Saturday, September 15, 2012

Gasoline Prices More than Double Under Obama: $1.84 to $3.85

By Matt Cover
September 14, 2012

( – Average retail gasoline prices have more than doubled under President Obama, according to government statistics, rising from $1.84 per gallon to $3.85 per gallon.

The average gasoline price is calculated by the Energy Information Agency, and shows that over the past 43 months of President Obama’s term retail gasoline prices have more than doubled, rising from an average of $1.84 per gallon to $3.85 per gallon.

Rising gasoline prices were particularly prevalent in August, which saw a 9.0 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for gasoline, a rise that almost entirely accounts for the general increase in prices seen by families across the country over the past month.

In other words, the recent spike in prices for all goods – tracked by the government’s Consumer Price Index – can be almost entirely accounted for by the rise in gasoline prices. Prices in the economy rose by 0.6 percent overall in August.

“The seasonally adjusted increase in the all items index was the largest since June 2009. About 80 percent of the increase was accounted for by the gasoline index, which rose 9.0 percent and was the major factor in the energy index rising sharply in August after declining in each of the four previous months,” the Bureau of Labor Statistics said in a press release announcing the new CPI figures for August.

Over the past twelve months, general prices have risen 1.7 percent, BLS reported.

CPI is a measure of the average change in prices for goods and services in the economy seen by consumers – making it the leading indicator of the inflation experienced directly by consumers throughout the country.

Kids Question Michelle Obama: Unsure Where President Is, and Where Obamas Will Move If President Loses

9:06 AM, Sep 14, 2012

(The Weekly Standard) - First Lady Michelle Obama stopped by a Virginia YMCA yesterday where she met with elementary and middle school kids. The kids had tough questions for the first lady, including the whereabouts of the president of the United States. She did not immediately know.

From the pool report:

Asked where he was, she said, “he’s at work,” then asked the adults, “Where is Barack Obama?” She was told he’s in Colorado today.

When asked by a kid where the Obamas would live if President Obama loses, "The First Lady said they could figure that out later," according to the pool report.

Michelle Obama was also asked whether she likes Barack Obama. “I do like Obama, I like him a lot,” Michelle Obama said.

Another kid wondered if she's the president. “I am not a president. I am married to the president,” she said.

At the Y, she told the kids to "eat your vegetables."

“I love to come to the Ys and see what’s going on.” She then tells them to have a great year in school and “eat your vegetables.” She called the stop “a nice break in my day.”

More from the pool report:

The First Lady then moved on to an elementary-grades class of kids, who were also very surprised – one kept screaming “oh my God, I’m going to die.”

As she entered the room, one boy pointed at her and yelled “Obama.” The First Lady said “No, I’m his wife.”

She again moved around the tables, asking kids about their age, grade and interests. Several asked about her dog Bo, and about her own children, who she said would be home from school soon.

One table had several football fans. “I’m from Chicago, so I love the Bears,” said the First Lady. The kids pointed out a staffer who was wearing a Bears shirt and is from Chicago. The First Lady asked him where in Chicago he’s from. ...

Another boy asked her if she thinks Obama will get outrun by Mitt Romney. “I watch TV,” he said by way of explanation, adding that he sees a lot of Romney on TV.

“He does have a lot of commercials,” the First Lady answered.

‘Big data’ push to keep the President in power

Inside Obama’s HQ

By Richard McGregor

In the most tech-savvy campaign yet, the ‘big data’ push to keep the President in power uses technology to micro-target voters like never before

rederick Harris is walking through his front gate in Washington, D.C., after a morning coffee, when he spots me on his front steps, staring at my mobile phone. “Are you Frederick?” I say. “Depends who’s asking,” he replies warily, as you do to a strange man loitering by your front door.

I want to reply “Barack Obama” – and I would only be half-wrong.

It had taken all of a few minutes to download the app designed by President Obama’s re-election campaign at my kitchen table and have it guide me to Harris’s house a few blocks away, in the Capitol Hill neighbourhood.

One tap on the app’s icon for voter canvassing and the screen lights up with a street map dotted with small blue flags, marking the Democrats in the area his re-election campaign would like to have door-knocked. Tap on the flag, and the app brings up their address. Another tap and I have their first names, their age and their gender, as in “Frederick H., 75, M.”

Since its launch this year, anyone can download the “Obama for America” app and see the party affiliation of many of their neighbours, with the ages and exact addresses thrown in for good measure. Harris, who shares the house with his wife, seems nonplussed about any possible assault on his privacy and is happy to provide me with his full surname.

“If they are trying to identify sympathetic Democrats, they have got two in the cross hairs right here,” he says, of him and his wife. “Everything is an invasion of privacy these days. If I got excited about it, I would have had a coronary by now.”

Others are not so relaxed. At the home of 45-year-old “Deanne S.”, in the next block, the man who answers the door recoils as I try to show him his household’s details displayed on my mobile phone. “I am not sure she will talk to you,” he says, and shuts the door.

The Obama campaign has already rewritten the electioneering playbook once, in 2008. For the first time in a presidential poll, supporters could create their own user profile on the campaign’s site and use it to join groups, arrange events and raise money. About 2m enthusiasts signed up, and the Republicans were left eating Obama’s digital dust.

But what was revolutionary in 2008 is normal now. And unlike 2008, when Obama outspent John McCain by about three to one, Mitt Romney and his supporters will have a big money advantage. With the US economy mired in a sluggish recovery, Obama and his campaign are trying to reinvent the game again. So close is the election, and so far has Obama’s stock fallen since those heady days in 2008, that his campaign is relying on their advantage in technology and social media in their battle to stay in the White House.

The sprawling, open-plan Chicago headquarters of the Obama campaign, and their small huddles of twentysomethings hunched around computer screens, look like an internet start-up for a reason. The traditional trappings of US presidential elections are still important stages from which to sway voters, from the razzle-dazzle of the conventions to the hard slog of daily rallies on the hustings and the endless rounds of fundraising dinners. But in the 21st century, campaigns can use technology to micro-target voters like never before.

“Big data is the story of this election – the whole political media ecology has changed,” says Andrew Rasiej, the founder of Personal Democracy Forum, who has advised numerous politicians on the use of technology. “The Obama campaign won’t admit to their real level of sophistication, because they have no reason to.”

In the old days, volunteer door-knockers would have gone to campaign headquarters, where they would have been given a few pieces of paper, a list of names and addresses and a clipboard. Now, campaigns can save supporters the trouble of the trip, because the information about the address of Harris and the like is just a few taps away on their mobile phones.

But the app provides only a tiny glimpse into the tools being used by both competing candidates and their campaigns. Through Facebook interactions, blog postings and Twitter accounts, the campaigns now know much more than the few biographical scraps of the kind displayed by the free campaign download.

Inside the war room

They might know whether voters have made up their minds whom to support, what issue will sway their decision, and which of their friends are best placed to talk them around. They can then match that up with other information – how much they earn, their religion, whether they are married or divorced, how many children they have, and so on.

“Most people think, ‘Oh my God! They know everything about me – they’ve got detectives in my bushes!’” says Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican strategist who has advised Romney in past campaigns. “They don’t. But they do know if you’re a Catholic professional who owns a house and who’s registered to vote, and doesn’t vote in school board elections but tends to vote in other elections. And if you’re married, have three kids and subscribe to a lot of magazines.”

With that information, he says, “they can start to match you up with maybe 100 sub-clusters of different types of people, based on polling, and guess – they never know for sure – what you’re more likely to be interested in. And then try to tailor some communication to you based on that.”

When he was appointed the campaign manager for Obama’s re-election, Jim Messina didn’t rush out to sit at the feet of the political consultants who had done the job before him. Messina wanted to find out how to reach voters with personal messages to persuade them to turn out to support the president.

So the former White House deputy chief of staff went to Hollywood and Silicon Valley to see top executives at Apple, Facebook and DreamWorks to get up to speed on technology and marketing. Messina counts Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, as a mentor, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

Just as Messina has been instructed by CEOs, he styles himself as one. In that respect, he is following the example set by the Republicans’ winning campaign in 2004. That year, George W. Bush ran for re-election in the midst of the chaos of the Iraq war. He only prevailed because his campaign managed to find and target millions of voters who hadn’t turned out for Bush four years earlier.

Ken Mehlman, Bush’s campaign manager, who now works in private equity, didn’t rely on his gut instinct to guide him. Like a McKinsey consultant, he set benchmarks and measured them every week to see if his strategy was working. The campaign set targets for dollars raised; voter registration; the number of visits they wanted to make to different places around the country; polling; and the number of people they wanted to book on television.

The Republicans were also ahead in matching consumer data about magazine subscriptions and credit records to voter records to try to predict behaviour. Of course, they also used some political tricks – putting a referendum about same-sex marriage on the ballot in some states in 2004 to bring evangelicals to the polls, for example.

