Wake up America

John Edwards Trial: Acquitted On One Count, Hung Jury On Five Counts, Mistrial Declared

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Thu, 31 May 2012 21:11:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

ABC News:

A North Carolina jury found former Sen. John Edwards not guilty today on one of six counts in a campaign-finance trial, and declared itself hopelessly deadlocked on the remaining charges, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on those counts.

Edwards, a two-time presidential candidate, accused of soliciting nearly $1 million from wealthy backers to finance a cover up of his illicit affair and illegitimate child during his 2008 bid for the White House, was found not guilty on Count 3 of the six-part indictment.

That count pertained only to whether Edwards illegally received several hundred thousand dollars in donations from wealthy heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon to cover up the affair in 2008.

After nine days of deliberations, three times as long as the defense took to put on its case, the courtroom here was thrown into confusion when it briefly appeared the jury had reached on a verdict on all counts.
The jury informed the judge it had not reached a verdict and was charged again to go back to deliberating.
The other counts pertained to Mellon's donations in 2007, donations in 2007 and 2008 from another wealthy donor, Fred Baron, and a conspiracy charge.

Less than an hour after the judge sent them back to deliberate, the jury returned and declared itself hung on those five outstanding counts.

No word on whether prosecutors will attempt to retry the case.

More at Washington Post and MSNBC.

Wisconsin Union Membership Plunges Ahead Of Recall

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Thu, 31 May 2012 18:28:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

Next Tuesday is the Wisconsin recall election where Tom Barrett, Democrats, liberals and unions are trying to unseat Governor Scott Walker. Recent polling has Walker up by 7.

Polling averages in May have Walker ahead of Barrett by a 6.6 percent margin. (Numbers at link change as new polling data becomes available)

The Wall Street Journal reports that in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers, fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011.

Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.

A provision of the Walker law that eliminated automatic dues collection hurt union membership. When a public-sector contract expires the state now stops collecting dues from the affected workers' paychecks unless they say they want the dues taken out, said Peter Davis, general counsel of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission.

In many cases, Afscme dropped members from its rolls after it failed to get them to affirm they want dues collected, said a labor official familiar with Afscme's figures. In a smaller number of cases, membership losses were due to worker layoffs.

Those keeping an eye on the recall election in Wisconsin might remember that in mid-May, unions suffered a blow when a U.S. District Court Judge ruled that unions cannot automatically deduct dues from members' paychecks by offering those members the opt-out option but the members must opt-in before unions could take their deductions.

Despite claims to the contrary by liberals and unions in Wisconsin, Walker's controversial budget reform bill (Act 10) did not harm union members but did attempt to level the playing field, so to speak, between private sector employees and public sector employees. A study just released shows that salaries for the two sets of employees are more equal now but compensation is still excessive for public employees in comparison to private sector employees.

We find that state and local government employees receive salaries roughly equal to those paid to private sector Wisconsin employees with similar education and experience or working in jobs with similar skill requirements.

However, even following Act 10, pension benefits for Wisconsin public employees are roughly 4.5 times more valuable than private sector levels while health benefits are about twice as generous as those paid by larger private sector Wisconsin employers. This difference results in a combined salary-benefits compensation premium of around 22 percent for state workers over private sector workers, with varying but often larger pay advantages for local government employees.

In November 2010, according to the former Democratic Governor Jim Doyle's administration, Wisconsin was on track for a $3 billion deficit for the state.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's administration on Friday told Republican Governor-elect Scott Walker that he would have to cope with a $2.2 billion deficit in the state's upcoming two-year budget, but this brighter-than-expected forecast contained more than $1 billion in hidden pain.

To arrive at the favorable estimate, the Doyle administration's estimate assumed that Walker and lawmakers would make spending cuts that have yet to actually happen - two more years of state employee furloughs, no pay raises, a virtual hiring freeze and belt tightening in state health programs. Without that $1.1 billion in savings, the state's projected shortfall rises to $3.3 billion - a significant increase over previous estimates that put the gap at between $2.7 billion and $3.1 billion.

Now it is 2012, Walker's controversial budget reform was passed and resulted in a projected surplus for the state.

The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimated in February the state would finish the two-year budget period that ends June 30, 2013, with a $143 million deficit.

But the state Department of Revenue now estimates that the state will take in about $265 million more than the bureau expected, which should translate to a $275.1 million surplus on June 30, 2012, and a $154.5 million surplus on June 30, 2013, Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch wrote in a letter to Walker.

Huebsch said revenue officials based the projections on larger-than-anticipated tax collections through April and revised federal Bureau of Economic Analysis forecasts showing better-than-expected personal income growth in 2011.

Had the recall election happened before the results of Walker's policies became a clear success, Barrett possibly would have been performing better in the polls, but the initial accusations against Walker that his budget reform bill would harm Wisconsin's economy have been dis-proven by the actual results.

National Implications

With five days until the recall election, Democrats are now throwing everything they have behind Barrett, including sending Bill Clinton to the state to campaign against Walker. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has stated she considers the recall election a "dry run" for Obama.

The RNC has also stated their belief that the recall election has long term implications and a Walker win would improve the chances for Republicans in November 2012 of putting Wisconsin "in the red column for the first time since 1984."

Is It Possible To Question Islam?

noreply@blogger.com (Findalis) — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:27:00 +0000

By Findalis

What an interesting question? Can one question the history of Islam? Did Muhammad actually exist? Was he really illiterate? Creeping Sharia asks those and other questions.

The question really should be whether it is possible to question Islam and not be threatened, injured or killed, slandered, or arrested. Robert Spencer via PJ Media » Is It Still Possible to Question Islam?.

Is it “Islamophobic” to question whether or not the standard picture of Muhammad as depicted in Muslim texts is historically accurate?

Certainly many people think so, notably the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC is a fifty-six nation body (plus the Palestinian Authority) that, since the demise of the Soviet Union, comprises the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. It has been working for years to compel the UN to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a closed-door meeting with the OIC in December 2011, apparently to facilitate just that and figure out ways to circumvent the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech.

Journalist Claire Berlinski notes that “the neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo”:

It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. … Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. “This loathsome term,” he writes, “is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”

Yet the mainstream media has for the most part bought into this perspective, treating all investigation of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as “Islamophobic,” however useful it might be to understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the U.S. and Western civilization. Into this atmosphere comes my book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins, which doesn’t touch directly on terror issues at all, but does demonstrate that Islam was political, supremacist, and violent before it was religious — a fact with considerable implications for today’s political scene.

In broad outline, the accepted story of Islam’s origins is well known. It begins with an Arabian merchant of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, known to the world as Muhammad, a name that means the “praised one.” He rejected the polytheism of his tribe and was given to frequent prayer in the hills and caves outside Mecca. In the year 610, when he was forty, he was praying in a cave on Mount Hira, about two miles from Mecca, when he was suddenly confronted by the angel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite.

For the next twenty-three years, until his death in 632, Muhammad did just that: He recited the messages he received from Gabriel, presenting them to his followers as the pure and unadulterated word of the supreme and only God. Many of his followers memorized portions. The Arabia in which Islam was born was an oral culture that respected poetic achievement, and thus the prodigious feats of memory required to memorize lengthy suras were not so unusual. After Muhammad’s death, the revelations he had received were collected together into the Qur’an, or “Recitation,” from the accounts of those who had memorized them or written them down.
Muslims around the globe are not the only ones who take this account for granted; even non-Muslims generally accept the broad contours of this narrative, which has been told and retold for centuries. However, virtually none of that standard account stands up to historical scrutiny, for several key reasons:

No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,”“Muha- jirun,” and “Hagarians,” but never “Muslims.”
The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.
The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.
During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661–680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross – a symbol abhorrent to Islam.

The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

Unmistakably historical, however, are the Arab conquests and the empire they produced. Every empire of the day was anchored in a political theology. The Eastern Roman Empire was Christian; the Persian Empire was Zoroastrian. The realm of political theology offers the most plausible explanation for the creation of Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur’an. The Arab Empire controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated. Islam began as an umbrella monotheistic movement that presented itself as encompassing the true forms of the two great previous monotheistic movements, Judaism and Christianity.

Historical records make clear that toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the Umayyad leaders of the Arab domains began to speak much more specifically than anyone had before about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book. Muhammad, if he did not exist, or if his actual deeds were not known, would certainly have been politically useful to the new Arab Empire as a legendary hero. The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power. It needed a common religion—a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire’s unity and would secure allegiance to the state.

In any case, the late appearance of the biographical material about Muhammad, the fact that no one had heard of or spoken of Muhammad for decades after the Arab conquests began, the changes in the religion of the Arab Empire, the inconsistencies in the Qur’an—all of this needed to be explained. But is attempting to do so “Islamophobic?” Or can disinterested historical investigation still be carried out in the free West?
It is most interesting that the book Did Muhammad Exist? has been greeted with silence or opprobrium. Yet now, more than ever before, historical investigators have the opportunity—in fact, the responsibility—to usher Islam’s origins out of the shadows and into the light, and the responsibility not to be cowed by Islamic supremacist intimidation in doing so. Were they not to discharge that responsibility fully or properly, we will all be the poorer.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is now available.

What an interesting question? Can one question the history of Islam? Did Muhammad actually exist? Was he really illiterate? Creeping Sharia asks those and other questions.

Romney Clinches GOP Nomination- The Race Is On: CO, IA, and Nevada Deadlocked

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:16:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

On Tuesday, with the Texas GOP primary, Mitt Romney officially clinched the Republican nomination as he bypasses the 1,144 delegates needed to win and the initial polling for three states Barack Obama flipped from red to blue in 2008, via NBC News/Marist polling, show a deadlocked race for 2012.

The margin of error in the poll is plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

• Colorado- Obama 46 percent, Romney 45 percent.
In 2008, Obama beat John McCain by 8.6 percentage points.

• Iowa- Obama 44 percent, Romney 44 percent.
In 2008, Obama beat McCain by 9.3 percentage points.

