Friday, September 7, 2012

Obama Speech: Multiply Failure, Divide the Country


What has always amazed me about Democrat policies is that they feign outrage over the need to implement them, even though they have already been championed by both parties, and have produced negative results.  Government has already invested in crony capitalism and has already micro-managed every sector of the economy; from higher education to agriculture, health care, and energy.  Many of these policies have been supported by administrations and congresses controlled by both parties.  And they have driven up costs; not lowered them.  For goodness sake, that’s why we are still debating these problems decades after those very policies have been implemented.
Obama’s speech was the same stale central-planning and class warfare, not just from his older speeches, but from every Democrat speech this century.
Every line of the speech is not grounded in reality; it would take copious pages to rebut.  Here is just the policy side from some lines and the summary of his plan that was sent out to the media:
If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.
So after 4 years of shutting down oil drilling, nuclear power, blocking the pipeline, and the war on coal, we will suddenly cut oil imports in half?  The sad thing is that Obama is not lying.  He will cut net imports in half; not by producing more oil, but by shutting down our economy and mandating the usage of ineffectual phantom fuels, such as ethanol, wood chips, switch grass, algae, and horse manure.
As for natural gas, we all know what he means.  He wants massive subsidies for an industry that is already booming.  In other words, he wants to double down on the T. Boone Pickens subsidies – a policy that Boone Pickens has already renounced.
We’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we’ll open more.
Via: Red State

Continue Reading... 

Reporters Using ‘Fake Names’ to Buy Obama Campaign Merchandise at the DNC


CHARLOTTE, NC — Members of the media have apparently been using “fake” names to buy official Obama gear and contribute to the Obama campaign inside the Time Warner Cable Arena where the President is due to speak in a few minutes. During our travels around the arena, Politicker spotted a souvenir stand in one of the press stands selling T-shirts and buttons supporting President Barack Obama, “Democrats Are Hot” bumper stickers and other official Obama merchandise.
The souvenir stand was in a secure area only accessible to those with a media credential and buying campaign gear means contributing to the campaign, so we asked the woman working the cash register whether anyone at the press stand had been making purchases. Her answers were quite surprising. 
The woman working at the souvenir stand told us she hadn’t been “too busy” during the day, but had seen business pick up in the past half hour or so. She then asked us whether we wanted to buy anything. When we informed her that our status as a reporter means we don’t buy campaign gear, she suggested a strategy other members of the media have apparently used to pick up their Obama swag.
“Have you ever thought of making up a fake name? That’s what the other guys do,” she said.
Buying official merchandise at the DNC means making a donation the Obama campaign, an activity that is generally frowned upon for members of the media. The Obama campaign website specifically informs shoppers that purchases amount to donations in its “Frequently Asked Questions” section where one of the queries is, “Can I receive merchandise without making a donation?”
“The only way to receive items from the 2012 store is by contributing through the official store site at store.barackobama.com,” the site says.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Barack Obama to hail himself as the new Franklin D. Roosevelt: President promises 'bold, persistent' leadership like FDR during the Great Depression


President Barack Obama will tonight lay out his case for being re-elected to a second term by comparing himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won an unprecedented three presidential elections and led America to recovery after the Great Depression.
He will say: 'And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.'
Obama will formally accept the Democratic presidential nomination, capping a week in which speeches from his wife Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton, the husband of his erstwhile rival, received widespread praise.
He will tell Americans: 'Our problems can be solved. Our challenges can be met. The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place.'
Roosevelt dominated American politics for the 12 years of his presidency and beyond. He is commonly recognised as the greatest Democratic president and, along with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, one of the three greatest American presidents.
Not only did he bring America out of the depression, he oversaw the introduction of the New Deal social programmes, laid the foundations for the United Nations and led the country in the Second World War after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, dying just when victory was in sight.
Excerpts from tonight's speech released in advance showed that Obama would attempt to frame the election not as a referendum on his four-year term, during which unemployment has risen to 8.3 per cent, leaving more than 23 million Americans out of work, but as a choice between him and Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee.
'On every issue, the choice you face won’t be just between two candidates or two parties,' he was due to say. 'It will be a choice between two different paths for America. A choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future.'
This November's election, he argued, will represent 'the clearest choice of any time in a generation' between two different visions.

FIVE NC DELEGATES DITCH OBAMA NOMINATION VOTE


In a sign of how unpopular President Barack Obama is becoming in North Carolina, five North Carolina delegates did not show up to the Democratic National Convention to cast votes for Obama's nomination.