Mehlman dismissed the idea he was some kind of political guru. He told everyone that his job “was to be the CEO of the campaign”. After the election was over, he recounted to friends and colleagues how he had spent a third of his time on the campaign’s budget. Most campaigns end up with millions of dollars still in the bank, either because they have not spent the money efficiently, or because they have not been able to navigate the complex rules governing campaign finance. Mehlman was proud of the fact that he had just $50,000 left in the bank at the end of the campaign.

Like Mehlman, Messina and his team talk constantly of “metrics” and being guided by “the data”. “We measure every single thing we do. We have goals every single day and feedback,” says Marlon Marshall, whose title in the campaign’s Chicago headquarters – deputy of field operations – makes him sound like a military commander.

The comparison is appropriate, because modern election campaigns rise or fall on logistics. Voter conversations, door knocks and new voter registrations, along with their race, age and gender – all are constantly tracked and measured. “If we created the internal combustion engine in 2004,” says one senior Republican, “then the Obama campaign have figured out how to create the race car.”

The engine room of the extraordinary grassroots campaign sucking up this information is in places like downtown Denver, Colorado, in the mountain west region. In a small room in a converted warehouse, Jill Wildenberg’s life until November 6 is plastered all over the wall. The tasks of the 100-plus volunteer army she is deploying to get Obama re-elected are laid out, too, in a collage resembling a giant paint catalogue, with rows of Post-it notes structured in a neat rectangular grid.

In just one small slice of Colorado’s largest city, Wildenberg is juggling nearly a dozen groups, each covering a few blocks of the city, with their tasks divided in multiple ways. Some man the phones or knock on doors. Others register voters. Another group collects data to be sent back to campaign headquarters in Chicago and a fifth provides volunteers with food and drink.

“Community organising is not a top-down exercise,” says Wildenberg, a veteran volunteer of the 2008 campaign, who has left her job to work full-time on the campaign. This time around, she adds, the grassroots effort “is much more detailed and systematic than last time, and each turf is much smaller”.

The Obama campaign had arranged for me to meet the 56-year-old former director of education at a local synagogue in a swing through the must-win mountain west state. Tireless, enthusiastic and devoted to the president, she embodies the ethos the campaign wants to promote – that ordinary people speaking to their neighbours will beat the wealthy people writing million-dollar cheques for the Republicans’ Romney.

Not on display for reporters, however, is the full kit of digital tools that Wildenberg and thousands of volunteers like her across the country can take into the field with them. Nor would the Obama campaign say what precise information Wildenberg’s volunteers have to work with. But they will have vastly more data at their disposal than the app’s few details about age and gender. “We are spending a lot of time making sure what we do in the social media is available to people on the ground,” says one Obama campaign official. “We have one organising unit with digital and social components.”

By the time a campaign is making a decision about how it might reach a particular voter, they already have a very sophisticated profile of how that person might respond to a particular type of message. They might, says Rasiej, to take one example, have someone in Colorado who voted in the last election and signed up to their website, but doesn’t visit it very often and has not donated.

Through publicly available information, they know that voter is a single mother earning $60,000 a year, living in an area with few people making that much money. Then they can discover that she also posts on a blog for single mothers concerned about healthcare costs, or that she tweeted about environmental products, or that the majority of her public posts on Facebook or Twitter are about green issues. The campaign then sorts through these personal variables with their custom-built algorithms to construct voter profiles.

“So, with her email address, they may contact her directly with a message from Michelle Obama only touting environmental issues as the reason that she should support the President’s campaign,” says Rasiej. “They can get down to literally that kind of detail, and then as time goes on they keep feeding new information back in.”

The Republicans can do the same, but Romney’s network is smaller on Twitter and Facebook, the two most important social media networks. Obama has about 28 million “likes” on his Facebook page; Romney only about 6.5 million. There’s a similar yawning gap in their respective Twitter followers. To some extent, these are “vanity metrics”, says Patrick Ruffini, the president of Engage, a digital agency, who has worked with the Republican National Committee and also George W. Bush’s campaign. “Unless you sign people up on your website, you don’t know who these people are.”

An Obama adviser responds that the campaign tries to leverage what it calls “the behavioural stuff. So if you always open emails about veterans’ issues, and you never open emails about jobs, we are going to try to serve you with as much veterans’ materials as we can, and on Facebook as well.

“How many times do people like to volunteer; what topics they donate on? That is a lot more useful for us than age and demographics. If a person is 70 or 20 and they both respond to the exact same content, that is what we care about.”

Voters trust the traditional media less than ever. They do not believe politicians and their surrogates either. So the aim is to get friends to persuade their friends, using material supplied by the campaign.

“We want to find a way to get our followers to share material with their friends, or like it, so it ends up in their friends’ feeds,” the campaign official adds. “We’ve learnt 100-fold from 2008. We can put stuff in front of every American, and that is incredible.”

Richard McGregor is the FT’s Washington bureau chief

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Fed risks political fallout from QE3

September 14, 2012 7:01 pm
By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington

The US Federal Reserve was always going to catch a few political bullets if it launched an aggressive new easing only eight weeks before a presidential election.

Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month. In some of the most aggressive comments he has made on the Fed, Mr Romney said QE3 was nothing but a “sugar high”, and would fail to get the economy moving. “Recognise that, as the Federal Reserve keeps on trying to stimulate the economy by printing more money, that there’s a cost to that,” said Mr Romney in remarks at a fundraiser. “The value of your savings goes down. People who are living on fixed incomes don’t see much interest income any more. And the value of the dollar goes down, and the risk for long-term inflation goes up.” The criticism places the central bank in an uncomfortable position because it is all coming from one direction. Democrats are delighted by the move; Republicans are on the attack. No matter how apolitical the Fed’s decisions – and chairman Ben Bernanke was at pains to assert his indifference to politics in a press conference on Thursday – the Fed’s activism in response to a weak recovery has political consequences. The question is whether there are also consequences in the other direction: whether political debate about the Fed’s actions could result in change to its mandate or leadership. That remains a more distant prospect. “What Romney is saying to the Fed is, ‘This is not your job’,” said Phillip Swagel, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and a former economist for the George W. Bush administration. “QE3 will have a very modest impact on the economy . . . and if anything it stands in the way of fiscal policy.” Some conservative economists think the Fed is over-interpreting the employment side of the dual mandate – and by lowering interest rates and making it easier for the US to finance debt in the bond markets, this removes the pressure from Congress to strike a deal on deficit reduction. The most visible effort to clip the Fed’s wings is a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Kevin Brady, a Republican from Texas, who is vice-chair of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. His bill would limit the central bank’s mandate to inflation, not employment, and restrict its monetary policy operations to short-term Treasury securities. Were his bill now law, Mr Brady told the Financial Times, “the Fed would not be able to embark on this third round of quantitative easing”. He said the bill had taken off faster than he had hoped and already had 48 co-sponsors in Congress. “Everyone, whether they agree or not, believes it is the right time to have this discussion.” But while Mr Romney has criticised QE3, it would be a huge leap to eliminate the employment mandate once in office. “I think you can do a lot without changes to the Federal Reserve Act,” says Prof Swagel. “Romney will probably look to appoint the next Fed chair as someone who is aligned with his views.” That is the most realistic political consequence of the Fed’s actions: that when Mr Bernanke’s term expires at the end of January 2014, a new chairman is appointed who opposes them. Once settled in the White House, however, even Mr Romney would have to consider whether a tight monetary policy was actually in his interest, given that re-election would probably depend on delivering strong economic growth. Whether QE3 has any lasting political consequences for the Fed will probably depend on how well it works. “It puts critics of the Fed in a difficult position,” said John Makin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, who called the programme of open-ended easing a “bold experiment”. The Fed is trying to bring down high unemployment and, while the experiment is in progress, critics will struggle to make headway. If the experiment fails, however, and inflation rises sharply before unemployment comes down, the Fed may find itself hard-pressed to resist the proposals of Mr Brady and his colleagues. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from and redistribute by email or post to the web.

US Credit Rating Cut by Future DHS enemy listed Egan-Jones ... Again

Published: Friday, 14 Sep 2012 3:43 PM ET
By: With Reuters

Ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government to "AA-" from "AA," citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve would hurt the U.S. economy and the country's credit quality.

The Fed on Thursday said it would pump $40 billion into the U.S. economy each month until it saw a sustained upturn in the weak jobs market. (Read more: Fed's 'QE Infinity' — Four Things That Could Go Wrong)

In its downgrade, the firm said that issuing more currency and depressing interest rates through purchasing mortgage-backed securities does little to raise the U.S.'s real gross domestic product, but reduces the value of the dollar.

