Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Hypocrite-In-Chief Whines: Romney Campaign Saying "It's Obama's Fault"

Conservative Nation News ^ | June 12, 2012

At a fundraiser in Maryland today, President Barack Obama criticized the core message of Mitt Romney’s campaign as simplistic.

“Because folks are still hurting right now, the other side feels that its enough for them to just sit back and say, ‘Things aren’t as good as they should be and it’s Obama’s fault,’” the president said. “You can pretty much put their campaign on, on a tweet and have some characters to spare.”

The bulk of the attacks made by Mr. Romney’s campaign since he secured the Republican nomination have characterized the sluggish economic recovery as the result of failed policies instituted by President Obama.

At today’s fundraiser, the president said he remains confident the nation’s voters are on his side.

(Excerpt) Read more at conservativenationnews.blogspot.com ...

The North Dakota Petri Dish for Recovery

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | June 12, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh


RUSH: We're gonna start in Soldotna, Alaska. This is Terry. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I am so happy to talk to you. Basically my point is, and maybe I'm just a simpleton here, but to me if the private sector is fine, then the public sector would be fine just based purely on the tax revenue coming in from the private sector to fund these services. I don't understand why this is confusing.
RUSH: What you're saying is the public sector doesn't have any money until taxes are collected.
CALLER: Well, yeah, exactly. And I'm not talking about, you know, the government infusing these through the federal government funds. I'm just saying basically, you know, for small cities and municipalities and things. I mean, to me, if your private sector is doing well then you have the money to provide --

USH: Well, exactly. The petri dish for this is North Dakota. A booming state. As I said yesterday, you know what's on the ballot? You know what they're voting on in North Dakota today is whether or not to pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate property taxes. And do you know why? It's because they are so flush with tax revenue. There is an oil boom in North Dakota. There's an oil boom in Utah. There's an oil boom in Montana. There are little laboratories in this country that show exactly what the road to recovery is, and it is a burgeoning, growing private sector. Innovation, brand-new ways of extracting oil previously unavailable to us, and it's created a boom.
Sales tax revenue in the state of North Dakota, according to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, sales tax revenue is up 83%, and they didn't increase the rate. They didn't raise taxes. They just have that much more commerce going on. They are so flush with money that they can afford to eliminate the property tax, and the proponents of this have a really good slogan. Now, the polling data says it's gonna go down to defeat three to one, if you can believe that. People are afraid to eliminate the property tax because they know it funds education and all that, and they're afraid that if the boom wipes out or that if Obama goes in and says the boom's basically illegal and orders it shut down -- imagine thinking that possible in this country, that your president would go in and shut down a boom economy. But they do, they have the fear. Then they fear that the state wouldn't have necessary funds to operate without the property tax.

But here's the great line. And I'm paraphrasing. A woman is quoted as saying, "I don't believe that a tax should have the power to make you homeless." Meaning, it's just not right that failure to pay your property tax results in you losing your house. Come up with some other penalty, but the idea that you can lose your house because of a tax, this is one of the rallying points that the proponents of this are using. A couple of stories on this today. One's in the New York Times, another one USA Today. And they're both pretty good stories. But nothing's changed. The polling on this is that residents three to one are opposed to eliminate the property tax.
Now, I'm just gonna tell you, if somebody came along here in Florida and asked me to join the effort to eliminate property taxes, I'm right in there. Who wouldn't? And particularly on the basis, yeah, why should you lose -- you know, I don't know if I can get this story in 50 seconds. Some years ago, my property tax bill did not get sent to me. It was sent to one of the multiple addresses of my financial guy, adviser. And it got lost. Nobody did anything about it, and I didn't think about it, and the day before my house was to go up for auction on the courthouse steps, I got a call from somebody who was not even in the assessor's office, because people in the office he told me were hoping I wouldn't make the payment so I'd lose my house. And he happened to know one of the people. I was one day from having the house go up for sale. This was ten years ago, maybe a little bit longer than that. Anyway that's how they're selling this, that you shouldn't lose your house, a tax shouldn't have that kind of power.
RUSH: No, no. Folks, it really happened. And, in fact, it was somebody in the assessor's office who confirmed it for me later on. They said they weren't allowed to reach out. But, yeah, the bill got lost, or wherever it went, somebody didn't know what it was, didn't think to inform me. It was shortly after I moved here and I was trying to keep my actual address secret. So bills would be sent to a different address, but with property tax, it has to go to the address of the property, or it did. It was all convoluted. I didn't get the bill. And the bills come in November, and you've got until April or May to pay it. You can pay it all off in November. If you don't pay it in November, it goes up a little bit in December and so forth, like yours does.
So one day I'm sitting in the studio and the phone rings. This is back when I could hear, could use the phone, and there's some guy on the phone, very nervous, telling me that I might want to look into getting my property tax paid. I said, "Okay, why?" I didn't know any of this about it had to be paid by April.
"Well, you just better."
"Can I send you a check?"
"No, I'm not from the assessor's office."
I said, "Well, who you are?"
"I just heard that your house is gonna go up for sale tomorrow on the courthouse steps. It's gonna be auctioned off because you..."
This was very close to the show starting, so I start panicking and I started trying to find out what happened. And, lo and behold, everything he said was true, and I had to go run out and get a certified check and hand deliver it and so forth, and I later found out there were people in the assessor's office who were hoping, just because of political differences, that I wouldn't pay the bill and I'd lose the house. Ever since then, I pay the bill in November. I made sure I get the bill. I made sure that it went to the right address, which I thought had been done in the first place.
Anyway, so if somebody came along and said, "You know what, we're gonna make a move to eliminate property tax in Florida," which is not necessary, I'm up, I'm in there. I have not been corrupted by this notion that government can't get along without me and my taxes and so forth. Let me rephrase that. The best way to illustrate what I really mean is North Dakota, here you've got a state that is running a surplus, I forget the number, maybe the surplus is close to $900 billion, and that's a lot in a small state. I mean it's a lot of commerce, and the sales tax revenue is up 83%, and the state does not need all of the money it's collecting via taxes. It just doesn't need it. And some people said, "Look, the state, granted, it needs to be funded for certain functions, and we all agree to this as a civil and ordered citizenry and society. But beyond that, the state shouldn't take more than it needs."
This is a fundamental argument that orients us every day here. And yet you have some people who are so concerned what might happen to the state if they ever do run short of money, don't want to get rid of the property tax. Now, what they're really afraid of is what will happen to them if the state runs out of money somewhere. But if the state has hundreds of millions of dollars that it doesn't need, what's it gonna do? It's gonna spend it. That's what happens. So I don't know how the vote's gonna come out. The pre-polling showed that one out of three were supportive of this, that the opposition was winning huge, the opposition to eliminating the property tax in North Dakota. We shall see.

