http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/301125_354430884641207_863208799_n.jpg
All Posts (28873)
Sort by
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/18/mitt_please_read_and_memorize
The Washington Post hits Obama
Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal,
timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has
a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor
saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper
makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At
last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda
are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him
by our liberal media.
By Matt Patterson
(columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal,
timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has
a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor
saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper
makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At
last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda
are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him
by our liberal media.
By Matt Patterson
(columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles . Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing
to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own
incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never
been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act
responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither
the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you
understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles . Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing
to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own
incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never
been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act
responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither
the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you
understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current
erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone
otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
As the GOP nominee to be President of the United States, it would seem reasonable to expect that members of your own political Party would support you.
Apparently, for Mitt Romney, that is an unreasonable expectation.
Peggy Noonan, a former speech writer for President Ronald Reagan (who joined with Colin Powell in turning their backs on the Republican Party while publically supporting Barack Obama in 2008), wrote of Romney’s campaign that “an intervention” is needed because it is “incompetent”.
Noonan continued: “It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change.”
She doubled down later, when she said: “The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant ‘rolling calamity.’”
This is not entirely unexpected from someone who’s credentials were built on being a speech writer for a President who had very little need for speechwriters, who of her own free will turned her back on her political Party to publically support an obviously inexperienced, unqualified, community organizer who was manufactured into a pop star candidate by institutionalized “progressive” leftists in America’s media. A candidate who had never run a business, never met a payroll…who had voted “present” over one hundred times as an Illinois State Senator. A candidate who had lived his entire life not only surrounded by anti-American radicals, but who when in school actively sought them out.
The attacks coming from Bill Kristol, editor of the 'Weekly Standard', who worked as chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle, are less explainable.
Recently, Kristol wrote: “It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that Romney’s comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant. Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?”
When Kristol states that this election features “two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country” is he honestly comparing a former community organizer (radicalizer) who since moving into the White House has continuously placed obstacles in the path of job creating small businesses, stifled energy development, socialized huge portions of the private sector economy, and created catastrophic chaos overseas, to a capital investor who succeeded within the American free market enterprise system, saved businesses from insolvency, created jobs, protected the nation from international embarrassment when he rescued the Salt Lake City Olympic Games from bankruptcy, who as Governor reduced his State’s debt without raising taxes while improving their schools to the best in the country? Or is Kristol just trying to sound important in hopes of remaining relevant?
If this can be counted on from Republicans, who needs Kaili Joy Gray of the Daily Kos?
Gray gleefully joins in the “pile on Mitt Romney” festivities, but prefers to first attack the candidate’s wife: “Ann Romney is once again up on her gold-plated cross, and she's got another message for the ingrates out there who don't appreciate how hard it is to be her.
During an interview early this evening with Radio Iowa, Mrs. Romney directly addressed her fellow Republicans who’ve criticized her husband.
‘Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring. This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country’.”
When Gray does quit picking on the candidate’s MS stricken, breast cancer surviving wife and slithers off to attack Mr. Romney, the following spews forth: “It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don’t care about this community. But no. You people just won't let up, with the mockery of the Romneys' car elevator; with the questions about all those millions stashed away in secret bank accounts; with the outright disgust at Ann's tales of woe about struggling to survive on Mitt's inherited stock portfolio.”
Gray and Kos have carefully aligned themselves with the class warfare strategy of the White House re-election campaign.
In the final weeks of what is an extremely important tipping point election, possibly the most significant American election since the 1860s, is it really too much to ask for Republican pundits and journalists to at least offer constructive criticism instead of plain old Daily Kos style attacks?
With friends like Noonan and Kristol, who needs Gray?
http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/with-friends-like-these/
On December 3, 2011, in the dead of night, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. On that day, the Bill of Rights was shattered in the interest of the “War on Terror.” He also wrote a signing statement saying that “my administration will not detain American Citizens” and was very hesitant to sign the bill into law.
A few days ago, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals placed Section 1021 of the NDAA back into effect.
The NDAA is typically a mundane bill that appropriates funding for the military for the current year. However, Section 1021 (b) (2) in the 2012 NDAA allows anyone, including American citizens, to be detained indefinitely by the military…no trial, no charges, no day in court.
