Wednesday, August 29, 2012

One big election will be viewed as adults vs. children!

The Pierce County Herald ^ | August 29, 2012 | Ken Pazdernik

TO THE EDITOR: Now that Mitt Romney has selected his running mate, it is clear that this election will be viewed as the adults against the children.

One party wants everything for free and screams like little babies if someone dares to tell them that the country cannot afford to give them handouts. The other party wants to reduce the amount of entitlements in order to both save the country and to minimize the amount of debt that will be passed on to everyone’s children and grandchildren.

This election will also be about substance and class warfare. One party will talk most exclusively about national policies that are needed for the long-term survival of the nation. The other party will talk mostly about how terrible the most productive citizens in the country are and how all their hard work and ingenuity was really done by someone else.
One party has an aspiring socialist and a national embarrassment as their president and vice president. The other party has a successful businessman and the nation’s leading policy expert as their candidates.
When Sarah Palin ate Joe Biden’s lunch in the 2008 vice presidential debate, all the liberals said that Joe just had a bad day. Now it appears that Joe has a bad day every day. In 2008, all the liberals whined when Sarah Palin wasn’t ready to be president. In hindsight, Sarah Palin now looks like Winston Churchill compared to Joe Biden.
Moreover, if Sarah Palin would have been president, she would have been about five trillion dollars less expensive than President Obama and I am pretty sure Todd Palin would not have needed 21 personal assistants to take care of him. He would have taken care of himself and saved the taxpayers over two million dollars.
Please think before you vote in November.

Public university offered course credit to campaign for Obama, may have violated election law!

Campus Reform ^

A public university in Colorado offered course credit to students to volunteer on President Obama’s reelection campaign, Campus Reform learned on Tuesday.

The offer, which has since been retracted, appears to have violated the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act, section 1-45-117, which bans the use of public resources for “campaigns involving the nomination, retention, or election of any person to any public office.”

Adams State University posted the opportunity late last week on its website stating: “The Obama Campaign Internship (GOVT 279 Presidential Election Internship) will be a 12 week long organizing internship for the Obama Campaign.”

No similar offer was made for students to participate on the presidential campaign for Mitt Romney, who is the Republican nominee for the White House.

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

“Romneyville” protest plan going about as well as you’d expect!

Hot Air ^ | August 29,2012 | JAZZ SHAW

What could possibly go wrong? Sadly, a number of things.

With hardly any donations coming in, there is no money to feed people camped there and not enough tents to keep its estimated 180 occupants shielded from the blazing sun or sudden afternoon thunderstorms, said the Rev. Bruce Wright, one of the tent city’s founders.

“We need about $3,000 to get it going,” said Wright, a member of the Poor People’s Economic Rights campaign. “What we have is a trickle.”

And what of the thousands of protesters? There are an estimated 180 people there and many of them are either organizers or homeless folks.
Wright said the camp, which sits on a commercial lot behind the Army Navy Surplus Market and an adjacent gravel lot at 1312 N. Tampa St., should have had about 300 people living there, planning rallies, speaking out on the plight of the homeless and protesting the convention.
The threat of Hurricane Isaac and the 3,500 extra police officers hired for convention security could have scared hundreds of people off, Wright said.
Their founder also reports that numerous homeless had to be “booted out of the camp” for violating rules regarding illegal drugs and alcohol.
“We need to help (the homeless), but we’re a political homeless camp,” Wright said. “We need to maintain decorum.”
Even with the numerous reports of fights breaking out and robberies taking place, I decided to brave the harsh Florida weather and check it out for myself. But it couldn’t be all that bad, could it? Yes… yes it could.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

IS HOLDER'S DOJ 'COMMUNITY ORGANIZING' OCCUPY ACTIVISTS AT THE RNC? ( Barack Chavez!?)

http://www.breitbart.com/ ^ | August 29 2012 | by REBEL PUNDIT

What are uniformed field representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Community Relations Service (CRS) doing assisting Occupy/anarchist activists outside the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Tampa?

Exclusive video captured by Breitbart News during Occupy/anarchist demonstrations outside the RNC Tuesday shows CRS field representatives, wearing DOJ logo polo shirts and hats, conversing with Occupy protesters.

In one case, a CRS representative and protester are seen to high-five each other.

