Archive for September, 2012

A DEVASTATING Wall Street Journal Article Documents The Massive Incompetence And Corruption Of The Obama Administration In The Libya Attack

September 29, 2012

This fiasco is far worse than Watergate – a scandal in which no ambassadors were murdered.

Obama appointee Susan Rice is the poster girl for the incredible incompetence and deceit of the Obama Administration following the attack of the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in the assassinations of the US Ambassador to Libya as well as three other Americans.  This woman went out on all five major network Sunday political shows and on each one of those shows she said something that was not only blatantly false – that the attacks were NOT terrorist attacks but rather were merely spontaneous uprisings due to a poorly made Youtube video – but now known to be an outright lie given that the Administration KNEW that it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours of the event DAYS before Rice repeatedly lied to the American people.

And there is now absolutely no question that Susan Rice lied to the American people:

Intel quickly saw signs of al Qaeda links in consulate attack
By Barbara Starr
September 27, 2012

Within a day or so of the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Libya earlier this month, the U.S. intelligence community began to gather information suggesting it was the work of extremists either affiliated with al Qaeda groups or inspired by them, a senior U.S. official told CNN Thursday.

“We started to get a strong sense of it,” the official said. He declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the information.

A law enforcement source told CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend that this was the understanding of the intelligence community within 24-hours after the attack on September 11.

“The law enforcement source … said to me, from day one we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack,” Townsend said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” Wednesday night.

The efforts by al Qaeda, especially the Mali-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), to extend its reach into Libya and elsewhere has been of concern to the United States.

[…]

The Homeland Security chairman has specifically called upon Ambassador Susan Rice to resign.   She shouldn’t just resign; she should end up in front of an enraged jury as a criminal defendent.  But this issue has exploded far beyond Rice.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in this disgrace over their eyeballs.

To this day Barack Obama has REPEATEDLY refused to acknowledge that the Libyan attack was a terrorist attack even when directly asked.  And in fact he has continued to cite the Youtube video as the cause of the attack (even at his UN speech).

The sheer incompetence is beyond appalling: we just suffered a terrorist attack on American soil that wasn’t a terrorist attack that was spontaneous that was preplanned.  The Obama regime minions are the gang that is shooting wildly all over the place and they absolutely CANNOT get their story straight.

This is not merely incompetence; this is corruption at the highest levels of the Obama Administration.  They say that the cover-up is always worse than the event that an administration covers up.

Updated September 27, 2012, 12:09 p.m. ET.
The Libya Debacle
The more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure.

In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and declared that “there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.” What he didn’t say is how relentless he’ll be in tracking down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the murders. Let’s say there’s some doubt about that.

None of the initial explanations offered by the White House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held up. First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term: “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent.”

Administration officials also maintained that the diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, the site of the first attacks this September 11, were properly defended and that the U.S. had no reason to prepare for any attack. “The office of the director of National Intelligence has said we have no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week, calling the security measures in place there “robust.”

Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march “hijacked” by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.

You’d think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with. But the Administration wants to avoid this conversation. The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.

Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration’s holes. On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren’t demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs. As we’ve noted since last winter, the waning of American and European interest in Libya could have dangerous consequences.

Deteriorating security was no secret. On April 10, for example, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin. On June 6, an improvised explosive device exploded outside the U.S. consulate. In late August, State warned American citizens who were planning to travel to Libya about the threat of assassinations and car bombings.

Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal security. Officials told the Journal that the Administration put too much faith in weak Libyan police and military forces. The night of the Benghazi attack, four lightly armed Libyans and five American security officers were on duty. The complex lacked smoke-protection masks and fire extinguishers. Neither the consulate in Benghazi nor the embassy in Tripoli were guarded by U.S. Marines, whose deployment to Libya wasn’t a priority.

Rummaging through the Benghazi compound, a CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda hit list. In deference to the family’s wishes, CNN didn’t quote directly from the diary and didn’t divulge any private information in it.

His worries are newsworthy, however, and can inform America’s response. But Mrs. Clinton’s long-time and closest media adviser chose to attack CNN. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines called the network’s conduct “disgusting.” He then deployed words not fit for a family newspaper in an exchange with a reporter for the Web site BuzzFeed. Mr. Reines may wish to protect his boss’s legacy for her 2016 Presidential run, but that won’t be enhanced by the appearance of a cover-up.

Imagine the uproar if, barely a month before Election Day, the Bush Administration had responded to a terrorist strike—on Sept. 11 no less—in this fashion. Obfuscating about what happened. Refusing to acknowledge that clear security warnings were apparently ignored. Then trying to shoot the messengers who bring these inconvenient truths to light in order to talk about anything but a stunning and deadly attack on U.S. sovereign territory.

Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others. Congress should call hearings to hold someone accountable for this debacle.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 16 A version of this article appeared September 27, 2012, on page A18 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Libya Debacle.

Professional diplomats have stated that calling Ambassador Steven’s journal a “diary” creates a very inaccurate and distorted view of what the journal was likely used for.  As an example, Ambassador John Bolton stated that it was very common for top level diplomats to record their professional thoughts, observations and ideas in such a book.  Which is to say that the book – while intended as personal and private – was far more professional than it was a “diary.”

I bring that fact out to simply categorically state that if Ambassador Stevens wrote that his security was godawful, you can bet your farm that he had also mentioned this “little tidbit” to the State Department.  Which is why there is a cover-up now going on at the highest levels of the Obama Administration: you have a now-murdered American ambassador stating in his own handwriting that the security the Administration had provided him was no security at all; and you have a now-murdered ambassador stating that he had received death threats and feared he was being targeted from al Qaeda-linked terrorist organizations.  And frankly if Obama is “transparent” or honest, he will not only lose the election for his incompetence, but he may well be impeached for his abject incompetence in failing to protect American territory and personnel when he had ample warning to know that an attack was coming.

You want more evidence of a cover-up?  How about the fact that the White House and State Department are scrubbing embarassing memos related to the Libya terrorist attack???

Above all else, this disaster proves 1) that the Obama Administration is corrupt and dishonest and 2) that Obama has a pathological mindset that simply refuses to understand that we are at war with an enemy that is determined to kill us.

Obama decided to skip something like 60% of his daily intelligence briefings – which neither President Bush EVER missed.  I wonder how many of those briefings mentioned the security concerns in Libya???

If the above incompetence and corruption aren’t enough to demonstrate that Obama and his regime are a clear and present danger to American national security, also take note of the fact that Leon Panetta just acknolwedged that the administration had lost track of the Syrian WMD that may be on its way to kill American citizens for all we know.  Given this administration’s now brazenly-revealed cynical political corruption, the view

“There has been intelligence that there have been some moves that have taken place. Where exactly that’s taken place, we don’t know.”

Translation: we know they’re on their way to Iran and Hezbollah, but we’re not going to admit it for 3 weeks.

May very well be 100 percent accurate.

And for the record, if we ever actually got our hands on Syria’s WMD, we would find out where Saddam’s WMD ended up.

Senate Democrats are joining the mob demanding that Obama stop covering-up his disgraceful incompetence and come clean with the American people.  Sadly, and may I add incredibly cynically, they are demanding that he do so AFTER election day.

Advertisements

Reweighting Polls In Real Clear Politics Average To (Most Accurate In 2008) Rasmussen Assumptions Gives Romney Massive 7.8 Point Advantage

September 29, 2012

Rather interesting.  If you take the mainstream polls that are popping up like weeds in spring, and reweight the assumptions to reflect the most-accurate-in-2008 Rasmussen model, you get Romney winning in a landslide.

The truth about 2012 polls
By Douglas E. Schoen
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com

In the 2012 race for the White House President Obama is ahead, but the polls  are misleading.
It seems that each new poll brings good news for  Obama. He’s up six points nationally according to the latest Bloomberg numbers.  Gallup’s weekly tracker has the president up six as well. And it looks like  crucial swing states are going for Obama in a big way: the latest Quinnipiac  poll gives Obama a nine point edge in Florida, a 10 point advantage in Ohio and  a 12 point lead in Pennsylvania.