• Obama 48 percent, Romney 46 percent.
In 2008, Obama beat McCain by 12.4 percentage points.

Via National Journal:

The states -- Colorado, Iowa and Nevada -- are relatively small, but each is an important and symbolic bellwether. In each state, voters overwhelmingly say the economy will be the most important issue in this year's election, but Obama either trails Romney on this issue or, at best, ties him.

There is good news and bad news for each candidate within this poll, and Morrissey from Hot Air points to supporter enthusiasm, which favors Romney in Iowa and Colorado by 8 percent and 11 percent respectively and which favors Obama by 2 percent in Nevada.

Colorado – “A majority of Romney’s supporters — 52% — are very enthusiastic about casting their ballot in the fall while 41% of Obama’s supporters have a similar level of enthusiasm.”
Iowa – “46% of Romney’s supporters are very enthusiastic about going to the polls in November. This compares with 38% of Obama’s backers who have a similar degree of enthusiasm.”
Nevada – “53% of voters who support the president are very enthusiastic about going to the polls in the fall while a similar 51% of Romney backers say the same.”

Read the full Iowa poll
Read the full Colorado poll
Read the full Nevada poll

White House Spokesman Misses Key Differences Between Obama's Gambling Problem And Bain Capital

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Wed, 30 May 2012 18:03:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

Yesterday we noted some key differences between Obama's gambling with taxpayer's money and what Bain Capital does with investors money.

Investors willingly put their money into Bain and Bain makes them money, while Obama gambles with taxpayer's money, investing much of it into his own donors' ventures, many of which have failed, gone bankrupt, laid off workers and in the case of Solyndra, is being investigated by Congress.

Both Mitt Romney and American Crossroads have produced web ads that address different aspects of Obama's gambling problem. (Both videos found HERE)

I said yesterday:

Obama talks about fairness to all, redistribution of wealth by taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, yet his actions have taken money from middle class families and put it into the pockets of his rich donors.

The Daily Caller today offers up a video of White House Spokeman, Jay Carney, attempting to "explain" the difference between what Obama did with Solyndra and what Bain does with the companies they invest in and attempt to turnaround and make them into successful investments.

The response from Carney is described as incoherent.

[WATCH]

Reporter: Last thing. If that’s the argument, how is that different from Romney’s argument on Bain Capital, which is that many succeeded and a few failed?

Carney: Look, there, there, there is the… the difference in that… your overall view of what your responsibilities are as president, and what your view of the economic future is. And, and the president believes, as he’s made clear, that a president’s responsibility is not just to, uh… those who win, but those who, for an example, in a company where there have been layoffs or a company that has gone bankrupt, that, you know, we have to make sure that those folks have the means to find other employment, that they have the ability to train for other kinds of work, and that’s part of the overall responsibility the president has.

Melissa Clouthier offers up another difference when she tweets "Difference between Bain and Solyndra: Romney's enterprises made investors money. Obama's lost taxpayer money."

Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin's site, offers up a bonus video of Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter explaining that Solyndra was a "strategic investment."

His assessment:

Apparently Bain execs didn’t do their homework as diligently as Steven Chu. Cutter also claims that President Obama was making investments “for the country” — not all selfish and greedy like Romney did it:

Click over to see that video.

Heritage adds more:

For the duration of his Administration, President Obama has dished out billions of dollars to politically favored companies in pursuit of job creation and a new “green” economy. It’s taxpayer-funded crony capitalism that has neither created new jobs nor produced the green-energy payout that the president was looking for. In fact, it’s a policy that has failed miserably, leading to bankruptcy after bankruptcy. Yet despite all the failures — and zero successes — the president and his Administration are defending the indefensible and standing by a policy that has squandered taxpayer money.

In one instance, President Obama committed $465 million of taxpayer money to Tesla, which was founded by a campaign mega-donor and the 63rd richest man in the world, Elon Musk, to build a $130,000 battery-powered sports car that becomes permanently inoperable if left uncharged for 30 days.

It’s gotten so bad that Congress is launching probes of federal green energy programs, including the Energy Department loan program, over concerns that lawmakers fast-tracked approval for politically connected companies. Heritage’s Lachlan Markay reports that according to a Republican aide on the Senate Budget Committee, “Politically favored, and often connected, renewable energy plans [receive] less rigorous review than traditional energy projects.” In one program, of the $20.5 billion in loans granted, $16.4 billion went to companies linked to donors who contributed to Obama and the Democratic Party.

At the same time the president is defending his taxpayer-funded failures, he’s attacking free enterprise, including in private equity and venture capitalism — enterprises in which investors voluntarily put up their own money to invest in new ideas and rescue existing companies. Sometimes those ventures fail, sometimes their inevitable failure is delayed but temporarily saves jobs amid restructuring, but many times they succeed — generating profits and producing new jobs.

When Carney was asked to justify the president’s defense of one, but criticism of the other, he just couldn’t do it. That’s no surprise, in that the two positions are logically inconsistent.

The bottom line here is Obama picked this fight with his attacks against Romney over his tenure with Bain Capital which is a private equity company....... how could he not know that his own gambling losses of taxpayer money wouldn't be addressed and delved into once he did that?

How could his campaign and Obama himself be so woefully unprepared for the obvious response from Romney and conservatives and even the media now?

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Suffers Another Decline Under Obamanomics

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Wed, 30 May 2012 16:41:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

The The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index official press release is here.

IBD explains:

Analysts had predicted the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index would climb to 70 in May. Instead it dropped more than four points to 64.9, the biggest drop since last fall.

It's the latest in another round of disappointing numbers. Just a few weeks ago, new jobs came in "unexpectedly" low. And before that, GDP data disappointed.

Underperforming economic indicators have been so common under Obama that the only mystery is why the experts keep getting caught off guard.

In the case of the Consumer Confidence Index, the current number — bad as it is — doesn't even tell the whole story.

First, it's worth noting the index has fallen for three months. Even if it had hit forecasts, it would still be well below 90, which signals a healthy economy.

The current reading is worse when you realize that under President Bush — you know, the guy who Obama says ruined the economy — confidence averaged 88.

That's despite two recessions, a terrorist massacre and two long wars. Throughout Obama's "recovery," the index has averaged 57.

Those that believed Obama's pretty promises of hope and change probably didn't expect this is what he meant by "change", but there you have it.

'Ignorance, Lack of Knowledge' Leads Obama To Offensive Mistake He Now Will Apologize To Poland For

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Wed, 30 May 2012 16:03:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

ABC News explains the mistake:

Poles and Polish-Americans expressed outrage today at President Obama’s reference earlier to “a Polish death camp” — as opposed to a Nazi death camp in German-occupied Poland.

“The White House will apologize for this outrageous error,” Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski tweeted. Sikorski said that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk “will make a statement in the morning. It’s a pity that this important ceremony was upstaged by ignorance and incompetence.”

The president had been trying to honor a famous Pole, awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom to Jan Karski, a resistance fighter who sneaked behind enemy lines to bear witness to the atrocities being committed against Jews. President Obama referred to him being smuggled “into the Warsaw ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.”

Sikorski also tonight tweeted a link to an Economist story noting that “few things annoy Poles more than being blamed for the crimes committed by the Nazi occupiers of their homeland. For many years, Polish media, diplomats and politicians have tried to persuade outsiders to stop using the phrase ‘Polish death camps’ as a shorthand description of Auschwitz and other exemplars of Nazi brutality and mass murder. Unfortunately this seems to have escaped Barack Obama’s staff seem not to have noticed this.”

The prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, demanded an immediate explanation and said "We always react in the same way to ignorance, lack of knowledge and ill will which lead to the distortion of history. Such phrases are especially painful for Poland - Europe’s most affected country by World War II ." (PM's site- source for quote)

Full statement below:

The words uttered yesterday by the President of the United States Barack Obama concerning “Polish death camps” touched all Poles. We always react in the same way when ignorance, lack of knowledge, bad intentions lead to such a distortion of history, so painful for us here in Poland, in a country which suffered like no other in Europe during World War II.

For Poland and for our country, but also for all our fellow citizens, this is something that we cannot ignore. Here, in Poland, we cannot accept such words even if they are spoken by the leader of a friendly power - or perhaps especially in such situations - since we expect diligence, care, and respect from our friends on issues of such importance as World War II remembrance. In Polish-American relations, in friendly relations, respect vis-à-vis the smaller partner should be the most recognizable sign of such relations.

But this is not only an issue of justified sensitivity when it comes to Nazi German concentration camps which were placed on Polish soil in order to murder Jews, but also Poles and other nations. Today this is first and foremost the problem of America’s reputation. We expect Americans to become involved - in particular in relation to this statement - in our efforts, in our measures which will enable us to eliminate, once and for all, these false phrasings, so immensely unfair for Poland.

Perhaps this is paradoxically a very good occasion for the U.S. administration, for Americans, and for the President of the United States to support Poland in its efforts towards historical truth, towards the correct phrasings, the right assessment of what happened during World War II on Polish territory and throughout Europe. This is also important for the United States, since American soldiers, too, died during World War II. If these were “Polish death camps,” then at whose hands did American soldiers die? If these were “Polish death camps,” then from whose hands did the uncle of the President of the United States liberate the Buchenwald concentration camp? When someone says “Polish death camps,” it is as if there were no Nazis, no German responsibility, as if there was no Hitler - that is why our Polish sensitivity in these situations is so much more than just simply a feeling of national pride.

This truth about World War II is important and must also have importance for every other nation. I am convinced that today, our American friends are capable of a stronger reaction - a clearer one, and one which perhaps eliminates, once and for all, these types of mistakes - than just the correction itself and the regret which we heard from the White House spokesperson. We take note of these words, but it seems that it would be even more important for the United States than for Poland to end this with class. That is how one acts with regard to tried-and-tested friends, but this is also how one acts in your own, well-defined interest. I believe our allies are capable of such behaviour. Thank you very much.

Reaction, via Twitter, videos from Polish news and more, over at Buzz Feed.

