Saturday, September 1, 2012

Yikes: If we thought our unemployment rate was bad now… (This is how Obama's America will look like)

Hotair ^ | 08/31/2012 | Erika Johnsen

It is bad, of course. More than three years with more than a (rather generously calculated) eight percent unemployment rate is unacceptable and egregious. But things can still stand to get a whole lot worse — and they will, if we continue to follow the proffered example of debt accumulation that Europe has laid out for us. Bloomberg reports:
Euro-area unemployment rose to a record and inflation quickened more than economists forecast as rising energy costs threaten to deepen the economic slump.
The jobless rate in the economy of the 17 nations using the euro was 11.3 percent in July, the same as in June after that month’s figure was revised higher, the European Union’s statistics office in Luxembourg said today. That’s the highest since the data series started in 1995. Inflation accelerated to 2.6 percent in August from 2.4 percent in the prior month, an initial estimate showed in a separate report. That’s faster than the 2.5 percent median forecast of 31 economists in a Bloomberg survey. …
The European Central Bank, which will publish its latest economic projections next week, said in June that the euro-area economy may shrink 0.1 percent this year, with inflation averaging 2.4 percent. The ECB aims to keep annual gains in consumer prices just below zero.
And as ZeroHedge summarizes, the youth unemployment rate — having long since shot way past alarming — continues to worsen.
When we last looked at youth unemployment in Europe, things were stabilizing a little, though at extremely lofty levels. With the release of July’s data, the situation has deteriorated rapidly; Euro-Zone youth unemployment hs now ticked back up to its euro-era record-high of 22.6% (18-year highs). … Italy was the hardest hit, back above 35% with its largest rise in youth joblessness in 5 months, Ireland rose back above 30% for its biggest rise in 11 months as France jumped to two-year highs and Spain and Greece are practically deadlocked with ~53% of their younger-generation out of work – new all-time records.
Take a good look — this is where our future is headed right now if we don’t make some sharp turns, and soon. Or not. No really, by all means, federal government: Please keep on with our monstrously unsustainable habit of spending money we don’t have on programs we don’t need — it’s not like our country’s prosperity or my generation’s level of opportunity are at stake, or anything.

DNC delegates will jump up and cheer Carter’s speech believing he makes Obama look good! ^ | Sept. 1, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

As the song goes, “When you’ve got nothing you’ve got nothing to lose” and DNC delegates might be thinking this when Jimmy Carter video addresses them.
The delegates will cheer wildly because he will be changing the subject from the hideous parade of out of step misfits on their speakers list to something NBC can crow about. Carter will be warmly greeted because they think his economic failures make Obamanomics look good.
When his dreary speech promoting Barack Obama, who will replace him as the worst president in American history, is over they will jump to their feet. The halfwits won’t care about his 18% mortgage rates or blocks long gas lines. Democrats live in a bizarre fantasy world where failure is cheered and success is mocked.
Carter, the man Democrats will cheer has always been attracted to the worst anti-American underside of the Left.
He has/had a warm personal friendship with the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, and Yasir Arafat whom he coached on how to fool westerners into thinking he was not a terrorist. Raul Castro, Fidel’s malignant little brother, called Cater the “Best of all U.S. presidents.” He’s probably the only person besides Carter himself who believe that.
How anti-Semitic is Carter? While president he commented there were “too many Jews” on his Holocaust memorial committee then objected to a “ non-Jew” with a name that “sounded Jewish.”
When his anti-Semitic rant “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid” came out just 2 years ago 14 members of his own staff quit. Yet Jewish DNC delegates will jump to their feet to cheer for him – he makes Obama look good.
Carter gave away the Panama Canal which is now run by a front company for Red Chinese. This puts us in danger of economic blackmail…..
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

It’s Time for a New Labor Day ^ | September | Rick Berman

Labor Day was originally set aside to reflect upon contributions the labor movement has made to keep our nation strong and prosperous. This year, however, Americans should focus on how far the labor movement has moved away from its roots.

Unions that once served to protect their employee-members have since transformed into personal piggy banks for the Democratic Party. During the 2010 election alone, 93 percent of the hundreds of millions of invested in politics by unions went to support Democratic candidates, even though 42 percent of union households voted for GOP candidates.
Many Americans were outraged by ex-Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet’s comments calling the White House the “Bank of Washington,” but where is the outrage over the Democratic Party’s “Bank of the American Worker?”
Two bills are currently pending before congress to give employees more control over how their dues money is spent, among other things. The Employee Rights Act (ERA), introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), and the Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees (RASIE) Act, sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN). If Democrats will allow these bills to pass, all employees will soon have reason to celebrate.
Rather than taking money first and allowing questions later, the ERA’s paycheck protection provision requires labor unions to obtain approval from their members prior to spending their dues money on political causes.
The ERA also gives union members the opportunity to exercise a right that is fundamental to American democracy: the right to vote. An analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Labor Relations Board indicates that less than seven percent of currently unionized, private sector employees voted for the union in their workplace.
Just as Americans go to the polls each election cycle to choose who represents them, the ERA would allow union workers – many who never had a say in being unionized in the first place – to decide whether the union their predecessors chose still adequately represents them. American citizens are allowed to hold elected officials responsible by holding elections, and the ERA would allow workers to hold their representatives responsible, too.
The RAISE Act similarly aims to bring more American principles into the workplace. Currently, 80 percent of union contracts prohibit merit-based pay raises for individual employees. Instead, raises must be approved by the union, which often places ceilings on how high a worker’s pay may advance. If the RAISE Act were passed, employers would be allowed to provide merit-based pay raises and bonuses to employees. Union workers could finally be compensated for their individual hard work, and not be held back by their fellow workers’ performance.
Though these two bills are dedicated to making the workplace fairer to the American worker, union-backed Democrats in the Senate recently voted against the RAISE Act. While union-households overwhelmingly support the legislation, labor leaders would rather ignore their interests and continue filling Democratic campaign war chests.
Generations have come and gone since our country last revised its labor laws. This Labor Day, shouldn’t our country stand up for the American worker? In a society based on giving every citizen the right to vote, shouldn’t we extend that right into the workplace, too? It’s time for a new Labor Day.