To be sure, Obama is ahead in this race. But by how much has become a serious  point of contention and one that deserves further examination.

Republicans and Democrats alike have honed in on the fact that recent media  polls are oversampling Democrats. Indeed, we have seen many polls that are  heavily skewed. There was the Washington Post/ABC poll that had a +9 Democrat  skew in late August. There was the Marquette poll for Wisconsin from two weeks  ago with a D+8 sample. And the newest swing state poll from Quinnipiac gave  Obama a spread between Democrats and Republicans that was even greater than the  historic Democrat advantage in 2008, a seven point spread between voters  identifying themselves as Democrats or Republicans at 39 percent to 32 percent,  in each state they polled.

In a recent interview, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse made the argument that  these mainstream polls are skewed in favor of Obama. “I don’t think [the polls]  reflect the composition of what 2012 is going to look like,” he said.

In order to address this, some conservative outlets have taken matters into  their own hands. One website, www.unskewedpolls.com,  has begun reweighting mainstream polls to more closely track the demographic  assumptions that the conservative leaning Rasmussem Reports uses. The results  have been staggering: the re-weighted polls all put Romney ahead of Obama with  margins of between 3 and 11 points. If one looks at the Real Clear Politics  average Obama is currently up four percent over Romney. But according to UnSkewedPolls.com,  Romney has a 7.8 percent edge on Obama.

The expectation by mainstream pollsters is that the turnout in 2012 will be  the same, if not better, for Democrats as it was in 2008.

There was a seven-point increase in the party identification gap between 2004  and 2008 nationally, which was the largest shift in a generation. If you look at  individual swing state results from 2008 you see a different story in certain  cases like Florida where exit polls show a Democratic skew of just D+3.  Pennsylvania and Ohio were similar to the national result at D+7 and D+8, but  these figures are still less than pollsters are sampling. The Quinnipiac poll  skew was D+9 in Florida and D+11 in Ohio – a substantive difference from using  2008 as a predictor.

The assumption the pollsters are making that turnout in 2008 will be the same  and even better for Obama than in 2008 is flawed. Not only are we looking at a  terrible economic situation, but there will be key differences in turnout from  2008 that will affect the results and the accuracy of these polls.

Democratic  registration may be overstated. It is my belief that many weak  Obama voters are saying that they are Democrats when they really aren’t  partisans at all: they are disillusioned with American politics. What this means  is that these people aren’t even certain to vote in November and if they stay  home, Obama’s numbers will surely be affected.

Additionally, fewer young people will turn out at the polls this year. As  evidenced by Obama’s push to mobilize the youth vote, a group that he won  handily in 2008, demonstrates, this is a key group that is becoming increasingly  apathetic and is apt to turn out in fewer numbers.

Even so, these differences do not mean that the Democrat skew in the  electorate is a total misrepresentation of the electorate today. While the  seven-point bulge from 2008 is too large for this election, there is most likely  to be a three to five point skew to the Democrats.

If you look at the results of these polls and account for the average three  point margin of error and take another 2-3 points from Obama’s number to account  for the overstated Democrat skew, you still have Obama ahead by anywhere between  two and four points.

What’s more, Obama’s job approval rating has been 50 percent or higher in  each of the last four Gallup daily tracking figures and now 50 percent of  registered voters prefer him in the election. Crossing the 50 percent threshold  is a crucial indicator of an incumbent’s chances at reelection and shows that  things are shifting in Obama’s favor.

To be sure, Obama is in the lead. The polls are oversampling Democrats, but  he remains ahead. But it is also a lead that should not be exaggerated. The race  is not over yet and the debates beginning next week will be a decisive test for  both the president and Governor Romney.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and  is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more  than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a  Fox News contributor and co-host of “Fox News Insiders” Sundays on Fox News  Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten  books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and  What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow  Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

I’m not quite sure how Schoen (who clearly is a lifelong Democrat) goes from the lines that I have boldfaced to stating that “To be sure, Obama is in the lead.”  He doesn’t explain the mental gymnastics that led to that point in his routine.  That said, I do recognize that the man is an expert in his field of polling and that he is able to both access and understand the internals of polls in a way that I cannot.  That said, there are other polling experts, such as Dick Morris, who is looking at the same data and drawing the opposite conclusion.

What puzzles me is that somehow after presenting Unskewed Polls in a credible light, Schoen completely dismisses their findings without even bothering to wave his hand at a reason.  As an example, Schoen cites Obama’s job approval rating as over 50%; but Unskewed Polls shows Obama SERIOUSLY under water by more than 8 points:

It’s kind of incoherent for Schoen to present the Unskewed Poll and then completely dismiss it without bothering to explain why we should similarly dismiss it.

When you look at the mess of assumptions and oversampling and whatnot, it very much seems that “polling” is like unto a witch doctor peering into the “internals” of chickens to try to predict the future.  It just aint very wise to put too much credence in either one of them.

Three Articles Worth Reading As You Consider The Polls (Especially In Ohio)

September 28, 2012

I’m just going to post three articles without comment and allow you to draw your own conclusion:

Tracking Ohio’s absentee ballot requests.
September 27, 2012
by Moe Lane

We[**] got a guy out there doing just that, and the link to his spreadsheet is here.

Executive summary: the process is ongoing, and what’s being tracked are absentee/early ballot REQUESTS, not turned-in ballots.  So it’s not telling us who’s ahead in Ohio; it’s merely telling us what we know of which party’s members are asking for ballots.  In other words, it’s a possible measure of voter enthusiasm in Ohio.  So…

2012 2008 % of 08
Total 601208 740725 81%
Democrat 177155 288270 61%
Republican 145560 144300 101%
Cuyohoga 159572 231497 69%
D Cuyohoga 86274 119891 72%
R Cuyohoga 38134 35067 109%
Hamilton 61253 102796 60%
D Hamilton 9793 16763 58%
R Hamilton 18304 23677 77%
Summit 39056 92941 42%
D Summit 9581 43524 22%
R Summit 7525 12857 59%

The above shows first the total absentee/early ballot requests of all counties currently reporting*, for both 2008 and 2012; followed by the current totals for three of the top five most populous counties in Ohio (full information is not yet available in [Republican] Franklin and [Democratic] Montgomery counties).  So, in 2008 the total absentee/early ballots for all counties currently captured by the linked spreadsheet was just under 741 thousand; the 2012 equivalent so far is currently 601 thousand, or 81% of 2008′s total.  And when you look at the partisan breakdowns… simply put, the Democrats are not requesting absentee ballots at the same rate as Republicans are.  Of the three counties listed above, only Hamilton is particularly Republican… yet Cuyohoga Democrats have yet to reach their 2008 numbers while the Republican numbers have, and it may still end up that Summit county Republicans will surpass the Democrats there.  In fact, if this trend continues then total Republican early/absentee ballot requests in Ohio may surpass total Democratic ballots; it is uncertain whether the Democrats will match their 2008 totals, while the Republicans very probably will.

Shorter executive summary: what we know of early/absentee ballot requests in Ohio does not support the current narrative that Ohioan Democratic voters are as enthusiastic about voting in 2012 as they were in 2008.  This in turn does not support the current narrative that the Democrats will do better in Ohio in 2012 than they did in 2008.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*This is an important caveat: there are considerably more counties out there that still need to report in.  This report indicates that there were a total of 1.72 million absentee/early voters in Ohio in 2012; clearly the process has a way to go.

[**UPDATE: For the record, that ‘we’ is generic.]

The point here is that Democrats are at 61% of what they attained in 2008, versus Republicans who are at 101%.

