11 Oct. 2012
by Ben Shapiro
Breitbart.com
During this evening’s vice presidential debate, Vice President Joe Biden stated that Ryan, as a member of Congress, had voted for a blank check for two wars.
But, of course, Joe Biden, as a member of Senate, voted for both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Biden has been lying fluently throughout this debate; that was merely the most obvious example.
Friday, October 12, 2012
RNC: Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times
October 11, 2012 10:56 pm
Vice President Joe Biden interrupted Paul Ryan 82 times in a 90-minute debate with rival Paul Ryan, while CNN reported that women preferred Ryan.
“FACT: Final Count: Biden interrupted 82 times during the entire debate,” the RNC’s Joe Pounder tweeted after the debate. CNN’s Gloria Berger said that she would have liked Biden to show less “condescension” and “eye-rolling.”
Even Chris Wallace — who thought that Biden won the debate — said that Biden “was openly contemptuous and disrespectful” of Ryan (h/t Lachlan Markay).
“Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up lost ground, but I think people will be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other,” Ryan said during the debate.
CNN’s Erin Burnett said that “Women tended to rate Paul Ryan more highly.”
*Source: Joel Gehrke, Commentary Writer @ Washington Examiner
Vice President Joe Biden interrupted Paul Ryan 82 times in a 90-minute debate with rival Paul Ryan, while CNN reported that women preferred Ryan.
“FACT: Final Count: Biden interrupted 82 times during the entire debate,” the RNC’s Joe Pounder tweeted after the debate. CNN’s Gloria Berger said that she would have liked Biden to show less “condescension” and “eye-rolling.”
Even Chris Wallace — who thought that Biden won the debate — said that Biden “was openly contemptuous and disrespectful” of Ryan (h/t Lachlan Markay).
“Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up lost ground, but I think people will be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other,” Ryan said during the debate.
CNN’s Erin Burnett said that “Women tended to rate Paul Ryan more highly.”
*Source: Joel Gehrke, Commentary Writer @ Washington Examiner
Joe Biden Unhinged
October 12, 2012
By Matthew Vadum
FrontPageMag.com
As I observed the words and demeanor of Vice President Joe Biden all throughout last night’s debate a line from Hamlet kept running through my mind.
“That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain,” William Shakespeare wrote. How better to sum up the most unctuous, disingenuous vice president in this writer’s lifetime?
The radical left-wing Delawarean showed the same loathsome traits that he displayed during his debate with Sarah Palin four years ago. But this time, because he wasn’t facing a woman he wasn’t walking on eggshells, terrified of offending female voters. This allowed his worst characteristics to rise to the surface, unburdened by natural inhibitions.
While his opponent, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), was relatively relaxed, Biden was everyone’s obnoxious, overbearing, opinionated relative who makes up for the weakness of his arguments by making them loudly. As conservative comedian Brian Sack tweeted, the debate was “Too Chill Boy vs. Obnoxious Grandaddy.”
Throughout the debate Biden made no attempt to conceal his contempt for Ryan. It is hard to say if Biden showed greater disdain for his adversary than President Obama showed for Mitt Romney in the Colorado conversation last week.
Some observers, buoyed by impossibly high expectations, were destined to be disappointed unless Ryan landed a devastating knockout. Ryan did well but such a punch never came. A knockout always seemed unlikely because Biden is so well known for exaggerating, telling tall tales, and saying downright absurd things.
“The vice president knows sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way,” Ryan said.
Even though Ryan clearly seemed to be feeling the pressure, he wasn’t cowed by Biden. He taunted the vice president, noting that Biden is “under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground” after Romney pulverized Obama during the debate last week.
Ryan lamented that “hope and change” had been replaced by “attack, blame, and defame.”
“President Obama had his chance,” Ryan said. “He made his choices.”
Ryan rejected the fundamental transformation of America sought by Obama. “We will not try to replace our founding principles,” Ryan said. “We will reapply our founding principles.” Although much younger than Biden, Ryan was the only adult sitting at the table.
One thing is for sure: both Obama and Biden are hardcore haters whose self-esteem exceeds their actual abilities.
Last night the senescent Biden resented being taken on by the sometimes brash, young, handsome, genuinely brilliant lawmaker from Wisconsin.
Never before was so much pricey dental porcelain displayed on live television as the unstatesmanlike Biden, chuckled, mocked, and guffawed his way through the 90-minute encounter. His constant, obnoxious interruptions were tolerated by the moderator, left-wing journalist Martha Raddatz, who frequently challenged Ryan, demanding specifics from the challenger. Raddatz asked little of Biden.
Barely a word of truth escaped the vice president’s lips.
Biden threw the intelligence community under the bus in order to support the Obama administration’s ongoing coverup of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. From the start the administration portrayed the assault as a spontaneous uprising sparked by anger over an anti-Islam video. For two weeks officials tried to pretend that terrorists weren’t involved.
In the debate Biden said intelligence agencies failed to do their jobs and fed the White House bad information.
The administration didn’t initially know the attack was instigated by terrorists and hadn’t received requests from officials for additional security, Biden said, lying on both counts. Evidence now establishes that the administration learned about the attack before it happened. There is also proof that the late Ambassador Chris Stevens, believing he was marked for death by terrorists, pleaded with the administration to provide additional security. Each day brings new revelations of administration malfeasance in the sorry affair.
Biden dramatically swore to find the killers. “We will track you to the gates of Hell,” he vowed.
Ryan countered that what happened in Benghazi was proof of the “unravelling” of Obama’s foreign policy of weakness and appeasement. Obama has refused to admit that the Islamic world hasn’t abandoned its hostility to the U.S. That would conflict with his messianic narrative in which diverse peoples across the planet are united and inspired by the president.
Romney’s controversial criticism of the Obama administration’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim video nobody saw and that apparently played no role in the Benghazi attack was admirable, Ryan explained.
“It’s never too early to speak up for our values,” Ryan said.
The best Biden could do was to note that left-wing journalists agreed that Romney should have kept his mouth shut. Romney’s criticism of Obama’s apology for the video was “panned by the media all around the world.”
Predictably, the Vice President made a number of characteristically ridiculous assertions.
Biden said that Syria was five times larger than Libya. As Newt Gingrich tweeted, Biden was “absurdly” and “totally” wrong. Libya, a huge North African country, is 679,362 square miles compared to Syria which is merely 71,500 square miles in size.
Biden condemned super PACs as “abominations” even though the Obama-Biden team uses them enthusiastically. Priorities USA Action super PAC unleashed the Joe Soptic ad, probably the most dishonest –and certainly the most vicious – presidential campaign ad since Lyndon Johnson’s apocalyptic “Daisy” ad in 1964 painted Barry Goldwater as a budding Dr. Strangelove.
The ad features Soptic explaining directly to the camera how his wife died after Bain Capital, the firm Romney once ran, bought the steel company he worked for and dissolved it. Soptic blames Romney for the loss of his health insurance and subsequent death of his wife.
The Soptic ad was funded by the super PAC’s donors. Among those donors are the alleged comedian Bill Maher and the Service Employees International Union.
Biden invoked class warfare too many times to count and blamed Republicans for the nation’s ballooning debt levels. He said Democrats had saved Medicare by cutting $700-odd billion from the program, a lie Ryan nailed him on. Democrats “got caught with their hands in the cookie jar,” taking the $700 billion and using it to fund Obamacare, Ryan said. If the cuts aren’t reversed Medicare patients will have a much harder time getting seen by doctors.
It wasn’t so much a debate as an argument between a mature person and a toddler.
Clint Eastwood seems to understand what a nonentity Biden is.
During his surprise appearance at the Republican convention in Florida, Eastwood seemed to share my frame of mind about the Cheshire Cat temporarily residing in the U.S. Naval Observatory.
In his extemporaneous riff before an empty chair representing the empty suit that is Barack Obama, Eastwood said, “You’re getting as bad as Biden. Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic Party. Just kind of a grin with a body behind it.”
The more Joe Biden smiles, the more voters realize he’s not the man the media built him up to be.
By Matthew Vadum
FrontPageMag.com
As I observed the words and demeanor of Vice President Joe Biden all throughout last night’s debate a line from Hamlet kept running through my mind.
“That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain,” William Shakespeare wrote. How better to sum up the most unctuous, disingenuous vice president in this writer’s lifetime?
The radical left-wing Delawarean showed the same loathsome traits that he displayed during his debate with Sarah Palin four years ago. But this time, because he wasn’t facing a woman he wasn’t walking on eggshells, terrified of offending female voters. This allowed his worst characteristics to rise to the surface, unburdened by natural inhibitions.
While his opponent, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), was relatively relaxed, Biden was everyone’s obnoxious, overbearing, opinionated relative who makes up for the weakness of his arguments by making them loudly. As conservative comedian Brian Sack tweeted, the debate was “Too Chill Boy vs. Obnoxious Grandaddy.”
Throughout the debate Biden made no attempt to conceal his contempt for Ryan. It is hard to say if Biden showed greater disdain for his adversary than President Obama showed for Mitt Romney in the Colorado conversation last week.
Some observers, buoyed by impossibly high expectations, were destined to be disappointed unless Ryan landed a devastating knockout. Ryan did well but such a punch never came. A knockout always seemed unlikely because Biden is so well known for exaggerating, telling tall tales, and saying downright absurd things.
“The vice president knows sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way,” Ryan said.
Even though Ryan clearly seemed to be feeling the pressure, he wasn’t cowed by Biden. He taunted the vice president, noting that Biden is “under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground” after Romney pulverized Obama during the debate last week.
Ryan lamented that “hope and change” had been replaced by “attack, blame, and defame.”
“President Obama had his chance,” Ryan said. “He made his choices.”
Ryan rejected the fundamental transformation of America sought by Obama. “We will not try to replace our founding principles,” Ryan said. “We will reapply our founding principles.” Although much younger than Biden, Ryan was the only adult sitting at the table.
One thing is for sure: both Obama and Biden are hardcore haters whose self-esteem exceeds their actual abilities.
Last night the senescent Biden resented being taken on by the sometimes brash, young, handsome, genuinely brilliant lawmaker from Wisconsin.
Never before was so much pricey dental porcelain displayed on live television as the unstatesmanlike Biden, chuckled, mocked, and guffawed his way through the 90-minute encounter. His constant, obnoxious interruptions were tolerated by the moderator, left-wing journalist Martha Raddatz, who frequently challenged Ryan, demanding specifics from the challenger. Raddatz asked little of Biden.
Barely a word of truth escaped the vice president’s lips.
Biden threw the intelligence community under the bus in order to support the Obama administration’s ongoing coverup of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. From the start the administration portrayed the assault as a spontaneous uprising sparked by anger over an anti-Islam video. For two weeks officials tried to pretend that terrorists weren’t involved.
In the debate Biden said intelligence agencies failed to do their jobs and fed the White House bad information.
The administration didn’t initially know the attack was instigated by terrorists and hadn’t received requests from officials for additional security, Biden said, lying on both counts. Evidence now establishes that the administration learned about the attack before it happened. There is also proof that the late Ambassador Chris Stevens, believing he was marked for death by terrorists, pleaded with the administration to provide additional security. Each day brings new revelations of administration malfeasance in the sorry affair.
Biden dramatically swore to find the killers. “We will track you to the gates of Hell,” he vowed.
Ryan countered that what happened in Benghazi was proof of the “unravelling” of Obama’s foreign policy of weakness and appeasement. Obama has refused to admit that the Islamic world hasn’t abandoned its hostility to the U.S. That would conflict with his messianic narrative in which diverse peoples across the planet are united and inspired by the president.