CRS representatives are also seen relaying specific instructions to the activists about the location of prearranged buses that were apparently taking them to their next scheduled demonstration.

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

Meet "Barack The Plumber"

Boston Herald ^ | August 29, 2012 | Michael Graham

Dear Better Business Bureau:

I’m writing about a plumber I hired in 2008 to fix my pipes. The name of his business is Barack H. Obama & Co.

Despite many assurances on Mr. Obama’s part, and despite spending far beyond what I wanted on the project, my toilets are still full of . . . well, they’re not fixed. And now I’m told there’s some question as to whether I can fire him.

I want to say, right up front, that Mr. Obama inherited a real mess in my house. The plumbing was in worse shape than it had been since, gosh, the late ’70s. Maybe since the 1930s. So I didn’t have any wild expectations that Obama & Co. would have the sinks unclogged and the pipes flowing overnight.
I also want to say that Mr. Obama seemed like a very nice man at the time. I even met his family — beautiful! Sometimes when he talked about his job, it sounded like poetry.
And I won’t deny that, living in a mostly white community, I was pleased to have the chance to hire an African-American to work in my home. But then things started to go, well, wrong.
To start with, I was shocked by the huge price of Mr. Obama’s bid to “stimulate” (he used that word a lot) the plumbing system to get it flowing again. I agreed to spend the money, however, after Obama & Co. guaranteed me that the toilets in the upstairs bathrooms would never overflow.
And you know what, Mr. BBB Man? Well my upstairs toilets have been overflowing for 42 straight months! His repairs still aren’t working!
So I complained to Mr. Obama. He blamed the previous plumber, said the last guy...
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...

Wall Street Gives Up on Obama and Roots for Romney

Fiscal Times ^ | 08/29/2012 | By YUVAL ROSENBERG

As Mitt Romney accepts the Republican Party’s presidential nomination this week, he will try to convince voters across the nation that he has the executive experience and business savvy needed to strengthen its economy – and that he’s the best person to lead the country.
Americans may be evenly divided on that question – Romney leads President Obama 47 percent to 46 percent in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll of registered voters – but Wall Street has already made its presidential preference clear. After supporting Obama in 2008, financial firms and the people who work at them have lined up squarely behind Romney, the man from Bain Capital, this year. So far this election cycle, workers in the securities and investment industries have donated $11.5 million to Romney compared with $4.2 million to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As of August 21, the five largest contributors to the Romney campaign's war chest have all been big financial institutions (see chart below).
Overall, the securities and investment industries have given more than $67 million to Republican campaigns and less than $40 million to Democrats. That excludes contributions to Super PACs, where the balance of Wall Street donations has been even more skewed toward Romney and conservative groups. Donors in the securities and investment industries have given nearly $51 million to outside groups this election cycle, with nearly $44 million of that going to conservative groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

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


Top Contributors to the Presidential Candidates
Barack ObamaMitt Romney
University of California$491,868Goldman Sachs$676,080
Microsoft Corp.$443,748JPMorgan Chase & Co$520,299
Google Inc.$357,382Morgan Stanley$513,647
DLA Piper$331,715Bank of America$510,728
Harvard University$317,516Credit Suisse Group$427,560
Source: Center for Responsive Politics; Data as of 8/21/2012

CAFE Kills : Mindlessly imposed fuel-efficiency standards aren’t just costly, they’re deadly!

National Review ^ | 08/29/2012 | Michelle Malkin

While all eyes were on the Republican National Convention in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac on the Gulf Coast, the White House was quietly jacking up the price of automobiles and putting future drivers at risk.

