Wednesday, July 18, 2012

How to Fight an Enemy Who Has No Rules ^ | 7-18-12 | PolitiJim (@politiJim)

sword gun fight
I’ve noticed a dramatic increase in animus drenched comments on PolitiJim within the past week. Many are trying to pull me – or my readers – into an argument on race and/or on women. (Let it be noted that PolitiJim’s attraction to racy women has long been over.)

Like Debbie Whats-her-name Schultz and the entire MSNBC/MMFA mafia, facts are no longer important. Like Obama, he will say or do anything to get elected and win a “news cycle.” He lied about his true relationship with Bill Ayers (who admitted to writing his book), he lied about his relationship with Reverend Jeremiah White and ACORN, and his Michelangelo of malfeasance was in presenting a proven forgery as his long form birth certificate.


(Excerpt) Read more at ...

GOP must prevent a lame-duck looting session!

Washington Examiner ^ | July 18, 2012 | Sens. Jim DeMint and Ron Johnson and Lindsey Graham

If Republicans want to win big in November, we must do more than show voters how we plan to govern in 2013. We must also demonstrate how we're working right now to stop the last-minute spending spree the Democrats have planned for December.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants to force a postelection lame-duck session of Congress, in which defeated politicians will no longer be accountable to voters. In that context, he will have more leverage to raise taxes and increase spending against the threat of yet another government shutdown, leaving taxpayers on the hook for more borrowing, debts and deficits.
Republicans in the House and the Senate must work together to avert a disastrous postelection looting of the taxpayer. We urge House Republicans to pass -- before the August break -- a responsible plan that funds the government into the next year, leaving major issues for the newly elected president and Congress.
Should Republicans fail to do this, Americans can expect another carefully choreographed crisis that will needlessly take government to the brink of a shutdown, without concern for voters, consumers and businesses that desperately need stability amid these fragile economic times.
A series of terrible events will occur at or near the year's end if Congress does not act soon. The current tax rates are set to jump beginning next year. Medicare payments to physicians will expire. Defense spending will be gutted. The government is also likely to reach the debt ceiling again.
Despite this coming "fiscal cliff," Congress will take its monthlong break in August. The delay is deliberate. History shows that by waiting until the last minute, creating an atmosphere of confusion, fear and alarm, proponents of big government give themselves a much better shot at getting what they want. Lame-duck sessions have been used in the past to ram through gas tax hikes, congressional pay raises, debt limit increases, thousands of wasteful earmarks and trillions of dollars in new spending.
When Congress returns the second week of September, there will only be three short weeks until the next government shutdown. That's due to Reid's refusal to pass a budget in the last three years and his failure this year to pass a single government funding bill.
In these moments of planned chaos, Reid will do all he can to divide Republicans and depress their supporters over matters of taxes and spending. But we know his primary goal is to force Republicans into accepting a stopgap, temporary, two-month government spending bill, called a continuing resolution. If he accomplishes this, Congress will be forced to reconvene for a lame-duck session in late November or December to complete its work for the year.
That's when the real mischief can begin.
During that time, under the gloomy cloud of yet another government shutdown, members of Congress who lose in the 2012 elections can freely vote to raise taxes, increase spending, pass international treaties, increase the debt limit and gut national defense. They will never have to answer to voters again.
These important issues should not be decided in panicked moments. And it would be a complete disservice to the public if we chose to let an old Congress, completely unaccountable to voters, determine the major issues of our day.
We cannot give Reid this chance. Let us repeat: House Republicans need to pass the plan to keep the government funded through 2013 before the August recess.
Republicans should use the August recess to discuss their plan to keep the government running until next year. Senate Republicans can then force a vote on the House-passed government funding legislation. This will make it very difficult for Reid and President Obama to make an honest case that Republicans are threatening to shut down the government.
Responsible leadership never would have created this mess, but we need responsible leadership to get us out of it. If Republicans don't take bold action today to save our nation from fiscal collapse, there is little reason for voters to believe we ever will.