In turn, this increases the cost of commodities, which will pressure the profitability of businesses and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power, the firm said.

In April, Egan-Jones cuts the U.S. credit rating to "AA" from "AA+" with a negative watch, citing a lack of progress in cutting the mounting federal debt.

Moody's Investors Service [MCO 43.82 0.07 (+0.16%) ] currently rates the United States Aaa, Fitch rates the country AAA, and Standard & Poor's rates the country AA-plus. All three of those ratings have a negative outlook.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK (or maybe the year)

WH: ‘We’re very proud of the president’s record on foreign policy’

September 14, 2012 12:50 pm

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney opted not to respond to the suggestion that the embassy attacks throughout the Middle East suggest that extremists view the United States under President Obama as weak on foreign policy.

“We are happy to debate — and there is certainly ample time and appropriate time to debate foreign policy approaches, this president’s record on foreign policy,” Carney told reporters during the press briefing when asked if the attacks stemmed from “perceived American weakness” that stems from Obama’s leadership. “We’re very proud of the president’s record on foreign policy and are happy to make the case at the appropriate time.”

Carney emphasized instead the tragedy in Libya. "This is a time when it's in the best interests of the country to focus on the four personnel, the four Americans that we lost in Libya and who are returning home today, and on the measures that we need to take as a nation to deal with the [ongoing unrest]," he said.

Source: Joel Gehrke @ Washington Examiner

OBAMA FLASHBACK: The Day I'm Inaugurated Muslim Hostility Will Ease

14 Sep 2012

Then-Senator Barack Obama makes the case for an Obama Presidency on November 21, 2007 by saying he is uniquely qualified to bring stability to America's relationships in the Muslim world because he lived in an Islamic country during his youth and his half-sister is Muslim.


Salem Man Arrested After Flying Powered Paraglider On 9/11

By Christina Hager, WBZ-TV
September 13, 2012 7:10 PM

SALEM (CBS) – Patrick Tarmey calls his airborne toy a “powered paraglider.” But on September 11th of this year, some people in Salem thought his quirky-looking glider may have posed some kind of threat.

“I was flying it over the harbor just practicing doing some 360s and some spins,” Tarmey said.

Tarmey owns a business called Paramotor Tours. But while he was flying Tuesday, the phones at the Salem police department lit up.

“Are you aware of the guy that’s in this, like, gyrocopter that’s flying over the Bridge Street bypass, and stopping traffic basically?” asked one caller.

Another caller said someone was “circling the depot right now in a seat with a motor on it.”

Tarmey says those callers were witnessing an optical illusion.

“The perception of that can seem like I’m over the neighborhood if you’re sitting on one side of the harbor. If you’re on the other side of the harbor, it may look like I’m over the city of Salem,” he said.

He says one of the Salem police officers who came to question him did not want to hear that.

The officer arrested Tarmey and charged him with disorderly conduct. A judge dropped the charge, but Tarmey was still on the hook for $50 in court costs.

Tarmey says next time, if he wants to fly on 9/11, he’ll stay far away from any city. “I don’t want anybody to feel like I’m putting them in jeopardy,” he says.

Chicago Teacher's strike "settled". Automatic pay raises without performance reviews

Welcome to the wonderful world of "who gives a damn, it's only tax money"


September 14, 2012 5:34 AM

CHICAGO (CBS) — Negotiators working to end the five-day Chicago teachers’ strike say they have a “framework” for a contract and expect school to resume on Monday.

“We are feeling pretty good,” School Board President David Vitale said on Friday afternoon as talks ended for the day. “We are going to have our kids in school on Monday.”

Saying that the “heavy lifting has been done,” Vitale said both sides have a framework for an agreement. More talks are scheduled for Saturday.

The focus now shifts to a meeting of the Chicago Teachers Union House of Delegates on Sunday. Union leaders appear ready to recommend a contract proposal to the delegates, who would then take a vote on whether to suspend the strike. If a majority vote to do that, the way is cleared for school to resume on Monday.

CTU President Karen Lewis stressed a strike-ending vote isn’t automatically assured, but she said she hopes there is class next week.

“At this moment the strike is not suspended,” Lewis told reporters Friday afternoon. “I want to be clear about, because there is a process.”

“Our delegates are not interested in blindly signing off on something they have not seen,” Lewis added. “A framework is one thing. We think it’s a framework that can get us to an agreement, but we’re not quite there.”

Any contract would need to be ratified by the full union membership.

Mayor Emanuel called the framework “an honest and principled compromise,” and a Chicago City Hall source was optimistic things would return to normal next week.

“The kids will be back in school on Monday, and it gives them the time in school and all the things we believe necessary for a good education,” the source said.

Both sides were recovering Friday morning from a long night, and were very tired. Negotiations on Thursday ran until 12:45 a.m. Friday.

The overall compensation package would increase teacher salaries, on average, 16 percent over four years. The latest proposal includes retaining STEP wage increases — which are based on teacher experience — with larger increases for tenured teachers. Those increases will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but both sides differ on the exact cost.

It also calls for an annual 2 percent cost-of-living increase for the four years of the deal, retaining current contractual class size language, and establishing a joint committee to craft a new teacher evaluation plan.

*Additional editing: MINE

One World Under Obama

A message to the naive...

Collectivist affirmative-action 'judge' steals state from guv

Judge strikes down Wis. law limiting union rights

Last Updated: 7:11 PM, September 14, 2012
Posted: 6:27 PM, September 14, 2012

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down nearly all of the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.

Walker's administration immediately vowed to appeal, while unions, which have vigorously fought the law, declared victory. But what the ruling meant for existing public contracts was murky: Unions claimed the ruling meant they could negotiate again, but Walker could seek to keep the law in effect while the legal drama plays out.

The law, Walker's crowning achievement that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.

Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void. He said the law violated the constitutional rights of free speech and association.

The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.

Walker issued a statement accusing the judge of being a "liberal activist" who "wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process."

Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck said DOJ believes the law is constitutional.

Lester Pines, an attorney for Madison Teachers Inc., said the ruling means all local governments, including school districts, are now required to bargain with employees covered by unions, just as they did before the law passed. Pines predicted the case would ultimately be resolved by the state Supreme Court.

"What's going to happen in the interim is unknown," he said.

The proposal was introduced shortly after Walker took office in February last year. It resulted in a firestorm of opposition and led to huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled the state to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law's passage from the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The law required public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits at the same time it took away their ability to collectively bargain over those issues. Walker argued the changes were needed to help state and local governments save money at a time Wisconsin faced a $3 billion budget shortfall.

"This is a huge victory for Wisconsin workers and a huge victory for free speech," said Democratic Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca. "This decision will help re-establish the balance between employees and their employers."

Anger over the law's passage led to an effort to recall Walker from office. More than 930,000 signatures were collected triggering the June recall election. Walker won and became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall.

Hat tip: Michael Savage

Source: New York Post

The World from Berlin: 'Obama's Middle East Policy Is in Ruins'


There were clashes between police and protesters in Cairo on Friday.

US embassies in the Muslim world were on high alert Friday following days of violent protests against an anti-Islam film. Germany, too, closed several embassies in fear of attacks. Some German commentators argue that the violence shows that Obama's Middle East policies have failed.

After days of protests over an anti-Islam film, American diplomatic missions in the Middle East and North Africa were braced for further violence after Friday prayers. The US put its overseas missions on high alert.

Germany has closed its embassies in a number of Muslim-majority countries in fear of attacks. "We are observing how the security situation develops with great attentiveness and we have increased security precautions at a number of foreign missions," a spokesman for the German Foreign Office told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Embassies in North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan are believed to be among those affected.

The spokesman said that the missions would only close on Friday, though. Other German institutions such as aid organizations have also been urged to increase security precautions, he said.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said he was "deeply concerned" about the attacks on US embassies. He called on the countries in question to protect foreign missions. "Diplomats have to be able to do their work without fear," he said.

Westerwelle said he could understand the outrage that many Muslims felt about the anti-Islam film. "But this outrage cannot justify violence."

The German army in Afghanistan is also increasing its security precautions. "We are assuming that we will also feel the effects of this whole business," one German soldier told SPIEGEL ONLINE in a telephone interview. "When the people here see the film, they are sure to protest."

Violent Clashes

The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed on Tuesday when protesters attacked the US consulate in Benghazi. American officials are investigating the possibility that militant Islamist groups such as al-Qaida may have exploited the Benghazi protests to attack the consulate.

There have been violent protests in Cairo and Yemen since then. On Friday, Egyptian police clashed with protesters after security forces blocked the route to the US Embassy.

The protests were sparked by an anti-Islamic film posted online that features an unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the video on Thursday. "The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video," she said. "We absolutely reject its content and message."


