Sunday, September 2, 2012

Obama Lies While Accusing the Romney Campaign of Lying!

The Weekly Standard ^ | Sep 1, 2012 | MARK HEMINGWAY

If you want a near perfect encapsulation of how the Obama campaign is leaning on incompetent partisans masquerading as "independent" media fact checking organizations to do their dirty work, I strongly encourage you to read today's article in the New York Times, "Obama Team Sharpens Attacks on Rivals’ Character." While the article is a far too credulous regarding the fact checker response to Paul Ryan's speech, it does contain this gem:
Mr. Obama this week, for the first time, entered the fray. Campaigning on Tuesday on college campuses in Iowa and Colorado, he told thousands of supporters not to believe the opposition’s attacks because, “how do I put this nicely? They will just fib.” “Sometimes they just make things up. But they’ve got a bunch of folks who can write $10 million checks, and they’ll just keep on running them,” he said. “I mean, somebody was challenging one of their ads — they made it up — about work and welfare. And every outlet said this is just not true. And they were asked about it and they said — one of their campaign people said, ‘We won’t have the fact-checkers dictate our campaign. We will not let the truth get in the way.’”
Mr. Obama was referring, as many other critics of the Romney campaign have, to a comment that its pollster, Neil Newhouse, made to reporters at the Republican convention on Tuesday, dismissive of those faulting the campaign’s television ads. What Mr. Newhouse actually said was, “These fact-checkers come to those ads with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs. We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
Mr. Newhouse did not say, “We will not let the truth get in the way.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Dems defend Obama on debt, say balancing budget now a bad idea! (HUH?) ^ | 9/2/12 |

But, when pressed, Axelrod would not say when the president's plan could bring the budget into balance. With the deficit clocking in at more than $1 trillion once again this year, he suggested that's not the goal in the near-term.

"What's necessary is to stabilize the debt and then work from there," he said. "You can't balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama, Man of Sand, Washed Away In a Sea-Change!

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 9-2-2012 | MOTUS

So let me see if I’ve got this straight: we made fun of Clint, butt this, this is considered…high art?

Apparently the giant sand sculpture of Big Guy commissioned for the opening of the DNC was damaged by a strong storm that blew in from out of nowhere...
I don’t think even Clint Eastwood could make it funny.
Besides, the sand sculpture is just creepy. Did they hire the same artist who “restored” that Spanish fresco?

Or just some partisan hack who dabbles in the arts?
Anyway, I’m just saying, if you believe in omens, a big wind knocking your icon made in sand over just before your national convention is probably not a good one.
What do I know though? I’m not one of the really Big Brains around here.

As a great storm gathers on the horizon, the lifeguard chair remains unmanned...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Republican Convention During Hurricane Is “Crass”

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 1 Sep 2012 | John Semmens

Democratic National Chairperson, Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Fla), labeled Republicans “crass” for insisting on campaigning while Hurricane Isaac was ravaging the nearby GulfCoast states. The Congresswoman attributed the GOP’s insensitivity to its “win at all cost” mentality.

“They are so determined to oust President Obama that they couldn’t postpone or cancel their convention out of concern for the suffering of the people of Louisiana and Mississippi?” Wasserman-Schultz sarcastically queried. “Or what about them using all that time on camera to rally support for flood relief measures? No, they cruelly plowed ahead with speeches aimed at turning the nation against the President.”

“It’s not like this is something they have to do,” she argued. “The office isn’t vacant. President Obama has courageously offered to serve another term. If Republicans cared about the country they’d be getting behind this great man so we could present a unified approach for solving our problems.”
President Obama, who has been on the campaign trail continuously during the GOP Convention, refused to criticize the Representative’s comments. “While these aren’t the words I would’ve used, I can’t say there isn’t some truth to what she’s said,” he cautiously remarked. “I don’t think there is any doubt that we’d be better off if everyone pulled together rather than having to repeatedly squabble over the direction we ought to be headed.”
In related news, Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs characterized the GOP Convention as “angry” and “insulting.” “All we heard were complaints about high unemployment, spiraling deficits and how the Democrats aren’t doing enough to deal with these complaints,” Gibbs complained. “They didn’t give the President any credit for reforming the healthcare system or killing bin-Laden—two issues that redound heavily in his favor. I think that when voters reflect on how one-sided the whole affair was they’ll reelect President Obama.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...

