Thursday, August 30, 2012

Democrats refuse to cancel Jumah Jihad at the DNC

Atlas Shrugs ^ | August 29, 2012 | Pamela Geller

Once again the Demcorats prove that they are the party of the enemy, the traitor, the jihad. Despite public outcry, the jihadist Jumah will tale place at the DNC. The event has in its crosshairs the Patriot Act, the NYPD, the National Defense Authorization Act, and anti-Shariah sentiment.

"I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Barack Hussein Obama, page 261, The Audacity of Hope

A couple of weeks back, I posted about the Jumah jihad at the DNC, an event led by an imam who urged the overthrow of the "filthy" U.S. government and who was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade center bombings. Obama's DNC lists the assembly as an “official function." The group is hardly “mainstream,” being represented by Siraj Wahhaj, who will be the “Grand Imam” for the gathering.
Wahhaj and the co-leader of the Charlotte event, Jibril Hough, are both heavily involved in the separatist American Islamist movement. Many of the participants in the “Jumah at the DNC” will most likely represent radical networks that have long-time, but little-known, operations in the Charlotte region.
Eyewitness News asked Hough about his views on several topics, including the war on terror.
"American troops are actually the insurgents. It's not the people who live there. The people who live there are defending their country," Hough said.
Hough does not consider himself to be a supremacist, but believes Muslims have not received the credit they deserve.
"This is a fact: Muslims have visited America prior to Columbus. It was a Muslim who guided Columbus on his voyage to the new world," Hough said.
He insisted he is not a radical, and said his beliefs are shared by mainstream Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

“Chocolate may help reduce stroke risk in men”

Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 6:45AM BST 30 Aug 2012 | (Source: agencies)

Regularly indulging in chocolate may actually help men decrease their risk of having a stroke, according to a Swedish study.

Researchers writing in the journal Neurology found that of more than 37,000 men followed for a decade, those who ate the most chocolate—typically the equivalent of one-third of a cup of chocolate chips—had a 17 per cent lower risk of stroke than men who avoided chocolate.

The study is hardly the first to link chocolate to cardiovascular benefits, with several previous ones suggesting that chocolate fans have lower rates of certain risks for heart disease and stroke, like high blood pressure. …

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How 'The Shy Republican' Could Be Masking a Landslide

American Thinker ^ | August 30, 2012 | Adam Shaw

At time of writing, polls show the race for the presidency to be tight. General consensus seems to be that whoever wins, the 2012 election will be won by a bat squeak.

Yet to many, especially those of us on the right, it seems peculiar that Obama is still remotely in the race. With high unemployment, minimal GDP growth, a 100% increase in food stamp costs, and out-of-control spending, many conservatives are asking how just under half of the American population can possibly want more of the same.

While it is not possible now to get into the many reasons certain people will vote Democrat in November, I propose that all polls, not just left-leaning polls, may be being strongly misled by their data, and Romney/Ryan may actually have a huge lead not seen in polls.

It is my contention that this is due to a mix of the infamous Bradley effect and what is known in Britain as "the Shy Tory Factor," with both coming together to exaggerate just how popular Obama is in America.
The Bradley effect is a much-debated polling distortion that is easy to demonstrate but difficult to prove. The idea that when a black or minority candidate is on the ticket against a white candidate, certain voters may lie under pressure from a pollster, worried about being seen as a racist for choosing the white candidate over the minority, sounds highly plausible. The consequence, should the Bradley effect be in play, would be a skewed poll indicating that the minority candidate is in better political shape than his or her opponent.
Some argued that while it may have been a factor in the past, it was not a factor in the 2008 election, when Barack Obama was elected convincingly, just as polls predicted.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

$5 for gas should fuel Mitt Romney’s talk!

