It turns out the suspension was a clerical error caused by the State of North Carolina incorrectly reporting to South Carolina that Kim had failed to pay for a ticket.
But because of the erroneous suspension, the D.C. officer called for backup and told Kim he’d have to go to the police station. Then the officer asked if he could search his vehicle. Kim consented because he knew his guns were properly locked in a case, which complied with Federal firearms transportation laws. Kim was handcuffed and made to sit on the curb. He was then booked on four counts of carrying outside the home. Officers told him that he was in violation of registration laws because he admitted to having stopped at Walter Reed. In D.C., having a weapon outside the home is illegal.
In Demopolis, Ala., Avera answered a police officer’s question honestly. It landed her in jail for 40 days — including 17 hours strapped in a restraint chair — and a conviction on a drug charge that carries a sentence of one year in jail and seven years of probation.
Avera had recently taken up the hobby of scuba diving. Her dive instructor had advised her to take pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) to help her equalize pressure on her eardrums and to help her with other sinus issues she experienced while diving. This is a common practice among divers; and Avera had, under advice from her physician, taken pseudoephedrine many times before to treat allergies.
But just weeks before Avera was arrested, a new State ordinance went into effect in her home State of Mississippi that made pseudoephedrine a prescription drug. So Avera drove to Alabama to buy some.
In the car with Avera were her adult son, his girlfriend and their three children. The son and girlfriend bought two boxes of Sudafed from a CVS. Avera bought another at Wal-Mart. As she pulled away from Wal-Mart, Demopolis Police Sgt. Tim Soronen pulled her over. (In Avera’s trial it was revealed the CVS pharmacist was a police informant who tipped off police about the Sudafed purchase.)
“What brings you to Demopolis?” Soronen asked.
“I came over to buy some Sudafed for our scuba diving trip this weekend, since we can’t buy it in Meridian anymore,” Avera replied.
Soronen asked Avera if she knew it was against the law to cross the State line to buy Sudafed. Avera said she did not. Soronen ordered her out of the car.
Using the threat of kidnapping Avera’s grandchildren and putting them into the hands of the State Department of Human Resources, Soronen extorted a confession from Avera that she was buying Sudafed to manufacture crystal methamphetamine. It did not help that her son — a habitual drug user who had been through rehab several times — had a bottle of methadone and a pouch containing drug paraphernalia that police found during a vehicle search.
She was convicted after the trial judge allowed the prosecutor to make entirely unsubstantiated claims. These included that Avera had confessed to having used crystal meth for two years — her former employer, a physician, insisted there was never any indication she was a drug user — and that she had somehow “diluted” drug tests that showed she had no meth in her system.
Avera’s conviction is being appealed, and she is free on a $20,000 bond. But Kim accepted a deal that allowed him to plead guilty of one misdemeanor charge of possessing an unregistered gun with the understanding the charges would be dismissed and his guns and gun parts — worth $10,000 — would be returned if he stayed out of trouble for nine months. Now the Metropolitan Police are refusing to release Kim’s guns.
“The mistake he made was agreeing to a search of his vehicle,” Kim’s attorney Richard Gardiner told The Washington Times. “If the police ask for consent to search, the answer is ‘no.’ If they ask, ‘why not?’ The answer is, ‘no.’”
For most people, encounters with police end with no more than a warning or a ticket. But you never know when you may say or do something that interests the officer enough that he or she wants to take a closer look at who you are and where you’ve been.
Privacy expert and lawyer Mark Nestmann writes in his book, The Lifeboat Strategy to never consent to a vehicle search. He reminds that you do not have to answer an officer’s questions if you are being detained.