Amonix: Another Obama-Subsidized Solar Company Fails

Breitbart ^ | 7/18/12 | John Nolte

Here we go again.

Yet another example of the Obama White House's failed attempt to pick winners and losers and doing so by gambling with our our tax dollars, this time to the tune of $6 million in tax credits and $15.6B in grant money from the U.S. Department of Energy.

This company, Amonix, is only 14 months old.

How in the world did it qualify for that kind of tax dollar windfall without any kind of track record?

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Gov. Brian Sandoval were among the political leaders who lauded the company when it announced it would start making solar cells in the Golden Triangle Industrial Park.

And naturally, Obama has his fingerprints all over it:

The Amonix solar manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, heavily financed under an Obama administration energy initiative, has closed its 214,000-square-foot facility 14 months after it opened.
Officials at Amonix headquarters in Seal Beach, Calif., have not responded to repeated calls for comment this week. The company today began selling equipment, from automated tooling systems to robotic welding cells.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

CNN Encourages Gay Activist to Fight Boy Scouts on Including Openly-Gay Scouts, Leaders ^ | July 18, 2012 | Matt Hadro

Once again CNN is cheerleading the fight for gay rights, this time within the Boy Scouts. An effusive Starting Point panel welcomed gay activist Zach Wahls on Wednesday and celebrated his cause of pushing the Boy Scouts towards acceptance of openly-gay scouts and leaders.

Wahls is no stranger to CNN, as back in May he was lauded as a "very powerful" activist during a soft interview. On Wednesday, the CNN panel oozed admiration for him. "I'm a big fan. I've followed you for a little while," Starting Point regular Margaret Hoover told him. "You're a wonderful spokesman for the effort for equality." [Video coming soon.]

He's done great work, Zach Wahls," raved gay rights advocate and Democratic strategist Richard Socarides, who was simply announced by CNN as a writer for Anchor Soleded O'Brien agreed with him that "Yeah, he [Wahls] certainly has."

The entire CNN panel has been supportive of the cause of same-sex marriage. Along with the gay activist Socarides, Soledad O'Brien has clearly affirmed her support for gay rights in her past reporting, and of the two "conservatives" on the panel, Will Cain is a self-described "pro-gay marriage supporter" and Margaret Hoover is active in the conservative gay rights group GoProud.

A transcript of the interview, which aired on July 18 on Starting Point at 8:16 a.m. EDT, is as follows:

[8:16] SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Boy Scouts of America has reaffirmed its long-standing policy of not allowing openly gay scouts or leaders into its ranks. The organization which currently claims more than 2.8 million members says the announcement is the result of a two-year examination into its membership policy.
And they said this yesterday: "The committee's work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA members, thereby allowing scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it's doing to serve more youth."
With me this morning, Eagle Scout Zach Wahls. He recently published a book about growing up with two lesbian mothers, and last month he helped deliver an online petition to the Boy Scouts' headquarters in Texas because he was hoping to change that policy. Zach, nice to see you. Thanks for talking with me. What's your reaction this morning?
ZACH WAHLS, author, "My Two Moms": You know, it's an interesting puzzle to sort out for sure. The statement that the Boy Scouts put out yesterday has all kinds of weird inconsistencies riddled throughout. And one of the things that we're kind of left wondering is when exactly this so-called internal review actually wrapped up.
At this point, the BSA hasn't been willing to put out any names, hasn't been willing to tell us who these people are responsible to, who appointed them. We don't even know if they were within the scouting organization or, quote-unquote, "outside experts." And so, until we have a meaningful level of transparency, and a meaningful level of accountability, you know, color me very highly skeptical about whether or not this is really a quote-unquote, "definitive decision" by the Scouts at this time.
O'BRIEN: So, explain to me where your suspicion lies. Are you saying you don't think that there was a two-year review? Are you saying that you want to know who's on the panel, and you don't think this is a final, final decision? What are you saying?
WAHLS: Well, what we think is that this is essentially the Boy Scouts of America recycling old news. Now, obviously, we knew a month ago when we delivered that petition that this was their policy. We knew at the start of the week that this was their policy. And we knew that at the end of the week, this would probably still be their policy.
We think that this is the BSA trying to, you know, run some interference on the fact that on Monday, the vice president of their board, CEO of AT&T, Randall Stephenson, announced his support for ending the policy. The reason this is particularly important is because Mr. Stevenson will be the president of the board in 2014.
The president of this board is one of the three most powerful men inside the organization. So, for such a important person in the group to make this kind of stand is obviously very important, but today, that's not what we're talking about, unfortunately. What we're talking about is this quote-unquote "announcement" that the group put out.
MARGARET HOOVER: Hey Zach, this is Margaret Hoover talking. I'm a big fan. I've followed you for a little while. You're a wonderful spokesman for the effort for equality.
WAHLS: Thank you.
HOOVER: You know, as an Eagle Scout, you must know there are a couple of other Eagle Scouts who have been pretty outspoken on this issue. Mayor Bloomberg has been in favor of marriage equality. Secretary Gates and former director of the CIA, an Eagle Scout as well, who was instrumental in lobbying Congress for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
So, have you, A, thought about reaching out to other Eagle Scouts who are outspoken on this issue? And B, do you feel like that actually represents the direction the country is going? That you're on the cusp of change that will eventually come to the Boy Scouts either way?
WAHLS: Yeah. We certainly feel that that's the case. And I haven't personally reached out to Mayor Bloomberg or Secretary Gates, but I certainly would love to have a conversation with them about figuring out a way to get them involved in the organization. Obviously, with this being the 100-year anniversary of Eagle Scouting in America, it's a pretty important time for all of us across the country. And I'd love to see them stand up and show their support.
JOHN SOCARIDES: Hey, Zach. It's Richard Socarides. So, you know, what concerns me about this is the message that this sends to young people, right? I mean, this is the Boy Scouts not just excluding, you know, instructors, but they won't let kids who may be gay or lesbian or questioning, they won't let them be part of this organization, which is so much a fabric of our country.
I mean, what do you -- I know that you've worked a lot with kids and on youth issues. What about the message that this sends to the youth of America?
WAHLS: Yes. It's a great question. You know, I grew up in the Boy Scouts of America, and having lesbian mothers, there were certainly times where it seemed a little contentious. However, if you look at the broad, you know, scope of my experience that I had and that so many other boys all across the country have, you know, I think at the end of the day the most important message is the one that you'll actually hear on a weekly basis from your leaders.
And so, I think that across the country, really, we're going to see more people kind of (Inaudible), oh, the national organization is going to continue this policy and they're just not going to care. You know, growing up in Wisconsin and in Iowa, none of the organizations that I was involved with at the local level really cared much what the national policy was and were more than happy to have my moms on as volunteers.
And so until, you know, we really see this kind of change at the local level, I think that's what really drives the change at the top level. And I think that change is already happening all across the country.
O'BRIEN: Zach Wahls joining us this morning. Zach, thanks. We're obviously going to keep watching this story and see how it changes, ebbs and flows, especially with the incoming president of the board. That will be interesting to watch.
SOCARIDES: He's done great work, Zach Wahls.
O'BRIEN: Yeah, he certainly has. All right, Zach, thanks.

Do Obama's Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern? ^ | July 16, 2012 | Warren Beatty

We're being prepared for a national emergency. Then there's taking control. I personally think that what Obama is doing goes way beyond being prepared. North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue ...suggested that perhaps elections should be suspended for two years by canceling, until the economy recovers, the 2012 elections. After that remark got the reception it deserved, SNIP Former White House director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, who, on September 14, 2011, in a The New Republic article entitled "Too Much of a Good Thing: Why we need less democracy," said that we are that we are hampered by too much democracy, that the constitutional system (not really a democracy) is too slow to react, and the deliberations and negotiations are simply too cumbersome.