Romney’s controversial criticism of the Obama administration’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim video nobody saw and that apparently played no role in the Benghazi attack was admirable, Ryan explained.
“It’s never too early to speak up for our values,” Ryan said.
The best Biden could do was to note that left-wing journalists agreed that Romney should have kept his mouth shut. Romney’s criticism of Obama’s apology for the video was “panned by the media all around the world.”
Predictably, the Vice President made a number of characteristically ridiculous assertions.
Biden said that Syria was five times larger than Libya. As Newt Gingrich tweeted, Biden was “absurdly” and “totally” wrong. Libya, a huge North African country, is 679,362 square miles compared to Syria which is merely 71,500 square miles in size.
Biden condemned super PACs as “abominations” even though the Obama-Biden team uses them enthusiastically. Priorities USA Action super PAC unleashed the Joe Soptic ad, probably the most dishonest –and certainly the most vicious – presidential campaign ad since Lyndon Johnson’s apocalyptic “Daisy” ad in 1964 painted Barry Goldwater as a budding Dr. Strangelove.
The ad features Soptic explaining directly to the camera how his wife died after Bain Capital, the firm Romney once ran, bought the steel company he worked for and dissolved it. Soptic blames Romney for the loss of his health insurance and subsequent death of his wife.
The Soptic ad was funded by the super PAC’s donors. Among those donors are the alleged comedian Bill Maher and the Service Employees International Union.
Biden invoked class warfare too many times to count and blamed Republicans for the nation’s ballooning debt levels. He said Democrats had saved Medicare by cutting $700-odd billion from the program, a lie Ryan nailed him on. Democrats “got caught with their hands in the cookie jar,” taking the $700 billion and using it to fund Obamacare, Ryan said. If the cuts aren’t reversed Medicare patients will have a much harder time getting seen by doctors.
It wasn’t so much a debate as an argument between a mature person and a toddler.
Clint Eastwood seems to understand what a nonentity Biden is.
During his surprise appearance at the Republican convention in Florida, Eastwood seemed to share my frame of mind about the Cheshire Cat temporarily residing in the U.S. Naval Observatory.
In his extemporaneous riff before an empty chair representing the empty suit that is Barack Obama, Eastwood said, “You’re getting as bad as Biden. Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic Party. Just kind of a grin with a body behind it.”
The more Joe Biden smiles, the more voters realize he’s not the man the media built him up to be.
Obama funder gets insider deal at NASA
October 11, 2012
The rocket lost power from one of its nine engines shortly after its Sunday launch and only delivered 882 of the promised 1,800 pounds of resupply cargo for the space station.
Manufactured by Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. ("SpaceX"), the Falcon 9 also failed to deliver as promised when it placed a prototype Orbcomm OG2 satellite into a lower orbit than required.
The satellite was a secondary payload on the widely heralded first-ever launch of a privately owned and developed rocket on a NASA-funded mission to the space station.
These are not the Falcon 9 project's first setbacks, as it is at least two years behind schedule and three previous test launches were cancelled.
The questions being raised in the wake of the equipment failures, however, concern the Falcon 9's mission funding instead of its technology, with some critics charging NASA made a sweetheart deal that lacks transparency and accountability.
Space X is one of three well-publicized Musk firms, the others being electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors and SolarCity Corp., a rooftop solar power panel manufacturer. Collectively, the three Musk firms have received more than $1.5 billion in government funding since President Obama took office in 2009.
Last year, Musk gave $5,000 to Obama for America and $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, but he has also contributed heavily to Democratic and Republican congressional incumbents and challengers.
Under Obama, NASA uses Space Act Agreements (SAA), which lack the financial transparency and competitive bidding requirements bidders face under the government's Federal Acquisition Regulation (DAR) system.
In a statement to The Washington Examiner, NASA spokesman Trent Perrotto defended SAAs, saying they put "flexibility in the hands of the providers."
But others, including space program experts and congressional critics from both parties, argue that SAA is a carte blanche handover of public money without litmus tests, design specifications, financial audits and adequate safety oversight.
A former NASA astronaut complained in an interview with the Examiner, that design and financial details under SAA are beyond the reach of government officials.
"The contractors are saying 'give us some seed money, trust us,'" said the former astronaut, who requested anonymity.
Thus far, NASA has awarded at least $2.1 billion in SAA money to private space companies, including a total of $824 million to SpaceX.
Michael D. Griffin, the former NASA Administrator under President George W. Bush, slammed SAA funding, saying it is a system "for which NASA cannot set requirements, cannot direct design features, cannot control management practices (and) cannot require financial audits."
His comments came in a prepared lecture Sept. 6 at Georgia Tech University,
Obama administration officials once told Congress NASA would use FAR funding for manned space flight, but in December 2011 reversed course and said the agency would continue to use the SAA program.
Rep. Jerry Costello, senior Democrat on the House subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, told a recent hearing of the panel that he worries about that reversal.
"I am concerned with NASA's reversal in its commercial crew acquisition strategy, using Space Act Agreements (SAA), instead of Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)-based contracts for design activities and its possible affect on astronaut safety, which is of paramount importance."
Rep. Donna Edwards, D-MD, also a member of the House space subcommittee, told the Examiner that "NASA needs greater oversight than the Space Act Agreements can provide to ensure cost controls, safety, and reliability of these programs."
The space agency may now be re-thinking SAA use. Perrotto told the Examiner that NASA, depending on future results, "plans to transition to a FAR-based contract early next year."
A SpaceX spokesman declined comment for this story.
*Source: Richard Pollock is a member of The Washington Examiner's special reporting team.
The rocket lost power from one of its nine engines shortly after its Sunday launch and only delivered 882 of the promised 1,800 pounds of resupply cargo for the space station.
Manufactured by Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. ("SpaceX"), the Falcon 9 also failed to deliver as promised when it placed a prototype Orbcomm OG2 satellite into a lower orbit than required.
The satellite was a secondary payload on the widely heralded first-ever launch of a privately owned and developed rocket on a NASA-funded mission to the space station.
These are not the Falcon 9 project's first setbacks, as it is at least two years behind schedule and three previous test launches were cancelled.
The questions being raised in the wake of the equipment failures, however, concern the Falcon 9's mission funding instead of its technology, with some critics charging NASA made a sweetheart deal that lacks transparency and accountability.
Space X is one of three well-publicized Musk firms, the others being electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors and SolarCity Corp., a rooftop solar power panel manufacturer. Collectively, the three Musk firms have received more than $1.5 billion in government funding since President Obama took office in 2009.
Last year, Musk gave $5,000 to Obama for America and $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, but he has also contributed heavily to Democratic and Republican congressional incumbents and challengers.
Under Obama, NASA uses Space Act Agreements (SAA), which lack the financial transparency and competitive bidding requirements bidders face under the government's Federal Acquisition Regulation (DAR) system.
In a statement to The Washington Examiner, NASA spokesman Trent Perrotto defended SAAs, saying they put "flexibility in the hands of the providers."
But others, including space program experts and congressional critics from both parties, argue that SAA is a carte blanche handover of public money without litmus tests, design specifications, financial audits and adequate safety oversight.
A former NASA astronaut complained in an interview with the Examiner, that design and financial details under SAA are beyond the reach of government officials.
"The contractors are saying 'give us some seed money, trust us,'" said the former astronaut, who requested anonymity.
Thus far, NASA has awarded at least $2.1 billion in SAA money to private space companies, including a total of $824 million to SpaceX.
Michael D. Griffin, the former NASA Administrator under President George W. Bush, slammed SAA funding, saying it is a system "for which NASA cannot set requirements, cannot direct design features, cannot control management practices (and) cannot require financial audits."
His comments came in a prepared lecture Sept. 6 at Georgia Tech University,
Obama administration officials once told Congress NASA would use FAR funding for manned space flight, but in December 2011 reversed course and said the agency would continue to use the SAA program.
Rep. Jerry Costello, senior Democrat on the House subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, told a recent hearing of the panel that he worries about that reversal.
"I am concerned with NASA's reversal in its commercial crew acquisition strategy, using Space Act Agreements (SAA), instead of Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)-based contracts for design activities and its possible affect on astronaut safety, which is of paramount importance."
Rep. Donna Edwards, D-MD, also a member of the House space subcommittee, told the Examiner that "NASA needs greater oversight than the Space Act Agreements can provide to ensure cost controls, safety, and reliability of these programs."
The space agency may now be re-thinking SAA use. Perrotto told the Examiner that NASA, depending on future results, "plans to transition to a FAR-based contract early next year."
A SpaceX spokesman declined comment for this story.
*Source: Richard Pollock is a member of The Washington Examiner's special reporting team.
The Deadly Disgrace of Obama's Pro-Terrorist Lawyers
Oct 12, 2012
Michelle Malkin
Townhall.com
October 12 marks the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. The grim milestone comes as President Obama faces mounting questions about his administration's dereliction of duty during the murderous attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. And it comes just a day after resurgent al-Qaida thugs pulled off the drive-by assassination of a top Yemeni security official who worked at the U.S. embassy in Sanaa.
These are not "bumps in the road." These are gravesites on the blood-spattered path to surrender.
Seventeen U.S. sailors died in the brutal suicide attack on the guided Navy missile destroyer as it refueled at the Yemeni port of Aden in the fall of 2000. Then-President Bill Clinton vowed to track down the Muslim terrorist attackers: "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable." But a dozen disgraceful years later, Slick Willy's toothless promise has become a bitter punch line.
The current Democratic White House has not only delayed and denied justice to the victims and their families. President Obama's foot-dragging administration, crawling with pro-terrorist lawyers, effectively undermines our nation's ability to detain, contain and destroy jihad threats from within and without.
Suspected Cole bombing suspect and former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al-Qaida Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at Gitmo since 2006. In February 2009, Obama met with Cole families and promised them justice. Then, he stabbed them in the back by ordering the (Social) Justice Department to abandon the death penalty case assembled against the al-Qaida mastermind under the Bush administration.
That's right: The Osama bin Laden football-spikers in the Obama administration deliberately dropped the USS Cole ball on al-Nashiri's military prosecution because of their opposition to the Guantanamo Bay detention system. Jesse Nieto, father of murdered Cole sailor Marc Nieto, won't forget it. "That really left a bitter, bad taste in my mouth," he told the Newnan (Ga.) Times-Herald earlier this year.
In 2011, the Obama administration reinstated the charges amid a widespread backlash against Attorney General Eric Holder's plans to bestow U.S. civilian trials in Manhattan to foreign Gitmo goons. But the trial has been plagued by yet more delays and left-wing lawyer antics painting Nashiri as a victim of American hegemony. "This whole trial is a political football the politicians are playing with," Nieto aptly noted. "If they left it to the military, it would be taken care of. And it would be fair."
Team Obama's initial withdrawal from the prosecution came out of left field -- literally. But it is no surprise to those who paid attention to Holder's radical ideological and corporate allegiances.
As I reported in "Culture of Corruption," Holder joined the prestigious Covington and Burling business and corporate law firm after a quarter-century as a government lawyer. The stint boosted his net worth to nearly $6 million. Covington and Burling's post-9/11 claim to fame? Representing 17 terror suspects held at Gitmo who hail from Yemen, long a safe haven for terrorists. (Another Cole bombing mastermind, Jamal Mohammed al Badawi, was convicted and sentenced to die in Yemen for the terror attack, but somehow escaped twice from jail and was freed by the Yemeni government in 2007.)