Offering Obama's regrets National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement "We regret this misstatement, which should not detract from the clear intention to honor Mr. Karski and those brave citizens who stood on the side of human dignity in the face of tyranny."

It was an amateurish, ignorant and no one is suggesting Obama intended to insult and offend 38 million Poles, nevertheless, a simple statement by his spokesman will not suffice to repair the damage Obama's ignorance has caused with a country allied with the U.S.

Democrats' Legislative Snuff Film

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Wed, 30 May 2012 14:52:00 +0000

By Guest Writer, Greg Lewis

Given what used to be called the unintended consequences of so many Democratic legislative initiatives, we have to ask if in fact it might be Democrats' intention to kill as many Americans as they can through “legal” means. You know, American car manufacturers create new models of very light automobiles to satisfy congressionally mandated CAFE mileage standards and kill tens of thousands of Americans who bought these automotive equivalents of ultra-light aircraft and discovered the hard way that they provide no protection at all in a crash. Leftist legislation has essentially legalized murder in so many cases that you have to wonder if they're not surreptitiously carrying out the homicidal intent of their ideological forbears, tyrants like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

In fact, so determined have those on the left been to kill off as many Americans as they can that watching the consequences of the Democratic Party's legislative initiatives unfold over the past several decades has been a lot like watching a snuff film in Super Slow Motion. If you were to play back this movie at full speed, you'd see tens of thousands of quick cuts to the drivers of tiny cars weighing less than 2,000 pounds being pulled lifeless from their ultra-light automobiles after they'd been crushed in highway accidents with normal sized autos.

These images would be intercut with shots of hospital operating rooms where fetus after fetus was delivered lifeless after abortions. As our film approached the present time, we would see more and more shots of third trimester babies being aborted, with some of them surviving and being discarded to die alone. In states such as Illinois, it was until recently against the law to provide medical assistance to a viable baby who survived an abortion. The scenes described by nurses present at late term abortions which babies survived are heart-wrenching: the tiniest of infants abandoned in hospital laundry rooms to die alone, or the nurses themselves, unable to bear the thought of leaving the babies, swaddling them and comforting them by holding them in their arms as the helpless children died.

If we fast forward to a future in which the consequences of Obama's health care legislation are being realized, we see millions of our nation's elderly denied the end-of-life care -- care that America's doctors and the patients' families have always worked so diligently to provide -- because decisions about which treatments they can receive have been delegated to bureaucratic stooges who now stand between patient and physician. Oh, sure, Democrats screamed bloody murder when Sarah Palin referred to the “death panels” spelled out in their health care legislation. But the fact is that from Roe v. Wade to CAFE standards legislation to laws giving support for late term and live birth abortions to ObamaCare, the Democrats have shouted from the rooftops that they're the party of death. Millions of lives -- some 50 million to abortions alone -- have been lost unnecessarily because of leftist legislative initiatives.

To this point: Not only did President Obama sign an order providing federal funds to support research using embryonic stem cells, he withdrew federal funds from adult stem cell research, the only form of such research that has produced successful results and the only form of such research that doesn't kill a viable embryo. Plainly put, as he had in supporting legislation in the state of Illinois that required that infants who survived late term abortions not be kept alive but be abandoned and left to die, Obama has once again come out in support of unnecessary death.

Of course, we don't see all of these legislatively-mandated deaths in one sitting. They happen over time, and we become gradually inured to the idea that bad laws produce cruel and inhuman results. We lose sight of the fact that the ideology that informs the Democrats' political philosophy kills people, that focusing on such things as trying to reduce the amount of carbon we release in the atmosphere so we can “save our planet” means, not only are we pursuing an absurd and scientifically unsupportable agenda, we're causing conscientious people who have the misfortune to believe the lies and disinformation the left spreads to support its “causes” to put themselves at risk.

In warfare it's called “collateral damage,” and it's something Democrats won't tolerate on the battlefield. In order to reduce it, they're willing to tie the hands of our military and put our troops in harm's way to a greater degree than necessary in order to prevent deaths of our enemies in the countries in which we're fighting. In Afghanistan, for instance, Obama's new rules-of-engagement policy has translated into requiring that our troops only fire at enemy combatants who have weapons in their hands. This meant, in the liberation of Marjah, that Taliban soldiers would fire from within buildings at our troops, then put down their weapons and walk out casually. Our troops had to stand by, knowing they were restrained from killing someone who, moments earlier, had been trying to kill them.

We need to understand that, for Democrats, these are intended consequences, something they are unwilling to acknowledge, certainly not to correct. From Barack Obama on down, the death of innocents is the desired outcome of many Democratic legislative and policy initiatives.

The Democrats are the party of death, and the blood of deceived Americans is on the hands of a president and complicit lawmakers who are, at bottom, the executive producers of America's legislative snuff film

Greg Lewis Ph.D. is the author of The Politics of Anger, which systematically lays out the communist/socialist foundations of the liberal political agenda by examining the important writings of leftist thinkers of the past 75 years.

Lewis also co-authored "End Your Addiction Now : The Proven Nutritional Supplement Program That Can Set You Free."Greg Lewis.org

© 2012 by Greg Lewis
First Rights Only
Glewis9000@aol.com

Conservative Blogger Arrested For Blogging Or Taking Kimberlin’s iPad? Update: Incitement

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Tue, 29 May 2012 17:32:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

[Update- 5/30/12] Finally a little clarification from those more familiar with legal issues and what went on yesterday which led to the arrest of Aaron Walker because of a "technologically illiterate" Maryland judge who violated Mr. Walker's First Amendment rights.

David Hogberg at IBD and Patterico's Pontifications both have excellent analysis, explaining what happened yesterday.

Discussions: protein wisdom, Dedicated Tenther, Villainous Company, LEE STRANAHAN dot COM, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Cold Fury, Truth Before Dishonor, That Innocuous Girl, The Volokh Conspiracy, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, National Review, hogewash, OpenMarket.org, The Daley Gator, Pink Flamingo Bar, TheBlaze.com, Datechguy's Blog, American Power, Examiner, The Lonely Conservative, Atlas Shrugs, Instapundit, SOOPERMEXICAN, Michelle Malkin and Nice Deb

Patterico's Pontifications, Flap's Blog, Simple Justice, LEE STRANAHAN dot COM, EBL, Sister Toldjah, The Other McCain, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Munsey's Technosnarl, American Glob, Truth Before Dishonor, Conservative Commune, The Jawa Report, hogewash, Popehat, American Power, The Camp Of The Saints and Thoughts and Rantings

Original post below-

(Headline changed to reflect The Blaze's report)

McCain- UPDATE 6:25 p.m. ET: Sources say that blogger Aaron Walker has been released from custody in Rockville, Maryland. He was charged with “incitement,” but released on his own recognizance. Readers are encouraged to donate to the National Bloggers Club to help support Aaron’s defense against Brett Kimberlin.

Updated thought- Blogging the facts about a convicted terrorist and his harassment of bloggers is now considered incitement? Bad precedent and no question this will be appealed and overturned when a judge who actually understands what blogging and social media actually is.

[Update] The Blaze spoke to a clerk at the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County who confirmed that Aaron Walker was in fact arrested following his hearing with Brett Kimberlin. He was arrested on second degree assault charges that were filed by Kimberlin when Walker, following a separate court hearing, took and held at bay Kimberlin’s iPad.
(Note- The Blaze said clerk was wrong and offers a correction- "The clerk’s account turned out to be incorrect, however, as the incitement charge indicates.")

If this was meant to intimidate bloggers from talking about Kimberlin... FAIL.

From a previous post, I repeat- ABC News, where are you? CBS News, where are you? NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Fox..... where the hell are you guys?

Friday, May 25, 2012, hundreds of conservative bloggers united together in defense of free speech and wrote about convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, better known as the "Speedway Bomber". A crime he was convicted and sentenced for.

Wake up America wrote about it here, here and participated in Friday's blogburst here.

In a travesty of justice, conservative blogger Aaron Worthing, who was one of many who Kimberlin has attempted to silence by filing lawsuit after lawsuit, over 100 of them, against people that wrote about his conviction and history, was arrested for "violating a peace order" by writing about Kimberlin.

Michelle Malkin's Twitchy has the story.

Malkin: In the meantime, read about what you can do to support those who have been targeted by Brett Kimberlin and to fight back against intimidation.

Robert Stacy McCain, still reporting from an undisclosed location after having to leave his home after feeling threatened by Kimberlin is updating his report on thie as the day goes on, so keep checking there. McCain urges readers to " please see my column today at The American Spectator, to catch up on the whole situation.

Reactions are starting to com in over at Memeorandum:

So far The Jawa Report, The Gateway Pundit, Nice Deb, The Spectacle Blog, Dedicated Tenther, Bob Owens, Wake up America, Truth Before Dishonor, Popehat, The Mahablog, PJ Media, Capitalist Preservation, The PJ Tatler, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, WorldNetDaily, FilmLadd Blogs, That Mr. G Guy's Blog and Instapundit

Twitchy thread now: Michelle Malkin, American Spectator, Allergic to Bull, Truth Before Dishonor and The Daley Gator

(List above and Memeorandum link being updated also as more reactions come out.)

SooperMexican was in the court room and offers a summary of what happened.

Twitter hashtags #IStandwithAaronWalker, #BrettKimberlin, #speedwaybomber

Reactions being added throughout the day as well.

Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at The Jawa Report says "I certainly hope something else is going on here. That Aaron Walker did something outrageous at the hearing that merited some jail time. Because if his only "crime" is one of writing about a domestic terrorist with an affinity for filing lawsuit after lawsuit, then I'm afraid that the Brave New World we are living in is not one I feel particularly safe in."

Perhaps now the mainstream media will deign to do their jobs and research and report on Kimberlin. (Google News search- Nope, not yet)

[Update] Via Twitchy updates- linked above:

The Aaron Walker arrest is a violation of his first amendment rights. He isn't accused of making death threats himself against Kimberlin.
— Lee Stranahan (@Stranahan) May 29, 2012

Update from McCain- linked above:

UPDATE IV: Just spoke to a source who confirms that witnesses saw Walker led out of the courtroom in handcuffs. Ali Akbar, president of the National Bloggers Club, Tweets:

Will know more on Aaron’s situation at 3:30/4:30pm.