From his book:
Say something like, “Officer, I know you want to do your job, but I can’t consent to a search.” A likely response will be, “Why not? What do you have to hide?” You are under no obligation to answer this question. Instead, say something like, “Officer, am I under arrest? If not, I would respectfully ask that you permit me to leave.” If there’s no response, then announce, “Officer, if you’re not detaining me, may I leave?” If the response is “yes,” say “thank you” and leave immediately. If the response is ambiguous, or if your question is answered by another question, repeat your question: “Am I being detained, or may I leave now?”
If the response is “no,” you’re being detained. Police may detain you or your vehicle for a brief time… If you’re detained, you’re under no obligation to answer any questions or consent to a search. You should point that out; but again, in a non-threatening way. One way is to make a joke; e.g., “My lawyer would kill me if I consented to a search without him being present.”… Specifically mention the word “lawyer.” This will end many requests for a search or to answer questions. If not, tell the officer that you want to call your lawyer… If you don’t have a lawyer… Just keep your mouth shut and don’t consent to a search.
Nestmann also recommends you keep your car free from clutter and conceal everything that you want to keep private. If an officer sees something suspicious out in the open, he can get around the need for consent or a warrant and claim probable cause.
Most people now break many laws during the course of their day that they don’t even know exist. The presumption of innocence no longer applies. Over the past several decades, police have become increasingly militarized and increasingly militant and abusive. For years, complaints about abusive police from members of the black community have fallen on deaf ears. Propaganda-induced ignorance will cause many to dismiss this issue still.
Some people are concerned there will come a time in the United States when the military will be brought to bear on the regular citizens in a time of riots or civil unrest. But it’s more likely we should fear the police, who are already showing a proclivity to attack and abuse citizens — including children — and are obviously preparing for civil unrest.

AP 'Fact Check' Ignores Obama Stump Speech Claim of 'Slowest' Spending Growth

News ^ | May 27, 2012 | Tom Blumer

At the Associated Press aka the Administration's Press on Saturday, Andrew Taylor's "Fact Check" item on President Obama's stump speech claim in Iowa on Thursday dove into the trees without first looking at the forest.
Distracted by ridiculousaurus Rex Nutting's write-up earlier in the week at MarketWatch ("Obama spending binge never happened"), which absurdly claimed that "government outlays (are) rising at slowest pace since 1950s," Taylor spent paragraph after paragraph going into the nuances of "the Wall Street bailout" (really TARP, which wasn't all about "Wall Street," unless GM and Chrysler have recently moved there) and the disputes over who should be responsible for various items of and increases in spending the fiscal 2009. He either didn't understand -- or didn't want to communicate that he really did understand -- exactly what President Obama said, which follows the jump:

But what my opponent didn’t tell you was that federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.
By changing the argument to one about spending "since I took office," Obama is no longer, as Taylor incorrectly wrote, "rest(ing) his claim on an analysis by MarketWatch." He is now claiming that spending growth during his administration has risen "at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years" since January 20, 2009. Other than the necessary discrediting of Nutting's work, which at this point is done (James Pethokoukis, Heritage, Dan Mitchell, yours truly, and many more), a tedious discussion of George W. Bush's vs. Obama's responsibility for spending which occurred after Bush left office is no longer required.
All one needs to see is this table, followed by a comparison to the first four years of George W. Bush's administration to the last four years of Bill Clinton's:

(Note: Fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011 were adjusted by -$157 billion, +115 billion and +$42 billion, respectively -- with an overall net effect of zero -- to account for TARP-related noncash accounting entries which, as I explained here yesterday, had nothing to do with "spending" as it correctly defined.)
As to the Clinton-Bush 43 comparison, I looked at the last four years of spending under Clinton (Feb. 1997 to Jan. 2001) and the first four under Bush (Feb. 2001 to Jan. 2005). Bush 43's average monthly spending was 25.1% greater. Though that's not a record to point to with pride, that increase in average monthly spending is less than the Bush 43-Obama increase calculated above. So we don't need to go back 60 years to see that Obama's "since I took office" claim is inarguably false.
Two things are possibly at work here.
It may be that Obama, his teleprompter, and those who prepare his presentations don't understand the dreadful degree of fudging Nutting had to do to reach his deceptive conclusion, and really think that it was about Obama's entire presidency to date "since I took office."
It seems more likely that Obama and his deeply cynical handlers do understand, but that they think they can stretch Nutting's original assertions to the breaking point, count on the establishment press not to give the new "since I took office" twist the scrutiny it deserves, and thereby get away with it. For all practical purposes, seeing how Andrew Taylor handled his "fact check" and wrote up his conclusion, Team Obama got what it wanted from him:
A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.
Beyond the fact that Taylor, like Nutting, is giving Obama credit for 17 months (May 2012 through September 2013) which haven't even transpired, the fact is that Obama himself has now said that he owns responsibility for the spending decisions "since I took office" on January 20, 2009 and that the historical numbers as seen above are what they are.