Obama to Israel - Drop Dead

Chuck Morse Speaks ^ | August 31, 2012 | Chuck Morse

Karl Vick and Aaron Klein report in Time Magazine, August 31, that the Obama Administration has decided to drastically reduce US involvement in planned joint military exercises with Israel scheduled for October. Time also reports that long promised missile interception systems will not be delivered by the US to Israel at that time. This news comes as Iran tests missiles and ramps up rhetoric calling for Israel's destruction. Time reports that Patriot missiles will be delivered to Israel without trained personnel and one instead of the two promised Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships will be docked on Israel's coast.
Obama's military chief General Martin Dempsey has stated that the US will not be "complicit" if Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities.
This means that Obama has put Israel on notice not to expect US support if it decides to strike Iran. Even worse, Obama is slowing down military supplies to Israel that would provide missile defense if Iran strikes Tel Aviv. Obama has made his betrayal of Israel public which places Israel at greater risk of attack.
Mitt Romney accurately noted in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that Obama threw "allies like Israel under the bus" while Iran's centrifuges were spinning.We can only pray that war does not break out before Romney is inaugurated in January of next year. Indeed, if the Middle East remains calm until Romney becomes president than more likely peace will prevail as America once again honors its comitments to its allies.


Times247 ^ | 8/30/12 | Jeff Kuhner

Chris Matthews is becoming the mainstream media’s premier race-baiter and hatemonger. The MSNBC host is the Joe Biden of liberal commentators — an obtuse, loudmouthed Democratic hack willing to ruthlessly play the race card. He is a national embarrassment. His brand of demagogic vitriol should be denounced for what it is: ideological fanaticism masquerading as journalism.

During the GOP convention in Tampa Bay, Mr. Matthews confronted Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. On “Morning Joe,” Mr. Matthews denounced Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for playing the “ethnic” and “race” card. Why? Because Mr. Romney had made a joke about President Obama’s birth certificate at a speech in Michigan, telling the crowd that “No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

DNC targeted by unions, Occupy, ‘values’ protesters

CHARLOTTE, N.C. • Several groups, including labor organizations and those opposing President Barack Obama’s positions on various issues, plan to demonstrate outside the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte in the coming days. On Sunday, protesters will take part in the March on Wall Street South — a demonstration that will focus on economic inequality, social injustice and other issues. It will kick off a week of protests and rallies by groups such as:
— Occupy Wall Street. A protest movement that began last year and claims that corporations have undue influence over the U.S. government, its activities have fizzled somewhat in 2012. The nationwide movement has issued a call for protesters for the Democratic convention in Charlotte, where an Occupy Charlotte tent city was disbanded last winter.

— AFL-CIO. The largest federation of labor unions in the United States, it is hoping to put a spotlight on worker issues, especially those specific to North Carolina. The state has the lowest percentage of unionized workers in the United States. The group is planning a massive canvassing effort this fall in all 50 states to turn out voters for Obama.
— Southern Workers Assembly. A coalition of labor groups fighting for collective bargaining and other labor issues in the South, it plans to have a major presence in the city to highlight the impact of anti-union laws in the South.
— Farm Labor Organizing Committee. The farm workers’ union says it will use the national attention around the convention to highlight issues facing farm workers and other North Carolina workers.
— No Papers No Fear. A coalition of immigrant rights’ advocates, it has organized UndocuBus — a group of 40 undocumented people that has been traveling by bus from Arizona to Charlotte. The bus has been making stops along the way to highlight problems facing the immigrant community.
— Greenpeace. An international environmental group, it has been critical of Charlotte-based Duke Energy and its CEO Jim Rogers. The group claims Duke’s coal fired plants have contributed to global warming.
— North Carolina Values Coalition. An anti-abortion group that supports North Carolina’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, it is holding a Rally for Marriage and Religious Liberty on Thursday — the same day President Barack Obama makes his acceptance speech at Bank of America Stadium.

Wave: GOP Voters at All Time High

Breitbart ^ | 9/1/2012 | Mike Flynn

According to new research released today by Rasmussen, more voters identify themselves as Republican than ever in the last 8 years. More importantly, by a 4 point margin, more voters identify as GOP than Democrat. This is the largest spread between the parties ever. Worse for Democrats, the number of voters who identify with their party is also approaching an historic low.

In August, 37.6% of voters identified themselves as Republican. That is up from 34.9% in July. By contrast, just 33.3% of voters identify themselves as Democrats. That is very near their historic low in February, when 32.4% of voters identified as Democrat. The 4.3 margin in favor of the GOP is the biggest gap ever between the parties. In November 2010, when the GOP won a landslide in the mid-term elections, their advantage was just 1.3 points.

Immediately prior to Obama's inauguration, the Democrat party held a nearly 9 point edge over Republicans. Over 41% of voters called themselves Democrats then, compared to around 32% who were Republicans. It is a stunning reversal as Obama heads into reelection.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

CAIR Joins NAACP In Resolution On Tea Party Movement.

Global Muslim Report ^

Muslim civil rights group says movement fails to repudiate Islamophobia!

WASHINGTON, July 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today offered support for an NAACP resolution passed earlier this week asking the Tea Party movement to condemn racism within its ranks.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) echoed concerns by delegates at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that the Tea Party has failed to repudiate elements within the movement who use racist or bigoted language.

SEE: NAACP Votes to Repudiate Racist Elements Within the Tea Party:

"If the Tea Party wishes to be taken seriously by mainstream Americans, it must repudiate all those who express or promote extremist, racist or bigoted views while claiming to be affiliated with the movement," said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper.

Hooper noted the NAACP's list of racist incidents tied to the Tea Party movement and cited similar examples of Islamophobic incidents, including:

* Extremist anti-Islam blogger Pamela Geller was invited to speak about "The Threat of Islam" at a Tea Party convention last May in Tennessee. Along with her claim that "Hitler and the Nazis were inspired by Islam," Geller has offered rhetorical support to accused Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and slain Apartheid-era leader Eugene Terre'blanche. She has in the past posted images on her blog that include a fake photograph of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in a Nazi uniform, another fake image of President Obama urinating on an American flag and drawings purporting to depict Islam's Prophet Muhammad as a pig. In a June 25 blog entry, Geller posted a video claiming that Muslims engage in bestiality. Despite this history of bigotry and extremism, convention organizers refused to drop Geller as a speaker.

SEE: Pamela Geller Does Not Belong on National Television

To Obama SEAL Team Six’s sacrifices were worthy of only a form letter!

Coach is Right ^ | September 1st, 2012 | Jim Emerson

Last year American warriors were killed when a CH-47 Chinook helicopter was shot down by the Taliban during combat operations in Afghanistan. The Helicopter was carrying U.S. Navy SEALs to assist an U.S. Army Ranger unit that was under heavy fire from insurgents in the mountainous region of the Wardak province. Their mission was to help capture a senior Taliban leader, but it went terribly wrong. Thirty (30) U.S. troops died that day making it the single largest loss of American troops in the Afghanistan war. The team consisted of U.S. Army Rangers and 17 warriors from Navy Seal Team Six, that same team that killed Osama bin Laden. None of those killed were involved in that operation.