The National Bloggers Club has created KimberlinFiles.org to help call attention to the case and to enable “supporters to make financial donations to a relief fund as a show of support.”

– Robert Stacy McCain, Whereabouts Unknown

Bob Owens- linked above:

Judge Vaughey’s order makes the finding:

A.1. That there is clear and convincing evidence that within 30 days before the filing of the Petition, the Respondent committed the following act(s):

Placed Person Eligible for releif in fear of imminent serious bodily harm: COUNTLESS NUMBER OF BLOGS EITHER THREATENING DEATH

2. That there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is likely to commit a prohibited act in the future against the Petitioner.
I’m quite convinced that the senior citizen judge is hopelessly confused about what blogs are, as Walker has never posted anything to his blog that I’ve found that could be remotely construed as a death threat.

At the very most, blog commenters– and perhaps on a different blogs apart from Walker’s if the judge’s incomplete sentence fragment makes any sense at all–may have made comments, but the law is clear: you cannot be held responsible for comments made by others.

To a layman this is an absurd ruling, and I hope that Walker appeals this peace order and gets a judge under the age of 70 who knows what the Hell the relevant case law is.

That Mr. G Guy- linked above:

Kimberlin is going to be much bolder now that he has this small victory under his belt. He just needs to remember that a small victory doesn’t mean he’s won the war…and believe me, it’s war and it’s on now.

Yes, it is.

Thoughts and Rantings sums it up nicely in just three words "This is nuts".

Excellent piece on the legal issues at OpenMarget.org.

Media reporting- Examiner. Silence from other media outlets.

Eugene Robinson, May I introduce You To Glenn Kessler. BTW, You Both Work For The Same Paper

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Tue, 29 May 2012 17:00:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

One would think the two men, Eugene Robinson and Glenn Kessler would know of each other, they both write for the same newspaper, Washington Post...... obviously one would be wrong.

Friday, May 25, 2012, Glenn Kessler, who writes for Washington Post's The Fact Checker, took Jay Carney to task for relying on a analysis from Market Watch, which claimed Barack Obama was not a big spender, did not go on a spending binge over the last three and half years, by providing evidence to the contrary and showing how Obama did, indeed, spend taxpayer money like a drunken sailor.

Kessler gave Carney three Pinocchios and said Carney "should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so."

Kessler's findings were confirmed by other fact checkers, like the Associated Press, as was discussed here at Wake up America, on May 26, 2012.

Three days later, plenty of time for an op-ed writer from the very same newspaper to...um.... read his own paper, Eugene Robinson fails to do so, and writes a column accusing Mitt Romney of distorting the truth of Obama's spending and Robinson uses the analysis from the very same source that Kessler and the AP already discredited three days before.

Maybe the Washington Post should have a meet-n-greet or something, introduce these two gentlemen, because had they done so, Robinson and Washington Post wouldn't have egg on their face today.

[Update] Hot Air points out the very same thing but points us to ABC News' Jake Tapper, who acknowledges that Obama's campaign is citing an item that "several fact checkers," have already found to be "severely flawed."

Videos- Obama's Gambling Problem: His Stimulus Package Used Taxpayer's Money For Bad Bets

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Tue, 29 May 2012 16:21:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

Lately we have seen a number of attacks from Barack Obama on private equity firms because they take risks with the intention of making their investors money, but the only difference between what Obama did with his Stimulus One package and what private equity firms do, is that the private ones have investors that willingly invest in the company, using their own money, taking a risk that the firm will invest wisely and earn them more money and Obama has used taxpayer's money, with taxpayers having no choice or voice.

American Crossroads and the Mitt Romney campaign have both walked into the wide open door that Obama opened for them and are pointing out Obama's record of gambling with voter's money.

Romney's web ad points out that $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers. The ad also lists how much of that money were bad bets with companies like Solyndra which failed.

[WATCH: Not Even Half ]- Transcript below the below the video

Obama is spending your tax dollars to create jobs. How’s he doing?

You’ve heard of Solyndra. They took $535 million in taxpayer loan guarantees and went bankrupt. But that’s not even half the story.

Obama’s Department of Energy has handed out billions of dollars in loans and grants.

First Solar: Three billion dollars in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Now they’re cutting jobs and their stock is near all-time lows.

ECOtality: Received $126 million in taxpayer money. Lost $45 million, and currently under investigation.

SunPower: More than a billion dollars in loan guarantees. Lost half a billion last year. Laying off workers.

More than $16 billion have gone to companies like Solyndra that are linked to big Obama and Democrat donors. The inspector general said contracts were steered to ‘friends and family.’ Obama is giving taxpayer money to big donors. And then watching them lose it. Good for them. Bad for us.”

The next one is from American Crossroads called "Public Equity":

[WATCH]

Narrator:

Obama’s attacking private equity. But what’s his record on PUBLIC equity investing? …

Obama invested our tax dollars in Solyndra. Lost half a billion. …

Failed investment strategies. Jobs eliminated. Millions lost.

PUBLIC equity President Obama played Wall Street games with OUR money.”

Interspersed with narrators words are clips of Obama's public speeches.

Private equity investors have a choice, they can invest or they can make money elsewhere, Barack Obama uses money from American families that had no choice about how their money was being gambled away.

Obama talks about fairness to all, redistribution of wealth by taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, yet his actions have taken money from middle class families and put it into the pockets of his rich donors.

Who Will Be President in 2013?

noreply@blogger.com (gemimail) — Tue, 29 May 2012 02:02:00 +0000

Cross posted from Marston Chronicles

This is a rewrite of our original article that appeared on February 11th now that we know that the candidates will be Obama and Romney. The obvious answer to the question of who will win is that it depends upon what happens between now and then. As the 2000 presidential election reminded us, it is all about electoral votes. The electoral votes have changed since 2000 thanks to the 2010 census which transferred electoral votes from blue states to red states on the whole making it easier for a Republican to win.

First you need to forget just about everything you think you know about winning a presidential election because it is a whole new ballgame as a result of the change in electoral votes and therefore which states are battleground states. The answer to which party will control the White House comes down to a mere handful of states. You can forget about polling nationwide for which party will win the Presidency in 2012 because you only need to poll the new battleground states to know the answer.

Let's begin by looking at the revised electoral vote picture for the 2012 election. In the original article, this table was ordered using the 2000 to 2008 average but now it is a matter of how many states Obama will lose in 2012 compared to 2008, if any. Thus this table is now ordered by the 2008 results:

**Presidential Elections in a Nutshell**
Party	State	2008 Margin	2004 Margin	2000 Margin	00-08 Margin	2012 Votes	Party Totals
D	District of Columbia	85.74%	79.84%	76.21%	80.59%	3	3
D	Hawaii	45.26%	8.75%	18.33%	24.12%	4	7
D	Vermont	37.01%	20.14%	9.93%	22.36%	3	10
D	Rhode Island	27.85%	20.75%	29.10%	25.90%	4	14
D	New York	26.69%	18.29%	24.98%	23.32%	29	43
D	Massachusetts	25.81%	25.16%	27.30%	26.09%	11	54
D	Maryland	25.44%	12.98%	16.39%	18.27%	10	64
D	Illinois	25.10%	10.34%	12.02%	15.82%	20	84
D	Delaware	25.00%	7.60%	13.06%	15.22%	3	87
D	California	24.06%	9.94%	11.08%	15.27%	55	142
D	Connecticut	22.37%	10.36%	17.47%	16.73%	7	149
D	Maine	17.32%	8.99%	5.12%	10.48%	4	153
D	Washington	17.18%	7.18%	5.58%	9.98%	12	165
D	Michigan	16.47%	3.42%	5.13%	8.34%	16	181
D	Oregon	16.35%	4.16%	0.44%	6.98%	7	188
D	New Jersey	15.57%	6.68%	15.81%	12.69%	14	202
D	New Mexico	15.13%	0.79%	0.06%	4.80%	5	207
D	Wisconsin	13.90%	0.38%	0.22%	4.84%	10	217
D	Nevada	12.49%	2.59%	3.54%	2.12%	6	223
D	Pennsylvania	10.32%	2.50%	4.17%	5.66%	20	243
D	Minnesota	10.24%	3.48%	2.41%	5.38%	10	253
I	New Hampshire	9.61%	1.37%	1.27%	3.24%	4	257
I	Iowa	9.53%	0.67%	0.31%	3.06%	6	263
I	Colorado	8.95%	4.67%	8.36%	1.36%	9	272
I	Virginia	6.30%	8.20%	8.03%	3.31%	13	266
I	Ohio	4.54%	2.10%	3.51%	0.36%	18	253
I	Florida	2.82%	5.01%	0.01%	2.21%	29	235
R	Indiana	1.03%	20.68%	15.64%	11.76%	11	206
R	North Carolina	0.33%	12.44%	5.53%	5.88%	15	195
R	Missouri	0.13%	7.20%	3.34%	3.56%	10	180
R	Montana	2.26%	20.51%	25.08%	15.95%	3	170
R	Georgia	5.21%	16.60%	11.69%	11.17%	16	167
R	South Dakota	8.41%	21.47%	22.74%	17.54%	3	151
R	Arizona	8.52%	10.47%	6.29%	8.43%	11	148
R	North Dakota	8.63%	27.36%	27.60%	21.20%	3	137
R	South Carolina	8.98%	17.08%	15.94%	14.00%	9	134
R	Texas	11.77%	22.87%	21.32%	18.65%	38	125
R	West Virginia	13.12%	12.86%	6.33%	10.77%	5	87
R	Mississippi	13.17%	19.69%	16.92%	16.60%	6	82
R	Nebraska	14.93%	33.22%	29.00%	25.72%	5	76
R	Kansas	14.96%	25.38%	20.80%	20.83%	6	71
R	Tennessee	15.07%	14.27%	3.87%	11.07%	11	65
R	Kentucky	16.23%	19.86%	15.13%	17.07%	8	54
R	Louisiana	18.63%	14.50%	7.67%	13.60%	8	46
R	Arkansas	19.85%	9.76%	5.45%	11.69%	6	38
R	Alaska	21.54%	25.55%	30.95%	26.01%	3	32
R	Alabama	21.58%	25.62%	14.91%	20.70%	9	29
R	Idaho	25.43%	38.12%	39.53%	34.36%	4	20
R	Utah	28.18%	45.54%	40.49%	38.07%	6	16
R	Oklahoma	31.29%	31.14%	21.88%	28.11%	7	10
R	Wyoming	32.24%	39.79%	40.06%	37.36%	3	3

The first thing to notice is that even if Romney manages to take back North Carolina and Indiana which seems quite likely at this point, he only has 206 votes and he needs a minimum of 270. That means he MUST also carry the next three states that McCain lost, namely Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Even if does manage that feat, he still only has 266 votes as the right hand column shows. As a general rule, a party is highly unlikely to carry a state that they previously lost to the same opponent by more than a 10 point margin. While some optimistic Republicans still think that Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin and even New Mexico is in play, that is not what history tells us from previous election results. Perhaps the Scott Walker recall election will show that Wisconsin is in play but the odds still are not good.