Super-PAC ads look to tie Obama to Wall Street and turn off his supporters!

The Hill ^ | 05/26/12 | Niall Stanage

Conservative super-PACs are attempting to gin up disillusionment among President Obama's supporters and keep their turnout low in November's election, in part by highlighting his ties to Wall Street.

Within the past month, three separate ads — two from the American Future Fund and one from Crossroads GPS — have assailed Obama from broadly comparable perspectives. Especially striking are the American Future Fund ads which make the kind of anti-Wall Street argument heard largely on the left.

The outside groups' message contrasts with the one being pushed by Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, who has called the Obama's "the most anti-business administration" since President Carter's.
Asked whether at least part of the super-PACs intention was to persuade voters who might otherwise support Obama to stay home, Republican strategist Keith Appell said:
"Sure. It helps. Part of [the purpose] is to raise questions in that 2008 Obama voter's mind. Many of them may feel so disillusioned by his record. So, yes, I think that's part of it."
Appell, who is not affiliated with either of the groups behind the ads, also noted that they could fuel the sense that there was no material difference between Obama and Romney with regard to their closeness to the business world.
"If they are both cut from the same cloth people will say, 'A plague on both your houses,'" he said.
Democratic strategist Chris Lehane speculated that Republicans may feel they need to keep Democratic turnout low because they will not be able to rely on the kind of well-honed turnout operation that served President George W. Bush well.
"The Republicans don't have the ground game that they had in the Bush era this time around, and so they are going for a voter-suppression approach," Lehane asserted.
"They are targeting people, not with any realistic chances of winning their vote, but in the hope that they will be so disillusioned with the entire process that they don't come out to vote."

The American Future Fund has reportedly spent $3.4 million to buy airtime in battleground states for its assault on Obama.

In the newer of its two ads, "Justice for Sale", the narrator laments that “not a single senior Wall Street executive has been charged with a crime — not one. Why? Could it be because Obama raised $49 million from Wall Street, more than any candidate in history?"
The other ad, titled "Obama's Wall Street," was first produced in late February, but has apparently been relaunched.
It attacks Obama on the basis that "his White House is full of Wall Street executives" and concludes "Obama won't admit to supporting Wall Street, but Wall Street sure supports President Obama."
In both cases, the rhetorical tone would not be out of place at a meeting of the Occupy movement. Yet the ad comes from a group that lists its board of directors as being comprised of two "life-long" conservative activists and a Republican state senator from Iowa.
In the ad from Crossroads GPS, an actor plays the role of a middle-aged relatively affluent woman who supported Obama in 2008 because "he spoke so beautifully; he promised change." Now, her adult children are unable to move out of the family home because they have not been able to find jobs and start their careers.
"I had so many hopes," the woman says, her tone one of sorrow more than anger.
The ad will air in 10 swing states, and has $9.7 million of funding behind it.
Arguing that the ad's relative lightness of touch is its most important asset, Republican consultant Rick Wilson said, "It's not a huge hair-on-fire ad but it is a very corrosive ad for Barack Obama because it says to people who voted for him: 'You weren't a bad person in 2008, you just made a mistake.'"
Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who is also a columnist for The Hill, criticized the use of actors and a script, however.
"Yes, people need to have permission to change their mind but they are trying to change their mind by reading them a novel — an entirely fictional novel, to my mind," he said.
The communications director for Crossroads GPS, Jonathan Collegio, insisted that his group's ads were not made with the specific intention of discouraging people from voting for Obama.
"No, these are issue ads," he said. He noted that the most recent ad included, at the end, a suggestion that voters should sign up to support the "New Majority Agenda." This agenda, displayed on the Crossroads website, mostly revolves around issues of fiscal conservatism.
"The goal of Crossroads is to stop the tax increases," Collegio said, "and big government initiatives have been part of Mr. Obama's agenda."
Divining the exact strategic purpose behind super-PAC ads is made more complicated by virtue of the groups' relationship to election finance laws.