Stealth Behavior allows Cockroaches to Seemingly Vanish

Scientific Computing ^ | 6/12/12

An American cockroach under a ledge. Photo by Jean-Michel Mongeau and Pauline Jennings, courtesy of PolyPEDAL Lab, UC Berkeley

New cockroach behavior discovered by University of California, Berkeley, biologists secures the insect’s reputation as one of nature’s top escape artists, able to skitter away and disappear from sight before any human can swat it.
In addition to its lightning speed, quick maneuvers and ability to squeeze through the tiniest cracks, the cockroach also can flip under a ledge and disappear in the blink of an eye, the researchers found. It does this by grabbing the edge with grappling hook-like claws on its back legs and swinging like a pendulum 180 degrees to land firmly underneath, upside down.
Always eager to mimic animal behaviors in robots, the researchers teamed up with UC Berkeley robotics experts to recreate the behavior in a six-legged robot by adding Velcro strips.
The UC Berkeley team published the results of the study on Wednesday, June 6, 2012, in the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE.
Graduate student Jean-Michel Mongeau of UC Berkeley’s biophysics group said he and his colleagues first noticed the roaches’ newly-identified behavior while studying how they use their antennae to sense and cross gaps.
“As we made the gap wider, they would end up on the underside of the ramp,” Mongeau said. “To the naked eye, it wasn’t clear what was happening, but when we filmed them with a high-speed camera and slowed it down, we were amazed to see that it was the cockroach’s hind legs grabbing the surface that allowed it to swing around under the ledge.”
“Cockroaches continue to surprise us,” said Robert Full, a professor of integrative biology who, 15 years ago, discovered that when cockroaches run rapidly, they rear up on their two hind legs like bipedal humans. “They have fast relay systems that allow them to dart away quickly in response to light or motion at speeds up to 50 body lengths per second, which is equivalent to a couple hundred miles per hour, if you scale up to the size of humans. This makes them incredibly good at escaping predators.”
Surprisingly, the researchers discovered a similar behavior in lizards, animals that have hook-like toenails, and also documented geckos using this escape technique in the jungle at the Wildlife Reserves near Singapore.
“This behavior is probably pretty widespread, because it is an effective way to quickly move out of sight for small animals,” Full said.
Full’s group then teamed up with the robotics group led by Ron Fearing, UC Berkeley professor of electrical engineering and computer science. In Fearing’ s lab, graduate student researchers Paul Birkmeyer and Aaron Hoover attached Velcro to the rear legs of a small, cockroach-inspired, six-legged robot called DASH (Dynamic Autonomous Sprawled Hexapod). It was able to reproduce the same behavior as seen in roaches and geckos.
“This work is a great example of the amazing maneuverability of animals, and how understanding the physical principles used by nature can inspire design of agile robots,” Fearing said.
Mongeau and Brian McRae, an undergraduate bioengineering major, analyzed the mechanics of the ninja-like maneuver and discovered that the cockroach, an American cockroach (Periplaneta americana), wasn’t merely falling over the ledge. It actually ran at full speed toward the ledge, dove off, then grabbed the edge with its claws — sometimes using only one leg — and swung like a pendulum under the ledge, retaining 75 percent of its running energy.
This pendulum swing subjects the animal to three to five times the force of gravity (3-5 gs), similar to what humans feel at the bottom of a bungee jump, Mongeau said.
Full looked at trapeze artists, as well as other animals, to find a comparable behavior and found only one well-studied similarity: the tree-swinging behavior of gibbons.
These studies of cockroach and lizard behavior are a hallmark of Full’s biomechanics teaching laboratory, where undergraduate and graduate students put animals through their paces to determine how they walk, run, leap and maneuver. Recently, Full and his students discovered that geckos use their tails to remain upright in midair, stabilize their body during leaping and even steer during gliding. Now, they are focusing on other body parts — abdomens and appendages, such as antennae and legs.
“All this must be put together into a complete package to understand what goes into these animals’ extraordinary maneuverability,” Full said.
Aside from helping scientists understand animal locomotion, these findings will go into making better robots.
“Today, some robots are good at running, some at climbing, but very few are good at both or transitioning from one behavior to the other,” he said. “That’s really the challenge now in robotics, to produce robots that can transition on complex surfaces and get into dangerous areas that first responders can’t get into.”
In addition to Full, Mongeau, McRae, Birkmeyer, Hoover and Fearing, the UC Berkeley coauthors include graduate student Ardian Jusufi from the Department of Integrative Biology. Hoover is now a professor at Olin College.
The work was funded by the National Science Foundation, including the NSF’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, a Swiss NSF Grant for Prospective Researchers, and the Micro Autonomous Systems Technologies (MAST) consortium, a large group of researchers funded in part by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory that is focused on creating autonomous sensing robots.

The Obama Supporters Are Quickly Disappearing!

Flopping Aces ^ | 06-12-12 | Curt

I thought if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist?