Yes, the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker’s cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.
On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized “historic” new fuel-efficiency standards. (Everything’s “historic” with these narcissists, isn’t it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drive to proclaim that “by the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It’ll strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last.”
Jon Carson, director of Obama’s Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how “auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards” and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will “save consumers $8,000” per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America’s Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have “veto power” over reporters’ quotes from campaign officials.
And whom did the Times cite for the claim that the rules will “save consumers $8,000”? Why, the administration, of course! “The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs,” the Times dutifully regurgitated, “resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025.”
The Obama administration touts the support of the government-bailed-out auto industry for these reckless, expensive regs. What it wants us to forget is that the “negotiations” (read: bullying) with White House environmental radicals date back to the tenure of former Obama green czar Carol Browner — when she infamously told auto-industry execs “to put nothing in writing, ever,” regarding their secret Corporate Auto-Fuel Economy (CAFE) talks.
Obama’s number massagers cite phony-baloney cost savings that rely on developing future fuel-saving technology. Given this crony government’s abysmal track record in “investing” in new technologies (cough — Solyndra — cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What is real for consumers is the $2,000-per-vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now. That figure comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
War on middle-class consumers, anyone?
Beyond the media-lapdog echo chamber, the economic and public-safety objections to these sweeping rules are deeply grounded and well founded.
For years, free-market analysts and government statisticians have warned of the deadly effect of increasing CAFE standards. Sam Kazman at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained a decade ago: “The evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering.”
H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis adds that NHTSA data indicate that “322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.” USA Today further calculated that the “size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.”
These lethal regulations should be wrapped in yellow police CAUTION tape. The tradeoffs are stark and simple: CAFE fuel standards clamp down on the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. Analysts from Harvard to the Brookings Institution to the federal government itself have arrived at the same conclusion: CAFE kills. Welcome to the bloody intersection between the Obama jobs death toll and the Obama green death toll.
— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.

MSNBC protects their meme any way it can (Want people to believe the GOP is RAAAAAACIST!)

Hotair ^ | 08/29/2012 | Ed Morrissey

The cast and management at MSNBC really, really want their viewers --- all 20 of them now, I believe --- to understand that the Republican Party is raaaaaaaaaaaacist, and that the GOP convention is nothing more than a bunch of white men talking and applauding. They are so desperate to sell their meme latent Republican racism that they simply averted their eyes every time a speaker that didn't fit their lone talking point took the stage:
When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.
MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.
Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.
And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.
Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.
Say, wouldn't the practice of ignoring people of color be considered raaaaaaaaaaaacist? And what did MSNBC use as a replacement for all of these speakers last night?
In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.
No doubt, they were trying to keep their 2019 17 viewers up to date with all of the antics of raaaaaaaaaaaacist Republicans, and so had no choice but to block out Republicans like Mia Love, Ted Cruz, and Artur Davis. I’ve seen news reports from Communist countries that had less Orwellian message control than this.
Why did they just happen to block all of these speakers? Obviously, it’s not a coincidence. They’re afraid of two outcomes by showing these speakers, the first of which is the exposure of the intellectual vapidity of their repeated accusations of raaaaaaaaaaaacism. The second is the possibility of acknowledging that conservatism appeals to a broad, diverse section of the electorate, which might encourage more people of color to consider its policies, especially with the powerful personal stories told by Mia Love and Ted Cruz. Instead of dealing with that reality, MSNBC chose to deliberately misinform their 1514 12 viewers. Fortunately, the MSNBC lineup (with the apparent acquiescence of Comcast) is so busy marginalizing themselves that it really doesn’t matter any more.

"We are truly the last great hope on earth."




Mia Love's veins pulse with patriot's blood. She is destined to be a political influence.


There is nothing liberals fear and HATE more than a conservative black woman.



Here is her speech last night.

RNC Feels the "Love" and Lays Obama to Waste!

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 8-29-2012 | MOTUS

With Ann Romney and Chris Christie as the headliners, who would’ve thought that Love would steal the show. No, I don’t mean Ann’s speech, although she did announce right upfront that it was about love. And I don’t mean the Governator’s speech either which was about the relationship between love and respect. I’m talking about MIA LOVE, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah of all places!


This feisty little lady took Big Guy on by name and said his policies had “failed” and that “no rhetoric, bumper sticker, or Hollywood campaign ad can change that.” Ouch!
...
And then we had the inimitable Chris Christie. Slayer of wussies and - it looks like here -teleprompters!
The Washington Post declared his speech a bomb, the NYT called it a lie, and Howard “I killed Newsweek” Fineman said it was just “nasty” and “mean” - all of which indicates that it must have been fairly effective.

The ChicagO-team is busily taking hourly polls to see how best to use Isaac to their advantage with the American public. They’re keeping an open line to both Big Guy and our MSM lapdogs in order to issue focus group tested responses to the crisis as it continues to develop. So far two responses tested favorably with undecided people who aren’t likely to vote:
a) “New Orleans was spared because Big Guy dispatched FEMA aid well in advance of the storm surge,” or b) “New Orleans destroyed by heartless Republicans who redirected Hurricane Isaac their way in order to spare their convention in Tampa.”