The next consideration is that President Obama made deep inroads into the Republican states so we must ask if he can repeat this feat. Therefore we need to look at the states he won that he might not be able to carry in 2012. If he won by better than a 5% margin then those states are a real problem for the Republicans. Virginia and Colorado were lost by more than that. As you look at what states might make up for Virginia, you will see that all of the states that are blue in the last column were lost by a greater margin than Virginia so if Obama carries Virginia in 2012, he wins re-election. If he carries Colorado which he won by 8.95%, he must lose New Hampshire which he carried by 9.61% or Iowa which he carried by 9.54%. Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire will decide the election because the Republicans must carry either Colorado or either Iowa or New Hampshire in addition to Virginia.

It goes without saying that Romney must also carry the other four states the Republicans lost by less than 5%. Thus polling those eight states will tell you who will win in 2012. Romney must be ahead in five of them and ahead in either Colorado, Iowa or New Hampshire. So what do we know about Romney's chances in those eight states? Here is what the 2010 House races told us in those eight states plus the next four just to make sure we are not missing any bets:

State	2008 Margin	2010 House Margin	Average Margin
North Carolina	0.33%	14.44%	7.06%
Indiana	1.04%	28.20%	13.58%
Florida	2.81%	30.45%	13.82%
Ohio	4.54%	19.30%	7.38%
Virginia	6.30%	19.45%	6.58%
Colorado	8.95%	8.00%	0.48%
Iowa	9.54%	18.86%	4.66%
New Hampshire	9.61%	12.90%	1.65%
Minnesota	10.24%	2.65%	6.45%
Pennsylvania	10.32%	6.14%	2.09%
Nevada	12.50%	9.84%	2.66%
Wisconsin	13.91%	17.07%	3.16%
New Mexico	15.13%	2.50%	8.82%

If the voters repeat what they did in the 2010 House races, Obama is toast. Even if they wind up half way between what they did in 2008 and 2010, the Republicans win because they carry Iowa, New Hampshire and Wisconsin which more than makes up for losing Colorado. If you want to know which party will control the White House in 2013, poll Colorado. If Romney is ahead of Obama, the Republicans will win 2012. If Obama is ahead in Colorado, poll Iowa and New Hampshire. If Romney is ahead in either state, the Republicans will win but if Romney is behind in both states, Obama will win. For an even cheaper answer, just poll Wisconsin. If Romney is ahead, Obama is all through. Yes, it really is that simple.

That being the case let's see what Real Clear Pollitics average of likely voter polls tell us about the current situation in these swing states. I am only keeping the polls of likely voters in the RCP averages unless there are not any because turnout means everything in this election. Even polls of registered voters are not good enough because not all registered voters turn out and Republicans always turn out better than Democrats so registered voter polls invariably are biased towards Democrats. Needless to say, polls of all adults are worthless for political purposes. As you can see, Obama wins if the election were held today because he holds Ohio and Virgina even though he loses Iowa and Colorado is a total toss-up. Right now Romney needs to practically live in Ohio because without improving the situation there he is toast.

State	Obama	Romney	Margin
North Carolina	44.0%	47.7%	3.7%
Indiana	40%	49%	9%
Florida	46.0%	45.0%	1%
Ohio	47.5%	43.0%	4.5%
Virginia	46.0%	45.5%	0.5%
Colorado	47%	47%	Tie
Iowa	44%	46%	2%
New Hampshire	51%	42%	9%
Minnesota (RV only)	52%	38%	14%
Pennsylvania	47%	41%	6%
Nevada	52%	44%	8%
Wisconsin	48%	44.7%	3.3%
New Mexico	52%	36%	16%

Remembering SSG Cowdrey (Brian) in AFG

noreply@blogger.com (auntybrat) — Mon, 28 May 2012 23:24:00 +0000

By Auntybrat

Today being Memorial Day in America, it is really timely that in Afghanistan, my 'nephew' SSG Brian Cowdrey has been remembered as an American Hero at a ceremony held at FOB Fenty:

On Memorial day many people visit memorial sites and cemeteries to honor those who have died serving our great country. Today the Soldiers at Forward Operating Base Fenty, Afghanistan are honoring a fallen hero and dedicating a helicopter ramp in his memory.

82ND Combat Aviation Brigade... Video by Donna Davis.

ALWAYS remembered. ALWAYS honoured. ALWAYS Loved.

*Previous columns about Brian:

RIP SSG Robert B. Cowdrey

SSG Brian Cowdrey: "Who Shall I send?"

Music and Me: For Brian

Fighting for a Life; Fighting to Bring Home Every Body He Could

Memorial Day: Remember With Honor

noreply@blogger.com (auntybrat) — Mon, 28 May 2012 02:01:00 +0000

From Mike's Dad, Robert Stokely:

Memorial Day is a very special day. It was originally called Decoration Day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Day

It is a day we have the opportunity to stop, even for a brief moment, and Remember With Honor the 1,000,000 or so men and women who gave their lives on the field of battle to found, protect and preserve our freedoms and American way of life. A high price was paid by each one of these men and women.

Some gave their tomorrows for us to have a new today each and every day. To say they were all in is an understatement. Those who had no children committed the tomorrows of future unborn generations who will now never be born.

And their families have paid a never ending price as well. When I have been asked what I think the cost of Freedom is, I answer a lifetime of love, for that is what the Families of the Fallen bear each day as they remember the loved one they lost. Memorial Day is a day for happiness and celebration, and well we all should, for a high price was paid that we might do so in freedom and security from the enemies who would wipe us off the face of the earth, but for the 1,000,000 who have gave their lives for you and I.

Some ask me from time to time how to make it better for the Families of the Fallen. I don't think there is but one real way to make it better, but that is not going to happen for no person has the power to give us back the loved one we lost. But it is helpful, at least to me, to know that people care what my son, SGT Mike Stokely, gave America and I would suggest others who have lost someone in war would feel the same way.The best way in my eyes to show you care is to Make it Matter. Love America as much as the 1,000,000 have shown they loved America. Live life fully and enjoy the freedom that has been preserved for you. And, when you get an opportunity, even if it is only a small one, care about someone around you, whether a stranger, friend or family member and give a little of yourself to make it better for them. And on this Memorial Day, if only for a brief moment, Remember With Honor 1,000,000 and those yet to come, who have made the sacrifice of a Lifetime of Love. They have entrusted their forever to you.

Robert Stokely
proud dad SGT Mike Stokely
KIA 16 AUG 05 near Yusufiyah Iraq
USA E 108 CAV 48th Brigade Combat Team Georgia Army National Guard
DUTY HONOR COUNTRY

We are the Land of the Free, because of the Brave, who volunteer to defend all that the Star Spangled Banner represents.

Remember them ALL - and their families - with honour.

New Black Panther Party: 'Ballot' Or 'Bullet' As' Means Of Change'

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sun, 27 May 2012 22:57:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

The New Black Panther Party is completely out of control and one has to wonder why the Obama administration has not brought charges against them and why they dropped previous charges against the group.

Quick background via The Daily Caller:

Following Obama’s election the group was charged with voter intimidation when their members were seen standing outside a Philadelphia voting precinct dressed in paramilitary garb, one welding a nightstick in what a witness and former civil rights lawyer described as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I’ve ever seen.”

The Justice Department dismissed the intimidation charges against the group in 2009, a decision which lead to a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigation. Obama’s direct involvement in the case’s dismissal has been only been speculative.

The newspaper also contains articles about the Trayvon Martin case, blacks in science and updates on the group’s National Days of Action.

In late March the NBPP offered a $10,000 bounty for Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman. The group has been denounced by more mainstream civil rights groups and is often labeled a “fringe” organization.

Now, the news is a (NBPP) newspaper publication titled “The Ballot or The Bullet: which way for black people?”

The person they are complaining about this time... Obama:

“Mr. Obama’s policies have not corrected the economic troubles of America, they have gotten worse,” Kweli wrote. “The debt continues to expand [into the trillions], and the administration’s handling of international relations has hardened dialogue with foreign nations. Mr. Obama’s policies have been especially harsh to us the Black community. He [Obama] bailed out Wall Street and the auto makers but kept us at the top of the unemployment ladder.”

Key quote:

“Black America, you must decide who will best represent you in 2012. You must decide if you will choose the ballot as a means to change, or the bullet,” Shabazz wrote, adding that “demanding change does come by any means necessary.”

Read the whole thing over at The Daily Caller.

The Blaze

In a separate piece (”The Ballot or the Bullet: Which Way for Black People?”) meant to advance those ideas, NBPP leader Malik Zulu Shabazz recalls glowingly how “the Black Masses rejected the Ballot as the only option”:

History recalls that after Malcolm’s prophetic words, Black Power and Black Nationalism replaced civil rights as the primary vision and ideology of the people and they placed non-violence and all strategies designed to make the white people more comfortable on the sidelines.