When the NDAA was signed into law, I, along with many others, took notice and took action. Tangerine Bolen (founder of Revolution Truth), Journalist Chris Hedges, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Professor Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Kai Wargalla, and Alexa O’Brien filed a lawsuit against the NDAA within 30 days of its signing. They would become known as the “Freedom 7” and were immediately launched into the spotlight.In May, Federal Judge Katherine Forrest, in the strongest ruling for civil liberties since 9-11, agreed with the plaintiffs and declared the NDAA unconstitutional placing an temporary injunction on the law. In her ruling, she specifically stated: “This measure has a chilling impact on First Amendment rights.” In that same ruling, she specifically stated that her ruling applied to and protected the general public:
As set forth above, this Court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the strong constitutional rights are protected.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the strong public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein.
As I wrote in “Government Defies Federal Judge on NDAA,” the government response was swift. In a 10 page Motion for Reconsideration, the government stated:
The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.
This Motion directly defied Judge Forrest’s ruling, which clearly applied to the public, and her response was just as swift. She told the government lawyers “to put it bluntly” her order most definitely applied to the public. This should have been the end of it, but the government appealed the ruling…setting the stage for what was to come.
On Wednesday, September 12, Judge Forrest once again took a stand for civil liberties by ruling that the temporary injunction against the enforcement of the NDAA’s detention provisions is now permanent. Much like after her preliminary injunction, the internet rejoiced. That evening, “People Against the NDAA” put out a press release stating:
Based on her earlier temporary injunction, this ruling was expected. However, it is not time to celebrate. Based on the Obama Administration’s previous action an Appeal or a Motion for Reconsideration will likely be filed. The administration has also not said whether or not it is enforcing the NDAA, according to a letter from lawsuit organizer Tangerine Bolen. The case will then go to an appeal court.
Sure enough, within 24 hours, the Obama Administration appealed the ruling. The Administration’s lawyers said that this injunction could cause “irreparable harm” to the national security of the United States and the war on terrorism. This appeal flies in the face of the President’s signing statement, his statements to reporters, and the Constitution.
On top of the appeal, on Monday, Judge Raymond Lohier of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of Judge Katherine Forrest’s injunction against the NDAA. On the 28th of September, the Court will hear arguments on whether to make that stay permanent or not.
Since May, Judge Forrest had prevented the NDAA from being used anywhere in the world. Now, the NDAA is back in full effect, and you can be indefinitely detained without a trial or a day in court. Thanks to the Obama Administration, America is again the battlefield.
Happy Constitution Week!
This may shock you.
According to Aaron Blake of The Washington Post, "Either we’re at a turning point in the 2012 election, or a lot of pollsters are getting it wrong."
Apparently the small bump in polling in Obama's favor following the party conventions did not hold out just as many thought they wouldn't, and nationally, Obama and Romney are still showing basically at a tie. However, several other polls that were conducted at the state level showed a slightly different story than national polls did. Blake continued:
"Almost every state-specific poll in the last few days has shown progress for Democrats — both at the presidential level and in the very important contest for the Senate — with some showing unprecedented leads for the blue side in the the most important states.
Swing-state polls from CBS News, the New York Times and Quinnipiac University released Wednesday morning in three key states — Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin — showed Obama either gaining since last month or, in the case of Virginia, holding his lead.
And Fox News polls released Wednesday evening showed Obama with a solid lead in the three biggest swing states; he’s up by seven points each in Ohio and Virginia and five points in Florida. The results confirm polls from NBC News and Marist College in the same three states last week.
A Washington Post poll released Tuesday confirms the movement in Virginia, with Obama up by an unprecedented eight points. And a Marquette University Law School poll released Wednesday supports the idea that the race in Wisconsin has shifted, with Obama leading by an astounding 14 points.
Even if some of these margins seem a little big, just consider that even the best polls for Romney haven’t shown him with that kind of lead in these states — or really anything close to it. In fact, Nate Silver points out that, of the 16 live-interview swing state polls conducted in the last two weeks, Obama is leading in all of them except Colorado by at least four points.
Prior to this week, it was rare that polls showed Obama leading by five points or more in any swing state; in those 16 states, he leads by an average of 5.8 points.