Stay tuned. Big Guy will continue to consult TOTUS for word from the O-Team on....
(Excerpt) Read more at michellesmirror.com ...

SHAMEFUL MEDIA SPINS, SHILLS AND RACE-BAITS THE GOP CONVENTION

Breitbart ^ | 8/29/12 | John Nolte

Last night, with the help of my colleagues Tony Lee and Warner Todd Huston, we tried our best to cover the corrupt media's worst moments during their coverage of last night's GOP convention. With an eye on cable, the broadcast networks, Twitter, and the Web, in real-time we documented what we witnessed and you can read it all below. What it boiled down to, though, was exactly what you would expect from a hopelessly corrupt institution determined to drag a failed president over the finish line:

Unconscionable race-baiting, cynicism, and the use of Hurricane Isaac to selectively ignore some of the conventions best moments for the GOP. For instance, CNN refused to broadcast speeches given by Republican governors in crucial swing states. You'll also read how ABC News released a hit poll just as Ann Romney took the stage and NBC's Brian Williams opened the night with RAPE!

With few notable exceptions, what we didn't cover was the openly partisan media. We don't care what MSNBC, The Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo do. Unlike the so-called mainstream media, those outlets are at least open about their biases. They might be sexier to cover in the department of outrage, but millions more people are being duped and propagandized by those who wield a phony shield of objectivity as a partisan weapon. Tony, Warner, and I will be back for another round tonight. So please tune in.

But in the meantime, take a little time to read what happened last night -- take a little time to see how Obama's Media Palace Guards sell every ounce of their integrity in a desperate effort to prop up a naked emperor who I like to call President FailureTeleprompter.

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

Idaho Aims For Job Growth Through Gun Manufacturing

npr.org ^ | 29 August, 2012 | Molly Messick

A few years ago, state leaders got the idea to promote Idaho to the outdoor industry, including gun manufacturers. After all, Idaho is a more firearms-friendly place than most. More than half of Idahoans own guns, and state law shields firearms manufacturers from liability.
One North Idaho town — Potlatch — is honing its pitch to attract the gun industry and jobs. Local economic development official BJ Swanson is key to the effort. Not long ago, Swanson drove through an overgrown patch of ground on the outskirts of Potlatch, population 800. It’s a humble spot, but in it she sees the town’s future and its past.
“This is part of the main mill here, the concrete relics that you see,” she says, as she points out the window. She’s gesturing toward a crumbling cement structure, protruding from tall grass. It’s all that’s left of a sawmill that was once one of world’s largest. Now, Potlatch needs a new plan. And it has one.
“Guns are going to be manufactured somewhere,” she says. “Why not here?”
Local officials envision a mix of commercial, industrial, retail and residential space, built where the mill once stood. If all goes well, it will revolve around so-called “recreation technology.” The term functions as a euphemism for “the gun industry,” though local leaders want to attract related businesses, too. The idea took hold last fall, after ammunition-maker PNW Arms moved from the Seattle suburbs to small-town Idaho.
“If I was working for any other firearms manufacturer in any other part of the country, and the question came up, ‘How could we do our business better?’ I would suggest Idaho as a place to relocate.”
It’s a fervent endorsement that comes from PNW Arms’ vice president of sales and unofficial spokesman, Fred Newcome. He says the number of available workers who are knowledgeable and passionate about guns was one factor in PNW Arms’ move to Potlatch.
The company has a consumer line, but it also has higher-profile clients, like the Department of Defense. Newcome is proud to say that cutting-edge ammunition comes out of PNW’s new home.
“We have literally innovated some things that you can’t find anywhere else,” he says. “There are munitions being produced here that you don’t know about and won’t know about and are really changing the way small arms are utilized in warfare.”
Think: bullets that work underwater. That’s a main project.
This interview with Newcome might seem pretty normal, but there were things that set it apart. First, Newcome and I talked in PNW Arms’ waiting area. For security reasons, I wasn’t allowed beyond that point. Second, the conversation was supervised by a company official who asked that his name and title remain off the record.
Then, there were the company’s guard dogs. They had been moved to another room before I arrived. But when it was decided I could meet the nicest of them, the dog took one look at me and issued a long, low growl.
“He’s the leader of our pack, here, for our security team,” Newcome said, chuckling.
The dog’s name is Almash, and he’s a Hungarian Kuvasz, a breed historically used to fend off wolves. The unnamed company official jokes that Almash ate the last two journalists who came to visit.
Each of these little departures from the way radio interviews usually go is a reminder of a simple fact: stories about guns carry an automatic charge. Newcome and I met only hours after last month’s mass shooting in Aurora, Colo. It’s all but impossible to separate firearms from the passionate political views they inspire.
Department of Commerce Director Jeff Sayer acknowledges that point, but steers clear. “I don’t have an answer from a philosophical standpoint,” he says. “What I do know from a strategic standpoint: having arms manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers makes a lot of sense for the state.”
Idaho’s Commerce Department embarked on a recreation technology recruitment campaign in 2008. The idea was to create clusters of related businesses. Little by little, Sayer says, the state has seen companies move in. Now, Potlatch is attempting to pick up that ball and run.
“I think every community has to find their niche,” Sayer says, “and has to find something that can set them apart, and give them a story to tell to the outside world.”
One of Idaho’s stories to the outside world is its open embrace of firearms. A state statute limiting lawsuits against gun and ammunition manufacturers is more restrictive than most. Federal records show 180 manufacturers in the state, including PNW Arms.
At the end of our interview, Newcome offers a shooting lesson. The gun is an M4.
“This is a fully automatic weapon you’ll see in use by any of your tier one teams. Your Seals, your Rangers, your Force Recon guys all use a weapon similar to this,” Newcome tells me.
This is another of Idaho’s main draws: the ease of testing ammunition. There’s no need to drive for hours to an open stretch of land. All we’ve done is walk outside behind the shop, where there’s a target set up.
Like Idaho’s Commerce Director, PNW Arms prefers not to get mired in the politics of its profession. By choosing Idaho, the company is taking the path of least resistance.
Others appear to be following their lead.
Last week, BJ Swanson says, Washington-based Eagle View Arms committed to moving to Potlatch. They’re a firearms accessories manufacturer, and they’re small – three employees – but they plan to grow.