Orszag suggests that the constitutional rules of limiting government offers impediments to autocratic, dictatorial actions, and are just too great. That North Carolina governor Perdue would even joke (if it was a joke) about canceling an election is frightening enough, but that Orszag, a former official in Obama's administration, believes that doing away with the US Constitution is a viable solution should cause every AT reader to quake. I'm never comfortable with laws that give the government broad reaching powers in the event of a "national emergency," especially when there is no clear, set, unchangeable definition of what actually constitutes a "national emergency." Circumvention of the US Constitution by any means possible is the ultimate goal of Democrats and the Obama administration because the 2012 election is shaping up to be a repeat of the 2010 election. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but these three latest EOs and previous EOs Obama signed, coupled with Perdue's and Orszag's comments, suggest that something besides coincidence is going on.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

If Bain Capital Is So Evil Why Did Obama and All These Democrats Take Their Donations?

"The Lid" ^ | Tuesday, July 17, 2012 | "The Lid"

Do you believe the Democratic Party? Bain Capital is nothing but a bunch of vampire capitalists. They outsource jobs to other countries, close steel mills and take lollypops from little babies.

According to Open Secrets, during the present election cycle these Democratic Party candidates took a total of $340,750 from Bain, its lobbyists and employees. Even the Obama re-election campaign took money from Bain Capital. So if the Democrats believe Bain is so evil, why are these candidates taking their money?

Note: The Barack Obama contributions are not from open secrets but directly from the FEC here and here.

Bain Capital Donations: John Kerry $76,200 Michael F. Bennet $37,000 Mark Warner $32,700 Tim Kaine (Candidate For US Senate in Virginia) $30,000 Claire McCaskill $22,500 Jeanne Shaheen $17,100 Al Franken $15,000 Jack Reed $15,000 Jim Himes $15,000 Sheldon Whitehouse $11,800 Mark Udall $11,300 Nancy Pelosi $10,000 Joe Kennedy III (Candidate For Mass. District 4) $10,000 Richard Blumenthal $9,600 Christopher S. Murphy $7,500 Andrei Cherny (Candidate For Arizona District 9) $7,500 Barack Obama $5,050 David Cicilline $5,000 Niki Tsongas $2,500 Total $340,750

Team Romney: "It's Time to Vet the President" ^ | July 18, 2012 | Guy Benson

Between yesterday's fantastic speech and this BuzzFeed report, is the Romney campaign finally immersing itself in the 2012 bare-knuckles brawl? Pow:

In speeches from Des Moines to Dallas, Romney has always been careful to hedge his tough digs at Obama with a civil nod toward the president's moral character: "He's a nice guy," the Republican has often said. "He just has no idea how the private economy works." But Tuesday's speech included no such hedge — and one campaign adviser said there's a reason for that. "[Romney] has said Obama's a nice fellow, he's just in over his head," the adviser said. "But I think the governor himself believes this latest round of attacks that have impugned his integrity and accused him of being a felon go so far beyond that pale that he's really disappointed. He believes it's time to vet the president. He really hasn't been vetted; McCain didn't do it."

Indeed, facing what the candidate and his aides believe to be a series of surprisingly ruthless, unfounded, and unfair attacks from the Obama campaign on Romney's finances and business record, the Republican's campaign is now prepared to go eye for an eye in an intense, no-holds-barred act of political reprisal, said two Romney advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity.
In the next chapter of Boston's pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a "liar" — very little will be off-limits, from the president's youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Carney On Why Jobs Council Hasn't Met In Six Months: Obama Has "A Lot On His Plate"

Real Clear Politics ^ | 7/18/12 | staff

REPORTER: On the Jobs Council, obviously they've reported to haven't met formally or publicly for six months. Why is exactly is that?

CARNEY: Look, the president solicits and receives input and advice from members of his Jobs Council and others about economic initiatives all the time. And I would point you to the numerous initiatives put forward by the Jobs Council that this administration under the president's direction has taken action, presidential memorandum of August of last year that selected 14 job creating high-priority infrastructure projects for expedited review. Four of those are already under construction.