The Boston Herald ^ | August 30, 2012 | Howie Carr

TAMPA, Fla. — Here are some real estate signs I’ve seen in Hillsborough County in this fourth year of our economic “recovery.”
•     “No Reasonable Offer Refused.”
•     “Starting in the low 100’s.”
•     (This next one was hand-lettered, at an exit off the interstate) “Lots Dirt Cheap! 9K.”
You think the economy’s in tough shape in Boston, but it’s much worse down here, and in most of the rest of the country. And I hope Mitt talks a lot about it tonight in his prime-time speech. It’s still the economy, stupid.
Plus, likability is overrated. No matter what Mitt says or does tonight, it won’t please his critics. Reciting too many statistics in a speech is also deadly. Look at Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s snoozer Tuesday night. He mentioned numbers more than Rick Santorum mentioned hands. But here’s one number Mitt should definitely use.
On Jan. 20, 2009, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.89.
Now it’s close to four bucks.
That’s a number everybody can relate to. And it doesn’t matter how many times Comrade Chris Matthews says it’s racist to bring it up, and you know he will. Anything that makes MSNBC’s Sun King look bad — racist.
It’s hard to make yourself seem likable. If you’re really likable, it gets around through your friends, word of mouth. Yesterday morning, after his keynote speech the previous night, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie spoke to a breakfast meeting of the New Hampshire and Pennsylvania delegations.
He talked about how when he was being courted for an endorsement last fall, the Romneys came to visit him in New Jersey. Christie said his two older kids shook hands with the Romneys and went away. But the two younger ones, 8 and 11, stuck around, looking for attention from the new adults, and Mitt spent a few minutes with them, asking them questions and playing.
“You know how it usually is with a politician and a kid,” Christie said. “It’s, ‘Hello little girl, that’s a pretty ribbon in your hair. Now, where’s your mother?’ ”
Everybody chuckled. It’s too bad he didn’t use it in his prime-time speech. If Chris Christie says you’re an OK guy, you must be an OK guy, right?
So Mitt shouldn’t waste a lot of his time tonight trying to wear his heart on his sleeve. Likability isn’t what it used to be anyway. Michael Barone wrote yesterday how it’s become less important as fewer people watch TV news as regularly as they used to. If you’re not in somebody’s living room every night, it matters less if they “like” you.
But if he wants to lift one line from a very likable president, and a Republican to boot, here’s the one Mitt should resurrect this evening.
“Are you better or worse off than you were four years ago?”

Lib Dem emergency tax may force millions to reveal personal wealth - keep society "cohesive"!

Telegraph - UK ^ | August 29, 2012 | Robert Winnett

Millions of people would be forced to disclose the value of their homes, investments and assets under Liberal Democrat plans for an emergency tax on wealth.

The Deputy Prime Minister believes that the proposed tax, which would see an annual levy of about half a per cent on the value of a person’s total wealth, could raise billions of pounds to prevent deeper public spending cuts.

Experts warned that it would prove “impossible to administer” and other countries were abandoning similar taxes because of the complexities involved.
George Osborne said it might also “drive away wealth creators”. The Chancellor said: “I am clear the wealthy should pay more which is why in the recent budget I increased the tax on very expensive property transactions.
“But we also have to be careful as a country we don’t drive away the wealth creators and the businesses that are going to lead our economic recovery.”
Senior Tories described the tax plan as a “kite-flying exercise” by Mr Clegg which was highly unlikely to become government policy. The Lib Dem leader caused confusion when he said higher taxes on the rich were necessary if society was to “remain cohesive”.
Mr Clegg said: “If we want to remain cohesive and prosperous as a society, people of very considerable personal wealth have got to make a bit of an extra contribution.”
Tim Farron, the Lib Dem party president, said: “Income tax is one way of raising money. It’s probably more effective to do so by taxing wealth and assets. There are a range of things that can be done.”
He said the new taxes would involve Britons “opening their books” to HM Revenue and Customs.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Posted Image

We Tried Our Plan...

Posted Image

Vote Change

Posted Image

The Bitter Taste

Posted Image


Posted Image

He-Man Club

Posted Image


Posted Image

Obama is trying to kill me!

Posted Image


Posted Image

Chris Matthews and MSNBC Now Claim the Word 'Chicago' Is Racist!

Newsbusters ^ | August 30th 2012 | Rusty Weiss

Chris Matthews was on Hardball tonight covering the Republican National Convention with guests Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Hielemann of New York Magazine. In what is seemingly the natural progression of things these days with Matthews, the subject of the 'otherization' of the President was being discussed. Because, if you weren't aware already, Barack Obama is black, and any time a Republican chooses to discuss the failure that is his administration, the media will be there to quickly remind you that they only feel that way because of his skin color.

But tonight's episode of race-baiting with Chris Matthews was a bit odd in that the panelists somehow came to the conclusion that reminding people of the President's roots in Chicago politics is racist. In fact, simply saying Chicago is racist. (Video below).

Robinson sets the racial tone by saying (h/t The Right Newz):

"It's all part of this Barack Obama as 'other' sort of blanket campaign that has been waged by the Republican Party for some time now. It may be gaining some traction now, though I wonder why now as opposed to a bit closer to election."

Matthews then demonstrates his mind-numbing ability to take an idiotic statement, amplify it, and subsequently make it exponentially more idiotic coming from his mouth, when he said this:

"Yea, well let me ask you about that gentleman. What about now, is this constant barrage of assaults, saying the guy is basically playing an old game of demagoguery politics, where you take the money from the worker bees and give it to the poor people to buy votes. That's basically what they're charging him with. Old big-style, big-city machine of 50 years ago."