North Carolina cast 152 votes for Obama, despite having been awarded 157 delegates to the convention. 
North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman David Parker brushed off the missing votes and said the five missing votes merely reflected logistical mishaps. 
Parker said some of the delegates missed a breakfast and he "tried to run them down" throughout the day but could not track them down by the time North Carolina delegates had to cast their votes. 
Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) is one North Carolina Democrat who has stayed away from the DNC even though his district is less than a mile from where the convention is taking place because being associated with Obama hurts his reelection chances. According to theCharlotte-Observer, Republican staffers offered to drive Kissell to the convention this week. In addition, Democrats could not fill Bank of America Stadium for Obama's reelect, and moved Obama's speech on Thursday back indoors to a smaller venue to avoid embarrassment. 
And yet, Parker, the Democratic party chair in North Carolina, continued to downplay the fact that Democrats in North Carolina who were distancing themselves from Obama and the DNC reflected a lack of enthusiasm in North Carolina for Obama's reelection. 

Will He or Won't He? Obama Faces Jobs Report Dilemma


Imagine you're Barack Obama, about to give the most important political speech of your presidency, and someone on your staff hands you one of the best pieces of economic news you've seen yet.
Democratic National Convention, Charlotte, North Carolina
Getty Images
A display on stage show U.S. President Barack Obama during preparations for the Democratic National Convention at Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Trouble is, the information often is a major influence on the financial markets and is embargoed until the next morning.
Do you keep it to yourself — or do you at least drop enough hints that astute listeners can draw some logical and important conclusions?
That will be the dilemma the president faces today as he prepares to deliver his speech as the climactic event for this week'sDemocratic National Convention.
At some point this afternoon, the White House will know the gist of what's in the Labor Department's nonfarm payrolls report that reveals the national unemployment rate (learn more), but which the public will not see until 8:30 am ET Friday.

Wall Street was abuzz Thursday with speculation of whether Obama's remarks might deliver a hint of what's to come, particularly since the day's news indicated that the report could be a good deal better than the meager 125,000 job growth number that economists had expected.

"Normally I'm dismissive of those kinds of speculations about advance information in the employment report, but this is actually one of those instances where everything you said is true," said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities in New York.
"Let's suppose we had a bigger-than-expected increase in payrolls. Would he allude to that?" he continued. "That's as much about getting into the psychology of the man as it is the facts at hand."


Mr. Bill: 'Who You Gonna Believe, Me Or Your Lying Eyes'?

When a bull or a bucking bronc rider at a rodeo gets thrown from the saddle, out comes the rodeo clown to distract both the animal and the audience while the fallen rider is pulled to safety.

Bill Clinton's speech last night was something like that. After a disastrous day and an excruciatingly shrill, boring evening, Mr. Bill jumped into the arena to try and save the show, and no one can say he didn't do his level best. Even when you realized what he was saying was chock full of misstatements, half truths and a devious agenda of his own, you had to admire his showmanship, his delivery and his ability to play the Charlotte crowd like Jimi Hendrix mauling a stratocaster.

His only fault from a performance standpoint is that he went on far to long, speaking on past 11 PM, tiring the crowd and probably losing a decent portion of the TV audience before the last coda and the boffo finish.  But then, Mr. Bill was always overfond of the sound of his own voice. 

Bill Clinton had a few tasks Wednesday night, and he certainly succeeded with his target audience at the DNC, if perhaps not so much with the rest of the world. First, he had to make a case for Barack Obama, a man he doesn't particularly care for but whom he's bound to support as a loyal party warrior because he wants the same people he was speaking to tonight to support Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

For that matter, this had the aura of a business transaction because, as the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza revealed, part of the price for Bill Clinton getting involved was Barack Obama finally fulfilling a promise he made to the Clintons back in 2008, to pay off Hillary's quarter million dollar campaign debt from the primaries she incurred that year.

For his own purposes he wanted to remind Democrats and the country at large of how good things were economically under the Clintons to pave the for a Hillary candidacy in 2016, something the Obama Campaign is more or less forced to go along with because of President Obama's own abysmal record. 

Via: American Thinker


Continue Reading...