I'm sure we will get Jeb Bush any moment now calling him an extremist.
Well, we all know Obama Girl is an extremist right?
If Obama Girl isn't gaga over Obama anymore you have to know the party is over.
I kid of course. She matters not one whit in this election or the last but you know what does? Donors:

Percentage decrease in donors who gave $200 to Barack Obama
in 2008 but have not yet in 2012, by state. The darkness
of the state corresponds to the percentage of drop-off donors. (BuzzFeed/Ky Harlin)

As Mitt Romney's campaign fundraising gathers steam, boosted by huge contributions to allied groups, President Barack Obama is unexpectedly struggling to keep pace — and he may be having the hardest time in the mountainous west, where moderate Democrats have made deep inroads in recent years. As BuzzFeed reported last week, 88% of donors who gave $200 or more to Obama in 2008 have yet to give that amount to his campaign this cycle.
A deeper analysis of campaign finance data shows that the west has seen an especially high level of drop off in Obama donors. Oregon topped the list with a 91% decrease in donors giving at least $200—the amount required for contributions to be individually reported—and Colorado, Nevada, and Idaho were close behind.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

Chicago Politics: White House Will Politicize Potential Supreme Court Ruling Against Obamacare

Breitbart ^ | 6/12/12 | Tony Lee

Team Obama did everything they could to get the unpopular Obamacare bill passed, even though the president's party controlled Congress. This included cutting deals with the drug industry that reeked of cronyism and Democrats insinuating that conservatives and Tea Partiers who were opposed to Obamacare were racists.

And now, as Obamacare has become more unpopular the more people learn about its various provisions and may be ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Team Obama still seems to know nothing but politicization.

In a piece in the New Yorker about what the Obama administration's agenda in a potential second term would be, reporter Ryan Lizza quotes a former Obama aide who reveals to him how the White House intends to politicize Obamacare should the Supreme Court find it, or parts of it, to be unconstitutional:

Whether the Supreme Court overturns the law in part or in full, the White House will need to respond publicly. “The strategy is to just go on the offensive and say, ‘Look at Citizens United, look at the health-care decision, look at Bush v. Gore,” the former aide said. “We have an out-of-control activist court, and Romney will make it worse. That’s Plan A. Plan B is nothing.”

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

Democrats Face Reality: Obama in Trouble

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | June 12, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: James Carville and Stan Greenberg have a polling company. It's called Democracy Now or some such thing. It's Democracy Corps. Or, as Obama would say, Democracy "Corpse." And they've just issued a new report, James Carville and Stan Greenberg -- and, actually, Erica Seifert. They've got a third member of the group now. They've gone out and done a bunch of focus groups.

A focus group is a little bit different than a poll. You actually assemble the people and you chat with 'em for hours sometimes. And you videotape it. And you run all kinds of ideas by 'em. This is the stuff Frank Luntz does sometimes on Fox that you see. Those are miniature focus groups. And Carville and his gang have been out there doing a bunch of them. And they say that the data from the focus groups shows that Barack Kardashian "is taking the wrong approach to the campaign by focusing on economic issues."
In fact, Carville says that Obama, quote "will fail," unquote if he talks about economic growth. They "claim that the Obama campaign must 'move to a new narrative' in order to be successful in November. ... The current campaign is focused on success in the economic recovery, but Carville’s group says the strategy is 'wrong' and 'will fail.' The only reason Obama is keeping up in the campaign is because voters perceive Romney as 'out of touch with ordinary people.'"
That's the only thing, they say, that's keeping Obama alive. If Romney's able to bridge that gap and become more like a regular guy to people, it's over for Obama. And I don't care what... Dana Milbank has a column in the Washington Post today, "Pileup at the White House," and it's devastating. It's just more of the same. People in the media and on the Democrat side of the aisle are coming right up against the reality here that this guy can lose.
They have been under the impression that his reelection was a slam dunk. It didn't matter what any economic details were. It didn't matter what polling data said. It was automatic. Obama was gonna be reelected, for all the various reasons and obvious ones. First black president. History continues! Smartest guy in the room. History continues! Just a fait accompli. And you and I, living in Realville, have known since the stimulus and then health care, that if this country is the same country we grew up in, he's toast.
We've known this. Everything being equal (no cheating, no fraud, no implosions on our side or this kind of thing), we've known this. There was still some concern about the Republican primary race. We needed the best candidate we can get. But there was still this realization... Well, maybe I shouldn't speak for you. I'll just speak for me. I have always been confident that Obama could lose this reelection because of facts, because of reality.
The economy is horrible.
People are losing everything they've ever had! They're in debt like they've never been before. The country's in debt like it's never been before. This is not the way this country has always operated, and this is not the way things have gotten done. This is not what the people of this country thought that they were electing. The health care? Nobody wants that. The numbers opposing it continue to rise. The economic destruction taking place is real.
But the Democrats and the media, they're just now realizing it!
Last week was the first time it really hit them that Obama could lose. And you can see it in the way they're talking on television and the way they're writing. Milbank: "Job growth has stalled, the Democrats have been humiliated in Wisconsin, the attorney general is facing a contempt-of-Congress citation, talks with Pakistan have broken down, Bill Clinton is contradicting Obama, Mitt Romney is outraising him, Democrats and Republicans alike are complaining about a 'cascade' of national-security leaks from his administration, and he is now on record as saying that the 'private sector is doing fine.'
"Could it get any worse?"
Well, depends on your point of view. If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, I'd say things are much better. But for Obama, they would be much worse. For Obama, it can get a lot worse. For Obama, you could argue that last week was not really that bad, as I attempted to illustrate yesterday. Back to Milbank. "Early Monday morning, Obama learned that it could. His aides delivered the news to him that his commerce secretary had been cited for a felony hit-and-run after allegedly crashing his car three times over the weekend.
"In one incident, the previously obscure Cabinet officer apparently rear-ended a Buick, spoke to the car's occupants, then hit the vehicle again as he" drove away. Now, it's interesting Milbank would include the commerce secretary's misadventures in his car as somehow a blow to the president. How's that? The most noteworthy thing about this story is: "We got a commerce secretary? Who knew!" I never heard of this guy. We got a commerce secretary. The guy gets drunk, drives his car around, and bashes into people. (interruption) Epilepsy? He may have been epilepsy? Okay. So he wasn't drunk. We don't know yet. They'll come up with something.
Anyway, the Milbank column goes on. It's not pretty.
RUSH: Folks, I am kidding you not about this newly discovered commerce secretary. Whatever the reason, the guy runs into a car, and runs into it again when driving away from the accident. On the Today Show just today, they had correspondent Kristen Welker. She said the commerce secretary's accidents over the weekend were "a sign of how contentious the campaign season has gotten." No, I kid you not. We don't yet know, but there was no alcohol in the commerce secretary's blood. We don't know what caused the accident. Don't know. It might have been mini-stroke. Nobody knows. But an NBC infobabe actually said that it was "a sign of how contentious the campaign season has gotten."
Now, continuing here with Dana Milbank's column in the Washington Post. Again, it's representative of the media and the left. They're shell-shocked. This last week... You have to understand. They think (they've always thought) that Barack Obama is a 200-IQ genius. They just believe it. They don't question it. They have assigned that super-genius intelligence level to him, and that's it. They don't consider any other possibility. Despite all the gaffes and all the evidence to the contrary, they just don't even consider it.
Then this last week happens before the bottom falls out and they are stunned. They do not know how to explain it. They're talking amongst themselves. They're on television talking about it. They're writing columns about it. And here's Milbank in his column today: "Pileup at the White House." He focuses a lot on the commerce secretary accident, but later in the piece, says, "The AP asked about the president's unfortunate private-sector-is-fine remark. The Reuters correspondent asked about the economic 'head winds' from Europe.
"Ed Henry of Fox News Channel asked about the looming contempt-of-Congress vote against Attorney General Eric Holder. Margaret Talev of Bloomberg News asked about the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare. Norah O'Donnell of CBS News asked about calls for a special prosecutor to probe leaks. Victoria Jones of Talk Radio News asked about the stalled talks with Pakistan. Carney sought relief by calling on TV correspondents from swing states, but the one from Wisconsin asked about the failed attempt to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the one from Nevada asked about her state's unemployment rate, the nation's highest."
The spokeskid got beat up yesterday!
The press corps actually did some journalism yesterday!
They had no choice. Their own credibility's on the line. There was no way they could prop up what happened last week. There was no way they could recast it and there was no way they could excuse it. So everybody's shocked: They're asking these questions about the smartest president ever? "AP Radio's Mark Smith asked whether [Commerce Secretary] Bryson 'is now on medical leave," and Carney just kept saying, "Can I refer you to the Commerce Department?"