Second article:

Drop in Ohio voter registration, especially in Dem strongholds, mirrors nationwide trend
By Doug McKelway
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com

[See video available at Fox News]

“Don’t boo, vote,” President Obama often says in his stump speech whenever  crowds boo a Romney plan.

The off-hand call to vote may be by design. It comes amid a precipitous  decline in Democratic voter registration in key swing states — nowhere more  apparent than in Ohio.

Voter registration in the Buckeye State is down by 490,000 people from 4  years ago. Of that reduction,. 44 percent is in Cleveland and surrounding  Cuyahoga County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.

“I think what we’re seeing is a lot of spin and hype on the part of the Obama  campaign to try to make it appear that they’re going to cruise to victory in  Ohio,” Cuyahoga County Republican Chairman Rob Frost said. “It’s not just  Cuyahoga County. Nearly 350,000 of those voters are the decrease in the rolls in  the three largest counties, Cuyahoga, Hamilton and Franklin.”

Frost points out that those three counties all contain urban centers, where  the largest Democrat vote traditionally has been.

Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way  showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states  outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic  registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New  Hampshire, it’s down down 19.7 percent.

“It’s understandable that enthusiasm is going to wane a little bit from that  historic moment (in 2008),” says Michelle Diggles, the study co-author and  senior policy adviser for Third Way. “You can only elect the first  African-American president of this country once.”

The dip in registration has been framed by some as the result of Republican  efforts to suppress the vote – an accusation that Ohio Secretary of State John  Husted, a Republican, categorically rejects.

“That’s kind of a silly notion that removing deceased people and duplicate  records from the roll has anything to do with voter suppression,” he said. “It  actually has to do with voter integrity. They can’t point to one legally  registered voter that’s actually been removed from the rolls.”

The Third Way study, which was conducted in August, indicates the Democrats’  drop in registered voters coincides with a gain in independent voters.

“There are about half a million more independents now than there were just  for years ago,” Diggles said.

One Democratic Party consultant told Fox News that independents in Ohio may  be leaning Democratic – an effect that may be tied to the bailout of Chrysler  and GM. One of eight people in Ohio work in businesses directly tied to the auto  industry. The state has been carpeted with Obama ads that point to his bailout  of the industry and it’s managed bankruptcy.

Mitt Romney also favored a managed bankruptcy of the auto industry. But he  criticized the expenditure of taxpayer money and the preferential treatment  given to union-linked creditors over the industry’s secured creditors.

Others question the bailout’s effect on swaying the minds of independent  voters. In the words of Diggles, independents are “not a stable voting block at  all.”

Last article:

Asking the experts: Which polls are, or aren’t, legitimate?
posted at 7:47 pm on September 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

After yesterday’s post on poll trustworthiness, I started wondering whether there’s any poll or model that’s been consistently accurate over time and therefore worth watching down the stretch as a weathervane of where the race really stands. I e-mailed two experts whom I trust and put that question to them. Is there any steady signal they trust amid the cacophony of statistical noise? Anyone we can look to as a beacon in the darkness when the NYT drops its next D+10 sample of Utah or whatever on us?

Short answer: No, there’s no one whom they count on to get it more or less right every time. Polling averages did well in 2008 and 2004 but not so well in 2000 and 1996. The first person I spoke to told me flatly that it’s not worth paying much attention to the numbers now because the assumptions being made about the composition of the electorate on November 6 differ too widely among individual pollsters to distill a truly useful average. That uncertainty is compounded by the fact that, with six weeks left until America votes, there’s still an ocean full of potential “black swans” — wonderful/terrible jobs reports, war with Iran, a new eurozone spasm, etc — that could send the trendlines fluttering. (Team Romney told Rich Lowry they think their dip in Gallup’s tracker lately is due to one such black-swan moment whose effects are already fading.) Once we get to within a week or two of election day and pollsters’ assumptions finally start to coalesce, the polling averages will become more reliable as an indicator of where the race really stands. As my own addendum to that, I think we’re close enough to the first debate that there’s no point picking through polls until late next week at the earliest. Why worry about this week’s data when there’s a hugely important event that’s bound to affect the race right around the corner?

My other source had less to say about the reliability of polling averages generally than their reliability with respect to specific candidates. He told me that if you look at historical averages, you find that they underestimated Gore in 2000, Dole in 1996, and Bush 41 in 1992 — all of them dull, somewhat stiff candidates whom their respective bases weren’t thrilled about. Why would polls miss the mark on people like that? His theory is that pollsters pay lots of attention to voter enthusiasm but less attention to whether voters say they’re “certain” to vote, and in the case of candidates who aren’t beloved by their base, those two variables don’t match up especially well. There were plenty of Republicans who weren’t enthusiastic about Bush and Dole but who were nonetheless certain to vote for them in hopes of defeating the Democrat. Ditto for Gore vis-a-vis the GOP. (Kerry and McCain were also dim lights to their bases and the polls gauged their support pretty well, but in McCain’s case he had a huge shot of enthusiasm late from adding Palin to the ticket.) He thinks the same thing could be happening this year — essentially, pollsters are keying off of the Dems’ slight edge in “enthusiasm” and missing the fact that plenty of unenthusiastic Republicans will be at the polls anyway to vote for a guy who’s taken to citing RomneyCare lately as proof of his empathy. If that’s the case, then they’re lowballing Romney’s support. And in a tight race, that’s potentially a decisive error.

See? I am capable of writing a poll post that’s not hopelessly eeyorish. Although I’d be lying if I said this wasn’t how I felt when I saw those Gallup numbers yesterday. Oof.

The guy being shot was actually me on November 4, 2008.  And I thought I’d died so magnificently, too…

Obama Throws Jesus Under Bus, Says To UN, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam’

September 28, 2012

That turning the other cheek stuff and not living by the sword stuff is great for a peaceful religion and all, but true cynical political weasels like Barack Obama will throw that crap out if the “other religion” rises up in a spirit of hate and murder at the drop of a hat.

I call it the “Neville Chamberlain Syndrome.”  It is the spirit of appeasement and weakness and raw cowardice.

I can now officially rename it the “Barack Obama Syndrome”:

President Obama Declares The Future Must Not Belong to Practicing Christians
By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  September 25th, 2012 at 11:20 AM

In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly today the President of the United States declared that the future does not belong to practicing Christians. Already, the media and the left are in full denial, probably based on their general lack of understanding of theology. This would have been a gaffe had Mitt Romney said it. But with Barack Obama, he’s just speaking bold truths. His bold truth declares that the future does not belong to practicing Christians.

Pay careful attention to what he says.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Now, that’s the full paragraph so no one can claim I took him out of context.

But consider this.

It is an orthodox Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet. Actual Christians, as opposed to many of the supposed Christians put up by the mainstream media, believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Believing that is slandering Mohammed. That’s just a fact. If you don’t believe me, you go into the Middle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens to your life.

Then Barack Obama went on to say “Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.” Note he says we cannot “slander the prophet of Islam” but it’s only the image of Christ in the next sentence — not actually Christ himself desecrated. If this is so, why does Barack Obama’s government continue funding the National Endowment for the Arts, which funded Christ in piss, the Virgin Mary painted in dung, etc.?

Now, in point of fact, this is a major difference between Islam and Christianity. Christ came to this world as an enemy of the world and expected to be impugned. He also tells his followers that they should expect to be impugned. There is joy in being persecuted for following the Risen Lord. In Islam, if you impugn Mohammed, you get a fatwa on your butt.

And then there is the first amendment. The President of the United States tried to have it both ways in his speech.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

Just words, Mr. President? You say “there is no speech that justifies mindless violence,” but all last week you condemned a ridiculous video trailer for a movie that does not exist. Your government ran advertisements in Pakistan denouncing the video. What of free speech, Mr. President? Last week you were saying the violence was understandable given the offensive film and this week you are trying to claim it was mindless.

Oh wait, you did it again in the same speech where you said “there is no speech that justifies mindless violence”:

At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

Time and again the President of the United States tries to have it both ways.