Americans were shocked and sadden by the incident and President Barack Obama offered his thoughts and prayers for the Americans killed that day. In a statement issued at the time, Mr. Obama wrote “Their deaths are a reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and women of our military and their families, including all who have served in Afghanistan.” Nice words but what followed proves Obama doesn’t really believe them. He doesn’t relate to or care about the values these greatest of American warriors, he can’t ;its not in his makeup.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Look who parks their cash at Bain


Democrats convened in Charlotte, NC, will double down on their claim that Bain Capital is really the Bain crime family. They will accuse Republican nominee Mitt Romney and Bain’s other “greedy” co-founders of stealing their winnings, evading taxes and lighting cigars with $100 bills on their yachts.
But Bain’s private-equity executives have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base — including some who scream most loudly for President Obama’s re-election.
Government-worker pension funds are the chief beneficiaries of Bain’s economic stewardship. New York-based Preqin uses public documents, news accounts and Freedom of Information requests to track private-equity holdings.

Since 2000, Preqin reports, the following funds have entrusted some $1.56 billion to Bain:

* Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund ($2.2 million)
* Indiana Public Retirement System ($39.3 million)
* Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System ($177.1 million)
* The Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System ($19.5 million)
* Maryland State Retirement and Pension System ($117.5 million)
* Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada ($20.3 million)
* State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ($767.3 million)
* Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System ($231.5 million)
* Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island ($25 million)
* San Diego County Employees Retirement Association ($23.5 million)
* Teacher Retirement System of Texas ($122.5 million)
* Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ($15 million)

These funds aggregate the savings of millions of unionized teachers, social workers, public-health personnel and first responders. Many would be startled to learn that their nest eggs are incubated by the company that Romney launched and the financiers he hired.
Leading universities have also profited from Bain’s expertise. According to Infrastructure Investor, Bain Capital Ventures Fund I (launched in 2001) managed wealth for “endowments and foundations such as Columbia, Princeton and Yale universities.”
According to BuyOuts magazine and S&P Capital IQ, Bain’s other college clients have included Cornell, Emory, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame and the University of Pittsburgh. Preqin reports that the following schools have placed at least $424.6 million with Bain Capital between 1998 and 2008:
* Purdue University ($15.9 million)
* University of California ($225.7 million)
* University of Michigan ($130 million)
* University of Virginia ($20 million)
* University of Washington ($33 million)
Major, center-left foundations and cultural establishments also have seen their prospects brighten, thanks to Bain Capital. According to the aforementioned sources, such Bain clients have included the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Endowments and the Oprah Winfrey Foundation.
Why on Earth would government-union leaders, university presidents and foundation chiefs let Bain oversee their precious assets?
“The scrutiny generated by a heated election year matters less than the performance the portfolio generates to the fund,” California State Teachers’ Retirement System spokesman Ricardo Duran said in the Aug. 12 Boston Globe. CalSTRS has pumped some $1.25 billion into Bain.
Since 1988, Duran says, private-equity companies like Bain have outperformed every other asset class to which CalSTRS has allocated the cash of its 856,360 largely unionized members.
Is Bain really a gang of corporate buccaneers who plunder their ill-gotten gains by outsourcing, euthanizing feeble portfolio companies and giving cancer to the spouses of those whom they fired? If so, union bosses, government retirees, liberal foundations and elite universities thrive on the wages of Bain’s economic Darwinism.
If, however, these institutions relish the yields that Bain Capital generates by supporting start-ups and rescuing distressed companies, 80 percent of which have prospered, then this money is honest — and Team Obama isn’t.

Read more:

When Figures Lie: Chevy Volt Puts the Government in Government Motors! ^ | September 1, 2012 | John Ransom

If there was any doubt from skeptics about the complicity of the Obama administration in creating and directing the “new” General Motors –a.k.a Government Motors- the latest ballyhoo regarding sales figures and the Chevy Volt should convince even the doubters.

GM: Aug. Volt sales best yet says the Detroit News.

GM Expects Volt Sales to Set Monthly Record says the normally sane Wall Street Journal.

Chevy Volt broke monthly sales record in August reports the Associated Press.

But like a lot of claims coming from Obama or one his corporate surrogates, the Volt sales numbers surely aren’t signs of success, but rather just the opposite. And if the doublespeak doesn’t point to government involvement in the development, sale and ultimate failure of the Volt, it certainly betrays a government mentality that believes that perception matters more than results.
And the difference between Obama’s perception and the actual results in our economy is the chasm where all of our jobs have gone.
Because General Motors has sold only half the number of Volts that they said they would this year, and the company is idling the Volt production line to retool it for a car that’s actually selling: the Chevy Impala.
Investors aren’t fooled, even if some journalists and a few metroed, urban hipsters are.
From MarketWatch:
GM has suspended production of the all-electric car for a month so they can retool the plant to make more Chevy Impalas. Read more about the Volt’s production issues.
But not many are buying the company’s explanation or the car, for that matter. So far this year, GM has sold about 11,000 Volts — far less than hoped and planned for by the auto maker. The market has spoken: Most Americans simply are not ready for an electric car from Detroit.
They’re not ready, because unlike the president and his one percent crowd, Americans make decision on car purchases based on economics.
The website ExtremeTech calculates that the car costs about 6.3 cents per mile when running on electricity at 13 cents per kilowatt hour. But that rate ignores depreciating the cost of a replacement battery ($8,000) over the life of the battery warranty.
When you add in the cost of the battery depreciation, you get a calculation of about 14.3 cents per mile for the Volt. As the tech site notes: “A compact car getting 35 mpg would cost 10 cents per mile using $3.50-a-gallon gasoline.” So in other words, the Volt, in addition to the high cost to purchase, costs 43% more to operate than a conventional car.
That’s why the Volt is the perfect car for the Occupy Wall Street crowd: It makes no economic sense no matter how convoluted its supporters make the economic argument or how much taxpayer support it’s given.
The Volt initially relied heavily on $7,500 federal government subsidies- and even then couldn’t make a go of it.
This marks the second time that GM has idled Volt production, while claiming “All is well.”
So now I’m wondering if former Ford Executive and the U.S. Defense Secretary who presided over the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara, is in charge of public relations for GM.
If the Volt’s not in the federal witness protection program, it ought to be.
“Sales also took a hit last fall when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened a probe into why two Volts burst into flames days or weeks after severe NHTSA crash testing,” reported USA Today.
Leaks from the cooling system were caused by shortages in the electrical system that prompted the fires. But the discovery came only after weeks of bad press for GM. Eventually the car company offered to buy back every single Volt for any consumer who was unhappy.
But lack of sales and spontaneous fires haven’t stopped the government-owned car company from mapping out a marketing strategy that might have been fashioned by the marketing geniuses of the IRS and the United States Postal Service combined: “The Volt’s technology and its recent accolade from Consumer Reports make the Volt a marketing tool for Chevy,” said Alan Batey, vice president for Chevrolet U.S. sales, at the beginning of December according to Bloomberg “This vehicle is about more than how many we sell,” Batey said. “This vehicle is a magnet around everything we are trying to do to showcase our brand.”
Only someone infected by the government bug would say that the success of a car company isn’t about the actual numbers of cars they sell.
But maybe that’s because the company has bigger problems than just the Volt.
The Chevy Cruze, which is the same car, right down to the lug nuts as the Chevy Volt, only minus the voltage, is being investigated for engine fires that Reuters says “in many cases completely engulfed the vehicles in flames.”
So, let me be the first to apologize to General Motors.
I’ve been complaining about the supposed environmental benefits of the Volt, of the subsidies to the Volt compared to the Cruze and the of the $23,000 difference in sticker price between the Cruze and the Volt.
I was wrong.
Quite obviously you were right, General Motors.
The environmental benefits of the Volt- which reports have shown only create relatively small fires contained in the engine compartment of the Volt- far outweigh the fires in conventional General Motors cars, like the Cruze, which may engulf the entire vehicle in flames.
Score one for Government Motors.
And notify the EPA, EMS and other first-responders.
Because I’m sure the out-of-work geniuses in solar industry are pitching Obama right now on an even more expensive and dangerous concept car.