And just as much as the presidential race, the battle for the Senate appears to be moving toward Democrats.
As The Fix’s Sean Sullivan reported Wednesday, multiple polls in top Senate races in Massachusetts, Virginia and Wisconsin in recent days show the Democratic candidates in those states gaining big — larger shifts than any we’ve seen so far this cycle. If Democrats can win even two of those states, it will put a sizeable dent in the GOP’s chances of gaining the three or four seats they need to take control of the Senate — an outcome that was very attainable for Republicans at the start of the cycle.
The question from here is whether these swing-state and Senate polls reflect a momentary bounce and spike in enthusiasm among Democrats or whether they show a more lasting shift in the electoral landscape. Only time will tell.
What’s clear to this point, though, is that the movement has been significant in the states that matter most."
If this apparent swing in polls disturbs you, then perhaps you just have to wait a couple years. Blake also said Thursday in another article that whatever the outcome of this election, the GOP shows strong promises of becoming the senate majority following the 2014 elections.
Of course, you could point to pollsters and say what do they know. This doesn't take away from the importance that is attributed to polls every election.
Rumor has it Obama expects to lose the election! HOORAY!!!! His mother-in-law is quoted as saying she has seen the new house in Hawaii where they will live starting January of next year!
Already throwing in the towel even though the media has him leading in the polls!
That's incredible; but then we shouldn't expect too much from an inexperienced Commander-In-Chief who never had a backbone forged by military experience!
Still; if he moves his family there I can no longer recognize Hawaii as a state of the union; harboring a known felon. Hawaii must pay for their insurrections of the last four years. Justice must be served.
I therefore am starting the movement now to force Hawaii to secede from the union and become an autonomous country.
It will be renamed Obamanation and be Obama's exile land permanently, never again to be allowed to set foot on U.S. soil.
NO USURPERS ALLOWED signs shall be placed every 300 feet along the U.S. west coast facing Hawaii; lest he ever forget what he is!
When our current president was elected, there was a big to do about it at work we all were sitting in the breakroom and I remember one of the ladies I work with said "why not just print more money?" I mean she laughed and several people agreed that was the answer after all just print more money, like that's what the president should do. I thought I know she is smarter than that... I mean I thought she's just kinding so I didn't say anything, but how many people really think that's the answer? I mean maybe people don't realize that doing that makes every dollar we earn worth half as much, all I'm saying is who wants to work for an hour for say $20, but it's only worth $10? Most people I know would say HEYLL no to that scenario. Most people I know are pro choice, but draw the line at partial birth abortions. President Obama has a voting record against every single restrictive legislation presented on this issue. I'm talking about extreme, like death rooms where if an infant somehow survived an abortion he is in favor of leaving an infant in a cold hospital room to starve to death. The laws that were meant to protect minors by notifying parents if their daughter had these procedures in their facilties were viewed as restrictions by this president, I can't justify voting for someone who is such a crusader for abortion rights, my heart won't let me. I know of too many women who would give anything to be a mother and can't, not to be bothered by the statistics of abortions vs adoptions. I'm not totally niave though, I had a friend who said she agrees with abortion because she couldn't imagine some stranger having her kid, I was disturbed that she would rather kill the baby than give the baby to some stranger that can't have one,but then again it's just a fetus I guess? It boggles the mind. Our president loves federal regulations, Ok so when faced with ALL the federal regulations (obama care, etc.) are in place and companies/franchises like those that so many of us work start cutting back on hours, stop hiring people or close, because they are not going to loose profits to comply with all the regulations whose to blame? The companies? The president? No the voters, that's who, these things matter to me. I like to look at the voting records of the people running for office and the issues that matter to me and if they vote the way I would, that's my person. I don't let any reporter or commercial sway my vote, I listen to the debates, and I really consider things. I hope people are more informed this time around a lot can happen in four years....oh yeah I just wanted to add if you really believe the bull the mainstream media & the white house was selling about a stupid video being the cause of the attacks over seas, you need to google that crap! What you should worry about is the fact that our right to freedom of speech is under attack by our president, it is a crying shame that most people don't even have a clue what's going on in the world because the media adores this guy too busy being a celebrity to be a leader. The arrogance is truly disturbing.http://http://picturemeuniqueboutique.blogspot.com/2012/09/ok-ive-said-my-peice-now-you-decide.html
New Jobless claims hit the 382,000 mark as once again, more Americans filed jobless claims than was originally forecast. It was revealed that six million middle class voters, more than first estimated, will be hit by the tax penalty for not getting insurance under Obamacare. When the new regulations in Obamacare are added to existing federal regulations, American taxpayer and business costs will increase by $1.8 trillion annually, a number that exceeds the original estimates proffered by the Obama the administration by a factor of twenty. That means twenty times the original estimates is the correct answer.