Bloody handprints: Photos that define a failed presidency


Bloody handprints. The desperate final act of a dying American in Benghazi, Libya, is a perfect metaphor for the failed pro-Islamist foreign policy of the worst President in America history, Barack Hussein Obama.

The Obama Administration knew that an attack on the consulate in Benghazi was being planned, but failed to warn the staff to take precautions. Four Americans were murdered, and eight were injured.

Bloody handprints. The desperate final act of a dying American in Benghazi, Libya, is a perfect metaphor for the failed pro-Islamist foreign policy of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama’s Administration failed to warn the consulate of the pending attack, despite having actionable intelligence for 48 hours.

The parable of the scorpion and the frog has never been more applicable.

Source: Bob Owens


September 15 2012

London “About 200 protesters are burning USA and Israeli flags outside the US embassy in London,” Al Jazeera reports.

Mauritania “Mauritanian youths also went out in a demonstration that covered the streets of Nouakchott condemning the offensive film,” reports Link TV. “Protestors gathered in front of the American embassy, calling for its shutdown and the expulsion of the American ambassador, which is the least that could be done for this criminal act. They also chanted slogans condemning this offensive film.”

Casablanca, Morocco “Between 300 and 400 Muslim activists had gathered outside the US consulate in Morocco’s largest city Casablanca on Wednesday, amid a heavy police presence, protesting against the film and shouting anti-US slogans,” reports Al Jazeera.

Sale, Morocco “Hundreds of Salafists burned US flags in Morocco after Friday prayers at a mosque in a poor neighbourhood of Sale, twin town to the Moroccan capital Rabat,” reports Al Jazeera. “Around 200 of the hardline Islamists gathered, shouting anti-US slogans including ‘American satan’, before trampling on two US flags and then ripping them up and setting them ablaze.”

Tunisia Protesters in Tunisia have set fire to an American school in the capital Tunis, according to Reuters. The New York Post reports that “Anti-American rioting spread yesterday to Tunisia, where police used tear gas to stop hundreds of protesters from storming the United States Embassy in protest over a film mocking the prophet Mohammed.”

Jos, Nigeria “Nigerian troops fired live rounds on Friday to disperse Muslims protesting in the volatile central city of Jos against an American film about the Prophet Mohammad that has triggered unrest in several countries across the Islamic world,” reports Reuters. “Scores of Muslim demonstrators distributed photographs printed out from the trailer of the film, which Muslims say insults the Prophet, after Friday prayers in Jos.”

Tripoli, Libya “The US dispatched an elite group of Marines to Tripoli on Wednesday after the mob attack that killed the US ambassador and three other Americans,” reports the AP. “Officials were investigating whether the rampage was a backlash to an anti-Islamic video with ties to Coptic Christians or a plot to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11.

Benghazi, Libya “Ansar al Sharia supporters protesting in front of Tibesty Hotel in Benghazi carrying black flags,” reports Al Jazeera via Twitter. “Maximum 50 pple.”

Khartoum, Sudan “Britain’s Foreign Office says police in Sudan are confronting a protest outside the British embassy in Khartoum,” reports the AP. Additionally, Reuters reports “Protesters pull down emblem at German embassy in Sudan, raise Islamic flag.” The Guardian is showing photographs of the German embassy on fire.

Mombasa, Kenya “A group of Kenyan muslims burn[ed] the US flag in protest over the anti-Muslim film that has spawned mob violence against American embassies across the Mideast, following afternoon prayers outside the Sakina Jamia Mosque in the port city of Mombasa, Kenya Friday,” reports the AP.

Mogadishu, Somalia “Thousands of Somali protesters have taken to the streets of capital Mogadishu to express their anger over the anti-Islam movie produced by an Israeli-American in the United States,” reports Iran’s Press TV. “The demonstration in the Somali capital is being held to express anger against the film, which insults the holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).”

Sanaa, Yemen “In Sanaa, Yemen, the U.S. Embassy was overrun Thursday by protesters who stormed a wall, set fire to a building inside the compound, broke windows and carried away office supplies and other souvenirs before being dispersed by local security forces,” reports The Washington Post.

Cairo, Egypt “In Cairo, clouds of tear gas floated through the fortified area around the U.S. Embassy as security forces clashed with protesters for the third straight day,” reports The Washington Post.

Sheikh Zuwayed, Sinai “Protesters belonging to ultraconservative groups in Sinai have stormed a camp for the UN multinational peacekeepers in the town of Sheikh Zuwayed,” reports Al Jazeera. “They brought down the flag and placed a black Islamic banner with the words ‘There’s no God but Allah, Mohammed is the Prophet of Allah. The peacekeepers responded with firing on the attackers, said Al Jazeera’s Rawya Rageh. At least one man is believed to be injured.”

Gaza Strip “Palestinians on Friday protested an anti-Muslim film, with thousands gathering in the Gaza Strip and hundreds in Jerusalem where there were clashes with Israeli police,” reports Now Lebanon.

Jerusalem “Hundreds hurl stones at officers in Jerusalem after Friday prayers at al-Aqsa Mosque while protesters rallied against anti-Islam film,” reports Ynet News.

Tel Aviv, Israel “Arab-Israeli Muslim men protest against a film mocking Islam, in front of the U.S. embassy in the Mediterranean coastal city of Tel Aviv, on September 13, 2012,” reports AFP.

Nablus, West Bank “In the city of Nablus, about 200 people demonstrated against the film as Muslim clerics throughout the territory preached against it in Friday sermons,” reports the AP.

Amman, Jordan “Jordanian protesters burn a US flag in front of the Kurdi Mosque near the USA embassy in Amman,” reports the AP. Iran’s Press TV reports that more than 2,000 Jordanians took to the streets to protest the movie. “We sacrifice our soul and blood for the prophet,” said demonstrators. “We do not want a US embassy on Jordanian territory.”

Damascus, Syria “Sana, Syria’s state news agency, said hundreds of pro-government supporters protested outside the US embassy in Damascus today,” reports The Guardian. “Protesters held images of beleaguered president Bashar al-Assad and what appeared to be government-organised demonstration.” According to photographer Louai Beshara, the purpose of the demonstration was to oppose the anti-Islam film.

Sidon, Lebanon The AP captured photographs of an anti-film protest in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el-Hilweh near Sidon, Lebanon, here.

Tripoli, Lebanon “Hundreds of protesters set alight a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli on Friday, witnesses said, chanting against the pope’s visit to Lebanon and shouting anti-American slogans,” reports Reuters. The news agency attributed the violence to the papal visit and the controversial film.

Baghdad, Iraq “Several hundred followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr held demonstrations in Baghdad’s Sadr City district, the southern oil city of Basra and other predominantly Shiite areas of the country, chanting ‘Death to America.’”

Kut, Iraq “Iraqi supporters of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s movement, burn[ed] the Israeli and the US flags during a protest denouncing a film deemed offensive to Islam, on September 13, 2012 in the central Iraqi city of Kut,” reports the AFP.

Basrah, Iraq In the southern city of Basra, about 1,000 took to the streets and burned the American and Israeli flags. One banner said: ‘Freedom doesn’t mean offending two billion Muslims,’” reports the AP.

Kuwait City, Kuwait “About 500 demonstrators gathered yesterday near the US embassy in Kuwait waving a black Al-Qaeda flag in protest of a film mocking Islam,” reports AFP. “President Barack ‘Obama, we are all Osama,’ they chanted referring to Al-Qaeda’s former leader Osama bin Laden who was killed by US forces last year, an AFP photographer at the site of the demonstration reported.”

Diraz, Bahrain “More than 2,000 protesters chanted against the film and burned American and Israeli flags after Friday prayers in Diraz, outside the capital, Manama. Security forces were absent,” reports the AP. “Separately, Bahrain’s Interior Ministry ordered media regulators to attempt to block access to the film clip.

Doha, Qatar “Hundreds of worshippers marched near the US embassy in Qatar on Friday over the anti-Islam video,” reports Al Jazeera. “The protest had been reportedly called for by Doha-based Egyptian Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and began after his Friday sermon at the Omar bin Khateb mosque.”

Karachi, Pakistan “JI Chief Munawar Hassan, addressing a protest rally in the Nazimabad area of Karachi, demanded that the US government ban the movie and also demanded the Interior ministry of Pakistan lodge a protest with the US ambassador,” reports the Express Tribune.

Lahore, Pakistan “The rally in Lahore was organised by Tehreek-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool which was taken out from Green Chowk to Sohrab Khan, while the one in Multan was organised by Jamiat Talba Arbia and Shehri Mahaz. Protesters threw shoes at US and Israeli flags and set them on fire,” reports the Express Tribune.