But are they just words?

The fact is, many religions do not recognize Mohammed as a prophet. In the widest swath of Islam, that denial is, in and of itself, slander. So what exactly are you saying Mr. President?

As an exit point, with all of President Obama’s statements on tolerance in his speech, we should remember that tolerance is really not a Christian virtue. As Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia noted, “We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself.” The Archbishop also noted that evil preaches tolerance until it is dominate and then it seeks to silence good. That’s not a statement that the President is evil in any way, shape, or form, but we should be mindful when the secular world demands tolerance for all, tolerance for all means we cannot have standards of faith to live by, because those standards obviously require we be intolerant of sins this world has embraced.

Now, the above isn’t funny at all, but it still reminds me of a joke:

When Obama died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled,  “How dare you try to destroy the Nation I helped conceive?”

Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, “You wanted to end our liberties but you failed.”

James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, “This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!”

Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Obama with a long cane and snarled, “It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence.”

The beatings and thrashings continued as James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist, leader.

As Obama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Obama wept and said, “This is not what you promised me.”

The Angel replied, “I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said? You really need to listen when someone is trying to tell you something!”

Muslim leaders and Islamic global organizations are demanding that the West and the United States impose the blasphemy laws that are a major part of sharia law.  And that very much includes Muslims in America.

We used to be a nation that was under the Constitution and protected by the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, but we’ve now got an administration that has REPEATEDLY apologized for some stupid video that we now know had absolutely nothing to do with the riots and particularly nothing to do with the TERRORIST ATTACK that every key member of the Obama administration spent a week denying was a terrorist attack.  We now know that the administration lied and covered up that terrorist attack for a full week and is STILL engaged in trying to cover upABC News now reports that some administration officials were concerned over the stream of lies that were coming out of Obama’s mouth, out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth, out of Susan Rice’s mouth and out of Jay Carney’s mouth.  But the lies kept coming anyway.  The Obama regime’s actions since the US Consulate in Libya was destroyed and our ambassador was murdered in a TERRORIST ATTACK has been nothing short of astonishing.  And even Democrats are demanding answers for Obama’s lies and cover ups.

This is turning into something not short of Benghazi-gate.

But let me get back to Obama’s hostility toward Jesus.

There is something in the Bible that we see in the process of happening right before out eyes.  Daniel 9:27 prophesies a seven-year covenant that Israel will sign with the coming Antichrist who is called the beast in the Book of Revelation (a simpler explanation is provided here).  Basically, the seven-year Tribulation will be officially kicked off with Israel signing this seven-year peace treaty with the soon-coming beast.

There was a time when Israel could count on the United States to stand by her even if every single nation on earth was against her regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were running the country.  That time is OVER.

Israelis have long understood that Barack Obama was not their friend.  That is a documented fact.

An Israeli official just wrote:

“President Clinton made us feel like he had our back [at Camp David]. When we made concessions that were greater than anything an Israeli government had ever offered, we felt he’d be there if things went bad. Would he have been there? I don’t know. But it felt that way, and it put us in a different frame of mind. President Obama doesn’t give us the same sense that he’d be there.”

We know from Scripture that Israel will sign a 7-year covenant with the Antichrist and we know that the day that happens the world will officially enter the worst seven year period in the entire history of the human race.

And as we watch Obama refusing to meet with an Israeli Prime Minister who is becoming increasingly frightened by the fact that Obama has allowed Israel’s mortal enemy Iran to massively advance toward nuclear weapons, and as we see Israel feeling increasingly isolated from its historic protector the United States, I can assure you that it will be no surprise when Israel tries to take refuge in a promise of protection from the Antichrist.

The beast of Revelation is coming.  And Barack Obama has done more to usher in his arrival than any human being who has ever lived.

Just remember that Obama says you don’t dare “slander the prophet of Islam.”  You can literally piss on Jesus all you want, though.

I’m with this guy:

(Women Are That Stupid Alert): Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Says ‘Women Are Not Really Concerned About What’s Happened Over The Last Four Years’

September 26, 2012

I thought the piece on Michelle Malkin’s blog spiked this laugher best:

Stephanie Cutter: Women aren’t concerned what’s happened over the last 4 years, only what’s going to happen in the next 4 years
By Doug Powers  •  September 24, 2012 10:32 PM

Guys, test the theory of Obama’s deputy campaign manager this week. Come home at three o’clock in the morning, broke and looking rough after being gone for a full day, and when your wife asks what you’ve been up to in the last 24 hours, reply “you’re not concerned about that honey — you only want to know what’s going to happen in the next 24 hours.” Good luck.

Transcript from Real Clear Politics (audio below):

“We’ll continue doing what we have been doing, trying to get the president’s message out on the ground. Whether it’s in the suburban areas of Northern Virginia, or Denver, Ohio, to talk about what the president wants to do in the future. That’s the other thing that you find most often with women. They’re not really concerned about what’s happened over the last four years, they really want to know what’s going to happen in the next four years,” Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said to guest host Susan Page on the Diane Rehm Show today.

Cutter has gone out of her way to prove her point that women aren’t worried about the recent past, especially as it concerns remembering what happened on conference calls:

(h/t Freedom’s Lighthouse)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Obama thinks women are that idiotic.  Women can’t comprehend things like “history” and “cause and effect.”  They’re just not intelligent enough to be able to consider that the last four years of Obama might somehow inform them on the next four years of Obama.

The thing is, many women ARE this stupid.  As the example provided by Doug Powers indicates, there are a plenty of single women out there who float from abusive cheating loser to abusive cheating loser because they simply cannot understand that if you ignore the lessons of history you are doomed to repeat them.

And the polls are very clearly showing that it is precisely those women who are supporting Obama: the single psycho women with dysfunctional lives who constantly look to find somebody or something to parasitically leech off of.

Middle class women don’t vote for Obama, the polls show; married women don’t vote for Obama, the polls show.

It’s the psycho dysfunctional idiotic bimbos who vote for Obama because they can’t fathom this whole “last four years” thing.

“Women” aren’t stupid; only liberal women are stupid.  But that said, liberal women are the truly stupidest people of all.

The Media Propaganda And Obama Class Warfare LIE That Romney Pays Less Tax Than Middle Class. And The Reason And Proof Why Low Capital Gains Taxes Are GOOD.

September 26, 2012

The degeneration of the media is astonishing.  Yes, the media always had a liberal bias; you could count on it.  But there was a time when we had journalists who fact checked.  Then we got journalism PLUS fact checking to correct the lies of the journalists.  And now we’ve  fact checkers correcting the lies of the fact checkers.

If I meet somebody who tells me, “I’m a journalist,” I know that there is an overwhelmingly statistical likelihood that that person is a) a doctrinaire liberal; and b) a biased doctrinaire liberal who insinuates his or her ideology, bias and prejudices into most of his or her reporting.

You need to understand how pathologically dishonest and biased the mainstream news media have become.  A couple of recent examples:

So this really isn’t that surprising.  Journalists are professional liars.  You can trust them to be dishonest.

And so here we go again:

ABC’s Karl Dissembles on Romney’s Tax Rate, But NBC Points Out He Pays Higher Percent Than Middle Class
By Brent Baker | September 22, 2012 | 14:09

Repeating a common mythology that a person’s federal income tax rate equals the effective tax rate they actually pay after deductions, ABC’s Jonathan Karl on Friday night forwarded the canard that Mitt Romney’s 14.1 percent rate is lower than what a $75,000 earner pays. NBC’s Peter Alexander, however, correctly noted “the average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent.”

On World News, Karl reported that Mitt Romney “made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent.” Then, without citing any source, Karl asserted: “That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay.”

Wrong. As USA Today noted in January, Romney’s 14 percent income tax rate is “a higher tax rate than the majority of taxpayers” pay and “the average effective tax rate for taxpayers with AGI of $1 million or more is 25%, according to the Tax Foundation analysis.”