The Assault on Paul Ryan

The Weekly Standard ^ | 9-10-12 | Stephen F. hayes

If you missed Paul Ryan’s speech at the Republican National Convention last week and tried to play catch-up the next morning, you could be forgiven for concluding that nothing the Wisconsin congressman said was true.

Twelve hours after the speech, Josh Marshall, editor of the liberal Talking Points Memo, popular among journalists, asked: “Will the Paul Ryan Lying Thing Break Through in the Mainstream Press?”
Um, yes. It would.

The mainstream media “fact checked” Paul Ryan’s speech with alacrity. At the Washington Post, for instance, four of the five most-read articles were, in effect, accusations that Ryan had lied. The New York Times published an article under the headline: “Ryan’s Speech Contained a Litany of Falsehoods.” The Associated Press accused Ryan of taking “factual shortcuts.” The Week magazine published not only “The media coverage of Paul Ryan’s speech: 15 Euphemisms for Lying,” but also “Why Paul Ryan thought he could get away with lying: 6 theories.”
Here’s the funny thing about most of these articles: They fail to cite a single fact that Ryan misstated or lie that he told. In most cases, the self-described fact-checks are little more than complaints that Ryan failed to provide context for his criticism of Barack Obama. For example, virtually every one of these articles included a complaint about Ryan’s comments on Obama and entitlement reform. In accusing Obama of failing to lead on entitlements, Ryan noted that Obama had ignored the findings of the Simpson-Bowles Commission that the president himself had empaneled. The complaint: Ryan did not mention that he had served on the commission and voted against its findings.
Could Paul Ryan have gone out of his way to disclose his role? Of course. Does his failure to do so constitute a “lie”? Hardly.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

"Send 'em up, I'll Wait"

Image Hosted by

Mitt Romney’s Rope-a-Dope with Reverend Al Sharpton

alsharpton t300 Mitt Romneys Rope a Dope with Reverend Al SharptonNEW YORK – After Saturday’s announcement that Rep. Paul Ryan would be his running mate in the race for the White House, Mitt Romney agreed to a question and answer session on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” with host, Reverend Al Sharpton. Following is a transcript of that interview:
AL SHARPTON: Thank you for joining us in this day of heated exchanges and profabricated dialogue Mr. Mitt.
MITT ROMNEY: It’s my pleasure, sir.
AL SHARPTON: You may call me Reverend.
MITT ROMNEY: Sure, Reverend.
AL SHARPTON: Now let me get right to the root of the canal of problems in the political climate we here in America call politics.
AL SHARPTON: You have a horse.
MITT ROMNEY: I have several horses actually.
AL SHARPTON: Several? That’s a lot of horses.
MITT ROMNEY: I’m fortunate enough to be in the position to …
AL SHARPTON: Your fortune, if estimated, would askew to astronomical proportions.
MITT ROMNEY: I have been blessed with great success.
AL SHARPTON: What you call a blessing could be corkscrewed by people of color as a rampid case of being white in America.
MITT ROMNEY: Actually I feel my success came from working hard.
AL SHARPTON: Are you reflexing that people of color don’t work?
MITT ROMNEY: I believe that anybody of any color can be successful if they work hard.
AL SHARPTON: Would you admit to the difficulties constrained with fighting racism while attempting to work hard in today’s post relations America?
Mitt Romney1 Mitt Romneys Rope a Dope with Reverend Al SharptonMITT ROMNEY: I’m not sure I understand.
AL SHARPTON: Mr. Mitt, are you now or have you never been a racist?
MITT ROMNEY: Of course not.
AL SHARPTON: Do you have the clarity to gesticulate that statement?
AL SHARPTON: When was the last time you invited an African American child of color to play with your children?
MITT ROMNEY: I don’t think ….
AL SHARPTON: Will you tell me now on national television if you would allow an African American to be alone with your children?
MITT ROMNEY: My children are adults now, so it’s really not up to me to determine who they associate with.
AL SHARPTON: Mr. Mitt, do any of your children associate with adulterated African Americans?
MITT ROMNEY: They all associate with African Americans.
AL SHARPTON: Do you have proof that will legitamatize your claim?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, I don’t carry around photographs of my children with African Americans, no.
AL SHARPTON: So would it be incoherent to assume that without evidentuary exhibits before the court of public option that your children do not indeed associate with African Americans?
mitt romney flickr gage skidmore 1 carousel Mitt Romneys Rope a Dope with Reverend Al SharptonMITT ROMNEY: I have no idea what you just said.
AL SHARPTON: Should I get a rich white man to interpret for you?
MITT ROMNEY: (chuckles) I don’t know if you could find a person of any color to interpret what you just said.
AL SHARPTON: So in essential, you penetrate people of color because they don’t have enough money to interpret you?
MITT ROMNEY: (shrugs his shoulders) Gosh darn it, Reverend, I just don’t know what you’re asking.
AL SHARPTON: Since I am the professional news host of my own news show on MSNBC it’s imperatant that I ask the tough questions.
MITT ROMNEY: I wouldn’t expect anything less.
AL SHARPTON: Why, because I’m an African American?
MITT ROMNEY: Because you are a newscaster.
AL SHARPTON: A few years ago you murdered a white woman yet today you want to be the Commander of Chiefs.
MITT ROMNEY: I never murdered anyone.
AL SHARPTON: Her husband said you did.
MITT ROMNEY: Well, the poor man lost his ….
AL SHARPTON: If an African American man of color killed a white woman he’d be on death row in a pentecostiary.
MITT ROMNEY: That was a misleading ad, Reverend, and the Obama campaign ….
Al Sharpton1 Mitt Romneys Rope a Dope with Reverend Al SharptonAL SHARPTON: And your new runner mate Private Ryan also killed a white woman. You guys are a killing machine.
MITT ROMNEY: Paul Ryan never killed anyone.
AL SHARPTON: I watched it on TV with my eyes. Pushed an old lady in a wheel chair over a clift.
MITT ROMNEY: Reverend, do you really believe …
AL SHARPTON: Mr. Mitt, I have time for a final last question, so please be honest. When the American people hear of a felon who doesn’t pay his taxes and causes the death of innocent people, what name is going to pop into their head?
MITT ROMNEY: Why, Reverend Al Sharpton, of course.