He added, "They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed? They keep saying Chicago. That's another thing that sends that message - this guy's helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the 'burbs."
Hielemann helpfully interpreted Matthews statement, presumably for those too challenged to understand basic words (or as we in the business refer to them - Hardball viewers), by making this jaw-dropping statement:
"There's a lot of black people in Chicago.".....contin at site:
Read more:

Why Ron Fournier Proves Mitt Romney Must Beat The Liberal Media, Not Woo Them

RedState ^ | August 30, 2012 | Erick Erickson

When Republicans talk about the liberal press, they should not just remember John Harris at the Politico, but also Ron Fournier of National Journal. If you want to know what the subtle racism of the liberal media looks like, consider Ron Fournier’s latest epiphany on how Mitt Romney’s welfare attacks on Obama are racist.

It takes one to know one I guess.

On the day the well respected by the press Yahoo! News Washington Bureau Chief David Chalain revealed his true colors only to see his media brethren rush to defend him after his firing (he lamented on a live mic that Romney had no problem partying as black people drowned), Ron Fournier was out accusing Mitt Romney of racism. Fournier is one of those members of the Gang of 500 that other members listen to and aspire to be.
According to Fournier, Mitt Romney’s ad saying, “You wouldn’t have to work” is a dog whistle that real means “Blacks wouldn’t have to work.” Doing no more extrapolation than Fournier did, what he is really saying is that if you are a Republican talking about welfare you are a racist.
What does it say about Ron Fournier that he hears the line about Mitt Romney’s ad and he himself translates it as “blacks wouldn’t have to work”? What is his presupposition about black people in his interpretation?
The fact is, Ron Fournier is a liberal. He does not like Mitt Romney. He does not like Republicans. And he hates the fact that Republicans and a sizable number of independent voters largely think he and his cohorts in the mainstream media are mostly full of crap. So to get around it, he and his cohorts have invented a liberal organization called Politifact, run by a sizable number of Democrats who had the mendacity to declare themselves independent voters before taking the job, that they can hide behind as an impartial arbiter of their crap claiming it is truth.
Consider his claims of racism about Mitt Romney and the GOP. He descends to “it’s Politifact, not me!”
>>>>Before explaining why these tactics work (and why Romney’s team knows, or should know, they are playing the race card), let’s quickly deal with this fact: The ad is wrong. As countless impartial fact-checkers have noted, the Obama administration memo cited by the Romney team actually gives states flexibility to find better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs.
Why ignore fact-checkers?<<<<
Only a liberal or an idiot could take the fact checkers seriously in this. As Conn Carroll noted, Ron Fournier willfully chooses to ignore that what the Obama Administration did was allow states to change the definition of work.
As J. P. Freire noted on twitter responding to Fournier, “So wait, Obama guts welfare reform, Republicans object, and their objection is playing the race card?” Fournier’s response? Hide behind the fact checkers the media set up to claim themselves right.
But what are the real facts? The Obama Administration did end welfare as we know it. It is objectively fact unless you are a fact checker or Ron Fournier.
Just consider the mind blowing leaps and bounds of Ron Fournier — he can take a line in a commercial and extrapolate that it is really about black people, but he cannot take a regulation from the Obama administration allowing states to change the definition of work and extrapolate that this is designed to get around the work requirements in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Again — only a liberal or an idiot could do that.
But Fournier would rather claim racism about Mitt Romney based on his own preconceptions about race and claim Romney is playing the race card — “coincidentally” at the same time the Democrats start pushing out the “GOP is playing the race card” meme — and hide behind “fact checkers” than intellectually admit he is wrong.
His column is horribly offensive and his unwillingness to do anything other than hide behind liberal fact checkers who didn’t really check the facts is pathetic for a person in his position.
To paraphrase Fournier, that leaves one inescapable conclusion: Ron Fournier is either recklessly ignorant of the facts, some of which he possesses – or he is lying about why (and how) he is playing the race card.
Ron Fournier’s actions show that as long as the media sets up phony fact checkers as arbiters of a truth they want that may not be, Mitt Romney must not just beat Barack Obama, but also beat the liberals in the media.

How Obama Succeeds By Failing

American Spectator ^ | 8/30/12 | Jeffrey Lord

Ryan on the American Tipping Point: it's the socialism, stupid.

"Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1967
Why did Obama fail?
Or has Obama actually succeeded?
The debt soars to $16 trillion. Millions are out of work to the tune of an 8.3% unemployment rate, with the CBO predicting it will keep on climbing to 9% by 2013 -- now only five short months away. One could go on, yipping and yapping about everything from the price of a gallon of gas (already headed north to four bucks a gallon, it spiked again Wednesday
from a nickel to as much as 14 cents in the wake of Hurricane Isaac) to the crony capitalism of Solyndra.
So the question isn't "has Obama failed"? No, the real question is:
Why did Obama fail? And in the world of socialists and progressives, isn't this failure a success?
And the second question? When will the GOP begin linking Obama's results to Obama's beliefs?
Let's return to the 2008 Democratic primary debates when then-Senator Obama was asked about raising taxes on capital gains. ABC's Charlie Gibson asked Obama:
Gibson: And in each instance, when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact
(Excerpt) Read more at ...