In “Tax bracket vs. tax rate: They’re two different things,” reporter Sandra Block explained: “The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, according to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation, a non-profit research organization. For individuals with adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the average effective tax rate is less than 5%, according to the Tax Foundation….”

More in my NB post: “Nets Use Romney’s Taxes to Advance Obama’s False ‘Fairness’ Narrative,” which included a table showing those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay an average effective income tax rate of 7 percent, 8 percent for those taking in $75,000 to $100,000 and 12 percent for those between $100,000 and $200,000.

From the start of Karl’s September 21 story, closed captioning corrected against the video by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth:

The most interesting thing about these tax returns are that even though Mitt Romney paid a low tax rate, he actually voluntarily paid more in taxes than he had to. The bottom line on Mitt Romney’s taxes: He made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent. That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay. Although he made almost $14 million, not one penny came from wages or salary. Instead, his money came largely from investments, which are taxed at the much lower capital gains tax rate…

Peter Alexander on Friday’s NBC Nightly News:

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the Romney campaign, now trailing in the polls. And by putting out Romney’s tax returns today, the campaign is hoping it can put this issue to bed so it doesn’t have to deal with any more negative headlines closer to the election.

Campaigning in Las Vegas today and under pressure for months to be more transparent about his personal finances, Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns, revealing that he and his wife Ann paid nearly $2 million in federal taxes, on income of nearly $14 million, largely from investments, a tax rate of 14.1 percent. That’s slightly more than the 13.9 rate the couple paid in 2010. The average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent…

So on top of the dishonesty that we saw from the rest of the mainstream media, CBS’s 60 Minutes piled on with the dishonesty in its interview with Mitt Romney:

Pelley: Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

Pelley: So you think it is fair?

Romney: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.

Scott Pelley’s question was a) biased and b) based entirely on a false premise.  Because he gets his “facts” COMPLETELY wrong and proceeds to beat Romney over the head with a dishonest conclusion from those false “facts.”  In fact, Mitt Romney does NOT pay a lower rate than the guy who earned $50,000.  In FACT Romney pays more than TWICE as high of a rate – 14.1 percent versus 7 percent – as the guy who earns $50,000 a year in the adjusted income tax rate that actually matters (as the rate you actually pay taxes at).

There are so many ways that the media lies: they lie in deciding which stories to cover and deciding which stories will not get any coverage; they lie about what aspects of those stories they cover will get covered or ignored; they lie in salad picking their “experts” or witnesses in order to cherry pick the point or conclusion they want the audience to draw.  They further lie in how they edit and package the story.  And there are other ways they lie in production.  But now we’re to the point where the media lies by simply dishonestly inventing “facts.”

The fact that Pelley lied and made up bogus “facts” gave Barack Obama to exploit those lies in his own demonization of Mitt Romney.

The question “is it fair” about low capital gains taxes is as naive as it is idiotic.  Keeping capital gains taxes low encourages investment and encouraging investment increases jobs.  How is it “fair” to gut job creation?

I would ask if it’s fair for journalists and for the current president of the United States to make up their own facts and attack Mitt Romney with lies.

The best way to document that fact is to point out that Bill Clinton was the man who cut capital gains taxes and benefitted enormously from doing so:

American Thinker points out that the Clinton income tax hike of 1993 did NOT bring in ANYWHERE NEAR the revenue Democrats had predicted:

The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.
 
The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn’t accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn’t occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

So what did both Clinton’s and later George Bush’s capital gains rate cuts do?  Let’s pick up where the article left off:

The Clinton tax policies of the early ’90s were based on rate increases and luck — the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats.

To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, one need only look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result.

The new leadership in Washington and those who support them would allow this tax cut to expire to “generate revenue” for the federal government. Based on data from Congress’s own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire.

For anyone willing to read it, the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report settles any debate. Citing the original CBO forecasts of capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006, Democrats who opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would “cost” the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.

Those forecasts were embarrassingly wrong. The 2007 CBO report revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006, the last two years nearly doubling initial forecasts.

In other words, forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses.

Reductions in tax rates for capital gains were arguably the most successful fiscal initiatives of the past thirty years.

You will find that when George W. Bush cut the tax rates across the board, TAX REVENUES SHOT UP DRAMATICALLY.  And even the uberliberal New York Times was forced to acknowledge that Bush INCREASED tax revenues following his tax cut:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Here are the numbers following Clinton’s signing the Republican-sponsored and passed capital gains tax rate cut in 1997:

Capital gains taxation revenues collected by the federal government:

1996  –  $66 billion
1997  –  (capital gains tax rate cut goes into effect)
1997  –  $79.3 billion
1998  –  $89.1 billion
1999  –  $111.8 billion
2000  –  $127.3 billion

Dick Morris – who was Bill Clinton’s primary political adviser at the time and engineered Clinton’s successful triangulation strategy that won him reelection – wrote it up this way:

When Clinton took office he did all the wrong things. He raised taxes sharply, hiking the top bracket from 35% to 39.6% and raised taxes on gasoline. The result was that the economy, which had been recovering, staggered. GDP growth dropped to 0.7% in Clinton’s first quarter (down from 4.3% in Bush’s last quarter) and stayed around 2% for the rest of 1993. Personal income rose 6.3% in 1992 under Bush but slowed to 4.1% under Clinton in 1993.

The tax increases Clinton passed failed to generate the revenue he had expected. The tax paradox set in. Martin Feldstein, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, summed it up in his Wall Street Journal article, “What the ’93 Tax Increase Really Did,” published on October 26, 1995. He said taxpayers reduced their incomes when they saw the tax hikes coming. Feldstein writes that “the Treasury lost two-thirds of the extra revenue that would have been collected if taxpayers had not changed their behavior.” Because of Clinton’s tax hikes, real personal income fell by $25 billion. High income taxpayers, facing the prospect of a tax increase reported 8.5% less taxable income in 1993 than they would have if their tax rates had not changed. The tax paradox!

Then Clinton got wiped out in the Congressional elections of 1994, losing control of the Senate and the House – the first time the Republicans had run the House in forty years!

Clinton suddenly saw the error of his ways and began to hold down spending and push for a tax cut. In 1997, he and the Republican Congress combined to cut capital gains taxes from 28% (the rate to which Bush had increased it) to 20%. The result was electrifying! Real wage growth was 6.5% in the four years after the tax cut compared to minuscule wage growth of 0.8% over the four years after Clinton’s tax increase!

And the tax paradox was again evident: lower rates produced higher revenues! In 1996, the year before the capital gains cut, the tax collected revenues of only $66 billion. In the four years after the cut, they averaged $100 billion a year. But, what was more important was the surge in economic activity that the capital gains tax cut generated. In 1996, before the tax cut, there were $261 billion in capital gains in America. In the three years after the cut, capital gains rose to an average of $440 billion. The increased tax collections and the greater economic activity were such that they pushed the budget into a surplus for the first time since the 1950s.

Is it “fair” that I’m not as handsome as Brad Pitt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as good of a swimmer as Michael Phelps or as fast a runner as Usain Bolt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as smart as Albert Einstein?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as creative or talented as Robert Plant or Jimmy Page?  Obviously (and rather unfortunately!) I could go on and on and on with this ad naseum.  Instead, read this on the danger of “fairness.”

I’m sorry to be the one to break your bubble of idiocy, liberal: NOBODY SAID LIFE WAS FAIR.

And I just wish that evil demagogues would quit trying to stir up bitterness and envy by constantly trying to artificially and frankly cynically trying to impose a radical and Marxist doctrine of “fairness” on the world.  Because it does the exact OPPOSITE of what they say it will do.

The bottom line is patently obvious to anyone but a fool: keeping low capital gains rates means that more people will invest more money because they will have the obvious incentive of actually being able to keep what they risk their money to earn – A PROFIT.  If there is more investment, there will be more economic activity and in turn more job creation.