In March of this year, just four months ago, an executive order launched interagency effort to cut red tape and improve outcomes for infrastructure projects.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Chick-Fil-A cops to being anti-gay: ‘guilty as charged’ says company president

New York Daily News ^ | July 18, 2012 | Anthony Bartkewicz

Fast food chain Chick-Fil-A has been accused of being anti-gay for supporting organizations such as Focus on the Family, which oppose gay marriage.

Company president Dan Cathy said this week that his company is “guilty as charged.”

In an interview with the Baptist Press, Cathy said Chick-Fil-A is “very much supportive of the family - the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Pelosi: House Democrats should skip the national convention!

Hot ^ | July 18, 2012 | ED MORRISSEY

First, the good news, at least for House Democrats. Instead of running for the lifeboats to escape the debacle unfolding in Charlotte in the next few weeks, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has announced an official “abandon ship“:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi says that Democratic members should stay home and campaign in their districts rather than go to the party’s national convention in North Carolina. 
“I’m not encouraging anyone to go to the convention, having nothing to do with anything except I think they should stay home, campaign in their districts, use their financial and political resources to help them win their election,” Pelosi said in an exclusive interview for POLITICO Live’s On Congress, a new weekly show to be streamed live on POLITICO’s website and broadcast on NewsChannel 8 on Wednesdays. … 

“We nominated a president last time. We have an incumbent President of the United States. We’re very proud of him. There certainly will be enough people there to express that pride, but I’m not encouraging members to go to the convention no matter what the situation was, because they can be home. It’s campaign time. It’s the first week in September,” she said.
Maybe the DNC should have scheduled it for mid-August instead, then? That’s one of the more minor problems with the Democratic convention — after a lack of funding, the outrage of Big Labor for holding it in a right-to-work state, and the use of Bank of America Stadium by a party that spent the last four years demonizing the banking industry, it falls well down the list. It’s still worth discussing, though; why did Democrats schedule their convention on a week when the pressure to be home campaigning would be strongest? Apparently it came from a game of chicken played with the GOP to get the last word in conventions, but maybe both parties should rethink the late-season staging of these affairs.
And now the better news, for everyone:

In addition, Pelosi also wouldn’t commit to serving in the leadership of the 113th Congress. “I wouldn’t assume anything,” she told POLITICO editor in chief John Harris and reporter Lois Romano. “I would just assume that Democrats would win and we would stop the obstruction of the President’s agenda. I think it’s fair to say that most people don’t have the faintest idea about leadership races in the Congress.”
The bigger question is why Pelosi remained in leadership in the 112th Congress. Speakers who get turned out by the opposition generally resign so new leadership can give their caucus and party a fresh start. Instead, Pelosi has clung to power while her caucus more or less admits that they don’t have any other options than the leadership that led them into a historical drubbing, the worst midterm performance in over 70 years. If the Democratic Party is to revamp its message from the one that got soundly trounced in 2010, they have to change the leadership first. It might take another drubbing for that lesson to sink into the Democratic caucus in the House.
Meanwhile, don’t accuse Bill Whittle of not trying to help. In his Firewall this week, Bill tries to stoke some enthusiasm for the Democratic convention and the formal renomination of President Hope and Change. Can he do it?
Er … no, not really.

‘You Didn’t Build That!’ … Oh Yeah? (Good read)