Video: Ted Cruz tells the story of America

Hot Air ^ | August 29,2012 | JAZZ SHAW

And Cruz was well rewarded for his efforts. He pretty much brought the house down. If any voters across the country were getting their first look at Cruz yesterday, they got an eyeful. And it was probably hard to come away from it unimpressed.

Good evening. I have the honor of standing before you this evening for one reason, because thousands upon thousands of grassroots activists stood united, not for a candidate, but for the sake of restoring liberty. Accountability, quite rightly, rests firmly in the hands of “We the People.”

Since 2010, something extraordinary has been happening, something that has dumbfounded the chattering class.

It began here in Florida in 2010. In Utah, Kentucky, Pennsylvania.
Was repeated this summer in Indiana. Nebraska. Wisconsin.
And this past month, in the Lone Star State, Texas.
What is happening all across America is a Great Awakening.
A response to career politicians in both parties who’ve gotten us into this mess.
This national movement is fueled by what unites us: a love of liberty, a belief in the unlimited potential of free men and women.
I want to tell you a love story. It’s the story of all of us, a love story of freedom.
It’s the story of our Founding Fathers, who fought and bled for freedom and then crafted the most miraculous political document ever conceived, our Constitution. The Framers understood that our rights come, not from monarchs, but from God-and that those rights are secure only when government power is restrained.
This love story is the story of the brave Texans in the City of Gonzales. When General Santa Anna demanded that they give up their guns and the cannon that guarded the city, they responded with the immortal cry “Come and take it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

Sweet Cheeks

Posted Image

CryBaby

Posted Image

Priorities

Posted Image

Hate the Times?

Posted Image

The Kings

Posted Image

Only Racists

Posted Image

Heroes

Posted Image

Right Direction

Posted Image

Against The Law

Posted Image

Neil Armstrong

Posted Image

Forward or backwards?

Posted Image

Paul Ryan

Posted Image

Which Economy?

Posted Image

Yeah, I've got one!

Posted Image

Shit Happens!

Posted Image

Republicans for Change - Davis, Scott, West, Love

Weekly Standard ^ | August 28, 2012 | Fred Barnes

“There seems to be a movement on the local and state level,” Scott said, of black Democrats who want “to align with their values” rather than with their history as Democrats. “We’ll continue to see that shift.”