Holder's law firm employed dozens of radical attorneys such as David Remes and Marc Falkoff to provide the enemy combatants with more than 3,000 hours of pro bono representation. Covington and Burling secured victories for several Gitmo enemy combatants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Remes, who garnered human rights awards for Covington and Burling before striking out on his own, now represents Nashiri.
Falkoff went on to publish a book of poetry, "Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak," which he dedicated to the suspected terrorists: "For my friends inside the wire, Mahmoad, Majid, Yasein, Saeed, Abdulsalam, Mohammed, Adnan, Jamal, Othman, Adil, Mohamed, Abdulmalik, Areef, Adeq, Farouk, Salman, and Makhtar. Inshallah, we will next meet over coffee in your homes in Yemen."
One of the class of Yemeni Gitmo detainees that Falkoff described as "gentle, thoughtful young men" was released in 2005 -- only to blow himself up (gently and thoughtfully, of course) in a truck bombing in Mosul, Iraq, in 2008, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.
In January 2010, The Times of London reported that "at least a dozen former Guantanamo Bay inmates (had) rejoined al-Qaida to fight in Yemen." Another Yemeni Gitmo recidivist and top al-Qaida leader, Said al-Shihri, was freed after undergoing "rehabilitation" -- and then promptly rejoined jihadi forces. He was reportedly killed in a U.S. missile strike last month.
In February 2010, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley forced Holder to acknowledge that at least nine DOJ attorneys officially represented or served as advocates for Gitmo detainees before joining the Obama administration. They work in the offices of the attorney general, the acting deputy attorney general, the associate attorney general, and the assistant attorney general for the criminal division. In addition, the assistant attorney general for the civil division previously represented one Afghan detainee, and his former employer represents other detainees.
Gitmo recidivists -- a burgeoning Obama demographic that includes suspected Benghazi jihad plotter Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu -- certainly are better off than they were four years ago. The question is: Can Americans at home and abroad really afford another four years of Obama, Holder and their soft-on-terror government attorneys sabotaging national security?
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Michelle Malkin
Townhall.com
October 12 marks the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. The grim milestone comes as President Obama faces mounting questions about his administration's dereliction of duty during the murderous attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. And it comes just a day after resurgent al-Qaida thugs pulled off the drive-by assassination of a top Yemeni security official who worked at the U.S. embassy in Sanaa.
These are not "bumps in the road." These are gravesites on the blood-spattered path to surrender.
Seventeen U.S. sailors died in the brutal suicide attack on the guided Navy missile destroyer as it refueled at the Yemeni port of Aden in the fall of 2000. Then-President Bill Clinton vowed to track down the Muslim terrorist attackers: "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable." But a dozen disgraceful years later, Slick Willy's toothless promise has become a bitter punch line.
The current Democratic White House has not only delayed and denied justice to the victims and their families. President Obama's foot-dragging administration, crawling with pro-terrorist lawyers, effectively undermines our nation's ability to detain, contain and destroy jihad threats from within and without.
Suspected Cole bombing suspect and former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al-Qaida Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at Gitmo since 2006. In February 2009, Obama met with Cole families and promised them justice. Then, he stabbed them in the back by ordering the (Social) Justice Department to abandon the death penalty case assembled against the al-Qaida mastermind under the Bush administration.
That's right: The Osama bin Laden football-spikers in the Obama administration deliberately dropped the USS Cole ball on al-Nashiri's military prosecution because of their opposition to the Guantanamo Bay detention system. Jesse Nieto, father of murdered Cole sailor Marc Nieto, won't forget it. "That really left a bitter, bad taste in my mouth," he told the Newnan (Ga.) Times-Herald earlier this year.
In 2011, the Obama administration reinstated the charges amid a widespread backlash against Attorney General Eric Holder's plans to bestow U.S. civilian trials in Manhattan to foreign Gitmo goons. But the trial has been plagued by yet more delays and left-wing lawyer antics painting Nashiri as a victim of American hegemony. "This whole trial is a political football the politicians are playing with," Nieto aptly noted. "If they left it to the military, it would be taken care of. And it would be fair."
Team Obama's initial withdrawal from the prosecution came out of left field -- literally. But it is no surprise to those who paid attention to Holder's radical ideological and corporate allegiances.
As I reported in "Culture of Corruption," Holder joined the prestigious Covington and Burling business and corporate law firm after a quarter-century as a government lawyer. The stint boosted his net worth to nearly $6 million. Covington and Burling's post-9/11 claim to fame? Representing 17 terror suspects held at Gitmo who hail from Yemen, long a safe haven for terrorists. (Another Cole bombing mastermind, Jamal Mohammed al Badawi, was convicted and sentenced to die in Yemen for the terror attack, but somehow escaped twice from jail and was freed by the Yemeni government in 2007.)
Holder's law firm employed dozens of radical attorneys such as David Remes and Marc Falkoff to provide the enemy combatants with more than 3,000 hours of pro bono representation. Covington and Burling secured victories for several Gitmo enemy combatants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Remes, who garnered human rights awards for Covington and Burling before striking out on his own, now represents Nashiri.
Falkoff went on to publish a book of poetry, "Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak," which he dedicated to the suspected terrorists: "For my friends inside the wire, Mahmoad, Majid, Yasein, Saeed, Abdulsalam, Mohammed, Adnan, Jamal, Othman, Adil, Mohamed, Abdulmalik, Areef, Adeq, Farouk, Salman, and Makhtar. Inshallah, we will next meet over coffee in your homes in Yemen."
One of the class of Yemeni Gitmo detainees that Falkoff described as "gentle, thoughtful young men" was released in 2005 -- only to blow himself up (gently and thoughtfully, of course) in a truck bombing in Mosul, Iraq, in 2008, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.
In January 2010, The Times of London reported that "at least a dozen former Guantanamo Bay inmates (had) rejoined al-Qaida to fight in Yemen." Another Yemeni Gitmo recidivist and top al-Qaida leader, Said al-Shihri, was freed after undergoing "rehabilitation" -- and then promptly rejoined jihadi forces. He was reportedly killed in a U.S. missile strike last month.
In February 2010, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley forced Holder to acknowledge that at least nine DOJ attorneys officially represented or served as advocates for Gitmo detainees before joining the Obama administration. They work in the offices of the attorney general, the acting deputy attorney general, the associate attorney general, and the assistant attorney general for the criminal division. In addition, the assistant attorney general for the civil division previously represented one Afghan detainee, and his former employer represents other detainees.
Gitmo recidivists -- a burgeoning Obama demographic that includes suspected Benghazi jihad plotter Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu -- certainly are better off than they were four years ago. The question is: Can Americans at home and abroad really afford another four years of Obama, Holder and their soft-on-terror government attorneys sabotaging national security?
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Egypt rights activists seeing hopes dissolve
10.12.12
Women and minorities had wanted guarantees of equal rights, but that goal seems out of reach now that control of Egypt has shifted to an Islamist president.
CAIRO — Eman Mostafa, a village girl from southern Egypt, was shot and killed last month when she dared to spit in the face of the man who groped her.
Ramadan Salem told authorities he mistakenly shot Mostafa, 16, after she cursed him. It is uncertain whether Salem will be convicted: The only witness willing to testify — Mostafa's friend, Sahar Mamdouh — has been threatened in a society that often blames women and girls for provoking sexual crimes against them.
After an uprising toppled President Hosni Mubarak early last year, women and minorities hoped for a nation that would guarantee long-denied equal rights. But their pleas have gone unanswered as Egypt has shifted from military control to the conservative designs of a new Islamist president. Mostafa's death symbolizes for many women the prospect that civil rights would be further jeopardized by a new constitution.
Scores of Egyptians, with the support of 33 women's rights organizations, protested outside President Mohamed Morsi's palace last week against the proposed constitution, particularly Article 36, which says the state is "committed to providing all measures to ensure the equality of women with men, as long as those rights are not contradicting the laws of Islam," or sharia.
Overwhelmed by Islamist domination in the assembly drafting the constitution, liberals and moderates have repeatedly threatened to resign because they say the political body leans toward radical political Islam. A previous assembly was dissolved this year for failing to represent Egypt's diverse society, and a court decision expected Tuesday could again disband the body amid charges it has ignored women, Christians, youths and other groups.
Yet Islamists are the country's main political force, and they will probably control the tone of a constitution in what has become a pivotal battle between liberals and Islamists who run the gamut from ultraconservative Salafis to the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood. The struggle is tilted in favor of the Islamists because women's groups and liberal parties are often divided and disorganized.
"Equality should be a given, with no conditions. This [article] is strictly meant to hinder the women's rights movements and the way women express themselves. It is meant to target basic rights that women fought for decades ago," said Dalia Abdelhameed, a researcher with the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.
When Morsi was inaugurated in June, he signaled to the United States and the international community that personal freedoms were important in a "new" Egypt. Though he made big promises abroad, Egyptians say little changed at home as charges of blasphemy have increased and radical clerics have become more vocal. Morsi marked his first 100 days in office Sunday and his government has yet to calm social and economic turmoil while trying to appease fellow Islamists.
"If this constitutional draft is passed, it is not only going to be a blow to the women's movement in Egypt, but it will be another obstacle for the labor movement and other social and rights campaigns," said Doaa Abdelaal, a human rights advocate and researcher.
Egypt's Christian leaders have repeatedly expressed fears and condemned the assembly. Similarly, the nation's Nubian community has decried discrimination and exclusion.
Last month, Manal Tibi, a prominent human rights activist who represented the Nubians in the assembly, resigned. She said she could not be part of a group that is trying to "entrench" a religious state rather than represent Egypt's people.
"When I first entered [the assembly], I was told that we would all drop our political beliefs and ideologies and work strictly toward drafting a constitution for our nation. These were all nice words ... but later this all changed," Tibi said on Al Nahar, a privately owned Egyptian satellite channel, after her resignation.
Tibi said she had hoped to add a clause against all forms of racial discrimination to guarantee equality, but the assembly snubbed the idea.
"They accused the Nubian community and myself of wanting to split from Egypt completely when I proposed this," Tibi said. "Instead of discussing social justice or how to guarantee citizen rights, we found ourselves discussing issues that should have already been closed hundreds of years ago, like changing the legal age of marriage for young children."
Islamists have repeatedly denied taking control of the assembly, stating that the constitution belongs to all Egyptians. "This is a very serious attack on our honorable assembly," said Hossam Gheriany, the assembly speaker who is recognized as an independent judge.
Egypt does not yet have a parliament, and it cannot hold elections until the constitution is drafted. So the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party — which is angling for a majority of parliamentary seats — is eager to come to an agreement and complete a draft constitution.
Leftist groups and liberals, on the other hand, hope the current assembly is dissolved, paving the way for a more fair, representative body.
Tibi's resignation from the assembly and the threats of others to walk out have signaled a need for new strategies and greater cohesion among rights groups.
"We need to develop our civil society arguments," rights advocate Abdelaal said. "This should have been happening a year and a half ago after the revolution, but it's not too late."
Abdellatiff is a special correspondent. Times staff writer Jeffrey Fleishman contributed to this report.
*Original source: Reem Abdellatif,
Los Angeles Times
Women and minorities had wanted guarantees of equal rights, but that goal seems out of reach now that control of Egypt has shifted to an Islamist president.
| An Egyptian woman in Cairo chants slogans last week criticizing the Islamist-dominated assembly drafting a new constitution. (Nasser Nasser, Associated Press / October 2, 2012) |
Ramadan Salem told authorities he mistakenly shot Mostafa, 16, after she cursed him. It is uncertain whether Salem will be convicted: The only witness willing to testify — Mostafa's friend, Sahar Mamdouh — has been threatened in a society that often blames women and girls for provoking sexual crimes against them.