Obama’s Problem With White, Non-College Educated Voters is Getting Worse (Bitter clingers?)

The New Republic ^ | June 11, 2012 | Nate Cohn

One demographic has plagued Obama since his primary duel with Hillary Clinton: white voters without a college degree. Although Obama ultimately won enough white non-college voters to win the presidency in 2008, his performance was underwhelming by historic standards. And over the last four years, Obama’s already tepid support among white voters without a college degree has collapsed. At the same time, the “newer” elements of the Democratic coalition—college educated and non-white voters—have continued to offer elevated levels of support to the president. The latest polls show this trend continuing, indicating an unprecedented education gap among white voters—a gap that could put Obama’s electoral chances in jeopardy.

Let’s dig into the numbers. Since February, 25 state and national polls from Quinnipiac and Pew Research disaggregated Obama’s standing against Romney by educational attainment. The dataset has weaknesses, as the Quinnipiac state polls sample six somewhat unrepresentative East Coast states. Even so, the degree of consistency across the six states and the six national polls is striking: Of the 25 polls, 22 show a larger drop-off among non-college educated white voters.


On average, Obama has lost nearly 6 percentage points among white voters without a college degree. Given that Obama had already lost millions of traditionally Democratic white working class voters in 2008, this degree of further deterioration is striking. In the three national polls conducted since April, Obama held just 34 percent of white voters without a college degree, compared to 40 percent in 2008. Thirty-four percent places Obama in the company of Walter Mondale, George McGovern, and the 2010 House Democrats. These are landslide numbers.
At the same time, college educated white voters continue to offer 2008 levels of support to the President. In the same 25 polls, Obama lost an average of just 1.5 percentage points among white voters with a college degree. The national polls show Obama holding just as well, and the most recent Pew poll actually shows Obama improving on his 2008 performance among college educated whites.
The uneven decline of Obama’s 2008 coalition has opened an unprecedented education gap among white voters. The current polls show that the education gap could nearly double, at least if Romney can persuade the undecided white working class Obama ‘08 voters with reservations about Obama’s performance. In 2008, Obama lost white college graduates by four points and whites without a college degree by 19 points. If the national polls are correct, and Obama currently holds approximately 35 percent of the white non-college vote, then Romney has an opportunity to win white non-college voters by 30 points. If Romney does so, the education gap would increase from 15 points in 2008 to 26 points in 2012. For comparison, the vaunted gender gap was 14 points in 2008 and 13 points in the most recent Pew poll.
The emerging education gap could rejigger the electoral map, leaving Obama well positioned in states where Obama is less dependent on the support of white voters without a college degree—the educated and diverse mid-Atlantic and southwestern states—but giving Romney an advantage in states where Democrats need white non-college voters—the traditionally Democratic Midwestern states, where nearly half of Obama’s 2008 supporters were whites without a college degree.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that the growing education gap manifests uniformly across a diverse country. In 2008, Obama received about the same share of white voters without a college degree as Kerry in 2004, but that national-level stability belied big regional shifts. Obama had made significant gains among white working class voters in the Midwest and West, vaulting traditionally Republican states like Montana and Indiana into the toss-up column. At the same time, white working class voters in greater Appalachia and much of the rural South either didn’t vote or switched to McCain, leaving Obama routed in historically competitive states like West Virginia and Arkansas.
Unfortunately, there isn’t yet enough data to determine the geographic distribution of Obama’s white non-college defectors. Even so, wide variance in Obama’s dependence on white non-college voters points toward the possibility that Obama’s chances in Wisconsin could be in jeopardy, even as Obama’s narrower margins in Virginia and North Carolina appear intact. This means that Obama’s strong showing in the Wisconsin recall exit poll takes outsized significance in this context. If Obama’s enduring strength among educated and non-white voters keeps Obama competitive in traditionally Republican states like Virginia and North Carolina, but Romney doesn’t get his end of the bargain in Democratic-but-white-working-class states like Wisconsin, the electoral map starts to look a lot better for Obama. On the other hand, Wisconsin’s demographics give the Romney campaign cause to at least initially contest the state, even if the current polling looks unfavorable.
There is, however, a potential upside for Obama in all this: Despite the president’s diminished standing among less educated white voters, Romney has not yet convinced disaffected voters to join his cause. Instead, many of these voters remain undecided, and Romney still trails McCain’s eventual tallies in many of these polls. In all but one of the 25 polls, less educated whites were more likely to be undecided than college educated whites. In the six national polls, 5 percent of college educated whites were undecided compared to 9 percent of whites without a college degree.
Romney’s road to victory starts with consolidating disaffected voters who do not approve of the President’s performance. Unsurprisingly then, the Obama campaign’s initial wave of advertising appears well-suited to disrupting those efforts. Depicting Romney as a plutocratic corporate raider seems likely to resonate with working class voters, especially since many traditionally have voted for Democratic presidential candidates. On the other hand, most of these voters harbor deep reservations about Obama’s performance and probably voted for Republicans in the 2010 midterms. Romney’s main goal in the coming months will be to convince them to join his cause.