Islamabad, Pakistan “The protesters in Islamabad said that the film should be banned across the world and the filmmakers should be severely punished,” reports Pakistan’s The Express Tribune. “They also demanded that the US should apologise for the film.”

Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan “Afghans burn the U.S. flag in the Ghanikhel district of Nangarhar province, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, on September 14, 2012, during a protest against an anti-Islam film,” reports the AP.

Jalalabad, Afghanistan “Hundreds of Afghans – some shouting ‘Death to America’ – have held a protest against an anti-Islam film in the eastern city of Jalalabad,” reports the AP.

Srinagar, India “A Kashmiri Muslim with his face covered burn[ed] a mock American flag as others shout slogans during a protest Friday in Srinagar, India,” reports the AP.

Kashmir, India “Thousands of angry Kashmiri Muslims protested Friday against an anti-Islam film, burning U.S. flags and calling President Barack Obama a ‘terrorist,’ while the top government cleric here reportedly demanded Americans leave the volatile Indian-controlled region immediately,” reports the AP. “At least 15,000 people took part in more than two dozen protests across Kashmir, chanting ‘Down with America’ and ‘Down with Israel’ in some of the largest anti-American demonstrations against the film in Asia.”

Hyderabad, India “A peaceful protest was held here Friday against a blasphemous anti-Islam American movie,” reports News Track India. “Protestors set afire an effigy symbolising the US in the old city of Hyderabad. Police said no untoward incident took place during the protest.”

Bangladesh “About 1,000 Bangladeshi Islamists tried to march on the U.S. embassy in Dhaka on Thursday to protest against a U.S. film that is said to insult the Prophet Mohammad but security forces stopped them reaching the mission,” reports Reuters.

Sri Lanka Protests have erupted in eastern Sri Lanka, according to the BBC, but details are thin on the size of the demonstration.

Ipoh, Malaysia “Malaysian media reported a… protest in the northern city of Ipoh,” reports Ahram Online.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysi Muslims held demonstrations across Malaysia on Friday, calling for the United States to prevent distribution of an anti-Islam film they said was part of a plot by ‘Christian extremists,’” reports Ahram Online. “They included a group of about 30 people representing various Islamic organisations who marched to the US embassy in the capital Kuala Lumpur.”

Jakarta, Indonesia “In Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, about 200 protesters in Jakarta chanted slogans and held up signs in a largely peaceful protest outside the heavily guarded U.S. Embassy,” reports the Associated Press.

Source: Michael Savage

Friday, September 14, 2012

Obama off script (again)

Friday, September 14, 2012

When a president of the United States has to give an interview declaring explicitly that he supports the First Amendment — you know he screwed up somewhere.

There was President Barack Obama on Air Force One yesterday, telling CBS’ Steve Kroft, “We believe in the First Amendment.” According to a transcript provided by the White House, Obama added, “We are always going to uphold the rights of individuals to speak their mind.”

This must have come as shocking news to the redneck reverend down in Florida who had just gotten a phone call from Obama’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff bullying him for speaking his.

How did we come to this sad, sorry state where even as a mob of Islamists is attacking an American embassy, the State Department is issuing statements denouncing Americans for expressing their opinions?

On Tuesday, hours before the attack on our Cairo embassy, the State Department posted a statement reading in part, “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims . . . We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The “individuals” in question are Americans who made a YouTube video disparaging the Prophet Muhammad. They posted it on YouTube months ago, but it was used as a pretext on 9/11 for yet another attack against America.

What makes this statement from the Cairo Embassy so disturbing is that after the mob turned violent, ripped down and burned the U.S. flag and then hoisted an al-Qaida banner on American soil, the embassy re-issued the same apologetic statement to the very people attacking them.

The next day, after Islamists killed our ambassador in Libya, Obama backed up the Cairo embassy’s message in a statement from the White House: “Since our founding, the U.S. has been a nation that respects all faiths and rejects all effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” he said, before denouncing the deadly attacks themselves.

We’re getting attacked, and our president is talking about “denigrating” religious beliefs? Ask the family of Ambassador Christopher Stevens about being “denigrated.”

When you saw Islamist kooks pulling down the U.S. flag, was your reaction “Well, that’s what we get for letting Americans make bad movies. Wait ‘til this mob sees the new Adam Sandler flick — it’ll be a bloodbath!” When you found out yet another 9/11 attack claimed American lives, did you get angry over the Constitution?

Of course not. You were angry at the killers, at the people who committed the violence — not some low-budget movie-making schmuck in California.

Which is why Obama has had to backtrack so far, eventually distancing himself from his own embassy staff and denouncing their statement himself.

For all the attacks on Mitt Romney, he was speaking for most Americans when he said, “I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation.”

For Obama, the problem is never the Islamists. It’s always the (small d) democrats. It’s Americans with “bad” opinions, or the democratically-elected government of Israel. He’s always got a problem with them.

In fact, the only religion I’ve heard Obama “denigrate” was that of the “bitter” Christians in Western Pennsylvania, “clinging to their religion” during the 2008 election.

You know, if I said as many dopey things as our president does, I’d probably have my doubts about the value of free speech, too.

Michael Graham hosts an afternoon drive time talk show on 96.9 WTKK.

Source: Boston Herald

Politico Rushes to Protect Their Precious Obama After Devastating Report

They just can’t let go of their sweet Dear Leader, no matter how damning the news is. It’s pretty sad at this point.

A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There’s no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”

That “official” is unnamed, of course. And how can this be trusted since Obama studiously avoids intelligence briefings?
Meanwhile, in case they want to start making up some excuses for their next blunder:

Egypt’s General Intelligence Service warned that a jihadi group is planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo, according to a report Tuesday by Egypt Independent, citing a secret letter obtained by Al-Masry Al-Youm.

According to the report, the attack is being planned by Global Jihad, the group suspected of killing 16 Egyptian border guards in Sinai on August 5.

Al-Masry Al-Youm reportedly obtained a copy of the September 4 letter, sent to all Egyptian security sectors, warning that Sinai- and Gaza-based Global Jihad cells were planning attacks on the two embassies.

It’s worth noting all that predates the feigned outrage over that silly YouTube video.

Source: Jammie Wearing Fools

Obama-endorsed Protesters try to storm German, British embassies in Sudan

Sept. 14, 2012

(Reuters) - Sudan's police fired teargas on Friday to stop about 5,000 demonstrators storming the German and British embassies to protest against an anti-Islam film, a Reuters witness said.

Protesters hurled stones at the two embassies which are next to each other in Khartoum and tried storming the main gates, a witness said.