After an uprising toppled President Hosni Mubarak early last year, women and minorities hoped for a nation that would guarantee long-denied equal rights. But their pleas have gone unanswered as Egypt has shifted from military control to the conservative designs of a new Islamist president. Mostafa's death symbolizes for many women the prospect that civil rights would be further jeopardized by a new constitution.
Scores of Egyptians, with the support of 33 women's rights organizations, protested outside President Mohamed Morsi's palace last week against the proposed constitution, particularly Article 36, which says the state is "committed to providing all measures to ensure the equality of women with men, as long as those rights are not contradicting the laws of Islam," or sharia.
Overwhelmed by Islamist domination in the assembly drafting the constitution, liberals and moderates have repeatedly threatened to resign because they say the political body leans toward radical political Islam. A previous assembly was dissolved this year for failing to represent Egypt's diverse society, and a court decision expected Tuesday could again disband the body amid charges it has ignored women, Christians, youths and other groups.
Yet Islamists are the country's main political force, and they will probably control the tone of a constitution in what has become a pivotal battle between liberals and Islamists who run the gamut from ultraconservative Salafis to the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood. The struggle is tilted in favor of the Islamists because women's groups and liberal parties are often divided and disorganized.
"Equality should be a given, with no conditions. This [article] is strictly meant to hinder the women's rights movements and the way women express themselves. It is meant to target basic rights that women fought for decades ago," said Dalia Abdelhameed, a researcher with the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.
When Morsi was inaugurated in June, he signaled to the United States and the international community that personal freedoms were important in a "new" Egypt. Though he made big promises abroad, Egyptians say little changed at home as charges of blasphemy have increased and radical clerics have become more vocal. Morsi marked his first 100 days in office Sunday and his government has yet to calm social and economic turmoil while trying to appease fellow Islamists.
"If this constitutional draft is passed, it is not only going to be a blow to the women's movement in Egypt, but it will be another obstacle for the labor movement and other social and rights campaigns," said Doaa Abdelaal, a human rights advocate and researcher.
Egypt's Christian leaders have repeatedly expressed fears and condemned the assembly. Similarly, the nation's Nubian community has decried discrimination and exclusion.
Last month, Manal Tibi, a prominent human rights activist who represented the Nubians in the assembly, resigned. She said she could not be part of a group that is trying to "entrench" a religious state rather than represent Egypt's people.
"When I first entered [the assembly], I was told that we would all drop our political beliefs and ideologies and work strictly toward drafting a constitution for our nation. These were all nice words ... but later this all changed," Tibi said on Al Nahar, a privately owned Egyptian satellite channel, after her resignation.
Tibi said she had hoped to add a clause against all forms of racial discrimination to guarantee equality, but the assembly snubbed the idea.
"They accused the Nubian community and myself of wanting to split from Egypt completely when I proposed this," Tibi said. "Instead of discussing social justice or how to guarantee citizen rights, we found ourselves discussing issues that should have already been closed hundreds of years ago, like changing the legal age of marriage for young children."
Islamists have repeatedly denied taking control of the assembly, stating that the constitution belongs to all Egyptians. "This is a very serious attack on our honorable assembly," said Hossam Gheriany, the assembly speaker who is recognized as an independent judge.
Egypt does not yet have a parliament, and it cannot hold elections until the constitution is drafted. So the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party — which is angling for a majority of parliamentary seats — is eager to come to an agreement and complete a draft constitution.
Leftist groups and liberals, on the other hand, hope the current assembly is dissolved, paving the way for a more fair, representative body.
Tibi's resignation from the assembly and the threats of others to walk out have signaled a need for new strategies and greater cohesion among rights groups.
"We need to develop our civil society arguments," rights advocate Abdelaal said. "This should have been happening a year and a half ago after the revolution, but it's not too late."
Abdellatiff is a special correspondent. Times staff writer Jeffrey Fleishman contributed to this report.
*Original source: Reem Abdellatif,
Los Angeles Times
Egypt's Brotherhood heads urged jihad for Jerusalem
11 October 2012 - 20H21
AFP - The supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi emanated, called on Thursday for a jihad (holy war) to liberate Jerusalem from Israeli rule.
"Jerusalem is Islamic ... and nobody is entitled to make concessions" on the Holy City, said Sheikh Mohammed Badie in his weekly message to supporters.
"The jihad for the recovery of Jerusalem is a duty for all Muslims," he said, stressing that the liberation of the Holy City "will not be done through negotiations or at the United Nations."
Israel, which signed a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, has watched with concern as Islamists were catapulted to the forefront of politics following a popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak last year.
Morsi has repeatedly said he would respect international treaties signed by Cairo. But his former movement has also said there is room to revise the accords, without objecting to them in principle.
Source: France24
AFP - The supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi emanated, called on Thursday for a jihad (holy war) to liberate Jerusalem from Israeli rule.
"Jerusalem is Islamic ... and nobody is entitled to make concessions" on the Holy City, said Sheikh Mohammed Badie in his weekly message to supporters.
"The jihad for the recovery of Jerusalem is a duty for all Muslims," he said, stressing that the liberation of the Holy City "will not be done through negotiations or at the United Nations."
Israel, which signed a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, has watched with concern as Islamists were catapulted to the forefront of politics following a popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak last year.
Morsi has repeatedly said he would respect international treaties signed by Cairo. But his former movement has also said there is room to revise the accords, without objecting to them in principle.
Source: France24
Environmentalist Air Pollution
Posted on October 11, 2012
Guest Post by Ira Glickstein, PhD
Whats Up With That:
What’s the difference between a whimsical fable and an environmental fallacy?
On the outside, fables are light-hearted fibs. But oh so true on the inside.
Environmental fallacies are just the opposite, plausible on the outside but hiding ugly realities on the inside.
Environmentalists have promoted the theory that human civilization is the main cause of global warming. They argue that Governments worldwide must take immediate drastic action to prevent a catastrophe. The chain of proof in their human-caused climate catastrophe theory is broken in at least six places:
Fossil fuels cause some air pollution, but the most dangerous air pollution comes from the fallacies uttered by environmentalists :^). If the voting public is misled by this kind of “environmentalist air pollution” our free economy will be destroyed, and with it, the most successful experiment so far of free peoples governing themselves. Only a High-Intellect Twit (HITwit), a person who is smart in some academic domain but quite foolish otherwise, could come up with and believe all these fallacies!
Click here for the FULL list>>
Enjoy Your Fallacies!
Guest Post by Ira Glickstein, PhD
Whats Up With That:
What’s the difference between a whimsical fable and an environmental fallacy?
On the outside, fables are light-hearted fibs. But oh so true on the inside.
Environmental fallacies are just the opposite, plausible on the outside but hiding ugly realities on the inside.
Environmentalists have promoted the theory that human civilization is the main cause of global warming. They argue that Governments worldwide must take immediate drastic action to prevent a catastrophe. The chain of proof in their human-caused climate catastrophe theory is broken in at least six places:
| All links in the chain from Theory to Proof are broken |
Click here for the FULL list>>
Enjoy Your Fallacies!
Obama fans: We'll riot, leave U.S. if Mitt wins
'I want to shoot Romney in the penis. Why do we let him talk?'
(as a tribute to where the Left's mind usually is, text purposely pink)
With Mitt Romney surging in polls since his strong debate performance last week, supporters of President Obama are vowing online to riot nationwide and even leave the U.S. should the Republican challenger oust the incumbent.
Numerous Twitter postings in recent days feature threats of street violence, often poorly worded, as collected by the Twitchy website.
For instance, on Oct. 8, John Kramer@YoungCal626 posted: “I Hope The USA Is Well Aware That If In The Event This Character Romney Wins The Election, The People Will Start A Country Wide Riot! #Power”
On Oct. 3, Tommy Pickles@ThugPickles wrote: “I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do .’IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT’”
One Twitter user, Facey!@daboifacey, apparently felt a sense of rioters’ remorse, as he posted: “Ok,I apologize for that tweet about Romney,It was a joke,I would never start a riot -___- its twitter.”
Beyond the violence threats, many more are vowing to begin a mass exodus out of America if Obama is not re-elected.
Amber Lee@JoseAmbuervo says: “Told my New Zealand friend that if Romney is elected I am moving to her country. She said ‘Deal. We don’t need politics we have ferns.’”
Candice J @Cannadiss posted: “If Romney wins this election, I’m moving to New Zealand because this f–ker is not taking away the sh-t that I believe in.”
Some may even grab the attention of the U.S. Secret Service.
Rafiki the Ukulele@lovingschneider said: “I want to shoot Romney in the penis. Why do we let him talk? If he wins I’m moving to New Zealand.”
Besides New Zealand, other popular countries on the list of post-Obama destinations include Canada, England, Scotland, Australia, Mexico, Ireland and Italy.
Anorb @broNaNa45 says: “I’d rather live in Ireland’s horrible economy then live under Romney as president. So if he wins, a select few can visit me in Ireland.”
“I’m moving to Italy if Romney win; Italian men love black girls,” wrote illest ice@iamDynastyCold
And Eddie Smith@EdFoo89 said: “I will literally have to move to Mexico if Mitt Romney gets elected. I can’t live in a Mormon ruled land. Nope. I won’t do it.”
Even the island paradise of Cuba got some mentions, including Cleopatra @IAMLexxie, saying. “If romney wins & is as horrible a he appears now … Deport me back to cuba .. Ill call them myself.”
And with the campaign recently focusing on “lady parts,” Melissa Beaird@melissabeaird said she’d prefer not even to be on this planet: “If Romney is elected I’m taking my uterus and moving to Mars.”
For his part, President Obama expects the “hand-wringing” among his backers after his lackluster debate performance to dwindle next week.
“[Vice President Joe] Biden I think will be terrific in the debate this week. I’ve got another debate,” Obama said Wednesday on the Tom Joyner Morning Show. “By next week I think a lot of the hand-wringing will be complete because we’re gonna go ahead and win this thing.” …
“You have a seven game series, you’re up 2-0 and you lose one,” Obama said.
While many Democrats appear to be pressing the panic button, some professional analysts say Obama’s performance in the next debate Oct. 16 will be key, especially if the president does not have a good night.
“My honest and truthful answer is Democrats are not panicked – and I’m not exactly sure why,” longtime Clinton adviser James Carville told Politico, as he thinks Obama will still win. “Maybe I’m being silly here, but I’ve talked to a lot of people today and everybody’s saying the same thing. … Should I be more concerned than I am?
“We’re all trying to talk ourselves into a state of panic, and we’re not quite there yet.”
Meanwhile, Jen Psaki, the Obama campaign’s traveling press secretary, said Wednesday she wasn’t concerned about the fretting among Democrats.
“We don’t get too high when things are high and down when things are down,” Psaki said on CNN’s “Starting Point.”
“We’ve always thought this was going to be a very, very close race, and that’s why we’re running like we’re 5 points down in every single state. We have blinders on. We’re implementing our plan. And ultimately, we think the American people are going to look at the choice and they’re going to vote for President Obama, and that’s why we’re out there every day making the case, but we don’t get too worried with all the ups and downs of the polls and we know [there will] be many, many more before Election Day.”
“We don’t think anything needs to be turned around,” she continued.