PJ Media ^ | July 18, 2012 | Andrew C. McCarthy

One of the many great things about Paul Johnson’s magisterial A History of the American People is that he begins that history in the Sixteenth Century. There was an identifiable, culturally distinguishable American People long before there was a Revolutionary War, a Constitution, or a central government. The American People, by their industry and ingenuity, didn’t just build successful businesses… they built the most successful nation in history — and all, somehow, without HUD, Fannie, Freddie, the EPA, OSHA…
In one of a thousand vignettes, Johnson tells the story of the founding of Springfield:
Elijah Miles, who moved to the Sangamon River country in 1823, left a record of how he founded Springfield. It was then only a stake in the ground. He marked out an 18-foot-square site for a store, went to St. Louis to buy a 25-ton stock of goods, chartered a boat, shipped his stock to the mouth of the Sangamon, and then had his boat and goods towed upriver by five men with a 300 foot tow-rope. Leaving his goods on the riverside — “As no one lived near, I had no fear of thieves” — he walked 50 miles to Springfield, hired waggons and teams, and so got his stuff to the new “town,”where his store was the first to open. It was the only one in a district later divided into fourteen counties, so “many had to come more than 80 miles to trade. Springfield grew up around him.
The president can try telling Americans they can’t build businesses, careers, communities and lives without his broke and broken Leviathan, but history and common sense prove him wrong every time. I’ve listened to some of this debate with fascination. Not at Obama — there is nothing surprising about his cockamamie claim that individual Americans could not have built their successful ventures without his central-planners providing the infrastructure of roads, bridges, police, firemen, schools and the like. What surprises me is the response of some on our side who argue that it was the other way around — that it was the successful ventures that prompted all the infrastructure.
Why would we concede the infrastructure to Obama? When it comes to human beings living in society and helping each other, why do we allow the president to treat we/us as if it were synonymous with the federal government. We built roads and bridges, policed our communities, put out fires, taught our children, and built our businesses before there ever was a federal government.
It is certainly true that, in modern times, the government has gotten itself involved in the infrastructure business. Very often, that has not been a positive development. At Reason, Matt Welch has a very interesting column about the building of the Golden Gate Bridge — which Obama likes to cite as a federal government success story that “benefitted everyone” and, so the story goes, made possible the success of the evil one-percenters.
click pic for article

The story is fiction. As Welch shows, the federal government did everything it could to prevent the Golden Gate from being built. The local people and businesses wanted it; but the Defense Department did not want it built and owned the land on either side of the channel, which it refused for a long time to sell. When it finally agreed to sell, it would not sell to the developers, only to a state commission. And the feds did not participate… other than to try to derail the project. That is, federal contractor unions held up the works, trying to extort their piece of the pie. Finally, because of the market’s collapse and the Great Depression, the bond financing ran into trouble, resulting in more delay until, finally, private capital — the personal wealth of A.P. Giannini — came to the rescue. The bridge was completed $1.7 million under budget, Welch recounts, “using non-union labor and private contractors.”
Welch ends with a fabulous point. In today’s dollars, the $35 million cost of the Golden Gate Bridge translates into $530 million. That’s “far less than one percent of Obama’s stimulus package. So,” he asks, “where the hell are our new Golden Gates? What exactly has been the return on all this added ‘investment’?”
Human beings are social beings who act in their individual self-interest — which, common sense tells us, is often but far from always personal gain. Obama thinks the individual American, particularly if he is an entrepreneur, compares unfavorably to the noble federal government — as if the government were some altruistic “we” just looking to help. When the feds “help,” however, they are often an overbearing presence that depresses individual initiative. Those who run government are in it to wield power, mainly redistributing benefits to their favored, connected cronies. Government stifles the individual more than it empowers him.
The president should not be able to get away with equating such a self-interested behemoth with “us” — the people who help each other and make their communities, and ultimately the country, work. And the thought that the behemoth has become benevolent under Obama, and that we somehow would not have infrastructure without it, is laughable. 