Muslim Terrorists’ Prayers Promoted by the Democrat Convention!

Email Subscription from Dr. Boys | August 31, 2012 | Don Boys, Ph.D.

This must be a dream or more correctly, a nightmare! Surely Democrat leaders are not so uninformed, unconcerned, and unaccountable that they would promote on their official website a prayer meeting of 20,000 Muslims near their convention! (Only 200 showed up Friday!) Can any group be so stupid? Well, Liberals have had a great deal of experience with stupidity, and some of their leaders are known to regularly take stupid pills (covered by ObamaCare).

But it gets worse because two of the Muslim leaders are outspoken terrorists, as admitted by other Muslims! To further exacerbate the problem, Democrat leaders refused to permit the top American Catholic official to pray at their convention then flip-flopped and invited him! I’m not sure if they considered asking a Baptist! Hey, how about having me pray for the Democrats, since God knows they need it. And I could represent the Fundamentalists/ Evangelicals in America. That might be worth ten or eleven votes for them. I might even be persuaded to do a fair imitation of James Cagney’s “I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy” although without his agile footwork. No, that stirring patriotic song would give heartburn to every Democrat (and RINO) within a hundred miles. I withdraw my offer.
According to Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the purpose of the prayer meeting is “to hold political parties accountable for the issues faced by Muslim-Americans.” One of their concerns is the “anti-Shariahi sentiment” in America. Except for the fact that Shariahi is incompatible with our constitutional republican government, why would anyone have “anti-shariahi” sentiments? I will suggest some reasons below.
Pro-shariahi Muslims (all Koranic Muslims) may be a little out of the American/Canadian mainstream, such as when they beheaded 16 youths for dancing; beat 15 teen girls back into a burning building to die in a fire because they did not have their faces covered; beheaded a famous American (Jewish) newsman and videotaped it for all to see; encouraged, even demanded honor killings of innocent females; and killed innocent civilians because they were Jews or non-Muslims. (Can I stop now? I’m getting tired and really need to find a barf bag.)
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a moderate Muslim and the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy who wrote, “The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj [are not] moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.” That’s from a Muslim!
This prayer meeting is a kick in the face to all decent, lawful, sane Americans by Obama and his comrades in the once-respected Democrat Party. The Democrats will promote, placate, pacify, and pander to women ad nauseum during their convention; however, they will not reveal, reject, and repudiate offensive Muslim positions on women. And the media will not reveal their hypocrisy. I will.
Women are third class citizens where Muslims are in control. Proving that Muslims are not too bright, they purposely antagonize women, which is close to suicidal! But no one says Muslims are highly intelligent. Remember that these dudes think the Jews belong in the Mediterranean Sea not in Israel; it is heroic to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up innocent people; that Satan sleeps in the nose of each Muslim; Satan pees in the ears of all who go to sleep during mosque prayers; ad infinitum. (See my book, ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse! for more.)
Following are reasons for all sane, serious, and sincere people to demand that the prayer meeting be officially rejected until Islamic leaders repudiate these denigrating, degrading, dangerous, and deadly positions on women:
*Mohammed married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. No debate about that fact yet we are not supposed to say or write it although no sane person will even try to defend it except some weirdos in San Francisco. Modern Muslims follow Mohammed’s example and little girls are forced into marriages with dudes old enough to be their grandfathers.
*Women in Islam are sex objects as revealed by Mohammed’s life and practice. He had about 20 wives, concubines, and a Coptic slave named Mary. His wives caught him sleeping with Mary and it caused havoc in the harem. Mohammed tried to calm the ladies by threatening to get rid of all of them and replacing them with more obedient and understanding wives. They stopped fretting, fussing, and fighting but Aisha ended up feeding him poisoned goat! Payback time.
*A wife must always be willing to sexually satisfy her husband even on top of a saddle. One translation says, “On the top of a hot oven,” but I assume that is hyperbolic. But who knows?
*A woman’s testimony in court counts for one-half that of a man.
*Muslims show their hatred of women by their angry, aggressive, and abusive policy of female circumcision whereby the clitoris is removed (often with a dull knife or broken bottle). About 97% of Egyptian women who are Muslim have been sexually mutilated.
*Mohammed told men to beat their wives if they are not cooperative, and Muslim television stations give instructions how men should beat their wives. Obviously, Islam is not female friendly!
*Muslims make much of male terrorists who are greeted in Paradise by 72 green-eyed virgins lounging on decorative beds who will satisfy them for eternity; however, nothing is said of the benefits for female Muslims. Wonder why?
*Mohammed said that three things will interrupt a man’s prayers: a black dog, an ass, and a woman.
Maybe now we know why Aisha fed Mohammed poisoned goat sending him, as Muslims say, on his way to Paradise to be greeted by 72 green-eyed virgins. They would allegedly take care of him on decorative beds; however, I think he is more likely on one of the “hot ovens.”
Will some brave (and soon to be decapitated) Democrat, offer a resolution that the Democrat National Convention repudiate all the above offensive anti-women Islamic positions?
When pigs learn to fly in formation and do backward somersaults over the White House, maybe. Hypocrites! Copyright 2012, Don Boys, Ph.D.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Three years ago, the second edition of ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published, and his new eBook, The God Haters is available for $9.99 from These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are and Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
Pass it on if you agree!