“You know, I know people want us to say we’re … depressed or we’re under a table, but we feel much better about our ground game, we feel better about the choice we’re offering the American people than Mitt Romney, and you know, we’ll let him run his own race and we’ll run our own race,” she said.
Source: WND Exclusive
(as a tribute to where the Left's mind usually is, text purposely pink)
With Mitt Romney surging in polls since his strong debate performance last week, supporters of President Obama are vowing online to riot nationwide and even leave the U.S. should the Republican challenger oust the incumbent.
Numerous Twitter postings in recent days feature threats of street violence, often poorly worded, as collected by the Twitchy website.
For instance, on Oct. 8, John Kramer@YoungCal626 posted: “I Hope The USA Is Well Aware That If In The Event This Character Romney Wins The Election, The People Will Start A Country Wide Riot! #Power”
On Oct. 3, Tommy Pickles@ThugPickles wrote: “I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do .’IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT’”
One Twitter user, Facey!@daboifacey, apparently felt a sense of rioters’ remorse, as he posted: “Ok,I apologize for that tweet about Romney,It was a joke,I would never start a riot -___- its twitter.”
Beyond the violence threats, many more are vowing to begin a mass exodus out of America if Obama is not re-elected.
Amber Lee@JoseAmbuervo says: “Told my New Zealand friend that if Romney is elected I am moving to her country. She said ‘Deal. We don’t need politics we have ferns.’”
Candice J @Cannadiss posted: “If Romney wins this election, I’m moving to New Zealand because this f–ker is not taking away the sh-t that I believe in.”
Some may even grab the attention of the U.S. Secret Service.
Rafiki the Ukulele@lovingschneider said: “I want to shoot Romney in the penis. Why do we let him talk? If he wins I’m moving to New Zealand.”
| Many Obama supporters are threatening to leave the country, start riots, or even shoot Mitt Romney if Romney defeats President Obama in the 2012 election. |
Besides New Zealand, other popular countries on the list of post-Obama destinations include Canada, England, Scotland, Australia, Mexico, Ireland and Italy.
Anorb @broNaNa45 says: “I’d rather live in Ireland’s horrible economy then live under Romney as president. So if he wins, a select few can visit me in Ireland.”
“I’m moving to Italy if Romney win; Italian men love black girls,” wrote illest ice@iamDynastyCold
And Eddie Smith@EdFoo89 said: “I will literally have to move to Mexico if Mitt Romney gets elected. I can’t live in a Mormon ruled land. Nope. I won’t do it.”
Even the island paradise of Cuba got some mentions, including Cleopatra @IAMLexxie, saying. “If romney wins & is as horrible a he appears now … Deport me back to cuba .. Ill call them myself.”
And with the campaign recently focusing on “lady parts,” Melissa Beaird@melissabeaird said she’d prefer not even to be on this planet: “If Romney is elected I’m taking my uterus and moving to Mars.”
For his part, President Obama expects the “hand-wringing” among his backers after his lackluster debate performance to dwindle next week.
“[Vice President Joe] Biden I think will be terrific in the debate this week. I’ve got another debate,” Obama said Wednesday on the Tom Joyner Morning Show. “By next week I think a lot of the hand-wringing will be complete because we’re gonna go ahead and win this thing.” …
“You have a seven game series, you’re up 2-0 and you lose one,” Obama said.
While many Democrats appear to be pressing the panic button, some professional analysts say Obama’s performance in the next debate Oct. 16 will be key, especially if the president does not have a good night.
“My honest and truthful answer is Democrats are not panicked – and I’m not exactly sure why,” longtime Clinton adviser James Carville told Politico, as he thinks Obama will still win. “Maybe I’m being silly here, but I’ve talked to a lot of people today and everybody’s saying the same thing. … Should I be more concerned than I am?
“We’re all trying to talk ourselves into a state of panic, and we’re not quite there yet.”
Meanwhile, Jen Psaki, the Obama campaign’s traveling press secretary, said Wednesday she wasn’t concerned about the fretting among Democrats.
“We don’t get too high when things are high and down when things are down,” Psaki said on CNN’s “Starting Point.”
“We’ve always thought this was going to be a very, very close race, and that’s why we’re running like we’re 5 points down in every single state. We have blinders on. We’re implementing our plan. And ultimately, we think the American people are going to look at the choice and they’re going to vote for President Obama, and that’s why we’re out there every day making the case, but we don’t get too worried with all the ups and downs of the polls and we know [there will] be many, many more before Election Day.”
“We don’t think anything needs to be turned around,” she continued.
“You know, I know people want us to say we’re … depressed or we’re under a table, but we feel much better about our ground game, we feel better about the choice we’re offering the American people than Mitt Romney, and you know, we’ll let him run his own race and we’ll run our own race,” she said.
Source: WND Exclusive
As a parent, I say this to the United Nations: Leave our kids alone
Updated: Thursday, October 11, 2012 09:51 PM EDT
The United Nations is lecturing Canada again by throwing stones while standing naked in the living room of their glass house.
A report has been released by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, a committee that includes Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt among its members. The committee is telling Canada that it needs to do more for the nation’s children. If you didn’t know there was a permanent UN committee for this issue, then remember what I have told you before: The UN considers itself a government, a world government in waiting, and they think that their rules should supersede Canadian law.
Think I’m overstating this?
The UN committee is upset that due to our division of powers between the feds and the provinces, that there is no uniform law enshrining the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Canadian law.
But don’t worry, they have a solution: Just do it.
“The Committee recommends that the State Party finds the appropriate constitutional path that will allow it to have in the whole territory of the State Party, including its provinces and territories, a comprehensive legal framework which fully incorporates the provisions of the Convention and its Optional Protocols and provides clear guidelines for their consistent application.”
There you have it, the UN telling Canada to work around the constitution to make sure every jurisdiction has the same law, one set out by the UN. Now look at that membership list and ask whether you would you want any of those countries to have jurisdiction over Canada.
They think they do already and some in Canada want to give it to them, that power and more. Liberal MP Marc Garneau has a private member’s bill, C-420, that would establish a commissioner for Children and Young Persons.
The main job of the commissioner, from my reading of the bill, is to ensure Canadian compliance with UN dictates relating to children.
This law, which has a good chance of passing, because after all it is for the children and who can be against the children, would establish yet another unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat to pester the government to do things most Canadians don’t want and haven’t even thought of yet.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, the princes of Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt or any of these other clowns having greater say in Canadian law relating to children than the Members of Parliament we elect. Yet that is what would happen.
We would have yet another report, backed by the sainted United Nations, telling the government to do more. That report would then be picked up by all the lefty groups that the UN and the commissioner would consult and then be waved around in front of a compliant media, who would then do stories on why the government does in fact need to act. It’s for the children, you know.
And that circle of lefty groups being consulted, a report being issued and then that report being used by the lefty groups that were consulted — that is already going on.
Two of the groups that the UN consulted are quoted by the Canadian Press calling on the government to act, to do more.
As a parent, I say this: The United Nations can go to hell.
When the UN stops coddling dictators, then they can think about critiquing Canada. Until then, hands off my family and my country.
Source: Toronto Sun
The United Nations is lecturing Canada again by throwing stones while standing naked in the living room of their glass house.
A report has been released by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, a committee that includes Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt among its members. The committee is telling Canada that it needs to do more for the nation’s children. If you didn’t know there was a permanent UN committee for this issue, then remember what I have told you before: The UN considers itself a government, a world government in waiting, and they think that their rules should supersede Canadian law.
Think I’m overstating this?
The UN committee is upset that due to our division of powers between the feds and the provinces, that there is no uniform law enshrining the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Canadian law.
But don’t worry, they have a solution: Just do it.
“The Committee recommends that the State Party finds the appropriate constitutional path that will allow it to have in the whole territory of the State Party, including its provinces and territories, a comprehensive legal framework which fully incorporates the provisions of the Convention and its Optional Protocols and provides clear guidelines for their consistent application.”
There you have it, the UN telling Canada to work around the constitution to make sure every jurisdiction has the same law, one set out by the UN. Now look at that membership list and ask whether you would you want any of those countries to have jurisdiction over Canada.
They think they do already and some in Canada want to give it to them, that power and more. Liberal MP Marc Garneau has a private member’s bill, C-420, that would establish a commissioner for Children and Young Persons.
The main job of the commissioner, from my reading of the bill, is to ensure Canadian compliance with UN dictates relating to children.
This law, which has a good chance of passing, because after all it is for the children and who can be against the children, would establish yet another unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat to pester the government to do things most Canadians don’t want and haven’t even thought of yet.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, the princes of Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt or any of these other clowns having greater say in Canadian law relating to children than the Members of Parliament we elect. Yet that is what would happen.
We would have yet another report, backed by the sainted United Nations, telling the government to do more. That report would then be picked up by all the lefty groups that the UN and the commissioner would consult and then be waved around in front of a compliant media, who would then do stories on why the government does in fact need to act. It’s for the children, you know.
And that circle of lefty groups being consulted, a report being issued and then that report being used by the lefty groups that were consulted — that is already going on.
Two of the groups that the UN consulted are quoted by the Canadian Press calling on the government to act, to do more.
As a parent, I say this: The United Nations can go to hell.
When the UN stops coddling dictators, then they can think about critiquing Canada. Until then, hands off my family and my country.
Source: Toronto Sun
Nobel Committee Awards Peace Prize to E.U.
October 12th, 2012
OSLO — The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded its 2012 peace prize on Friday to the 27-nation European Union, saying it had contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation across the continent.
With the bloc confronting the worst financial crisis in its history over the single euro currency, the award surprised some people who recalled the deep strains between Germany and other European nations over Berlin’s insistence on austerity measures that have brought pain to many, particularly in Greece. Thousands of protesters turned out in Athens earlier this week to demonstrate against a visit by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.
But Thorbjørn Jagland, the chairman of the panel awarding the prize, said it was a signal from the committee concerning reconciliation in Europe and a message to the continent to carry on such work, focusing on the union’s historical role binding France and Germany together after World War II.
Norway is not a member of the European Union and, therefore, Mr. Jagland said, some people in his country were not aware of the role played by the European Union.
“The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe,” Mr. Jagland said.
“In the interwar years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made several awards to persons who were seeking reconciliation between Germany and France. Since 1945, that reconciliation has become a reality. The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe. Over a 70-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.”
Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, said on Twitter: “Deeply touched, honored, that the E.U. has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Reconciliation is what the E.U. is about. It can serve as inspiration. The E.U. is an unique project that replaced war with peace, hate with solidarity. Overwhelming emotion for awarding of Nobel Prize to E.U..
Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister, said on Twitter: “I warmly congratulate all of Europe and our peace to the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. Highly deserved and highly important!”
The announcement came against a global backdrop of conflict, with civil war in Syria threatening to spill across the region, the Afghanistan war grinding into a second decade and earlier hopes of a new era of tranquillity in the Middle East largely abandoned.
The peace prize climaxes a week in which Nobel institutions have awarded prizes in science and literature that rank among the world’s most coveted emblems of excellence. The prize for economics is to be awarded on Monday.
In an unusual leak less than an hour before the prize was to be announced, Norwegian television said on its Web site that the winner was the European Union, held by some to have bound together Europe’s erstwhile warring nations into one of the biggest trading blocs in the world with aspirations among some nations to create ever closer political integration. There was no official confirmation of the report.
The Nobel juries are traditionally reticent about their selections, keeping the names of contenders a closely guarded secret, and the peace prize is no exception. Independent forecasters have been unable to agree on a favorite for the 2012 prize.
The deadline for outside nominations was Feb. 1, with Nobel committee members adding their own candidates and closing the list three weeks later. The 231 nominations included 43 organizations.