Obama Telephones Cairo

(Protesters at Sanaa, Yemen, penetrate security of the US embassy, many dead and wounded reported. ) Briefing notes that I used for the Larry Kudlow Show, CNBC. If course were not able to get to most of it, but the nature of TV news is that you overprepare, because the blizzard of intelligence shapes the tone and direction of the presentation and reaction. 1. LIBYA THREAT: Benghazi and Libya: the Stevens death was an ambush by jihadists. The Libya authorities knew the date of Ambassador Stevens arrival, at their invitation. Stevens was directed to the safe house because the ambush was waiting to strike him. Stevens was ambushed by Al Q linked fighters, all under the umbrella of LIHJ. (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) This was a revenge attack linked to the drone killed of Al q senior commander Abu-Yahya al-Libi on June 4 in AfPak. Al-Libi's older brother is a senior commander of LIHJ in Libya, Abd al-Wahhab . Many more strong links between Libya and Al Q revenge saga. Famous LIHJ commander Belhadj was trained and protected by the dead al-Libi while he was in AfPak and Malaysia. If the White House doesn't know this, it does NOT want to know this. 2. EGYPT THREAT: President Mohammed Morsi and the Supreme Council of the Moslem Brothers planned and endorsed the demonstration in Cairo at least two weeks before the event. Morsi and Moslem Brothers continued to endorse it. The video provocation did not exist before September 10. The video is excuse. Morse wants $10 Billion from US. Latest information is that Morsi WILL NOT meet with Obama in NY during UN meetings. 3. FRIDAY Embassy THREAT: Friday prayers, tomorrow, demonstrations called for in at least seven Arab capitals so far. The Yemen incident today not directly linked to Cairo and Libya, but there are plenty of Iran elements present, and there will be more trouble after Friday prayers. There is active planning in Cairo to revenge on the Copts for the video. There is evidence of Turkish Jihadist elements in Berlin who could run an anti US operation, and the evacuation of the Berlin embassy makes sense. 4. Iran and Syria benefit from all of this chaos and will drive it. US recruits fighters from Libya for "Free Syrian Army," so the link is that the attacks in Libya were run by the same LIHJ we use for Syria. 5. Re video of Mohammed. Evidence that film produced by Rogue Coptic Egyptian with family in Egypt. He is not a Jew. No Jewish money involved. Evidence that film doesn't exist, just crude trailer. Evidence that the trailer was constructed under fraudulent circumstances in order to raise money. No film evident. Film Producer, aka Bacile, has a criminal record. No Israeli would say he used "100" Jews for sponsors. Thursday Reporting on the Crisis. Spoke Thursday with Malcolm Hoenlein, John Bolton, AEI; Mary Kissel, WSJ; Devin Nunes, CA-21; Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; McKay Coppins, Buzzfeed: re the crisis in the ummah. Devin Nunes reported that the State Department refused to brief House Select Intel Committee re the Benghazi and Cairo events. John Bolton declared that the Arab Spring is in failure, and the Obama administration has failed to show strength in the region and now suffers the results. Salena Zito reported that her conversation with former DNI Michael Hayden indicated that the region is in collapse to extremist, anti-American elements. McKay Coppins reported that the Romney camp, after feeling tender about its quick response to the first day of the crisis, is now feeling stronger that the continuing collapse in the region underlines the Romney message of peace through strength, not apology and accommodation of aggressors. Malcolm Hoenlein emphasized that the video is a fraud, produced by a fraudster, and that the video was not the cause of the Cairo or Benghazi violence: it was used as an excuse, and will now be exploited by the enemies of democracy. We also spoke to former IAEA inspector, Dr. Olli Heinonen, Harvard Belfer Center senior fellow, who estimated that Iran can produce a nuclear weapon by the summer of 2013. Other voices pointed to the likelihood that while Iran did not concoct the Benghazi and Cairo operations, Iran has uses for them and will now drive protests in the Gulf. Anti-Americanism strengthens Tehran. Obama Calls Morsi. Late reporting from David Kirkpatrick, NYT, that POTUS Obama turned from campaigning on Air Force One to make a twenty-minute telephone call to Mohammed Morsi to speak forcefully that the Egyptian leadership must contain the violent protests in Cairo and other cities planned for the next hours. The White House version" "The President made his point that we've been committed to the process of change in Egypt, and we want to continue to build with the Egyptian government...." Translation: Candidate Obama is aware that the collapsing Middle East picture and the fervent anti-Americanism is a direct threat to his re-election song that he has restored American prestige and defeated the jihadists. Will Morsi obey? Only in English. The Moslem Brothers entirely endorse the protests. Cairo University's immam entirely endorse the pogroms against the Copts. Mr. Obama is delusional to think that a phone call to Cairo can turn back the cunning massive wave against America, fed by the Islamists, the jihadists, and Iran. Source: John Batchlor Show

7 Examples That Show Voter Fraud Is A Huge Problem

Sep 14, 2012
John Hawkins

After George W. Bush defeated Al Gore at the ballot box and in a rare show of fortitude for a Republican, didn't stand by haplessly wringing his hands when Gore tried to lawyer his way into the White House, liberals were outraged. Sure, Gore had never been ahead at any point, but OBVIOUSLY voter fraud had cost Democrats the election. Afterwards, Democrats DEMANDED that we do more to insure the integrity of our elections. Republicans agreed and for a while, we finally had an issue where there was genuine bipartisan agreement. Then came the 2004 elections and many of the same liberals who had requested better, more accurate voting machines claimed the very machines they wanted were being used for fraud because they didn't get the result they wanted. That marked the end of the Left's interest in stopping fraud at the ballot box. On the other hand, Republicans have continued to try to make our elections honest and fair. Towards that end, one of the measures the GOP is pushing for is voter identification. If you need a picture ID to get on a plane, cash a check, buy alcohol, rent a car, get a marriage license, or to get into the Democratic National Convention, then asking for a photo ID to vote is a no-brainer. However, Democrats believe that they benefit from voter fraud; so they oppose any sort of attempt to verify that voters are who they say they are. They can't admit that; so they use two excuses. The first is their patronizing and insulting claim that black Americans are so uniquely stupid and incompetent that you can't expect them to get a photo ID like white people do. It's amazing that in 2012, a major political party would make such a racist argument, but the Democrats do. Their other claim is that voter fraud is so exceedingly rare, so unlikely, such an impossibility that there's no need for any voter identification. According to the Democrats, we can afford to assume that everyone will be honest on Election Day. So, there's no need to take any basic precautions or take any steps to prevent fraud because it just doesn't happen. Well, to the contrary, voter fraud happens all the time and it does sometimes occur on a level large enough to impact close elections. Furthermore, it undoubtedly happens much more than we realize. After all, if poll workers are prevented by law from asking if people are who they say they are, how often are they going to catch people in the act? Afterwards, when you have disinterested government employees or partisan groups scanning voter data to try to find fraud, it's nearly impossible to look at a spread sheet and determine that person X was really person Y. So, if you don't bother to check for voter ID on the front end, you're probably not going to find it on the back end either. When you consider that a dedicated, well prepared team of say a dozen operatives could literally go from polling place to polling place and cast HUNDREDS of fraudulent votes a day with little chance of being caught, it's not a small issue. That's why we should have some system in place other than the Democrats' touching insistence that we can trust everyone to be honest on Election Day because as you're about to see, that's certainly not the case.

1) James O' Keefe's Project Veritas shows how easy voter fraud is without Identification: When an undercover conservative reporter can vote as Ben Jealous, Bill Maher, or David Brock if he wants, there's a hole as wide as the Grand Canyon in the system.

James O’Keefe’s new video shows Project Veritas going into poll locations in DC on April 3, being offered ballots for Ben Jealous, President & CEO of the NAACP; one Bill Maher; and David Brock (Project Veritas says they could not verify whether the David Brock for which they were offered a ballot was the same David Brock as the Media Matters president). Hilariously, Project Veritas also shows that you can’t get into Media Matters without showing ID. The video also depicts Project Veritas going to a polling place and asking about Alicia Menendez, daughter of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez (D) and political commentator on MSNBC; a poll worker asks to see ID, preventing Project Veritas from being offered Menendez’s ballot.

2) What If Mohammed Atta had been the deciding vote in an election? As John Fund has noted, even the 9/11 hijackers were registered to vote.

John Hawkins: Here’s something from your book that a lot of people may not know: “Eight of the 19 hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had registered to vote.” How did that happen?

John Fund: The Motor Voter Act of 1993, which was the first piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law, mandated that states have to accept postcard voter registrations and also offer people applying for drivers’ licenses the chance to register to vote. Several of the hijackers — they registered to vote when they got drivers’ licenses and other false ID. I have no evidence they voted, but they were registered. They certainly could have voted.

3) You can thank illegal votes from felons for Al Franken: But, but, but the first two examples don't show any actual voter fraud. They just show that it’s incredibly EASY to commit voter fraud. Is there an example of it swinging an election? Absolutely. If it wasn't for fraudulent votes, Al Franken would be doing his obnoxious stand up routines in a comedy club right now instead of the U.S. Senate.

In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close...After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election. During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race. Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong. Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.

4) Democratic Congressional candidate Wendy Rosen commits voter fraud: Wendy Rosen was running for Congress in Maryland this year. Unfortunately, her campaign hit a little snag. Oopsy!

Wendy Rosen dropped from her race against Republican Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) today after it was discovered she had been voting in two states in recent elections – Maryland and Florida. Rosen said she was saddened to leave the race in Maryland.

5) Albany mayoral candidate Paul Etheridge commits voter fraud: Wendy Rosen is obviously some sort of freak, right? Certainly, there couldn't be another Democrat running for office who engaged in fraud, could there?

Former New Albany mayoral candidate Paul Etheridge was arrested Thursday and charged with three felony counts of voter fraud. Etheridge finished third in the Democratic Party mayoral primary in 2011, and it was during that election cycle the alleged fraud occurred, Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson announced during a Thursday press conference. Arrested on the same charges for the alleged incidents — which all involved the handling and casting of absentee ballots — was Joshua A. Clemons, of Floyd County. The charges the two are facing — which are all class D felonies each carrying six months to three years of jail time — are solicitation for a fraudulent absentee ballot, forgery of official ballot endorsement and fraudulent delivery of a ballot.

6) A NAACP official is headed to jail for 5 years over voter fraud: Well, those are just politicians. We all know they're liars! It's not a big surprise that they might be engaged in voter fraud. But, how can anyone support voter ID or other measures to secure the ballot when even the NAACP opposes it? Well, about that...

While NAACP President Benjamin Jealous lashed out at new state laws requiring photo ID for voting, an NAACP executive sits in prison, sentenced for carrying out a massive voter fraud scheme. In a story ignored by the national media, in April a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers is identified on an NAACP website as a member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee. Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts, but Circuit Court Judge Charles Webster permitted Sowers to serve those terms concurrently... ...Sowers was found guilty of voting in the names of Carrie Collins, Walter Howard, Sheena Shelton, Alberta Pickett, Draper Cotton and Eddie Davis. She was also convicted of voting in the names of four dead persons: James L. Young, Dora Price, Dorothy Harris, and David Ross. ….The NAACP has had other problems with voter fraud. The NAACP National Voter Fund registered a dead man to vote in Lake County, Ohio, in 2004. That same year, out of 325 voter registration cards filed by the NAACP in Cleveland, 48 were flagged as fraudulent.