GOP Demands Obama Meet Friday Deadline For ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Report


Congressional Republicans are demanding that President Obama meet the Friday deadline for laying out how his administration will carry out the spending cuts from sequestration that are part of the "fiscal cliff."
“Tomorrow (September 7) is the deadline, which has us wondering … will President Obama comply with the Sequestration Transparency Act he signed into law?” the office of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) wrote in a blog post. 

GOP aides say they expect the White House to delay the report to prevent it from distracting from President Obama’s big acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night.
The report will for the first time detail where the sequestered cuts would come from in the budget, should Congress not act to stop them.
Behind presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Republicans have attacked Obama for the sequestered cuts, arguing the president has failed to find a solution that would prevent a hollowing out of the military. Obama has countered that it's the GOP who has stood in the way of a solution by refusing to agree to tax increases in a deficit deal.
The House has passed a sequester replacement package that includes significant entitlement cuts, but Democrats have rejected that approach and are demanding shallower cuts along with tax increases. The standoff is certain to last beyond the election.
Missing deadlines is not unprecedented for Obama's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which was tasked with crafting the sequester report. 
OMB's midsession budget review, for instance, was due by July 16, but released on July 27.


Rep. John Lewis predicts the return of segregation if Romney wins


CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Rep. John Lewis used his Thursday convention speech to argue that a GOP victory in November will send African-Americans back to the early 1960s, when he and other Africans-Americans were forcibly denied access to restaurants, public transportation and the ballot box.
“I’ve seen this before, I lived this before,” he claimed, after extensively describing his activism in Southern states in the 1950 and 1960s.
“We were met by an angry mob that beat us and left us lying in a pool of blood,” he said to raucous applause from roughly 20,000 delegates and activists.
“Brothers and sisters, do you want to go back?” he called, prompted a loud response of “No!”
“Or do you want to keep America moving forward?” he asked Sept. 6 to raucous applause from roughly 20,000 delegates and activists.
Lewis’ speech echoed Vice-President Joe Biden’s August warning to African-Americans “they’re gonna put y’all back in chains.”
There is no evidence that GOP politicians plan to enslave or segregate African-Americans. Historically, the GOP was established in the 1850s to helped destroy slavery, which it did under the first elected Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.


CBO: Under Current Law, Unemployment Will Rise Next Year to 9.1%


(CNSNews.com) – The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is projecting that if changes in federal taxing-and-spending policies already enacted and set to take effect at the beginning of next year do in fact take place, the unemployment rate will climb to 9.1 percent.
In a report released on Aug. 22, An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022,CBO’s baseline projections show that by the fourth quarter of 2013 the national unemployment rate will be 9.1 percent.
The estimate is based on the assumptions that the automatic caps on federal spending mandated under the Budget Control Act will take effect and that the extensions of the Bush-era tax rates enacted in 2010 will also be allowed to expires as they are set to do after Dec. 31.
 CBO also provides projections for an “alternative fiscal scenario,” in which the Bush tax rates are extended indefinitely, automatic spending cuts are averted and either the Medicare “doc fix” is reinstated or the current Medicare payment rates are extended.
Even in this scenario, which CBO calls “unsustainable,” the unemployment rate would still be about 8 percent by the end of 2013.
Deficits would be much higher under the alternative scenario as well, averaging about 5 percent of GDP rather than the projected 1 percent if the laws stay the same.
“The persistence of large budget deficits and rapidly escalating federal debt” would “hinder national saving and investment,” CBO said.

KRAUTHAMMER BLASTS BILL CLINTON’S DNC SPEECH: ‘SPRAWLING, UNDISCIPLINED AND TRULY SELF-INDULGENT’


Reacting to former president Bill Clinton’s nomination speech at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday, Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said the address was “sprawling, undisciplined and truly self-indulgent” and would not help President Obama’s re-election chances.
“I think it was a giant swing and a miss,” Krauthammer said of the speech.  “I don’t think it will move the needle whatsoever.
“It was engaging it was humorous, in some cases it was generous — I think there were more mentions of the Bushs than I heard in three days in Tampa,” he added. “It was also vintage Clinton in that it was sprawling, undisciplined and truly self-indulgent.”
Krauthammer went on to call Clinton’s DNC address “one of the strangest nomination speeches” even given.
“It was kind of an amalgam between the state of the union address, a policy wonk seminar and what sounded to me like a campaign speech for a third Clinton term — Obama was sort of incidental, he would be shoved in every once in a while,” he said.
“It is true that he made a lot of detailed rebuttals, that he is sort of the rebuttler-in-chief…but Paul Ryan can handle all of that in 10 minutes in his debate,” he concluded.