Netanyahu Goes Nuclear on Obama! ^ | 9/2/12 | Awr Hawkins

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly shouted "Time has run out!" at U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro, as the two met in Israel earlier this week and discussed the Obama administration's position on Iran.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Shapiro was in Israel for meetings with Netanyahu, and at some point the PM couldn't hold his frustration with President Obama in any longer: "Instead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities." Those present say Netanyahu then said assertively: "Time has run out!"

Shapiro responded by alleging that Netanyahu was "distorting Obama's position." Following this, a no-holds-barred shouting match broke out as the fuming Israeli PM let loose on the U.S. ambassador.

Republican Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) was on the trip as well, and is reported to have watched the episode in "stunned" silence.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama won my support – but it won’t happen again!

The Daily Telegraph ^ | August 31, 2012 | Daniel Hannan, UK Member of the European Parliament

American pollsters will tell you that the presidential candidate who is in the lead going into the party conventions usually wins. Four polls last week showed a tiny lead for Barack Obama, two for Mitt Romney and one was level; all seven were well within the margin of error.
Another rule is that the Gallup poll taken 100 days before the poll foretells the winner. Only once in the past 60 years – the Bush-Dukakis race of 1988 – did that predictor fail. So, what did Gallup show on the date in question? A dead heat, with both candidates on 46 per cent.
Many Europeans wonder why Mr Obama is not comfortably ahead. Most media, both within the US and abroad, portray him as a serene statesman being shouted at by angry Tea Partiers in 18th-century fancy dress. Viewed solely through the medium of a television screen, he seems bigger than his Republican critics. They are presented as a gaggle of anti-abortionists, stump-toothed mountain men and crackpots hoarding gold against the presumed collapse of paper currencies – an extremist coalition led by a plutocrat. Seen from abroad, it looks like an election between Dr Hibbert and Montgomery Burns.
Then again, we don’t have to live with Mr Obama’s domestic policies. We see him doing what he does best: making speeches, carrying out ceremonial duties and reminding the world, simply by holding office, that America had the spirit to move in one generation from the formalised exclusion of black voters to the election of a mixed-race president.
It was largely on these grounds that I supported Mr Obama four years ago. I was distressed by the Republican Party’s abandonment of free markets for crony capitalism. I thought that Mr Obama’s election would wipe away the stain of segregation....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Democratic Party and Human Rights: The History Defies the Claims!