Mitt Romney and the Conspiracy of Silence

 by techno

10 Questions to ponder to why there has not been more discussion about these topics in this election cycle:

1) Have you ever wondered why there is little talk or discussion of the results of the 2010 midterm election in respect to the 2012 election, especially the fact that conservatives represented 42% of the electorate in 2010, 8 points higher than 2008 and that increase in self-identified conservatives should be exploited by Team Romney?
2) Have you ever wondered why there is little talk or discussion of Mitt Romney in most national polls not passing McCain's popular vote in 2008 of 46%, in light of the fact that Obama got 53% of the popular vote then but would only command about 47%-48% of the vote now?
3) Have you ever wondered why there has been absolutely no discussion of Sarah Palin's political blueprint to victory in 2012 she posted in the National Review two days after the midterm election?
4) Have you ever wondered why there is not more focus paid to the electoral college and especially the contention from respectable pollsters like Rasmussen that Obama is safe or leading in states yielding to him 247 electoral votes (EV), which means he only needs 23 EV to be re-elected?
5)Have you ever tried to reconcile the recent stories that "the sky is falling" for Obama with the most recent national polls showing Obama leading Romney by 2 points and leading in most battleground state polls?
6)Have you ever heard of Virgil Goode or the PPP poll showing him now commanding 9% of the vote in Virginia and he is not even on the ballot? And do you also know most of his votes comes from conservatives disenchanted with Mitt Romney?
(I posted on Virgil Goode a few days ago at FR)
7)Have you ever wondered why Sarah Palin is still popular with conservatives? Hasn't she been discredited? Why would conservatives even want to listen to her or even accept her endorsement? Why is Ted Cruz now leading his opponent in the Texas run-off election? Why did Sarah Steelman accept her endorsement today?
8)Did you know that via the 2008 exit polls, 60% of voters claimed that the choice of Palin by McCain influenced their vote and of those people 56% voted for McCain and 43% voted for Obama, while 33% who said the choice of Palin had no effect on their vote, Obama won these folks 65% to 33% over McCain?
9)Did you know Mitt Romney recently snubbed Focus in the Family by ignoring Sean Hannity's question of his radio program to whether he intended to get together with the evangelical group while he was in Colorado Springs? Did you know via yesterday's Purple Strategies poll that it showed since the last poll in June Romney has lost 10 points in net favorability in Colorado (42/50 to 37/55)? By the way Colorado is a crucial swing state.
10)Did you know that Mitt Romney said in the 2008 election cycle that he agreed with the Hezbollah universal access to healthcare plan? Have you wondered why there has not be any story recently about Romney's hypocrisy of calling for the repeal of Obamacare but favoring the personal mandate and Romneycare in Massachusetts?
In a nutshell I believe there has been a conspiracy of silence between Team Romney, the GOP establishment, Fox News, conservative talk radio and the conservative blogosphere to shut down any possibly negative news story related to Romney, especially before the convention to the point of even falsely suggesting Obama is in serious political trouble. In fact it is Mitt Romney who is in serious political trouble and in free fall in many battleground states.


Poor Barack

Moving Day


My Mistakes


Please Help!



One Big Tax


If black turnout falls, Obama could struggle [Why would anyone of any color vote for him again?]

Newsday ^ | 7/18/13 | SUZANNE GAMBOA

One of the country's oldest civil rights groups says President Barack Obama may have a tougher time winning at least three battleground states in November should black voter turnout fall 5 percentage points or more below the record levels that helped to put him in the White House.

Black turnout of 64.7 percent was a significant factor in 2008, and African-Americans are considered solidly behind Obama. But having achieved the milestone of electing the nation's first black president, those black voters who support him may be less motivated to return in droves again, the National Urban League said in a report yesterday.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Your Guide to Sleazy Democratic Party-Backed Banks ^ | July 18, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod and his hatchet people are still yammering about GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney's overseas investments. It's time for the Romney campaign to educate voters about all the shady financial institutions embraced by Democrats right here on American soil.
The fat-cat narrative attacks on Republicans won't go away by making nice with the White House -- or by relying on Beltway journalists to drop their double standards and vet the president's own bad bank entanglements.

Indeed, The New York Times admitted this week that their staff and other political journalists from every major media outlet submit their work to the White House for unprecedented review, editing and "veto power."