An interesting exchange between ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and Barack Obama during a debate shows us where Obama is:

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”

It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

You can reward wise practices or you can punish them. You can reward individual initiative or you can punish it. Obama is the latter even though the former is far and away the best for society.

If you think it’s “fair” to punish society – including the poor who benefit from the jobs that are created for them so that they can take care of themselves and their families and move up the economic ladder to a better life – just to punish rich people, you are the one with a huge mental and frankly moral problem.

But that mentally and morally deranged form of Marxist psychosis is exactly where Barack Obama and the radical left is.

What is interesting is that the middle class that Obama keeps pretending he’s helping KNOW that he and his media propaganda machine are liars.  Which is why Obama is getting crushed by the middle class vote which favors Romney by FOURTEEN POINTS.  Obama and the media liars aren’t trying to appeal to the middle class who know better; they’re trying to persuade the unfortunately ignorant that their lies are the truth and that the truth is actually a lie.

Hey, First Lady! Hey! Leave Them Kids Alone! Nation’s Children Say ‘HELL NO!’ To Michelle Obama’s Fascist Nanny State.

September 25, 2012

The first part of that title, for those who aren’t familiar with the song, comes from Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall.”

What’s funny is that in that song, too, nanny state “educators” were lecturing the children.  At one point in the song a nagging teacher says to the little minds under his power:

And of course Michelle Obama is now saying, “Well, they really shouldn’t be able to be allowed to have any meat, either.”

Meat Michelle Obama, the federal government’s ripoff of the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld.

And kids are getting pissed off along with their parents:

Nation’s children push back against Michelle Obama-backed school lunch regs
Published: 3:12 PM 09/22/2012
By Caroline May

Children and parents across the country are fed up with the restrictive new school meal regulations implemented by the Department of Agriculture under the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” which has long been touted by first lady Michelle Obama.

The standards — which cap meal calories at 650 for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, at 700 calories for middle school students and 850 for high school students — also dictate the number of breads, proteins, vegetables and fruits children are allowed per meal.

A spokeswoman for Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who earlier this month introduced legislation to roll back the new standards, told The Daily Caller that King’s office has heard more complaints about the issue during the past few weeks than any other.

“This year, we’ll be hungry by 2:00,” one student, Zach Eck, told KAKETV in Kansas. “We would eat our pencils at school if they had nutritional value.”

Iowa mom Robin Wissink told TheDC that she now provides her autistic daughter Molly, a junior in high school, with a bag lunch because her school’s new menu is so unappealing. Students at St. Mark’s in Colwich, Kan. have also been “brown bagging” their meals.

And some student-athletes in Wisconsin are arguing that the calorie caps hit them especially hard, given their intense workouts and scrimmages.

“A lot of us are starting to get hungry even before the practice begins,” Mukwonago High senior Nick Blohm told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Our metabolisms are all sped up.”

The new lunch standards have led to the removal of some old food favorites, including a particularly popular item at one school in upstate New York: chicken nuggets.

“Now they’re kind of forcing all the students to get the vegetables and fruit with their lunch, and they took out chicken nuggets this year, which I’m not too happy about,” Chris Cimino, a senior at Mohonasen High School in upstate New York, told the Associated Press, which gave the rules a “mixed grade.”

Students in the Plum Borough School District in Pennsylvania are protesting the new federal restrictions on Twitter.

“everyone.. if you agree school lunches are expensive and small, RT this. we can fight the school! tweet #BrownBagginIt,” @TornadoBoyTubbs tweeted, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Administrators have scrambled to find creative ways to make the new menus appealing. A school district in Lake County, Fla., for example, is planning to conduct a survey to determine how to make vegetables more appealing to children, who often throw them out.

“[The regulations do] limit the food that you can put on the plate,” Alden Caldwell, the director of food services at a Brookline, Mass. school, told Wicked Local. “In theory, it’s a good idea, but in practice we’re finding that there are issues with it.”

Despite the outrage, some parents believe the ongoing obesity epidemic justifies the tight calorie standards.

“I think it’s smart to be pre-emptive and proactive at getting more nutrition fed into the kids,” Amos Johnson, a parent with students in the Lee Summit, Missouri school system, told the Lee’s Summit Journal. “I see that more as a multi-beneficial supporter for health and academic performance. I think that’s the thing I would look at. You should be healthier, and if you’re nourishing the brain and getting the fuel right, academic outcomes should maintain or improve.”

When the legislation was signed into law in 2010, it received bipartisan support, including a big endorsement from Michelle Obama.

“As parents, we try to prepare decent meals, limit how much junk food our kids eat, and ensure they have a reasonably balanced diet,” the first lady said in a statement at the unveiling of the new standards in January. “And when we’re putting in all that effort the last thing we want is for our hard work to be undone each day in the school cafeteria. When we send our kids to school, we expect that they won’t be eating the kind of fatty, salty, sugary foods that we try to keep them from eating at home. We want the food they get at school to be the same kind of food we would serve at our own kitchen tables.”

Obama welcomed students back to school this year with a YouTube video explaining the importance of the new meal plans.

Watch: Michelle Obama discusses ‘exciting’ changes to school cafeterias

King and Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp introduced the “No Hungry Kids Act,” which would repeal the USDA rule that resulted in the new standards, last week.

“The goal of the school lunch program is supposed to be feeding children, not filling the trash cans with uneaten food,” Huelskamp said in a statement. “The USDA’s new school lunch guidelines are a perfect example of what is wrong with government: misguided inputs, tremendous waste, and unaccomplished goals. Thanks to the Nutrition Nannies at the USDA, America’s children are going hungry at school.”

The previous article I wrote contained a frustrated student’s synopsis of what could have been the entire Obama big government nanny state presidency: “It’s worse tasting, smaller sized and higher priced.”

This is nanny state liberal fascism, straight up.  It commits at least three offenses against individual liberty: 1) it federalizes what ought to be up to parents; 2) it lumps every child into one single category; and 3) like most liberal policies, it punishes the healthy to “protect” the unhealthy.

There are clearly children who should have their calories restricted, just as there are clearly children (mostly due to the penetration of liberal “values”) whose parents don’t bother to take care of them.  But Michelle Obama says that ALL children are fat, inactive sloths who need government to be their mommy and so we’re going to usurp the role of ALL parents and just replace them at lunchtime. 

Frankly, I see a lot more kids who aren’t fat than kids who are.  But like the vast majority of liberal programs, what the liberals really want is more power and more control, and so they take the most extreme cases and exploit them to control everybody as much as they possibly can.

It is the way liberals think: they know better.  They are the elite intelligentsia who know more than and better than you.  And they should be the ones who get to push all the buttons and pull all the levers of society.

Hey, Michelle, leave them kids alone.

 I’m glad more parents and frankly MORE CHILDREN are learning a lesson in intrusive big government liberal nanny statism.

If The Presidential Election Was Up To The American Middle Class, Mitt Romney Would DESTROY Obama By 14 Points (55 percent to 41 percent!)

September 25, 2012

Mitt Romney is heavily winning the middle class vote.  Which might just be why Obama is working so hard to destroy the middle class.

Given all the demonization of Mitt Romney as a greedy rich bastard who would attack the middle class by Obama and his roaches and the Democrat Party and all their roaches and the mainstream media (who are pretty much all roaches), this is actually pretty amazing; but Mitt Romney utterly ANNIHILATES Barack Obama with the middle class vote.

The money portions of the following article:

The past several weeks have been filled with news stories, editorials and columns heaping criticism on the tactics and strategy of the Romney campaign. Many of these opinion pieces even suggested that Romney’s only hope for winning is to make substantial changes to his campaign. Much of this analysis is based on the premise that Romney is out of touch and has not been making an affirmative case to middle-class voters. His comments at a private fundraiser in May were pointed to as an illustration that he could never identify with and win the support of many middle-class voters. We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

[…]

 In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent). Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate. These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

Who speaks for the middle class?  It is Mitt Romney and it is very much NOT Barack Obama.