Crisis Magazine ^ | August 31, 2012 | Stephen M. Krason
Democrat Presidents
The Democrats have liked to promote themselves over the years as the party that has been at the vanguard of promoting such causes as civil rights and human rights generally. An impression has been cultivated that we owe advances in human rights to liberalism, which at least since the New Deal has been identified in the U.S. with the Democratic party. In this year’s platform, the Democrats are presenting themselves as opening the way to yet another new frontier in the civil and human rights struggle, as it endorses what it calls “marriage equality.” That is, it wants same-sex “marriage” to be the law of the land.
This, of course, is in line with the tendency of the Democratic party for the last generation—as it came to be dominated by an increasingly secular liberalism—to be at the vanguard of promoting such ersatz rights as abortion, sodomy, and sexual libertinism. This year, we continue to see the Democrats embrace a “no-exception” position on abortion—that is, no exceptions to the abortion liberty should be allowed (including “partial-birth” abortion)—and they will tolerate no opposition to it. So, the party continues its tradition since the Clinton era of allowing no pro-life dissent within its ranks. It would not permit the late Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania to give a speech against abortion at its 1992 Convention and this year it even refused to include language in its platform to the effect that it welcomes in its fold Democrats who are pro-life.
All these claimed civil and human rights are, of course, anathema to Catholic teaching. The party of the Catholic immigrants who played a crucial role in helping to fashion its majority status for several decades in the twentieth century is now a party, as seen in one platform after another and in the positions of most of its major office-holders, that is officially hostile to uncompromisable moral precepts of the Church.
If the Democrats are now the party of ersatz rights, what was the record of Democratic presidents and the Democratic Party historically on genuine human rights? Should they rightfully be credited with a legacy of upholding and advancing civil and human rights as the party and its apologists want us to believe?
I spent a memorable academic year (2008-09) as a visiting fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. Witherspoon has an informal association with the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University; both are under the tutelage of the eminent Catholic scholar Robert George. One of the Madison Program’s guest lecturers that year was the presidential scholar Alvin S. Felzenberg of the University of Pennsylvania and George Washington University. It was remarks in his lecture about rating presidents that first got me thinking about this subject. One of the criteria that he thought necessary to consider in evaluating presidents was their effort to preserve and extend liberty. As he talked about different presidents, he observed—almost as an aside—that the record on this of Democratic presidents, even ones often considered “great” or “near-great,” was troublesome. His comments and my own further reflections about the actions and viewpoints of both Democratic presidents and party demonstrate a not-so-stellar historical legacy.
First, there was Andrew Jackson, whose presidency marked the beginning of the modern Democratic Party and was when that name was first used (it had previously been the “Democratic-Republican” party). Jackson and his compatriot and successor Martin Van Buren, ignoring a Supreme Court decision and for reasons of political interest, forcibly relocated the Cherokees and other Indian tribes from the southeastern U.S. This included the “Trail of Tears,” where many of the Indians died in the difficult journey westward. Next, was the Mexican War, which was prosecuted by Democrat James Knox Polk and fiercely objected to by a little-known Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln who was later to become the first Republican president. The war, which was probably undertaken for expansion in the throes of Manifest Destiny, resulted in the massacres of Mexican civilians in occupied territories, the growth of slavery in the Southwest, and illicit seizures of private lands in violation of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. As far as slavery was concerned, it was always the Democratic Party that was the major political defender of it, as it was later on of Jim Crow. We sometimes forget that the old segregated South was one-party Democratic until the end of the 1960s, and that the major opponents of federal civil rights laws were the powerful, entrenched southern Democrats in Congress.
Woodrow Wilson, the quintessential Democratic “progressive,” presided over probably the most severe restriction of civil liberties in American history during the course of World War I. Any dissent against American war policy was vigorously put down. Then, of course, there was the Japanese internment on the West Coast carried out by the twentieth century’s most famous Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt. FDR also refused to support federal anti-lynching legislation (which was mostly pushed by Republicans). Finally, we return to the fact that the Democrats have been the party of legal abortion. Not only have they been impervious to the facts that abortion represents an assault on the most basic human and civil right—to life—and is a clear example of a denial of rights to a whole group of persons, they have rabidly supported it.
This record demonstrates what Pope John Paul II cautioned about: When democratic republics disconnect themselves from truth they can become “thinly disguised totalitarianisms.” Perhaps these troublesome actions of earlier Democratic presidents resulted from pandering to the sentiments of electoral majorities; the current ersatz rights regime is a response to a trend-setting cultural elite.
To be sure, the Republican Party, although founded to further one of the greatest human rights crusades of modern times (ending slavery), has not been pure. It was not welcoming of the immigrants or supportive of the rights of labor (although the Democrats also overwhelmingly supported the ending of open immigration in 1924 and were no great friends of labor before the New Deal either). One also thinks of episodes such as the violent eviction of the “Bonus Army” of WWI veterans from Washington, D.C. under Herbert Hoover (even though the real culprit was probably General Douglas MacArthur, who ignored Hoover’s orders to stop his assault and his aide Dwight D. Eisenhower’s—the later Republican president—entreaties to step back).
Still, it has been the Democrats who for fifty years have touted themselves as the party of the people and of civil rights. We hear time and again that the Republicans and their allies, like the Tea Party, are hostile to civil rights. The left is quick to pin the label of “hypocrite” on their opponents, but doesn’t the history of America’s leftist political party readily qualify it for this very accusation?

Jumah at the DNC Fizzles! ^ | Sep 2012, 12:59 PM PDT | Michael-Patrick--Leahy

Organizers at the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs anticipated crowds at yesterday's "Jumah at the DNC" event in Charlotte, North Carolina would reach 20,000. Instead, only 300 Muslims showed up for the open air prayer ceremony. 