Both the American Future Fund and Crossroads GPS are registered as 501(c)(4) groups, which means they do not have to disclose their donors. This classification allows groups to spend to "promote social welfare" and would be invalidated by any "electioneering communications" which such a group disseminated within 60 days of a general election.
In a request currently before the Federal Election Commission (FEC), lawyers for the American Future Fund are seeking an advisory opinion that they hope will help them continue to shield the identity of their donors.
One of the tests under election law is whether the ads in question would "refer to a clearly identified federal candidate." In their letter to the FEC(PDF), the American Future Fund's lawyers, Jason Torchinsky and Michael Bayes, suggest that one proposed ad would not do this, even though it proposes to include a clip of Obama's voice.
"The advertisement will not identify the speaker in any way," they write. "Only those familiar with President Obama's voice will know that it is President Obama speaking."
An opposing letter on behalf of Obama for America is also before the FEC. In it, attorney Robert Bauer argues that a decision in favor of the American Future Fund would mean "the disclosure requirements...will have been diminished to the vanishing point."
Several attempts by The Hill to reach the American Future Fund for comment on its ads were unsuccessful.

Obama Donor Tied to Bain Layoffs!

abc ^ | 5/22/2012 | By Jonathan Karl

The Obama campaign’s latest attack tells the story of workers at an Indiana office supply company who lost their jobs after a Bain-owned company named American Pad & Paper (Ampad) took over their company and drove it out of business.

Here’s what the Obama Web video doesn’t mention: A top Obama donor and fundraiser had a much more direct tie to the controversy and actually served on the board of directors at Richardson, Texas-based Ampad, which makes office paper products.

Jonathan Lavine is a long-time Bain Capital executive and co-owner of the Boston Celtics. He is also one of President Obama’s most prolific fundraisers. He has already raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign this election, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Lavine started working for Bain in 1993. He was one of three Bain executives who served on the board of directors of Ampad for several years, a post he held until 1999. Here’s a news release announcing his departure from the company in April 1999.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Amarillo By Morning (Smith and Wesson on My Mind) ^ | May 28, 2012 | Mike Adams

I never travel without a loaded gun. I usually carry a Smith and Wesson Model 640 in a bucket in the trunk of my car. Sometimes I carry a Glock Model 23 instead. I was really happy I was carrying the former when I arrived at my hotel room in Amarillo last week shortly after midnight. As I was unpacking my trunk, a man came walking across the parking lot from an adjacent hotel. His largely incoherent introduction began something like this:

“Hey, I’m a big scary black man and I need some help. Won’t nobody help me ‘cause I’m a big scary black man. I ain’t gonna hurt ya (pulls out wallet). See? Here’s my ID. I’m a preacher and I got kicked outa my room. I ain’t no beggar. I just need $12 or I’m gonna have to sleep in the parking lot. I’m stayin’ right over there (points to adjacent hotel). Theys a woman and a child that’s gonna have to sleep in a car if don’t get $12.”

I detected a slight stumble as the man was walking toward me talking. It took very little insight to detect that he was no preacher and that the money was not needed to pay off a $12 balance in order to get re-admitted to his hotel room. So I turned back toward my trunk and continued unpacking.

The final part of my unpacking ritual involves securing my firearm, which I always take with me into the hotel room. I always reach into the bucket, take the gun out of the holster, and slip it in my pocket on my left hand side (I ‘m a southpaw). It just so happened that the stumbling “preacher” was approaching from my left hand side and could see my hands clearly as I was unpacking.