Insurrections occurred in a domino effect; 1965 Watts blew up and later Newark and Detroit blew up and over 120 American cities became major battlegrounds for Black Resistance. Some battlegrounds were violent, some non violent, but nevertheless, we battled with a fighting spirit.

Every gain and concession that the Civil Rights Movement extracted; every job, and appointment, legislation was obtained via the duress, pressure and threat of an explod- ing radical Black Movement, foretold by Malcolm X [...] . [Emphasis added]
He goes on to lament that “In present-day, most of the authentic prescient voices have transitioned“ and been ”assassinated, sabotaged, imprisoned [or] intimidated to the point of fear.” And just guess who he says is the only consistent, strong voice: Louis Farrakhan.

Anyone remember this?

A Tacoma seventh grader faced federal interrogation at school for what he posted on his Facebook page. His mom said it all happened without her knowledge or permission.

Timi Robertson said she had just finished lunch with a friend Friday when she got a phone call from her son's school.

"I answered it, and it's the school security guard who's giving me a heads up that the Secret Service is here with the Tacoma Police Department and they have Vito and they're talking to him," Robertson said.

After Osama bin Laden was killed, 13-year-old Vito LaPinta posted an update to his Facebook status that got the Feds attention.

"I was saying how Osama was dead and for Obama to be careful because there could be suicide bombers," says LaPinta.

A week later, while Vito was in his fourth period class, he was called in to the principal's office.

"A man walked in with a suit and glasses and he said he was part of the Secret Service," LaPinta said. "He told me it was because of a post I made that indicated I was a threat toward the President."

The Tacoma school district acknowledged a Secret Service agent questioned Vito and that it was a security guard who called Vito's mom because the principal was on another call. The school district said they didn’t wait for Vito’s mother to get there because they thought she didn't take the phone call seriously.

"That's a blatant lie," Robertson said.

The teen’s mom says she rushed to Truman Middle School immediately and arrived to discover her son had already been questioned for half an hour.

"I just about lost it," she said. "My 13 year-old son is supposed to be safe and secure in his classroom and he's being interrogated without my knowledge or consent privately."

Will the Secret Service take the NBPP threat as seriously as they took a good faith warning, by a child, towards Obama, and interrogate this group for inciting violence?

New Black Panther Party Spring Newspaper

(Changes have been made to this post)

Laughable Liberals Still Attempting To Intimidate The Supreme Court

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sun, 27 May 2012 17:40:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

Some quotes from George Will on Liberals attempting to put "the squeeze" on Chief Justice John Roberts.

Concluding that Kennedy might be disposed to overturn the mandate, some Obamacare defenders decided that Roberts’s vote will be decisive. They hope to secure it by causing Roberts to worry about his reputation and that of his institution.

Recently, for example, Vermont’s Pat Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, delivered a Senate speech defending the constitutionality of what he calls the “personal responsibility requirement.” (This is his Orwellian appellation for the mandate, whereby government coercion nullifies personal choice regarding insurance.) After 37 years in the Senate, Leahy probably no longer knows when he sounds insufferably patronizing, as he did when he said that during oral argument he thought that Roberts “seemed well aware of the significance of [the Obamacare] decision.” And “I thought I saw a chief justice who understands the importance of this case to all Americans.” And Roberts “seemed to understand” the deference owed to Congress.

Will concludes:

Leahy tutored Roberts about “appropriate deference” to “the elected branch,” vacuously admonished him to be “a chief justice for all of us” and absurdly asserted that the mandate is “consistent with the understanding of the Constitution” that “the American people have had for the better part of a century.”Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington Law School, writing in the New Republic, topped Leahy’s rhetorical extravagance by saying this is Roberts’s “moment of truth” because, if the court overturns Obamacare 5 to 4, Roberts’s “stated goal of presiding over a less divisive court will be viewed as an irredeemable failure.”

Oh? Viewed by whom? Perhaps by people who consider it “ideological” and somehow reprehensible that in the last full term, Justices Roberts and Sam Alito voted together 96 percent of the time, but who consider it principled and admirable that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan voted together 94 percent of the time. Like-minded justices agree. So?

Why, exactly, would it be less “divisive” for the court to uphold the broadly disliked Obamacare 5 to 4 than to overturn it 5 to 4? But whether Obamacare is liked or detested is entirely irrelevant. The public’s durable deference toward the Supreme Court derives from the public’s recognition that the court is deferential not to Congress but to the Constitution.

Concerning which, it is cheeky of Rosen, a liberal, to lecture Roberts about jurisprudential conservatism, which Rosen says requires “restraint,” meaning deference to congressional liberalism. Such clumsy attempts to bend the chief justice are apt to reveal his spine of steel.

After the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the individual mandate, many were left with the feeling that the Supreme Court wasn't buying the Obama's administration's arguments.

Obama attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court first, polls finding that majority of Americans agree with the assessment that Obama's public words were an attempt to intimidate. Then the Obama administration continued with their intimidation campaign by threatening "Medicare reductions" if the High Court overturns Obamacare.

The Supreme Court ruling on the individual mandate's constitutionality is expected some time in June.

No one knows how the Supreme Court is going to finally rule, but the good thing about the Supreme Court is strong arm tactics like the liberals are attempting do not work as well on positions that are lifetime appointments, so judiciaries can be left to do their business with no threat of losing their jobs, therefore they cannot be intimidated.

Progressives Keeping It Classy With Death Threats

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sun, 27 May 2012 17:06:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

American Power:

I called out commenter "Ten Bears" for his genuinely asinine defense of Elizabeth Warren's alleged Cherokee ancestry. After a couple of iterations with Steve M. --- and after I linked the video of Michelle Obama boasting of Barack's "Kenyan birth" in 2007 --- I get threatened with death. Here's the key comments at the thread.

'Nuff said.

RNC Video- Obama's 'Worst Week Ever?"

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sun, 27 May 2012 16:50:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

RNC- The Republican National Committee (RNC) is out with a new web video "Worst Week Ever?" that summarizes a rough week for President Obama's reelection. After doubling-down on attacking the free market and Mitt Romney's business record, Barack Obama and his campaign team hit a brick wall when Democrat after Democrat started coming out against their tactics. He also found out on Tuesday that "uncommitted" can be a tough primary challenger. President Obama had a bad case of the Mondays-every day this week.

[WATCH]

To Answer Bill Maher's Question Of What Obama Has Done To Make Conservatives Angry

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sun, 27 May 2012 15:59:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

MediaIte highlights Bill Maher asking "What Exactly Has Obama Done That Has Made Conservatives So Angry?" (Video of Maher's little rant, chalk full of lies, will be below the post.)

Let's start with a chart Bill Maher holds up supposedly proving Barack Obama has spent less that other presidents, a claim which has already been fact checked by both Washington Post and Associated Press and found to be false.

Then Maher claims taxes have been lowered since Obama took office, again, false. 21 tax hikes were signed into law with Obamacare alone and that just one of three "waves" coming at Americans.

As the nonpartisan Americans for Tax Reform puts it, "There are three great waves of tax increases threatening families and small employers in January 2013. On top of rising income tax rates, four additional Obamacare tax hikes will kick into full gear."

According to ATR the first involves the expiration of the temporary tax relief Congress put in place in 2001 and 2003 leading to an increase in marginal income tax rates for all Americans who pay income taxes and for many small businesses:

The 10 percent bracket rises to a new and expanded 15 percent

The 25 percent bracket rises to 28 percent

The 28 percent bracket rises to 31 percent

The 33 percent bracket rises to 36 percent

The 35 percent bracket rises to 39.6 percent

These will be accompanied by higher taxes on married couples and families, an increase in the federal death tax and higher taxes on savings and investments as the capital gains and dividends taxes—which are both taxes paid on money that has already been taxed once—also increase.

The second wave, ATR says, involves the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, some of which have already gone into effect like the "tanning tax."

The third wave will be an explosion in the number of Americans hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax, which may go as high as 28.5 million from the current 4 million as well as higher taxes on the U.S. business sector that is still struggle to get up off the mat.

There goes Maher's first talking points and irrefutable proof that comedians should stay out of politics because they themselves become the joke.

Now, to address Maher's question.

First it is not just conservatives that are angry Mr. Maher, if you look at the overwhelming majorities that say they disapprove of Obama's performance with his handling of the economy, job creation, and unprecedented increase of debt and deficit, you will see that moderates, Independents and conservatives are unhappy with Obama and yes, some quite angry.

Only the 20 percent of economic total liberals and 28 percent of the social total liberals are content with Obama.

Maher says he is extremely unhappy with Obama, yet he gave $1 million to a pro-Obama superPAC.... if only someone was that unhappy with me..... but I digress.

The "anger" stems from Obama officials, specifically his former economic advisers that assured Americans that if Obama could just spend over $7 billion taxpayer dollars (which later the CBO said was over $8 billion) on his economic stimulus plan, that unemployment would never rise above 8 percent.

It has stayed above 8 percent ever since the passage of the stimulus plan.

Obama has violated Americans constitutional rights with the individual mandate, even a majority of Democrats that support the Obamacare bill, believe it is unconstitutional.That case is being decided by the Supreme Court, the ruling expected in June.

Obama has attacked religious institutes with the HHS mandate that would require them to provide access to healthcare that covers sterilization procedures and abortion-inducing drugs. 43 religious institutes are now suing the Obama administration for violating religious freedom.

Obama has rejected and lobbied against the KeyStone Pipeline which had considerable bipartisan support and is backed by the majority.

Obama has attacked states for daring to pass laws to protect their border and address the illegal immigration problem, instigating lawsuits against them, which are now being decided in the Supreme Court.

Obama has instigated a class warfare campaign from his first year in office which has torn apart a country he swore to unite.

Obama has instituted an annual $46 billion in regulations that have harmed job creation, businesses, consumers and the economy.

In just three years, Obama has raised the deficit more than any president in history, after campaigning in 2008 and saying that Bush's deficit increase of $4 trillion over 8 years was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic."