Government ends criminal probe of controversial Arizona sheriff (civil rights abuse probe continues)

Reuters/CNBC ^ | August 31, 2012 | Reporting By Tim Gaynor; Editing by Steve Gorman and Peter Cooney

PHOENIX (Reuters) - The federal government has closed a criminal probe of alleged financial misconduct by Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio, who styles himself as "America's toughest sheriff," saying no charges would be filed, the U.S. Attorney's Office said on Friday.

A separate federal investigation relating to allegations of civil rights abuses by Arpaio's office is continuing.

The announcement on Friday marked the end of an investigation that began in November 2010 at the behest of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to examine alleged financial improprieties by the county sheriff and his deputies.

A federal criminal inquiry into several of those matters was concluded last summer with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona declining to initiate criminal charges.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Voters, are you bluffing?

Washington POst ^ | August 29, 2012 | George F. Will

Now begins the final phase of this cognitive dissonance campaign. America’s 57th presidential election is the first devoted to calling the nation’s bluff.

When Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan, Republicans undertook the perilous but commendable project of forcing voters to face the fact that they fervently hold flatly incompatible beliefs.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Navy SEAL Author Rejects the Pentagon's Legal Threat

.theatlanticwire ^ | August 31 | John Hudson

Defense Department's top attorney , "all remedies legally available" against the publication of No Easy Day, (of the) firsthand account of the mission (which culminated in the demise of 0 bin Laden).

"You are in material breach and violation of the nondisclosure agreements you signed," wrote Pentagon general counsel Jeh Charles Johnson. The letter; threats of a criminal prosecution seizure of as well as go after publisher Dutton, an imprint of Penguin Group.

In a written response, "Mr. Owen sought legal advice about his responsibilities before agreeing to publish his book and scrupulously reviewed the work to ensure that it did not disclose any material that would put his former comrades at risk," wrote Robert D. Luskin, an attorney at D.C. Patton Boggs. "Mr. Owen is proud of his service and respectful of his obligations.

The Pentagon said that because the author is a retired service member, any potential criminal prosecution would be handled by the Department of Justice.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Can This Be What Women Want? Obama’s welfare-expanding policies weaken women's self-determination!