Fortunately, the truth manipulators and message massagers haven't gotten to this column yet. So, let's talk sleazy Democratic Party-backed banks, shall we?
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Forget Switzerland. The mother and father of all financial industry outrages are rooted in Washington, D.C. And Obama Democrats are among the biggest winners of lavish, out-of-control compensation packages from fraud-plagued Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama confidante James Johnson raked in $21 million. Former Obama chief of staff and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel "earned" at least $320,000 for a brief 14-month gig at Freddie Mac. And Clinton Fannie Mae head and Obama economic confidante Franklin Raines bagged some $90 million in pay and stock options earned during the government-sponsored institution's Enron-style accounting scandal on the public dime.
Self-appointed banking policewoman and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has, uncharacteristically, kept her mouth shut about these wealthy barons.
Superior Bank. One of the Obamas' oldest Chicago friends and wealthiest billionaire bundlers, former Obama national finance chairwoman Penny Pritzker, headed up this subprime lender. Even after it went under in 2001 and left 1,400 customers destitute, Pritzker was pushing to expand its toxic subprime loan business. Pritzker and her family escaped accountability by forking over $460 million over 15 years. Obama happily accepted the nearly $800 million in campaign and inaugural funding Pritzker drummed up for him. To protect her family's multibillion dollar fortune, Pritzker's enterprises park their money in the very same kind of offshore trusts her candidate is attacking Romney over.
Broadway Bank. In 2010, President and Mrs. Obama personally raised money for their Chicago friend and fundraiser Alexi Giannoulias. As I reported then, Giannoulias' Greek immigrant family founded Chicago-based Broadway Bank, a now-defunct financial institution that loaned tens of millions of dollars to convicted mafia felons and faced bankruptcy after decades of engaging in risky, high-flying behavior. It's the place where Obama parked his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign funds. And it's the same place where a mutual friend of Obama and Giannoulias -- convicted Obama fundraiser and slumlord Tony Rezko -- used to bounce nearly $500,000 in bad checks written to Las Vegas casinos.
Chicago's former inspector general blasted Giannoulias and his family for tapping $70 million worth of dividends in 2007 and 2008 as the real estate crash loomed. Broadway Bank was sitting on an estimated $250 million in bad loans. The cost to taxpayers after the bank was shut down two years ago: an estimated $390 million.
ShoreBank. The "progressive" Chicago-based community development bank, a "green" financial institution whose mission was to "create economic equity and a healthy environment," folded in August 2010. Obama personally had endorsed the politically connected bank and appeared in a video promoting its Kenyan microlending project. But it was a doomed social justice experiment. After regulators shut it down, Obama crony companies including Bank of American and Goldman Sachs took over the mess courtesy of taxpayer subsidies.
Countrywide/Bank of America. Earlier this month, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a report on corruption-plagued Countrywide Financial Corp., which was bailed out by taxpayer-bailed-out Bank of America. The House investigation confirmed the notorious favor-trading scheme, which involved sweetheart home loan deals for members of Congress and their staff, top government officials and executives of doomed mortgage giant Fannie Mae.
"These relationships helped (Countrywide CEO and Democratic subprime loan king Angelo) Mozilo increase his own company's profits while dumping the risk of bad loans on taxpayers," according to the new report. Mozilo copped a $67.5 million plea to avert a high-stakes public trial in the heat of the 2010 midterm election season. Since then, Obama's Justice Department has taken no action to prosecute Countrywide officials on federal bribery charges.
Among the influence-peddling operation's most prominent beneficiaries: the aforementioned Obama top adviser Jim Johnson, who accepted more than $7 million in below-market-rate Countrywide loans, and former Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, whose ill-fated 2010 re-election bid was personally endorsed by Obama. Obama stood by Dodd even as sordid details of his two discounted Countrywide loans and record Countrywide PAC donations mounted.
Bank of America, which raked in $45 billion in Obama-supported TARP bailout funds and billions more in secret emergency federal loans, footed the $50 million restitution payment bill for Mozilo and another Countrywide official. In 2008, BofA's political action committee gave its biggest contributions to Obama, totaling $421,000. And as I noted in January, Bank of America supplied the Democrats with a $15 million revolving line of credit, along with an additional $17 million loan during the 2010 midterms.
Embarrassed by the party's ties to shady Bank of America, progressives are now trying to rebrand the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, N.C., where Obama will give his nomination acceptance address. They're referring to it as "Panthers Stadium" instead.
Obama's copious crooked friends and funders are going to need a lot more whitewash than that to cover up their ill-gotten gains.