Beginning to see the pattern there?
When asked in 1995 to explain his vision of democracy, Obama said:
“I think that recapturing the spirit that existed not just in the civil-rights movement but in the union organizing movement, in the populous movement. I think there is a running thread; one of the better angels of our nature in this country which has been the notion that, you know, we can sit around the table and find common ground and make democracy work in the way that it should be working. It’s not popular right now to say that, and to believe in sort of a common good, but I think that notions of a common good are the glue that hold our society together and make democracy possible.”
When Obama was asked if he is “willing to stake your political career on your common ground?” he replied “That’s the core of my faith.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xsobm33ATC0
Is it for the “common good” that the administration and its media lapdog puppets have lied to the American public about unemployment numbers, and the impact and costs of federal regulations, including the much ballyhooed Obamacare?
Beginning to see the pattern there?
The U.S. Embassy in Pakistan is under siege. Protests in Indonesia have forced the American consulate to shut down for a second consecutive day. In Afghanistan, hundreds have taken to the street chanting anti-American slogans. In Iran, equal numbers are chanting “Down with the U.S.”
The Prime Minister in Iraq has condemned the United States for an obscure anti-Islamist video trailer posted on YouTube. The very same video the Obama administration made great efforts to solely blame for what they described as “spontaneous” protests in the Islamist world. That would be multiple voices at the highest levels of the Executive Branch…for days.
Now it has been revealed by witnesses "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident."
It seems an either dishonest or an inept administration misled the public about Libya.
Beginning to see the pattern there?
What gets reported by the “mainstream media”? The same media found culpable of intentionally misleading the public on important policy matters that affect all Americans?
Thursday morning September 20, 2012 the top headline on Yahoo News: Pawlenty quits as Romney campaign co-chair.
The subtext under that headline: The move came with Romney's campaign struggling with just seven weeks before election-day.
This is a case in point that clearly illustrates unmistakable bias against GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
The article opens by stating that “Tim Pawlenty quit as co-chair of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign on Thursday to become one of Wall Street's top lobbyists in Washington. Pawlenty, a former governor of Minnesota, will lead the Financial Services Roundtable.”
Notice the phrase “quit as co-chair”. Why was it not: “resigned as co-chair”? Note that the article ensures that in the very first paragraph readers are told that the quitter Pawlenty is going to “become one of Wall Street's top lobbyists in Washington.”
How, exactly, do Oliver Knox and Yahoo News know that Pawlenty will “become one of Wall Street's top lobbyists in Washington”?
If Olivier Knox and Yahoo News are truly so proficient at forecasting the future, why are they not using this supernatural power to clue America in on how to solve its myriad of problems at home and abroad?
Of course, since they do not actually possess such abilities, this “ensure Obama gets re-elected at all costs (even costs to whatever remnants of journalistic integrity remain in America)” hit piece is reduced to further efforts to diminish the GOP through hyping the already failed “progressive” spin that “Romney's campaign has been grappling with a video showing him seemingly writing off Obama supporters as having a "victim" mindset and being reliant on government handouts.”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/pawlenty-quits-romney-campaign-co-chair-132022573--election.html
Beginning to see the pattern there?
Unfortunately for Oliver Knox, Yahoo News and their cohorts within the “progressive” Party Pravda, a CNBC Poll shows that 75 percent of Americans agree with Romney's 47 percent comments.
Obama, “progressives” and their minions within their Pravda lie through their teeth about the true nature, scope and reach of Obama’s failure. Americans see through their lies.
Beginning to see the pattern there?