European bookmakers had given the best odds to Gene Sharp, an American political scientist and theorist of nonviolent resistance; and to a Coptic Christian nun in Egypt, Maggie Gobran, who aids children in Cairo’s slums.
But the Russian human rights group Memorial, former President Bill Clinton and Afghan human rights commissioner Sima Samar had also been reported to be among the 2012 nominees. Speculation also touched on figures from the Arab Spring, including President Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia and several prominent activist bloggers.
Nigerian religious leaders John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan and Mohamed Sa’ad Abubakar were said to be candidates, along with former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and the European Union.
Last year’s prize was shared by Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian antiwar activist Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman, a democracy activist in Yemen.
The Nobel committee lauded “their nonviolent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participations in peace-building work.”
The 2010 prize caused a diplomatic freeze between Norway and China that has yet to thaw. That year’s laureate was Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese human rights campaigner imprisoned for co-authoring a pro-democracy manifesto called Charter 08.
In 2009, the five-member Nobel committee in Oslo selected President Obama less than a year into his term, saying he had “created a new climate in international politics.”
The peace prize is one of five awards set up more than century ago by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel. He specified that Norway’s Parliament should appoint a committee to recognize those who had “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
The 2012 prizes were worth 8 million Swedish kronor, about $1.2 million, a reduction from the 10 million kronor that had been standard from 2001 to 2011. The Nobel Foundation has said its investment capital took a sharp hit in the 2008 financial crisis.
*Source: New York Times (Walter Gibbs reported from Oslo, and Alan Cowell from Paris)
OSLO — The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded its 2012 peace prize on Friday to the 27-nation European Union, saying it had contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation across the continent.
With the bloc confronting the worst financial crisis in its history over the single euro currency, the award surprised some people who recalled the deep strains between Germany and other European nations over Berlin’s insistence on austerity measures that have brought pain to many, particularly in Greece. Thousands of protesters turned out in Athens earlier this week to demonstrate against a visit by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.
But Thorbjørn Jagland, the chairman of the panel awarding the prize, said it was a signal from the committee concerning reconciliation in Europe and a message to the continent to carry on such work, focusing on the union’s historical role binding France and Germany together after World War II.
Norway is not a member of the European Union and, therefore, Mr. Jagland said, some people in his country were not aware of the role played by the European Union.
“The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe,” Mr. Jagland said.
“In the interwar years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made several awards to persons who were seeking reconciliation between Germany and France. Since 1945, that reconciliation has become a reality. The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe. Over a 70-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.”
Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, said on Twitter: “Deeply touched, honored, that the E.U. has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Reconciliation is what the E.U. is about. It can serve as inspiration. The E.U. is an unique project that replaced war with peace, hate with solidarity. Overwhelming emotion for awarding of Nobel Prize to E.U..
Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister, said on Twitter: “I warmly congratulate all of Europe and our peace to the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. Highly deserved and highly important!”
The announcement came against a global backdrop of conflict, with civil war in Syria threatening to spill across the region, the Afghanistan war grinding into a second decade and earlier hopes of a new era of tranquillity in the Middle East largely abandoned.
The peace prize climaxes a week in which Nobel institutions have awarded prizes in science and literature that rank among the world’s most coveted emblems of excellence. The prize for economics is to be awarded on Monday.
In an unusual leak less than an hour before the prize was to be announced, Norwegian television said on its Web site that the winner was the European Union, held by some to have bound together Europe’s erstwhile warring nations into one of the biggest trading blocs in the world with aspirations among some nations to create ever closer political integration. There was no official confirmation of the report.
The Nobel juries are traditionally reticent about their selections, keeping the names of contenders a closely guarded secret, and the peace prize is no exception. Independent forecasters have been unable to agree on a favorite for the 2012 prize.
The deadline for outside nominations was Feb. 1, with Nobel committee members adding their own candidates and closing the list three weeks later. The 231 nominations included 43 organizations.
European bookmakers had given the best odds to Gene Sharp, an American political scientist and theorist of nonviolent resistance; and to a Coptic Christian nun in Egypt, Maggie Gobran, who aids children in Cairo’s slums.
But the Russian human rights group Memorial, former President Bill Clinton and Afghan human rights commissioner Sima Samar had also been reported to be among the 2012 nominees. Speculation also touched on figures from the Arab Spring, including President Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia and several prominent activist bloggers.
Nigerian religious leaders John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan and Mohamed Sa’ad Abubakar were said to be candidates, along with former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and the European Union.
Last year’s prize was shared by Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian antiwar activist Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman, a democracy activist in Yemen.
The Nobel committee lauded “their nonviolent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participations in peace-building work.”
The 2010 prize caused a diplomatic freeze between Norway and China that has yet to thaw. That year’s laureate was Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese human rights campaigner imprisoned for co-authoring a pro-democracy manifesto called Charter 08.
In 2009, the five-member Nobel committee in Oslo selected President Obama less than a year into his term, saying he had “created a new climate in international politics.”
The peace prize is one of five awards set up more than century ago by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel. He specified that Norway’s Parliament should appoint a committee to recognize those who had “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
The 2012 prizes were worth 8 million Swedish kronor, about $1.2 million, a reduction from the 10 million kronor that had been standard from 2001 to 2011. The Nobel Foundation has said its investment capital took a sharp hit in the 2008 financial crisis.
*Source: New York Times (Walter Gibbs reported from Oslo, and Alan Cowell from Paris)
Woman Tells Chris Matthews Obama Is a ‘Communist’ on Live Television: ‘He’s a Communist, Buddy'
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:50pm
by Jason Howerton @ The Blaze
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews confronted a woman outside Centre College in Danville, Ky., the location of Thursday’s vice presidential debate, who yelled out that President Obama is a “communist” while he was interviewing people about the presidential race.
“Who said communist down here?” Matthews asked, locating the woman and asking her why she believes Obama is in fact a communist.
“All you have to do is study it out. Just study it out. And you’ll see. You haven’t done your homework, buddy,” the woman told Matthews.
“And what do I need to study?” he replied.
“He’s a communist,” she said again. “And those of us who are not voting for him know it.”
“And what do you mean by ‘communist’?” asked Matthews.
“You don’t know?” the woman asked, looking genuinely surprised.
“No, just tell me. Help me out here,” the host said.
“You don’t know?” she repeated.
“I just want to know what you mean,” Matthews added, clearly amused by the woman’s ranting.
“Oh, I know what I mean.”
“Well, help us out. You’re on national television,” Matthews went on.
Assuming the woman may be a “birther” as well, the host asked her whether she thought the president was an “American.”
“On, no…Just because he was born here doesn’t mean he thinks like us,” she explained.
“He’s a communist, buddy,” she said one more time, prompting a mix of boos and cheers from the crowd — mostly boos.
Needless to say, the woman didn’t even come close to making any kind of reasonable argument to back up her claim that Obama is actually a communist.
Watch the entire interaction via MSNBC/Mediaite here:
Even More Lies About OBama's Position On Issues: Campaign Denies Obama Supports Abortion-on-Demand, But Can't Name One Restriction He Supports
October 12, 2012 2:08 AM
Danville, Ky.
At the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan lobbed charges of extremism at one another on the issue of abortion. "The Democratic party used to say they want [abortion] to be safe, legal, and rare," Ryan said. "Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn’t second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme."
Biden shot back, saying that Ryan has "argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still--it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend." Debate moderator Martha Raddatz followed up with Ryan, asking if pro-choice Americans should be "worried" about Romney, but she didn't follow up with Biden.
In the spin room following the debate, I asked top Obama officials, as well as Planned Parenthood chief Cecille Richards, if Obama's position on abortion is as extreme as what Ryan claimed. The Obama campaign denied the president favored abortion without restriction, but top Obama officials Jim Messina, Stephanie Cutter, and David Axelrod could not name a single restriction the president supports.
TWS: Mr Messina, the issue of abortion came up tonight with both sides trying to paint the other as extremist. Can you say, are there any restrictions that the president supports at any stage of pregnancy on the issue of abortion?
MESSINA: Look, we have been absolute[ly] clear. I think as you saw an absolute difference between the president and Romney on this. Romney’s position has been on four different sides. But I take him at his word that he says he will be happy to sign a bill outlawing all abortions in the United States of America. That’s not our position that’s not where the American public is. And I think it’s going to be a very difficult position for them to defend in the battleground states. Swing women voters in places like Colorado in Virginia looked at that exchange tonight that you talked about and said we cannot support this guy.
TWS: So the president doesn’t support any restrictions on abortion?
MESSINA: Look, we’ve been very clear. You know our position on abortion.
TWS: No. I asked, can you say what it is?
MESSINA: Look, don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve been very clear about our position. And that’s what it is.
TWS: Can you name one restriction?
Messina ended the exchange and moved on to another question.
Stephanie Cutter also said Obama supports some restrictions on abortion, but wouldn't say what they were:
TWS: Are there any restrictions he supports at any stage of pregnancy? Or there's no restrictions whatsover? Is that the president's position?
CUTTER: No, that’s not his position.
TWS: Then can you name one restriction that he supports on abortion?
CUTTER: He has several votes on this. We can get them to you.
David Axelrod similarly ducked questions. So I turned to Cecille Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood. "There already are restrictions on the books," she told me. But does the president support any of them? Richards said she didn't know. "I haven’t spoken to him about those," she replied.
In 2003, Barack Obama was asked if he was "all situations including the late term thing?" He answered in the affirmative.
The record doesn't appear to show that the president has ever supported any restriction on abortion. He opposes the Hyde amendment, which means he favors taxpayer funding of abortion. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. And he opposed parental consent laws. We'll let you know if the Obama team is able to come up with any evidence showing that Obama's position is anything short of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.
Source: The Weekly Standard
Danville, Ky.
At the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan lobbed charges of extremism at one another on the issue of abortion. "The Democratic party used to say they want [abortion] to be safe, legal, and rare," Ryan said. "Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn’t second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme."
Biden shot back, saying that Ryan has "argued that, in the case of rape or incest, it was still--it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend." Debate moderator Martha Raddatz followed up with Ryan, asking if pro-choice Americans should be "worried" about Romney, but she didn't follow up with Biden.
In the spin room following the debate, I asked top Obama officials, as well as Planned Parenthood chief Cecille Richards, if Obama's position on abortion is as extreme as what Ryan claimed. The Obama campaign denied the president favored abortion without restriction, but top Obama officials Jim Messina, Stephanie Cutter, and David Axelrod could not name a single restriction the president supports.
TWS: Mr Messina, the issue of abortion came up tonight with both sides trying to paint the other as extremist. Can you say, are there any restrictions that the president supports at any stage of pregnancy on the issue of abortion?
MESSINA: Look, we have been absolute[ly] clear. I think as you saw an absolute difference between the president and Romney on this. Romney’s position has been on four different sides. But I take him at his word that he says he will be happy to sign a bill outlawing all abortions in the United States of America. That’s not our position that’s not where the American public is. And I think it’s going to be a very difficult position for them to defend in the battleground states. Swing women voters in places like Colorado in Virginia looked at that exchange tonight that you talked about and said we cannot support this guy.
TWS: So the president doesn’t support any restrictions on abortion?
MESSINA: Look, we’ve been very clear. You know our position on abortion.
TWS: No. I asked, can you say what it is?
MESSINA: Look, don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve been very clear about our position. And that’s what it is.
TWS: Can you name one restriction?
Messina ended the exchange and moved on to another question.