Obama’s Thursday Night Secret About Jobs


When President Barack Obama takes the stage Thursday night at the Democratic convention, he’ll probably know a secret about the economy that you don’t: the contents of Friday’s employment report. But don’t expect easy clues in his big speech.
ZUMAPRESS.com
Friday’s jobs report, one of only three before the Nov. 6 election, could prove more influential in shaping perceptions about the economy than anything Mr. Obama says in Charlotte when he accepts his party’s nomination. Payroll numbers have been choppy throughout the year, and Friday’s data — released at 8:30 am Eastern time — might help clarify recent trends. (The report will also tell us whether the unemployment rate changed from July’s 8.3% and it could help the Federal Reserve determine whether to launch a new round of bond-buying next week.)
Mr. Obama doesn’t have to wait until the formal release to see the numbers. Under a decades-long practice, a select group of U.S. officials learns the contents of each month’s jobs report on the Thursday evening before its release. The Bureau of Labor Statistics delivers the information sometime Thursday afternoon to the White HouseCouncil of Economic Advisers, which analyzes the data and prepares a memo for the president. (The CEA chairman or director of the National Economic Council often informs the president in person.)
The routine is governed by a directive from the White House Office of Management and Budget. It allows top government officials — like those at the White House,Treasury Department and Fed — to know about an important report that could shake global markets. Employees of the executive branch aren’t supposed to comment publicly on the data until at least one hour after the official release on Friday morning. That’s why we don’t hear the White House’s spin on the report until 9:30 a.m., almost an hour after the opposing party has spit out its own statements. (The White House has gotten more careful in recent decades. Back in the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson caused a stir more than once when he commented on favorable numbers before they were released.)
Via: Wall Street Journal

Sununu on DNC venue switcheroo: “You can’t believe a thing this administration says”


After this morning’s news that the Democrats are now planning to move Obama’s convention speech from the outdoor, 70,000-capacity Bank of America football stadium to the indoor, 20,000-capacity Time Warner basketball arena because of ostensible weather concerns (meaning, the 30 percent chance of thunderstorms on the forecast practically every night in the summer for the mid-eastern seaboard), there’s been no shortage of mockery from the Right for the Democrats’ retreat from much-heralded enthusiasm to defensive sheepishness. The campaigns have been trading barbs, and the Romney camp’s resident ‘honey badger’ John Sununu pointed out that this is yet another Obama promise gone awry:
“You can’t believe a thing this administration says,” Sununu told reporters at the NASCAR Hall of Fame. “This campaign promised you, rain or shine, the president would be speaking there. Then when they couldn’t get a crowd they brought it inside. I think those facts speak for themselves.” …
“You would think they’d be smart enough to lie about things that weren’t easy to check,” he said. “Almost all the speakers last night accused Romney of wanted to raise taxes on the middle class. There is a very simple declarative sentence that is Gov. Romney’s position on the middle class: ‘We are going to cut their taxes by 20 percent.’ That is not a complicated sentence. It might be for Barack Obama, but that is not a complicated sentence.”
The Obama campaign has tried to fire back. It’s pretty precious:
The Obama campaign is facing a barrage of criticism and mockery from Republicans for scrapping plans to hold the final night of their convention at downtown Charlotte’s more than 73,000-seat Bank of America Stadium. But they’ve got a message for their detractors.
“I’ve got two words for you,” a senior Obama campaign official told ABC News, “Ford Field.”
The official was referring to Mitt Romney’s February 2012 speech before a crowd of 1,200 at Detroit’s Ford Field — a stadium that seats up to 80,000. Democrats on Wednesday circulated a now-famous photo of Romney speaking in  the almost-empty venue with the tongue-in-cheek headline: “Mitt Romney’s idea of a successful stadium event….”
Feeble, Team O. Nobody’s made a bigger deal out of Barack Obama’s ostensible abilities to fill a stadium then you guys, and let’s be serious: The lack of enthusiasm that previously committed Obama-voters are feeling right now is a huge problem for their side. If there had been a real opportunity for the Democrats to showcase a football stadium chock-full of wildly supportive Obama fanatics, I doubt even a dang monsoon would’ve stopped them from doing so.
Update: Oh, this just keeps on getting more and more humiliating. I almost feel a little badly for piling on. …Almost. Via BuzzFeed:

Barney Frank: More stimulus would reduce food stamp rolls


CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank told The Daily Caller that there would be “fewer” food stamp recipients in America if Republicans did not block additional federal stimulus spending for state and local projects supported by congressional Democrats.
TheDC asked Frank about the record 46.7 million Americans currently receiving food stamp benefits.
“Well, there’s a record number of people in America. You know, every year things tend to go up. It’s why it needs to have a important program, it’s why I wish we got more cooperation from the Republicans in trying to do the things that would help us economically like not have the cities have to lay off firefighters and cops,” Frank told TheDC at the Democratic National Convention.
“I wish we were spending less in Afghanistan, where we’re wasting a great deal of money. I’m glad the president got us out of Iraq, but I think it shows that our spending priorities are out of whack and if we took some of those billions that we’re now wasting in Afghanistan and put them to work here in our cities then we would have fewer people in that situation.”
In February 2009, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed an $831 billion stimulus package.
Last year, President Barack Obama pushed Congress to pass his jobs act, which would provide states and localities with additional federal stimulus funds to hire firefighters, police and teachers. The White House advocated for a surtax on millionaires to pay for the legislation. The bill never made it out of Congress.
When Obama took office in January 2009, 31,983,716 Americans were receiving food stamps, compared to 46,670,373 people on food stamps as of June 2012.
Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Weekly Standard: The $4.351 Trillion Difference Between Obama & Clinton


Always looking "forward," President Obama has asked Bill Clinton—who was elected to the presidency 20 years ago—to speak tonight and suggest to the American people (whether explicitly or implicitly) that this is really a choice between Clinton and George W. Bush, rather than between Obama and Mitt Romney. If you're Obama, this beats running on your record.
clinton and obama and Edwards
The only problem with this—in addition to the fact that Romney isn't Bush (and Paul Ryan isn't Dick Cheney)—is that Obama's record doesn't bear much resemblance to Clinton's.  One could point to the rather obvious differences between the strong Clinton economy and the anemic Obama economy, between Clinton's signing welfare reform into law and Obama's undermining it via executive order, between Clinton's tacking to the center to work with Republicans and Obama's not moving to the center but playing to his base (rejecting the Keystone Pipeline, embracing gay marriage, making it illegal for Americans to offer or to choose health plans that don't include "free" birth control, "free" sterilization, and "free" access to the abortion drug ella).
But one thing perhaps highlights the difference between Clinton and Obama most clearly: The increase in the national debt on their respective watches. Both men enjoyed two years of single-party control in Washington before they subsequently lost one (Obama) or both (Clinton) houses of Congress.  In this way, their circumstances have been similar, but their results have not.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

DNC PINS HOPES ON SHREDDED CREDIBILITY OF ELIZABETH WARREN


The Democratic National Convention tonight is pinning its hopes on the shredded credibility of Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, who has been caught telling so many blatant lies during the course of her campaign she has become a national laughing stock. 

When she gives her speech introducing former President Bill Clinton this evening, she's expected to make a series of attacks on the Republican candidates. The problem this presents for Democrats is simple. Will anyone who's not a hard core left-wing radical believe a word she says?
The public humiliation of Ms. Warren began when the Boston Herald reported that she had, since the 1980s and well into the 1990s "checked the affirmative action box" and claimed Native American ancestry, despite no credible evidence to support that claim.
Even the reliably liberal Boston Globe, which originally promoted the false meme that she was 1/32 Cherokee, was forced to recant, and called on Ms. Warren to fess up.
Then, of course, there was the revelation that one of her ancestors had actually been a member of the Tennessee militia that rounded up Cherokees in preparation for the Trail of Tears.
And who can forget her Pow Wow Chow cookbook plagiarism? Here's a description of the origin of the recipes she submitted to that classic work:
Two of the possibly plagiarized recipes, said in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook to have been passed down through generations of Oklahoma Native American members of the Cherokee tribe, are described in a New York Times News Service story as originating at Le Pavilion, a fabulously expensive French restaurant in Manhattan. The dishes were said to be particular favorites of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter.
The two recipes, "Cold Omelets with Crab Meat" and "Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing," appear in an article titled “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat,” written by Pierre Franey of the New York Times News Service that was published in the August 22, 1979 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News, a copy of which can be seen here.
Ms. Warren’s 1984 recipe for Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing  is a word-for-word copy of Mr. Franey’s 1979 recipe.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading... 