Much to their dismay, after November 6, 2012, Obama, “progressives” and their minions within the “progressive” Party Pravda will.
http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/an-unmistakable-pattern-of-deceit/
Hobby shop chain faces backlash for stance against ObamaCare
Support Hobby Lobby. Destroy the liberal boycott. Lets do a Chick-fil-A at Hobby Lobby. Spread the word. We need a Hobby Lobby day. Lets end this nonsense once and for all. Our power greatly exceeds their power, but we must exercise it. Go forth and BUY!
By Perry Chiaramonte
Published September 20, 2012
FoxNews.com
hobbylobby.jpg
National arts and crafts retail chain Hobby Lobby is facing backlash after filing a lawsuit opposing the HeathCare Mandate, with the owners claiming that it goes against their Christian Values. (AP)
A Christian-owned chain of hobby shops is facing a bitter backlash after suing the Obama administration over new requirements to provide insured employees with contraceptive and abortion coverage.
Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby filed the suit Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, alleging that the ObamaCare mandate violates the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The suit followed similar suits by Catholic colleges and a Denver-based company whose owners also objected to the mandate on religious grounds. While a judge has not yet ruled on Hobby Lobby's suit, a Facebook page calling for a boycott of the company, which operates 500 stores in 41 states, has appeared online, and several other forums have featured posts urging customers to steer clear of Hobby Lobby.
“I’m boycotting Hobby Lobby!” reads the heading of one posting on image posting site Flickr. “Even if you're pro-life this kind of action stinks to high heaven! If things like this can be allowed then what's next?!,” the user added.
“They’re being told they have two choices. Either follow their faith and pay the government half-a-billion dollars or give up their beliefs."
- Lori Windham, attorney for Hobby Lobby
Others have taken to social media to protest against Hobby Lobby, with a “Boycott Hobby Lobby” page on Facebook.
“I've been to two Hobby Lobby parking lots today and they were fairly empty. I used to have trouble finding a parking spot!” read one posting from the administrator of the Boycott page. “I think the boycott is catching on! I do not think they are getting the reaction they hoped for.”
Hobby Lobby owner David Green is a devout Baptist who owns one of the world's largest collections of Biblical artifacts. The Barret Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Green in his suit, argued that compliance with the offending portion of the health care law that the nature of their suit is “would force religiously-motivated business owners like plaintiffs to violate their faith under the threats of millions of dollars in fines.”
Lawyers argued that company employees are well aware of Green's views and their bearing on the company.
“The Green family’s business practices ... reflect their Christian faith in unmistakable and concrete ways,” the complaint states. The company employs full-time chaplains; close all store locations on Sundays and monitors all marketing and operations to make sure that it is consistent with their beliefs.
Failure to comply with the mandate could subject the company to as much as $1.3 million in daily fines, according to Barret Fund attorneys.
"They’re being told they have two choices: Either follow their faith and pay the government half a billion dollars or give up their beliefs," Lori Windham, an attorney from theBarret Fund, told Foxnews.com. "We believe that’s a choice no one should have to make.”
David Green could not be reached for comment, but in a recent USA Today Op-Ed, he blasted the Obama administration for imposing mandates he believes he cannot comply with.
“Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy," Green wrote. "Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right.”
The company does not object to providing coverage that includes birth control pills, but refuses to provide or pay for two specific abortion-inducing drugs such as the so-called "morning after" pill, because Green's "most deeply held religious belief" is that life beginning at conception, the family said in a statement released through its attorneys.
As for the boycott, the company's founders believe customers have the right to vote with their feet.
"The Green family respects every individual's right to free speech and hopes that others will respect their rights also, including the right to live and do business according to their religious beliefs.," the statement said.
Hobby Lobby is believed to be the first non-Catholic company to file an objection to the healthcare mandate. The Newland family, the devoutly Catholic owners of Denver-based Hercules Industries filed a similar suit this past summer and won a court injunction that ruled that they are not obligated to follow the mandate.
“I think the law and precedent set by this case is very strong for Hobby Lobby and the Green Family,” Windham said.