Stephanie Cutter also said Obama supports some restrictions on abortion, but wouldn't say what they were:
TWS: Are there any restrictions he supports at any stage of pregnancy? Or there's no restrictions whatsover? Is that the president's position?
CUTTER: No, that’s not his position.
TWS: Then can you name one restriction that he supports on abortion?
CUTTER: He has several votes on this. We can get them to you.
David Axelrod similarly ducked questions. So I turned to Cecille Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood. "There already are restrictions on the books," she told me. But does the president support any of them? Richards said she didn't know. "I haven’t spoken to him about those," she replied.
In 2003, Barack Obama was asked if he was "all situations including the late term thing?" He answered in the affirmative.
The record doesn't appear to show that the president has ever supported any restriction on abortion. He opposes the Hyde amendment, which means he favors taxpayer funding of abortion. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. And he opposed parental consent laws. We'll let you know if the Obama team is able to come up with any evidence showing that Obama's position is anything short of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.
Source: The Weekly Standard
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Sex and the Single Socialist
Wednesday, October 10th, 2012
Americans have been steadily losing rights in every area except the sexual. Freedom of speech and religion are on the decline, but the rights to have other people pay for your birth control and provide a space for your gay wedding are doing well.
Under the Supreme Court's current take on Eminent Domain, your property can be seized and handed over to the New York Times, as a building owner whose building occupied a space that the Times wanted to occupy with its own hideous skyscraper discovered. Under the ObamaCare Mandate, you can be forced to pay money to a third-party company or be fined with a punitive "tax". A Supreme Court Justice suggested that it might be possible to outlaw burning the Koran and Freedom of Religion no longer means that religious institutions can't be forced to violate their beliefs.
Even sexual freedoms are not really expanding, sexual entitlements are. Abortion, despite the latest sweep of hysterical propaganda from a bankrupt political class, isn't going anywhere. And no one, not even the silly people sitting behind scrolling tickers on cable chat shows, seriously think that it is.
The latest achievements in sexual freedom all involve getting other people to pay for it, whether it's birth control entitlements or gay marriage entitlements. The agenda isn't the freedom to do what you please, but the power to make other people affirm your sexual decisions and then pay for them.
Describing this as sexual freedom is a misnomer as it involves taking away the freedom of others, not even for a third-party's freedom, but the comfort level and lifestyle of that third party. These aren't sexual freedoms, they're sexual entitlements.
Civil rights stopped being civil rights decades ago and became civil entitlements, civil privileges allotted to especially deserving groups on account of their official victim status. These civil rights, peculiarly, deprived other people of their freedom and violated the very ethos of equality that had been the basis of the whole fight.
In a tragic turn of events the fight for equality became the fight for inequality. One form of inequality was pitted against another on the theory that the only way to make people equal was for good inequality and bad inequality to fight it out until somehow one day we would all be equal. Or at least the right people would be equal and the wrong people would be unequal.
This same noxious formula of the fight for equality shamelessly transmuted into special privilege has flowed into every struggle that models itself on the civil rights movement. And with each battle, freedom has been lost as a new layer of privilege and the regulations that protect that privilege have been added. We have long ago lost the presumption of innocence, now everyone is guilty of something and the power to wield that guilt like a whip is the ultimate privilege.
With a new wave of civil rights movements popping up every few years, backed by academic papers, grants from the Ford Foundation and "groundbreaking books" with confrontational titles, it is easy not to notice how little actual freedom we have. We spend so much time on the barricades fighting for the next wave of freedom that we are too community organized to realize how much freedom we have lost. We lost it while demanding more regulations to protect our freedom to be regulated from all the people who would take our freedom away from us by giving us back our rights as individuals.
The line of groups marching up to the little counter and trading in freedoms for entitlements shows no sign of slowing down, but there are fewer and fewer of those freedoms to trade in. While those on line are under the impression that they are trading away other people's freedoms for greater power, the joke is on them. While they were trading away the freedoms of others, other people were trading away their freedoms.
And the Socialist devil reclining in the corner, sipping a cup of coffee while reading over a collection of Lenin's essays and Community Organizing for Dummies, has the last laugh.
Every tawdry mini-revolution marked by tenured martyrs who wrote angry essays and flew their little flags of privilege on every campus has ended with more power and less freedom. And power means nothing if not the privilege of making other people affirm your beliefs and tithe from their earnings to subsidize your lifestyle. The entitlement to power over others is the ultimate entitlement and the sum of all entitlements.
Freedom has been sold for the promise of more power over others and everyone grasps for power for fear that others will have power over them. Civil rights were sold out, not for equality, but for power. And no one is willing to settle for less than their own niche, their own entitlements and privileges. Everyone talks of equality but no one believes in it. All they believe in is getting a foothold on the ladder so that they are the ones trampling on the neck of another to avoid being trampled on.
Power breeds paranoia and every group jealously hoards its privileges fearful that they will be taken away. The more these groups demand their rights, the more certain it is that they are already abusing the rights of others. When they call for freedom, they mean power. When they call for equality, they mean privilege. When they denounce hate, they justify their own hate. When they complain about the culture of bigotry, they are expressing how much they hate others.
Sexual freedom fits this model as well as any other of the causes. Like all the other fake freedoms, it has come to mean the freedom to have power over others, to dictate their values, denounce their views and compel them to pay allegiance to the new system. These fake freedoms do not mean the ability to individually do what one could not do before, but the power to have the system compel others to do what you want them to do.
It is a perversion in the purest sense, all the more so because it begins with the whine of entitlement, "Why can't I just be accepted for who I am?" and ends with the roar of power, "Now you will do what I say."
Rape has become the ultimate sexual freedom. The forcible intimacy of compelling others to see the world in your terms. Of demeaning them at every turn, debasing everything they hold dear and then blaming it all on the victim for making them do it. The rapist is society's eternal victim, constantly compelled to rape, as he will explain at length in every court hearing. The only needs that matter are his needs and the only reasoning that matters is his reasoning.
The rape of American values is the ultimate sexual freedom and the ultimate sexual entitlement. After a few decades of raping the family, the rapists headed off to rape religious institutions, all in the name of forcing their values on others, a thing that they had complained incessantly about for generations when it was being done to them.
Progressive politics married to sexual politics requires greater levels of depravity to signal progress. Once Americans have come to accept one assault, the political rapists respond with a greater assault. Obsessed with resistance, they are less interested in supporting those who accede than in destroying those who do not, even if it is only a chicken franchise. Dissent of any kind is impermissible.
As Orwell notes in 1984, "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simpIy sex gone sour." In reverse, the endless liberal prattle about sexual freedom reduced to marching up down is sex gone political. It's the politicization and collectivization of the personal that the left dedicates all its efforts to. It isn't sexual freedom, but rather the destruction of sexual freedom and all forms of freedom.
Freedom means nothing if not autonomy and the rape culture of socialism is a perpetual attack on that autonomy. It is the horrifying vision invoked in George Orwell's 1984. "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But ... there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."
To see that boot, visit your nearest government office, avoid the politicians who serve as the human face of Socialism, but call on a bureaucrat, follow the procedures, visit a campus and listen to a lecture on identity politics, or just listen to Obama's spokesmen and sit through an hour of MSNBC. You will see that same intoxication of power on display, that thrilling sensation of men and women who are hard at work trampling the American enemy forever.
Socialism has become the ultimate sexual freedom, thrilling to the forced intimacy of power over a captive population. Anyone who goes to the right schools or makes the right noises, who joins the right party, the only party for true power, who pounds the right pulpits, preaches the right cause and pushes the right buttons, can also put on the boot and feel that intoxicating sense of trampling the helpless for as long as the thousand year village that raises all our children and euthanizes all our elderly lasts.
We are swiftly running out of all other pleasures, those that require freedom or available resources, the new pleasures are those of power. The world we are speeding toward is a place where there are no ideas, only dogmas, no freedoms, only compulsions, no religion, only power, no right to bear arms, but many guns, and no sex, only rape.
The single socialist has spent decades raping America, but he is still lonely for rapists are always lonely. The curse of power is that there is never anyone to truly share it with. Power is paranoia and the poor egomaniac who lives to force others into his mold knows better than to trust anyone else not to do it to him too. This is the new freedom that the sexual revolutionaries offer us. The freedom to do unto others before they do unto us. To fear and hate everyone while demanding that everyone else give us what we want... or we'll take it from them.
Source: Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog
Americans have been steadily losing rights in every area except the sexual. Freedom of speech and religion are on the decline, but the rights to have other people pay for your birth control and provide a space for your gay wedding are doing well.
Under the Supreme Court's current take on Eminent Domain, your property can be seized and handed over to the New York Times, as a building owner whose building occupied a space that the Times wanted to occupy with its own hideous skyscraper discovered. Under the ObamaCare Mandate, you can be forced to pay money to a third-party company or be fined with a punitive "tax". A Supreme Court Justice suggested that it might be possible to outlaw burning the Koran and Freedom of Religion no longer means that religious institutions can't be forced to violate their beliefs.
Even sexual freedoms are not really expanding, sexual entitlements are. Abortion, despite the latest sweep of hysterical propaganda from a bankrupt political class, isn't going anywhere. And no one, not even the silly people sitting behind scrolling tickers on cable chat shows, seriously think that it is.
The latest achievements in sexual freedom all involve getting other people to pay for it, whether it's birth control entitlements or gay marriage entitlements. The agenda isn't the freedom to do what you please, but the power to make other people affirm your sexual decisions and then pay for them.
Describing this as sexual freedom is a misnomer as it involves taking away the freedom of others, not even for a third-party's freedom, but the comfort level and lifestyle of that third party. These aren't sexual freedoms, they're sexual entitlements.
Civil rights stopped being civil rights decades ago and became civil entitlements, civil privileges allotted to especially deserving groups on account of their official victim status. These civil rights, peculiarly, deprived other people of their freedom and violated the very ethos of equality that had been the basis of the whole fight.
In a tragic turn of events the fight for equality became the fight for inequality. One form of inequality was pitted against another on the theory that the only way to make people equal was for good inequality and bad inequality to fight it out until somehow one day we would all be equal. Or at least the right people would be equal and the wrong people would be unequal.
This same noxious formula of the fight for equality shamelessly transmuted into special privilege has flowed into every struggle that models itself on the civil rights movement. And with each battle, freedom has been lost as a new layer of privilege and the regulations that protect that privilege have been added. We have long ago lost the presumption of innocence, now everyone is guilty of something and the power to wield that guilt like a whip is the ultimate privilege.
With a new wave of civil rights movements popping up every few years, backed by academic papers, grants from the Ford Foundation and "groundbreaking books" with confrontational titles, it is easy not to notice how little actual freedom we have. We spend so much time on the barricades fighting for the next wave of freedom that we are too community organized to realize how much freedom we have lost. We lost it while demanding more regulations to protect our freedom to be regulated from all the people who would take our freedom away from us by giving us back our rights as individuals.
The line of groups marching up to the little counter and trading in freedoms for entitlements shows no sign of slowing down, but there are fewer and fewer of those freedoms to trade in. While those on line are under the impression that they are trading away other people's freedoms for greater power, the joke is on them. While they were trading away the freedoms of others, other people were trading away their freedoms.
And the Socialist devil reclining in the corner, sipping a cup of coffee while reading over a collection of Lenin's essays and Community Organizing for Dummies, has the last laugh.
Every tawdry mini-revolution marked by tenured martyrs who wrote angry essays and flew their little flags of privilege on every campus has ended with more power and less freedom. And power means nothing if not the privilege of making other people affirm your beliefs and tithe from their earnings to subsidize your lifestyle. The entitlement to power over others is the ultimate entitlement and the sum of all entitlements.