The event had been listed on the schedule of events that were part of the officially sanctioned DNC/Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee's website. But less than 24 hours before "Jumah at the DNC" was held, nervous officials at the Host Committee quietly removed it from the list of officially sanctioned DNC pre-convention events. As Jim Hoft reported at last night: [T]he Jumah event was removed from the DNC web site calendar, and there is no reference at all to the event. A supporter noted in an e-mail, “It was still there 5.30 PM on 8/30/2012 and at 6.30 PM it was gone! I looked everywhere but it’s not listed anymore.” Readers can see the cleaned up version of the scrubbed August 31 schedule of events here. Officials at the Host Commitee confirmed that the event was removed. As NBC reported late yesterday: "This event, like many others on the page, was user generated," a senior Host Committee official told NBC News on Friday. "Upon further review, and because speakers for the event and statements and positions from event organizers were not appropriate and relevant to the Host Committee, Charlotte in 2012 has decided to remove the event from our events calendar."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

‘The Bradley Effect’ Predicts a Huge Win for Romney

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 highunemployment, 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Unreal… Islamist Wears Tattered & Torn US Flag As Scarf at DNC Jumah!

Gateway Pundit ^ | 9/1/12

Nice prayer service, Democrats. A Muslim leader wears a tattered and torn US flag as a scarf at the Jumah at the DNC event today in Charlotte.

Muslims gather for outdoor “Jumah” prayers at Marshall Park in Charlotte, N.C., on Friday, the first of several events planned by the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs in the run up to the Democratic National Convention in the city. (MSNBC)

Of course, the women were lined up behind the men. It’s the DNC’s very own War on Women.
The Obama Campaign listed an “Islamic Jumah at the DNC” as an “official function” at the DNC convention in Charlotte.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Socialism is as Socialism Does ^ | August 31, 2012 | Dr. Robert Owens

Ronald Reagan taught us, "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Barack Obama's mentor as a young man was communist party member Frank Marshall Davis. As a community organizer he was a follower and promoter of the communist fellow-traveler Saul Alinsky's methods and goals. As a professional in Hyde Park he associated with socialist radicals such as Bill Ayers. As an up-and-coming Chicago Politician he attended the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an outspoken proponent of the socialist Black Liberation Theology. As president he appointed communist Van Jones to be one of his many Czars. Mr. Obama says he is not a socialist. However, simple logic tells us if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck you can be relatively certain it's a duck.

Mr. Obama has told us that he seeks to be a transformational president like his idol FDR. He was bold enough to tell us just days before the election in 2008 that he would fundamentally transform America. In just one term he has accomplished much along the way to changing us from what we have always been into what the Progressives have always wanted us to be.

How has Barack Obama transformed us? Into what is he transforming us? A look at his impressive *list of firsts as president of these United States points in the direction he is herding us:

Mr. Obama is leading us from being the first among nations to being just another vote in the United Nations. Now there's a level playing field for you. And now it's time for another election, some say our most important, some say perhaps our last.

In many ways this election cycle is refreshing. For generations the Progressives have pretended to be something they are not to win elections. They have pretended to be dedicated to the American dream of personal liberty, economic freedom and the belief that America was different from other nations, that as the world's first and most enduring modern experiment in a republic based on limited government we were exceptional. Although the policies of the Progressives have always been at odds with this assumed identity at least every election cycle they would tip their hat to the America of our fathers and portray themselves as a Thomas Jefferson or an Andrew Jackson.

Therefore, 2012 is shaping up to be the election where the Progressives cast aside their mask and run as who they are: the American version of socialism promising to tax the rich and spread the wealth around, from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election on this platform the Progressives will finally have their chance to give Americans the same kind of cradle-to-grave utopia the happy people of Russia, China, North Korea, and Hitler's Germany have had the fortune to endure. If Mr. Obama wins re-election espousing the true intentions of the Progressives, to change the constitution from a rock solid foundation for freedom into a living document that is a dead letter, he will succeed at his vow to fundamentally transform America.

He will fundamentally transform the dreams of our fathers for a land of liberty and opportunity into the dreams of his father who was a pro-communist social engineer and America will become just another country trying to build heaven on earth by plundering some to benefit others.

As to his utopian beliefs and aspirations President Obama has said, "I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

President Reagan also told us, "Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and hell where they already have it."

*Lists of Mr. Obama's firsts are found numerous places. The sources referenced for each first are merely representative of the many available for each.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ View the trailer for Dr. Owens' latest book Copyrite 2011 Robert R. Owens Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.