And that pretty much utterly destroys most of the Obama campaign and Democrat Party and mainstream media talking points (which for the record are pretty much lies).

Republican poll analysis: Romney winning with middle-class families
By: Ed Goeas and Brian Nienaber
September 24, 2012 04:34 AM EDT

In early August, with our Republican analysis of the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, we wrote “… this election will remain close until the final weeks of the campaign.  There will be ups and downs for both campaigns throughout the next 13 weeks, but the basic dynamics that are driving this electorate and framing this election remain well in place.”   Two conventions, and tens of millions of campaign dollars later, we continue to hold that belief.  While there have been dozens of polls released during the past six weeks that have had Mitt Romney up by as much as 4 points and Barack Obama up by as much 8 or 9, those variations have had more to do with sampling variations than with real movement in the campaign.

Yes, there have been gaffes on both sides that have been the focus of both the news media and opposing campaigns, but the dynamics that have been the real drivers of the campaign, the economy and deeply negative feelings about the direction of the country, have not changed.  There have also been negative stories about the internal operations, messaging and strategy of both presidential campaigns.  In August, leading into the Republican convention, there were multiple stories about the Obama campaign operation and internal fights about both message and strategic direction that led one to believe the wheels were coming off.  Now it is the Romney campaign’s turn.

(Also on POLITICO: Sheldon Adelson: Inside the mind of the mega-donor)

The past several weeks have been filled with news stories, editorials and columns heaping criticism on the tactics and strategy of the Romney campaign.  Many of these opinion pieces even suggested that Romney’s only hope for winning is to make substantial changes to his campaign.  Much of this analysis is based on the premise that Romney is out of touch and has not been making an affirmative case to middle-class voters. His comments at a private fundraiser in May were pointed to as an illustration that he could never identify with and win the support of many middle-class voters.  We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

Overall, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points on the ballot (50 percent to 47 percent) – which before we rounded up, is actually a 2.6 point lead and only up a half-a-percentage point from the 2.1 point lead for Obama in our last Battleground poll in early August.  In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent).  Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate.  These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward  Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

(Also on POLITICO: Mitt: Fundraising focus Obama’s fault)

All of this data make clear that Romney has won the strong support of middle-class families and is leading the president on an overwhelming majority of key measurements beyond just the ballot.  In fact, when respondents were asked who, Obama or Romney, would best handle a variety of issues, Romney led on all but one including the economy (+9 percent), foreign policy (+3 percent), spending (+15 percent), taxes (+7 percent), Medicare (+2 percent), and jobs (+10 percent).  Ironically, the one measurement Obama led Romney on was “standing up for the middle class” (+8 Obama), reinforcing that often the Democrats win the message war with the middle class, but not their hearts and souls.

Looking at this presidential election overall, intensity among voters is high with Republicans, Democrats, and now independents, and is at levels more comparable with the final days of a presidential election than six weeks out from Election Day.  In fact, fully 80 percent of voters now say that they are extremely likely to vote.  Even with the past few weeks containing some of the toughest days of earned media for the Romney campaign, and perhaps as a surprise to Washington insiders, Romney continues to win Republicans (Romney by a net +87 percent) by the same margin Obama is winning with Democrats (Obama by a net +88 percent), and is still winning with independents (+2 percent).  Romney has majority support with voters over the age of 45 (+7 percent), with men (+6 percent), with white women (+9 percent), and with married voters (+14 percent).  In addition, Romney has solidified his base.  Support among conservative voters exceeds 70 percent (73 percent), his support among very conservative voters exceeds 80 percent (83 percent), and his support among Republicans exceeds 90 percent (91 percent).  Romney is also receiving a higher level of support among Hispanics (40 percent), which is driven by higher support from Hispanic men.   

(PHOTOS: 13 who won’t quit Mitt)
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake has often made the point that Democratic voters are becoming more secular and Republicans more faith based.  That certainly appears to be holding up in this election.  Digging a little deeper on the presidential ballot, Romney has majority support (51 percent) among Catholics, which in past presidential elections has been one of the most predictive demographic groups of the eventual outcome.  Even further, Romney is a winning majority across all religions amongst those who attend services at least weekly (59 percent) or monthly (52 percent), while Obama is winning among those who attend less frequently, never, or are nonbelievers.

(PHOTOS: Romney through the years)

For most voters, however, this election is still about pocketbook issues.  Fully 66 percent of voters select a pocketbook issue as their top concern.  The Romney camp should feel good going into the three presidential debates knowing he has majority support (Romney 53 percent/Obama 44 percent) from these economically focused voters.

In fact, even with all of the misleading partisan attacks on the proposals from Ryan to reform Medicare, a majority of seniors (61 percent) select a pocketbook issue and not Medicare as their top issue of concern and nearly 6 in 10 seniors (58 percent) are voting for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

In addition to their high level of intensity about casting a ballot, many voters are already notably engaged in the campaign.  A strong majority of voters (60 percent) say they watched both the Republican and the Democratic national conventions.  The ballot among these highly attentive voters is tied with 3 percent undecided.  The conventions took a race that was a statistical tie, and simply drove up the vote intensity of all voters.  At the same time, there are enough undecided and soft voters remaining for either candidate to win. In fact, even at this stage of the campaign, 13 percent of those making a choice on the presidential ballot indicate that they would consider voting for the other candidate.

A significant number of voters report that the upcoming presidential and vice presidential debates will be extremely (11 percent) or very (12 percent) important to their vote decision.  (Twenty-six percent of Obama’s supporters currently place this high level of importance on the debates as does 20 percent of Romney supporters.)  This means the debates are one of the best opportunities available for Romney to take votes from Obama.  If Romney can continue to make a solid case about turning around the economy and the direction of the country in contrast to the president’s failed economic policies, these voters will be watching and many of them are currently Obama supporters.

Presidential reelection races are almost always about the incumbent and whether or not they should be given an additional four years in office.  This race looks to be no different.  There is no sign of any good economic news on the horizon and two-thirds of the American electorate is focused on pocketbook issues as their top concern.  Fifty-seven percent of these voters disapprove of the job the president is doing on the economy, 62 percent disapprove in his handling of the budget and federal spending, and 54 percent believe that Romney would be better at job creation. Yes, Romney has the issue advantage with these pocketbook-focused voters, and is winning their support by 53 percent to Obama’s 44 percent.

More important, in this latest set of data in the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, is the fact that Romney is also winning by a strong 14-point margin over Obama with middle-class families, a group of voters that is not only a majority of the American electorate, but is usually seen as the ultimate target group in any presidential election.

Romney has particularly been demonized by the axis of evil (Obama camp, Democrat Party and mainstream media) over his “47%” quote. 

Romney was obviously trying to simplify something that is more complex and committed the sin of oversimplifying.  The Obama who can do no wrong with the mainstream media can get away with a thousand of those, but Romney can count on the media “reminding” voters of that remark at least 20 times a day every single day until the election.  Basically, there are obviously two groups who will vote heavily for Obama: the lazy class and the elite class.

Hollywood is so massively in Obama’s corner you’re going to be seeing desperate appeals supporting ObamaCare even in primetime network dramas.  And what is Hollywood?  It’s a bunch of greedy liberal hypocrites who make buttloads of money while pursuing tax credits for the richest people ( hiring lobbyists to do it, btw) and outsourcing to foreign countries so they can make even MORE money.  Uberliberal Michael Moore is a particularly loathsome specimin of Hollywood hypocrite, for the record.

They’re rich.  They pay taxes (well, some of them do, excluding the ones like Marc Anthony who most fervently support Obama while thinking they’re above paying taxes).  Just like some of Obama’s staff actually stoop to pay the taxes they owe.

And then there are all the lazy little low class bottom feeders who do exactly what Mitt Romney said they do.