In order for us to begin the ascent from the current doldrums we must refrain from "giving the store away" meaning we have to filter out those who are abusing the system and putting us further in debt. We can start by drastically reducing the number those receiving benefits under false or calculated pretenses and there are plenty of those running loose and quietly bleeding the system dry. I've heard stories of young women deliberately getting pregnant in order to receive benefits & free housing and this goes on everywhere and they will simply tell you "it's what we do" and walk away laughing while the hard working taxpayer is played for the biggest "sucka" on the face of the earth. There are others who use different tactics to "get over" on our blessed system and this costs hundreds of billions a year and when added up over the course of a few decades the amount is even more enormous! We have an internal problem that has not been properly policed and we also have a problem with lawlessness & it's horrible. One can look at the New York Yankees for example. Listen to their 2 bit entrapping low balling broadcasters on any given day and see what the system has permitted to "run on" after complaints & charges have been filed. We also have problems with scam artist type crooked politicians like the censured Charles Rangel among others, who has yet to be removed and is making a mockery out of the state of NY. The problems are so many because no one took the time to properly evaluate and install a working modus operandi and it's time we get our ship right & the time is now!
We are not stupid! That's one of Herman Cain's favorite catch phrases. He uses it to point out the falsehoods he perceives from the Obama campaign and administration. Mr. Cain is currently still working on his most recent endeavor, the internet TV station at http://www.caintv.com/. He is slotted to break back into radio next January when he'll take over Neal Boortz' show. He's no Glenn Beck, I'll say that much. As for his CainTV, I think there's something to be said about those that will settle for mediocrity over content...
All of that is besides the point, as the man whose stupidity is in question is Mr. Rick Santorum. I'm sure he would chime along with Mr. Cain about his own lack of stupidity. Rick Santorum's post-primary project is Patriot Voices, which among other things, is a "grassroots and online community of Americans from across the country who stand together to affect change." One of their most recent projects is a film collaboration with Citizens United called "Our Sacred Honor." A trailer to the film has been added to the end of this post.
The opposite chorus in the ballad of smarts and stupid is an editor over at The New York Times. Now. in his defense, the article does not say that Mr. Santorum or any conservative is stupid. Rather, it says that "Social conservatives have given up on smart people," which as it points out, is kind of what Santorum had been saying. He talked about how conservatives would “never have the elite smart people on our side.”
The author of the article went from this point on to talk about Romney's reaction to Obama's handling of the crisis around the storming of the US embassies in Egypt and Libya. Specifically he questioned the allegations that what Obama said amounted to an apology. The author also questioned why an apology might be so bad. He insinuated that conservatives in general were out of touch with reality, and that they seemed happy to go that way, as with Rick Santorum. The article said that conservatives and "the Romney campaign has given up on what Karl Rove once called the 'reality-based community.'"
Herman Cain says that we are not stupid, Rick Santorum says that the smart people aren't ever gonna be on our side, and The New York Times questions Romney's campaign's grip on reality. How does that make you feel? Real Smart?
Well, here's the preview to Santorum's new project:
This website does not have a "Contact Us" website.
Is there no way to send a message to this organization?
Does this organization not receive incoming messages,
no matter how urgent and critical?
Does is only send out messages?
Some human being please advise. Thanks.
SelGraham@austin.rr.com
Barack Obama’s foreign policy approval numbers plunged in a recent poll. This is no surprise at a time when NATO is pulling back in Afghanistan, a move that is heightening doubts about the future of that country. NATO’s decision, which leaves Obama’s exit strategy in doubt, makes his claims of “progress” in that arena suspect at best.
While the Islamist world raged in the first week of a stark, full blown display of vehement, bloody hatred towards the United States, Barack Obama was jet setting to a party with Jay-Z and Beyonce, where he enjoyed the sight of a lavish 18-foot tall tower of gold French champagne bottles. That was, until he was obligated to move the party to the CBS Late Show with David Letterman for a conversation that was so important that Obama simply could not find the time to meet with that pesky Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
Oh yes, without a glimpses of a hint of a shadow of a doubt, Obama is the one and only candidate in this presidential race who is grounded, looks out for and cares for the little guy.
If you believe that, there is an exclusive ocean front property sale happening in Bolivia that is definitely not to be missed.
For the White House and the Obama re-election campaign, another day means another disaster.
Especially when additional evidence of his long term devotion to wealth redistribution surfaces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4
GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney rejected Obama’s views and policies by stating 'We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution'. That statement exemplifies how Romney is escalated his attacks on Obama's economic vision. A vision that has led to two credit downgrades for the United States, long term unemployment for millions of Americans, reductions in wealth and earning power at a time of higher prices at the grocery story and escalating costs for energy.