7) John Kennedy won his Democratic Primary in 1960 via voter fraud: You might say, "Well, what difference does all of this really make?" A few people cheating here and there can't have a big impact. Not true. According to the late, great Robert Novak, John F. Kennedy won his Democratic primary in 1960 via voter fraud.

John Hawkins: In the book, you talk about a couple of incidents where the Democrats rigged votes. In one district, you watched as they literally told people that they couldn’t vote anything other than a straight Democratic ticket.

Robert Novak: That was outside of Chicago, yes.

John Hawkins: You also said that without question, John F. Kennedy rigged the West Virginia Democratic primary in (1960), but that the Wall Street Journal killed the story. Do you think that sort of thing is still occurring with great regularity and do you wish the Journal had reported the story when it happened?

Robert Novak: In my opinion, they should have. They sent two reporters down to West Virginia for six weeks and they came back with a carefully documented story on voter fraud in West Virginia, buying votes, and how he beat Humphrey in the primary and therefore got the nomination. But, Ed Kilgore, the President of Dow Jones and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, a very conservative man, said it wasn’t the business of the Wall Street Journal to decide the nominee of the Democratic Party and he killed the story. That story didn’t come out for many, many years — 30-40 years. It was kept secret all that time. Does it happen now? I don’t really know. I got a feeling it happens less often, but that incident was kept secret all those years until it was uncovered in an anti-Kennedy book by a liberal correspondent and I felt that I wasn’t bound to secrecy any more.

A Possible Explanation for Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number

By Jack Cashill
American Thinker

As I reported on Tuesday, Barack Obama has yet to provide an explanation for how he came to have a Social Security number that begins with the Connecticut prefix "042."

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert read the piece. He has been in Hawaii doing follow-up research on his insightful new documentary, Dreams from My Real Father, and he sent me the single best explanation I have yet to see.

What intrigued me about this story from the moment Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels first came across Obama's Connecticut SSN was the ineptness of the left-wing explanations.

"Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post, as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.

One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason, too.

For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Gilbert (no relation to Joel Gilbert) in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Carole Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"

Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record at all that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.

On the respectable right, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly finessed this claim. "[Obama's] father lived in Connecticut for several years," O'Reilly said inaccurately on air last April. He added that "babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents." Wrong again.

The left-leaning fact-checking service addresses the SSN issue, but evasively. It leads with a red herring about a man named Jean Paul Ludwig, whose SSN Obama is allegedly using. "False," says Snopes. But Daniels has never mentioned a Ludwig or anyone else.

Snopes then repeats the irrelevant detail that Obama would only need to have sent his application in from Connecticut, but how or why the 16-year-old Obama could or would have done so is overlooked.

Snopes concludes that "the most likely explanation" is a "simple clerical or typographical error." Obama, they contend, lived in the Hawaii zip code of 96814, while the zip code for Danbury, CT is 06814. As it happens, "clerical error" is the same excuse used to explain away Obama's claim to a Kenyan birth in his literary agent's 1991 promotional piece.

Joel Gilbert suggests a more likely explanation. In doing his research in Hawaii, Gilbert heard from several sources that pre-statehood, every institution or branch of government in Hawaii was dominated by the Japanese syndicate known as the "Yakuza, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), and a complicit bureaucracy. "After statehood in 1959 the Federal Government came in, and the syndicate went underground, but maintained the same control, and does so to this day," says Gilbert.

"Hawaii was and is a corrupt state," Gilbert continues. He was told by retired Honolulu police detectives that in the state bureaucracy, "anything could be purchased, including Social Security numbers." These were real numbers, likely available because the original card holder was dead. The sellers trafficked in SSNs that did not originate in Hawaii. That way, if the person using the phony SSN were ever caught, the crime would be traced back to the issuing state, not the Hawaii office.

Gilbert's theory is that the SSN problem is related to the question of Obama's birth certificate, which is required to get a SSN. Lacking a valid birth certificate, Obama was forced to buy an SSN so he could get his first job at the Baskin Robbins in 1977. In this theory, Obama was sold an SSN that was Connecticut-based so it couldn't be traced back to the Hawaii office.

The easiest way to test this theory and establish the truth is to ask the people who know. WND's veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving tried to do just this at a press briefing a few years back. Predictably, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs laughed Kinsolving off and switched the subject to the birth certificate.

In a televised address two years ago, Obama famously said, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." So could someone in the media please ask him about that "042"? We can be sure they would be asking questions if Mitt Romney had a Hawaii-based SSN, and they would not be satisfying themselves with "clerical error."

Obama EPA Honors Hispanic Heritage Month By Promoting Marxist Killer

Is anyone really surprised by this?… Really?

The EPA honored Hispanic Heritage Month by promoting a Marxist mass murderer.
Because they’re more than just a business killing agency.
Buzzfeed reported, via All American Blogger:

The Environmental Protection Agency commemorated the start of Hispanic Heritage Month with a picture of Che Guevara and a bit of plagiarism.

An internal email obtained by BuzzFeed and distributed to agency employees marking the start of the celebration of Hispanic culture this Saturday, featured the above image of a horse and buggy passing a billboard of the Marxist revolutionary, in addition to a listing of facts about Hispanic culture.

“Hispanic people are vibrant, socializing and fun loving people,” one entry reads. “Among various facts associated to this culture is that they have a deep sense of involvement in their family traditions and cultures.”

But that text and the photo appear to be lifted word-for-word and without attribution from the website

By Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit

Incest and Pedophilia, the New Frontier

Veteran reporter Sharon Waxman knew she'd found a new low. Reporting from the Toronto Film Festival, she revealed the viewpoint of director Nick Cassavetes, which she summarized in a headline: "Who Gives a Damn? Love Who You Want." The topic was incest.

Hollywood's march to tear down -- to obliterate, really -- every boundary of sexual decency should compel even the harshest accusers of social conservatives like Rick Santorum to apologize profusely. They were wrong to mock conservatives for warning of the extremes, as we're lurching so quickly and easily into the darkest "love who you want" extremes of the Lifestyle Left.

Cassavetes is selling his film, "Yellow," which stars his ex-wife Heather Wahlquist as a beautiful woman addicted to pain pills. She travels back home to Oklahoma after being expelled from her teaching job in Los Angeles for "having broom closet sex on Parent Night." On her way home, she stops to visit her brother in prison. It results in an incest scene that we're told is "tender and affecting and signals no judgment of the relationship."

Cassavetes told The Wrap, "I have no experience with incest...We started thinking about that. We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it and doing what you want. Who gives a s--- if people judge you?"

Then he arrived at what became the headline of the article: "I'm not saying this is an absolute, but in a way, if you're not having kids -- Who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn't that what we say? Gay marriage -- love who you want? If it's your brother or sister, it's super weird, but if you look at it, you're not hurting anybody, except every single person who freaks out because you're in love with one another."

In a very real sense, he's right. This is where the slippery slope leads. Cassavetes said he wanted to portray a modern woman who is, in his words, "a rock star" and "a mess." He wanted "an exaggerated version of a girl who came from a place where different things are acceptable." In reality, he wanted a beautiful woman that viewers would find sympathetic, and then throw this shocking, "tender" incest scene in their face.

Don't think critics won't like it. A reviewer on Indiewire called this movie "officially the most refreshing breath of air" at the Toronto Film Festival. "So far, there is no news on distribution or when this thing is coming out, but as soon as it does, go out, don't take it too seriously and have a little fun with it."

Don't take the incest scene too seriously? Have fun with it? What -- chuckle?

Incest isn't the only grave sin that's being promoted by the cultural revolutionaries. Last fall, the major gossip website Gawker strongly attacked the social site Reddit for having a "Jailbait" subsection, which displayed sexualized images of girls of junior high age for "catering to pedophiles." So what is Gawker doing now? Catering to pedophiles.

This juggernaut website published an article on September 7 titled "Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex With Children." The writer, Cord Jefferson, cited "a growing number of researchers, many of them out of Canada, whose work suggests that pedophilia is an illness deserving of the public's sympathy the way any brain disorder is. Some of the scientists say pedophilia is a sexual orientation, meaning that it's unchangeable, regardless of how much jail time or beatings or therapy someone is dealt."

Where are the national media outlets that are still pounding their anvils on the front pages and TV segments against the Catholic Church and their struggles with pedophilia? Nowhere to be found.