And the axis of evil deliberately misrepresented that “47 percent” statement to try to demonize Romney with the middle class.

But apparently a whopping majority of the middle class know full damn well who the malicious deceitful hypocrites Obama, Democrats and their media propagandists are.

There are a lot of despicable people undermining the once great and powerful America.  But by a wide margin – and completely contrary to the false narratives the Democrats and their media allies keep telling us – the middle class are not among them.

That fact makes me feel better about the American people than I have felt for quite a while.

Just yesterday, I documented how pathologically dishonest the mainstream media are in a microcosm with their blatant overestimation of how many people showed up at an Obama event.  That same day I also documented that Obama has destroyed 4 million jobs and gutted labor participation in America.  And if that wasn’t enough, I also documented how truly un-American Obama is with this “Obama States of America flag” garbage.

That’s why NOBODY in the middle class ought to be voting for Obama.

The Secret Of The Dishonest Unemployment Report Revealed – 4 Million Jobs DESTROYED Under Obama And Worst Labor Participation in 31 Years

September 24, 2012

I’ve written about the disastrous hollowing-out and destruction of the American economy by the Job-Destroyer-in-Chief before.  It’s good to see it being echoed by excellent conservative sites such as American Thinker and even BETTER to see it taken up by Reuters:

September 23, 2012
The ‘hidden’ unemployed
Rick Moran

Every month when the jobless numbers come out, Obama critics take pains to point out that the “official” number is very misleading.

One of the major reasons is that the published unemployment rate does not include such “hidden” workers as those working part time who would like to work full time, and those who have given up looking for work.

Reuters has a good piece today on the latter:

Economists, analyzing government data, estimate about 4 million fewer people are in the labor force than in December 2007, primarily due to a lack of jobs rather than the normal aging of America’s population. The size of the shift underscores the severity of the jobs crisis.

If all those so-called discouraged jobseekers had remained in the labor force, August’s jobless rate of 8.1 percent would have been 10.5 percent.

The jobs crisis spurred the Federal Reserve last week to launch a new bond-buying program and promise to keep it running until the labor market improves. It also poses a challenge to President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

The labor force participation rate, or the proportion of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one has fallen by an unprecedented 2.5 percentage points since December 2007, slumping to a 31-year low of 63.5 percent.

“We never had a drop like that before in other recessions. The economy is worse off than people realize when people just look at the unemployment rate,” said Keith Hall, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia.

The participation rate would be expected to hold pretty much steady if the economy was growing at a normal pace. Only about a third of the drop in the participation rate is believed to be the result of the aging U.S. population.

The economy lost 8.7 million jobs in the 2007-09 recession and has so far recouped a little more than half of them.

Economists say jobs growth of around 125,000 per month is normally needed just to hold the jobless rate steady.

Given the likelihood that Americans will flood back into the labor market when the recovery gains traction, a pace twice that strong would be needed over a sustained period to make progress reducing the unemployment rate.

Last month, employers created just 96,000 jobs.

Some areas of the country are better off than others jobs-wise, but that last factoid from Reuters should give us pause. There have only been two months during the Obama administration that have seen more than 250,000 jobs created. If there ever is anything like a normal recovery, the real unemployment rate will skyrocket once the discouraged workers are counted again by the BLS.

No one knows the future but God.  That said, it is my belief that if Obama is reelected, you will see a widespread dive in joblessness as small businesses that have just been hanging on hoping the turd would be voted out variously come to the conclusion, “The hell with it.”

Dishonest American Flag-Trampling Obama Purges His ‘Obama States Of America’ Flag From His Website (Good Thing I Took A Screenshot)

September 24, 2012

It wasn’t enough to merely update my previous article on this outrage.  Some things need to be remembered and outraged over even MORE.

Obama purged his narcissistic and flagrantly un-American “Obama States of America” flag from his website:

Obama Campaign Flag Poster Quietly Yanked From Website…

Via BuzzFeed:

The item, known as “Our Strips: Flag Poster” redesigned the American flag using the Obama for America logo. The print was the target of conservative backlash last week.

A page where the flag was now returns as error page. A cached version of the website still shows the product but returns a error page when attempting to add the item to the cart.

Of course the fact that it was widely ridiculed and looked eerily similar to the aftermath of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi had nothing to do with the decision.

HT: Tammy Bruce

I had a feeling this would be rightly viewed as treasonous and that the dishonest Obama would try to purge this outrage like it never happened.  Which is why I took a screen shot in the article below:

Seriously: ‘I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag Of The Obama States Of America, And To The Messiah For Which It Stands…’

Wrong flag for the wrong man for president:

Okay, children, let’s pledge allegiance to our magnificent messiah Obama:

[In unison]: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Obama States of America, and to the Messiah for which it stands, one Nation divided by race, class and gender, with redistribution and Marxist fairness for all.”

This is the “American flag” that the Obama campaign is selling on its website:

Just barf me. Everyone who votes for this narcissist is a traitor to America.

Just to make sure the image remains I took a screen shot of this despicable outrage to a once great nation available on the BarackObama.com store:

Show me George Bush doing vile crap like that. Show me John McCain doing crap like that. Show me Mitt Romney doing vile crap like that.

Adolf Hitler of course was a deluded narcissist who cast himself as messiah, too. But as arrogant as that vile turd was, even HE didn’t have the chutzpah to make HIMSELF his country’s flag:

I’ve written about Obama’s casual contempt for the American flag – which he just surpassed here – before. Part of that article tells a story of what love for your America flag that Obama just pissed on looks like:

One writer recounts his memories of an ancestor at the Battles of Chattanooga and Chicamauga while growing up:

I had heard the story often growing up. Men took the flag much more seriously during the Civil War era. To see one’s flag fall in battle was a demoralizing event, and therefore an act much desired by the opposing side. This resulted in many a Flag Bearer feeling as if he had a huge target painted on his chest. It was a dangerous occupation.

“He was in the war at Chattanooga, Chickamauga,” related my mother, “ … his flag bearer was running in front of him, and he got shot and he went down and the flag was falling … and in those days you would never let your flag touch the ground … and he grabbed the flag, pulled it off the [pole], and he shoved it in his tunic.” Charles then promptly got shot himself, and bayoneted, with the blades and musket balls ripping though the flag as well as the flesh.

This Civil War site records the words of William H. Carney, who received the Medal of Honor for his actions during the 54th Massachusetts Regiment’s legendary assault on Fort Wagner:

He was struck with one shot, but not being felled he continued, and then was struck with a second shot. On his struggle to cross the beach to the rear he met a member of the 100th New York Regiment who started to assist him, when Carney was struck with another shot in the head. The other soldier asked Carney to let him carrier the colors so he could more easily walk, but Carney refused, saying that no one other than a member of the 54th Massachusetts should carry the colors.

Finally, after an unlikely arrival alive at the rear guard hospital area, he saw his wounded and dying comrades who saw him carrying their colors and cheered him. He was able to tell them “Boys, the old flag never touched the ground.”

People whose boots you aren’t fit to lick have died for the American flag, Obama, you toxic Marxist traitor. How dare you defile it with your image. In fact there are STILL men dying for the American flag that you just desecrated.

There are also enemies and haters of America burning the American flag all over the world right now, you turd – not that you give a damn.

Does this outrage to everything that used to be America show all 58 states???

When I say you God damn Democrats, I mean it. Not just because you have as your president the PRESIDENT OF GOD DAMN AMERICA, but because you roaches are fascist, messiah-worshiping vermin.

In case you want to understand why I call Democrats the party of hypocrisy, you can look at the OTHER article I’ve got out today or you can click on this link in which an outraged liberal froths over Bush signing people’s tiny little flags that usually end up in the trash can after whatever event.

Now please excuse me while I vomit like I’ve never vomited before.

As I have said many times, my primary purpose for getting into political blogging was TO PRESERVE A RECORD of this incredibly dishonest presidency.