Obama Is Doing Stunningly Bad Among African Americans In North Carolina

Business Insider ^ | 6/12/2012 | Brett LoGiurato

Barack Obama is rapidly losing support among African-American voters in North Carolina, a new poll out today from the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling shows.

The poll finds that Mitt Romney would get 20 percent of the African-American vote if the election were held today, compared with 76 percent for Obama. Overall, Romney has a 48 percent to 46 percent lead on Obama in the crucial swing state.

Obama received 95 percent of the support from African-Americans in North Carolina in the 2008 election, compared with just 5 percent for Republican nominee John McCain.

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

America paralyzed by Obama

Last Days Watchman ^ | Julio Severo

Obama forgeries are clear, but, submerged in her own sins, America fails to react

By Julio Severo

Who would say: a spider paralyzed the eagle!

By the American law, only an individual born in the US is qualified to be a president. Obama was able to “prove” that he was born in the US, with documentation that is considered doubtful by many today. The most serious suspicion came last month, when a promotional booklet produced by Obama, published in 1991, surfaced listing the future US president as “born in Kenya.”

Obama defenders allege that publisher Dystel & Goderich made a mistake, but publishers normally — and Dystel & Goderich specifically — ask all the authors to write their own biographical information. The “mistake” remained in place from 1991 to 2007!

In 2004, the Associated Press said that Obama, who was then running for the Senate, had been born in Kenya.

This is important information, but the Democratic Party, which defended the presidential candidacy of Obama in 2008, disregarded the American law banning foreigners from running for president.

The Republican Party, known for making friendly opposition to the shameless leftism of the Democratic Party, wasn't willing to question the fact that Obama was disqualified to run for the presidency of the biggest power in the world.

Obama faced no problems with his illegality. The Democratic Party was paralyzed by the politically correct ideology and a sick anti-Christianity. The Republican Party has remained paralyzed by sheer stupidity. And the American justice system has been equally paralyzed in confronting Obama, as if he were a messiah above the law.

The Russian press, perplexed by the deafening silence in the American media on this subject, has been giving Americans opportunities to denounce the forgeries in the Obama birth certificate.

The election of Obama was also probably the most powerful blow to America and Satanic mockery of the nation.

The previous administration, under George W. Bush, invaded Islamic Iraq and defeated Saddam Hussein only to see the government of his own country being taken over by another Hussein. The official name of the Kenyan is Barack Hussein Obama, whose family in his home country is Islamic.

It is almost the same as if, just after to World War 2, the devil had been able to install a Nazi president in America. And he would have been successful if the press and elite in America had been preaching for years that Nazism is a “religion of peace.”

In the case of Islam, the religion of all the members of the group that committed the biggest terrorist attack in the history of the US in September 11, 2001, the press and elite in America had just one reaction, narrative and propaganda message: Islam is a religion of peace.

Bush himself, a conservative in several moral respects, fell in the same trap: he began to preach, like a parrot, that the terrorists’ religion was a “religion of peace.”

It is no wonder that America that defeated a Hussein in Iraq later won a Hussein in her own White House.

And the Kenyan Hussein that conquered the biggest power in the world has the same religion of his Kenyan relatives: the religion that brought “peace” to the Twin Towers in New York. The “rest in peace” religion.

But how is it that no one has learned about Obama’s religion?

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who performed the wedding ceremony of Obama and his wife and was his spiritual counselor for 20 years, said that he was offered a bribe to remain silent during Obama’s first presidential campaign.

Rev. Wright declared that Obama was really a Muslim.

The revelation came through Ed Klein, author of a recent Obama biography. Klein was in the last month in the Sean Hannity show of Fox News.

Fox News host Sean Hannity: Here is author Ed Klein. We will do what the mainstream media will not do, we will play the tapes of his recent interview with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. ...

KLEIN: Do you think he ever thought of himself as Muslim?

WRIGHT: Yes. ...

HANNITY: What do you think of that?

KLEIN: Well, I was very interested in another part of that, as well, which is, when I asked the Reverend Wright about this whole question of Islam and Christianity, he said, “Well, you know, Barack Obama was steeped in Islam. He knew a lot about Islam from his childhood. But he knew very little about Christianity. And I made it easy for him to feel not guilty about learning about Christianity without turning his back on his Islamic friends.”

In the current campaign of reelection of Obama, his old pastor didn’t need any bribe attempt to remain silent.

It is obvious, in this point, that Obama noticed that America and the world are paralyzed by his image. The most powerful nation in the world is powerless in the presence of a political Messiah with a history of moral and legal forgeries. The Kenyan Hussein was smarter than Americans. The follower of the “rest in peace” religion hypnotized a nation. Hussein from Kenya achieved heights that Hussein from Iraq would never have dreamed.