Thanks to an embarrassingly unprofessional and utterly irresponsible news media, most Americans are oblivious to the fact that the number of able-bodied adults who are dependent on food stamps has doubled since Obama’s illegal Executive Order suspended the work requirement for welfare recipients.
What is the “mainstream media” focused on?
For ABC News, the headline is: Romney Tapes Give Way To The Not-So-Calm After The Storm
Of special note for MICHAEL FALCONE (@michaelpfalcone) and AMY WALTER (@amyewalter) are:
•ROMNEY TAPES GET THE SUPER PAC TREATMENT: That didn’t take long. The pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, is quick out of the starting gate this morning with a new television ad featuring footage of Mitt Romney’s candid comments from a private fundraiser that has rocked the political world this week. The script of the ad, titled “Doors,” speaks for itself. A narrator says, “Behind these doors Mitt Romney calls half the American people….” And then the hidden-camera video of Romney finishes the sentence: ”Dependent upon government, who believe they are victims.” The narrator returns: “Victims? Behind these doors middle-class families struggle. And Romney will make things even tougher. Raising taxes by up to $2,000 to give multi-millionaires a $250,000 tax break.” And Romney again: “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility…” The group says the ad is part of their $30 million effort to underscore the effects of Romney’s economic proposals, which is underway on television and online in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. WATCH: http://youtu.be/uaKIeR4Sn3k
•THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN RESPONDS WITH TWO LUMPS OF COAL: Today the Romney campaign released two new television ads focusing on what Team Romney is calling “President Obama’s war on coal.” According to a release from the campaign: The first ad titled “Way of Life.” In the ad a man says, “My family’s worked in the coal industry for over sixty years. This is the way of life we know. Policies that the current administration’s got is attacking my livelihood. Obama said he was going to bankrupt any new power plants that opened up that’s coal-fired and he’s keeping his promise. I got two young grandsons. I’m scared for their future, let alone mine. I support Mitt Romney.” WATCH: http://mi.tt/S34HBp In the second ad, “War on Coal,” the Republican nominee touts his support for the coal industry: “We have 250 years of coal,” Romney says in the spot. “Why wouldn’t we use it?” WATCH: http://mi.tt/RoxS7W
•REDISTRIBUTION POLITICS: The Romney and Obama campaigns are sparring today over “redistribution” — specifically an audio clip of President Obama from 1998 on the subject. WATCH: http://bit.ly/V99buI Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski sums up the argument the GOP is seeking to make today — and likely for some time to come: “While Governor Romney talks about promoting personal responsibility and hard work, promising to deliver recovery, President Obama believes in redistribution and government dependency.” The Romney campaign has already been pushing hard on this line of attack and there’s more to come today, campaign aides tell The Note. Yesterday Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt weighed in: “The Romney campaign is so desperate to change the subject that they’ve gone back to the failed playbook co-authored by Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Fourteen years ago, then-Senator Obama was making an argument for a more efficient, more effective government — specifically citing city government agencies that he didn’t think were working effectively.”
The world is burning, Obama is fiddling, and the “mainstream media”, more appropriately described as the “progressive” Party Pravda, is focused on attacking and smearing the GOP candidate on behalf of the “progressive” in the White House.
Is this what America wants?
On November 6, 2012, Americans decide.
http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/another-day-another-disaster/
By John W. Lillpop
On the Dave Letterman show Tuesday night, President Barack Obama stated that the occupant of the Oval Office must "work for everyone, not just for some," a pathetic response to Mitt Romney’s “secret” video.
However, Obama’s record over the past four years indicates that there are several groups of Americans whom the president does not care about, or work for.
Those Obama does not appear to work for include, but are not limited to:
( )Those who earn more than $250,000 a year;
( )Those involved in the coal industry;
( )Religious institutions denied First Amendment rights as a result of ObamaCare mandates:
( )US Border patrol agents and their families;
( )Male Caucasians;
( )Pro-life activists;
( )Stay- at- home moms;
( )Tea Party members;
( )Evangelicals;
( )The City and people of Las Vegas;
( )Gun rights advocates;
( )Opponents of same-sex marriage;
( )Supply-side economists;
( )Balanced budget advocates;
( )Pro-Israel activists;
( )FOX News;
( )Americans for legal immigration:
( )US Chamber of Commerce;
( )People and businesses that pay taxes;
( )Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, and Clint Eastwood, and
( )Governors of Red States.