Obama has lied to Americans over and over again. PolitiFact has three pages of totally false claims and/or statements, three pages of mostly false claims and/or statements and five pants on fire false claims and/or statements.

Contrary to your silly assertions Mr. Maher, not one of those reasons have a damn thing to do with Obama being "black." As a technical point Bill, if you are going to harp on race, then perhaps you should describe him more accurately since technically he is biracial.

The rest of us will stick to his agenda, his record over the last three years, his broken promises and his economic failures.

Video of Maher's lies below.

Video Update- Laugh Of The Day: Porn Star RE: Bill Clinton "I hope this doesn’t hurt his reelection'

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sat, 26 May 2012 19:04:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

I have been told I have a sick sense of humor, and that may be true, so my hysterical laughter at this quote from porn star, Tasha Reign, about Bill Clinton after TMZ reported about a picture of her and another porn star with Bill Clinton, can be chalked up to my twisted sense of humor.

Tasha Reign, the porn star on Clinton’s other arm, added that he did not inquire about their professions.

“We feel sympathetic for Bill and I hope this doesn’t hurt his reelection or whatever he’s trying to run for,” she said.

Chalk this up to Bloody Mary Saturday for me, or just weekend entertainment, but that right there is funny.

From TMZ's original article:

Bill Clinton just out-Clinton'd himself -- posing with two famous porn stars in Monaco moments ago ... and one of them's a real up-and-comer.

Clinton's in a Monte Carlo casino right now for a special "Nights in Monaco" gala event -- and several celebrities are in attendance ... including Diane Kruger, Joshua Jackson ... and a BUNCH OF PORN STARS.

The two porn stars on Bill's arms are Tasha Reign (left) and Brooklyn Lee -- AVN's "Best New Starlet" in porn.

Brooklyn -- who just posted the pic on her Twitter account -- also just won the award for "Best Sex Scene" in "Mission Asspossible." As for Tasha's film credits ... those include "Baby Got Boobs 8" and "Farm Girls Gone Bad."

Our guess -- Bill did not have sexual relations with these women.

What it IS Bill ...

Still laughing......

Laughing harder!!!!

[Update] ABC News:

“It was brief–he’s really, really sweet. I just told him that I loved him, I thought he was a great president, and he just kind of winked and smiled and gave us hugs,” Lee said, describing Clinton as “very sweet and cool about the whole thing.”

The two were uncertain, but hopeful, that Clinton knew who they were–or at least their occupation.

“I kind of feel like he knows,” Lee said. “We hope he likes us and we hope he likes to watch our movies.” Reign concurred: “I have a feeling that everyone watches adult entertainment.”

Reign, who said the actresses “feel sympathetic for Bill” after realizing the media splash their photo had made, seemed to think that Clinton is looking pretty good, now that his burger days are over. “Bill Clinton is super hot,” she told TMZ. “He was in great shape.”

Okay, I have to stop now, I am laughing myself into a headache.

Barack Obama 1996: Proud To Be A Socialist

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sat, 26 May 2012 18:28:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

Buzz Feed dug up a flier from 1996, when Barack Obama was touting wealth "redistribution" and was proud to be considered a socialist.

Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit asks "Can we call him a socialist now???"

Yes Mr. Hoft, we can.. if he was proud enough of his socialist credentials in 1996 to appear as a panelist as for the "Democratic Socialists of America", then he should be just as honest and forthcoming of his socialist credentials now.

The better question, no disrespect at all intended toward Mr. Hoft, would be, why in the hell didn't the mainstream media in 2008 do their due diligence and tell American voters back then that the Senator of Illinois, Barack Obama, who wanted to become president of the United States of America, a CAPITALIST country, was a Socialist and proud of it?

The Barack Obama vetting process should have been done in 2008.

Better late than never I guess.

Two Gallup Charts Show Why Barack Obama May Be Doomed To One Term

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sat, 26 May 2012 17:46:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

Yesterday Gallup published a report which includes two charts that may show why Barack Obama could be doomed in his reelection campaign.

Over twice as many people self identify as economically "total conservative" as they do economically "total liberal". 46 to 20 percent.

10 percent more consider themselves social total conservatives than they do social total liberals. 38 to 28 percent.

In February 2012, Gallup found that a majority, 51 percent, thought Barack Obama was "too liberal" compared to only 37 percent thinking so in 2008.

The implications, via Gallup, from yesterday's release:

More Americans identify as economic conservatives than as social conservatives or conservatives in general. And that tendency has increased in the last four years, perhaps due to President Obama's economic agenda. This suggests that a conservative economic message from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney may resonate with voters this year.

Americans are also more likely to say they are conservative than liberal or moderate on social issues, underscoring the conclusion that the conservative label has more appeal in the United States today than either the moderate or the liberal label.

Yesterday I said :

Jack Kelly at RCP:

Adjectives frequently applied to Mr. Obama are "smart" (278 million hits on Google), "intelligent" (62 million) and "brilliant" (24 million).

For a man described as "smart," brilliant" and "intelligent" by so many of his supporters, Obama certainly is campaigning dumb.

Let me expand.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama needs his liberal base in the upcoming presidential election.

With that said.....

In playing to that liberal base with recent actions, like rejecting KeyStone, his gay-marriage announcement which the majority considered more political expediency than policy, the contraception mandate which many see as an attack against Religious freedoms, his defense of the individual mandate which is part of Obamacare, but which even those in favor Obamacare, see as a violation of their constitutional rights, his push for a Stimulus 2, Obama is is playing to that liberal base at the expense of the moderate and rapidly growing economically and socially conservative voters.

To put it as simply as possible, with a majority already seeing Barack Obama as "too liberal", in order to cement the 20 percent of the economically liberal voters and the 28 percent of the socially liberal voters, he is moving farther to the left and is alienating 78 percent of the economically conservative and moderate voters and alienating the 69 percent of the socially conservative and moderate voters.

Simple math tells you that is a massive net loss.

As I said yesterday, Obama is campaigning dumb.

Barack Obama- The Big Spender

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Sat, 26 May 2012 16:28:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

When MarketWatch writer Rex Nutting wrote an article titled "Obama spending binge never happened," liberals jumped all over it as proof that Obama was not a big spender. White House spokeman Jay Carney also encouraged people to "check it out" and Washington Post's The Fact Checker decided to do just that.

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney.

In fact, that fact checking piece gave Carney three Pinocchios.

The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

So this is what we end up with:

2008: $2.98 trillion
2009: $3.27 trillion
2010: $3.46 trillion
2011: $3.60 trillion
2012: $3.65 trillion
2013: $3.72 trillion

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

The bottom line:

Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.

The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used.

H/T Hot Air.

A little hint for Carney, liberals and the Obama reelection campaign team. When encouraging people to check things out and research the facts, expect that someone might just do so.

[Update] Wapo's The Fact Checker is not the only one that has done the due diligence that liberals and Carney did not bother doing on the MarketWatch article.

The AP Fact Check finds "Obama off on Thrifty Spending Claim."

Side note- Let us not forget that now Obama wants to spend another $447 billion on a Stimulus 2.

Team Obama- From Arrogance To Fear

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:57:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

Two headlines and articles shows why the Obama campaign has gone from arrogance to fear since the "official" launch of Barack Obama's reelection campaign.

The Politico, "Obama stumbles out of the gate."

Nothing inspires Democrats like the Barack Obama swagger — the supreme self-confidence on stage, the self-certainty in private.

So nothing inspires more angst than when that same Obama stumbles, as he has leaving the gate in 2012.

That’s the unmistakable reality for Democrats since Obama officially launched his reelection campaign three weeks ago. Obama, not Mitt Romney, is the one with the muddled message — and the one who often comes across as baldly political. Obama, not Romney, is the one facing blowback from his own party on the central issue of the campaign so far — Romney’s history with Bain Capital. And most remarkably, Obama, not Romney, is the one falling behind in fundraising.

The reasons above, plus some Politico didn't mention gives way to Buzz Feed's headline, "Not Arrogant Any More."

Two difficult weeks for President Obama have shaken the overwhelming confidence of his campaign in Chicago and of Democratic leaders in Washington, and prompted a depressing realization: This is, at best, 2004, not 1996. At worst it's 1992.

Democrats had taken comfort for months in the Republican Party’s seeming inability to get behind Mitt Romney, Obama’s healthy lead in the polls, and equally healthy job growth. And for a few, fleeting, moments, Democrats thought the election might just be easy. But Republican division appears to have been merely an artifact of primary politics, and Mitt Romney has proved a consistent, if unglamorous campaigner.

And this week, amid poor economic indicators and continuing voter frustration, Democrats returned to the harsh reality that this election is going to be anything but a walk in the park.

“There was this sense maybe a month or two ago that Obama was really riding high — that he had gotten his base behind him and the economy was doing better and it had this Clinton vs. Bob Dole 1996 feeling — that he was going to cruise,” said one 2008 Obama aide who does not work for this year’s campaign. “And now it feels like it’s going to be really tough — a 2004 race.”

Indeed the campaign is shaping up to be a close-combat battle for one percent of swing voters in a few hundred precincts across three or four states.

This is no longer 2008 where Obama was a blank slate, so he could make pretty promises, nice speeches and claim that he was different.

It is 2012 and Obama now has a record to defend, a record which he claims holds lofty accomplishments, the problem is those so-called accomplishments were opposed by the majority of Americas who he now needs in order to reelected. (Example- Obamacare)

This is no longer a candidate that his fingers on the pulse of America, he now is a man that has taken public positions against the will of the electorate.

A few examples:

Keystone Pipeline, Obama rejected it, yet a large segment of Democrats, Republicans across the board, and even some unions which are part of Obama's base, by large majorities wanted it. 69 House Democrats voted with Republicans against Obama's position.