The Weekly Standard ^ | September 10, 2012 issue | MEGHAN CLYNE

In the sixth century b.c., the Chinese tactician Sun Tzu observed: “All warfare is based on deception.” If only he could have seen the “war on women.” This whopping deception​—​that Republicans are out to destroy women and everything they hold dear​—​looks increasingly like the Democrats’ entire battle plan heading into November. For well over a year, party leaders, strategists, and elected officials have tried to rekindle hostilities at every opportunity​—​congressional votes on abortion, debates over the Obama-care contraceptive mandate, the selection of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice presidential nominee, and, most recently, Missouri congressman Todd Akin’s bizarre comments on rape. Leaving nothing to doubt, the Democrats have orchestrated their convention agenda to press the same case: Speakers include Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood; and Sandra Fluke, who, as a 30-year-old Georgetown law student, became a household name by demanding free birth-control pills.
This is more than just stroking an important constituency: Democrats are making the “war on women” the centerpiece of their case for reelection. The motivations are as much tactical as ideological; young, unmarried women did not turn out for Democrats in the 2010 cycle, and if they stay home in 2012, it could spell doom for Obama’s hopes of a second term.
In the meantime, a perceptive observer may notice a curious thing about this “war on women.” It is based entirely on one set of policies: those pertaining to women’s reproductive systems. By the Democrats’ logic, to oppose abortion on demand and taxpayer-funded contraception is to be “anti-woman.” Womanhood is thus defined by the desire for unrestricted abortion and free birth control; women themselves are reducible to ovaries.
It was once permissible in American politics to view women as incapable of concerns beyond childbearing​—​but not in this century. And in addition to insulting women’s intelligence, this approach may well backfire. American women are active, thoughtful citizens; their political concerns are focused on the future of their nation, not the cheapest and easiest way to shut down their reproductive tracts.
There is thus good reason to believe that the party that takes women seriously​—​speaking to them about their true aspirations for themselves, their families, and their country​—​will do better in November. So it is worth dispensing with gender-war deceptions to ask a much more relevant question: What do women really want​—​and which governing vision will best help them achieve it?
The War on Opportunity
It’s ironic that so-called feminists have caricatured women’s voting priorities as the “girl issues.” In truth, women’s prime concerns in this election cycle are the same as men’s, and can be summed up in two words: the economy.
In an August Gallup poll, voters were asked to identify the most important problem facing the country today. Men and women listed the same top two issues: the economy in general (32 percent men, 30 percent women), and unemployment/jobs (22 percent men, 25 percent women). (“Abortion issues” fell near the very bottom, failing to register even one half of one percent.)
Obama’s record on the economy and jobs is nothing short of dismal. After nearly four years and trillions of dollars of spending and “stimulus,” the unemployment rate in July was exactly the same as the rate in Obama’s first full month in office: 8.3 percent. Flatlining job prospects are discouraging for everyone, but the numbers are particularly discouraging for women. In an economy in which underemployment is a staggering 17 percent, many women have had to settle for part-time work. The unemployment rate for people age 20 and older seeking full-time work is higher among women than men​—​8.4 percent versus 8.0 percent. For young, unmarried women supporting themselves​—​the demographic Obama is targeting with the “war on women”​—​unlimited free birth control is poor consolation for not having a full-time job.
Another perspective on job figures is even more dismaying. During Obama’s first full month in office, according to Department of Labor statistics, the unemployment rate for men was 9.2 percent, and for women, 7.3 percent. Today, the unemployment rate for men is actually lower than it was in February 2009​—​8.4 percent. For women, however, unemployment is up​—​now at 8.1 percent. While men’s unemployment spiked and has declined steadily since, women’s rose and has remained basically level. This means that, heading into the election, men’s recent experience with the Obama economy is slightly more hopeful: For them, hiring is picking up, while for women, it has stagnated. To the extent that there has been an Obama “recovery,” it certainly hasn’t done much for women.
It doesn’t help that Obama’s policies have harmed women’s job prospects specifically. In his first few weeks in office, Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, touted by the administration as one of its earliest achievements on behalf of women. The law makes it easier for women to sue their employers if they suspect unequal pay; the result, critics of the law note, will be to encourage employers to avoid the risk of such lawsuits up front by covertly discriminating against women in hiring decisions. The law also curtails women’s options: Many women, after all, have their own reasons for taking jobs at lower pay. They might want to price themselves competitively when trying to reenter the job market after raising children; they might take a lower salary in exchange for more flexible hours or working conditions. Lilly Ledbetter restricts their ability to do so, making it harder for some women to find jobs that fit with the other demands of their lives.
Of course, women do not participate in the economy only as job-seekers. According to MRI’s Survey of the American Consumer, around three-quarters of principal household shoppers are female. In a sluggish economy, the struggle to meet rising prices with limited income is a burden that falls disproportionately on women. Obama’s (anti-)energy policies haven’t helped: Under his presidency, the price for a gallon of gas has more than doubled​—​rising from $1.84 to $3.83. This is not making women’s task of stretching tight household budgets any easier.
One service that women consume much more than men do is health care​—​“poor health care” ranks high on their list of the nation’s problems​—​and the Obama record here barely needs explanation. Obama-care will force millions of families out of the insurance plans they have now, reduce the quality of care, and introduce delays, rationing, and inefficiencies throughout the system. In selling the law, Democrats often noted that women make most health care decisions in America; moreover, mothers are more likely to wait with sick children at pediatricians’ offices, and daughters are more likely to care for aging parents. As seeking medical care becomes more difficult and time-consuming​—​all for worse health outcomes and lower patient satisfaction​—​the pain will be more intense for American women.
Obama-care’s employer mandates also make life much more difficult for women who are starting and running their own businesses. Indeed, the Obama agenda in general is a disaster for entrepreneurs, men and women alike. The president has promised to raise taxes on “the rich”​—​anyone making more than $200,000 a year. But according to a study from earlier this year by the National Federation of Independent Business, about 75 percent of the nation’s small businesses are structured as “pass-through” businesses that report income and losses on owners’ personal income-tax returns. This means that business income is assessed at the owners’ personal rates. As a result of Obama’s pledge and taxes that will go into effect as part of Obama-care, the top marginal tax rate will climb from 35 percent to 44 percent at the beginning of next year. For small-business owners, it’s that much less money to invest in capital purchases and new hires. And as a 2010 Department of Commerce report (prepared for Obama’s own White House Council on Women and Girls) noted, businesses owned by women tend to be smaller and start smaller than male-owned businesses. Obama’s tax policies will thus disproportionately harm women entrepreneurs.
And these are only the taxes Obama has openly promised to raise. There are also the tax hikes he won’t talk about: the ones that will come if nothing is done to rein in federal spending and deficits. In less than four years, Obama has swelled the size of the federal debt by an astonishing $5 trillion, bringing the total to nearly $16 trillion. This means Obama has added some $64,000 in debt for every single federal taxpayer. Meanwhile, he and his party have offered no plausible solutions for curbing the out-of-control cost growth of Social Security and Medicare, the main causes of our impending fiscal catastrophe.
At some point, the bill for this spending and irresponsibility will come due. As a recent Congressional Budget Office report noted, in order to try to get deficits back under control, federal spending on everything else​—​defense, education, other domestic programs​—​would have to decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II. Taxes, meanwhile, would have to rise to the point that revenues would reach 24 percent of GDP​—​“much higher,” the CBO notes, “than has typically been seen in recent decades.” Gutted government services and confiscatory taxes: This is what the Democratic agenda has to offer today’s young Americans, including the same young women whose votes the party is now so aggressively trying to court.
Clearly, women are right to worry first and foremost about the economy and jobs. Over the past several decades, they’ve increased their share of the labor force, now accounting for 47 percent of workers. Glass ceilings have shattered; women are increasingly assuming leadership roles as presidents and chief executives. Since the early 1980s, women have outpaced men in higher education: According to the Department of Education, in the 2009-2010 school year, women earned 57.2 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 60.3 percent of master’s degrees, and 51.7 percent of doctoral degrees. Women are well-prepared, active participants in America’s economy​—​as taxpayers and investors, job-seekers and consumers, employers and employees.
And what does the Obama agenda have to offer them? Nothing. To the woman trying to decide whether to get another degree, or to build a startup, today’s anemic economy promises little return on her investment. It’s small wonder the Democrats are trying to distract women from economic problems: After four years, they’ve shown themselves to be incapable of solving them.
The War on Self-Determination
Women want jobs and economic opportunity, just as men do. Still, there are some policy issues that disproportionately affect women or are of special concern to them; in evaluating the Democrats’ agenda, these merit consideration, too.
Consider, for instance, the administration’s vast expansion of federal welfare programs. Enrollment for Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Women, Infants, and Children program have all increased dramatically under President Obama. Part of the increase understandably results from the dismal economy, but much of it can be attributed to stretched eligibility requirements and increased per-person benefits. These expansions have raised the effective marginal cost of finding a low-paying job (and thereby losing welfare benefits), giving beneficiaries greater incentive to remain on the dole. Indeed, in the case of food stamps, the administration has actively recruited participants​—​going so far as to use the White House faith-based office to pressure churches into using religious services and facilities to sign people up for SNAP.
A huge increase in welfare is a problem for the nation, but it’s particularly damaging to women. These programs are designed to cover mostly women and their dependent children; as the programs have grown, so has the number of women reliant on them. When the 1996 welfare reform converted Aid to Families with Dependent Children to TANF​—​introducing work requirements and limiting welfare benefits to five years​—​it meant that millions of women, including many mothers, went back to work and took greater control over their own lives. This is real progress for women​—​progress that Obama’s welfare-expanding policies would reverse.
And with long-lasting effects. Decades of experience have shown that welfare begets cycles of dependency that stretch across generations; daughters and granddaughters collect benefits from the same welfare offices as their mothers and grandmothers. No little girl in America should say, “I want to be a ward of the state when I grow up.” Increasingly, however, it seems this is what President Obama envisions for them.
The starkest example came in the now-infamous “Life of Julia” slideshow published by the Obama campaign, meant to show how the president’s policies would help a supposedly typical American female. What it illustrated was a woman dependent on the government from cradle to grave​—​for education, work, investment capital, health care, retirement income, and, of course, birth control. This is hardly an inspiring vision of women’s empowerment.
As if to prove the point, Obama administration policies have undermined organizations that help lift women out of poverty without forcing them to become dependent on the state. The administration’s assault on religious freedom has imperiled faith-based charities that serve women with a humanity and compassion that no government bureaucracy can match. For example, the archbishop of Chicago, Francis Cardinal George, has warned that the HHS contraceptive mandate might well force the city’s Catholic social services to close down. In Barack Obama’s own backyard, women may no longer have access to archdiocesan programs that support pregnant women and teens and provide counseling and case management for victims of domestic violence. Across the country, countless women being educated, healed, and supported by religious schools, hospitals, and charities may see these lifelines cut by Obama’s policies.
The “war on women” narrative smears the Catholic church for being rigid about “women’s issues.” But it’s the Obama administration insisting that, if religious institutions don’t conform to the administration’s orthodoxy on abortion and contraception, they can’t continue providing other services that meet women’s very real needs. Obama’s assault on religious freedom may also make for bad politics: Historically, research has shown women to be more religious and involved in congregational life than men; a 2010 Gallup poll showed that 47 percent of women reported attending church “frequently”​—​“at least once a week” or “almost every week”​—​compared to 39 percent of men. Undermining the work of churches, and forcing them into protracted legal battles, harms institutions that matter disproportionately to women.
This points to the common fallacy that on “culture war” issues​—​marriage, family, and sex​—​Democrats are on the side of women, while Republicans seek (to borrow a Bidenism) to put them back in chains. Painful experience shows this to be untrue. Family breakdown​—​climbing divorce rates, the rise of unwed parenting​—​disproportionately harms women, who head nearly 80 percent of single-parent families. Aside from the emotional strain of single parenting, and the demonstrably poorer outcomes for children, the economic harm is significant. Census data from 2010 found the percentage of married parents living below the poverty line to be just 8.8 percent; for single-parent households headed by men, the number was 24.2 percent. But for single-parent households headed by women, an astonishing 40.7 percent were living in poverty.
Those peddling the “war on women” might argue that this is precisely why women need more access to abortion and contraceptives​—​so that they can avoid being unmarried parents. But access to contraception and abortion has been treated by the law as a constitutional right since Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade in 1973. And strangely enough, it was right around that time that the out-of-wedlock birthrate began to climb dramatically. In 1970, the percentage of births to unmarried mothers was around 10 percent, compared with more than 40 percent today; making it easier for unmarried women to avoid babies seems to have had exactly the opposite effect. If the goal is to help women avoid the impoverishment of single motherhood, the Democrats’ preferred approach​—​more contraception and abortion​—​hasn’t worked so far. The Republicans’ approach​—​traditional, married child-rearing​—​offers more promise.
Besides, for all the allegations that Republican opposition to abortion constitutes a “war on women,” most women themselves don’t even support the practice. A Gallup poll in May showed that slightly more women describe themselves as “pro-life” than “pro-choice”​—​46 percent to 44 percent. Overall, America is a pro-life nation; on the questions of late-term and taxpayer-funded abortions, other polls show public opposition becoming even more intense.
On this issue, President Obama is well out of the mainstream. A clarifying episode came this May, when legislation to ban sex-selective abortion failed to secure the necessary two-thirds support in the House of Representatives because of Democratic opposition. Obama’s White House piled on, releasing a statement saying the president, too, opposed the ban.
Martial metaphors are vastly overused, and the “war on women” is no exception. But if any policy amounts to a “war on women,” surely allowing sex-selective abortion, which overwhelmingly targets unborn girls for the sole offense of possessing XX chromosomes, must be it.
Real Empowerment
Historically, Democrats have had a strong electoral advantage among women, and the polls going into November suggest similar trends. But for Mitt Romney, the challenge is not insurmountable: He and his running mate just need to convince enough female voters that the “war on women” is bogus, that President Obama has little to offer them, and that Republicans will do more to deliver on what American women really want.
There are signs that Romney and Ryan understand the task before them. During an interview at the Republican Convention, NBC’s Brian Williams tried to bait Ryan into a “war on women” dialogue by asking how the party’s positions on abortion would play among suburban women. Ryan redirected, responding: “You know, I think what suburban women are mostly worried about is jobs. I mean, look who got hit hardest in this economy. It’s women. Poverty among women is at a 17-year high. .  .  . So, that’s what most women are asking us about.” And in his prime-time convention speech, the “women’s issue” Romney highlighted was the threat of tax hikes faced by female entrepreneurs.
Romney and Ryan need to keep making this case, because it is a powerful one. Obama’s record, after all, is clear. The president’s vision of “women’s empowerment” is economic stagnation and welfare-state dependency, papered over with platitudes about abortions that many women don’t want and government-subsidized contraception many women don’t need.
What women really need is jobs. They need opportunities to apply their education and their talents. They want to be rewarded justly for hard work, not to see the fruits of their labor confiscated by a government that refuses to deal with irresponsible deficits and debt. They want to choose their own doctors, and want access to good health care for themselves and their children. They want their marriages to be happy and stable, and their churches free and thriving. It’s impossible to poll unborn girls, of course, but presumably they’d like to live. On the whole, women want to be taken seriously as voters. They want to be free and equal citizens​—​not wards of the state.
Romney and Ryan need to speak to these concerns and show how Republican policies will advance these aims. President Obama surely won’t. After four years, he has nothing to show for himself​—​hence the great deception of the “war on women.”