Artur Davis, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama, has been a Republican for only a few months. But his speech tonight at the Republican convention is important because he reflects a major theme of Mitt Romney’s campaign against President Obama and another theme promoted by the GOP.
The Romney theme is that it’s okay to have changed your mind about Obama. Davis, an African American and a political moderate, seconded the nomination of Obama at the Democratic convention in Denver in 2008. But he’s been disappointed in the Obama presidency and today supports Romney.
“I’m one of millions of people who, frankly, didn’t get what we voted for,” he told Fox News in May, just after switching parties. “A lot of people in my old state of Alabama—15 Democratic elected officials—have now become Republicans. The guy who defeated me in the Democratic primary [for governor in 2010] now works for the Republican governor who defeated him. A lot of us have made this move in some way, shape, or form.”
Davis deals with a specific worry of Republican strategists: that since millions of swing voters who backed Obama in 2008 still like him personally, they’ll be reluctant to desert him in 2012.
Republicans have unleashed a major effort to turn these disillusioned voters into Romney supporters. The Romney campaign aired a soft-hitting TV ad featuring Obama voters four years ago who have jumped to Romney. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group, has run two ads on this point. And a 60-minute film, produced by Citizens United and released today, consists of liberal independents and registered Democrats who explain why they’ve given up on Obama.
A Harvard Law School graduate, Davis, 44, is the most prominent switcher. He was elected to the House as a Democrat in 2002 and served four terms. He was the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against Obamacare.
He also meets a special need of Republicans: attracting African-American voters and candidates. This has been on the wish list of Republican officials for decades, though not always a high priority. The GOP’s inability to win over African Americans was acute in 2008, when Obama won 95 percent of the African-American vote.
But two years later, two black Republicans, Allen West in Florida and Tim Scott in South Carolina, were elected to the House from largely white districts. In 2012, Republican Mia Love, an African American and a Mormon, is regarded as a strong candidate to win a House seat in Utah.
Davis represents a different facet of the GOP push—that is, to persuade moderate-to-conservative African-American Democrats to change parties. Davis has explained his switch as a reaction to Obama’s liberal policies. “I may be a minority in this regard, but I’m one of the people who supported Barack Obama because I thought that he was in the center,” he told Fox.
“I thought he was going to be a pro-growth president. I thought that his focus at all times was going to be national unity and bringing the country together, and I saw an enormous amount of potential,” Davis said. “What did we see? We saw a very different path.”
Davis, who now lives in Virginia and may run for office there, said he’s “on the center-right. There is no center-right in the Democratic party. There is in the Republican party, and I want to help it and be a part of it.”
Scott—he represents Charleston, South Carolina, where the Civil War began—said Davis is “symbolic” of a shift “that is happening in the minority community. It’s a gradual process, but a real process.”
“There seems to be a movement on the local and state level,” Scott said, of black Democrats who want “to align with their values” rather than with their history as Democrats. “We’ll continue to see that shift.”

Ann Romney on Mitt Romney - Video

Political Realities ^ | 08/29/12 | LD Jackson

I stayed up a little past my normal bedtime last night, with one purpose in mind. I wanted to watch Ann Romney as she took the stage at the Republican National Convention and talked about her husband, Mitt Romney. For months, we have heard the media and some of the liberal Democrats bash her for various things. Some days, it was that she was a stay-at-home mom. Oddly, they also found a reason to dislike her because she owns, and rides, horses. During the Olympics, they harped about the clothes she was wearing and how much they cost. Last night, we found out there is much more to Ann Romney than just a rich and spoiled white woman.

The main focus of her speech was love and the women of America. Ann Romney explained exactly why the phrase "behind every good man is a great woman" is so true. In doing so, Ann Romney's speech was also designed to showcase her marriage, and to give us a glimpse of who they really are. Even more, it was designed to show us a little of what Mitt Romney is made of. Barack Obama and the liberal media have accused him of being successful on the backs of others, but Ann Romney made it clear last night, that is not the case. If you have wondered why Romney refuses to shy away from his success at Bain Capital, wonder no more. Mitt Romney has been successful because he has worked hard and he is clearly not ashamed of that.
In some of my last few posts, I have tried to show some of the differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Some say there is little difference, that Mitt Romney will actually be worse for our country than President Obama. I beg to differ and Ann Romney showed some of the reasons I believe so strongly that the former Governor of Massachusetts is better suited to lead America than the current resident of the White House. In closing, a short quote from Ann Romney. If you didn't catch her speech last night, please take time to watch it below. It will be well worth your time.
“I can tell you, he was not handed success. ... No one will work harder. No one will care more … to make this country a better place to live. This man will not fail."
Please visit Political Realities to watch the video.

Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax

Townhall.com ^ | August 29, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

While all eyes were on the Republican National Convention in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac on the Gulf Coast, the White House was quietly jacking up the price of automobiles and putting future drivers at risk.

Yes, the same cast of fable-tellers who falsely accused GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of murdering a steelworker's cancer-stricken wife is now directly imposing a draconian environmental regulation that will cost untold American lives.

On Tuesday, the administration announced that it had finalized "historic" new fuel efficiency standards. (Everything's "historic" with these narcissists, isn't it?) President Obama took a break from his historic fundraising drives to proclaim that "(by) the middle of the next decade, our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle-class families, and it will help create an economy built to last."
Jon Carson, director of Obama's Office of Public Engagement, took to Twitter to hype how "auto companies support the higher fuel-efficiency standards" and how the rules crafted behind closed doors will "save consumers $8,000" per vehicle. His source for these claims? The New York Times, America's Fishwrap of Record, which has acknowledged it allows the Obama campaign to have "veto power" over reporters' quotes from campaign officials.
And whom did the Times cite for the claim that the rules will "save consumers $8,000"? Why, the administration, of course! "The administration estimated that the new standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs," the Times dutifully regurgitated, "resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025."
The Obama administration touts the support of the government-bailed-out auto industry for these reckless, expensive regs. What they want you to forget is that the "negotiations" (read: bullying) with White House environmental radicals date back to former Obama green czar Carol Browner's tenure -- when she infamously told auto industry execs "to put nothing in writing, ever" regarding their secret CAFE talks.
Obama's number-massagers cite phony-baloney cost savings that rely on developing future fuel-saving technology. Given this crony government's abysmal track record in "investing" in new technologies (cough -- Solyndra -- cough), we can safely dismiss that fantasy math. What is real for consumers is the $2,000 per vehicle added cost that the new fuel standards will impose now. That figure comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
War on Middle-Class Consumers, anyone?
Beyond the White House-media lapdog echo chamber, the economic and public safety objections to these sweeping rules are long grounded and well founded.
For years, free-market analysts and government statisticians have warned of the deadly effect of increasing corporate auto fuel economy standards (CAFE). Sam Kazman at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained a decade ago: "(T)he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering."
H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis adds that NHTSA data indicate that "322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles." USA Today further calculated that the "size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths."
These lethal regulations should be wrapped in yellow police "CAUTION" tape. The tradeoffs are stark and simple: CAFE fuel standards clamp down on the production of larger, more crashworthy cars. Analysts from Harvard to the Brookings Institution to the federal government itself have arrived at the same conclusion: CAFE kills. Welcome to the bloody intersection between the Obama jobs death toll and the Obama green death toll.

MSNBC Omits All Coverage From Minority Speakers at 'Racist' RNC Convention

NewsBusters ^

A funny thing happened on race-obsessed MSNBC tonight. The liberal network failed to give viewers coverage of the speakers who happen to be member of racial minorities. As Francesca Chambers, Editor of Red Alert Politics, reported on August 28th:

When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.
MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black. Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech. And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too. Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.
Why is MSNBC trying to exclude conservative Republicans of color in their coverage? Could it be that they are aghast that they're not on the side of the infallible Barack Obama? Could it be because it cuts against their persistent whine that the GOP is the party of "dog whistle" politics aimed at working-class white voters?
It's irnoic since Daily Beast contributor Michael Tomasky friviously labeled this year's RNC convention as racist.
Shall we take bets on when Condi Rice's speech is interrupted by a Michelin tire commercial?

"Social Security Card History"

August 29, 2012 | Unknown

With the elections just a little over 3 months away you'll soon be hearing some Democrats running for political office, warning how the Republicans want to take away the old people's Social Security.
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this it's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican.
Facts are Facts:
Social Security Cards, issued in 1934, and up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and that card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
When Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
Under Johnson, another Democrat, the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore, Democrats, Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' for us -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve.
Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.