If Hussein from Iraq had been able to see today at the White House Hussein from Kenya, he would have said, “Rest in peace, America.”

When a little bird falls in the web, the spider ends up with a feast.

Who would have thought that a Kenyan with a Muslim history could paralyze America?

Submerged in her own sins, America is indeed paralyzed by the poison of politically correct ideologies, fear, sick anti-Christianity and stupidity.

The spider has paralyzed the eagle.

Portuguese version of this article: Estados Unidos estão paralisados diante de Obama

Spanish version of this article: Estados Unidos está paralizado por Obama

Source: Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

What If Obama Were White?

World Net Daily ^ | June 12th, 2012 | Mychal Massie

For nearly four years, criticisms of Obama’s policies, lack of business experience and Marxist proclivities have been labeled as racists attacking him because he’s black. And, of course, he has done nothing to defuse those ridiculous allegations. But let’s flip these allegations over for a moment.
If a white man with no business experience of any kind, on any level, were elected president and his economic plan increased government spending, increased government intrusion into private business and increased taxes on the so-called rich – what would criticism of him be because he is white? If this same white president employed failed Keynesian economic strategies, which resulted in his increasing our total national debt more than the first 41 presidents combined, in less than three years of his first term in office – would criticism of him be because he is white? If this hypothetical white president were driving us off an economic cliff from which economists say there is no return, would criticism of him be because he is white?

If, in less than his first full term, this hypothetical white president, increased food-stamp spending 100 percent – would calling him “the food-stamp president” be because he is white or because he is a dismal failure? If the increase in defense spending and transportation spending accelerated 11 percent each in his first three years, if Medicaid spending increased 27 percent in his first three years, and if food-stamp spending increased to $110 billion in his three first years would calling him “the food-stamp president” be because he is white? If food-stamp recipients increased by more than 14 million people in his first three years, raising the total number of recipients to more than 46 million, would disapproval of his economic policies be because he is white?

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

Long delayed ethics charges against Rep Maxine Waters to finally go forward

Coach is Right ^ | 6/12/2012 | Doug Book

It was in August of 2010 the House Ethics Committee decided to proceed with charges against California Congresswoman Maxine Waters for contriving to procure “special favors” for the Massachusetts-based, OneUnited Bank. And although “Waters has done her damnedest during [these] three years to exploit as many legal technicalities as possible to try to get the investigation halted…” it now looks as though the jig might finally be up. 

In 2008, Representative Waters set up a meeting between officials of the Treasury Department and members of a “trade association” of minority owned banks. The meeting, however, consisted almost exclusively of OneUnited Bank executives who, to the surprise of the Treasury people, asked them for a $50 million dollar loan!

It seems the minority-owned OneUnited was in trouble. It also seems Maxine Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams, was on the board of OneUnited and owned $350,000 worth of the bank’s stock–stock which would have been worthless if the bank failed. The Congresswoman forgot to mention this minor point...

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

U.S. to Pay 'Selected' Foreign Journalists to Cover State Dept.

U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor ^ | June 12, 2012 | Steve Peacock

U.S. taxpayers soon will pay for hotel rooms, flights, and even the TV production costs of foreign journalists covering the Department of State. The purported goal of the endeavor is to communicate and promote U.S. policies and "American values."

The new project comes at a time when State separately is attempting to buy, produce, and disseminate its own media broadcasts, establishing a paid 24/7 "news" service with contractor assistance (see Obama Assembling de facto Propaganda Ministry; U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor, May 6, 2012).

The department through the new foreign media initiative will hire a contractor to provide "logistical, administrative and financial services" to journalists "selected" to travel to the U.S. on two-week "TV Co-ops," according to a Request for Proposals...

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

The private sector is not doing fine, Mr. Obama

Fox News ^ | June 11, 2012 | John Lott

“The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government,” President Obama claimed on Friday. His solution to fix the public sector was more government spending.

When people started screaming, Obama clarified his remarks and said “It’s absolutely clear economy is not doing fine,” but he just couldn’t bring himself to disown his statement about the private sector generally doing “fine.” His clarification still asserted that there is “good momentum in the private sector.” But private sector employment growth has fallen in each of the last four months, reaching a pitiful 82,000 in May.

President Obama is also wrong about his other claim that state and local governments are doing poorly relative to the private sector. . . .

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

Obama Voter

Little Big Deal



Fiddling & Golf

Planned Parenthood?

I am the Lord High Executioner

More Flexibility

Nice Hat

Look For The Union Label

This Obvious?


This Kid is Alright?

"I think I can..."

No Momentum?