The individual mandate which is part of Obamacare and is now in the hands of the Supreme Court and is believed, by the majority of Americans, to be unconstitutional. Even Democrats that favor Obamacare on the whole have shown that a majority thinks the individual mandate is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Arizona's 2010 immigration law, which at the time, was favored by not only Arizona citizens but the concepts embraced by 60 percent of Americans nationally.... recent polling shows they still do, yet the Obama administration instigated a lawsuit against Arizona for enforcing federal laws already on the books against illegal immigration. That too is now being decided by the Supreme Court.

Obama attacked Religious Freedom, resulting in a very high profile fight where just last week, 43 separate Catholic institutions, felt so threatened by his attacks, they filed 12 different lawsuits against the Obama administration.

Obama cannot talk about the economy at length because too many Americans are still suffering three years after he took office. He cannot talk about jobs at length because unemployment is still over 8 percent three years after he took office. He cannot tout his energy plans because gas prices and electric bills are still way too high.

So Obama attacks Religious institutes. He attacks Arizona for defending their borders. He attacks the GOP. He attacks the Supreme Court because they may rule against him on the Obamacare and AZ immigration law. He attacks Capitalism because Romney dared to make money when working with Bain.

Obama is not just stumbling out of the gate as Politico describes it, he is flailing like a fish out of water, trying to find one special issue that will stop Americans from harping on the economy, jobs, gas prices, etc... and he is failing.

Obama's desperation has gotten so bad, his own campaign is helping to organize protests against Romney outside of Romney campaign stops. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Wapo:

Outside, meanwhile, some brick row houses across from the school were boarded up. Police had cordoned off a full city block to protect Romney and his entourage. Residents, some of them organized by Obama’s campaign, stood on their porches and gathered at a sidewalk corner to shout angrily at Romney. Some held signs saying, “We are the 99%.” One man’s placard trumpeted an often-referenced Romney gaffe: “I am not concerned about the very poor.”

Jack Kelly at RCP:

Adjectives frequently applied to Mr. Obama are "smart" (278 million hits on Google), "intelligent" (62 million) and "brilliant" (24 million).

For a man described as "smart," brilliant" and "intelligent" by so many of his supporters, Obama certainly is campaigning dumb.

Brett Kimberlin, Speedway Bomber: This Is Part Of The Free Speech Blogburst -Hashtag #BrettKimberlin

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Duclos) — Fri, 25 May 2012 15:51:00 +0000

By Susan Duclos

This is the day we all stand up for Free Speech.

[Update]The National Bloggers Club has set up a donation page to help support the bloggers targeted by Brett Kimberlin and Co.

[Updates with other links to blogs joining in will be at the bottom]

The other day I noticed a story over at The Other McCain, where Robert Stacy McCain felt threatened to the point where he picked up his family and left his home. Updates on that piece were added when I began searching and found that others had been harassed by the same individual.

The reason these bloggers were and still are being terrorized is for writing about a man known as the Speedway Bomber.

His name is Brett Kimberlin and for a week in 1978, the town of Speedway was terrorized by Kimberlin.

He was tried and he was convicted in a court of law.

The first trial, in 1980, ended in a hung jury on the more serious charges, but he was found guilty of impersonating a Department of Defense security guard. That got him a 12-year sentence on top four years for the Texas drug conviction. In the second Indiana trial, in June 1981, Kimberlin was convicted only of illegal possession of explosives. The third trial took 53 days and 118 witnesses and ended with a conviction on the bombing charges on Oct. 15, 1981. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

The mainstream media has ignored these constant threats against conservatives bloggers, the 100+ lawsuits Kimberlin continues to clog the courts with against anyone who writes about him, so Lee Stranahan came up with the idea for everyone to research for themselves who Kimberlin is, and write about their findings today, May 25, 2012.

So I’m declaring this Friday, May 25th as Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day.
Here’s what you do to take part…

Research Brett Kimberlin on your own. Don’t trust secondary sources; look for the orginal articles articles published about him, too.

On Friday, May 25th — write an honest, factually accurate post about what you learned and what your OPINION is. Brett may try and sue you, so be accurate, factual and separate fact from opinion.

The post doesn’t have to be long — ANYTHING helps.

After you post, Tweet, share, whatever — get the post out there.

This foolishness has gone on long enough.

Browsing the web today, I see another case of serial terrorism, detailed, long, but well worth the read over at Patterico's Pontifications: "Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, and Their Campaign of Political Terrorism"

You’re about to listen to one of the most bone-chilling pieces of audio you will ever hear. At least, it was to me when I first heard it.

It’s a phone call that could have gotten me killed.

In this post you will hear that audio clip. You will also read about a months-long campaign of harassment carried out by at least three individuals: Ron Brynaert, Neal Rauhauser, and Brett Kimberlin — much of it directed at critics of Brett Kimberlin. This harassment includes repeated references to critics’ family members, workplace complaints, publication of personal information such as home addresses and pictures of residences, bogus allegations of criminal activity, whisper campaigns, frivolous legal actions, and frivolous State Bar complaints.

And finally, you will hear a comparison of one of those men’s voices to that of the man who made the call that sent police to my home. And you’ll read a declaration from a forensic audio expert comparing those two voices.

BREITBART TOLD THE STORY JUST BEFORE HE DIED

In the last radio interview Andrew Breitbart ever gave, on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Breitbart talked about a new ruthless tactic used by thugs against political opponents:

[O]ne of the things they’ve done to people who have worked with me in the past, including an L.A. prosecutor, is to “SWAT.” That means that they’re spoofing phones, pretending to be somebody else’s phone, calling 911, and saying “I killed somebody” and then the person’s home is met with the guns drawn, the SWAT and the helicopters, in a horrifying act. It’s happened twice: once in New Jersey, once in Los Angeles, with an L.A. County . . . prosecutor who [is] associated with me.”
I am that L.A. County prosecutor. And in this post, you’ll hear the hoax call that sent police to my house, pointing loaded guns at me.

Read the entire piece to understand the lengths these people have gone in order to stifle free speech.

Auntybrat, a contributor here and a spitfire if I ever met one, joined in over at her blog Assoluta Tranquillita:

It is indeed a grave crisis when a blogger has to go into hiding, and over the years he is not the first that I have been aware of. Bottom line is, none of us can allow a blogger to be browbeaten into silence, even if we might disagree with what they say.

Remember this? : When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak.

If defenders of free speech allow this kind of threatening intimidation to succeed in silencing any ONE of us, we are all in grave danger of losing our rights to freedom of speech.

As Laughing Wolf says:

Free speech is never truly free -- it is only free because good people stand up no matter the threat to make it so. Team Blackfive stands, do you?

My answer is Yes! I stand.. What is YOUR answer?

While the mainstream media gives proof of the nickname lamestream media and completely ignores this, many, many others are stepping up and showing that they are willing to fight for the right of free speech without harassment, without terrorism.

This is not a left vs right issue, not a political ideological issue but is very much a First Amendment issue. It is about a man, Brett Kimberlin, who abuses the legal system in order to prevent facts from being written about his crimes, his ongoing harassment of targeted individuals.

Bookworm Room succinctly explains why many of us who have not heard the word blogburst in years, are now participating in one:

When faced with this situation — a criminally vindictive vexatious litigant with a violent history, a full purse, and a legal system that refuses to act — there’s only one thing to do: make it practically and financially impossible for the bad guy to continue his damaging ways. If Kimberlin wants to go after bloggers, we’ll give him bloggers . . . hundreds of bloggers. Good luck to him trying to turn his efforts and energies, as well as his friends’ deep pockets, to the task of silencing every one of the individuals willing to re-print his record of lawlessness, imprisonment, harassment, and abuse of the civil justice system.

Welcome to the Blogburst of all Blogbursts! If you haven’t joined in the May 25, 2012 “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin” party, what are you waiting for? This is the place where the elite meet and where the witty play. It is the ultimate venue for those committed to free speech, justice, honor, and the strength that comes from many individuals joining together. Here’s a list of those bloggers I know who have sent in their RSVPs and are now having fun. If you would like to be included on this list, please send me a link

Others discussing Kimberlin, via Memeorandum and Google search.

The Moderate Voice, FilmLadd Blogs, Michelle Malkin, TheBlaze.com, NoOneOfAnyImport, Conservative Commune, The Camp Of The Saints, Dean's World, Full Frontal Nerdery, Right Wing News, HillBuzz.org, WyBlog, The Coalition Of The Swilling, The PJ Tatler, All American Blogger, Cold Fury, Popehat, The Political Commentator, Nice Deb, Rhymes With Right, National Review, 'Cause I Said So, The Lonely Conservative, Pundit & Pundette, An Ex-Con's View, The Radio Patriot, Datechguy's Blog, Pirate's Cove, Politicaljunkie Mom, The Other McCain, The American Catholic, Allergic to Bull, RedState, That Mr. G Guy's Blog, LEE STRANAHAN dot COM, Bob Owens, Theo Spark, hogewash, The New Editor, Truth Before Dishonor, Blazing Cat Fur and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

From Google Search:

Wizbang, American Thinker, Michelle Malkin, Capitol Commentary, All American Blogger, Ace of Spades, Red State, The American Catholic, Political Realities, Simple Justice, The Rio Norte Line, America Freedom By Barbara, PopeHat, Gay Patriot.

I stopped on page two.... if I missed anyone, leave a link in comments or send via email and it will be added to the lists above.

[Updates below]

The LID, protein wisdom, The Jawa Report, Villainous Company, Catholic Bandita, Rick's Rants, The Trenches, Me and My SoldierMan, The Write Side of My Brain, My Thoughts, Gulag Bound, NRO, Freedom Works.

Even more at Memeorandum.

Liberals blogging about Kimberlin:

David Weigel at Slate,

Twitter hashtag #BrettKimberlin

I repeat my question from a previous piece on this:

Where is the media? ABC News, where are you? CBS News, where are you? NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Fox..... where the hell are you guys?

[Update] The few media mentions are Human Events, International Business Times, Washington Examiner, Front Page and Reason.
Washington Times describes Senator Orrin Hatch's 1999 problems with Kimberlin.
Breitbart discovers that some of those funding Kimberlin, didn't know he was a convicted terrorist.