The big question: Does the number of voters in the above categories exceed the 47 percent in the tank for our failed president?
( )Evangelicals;
( )The City and people of Las Vegas;
( )Gun rights advocates;
( )Opponents of same-sex marriage;
( )Supply-side economists;
( )Balanced budget advocates;
( )Pro-Israel activists;
( )FOX News;
( )Americans for legal immigration:
( )US Chamber of Commerce;
( )People and businesses that pay taxes;
( )Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, and Clint Eastwood, and
( )Governors of Red States.
The big question: Does the number of voters in the above categories exceed the 47 percent in the tank for our failed president?
Pray to God that the answer is a resounding YES!
Leave it to the “progressive” Party Pravda (in the form of Holly Bailey and Yahoo News), on precisely the morning they desperately need to change the subject, to magically stumble across a Mitt Romney quote recorded at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year.
This is a typical “progressive” tactic used to distract attention away from the Obama damaging, bogus explanation for anti-American violence occurring across the Middle East. A completely implausible explanation created by the White House and propagated by America’s so-called mainstream news media.
Aiming to reinforce the false “progressive” narrative that Romney is an out of touch rich guy, Baily wears her “progressive” bias openly. She begins her “news story” with:
“Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.
In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.”
Note Baily’s use of the words “hastily arranged news conference”, an example of propagating the phony meme that Romney’s campaign is disorganized.
These cherry picked comments also further the manufactured “progressive” notion that whenever Romney opens his mouth, whatever he says is a gaff, or is “not elegantly stated”.
In typical “progressive” Party Pravda fashion, Baily misrepresents both Romney’s message and his actual point.
What Romney said was:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
Romney continued his remarks by stating his job as candidate was "not to worry about those people."
Any fair minded individual capable of grasping electoral reality comprehends why Romney would say his job as candidate is not to worry about going after voters who common sense dictates will vote for Obama.
By the same rationale, Obama would not choose to waste his time chasing after Tea Party votes.
Common sense and logic seem to be vital elements missing in “progressive” “news” stories. Instead, the “progressives” focused on smearing Mitt Romney for simply speaking the truth.
It is the truth that 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. The “progressive” “defense” against this fact is to say those people do pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. Unfortunately for “progressives”, the hole in their “defense” is; the people who do pay income tax pay all those other taxes too.
It is true that people in America who pay no income tax are not going to be motivated by a candidate who promises lower taxes. Why would they care about tax rates that have zero effect on them?
Except to favor of increases on others so the government can afford to give them more stuff…
There are an unacceptable number of people in America who are dependent upon government. Many, if not most, see themselves as victims. They believe they are “entitled” to “free” healthcare, food stamps, “affordable housing” and welfare payments. They are being taught by the big-government centrally planned Department of Education that government’s job is to take care of them.
Those who remain unconvinced can watch the official full length version of the Tides Foundation production of “The Story of Stuff”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9GorqroigqM
It is quite interesting, how the Tide Foundation, funded by George Soros, just happens to be a huge proponent of “progressive” propaganda. Not surprisingly, whenever “progressive” actions and/or propaganda come full circle George Soros and his ill-gotten billions always seem to be involved.
Romney is not just running against the Obama campaign. He is running against Obama, the media, Hollywood, academia, George Soros and anyone else who propagates the anti-American “progressive” narrative.
You can bet all the money owed for unpaid American college loans that “progressives” will whine about the Koch brothers.
http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/romney-should-not-back-down/
This idea may be to late, but couldn't the tea party organize members to carry picket signs outside of some of these liberal newspaper buildings with the signs showing pieces of the newspapers blatant bias.
A STUPID THING. I DONT KNOW IF I CAN FIND YOUR WAGON AGAIN. TIME WILL TELL.
A STUPID THING. I DONT KNOW IF I CAN FIND YOUR WAGON AGAIN. TIME WILL TELL.
Isn’t Technology GREAT !!!
|