More Powerful Than the President

Townhall.com ^ | June 12, 2012 | Chuck Norris

How much power does the president actually possess?
That is a question at the heart of most debates about the federal government. Declaring war, writing executive orders, legislating, allocating taxpayers' money and even influencing what your children learn and eat are just a very small sample of subjects hotly under dispute right now.
Well, I know a position more powerful than the presidency.
I wholeheartedly believe in the Spanish proverb that says, "An ounce of mother is worth a pound of clergy." But I also believe that men and fathers hold a unique role and power to restore our homes and country.
I believe that as families go, so goes the nation. And men possess three specific keys (powers) that can draw them, their spouses and their children nearer to one another and God, as well as make them all better citizens.
Before I reveal those three keys, I need to tell you where I learned them -- from a dearly departed saint who greatly influenced me: Dr. Edwin Louis Cole. I owe what I know to him.
Dr. Ed Cole is called the "Father of the Christian Men's Movement" because he influenced millions of men worldwide, including many leaders who lead the movement today. His mission statement was simple and powerful: "I have been called to speak with a prophetic voice to the men of this generation and commissioned with a ministry majoring in men to declare a standard for manhood."
My wife, Gena, and I first met Ed and his wife, Nancy, in 1998 at a banquet honoring "Walker, Texas Ranger." Over the next four years, there would be many choice moments between Ed and me.
One night in that period, Dr. Cole drove across Dallas through a thunderstorm simply to deliver a message that God had laid on his heart to encourage us to get grounded in the Bible in order to discern between the genuine and the counterfeit in life. What a great lesson. What a great man!
As I shared in my autobiography, "Against All Odds," in 2002, Ed called our home and asked us to pray for him because he was very ill. After we prayed with him over the phone, we decided to fly to Dallas to see and pray with him personally. It was one of the most moving moments of our lives. It wasn't long after that when he passed to his heavenly home.
God loved me through Ed Cole, and I thank God for him. And I look forward to thanking Ed again when I see him one day in heaven.
I never will forget or take for granted Ed's influence in my life. He influenced me to increase my trust in God and to be a faithful husband and father, and -- even though I was a "TV tough guy" -- he challenged me to be a real man. He challenged me with the three keys I alluded to earlier: to be a better role model, mentor and motivator to my family.
What I wrote and detailed to men and fathers about manhood and fatherhood via those three keys in my New York Times best-seller "Black Belt Patriotism" I learned from Ed. Another great book for men is "Courageous," by our friend Randy Alcorn. It's based upon the movie but expanded with 80 percent more story content.
I am not a perfect father or husband. Truth be known, I've learned far more from my failures than from my successes. However, I won't allow them to stop me from pressing on. And I don't believe that you should allow failures to hinder your fatherhood, either. As Ed used to say, "you don't drown by falling in the water; you drown by staying there."
Do you have a few role models, mentors and motivators in your life? I hope so. If not, Ed still can be a part of your life today through his resources found at the Ed Cole Library, at http://www.edcole.org . In commemoration of the 10th anniversary of Ed's homecoming to heaven, his children and our friends, Joann Webster and Paul Cole, have curated a special edition of "The Collection," which is a compendium of Ed's lifework in one digital location.
Ed's legacy message is this: If we men continue to fight to be the best husbands, fathers and men we can be, we will not only give our family members what they need but also get in return what we need and simultaneously help to restore our country, one home at a time.
That is what I mean by a man who is more powerful than the president -- not just Ed Cole but you! The president can't make or mold your family without your permission. He might try, but that is your jurisdiction and power, endowed by God. Protect it!
As Ed used to say, "do not let others create your world for you, for they will always create it too small." He also said, "The power of choice is our only true freedom in life."
Only you have the ability to order your private world. You also have the ability to create, hinder or improve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in your heart and home.
In fact, I don't believe one can truly experience life, liberty and happiness as the Declaration of Independence states without a proper lineup of priorities for God, family and country. Those are the priorities our Founding Fathers lived by.
Thomas Jefferson clearly revealed that when he wrote to his daughter Mary the year before his presidency, "My attachments to the world, and whatever it can offer, are daily wearing off; but you are one of the links which hold to my existence, and can only break off with that."
He espoused the same sentiment eight years later, at the end of his presidency, to the renowned explorer William Clark: "By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family."
Now there's a worthy reflection of power and a way to improve your life, your home and our country this Father's Day.

She Warned Us!

Townhall.com ^ | June 12, 2012 | Cal Thomas

One of many things left out of the film "The Iron Lady" was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's warnings on the effects a single currency would have on the economies of European nations. Thatcher's premonitions place her among the great political prophets of all time.

On the single currency, Peter Oborne, a columnist for the London Daily Telegraph, writes, "Mrs. Thatcher foresaw with painful clarity the devastation it was bound to cause. Her autobiography records how she warned John Major, her euro-friendly chancellor of the exchequer, that the single currency could not accommodate both industrial powerhouses such as Germany and smaller countries such as Greece." Thatcher predicted the currency would harm poorer countries because it would "devastate their inefficient economies."
The idea of a European Union modeled on the United States was unlikely to succeed from the beginning because, unlike American states, European countries lack a common bond. There are different languages, different histories (Colorado, for example, never invaded Nebraska) and different religions, including for six decades, atheism imposed by communist dictators in Eastern Europe.
How can a European "E Pluribus Unum" be forged out of that?
BBC reporter Laurence Knight stated the obvious when he summed up Spain's financial disaster by noting its citizens during the relatively brief "good times" of the 1990s spent much more on housing and other material goods than they could afford. Sound familiar? Living within one's means was a lesson forgotten by individuals and governments, whose main preoccupation -- in Europe and America -- has been giving people what they want in hopes they'll re-elect the politicians who dispensed the goodies. That formula has contributed to an unemployment rate in Spain approaching 25 percent. Spain last weekend was approved for a bailout of up to $125 billion from the eurozone, the fourth country to ask for a loan since Europe's debt crisis began.
Knight wrote last month, "Unfortunately for Spain, it shares a currency with Germany. That means Spain can no longer simply devalue the peseta -- something that would automatically make its workers cheaper and more competitive in the world. There is no peseta to devalue."
As columnist William Rees-Mogg wrote last Friday in The Times, "So far as British opinion goes, Europe is seen as a cost to be borne rather than a loyalty to be cherished."
After all this, the "conservative" British government, still ignoring Thatcher's warnings, is proposing a referendum that, if approved by voters, would move Britain closer to the European Union. The Daily Telegraph reported, "EU leaders are discussing moves toward more integrated financial, fiscal and even political systems among the 17 countries that use the euro."
Are they mad? Why would Britain want to associate itself with governments and economies (and people) that have behaved so irresponsibly? During the Cold War, Britain did not try to integrate its economy with that of the Soviet Union. In Europe, union has not brought unity, nor can it. Does Britain want to share more of the continent's misery, or should it try instead to point its people and the eurozone states to real change with freer and more empowered individuals, not government, leading the way?
Again, Margaret Thatcher was right when she said, "A democratic Europe of nation states could be a force for liberty, enterprise and open trade. But, if creating a United States of Europe overrides these goals, the new Europe will be one of subsidy and protection."
Most profoundly, Thatcher warned, "We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels."
That is precisely the seductive siren call the "conservative" British government now hears. It is a call, that, if answered "yes" by voters will wreck Britain's struggling economy and potentially cause it to go down the drain along with most of the other economies on the continent.
Today's politicians can't pretend they were not warned.