Jefferson argued, "If pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that also means it's futile to send pedophiles to prison in an effort to alter their attractions. Doing so is akin to sending a homosexual child off to a religious-based institution that claims it can 'pray the gay away.'"

This jaw-dropping article concluded that the weakest in our society -- he listed blacks, women, Latinos and gays -- "are still in no way on wholly equal footing in America. But they're also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to children. One imagines that if Jesus ever came to earth, he'd embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers and, yes, the pedophiles."

Jesus would embrace every sinner ... who is ashamed of his sin. Shame and judgment have been banished in most of our pop culture.

Perhaps Gawker will next try and convince Nick Cassavetes to make his next daring indie film with "tender and affecting" scenes of pedophilia which "signal no judgment."

There are so many lows, and so little time.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at

Source: Brent Bozell @

The guilty men behind the Arab Winter

o now we can see the terrible results of western liberal hubris, the so-called Arab Spring so credulously and stupidly brought into being by Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. In Libya, the American ambassador and three colleagues have been murdered. In Egypt, the embassy has been sacked. In Yemen, the mob inflamed by Muslim Brotherhood incitement has today stormed the US embassy there.

How Obama et al preened and postured over their role in helping the Libyan ‘opposition’ get rid of Gaddafy! How they congratulated themselves at the fall of Mubarak in Egypt! It was the dawn of democracy, they gushed, a new era for Libyans and Egyptians who were all on Twitter and Facebook and so were clearly modern folk keen to enjoy human rights and the rule of law, and who could now have all of that thanks to the enlightened help of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy.

In fact, the most likely result always was the empowerment of Islamic radicals who would enslave the people and make war against the west. Obstinately, these arrogant western fools nevertheless stuck to their fantasy of a democratic ‘spring’, even while the evidence mounted up that what they had actually done was create a vacuum which would unleash the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic radicals and thus set Libya and Egypt on a path back towards the 7th century.

In Egypt, they helped depose a ruler who was in the pocket of the west; the man they helped install instead, Mohamed Morsi, is not only a Muslim Brotherhood placeman but has been cosying up to Iran. An alliance between the Sunni mortal enemies of the west and the Shia mortal enemies of the west – that’s quite an achievement. Well done, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy!

Now the American ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues, along with up to ten Libyans, have been most foully murdered by the very mob that we were told represented the new Libya. They burned the American flag and ran up instead the black flag of jihad. The ostensible reason for the violence, an apparently amateurish and deliberately inflammatory film that insulted Islam, was just a pretext (the identity of the film’s maker remains a mystery, with the theory growing that it was a Coptic Christian rather than, as originally reported by the BBC, an Israeli film-maker). It now turns out that this was probably a long-planned Islamist attack, possibly by al Qaeda in revenge for the killing of its second-in-command Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a US drone strike in Pakistan in June.

The Arab Winter has not brought forth democracy but unleashed anarchy and religious fanaticism, with Islamic mobs hitherto kept under control by Gaddafy and Mubarak now empowered, strengthened and rampaging out of control throughout the region.

We know who are the real guilty men here. Even now, Obama is stroking the enemies of the west while kicking its allies in the crutch. ‘Too busy’ to see Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu when he comes to Washington later this month to beg for American help in preventing Iran from obtaining the nuclear weapons which it will use to achieve its declared aim of wiping Israel from the face of the earth, Obama will nevertheless meet Morsi, who has so far issued only qualified regret for the storming of the US embassy in Cairo, demanded that the US government take action against the maker of the anti-Islamic film -- and who last spring released from an Egyptian prison Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda’s current leader and who led the mob who stormed the Cairo embassy this week. As James Lewis observes in a fine piece at American Thinker:

‘The United States now stands with the forces of destruction...’

While America reels under assault from the very forces unleashed by its own President, the fanatics running the Iranian regime are holding their breath that Obama will be re-elected so that they can progress unhindered to the creation of their genocide bomb. Never have the American people been faced with such a momentous choice for the future of the world than the one they will make on November 6.

Source: Melanie Phillips

OBENSHAIN: For Barack Obama, Muslims can do no wrong

Maintaining diversity at all costs

On 9/11, in response to an anti-Islam video that went viral on YouTube last week, Obama's Egyptian embassy released a statement deploring “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” This is beyond imagination: On 9/11, the anniversary of the attacks by radical Islamists on our nation, Islamic protestors compromised the U.S. embassy in Cairo, tearing the American flag to shreds to cries of “We are Usama!” and the Obama administration responds that our concern needs to be the “hurt feelings” of Muslims.

The administration’s response in Libya was not much better, placing condemnation of “denigrating religious beliefs” over outrage at the killing of our ambassador and other diplomatic staff there. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying that while the United States “deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

Finally, on Wednesday morning, Obama condemned “the outrageous attack.” The entire administration response is noteworthy for being short on outrage over the blatant attacks against America in the name of Islam. Yet coming from this administration, the weak response should surprise no one.

In June 2009 Obama spoke in Cairo, Egypt, saying he wanted “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” But this is the part that gave us a clue of what was to come: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

As he belittles and lectures the Israeli government, vilifies the Catholic church and other Christian organizations as “anti-woman” for seeking religious freedom in the kind of insurance they offer, and as his party (apparently with his knowledge) removes God from their platform, this president believes it his Constitutional obligation to varnish the image of Islam. What’s more, he apparently considers it his duty to ignore offenses committed in the name of Islam against Christians and Jews around the world, and to apologize to Muslims as they storm our embassy for their “hurt feelings.”

Americans are united around the notion that people should be allowed to practice whatever faith they choose; they rightfully express outrage when the freedoms of any religious group or individual are violated. Yet Obama only ever professes outrage when Muslims are offended, and he has no qualms about offending those who hold any other faith.

Obama rarely mentions religious freedom. In fact, he has made it clear it is not a priority for this administration. He allowed the position of Ambassador for International Religious Freedom to remain unfilled for over two years before making an appointment in 2010. He rarely mentions the plight of persecuted Christians in foreign lands, and when he does he equivocates, often presenting the slaughter of Christians as “sectarian violence” between two sides of equal strength. In 2012, the State Department went so far as to purge any mention of religious freedom from its annual human rights report.

Thomas Farr, Director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University and the former director of the State Department’s Office of International Religious freedom, wrote, “This Obama administration seems to have decided that other policy initiatives - outreach to Muslim governments, obtaining China’s cooperation, advancing gay rights — would be compromised by vigorous advocacy for religious freedom.” But they also seem to have decided in favor of “vigorous advocacy” for Islam itself.

Some of his appointees share this preoccupation. NASA administrator Charles Bolden, in an interview with Al Jazeera, said Mr. Obama told him that “perhaps” his “foremost” duty was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering.” And Mr. Obama’s envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Rashad Hussain, gave Mr. Obama the title of America’s “educator-in-chief on Islam.”

Rarely do this president and his administration acknowledge the obvious link between Islam and terrorism. Recall instead that his Department of Homeland Security told law enforcement officials they should be alert for terrorist acts by violent “rightwing extremists” and “Christian Identity Organizations.”

After radicalized Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 14 people at Fort Hood in Texas in 2009, government agencies warned that it could provoke violence against Arab and Muslim Americans. U.S. Army Chief of Staff George Casey went so far as to say, “I’m concerned that this increased speculation [about Maj. Hasan’s motives] could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers….as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

That’s right. According to the Obama administration, a fictitious backlash that potentially curtails diversity is a greater tragedy than the horrific deaths of 14 Americans. And hurt feelings of Muslims are to be apologized for as those same Muslims assault our embassy in Egypt and murder our ambassador and three other Americans at the consulate in Libya.

Americans are more tolerant of differing religions than any other nation. Our very existence is premised on that notion, and it is a source of our strength. Yet Mr. Obama, as he does so often, seeks to take that unity on religious freedom and use it to divide us, claiming Americans harbor some sinister internal hostility and negative stereotypes toward peaceful Muslims, while denying the persecution of Jews and Christians worldwide. At the same time, he contributes to animosity toward Jews in Israel and enhances false, negative stereotypes of Christians here at home. Using this divisive strategy, the president cripples decent Americans’ ability to voice concerns about the growing influence of Islam in our country.

There are reasonable concerns about Islam — such as the growing influence of Shariah law — that should be discussed in a free, open and intellectually respectful atmosphere. Mr. Obama is systematically neutralizing our ability to have those discussions by labeling anyone who disagrees with him anti-Islam, anti-woman, anti-middle class, anti-whatever the issue on which they disagree with the president.

To quote our president, “That’s not who we are.” Hurt feelings don’t trump First Amendment rights. And there’s enough division in the world and this country without trying to exacerbate it for political gain.

Story Continues →

Source: Washington Times