Wasserman-Schultz: ‘No, I Definitely Will Not’ Apologize To Reporter She Falsely Accused Of Lying

NOT APOLOGIZING IS THE BASIS FOR BEING A DEMOCRAT


Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) told the Washington Free Beacon Wednesday evening that she will not be apologizing to Washington Examiner reporter Philip Klein after she falsely accused him of “deliberately misquoting” her.
“No, I definitely will not” offer Klein an apology, Wasserman Schultz said with a slight laugh as she was exiting an event meant to honor Center For American Progress founder John Podesta.
Asked if she had a message for Klein, Wasserman Schultz bristled.
“I don’t,” she said.
Klein caught Wasserman Schultz in a lie yesterday after she falsely claimed that Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren had chastised Republicans as being “dangerous” for Israel.
Oren later denied that he had made those remarks, leading Wasserman Schultz to accuse Klein of fabricating her quotes.


Sandra Fluke: Ryan “Would Allow Women to Die in Emergency Rooms”


Pro-abortion activist Sandra Fluke accused Paul Ryan of supporting a bill that “would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms,” an attack on Ryan’s pro-life views.
Speaking to the Democratic National Convention, Fluke pushed her pro-abortion views saying Mitt Romney and Ryan’s pro-life views would be bad for the country.
“In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won’t stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party,” she claimed. “It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms.
Fluke said that was, “An America in which states humiliate women by forcing us to endure invasive ultrasounds we don’t want and our doctors say we don’t need,” even though studies show Planned Parenthood virtually always does ultrasounds prior to abortions.
Fluke is bastardizing a portion of the bill stopping taxpayer funding of abortions in Obamacare that reinstates conscience protections for pro-life medical workers who don’t want to be involved in abortions.
The Protect Life Act makes it clear that no funds authorized or appropriated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), including tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, may be used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage. It specifies that individual people or state or local governments must purchase a separate elective abortion rider or insurance coverage that includes elective abortion but only as long as that is done with private funds and not monies authorized by Obamacare.
The bill also specifies that insurance issuers may offer health plans that include elective abortion and may offer separate elective abortion riders, so long as they ensure PPACA funds are not used for premiums or administrative costs. The bill also clarifies that issuers who offer elective abortion coverage must also offer a qualified health benefits plan that is identical except that it does not cover elective abortion.

Democrats Proudly Declare We All Belong to the Government. Ditch God From Their Platform.


In a statement right out of a communist state, the Democrats started their convention with a bit of propaganda declaring we all belong to the government. Seriously. They started their convention with this video:
This is unreal. The founders must be rolling over in their grave. The constitution starts with “We the People,” not we the government. The government belongs to us, we do not belong to the government. The government is our servant. We do not serve government. We are Americans. We are not all wards or property of the state, despite Barack Obama’s best efforts.
I think we can say the Democrats are fulling embracing Barack Obama’s claim that “you didn’t build that.” It’s clear from this we did not take Barack Obama out of context. The Democrats really do believe government built it all.
This is what the Soviets did in their propaganda. They portrayed the people in service to the state. The collective overrode the individuals. The Democrats are finally embracing their inner marxists. Consistent with this, they’ve ditched God from their platform. Religion is, after all, the opiate of the people and is unnecessary when we are all collectively creatures of the state.
By the way, you’ve now heard the Democrats’ audio that “we all belong to the government.” I’ll see you that and raise you Clint Eastwood. Listen to what he had to say on this topic and tell me who is more in touch with America?