Bachmann: 'Is Government God? ... That's Really the Issue at Hand'

CNS News ^ | 6/8/12 | Elizabeth Harrington

In explaining her opposition to a Health and Human Services regulation that requires virtually all health-care plans to cover sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortifacients, Rep. Michele Bahmann said Friday that the issue involved in this mandate was whether the government could place itself before God and prevent institutions and people from following their faith and their consciences.
“The people want to have their liberties back and they don’t like to see religious institutions, particularly the Catholic Church, have to be forced to deny their sincerely held faith and the doctrine of their faith in order to be in compliance with government because at that point who is God?” Bachman said.

“Is government God? Or are people allowed to follow their conscience before God?” said Bachmann.
“That’s really the issue at hand and we cannot have this change that Barack Obama has put forward and that’s why you see the people here today who are working very hard to make sure they can hold on to their religious liberties,” Bachmann said.

"So, of course, we’re going to stand," said Bachmann, who indicated the House of Representatives should use any legislative vehicle possible to stop the regulation, which was issued under the Obamacare law.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called the regulation "an unprecedented attack on religious liberty" and 43 Catholic insitutitions, including the archdioceses of New York, St. Louis and Washington have sued the Obama administration in federal court arguing that the regulation is a violation of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong, and, thus, the HHS regulation would force Catholics to act against their faith by making them provide and/or purchase coverage for these things.
At a religious freedom rally in Washington, D.C. on Friday, CNSNews.com asked Bachmann, “The House Republicans, should they include language in the next continuing resolution [CR]--to fund the government beyond Sept. 30--should they put language that would defund the HHS mandate?”
Bachmann said, “What I have said from the very beginning is that this is an issue that the American people care deeply about. The nation does not like Obamacare. They especially don’t like the fact that our religious liberties have been stripped away from us in Obamacare."
“This is the line in the sand,” she said. “This is our fundamental right for religious liberty. It is why the Pilgrims came to this country, to have religious freedom. Barack Obama is taking away that basic right from the American people. So, of course, we’re going to stand."
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President Barack Obama at the White House on Feb. 10, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
“And I have believed from the beginning that, in every possible area that we can, we need to fight it, whether it’s in the continuing resolution or in any other piece of legislation,” she added. “That’s why I wrote the bill to repeal Obamacare. We can’t have a bill that denies Americans our fundamental protections of religious liberty.”
Earlier, Bachmann addressed a crowd at the rally of religious leaders, activists, and politicians who were opposed to the administration’s HHS regulation on sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients.
“We will fight this and we will win,” Bachmann told the gathering.
The continuing resolution that was passed last December, to keep the government funded, will expire on Sept. 30, 2012. The House and Senate will have to pass another CR to keep government running when FY 2013 begins on Oct. 1
CNSNews.com asked Bachmann: “Do you think Speaker [of the House John] Boehner [R-Ohio] would support prohibiting the funding for this regulation in the next continuing resolution?”
“Well, you’ll have to ask the speaker how he feels about that,” Bachmann replied. “All I know is that in a recent poll, 66 percent of the American people want us to either fully repeal Obamacare or drastically change this legislation. It’s wildly unpopular, it’s completely unconstitutional, and it needs to go.”
Bachmann was more close-lipped when asked if she has had conversations with Boehner regarding the upcoming CR negotiations.
“Well, those conversations are between colleagues and those are ones that I wouldn’t be revealing,” Bachmann said, “but again the most important thing is that we are the people’s representatives, we need to do the will of the people.”

Out of Touch? Not So Much. Out of Gas? Definitely!

Townhall.com ^ | June 12, 2012 | Debra J. Saunders

"The private sector is doing fine," President Barack Obama declared Friday at a news conference that was supposed to show that the administration knows how to make the economy stronger.

It was a bad way to end a tough week. Wisconsin voters had rejected a recall of their Republican governor, and Bill Clinton had praised Mitt Romney's business record as "sterling" and called for a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts. Then Obama made himself sound like GOP Sen. John McCain, who in September 2008 stink-bombed his election prospects by saying, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Team Romney gleefully jumped on the "doing fine" quote as proof that Obama doesn't appreciate the plight of the unemployed. The campaign produced a video that asked, "Has there ever been a president so out of touch with the middle class?"
Obama was ill-served by 24-hour cable news shows that like to dwell on and distort what politicians say rather than what they do. He was not saying that the economy is hunky-dory.
But in saying that the private sector is doing just fine and citing the corporate sector's "record profits," the president was playing to a frequent far-left gripe -- that the private sector is sitting on cash instead of hiring more workers.
In essence, then, Obama's remarks served as an admission that he cannot do much of anything about the creation of private jobs but can only help government workers laid off as local and state tax revenues dry up.
Chad Stone, chief economist of the nonpartisan but left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, agrees with the president that private-sector employment has grown while a huge drop in public-sector jobs -- some 502,000 -- is "unprecedented." As Stone put it, "the problem is not that the private sector doesn't have the money to expand, but it doesn't have the demand for goods and services. They don't have enough customers." Public-sector jobs mean customers.
Here's the problem. Even if you recognize that public-sector job losses cannot be good for the recovery -- if America indeed still is in a recovery -- you cannot help but notice that the president has given up on the private sector, which bankrolls the public sector.
He won't recognize that Obamacare, with its many mandates, serves as a tax on job creation. He doesn't understand how his calls for balancing the budget on the backs of the affluent might chill investment.
"You're not going to invest not knowing what the tax code is the next year," observed House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy.
McCarthy sees a solution to the situation. Clinton and former Obama economic adviser Larry Summers have suggested that Washington extend the Bush tax cuts temporarily in order to prevent a slowdown. "You would have the biggest stimulus with no money being borrowed," McCarthy told me, and the president could promise tax reform next year -- if he's re-elected.
But it won't happen, because Obama puts all his energy not into fixing the economy but into raising campaign funds and blaming Republicans. "The president," McCarthy sighed, "he's done legislating."