Shortly after I secured all of the items from my trunk, the stumbling “preacher” shouted, “Oh, mercy! Can’t a black man get a break?” He threw his hands in the air and then turned around and walked hurriedly towards the adjacent parking lot. I had substantially more than $12 worth of cash on me that evening (actually it was early morning). I made it to the hotel room before I had to pull either the wallet or the gun out of my pocket.

The man who approached me in the parking lot that evening did three things that I consider to be morally reprehensible. Although he did not split a single infinitive, his actions are worthy of condemnation for the following reasons:

1. He invoked race where it was irrelevant.
2. He falsely claimed to be a member of a noble profession.
3. He pretended to be acting on others’ behalf while he was acting in his own selfish interests.

Fortunately, I have been a handgun owner since 1993. I also obtained my concealed weapon permit in 1997. At no time since then have I been robbed or assaulted. Nor have I even had to fire a shot, point a gun, or verbally threaten a person to secure my safety.

My experiences as a handgun owner have been no aberration. States passing concealed carry laws have seen significant decreases in predatory crime. Academic studies have also demonstrated that these decreases are statistically significant even after controlling for variables that might otherwise explain the reductions in crime.

To date, there have been 16 refereed studies that have concluded that violent crime goes down as a result of concealed carry laws. About 10 refereed studies have shown the results of concealed carry laws to be inconclusive with regard to violent crime. No refereed studies – I repeat, zero refereed studies – have shown that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons increases the rate of violent crime.

Sadly, most of these refereed studies have been conducted by economists interested in cost/benefit analysis on matters of public policy. I used the word “sadly” because the question of the effects of gun laws on crime is a matter that falls squarely within the discipline of criminology, which is a branch of the larger discipline of sociology. Yet criminologists and sociologists generally shy away from the issue. Their inactions are worthy of condemnation for the following reasons:

1. They invoke race where it is irrelevant.
Too many “social scientists” ignore citizens’ legitimate concerns over their safety and well-being. Those who would like to carry a gun lawfully are often dismissed as having an irrational fear of people or color.
2. They falsely claim to be members of a noble profession. In addition to avoiding doing research on gun ownership, most “social scientists” are not familiar with the results of studies on the topic. To ignore science and hold oneself out as a scientist is simply wrong.

3. They pretend to be acting on others’ behalf while acting in their own selfish interests. Sociologists are opposed to rape. But they are overwhelmingly opposed to concealed carry laws that reduce rape. Clearly, they have decided that they are more interested in preventing an assault on their worldview than in preventing assaults on innocent women.

Put simply, the time has come for these “social scientists” to stop acting like bums and become productive members of society. It may be true that they have families to feed and nowhere else to go. But we can’t keep giving them handouts forever.

Who Are They?


Gets It

Posted Image

In The Liberal World

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Green Spender

Posted Image


Posted Image

Marching Forward

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Capital not Kapital

Posted Image


Posted Image

Traffic Report

Posted Image

Black Pepsident

Posted Image


Posted Image

Shout Out

Posted Image

Mark Anthony

Posted Image

Liberal Speakers

Posted Image

Remember Their Names

Posted Image

Thank You

Posted Image

Archbishop: Networks 'missed the boat' on coverage of church's ObamaCare lawsuits

fox news ^ | 5/27/2012 | fox news

The archbishop of Washington on Sunday accused the network news programs of having "missed the boat" by largely ignoring lawsuits filed this past week by Catholic institutions challenging the Obama administration's so-called contraception mandate.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," was responding to an analysis by the conservative Media Research Center of how the networks' evening newscasts treated coverage of the dozen federal lawsuits filed Monday. According to the center, CBS spent 19 seconds on the story after it broke, while the other networks gave it no coverage.

"It is puzzling, particularly since they're focusing so much attention right now on the pope's butler," Wuerl said, in reference the scandal in which the pope's butler Paolo Gabriele was charged with stealing sensitive documents and is suspected of leaking them.

"It seems to me that somehow they've missed the boat. They've missed the story," Wuerl said.
The story, the archbishop said, is "religious liberty."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...