Occupy RNC ends in tears, frustration!

Daily Caller ^ | 8/31/12 | By Zach Gorelick

TAMPA, Fla. — Republican National Convention protesters sobbed in each other’s arms as their weeklong series of protests came to an abrupt and unremarkable end.

As Mitt Romney delivered his remarks at the RNC on Thursday night, marking the end of planned events, demonstrators living in the “Romneyville” protest camp led a final march through the streets of Tampa.

Following a fragmented march against the GOP, TheDC’s photo team spoke to several protesters who said they were disappointed by low turnout at protests and the lack of open discussion between protesters and Republican leadership.

Referencing the large number of bicycle-based police officers, a protester named Lash told TheDC, “we can see liberty crumbling on bikes.”
Lash, 26, described himself as a “conservative” and “a member of the Libertarian Party for six years” as he sobbed on the shoulder of Mike, a fellow protester.
“I love that we have an anarchist forum here, and I really love us, but I hate that our forum can’t even talk with their conservative forum,” he said. “The police just silence us, the Republicans just silence us. We are just getting silenced everywhere we go. It’s like no one wants to even hear what we have to say.”
Mike, 26, told TheDC that he participated in Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City before arriving in Tampa.
Allegedly an MIT student (expelled for truancy issues), Mike said that he quit within a few months “with just enough to get out” and gave $50,000 to charitable causes. Since then, he says, he’s “barely had a dollar” in his pocket.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...