Parents Angry Over School Closures for Obama Visit


PORTSMOUTH — Backlash erupted Tuesday afternoon after the Portsmouth School Department announced it would cancel school Friday due to logistical challenges tied to President Barack Obama's campaign visit.
The Herald received multiple calls from angry parents after Superintendent Ed McDonough sent an e-mail to families announcing the closure.
"I just think it's unbelievable," said parent Kathy Logan. "All of a sudden, the president is coming to Portsmouth and everything has to shut down. I don't think it's right."
Logan said she was at Little Harbour School on Tuesday morning for a "teddy bear picnic" welcoming kindergarten students to the school. The first day for kindergarten is today, and Logan said it was unfair for her son's education to be disrupted so soon.
She said school officials at Little Harbour did not mention the closure and she did not find out until she checked her e-mail when she got home.
She also had made doctor appointments and other plans for Friday, which had to be rescheduled due to the sudden school closure. Logan is a stay-at-home mother, but parents with jobs outside the home are suddenly having to make arrangements for child care Friday.
One commentator on www.seacoastonline.com suggested the president "pay for the sitter" for those inconvenienced by the closure.
Logan said she is an independent voter and her complaints were not driven by politics. She simply thinks her son should be in school, she said.
"I actually blame the campaign. I don't think the School Department had much of a choice," she said. "I love being in New Hampshire. I love the fact that the politicians come through the state. I think we're so lucky, but I just don't think you shut down your whole school system."
McDonough said he had received calls and e-mails from residents complaining about the decision and asking him to reconsider, and that he was acutely aware of the inconvenience the closure caused.
"It's clearly short notice, and folks are terribly inconvenienced," he said. "I certainly am aware of the impact it presents to families. At the end of the day, we tried to use a measured approach, but for logistical reasons with our bus company, (keeping schools open) wouldn't work."

DNC CHAIRMAN VILLARAIGOSA'S EXTREMIST PAST


Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles who was featured on the June 2009 cover of Los Angeles Magazine with the one-word caption, “Failure,” is the chairman of the upcoming Democratic National Convention.  The obvious reason is that the Obama administration, which views ethnic communities as separate fiefdoms to cultivate, is targeting the Latino community. And in the separatist prism through which they view the country, it’s only natural that they should pick Villaraigosa, whose entire career started with an extremist Latino group.

Villaraigosa, whose original name was Tony Villar, entered UCLA as a transfer student from East Los Angeles Community College in 1972.  He joined the UCLA chapter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), and was leading it by 1974. MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as "Mechistas,"romanticize Mexican claims to the "lost Territories" of the Southwestern United States -- a Chicano country called Aztlan.  As head of the UCLA chapter, Villar called on the Chicano Studies Center (CSC) Director Rudolfo ‘Rudy’ Alvarez to resign from his post, accusing him of  “trying to alter the concept behind Chicano studies.” 
The UCLA Bruin, the campus newspaper, reported on July 25, 1974: “Chicano students are considering filing a class action suit against Rodolfo Alvarez, Chicano Studies Center (CSC) director … ‘Where at one time the Steering Committee composed of students, faculty, and community people was the policy making body of the Center, now Rudy is its sole dictator,’ said Tony Villar.”
The Bruin continued:  “Both Villar and Garcia attacked the Alvarez-directed CSC for working only with government-sponsored drug programs ‘instead of community organizations like the National Committee to Free Los Tres.’”   The “National Committee to Free Los Tres,” was created by former MEChistas to defend three members of the militant Chicano organization Casa Carnalismo who were convicted of assaulting a federal narcotics officer posing as a drug dealer in East Los Angeles.  By 1974, a Marxist-Leninist faction emerged within the NCFLT that intended to transform its parent group Casa Carnalismo into a "revolutionary vanguard" dedicated to the "liberation of the Mexican people.” Professor Alvarez wound up resigning.

Dem. Women’s Caucus: Republicans ‘Want to Relegate Women to the Back of the Bus’


Luci Ramirez and Jodi Salyers, both Texans, have just spent two hours hearing from top Democratic women like House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at the Democratic National Convention’s Women’s Caucus. The message? Republicans don’t like women and want to take away their birth control.
“We are celebrity overdosed!” says Ramirez “I didn’t realize how anti-birth control, how anti-women, period, the Republicans are until today,” adds Salyers.
The recurring theme: Republicans have what one speaker calls a “disregard for women’s freedom.”
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi began by mocking Republican emphasis on women at their convention last week in Tampa. “I love hearing how they loved their mother and loved their wife and all of that,” said Pelosi. “I’m interested to hear how they respect women’s decisions to determine the size of their family, if they choose to have a family. Republicans “are not even pro-birth control," Pelosi added, "That’s a radical position. That’s just wrong.”
Republicans do not want to force religious groups and taxpayers to pay for free contraceptives, abortifacients, and abortions for others. But banning contraceptives is not a Republican position. But that’s not what the audience heard Tuesday.
Republicans “want to take us backwards—so far back that we’ll be in the kitchen,” said Stephanie Schriock, president of the pro-choice group EMILY’s List.

Donna Brazile, vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, compared Republicans to segregationists: “They want to relegate women to the back of the bus,” she said. Democrats “don’t have to pretend to love women."

Popular Posts