Freedom has been sold for the promise of more power over others and everyone grasps for power for fear that others will have power over them. Civil rights were sold out, not for equality, but for power. And no one is willing to settle for less than their own niche, their own entitlements and privileges. Everyone talks of equality but no one believes in it. All they believe in is getting a foothold on the ladder so that they are the ones trampling on the neck of another to avoid being trampled on.
Power breeds paranoia and every group jealously hoards its privileges fearful that they will be taken away. The more these groups demand their rights, the more certain it is that they are already abusing the rights of others. When they call for freedom, they mean power. When they call for equality, they mean privilege. When they denounce hate, they justify their own hate. When they complain about the culture of bigotry, they are expressing how much they hate others.
Sexual freedom fits this model as well as any other of the causes. Like all the other fake freedoms, it has come to mean the freedom to have power over others, to dictate their values, denounce their views and compel them to pay allegiance to the new system. These fake freedoms do not mean the ability to individually do what one could not do before, but the power to have the system compel others to do what you want them to do.
It is a perversion in the purest sense, all the more so because it begins with the whine of entitlement, "Why can't I just be accepted for who I am?" and ends with the roar of power, "Now you will do what I say."
Rape has become the ultimate sexual freedom. The forcible intimacy of compelling others to see the world in your terms. Of demeaning them at every turn, debasing everything they hold dear and then blaming it all on the victim for making them do it. The rapist is society's eternal victim, constantly compelled to rape, as he will explain at length in every court hearing. The only needs that matter are his needs and the only reasoning that matters is his reasoning.
The rape of American values is the ultimate sexual freedom and the ultimate sexual entitlement. After a few decades of raping the family, the rapists headed off to rape religious institutions, all in the name of forcing their values on others, a thing that they had complained incessantly about for generations when it was being done to them.
Progressive politics married to sexual politics requires greater levels of depravity to signal progress. Once Americans have come to accept one assault, the political rapists respond with a greater assault. Obsessed with resistance, they are less interested in supporting those who accede than in destroying those who do not, even if it is only a chicken franchise. Dissent of any kind is impermissible.
As Orwell notes in 1984, "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simpIy sex gone sour." In reverse, the endless liberal prattle about sexual freedom reduced to marching up down is sex gone political. It's the politicization and collectivization of the personal that the left dedicates all its efforts to. It isn't sexual freedom, but rather the destruction of sexual freedom and all forms of freedom.
Freedom means nothing if not autonomy and the rape culture of socialism is a perpetual attack on that autonomy. It is the horrifying vision invoked in George Orwell's 1984. "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But ... there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."
To see that boot, visit your nearest government office, avoid the politicians who serve as the human face of Socialism, but call on a bureaucrat, follow the procedures, visit a campus and listen to a lecture on identity politics, or just listen to Obama's spokesmen and sit through an hour of MSNBC. You will see that same intoxication of power on display, that thrilling sensation of men and women who are hard at work trampling the American enemy forever.
Socialism has become the ultimate sexual freedom, thrilling to the forced intimacy of power over a captive population. Anyone who goes to the right schools or makes the right noises, who joins the right party, the only party for true power, who pounds the right pulpits, preaches the right cause and pushes the right buttons, can also put on the boot and feel that intoxicating sense of trampling the helpless for as long as the thousand year village that raises all our children and euthanizes all our elderly lasts.
We are swiftly running out of all other pleasures, those that require freedom or available resources, the new pleasures are those of power. The world we are speeding toward is a place where there are no ideas, only dogmas, no freedoms, only compulsions, no religion, only power, no right to bear arms, but many guns, and no sex, only rape.
The single socialist has spent decades raping America, but he is still lonely for rapists are always lonely. The curse of power is that there is never anyone to truly share it with. Power is paranoia and the poor egomaniac who lives to force others into his mold knows better than to trust anyone else not to do it to him too. This is the new freedom that the sexual revolutionaries offer us. The freedom to do unto others before they do unto us. To fear and hate everyone while demanding that everyone else give us what we want... or we'll take it from them.
Source: Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish blog
It must suck to be on the other side, part 3,560
Oct. 10, 2012
The first page of Brady Campaign's latest IRS Form 990, for 2010. By way of comparison:
Revenue Expenses Assets minus liabilities
2004 7.4 million 7.8 million 197,000
2008 4.1 million 4.2 million -838,000 (yes, a negative)
2009 3.4 million 3.6 million -564,000
2010 2.8 million 3.1 million -768,000
Their donor base is spiraling down, they haven't been able to cut expenses that far, and I assume are covering the gap by continual borrowing -- most recently, of 25% of their budget.
In 2010, salary expenses were $1.25 million and professional fundraising $228,000, meaning that over half their revenue went to those two purposes. If we take total salary expense (1.25 million) and deduct the salary for their seven best paid people ($992 K), We're left with about $258,000 payroll for anyone else. In DC, government secretaries draw $27 - 37,000, so that's probably not enough to pay a receptionist and give each of the seven a secretary. I'd guess total headquarters staffing as a dozen people or so. Salary expenses dropped by $100K between 2009 and 2010, so they probably let several people go.
Elsewhere on the form they report counting as "members" anyone who had donated $15 or more in the last two years.
· antigun groups
Source: Arms and the Law
The first page of Brady Campaign's latest IRS Form 990, for 2010. By way of comparison:
Revenue Expenses Assets minus liabilities
2004 7.4 million 7.8 million 197,000
2008 4.1 million 4.2 million -838,000 (yes, a negative)
2009 3.4 million 3.6 million -564,000
2010 2.8 million 3.1 million -768,000
Their donor base is spiraling down, they haven't been able to cut expenses that far, and I assume are covering the gap by continual borrowing -- most recently, of 25% of their budget.
In 2010, salary expenses were $1.25 million and professional fundraising $228,000, meaning that over half their revenue went to those two purposes. If we take total salary expense (1.25 million) and deduct the salary for their seven best paid people ($992 K), We're left with about $258,000 payroll for anyone else. In DC, government secretaries draw $27 - 37,000, so that's probably not enough to pay a receptionist and give each of the seven a secretary. I'd guess total headquarters staffing as a dozen people or so. Salary expenses dropped by $100K between 2009 and 2010, so they probably let several people go.
Elsewhere on the form they report counting as "members" anyone who had donated $15 or more in the last two years.
· antigun groups
Source: Arms and the Law
ATF Whistleblower Vince Cefalu Fired
Oct. 11, 2012
Veteran ATF agent Vince Cefalu, a whistleblower who became a particularly controversial figure after voicing concern about the failed Operation Fast and Furious, was “unceremoniously” handed his dismissal papers on Tuesday, according his spokesman.
An ATF official met him at the Denny’s parking lot in South Lake Tahoe, Nevada, near his home, where Cefalu turned in his credentials, said his spokesman Patrick Crosby, a former spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta, who now has his own public relations firm.
Crosby said Cefalu was fired for “lack of candor.” He did not elaborate.
Cefalu has hired an Atlanta law firm to fight the dismissal.
Cefalu worked for more than two decades for ATF, often in an undercover capacity in major cases involving motorcycle gangs in California and the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia.
Wade Drew, a spokesman for ATF, said he could confirm that Cefalu worked for ATF for nearly 25 years and that he was no longer with the agency. But he said ATF does not comment on personnel or disciplinary matters.
In recent years, Cefalu has been one of the more publicly vocal critics of ATF management. He claims to have gone through all the proper channels to voice his concerns about ATF management, but all to no avail.
“I have just been trying to do my job: make good cases, put away the bad guys, keep the our citizens and our agents safe,” he said in a statement after his termination. “ATF management has been bending the rules and breaking the rules. The agents want ATF to be the proud agency it once was, not a place where some managers jeopardize our citizens and our cases. The behavior of ATF management has been speaking for itself with all the transfers, reassignments, resignations. It has been a mess and an embarrassment. That’s not the ATF I have devoted my career and life to, and I do not regret trying to change it.”
Zahra S. Karinshak, an Atlanta-based attorney from Krevolin & Horst, who represents Cefalu, said in a statement:
“Vince has tremendous courage. Anyone who infiltrates the KKK and biker gangs to bring them to justice has an incredible sense of dedication. Vince has a team who will fight for him in court as aggressively as he fought violent crime on our streets.”
ATF had tried firing Cefalu last year. However, he appealed the termination. It became final on Tuesday.
source: ticklethewire.com
Veteran ATF agent Vince Cefalu, a whistleblower who became a particularly controversial figure after voicing concern about the failed Operation Fast and Furious, was “unceremoniously” handed his dismissal papers on Tuesday, according his spokesman.
An ATF official met him at the Denny’s parking lot in South Lake Tahoe, Nevada, near his home, where Cefalu turned in his credentials, said his spokesman Patrick Crosby, a former spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta, who now has his own public relations firm.
Crosby said Cefalu was fired for “lack of candor.” He did not elaborate.
Cefalu has hired an Atlanta law firm to fight the dismissal.
Cefalu worked for more than two decades for ATF, often in an undercover capacity in major cases involving motorcycle gangs in California and the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia.
Wade Drew, a spokesman for ATF, said he could confirm that Cefalu worked for ATF for nearly 25 years and that he was no longer with the agency. But he said ATF does not comment on personnel or disciplinary matters.
In recent years, Cefalu has been one of the more publicly vocal critics of ATF management. He claims to have gone through all the proper channels to voice his concerns about ATF management, but all to no avail.
“I have just been trying to do my job: make good cases, put away the bad guys, keep the our citizens and our agents safe,” he said in a statement after his termination. “ATF management has been bending the rules and breaking the rules. The agents want ATF to be the proud agency it once was, not a place where some managers jeopardize our citizens and our cases. The behavior of ATF management has been speaking for itself with all the transfers, reassignments, resignations. It has been a mess and an embarrassment. That’s not the ATF I have devoted my career and life to, and I do not regret trying to change it.”
Zahra S. Karinshak, an Atlanta-based attorney from Krevolin & Horst, who represents Cefalu, said in a statement:
“Vince has tremendous courage. Anyone who infiltrates the KKK and biker gangs to bring them to justice has an incredible sense of dedication. Vince has a team who will fight for him in court as aggressively as he fought violent crime on our streets.”
ATF had tried firing Cefalu last year. However, he appealed the termination. It became final on Tuesday.
source: ticklethewire.com
Romney-shirt girl gives up on Philly schools
Thu, Oct. 11, 2012
SAMANTHA PAWLUCY, the Port Richmond teen embroiled in a high school controversy over her T-shirt choice, will no longer attend Charles Carroll High School, her attorney and her father confirmed Wednesday.
"She's totally uncomfortable. She doesn't want to go back there," said Richard Pawlucy, the student's father. He and his wife, Kristine, also pulled their two other daughters from the school.
Samantha wore a pink Romney/Ryan T-shirt to Carroll High on "Dress Down Day" nearly two weeks ago. Her geometry teacher, Lynette Gaymon, asked her to leave the class and wondered why she was wearing a Republican top at a "Democratic" school, according to the student.
The Pawlucys want to enroll the girls at "anything that's not associated with the School District of Philadelphia," Richard Pawlucy said.
Kristine Pawlucy told Larry Mendte on his WWIQ-FM (106.9) show that she felt "betrayed" by, among others, district superintendent William R. Hite and Mayor Nutter.
Richard Pawlucy said his ideal destination for his kids is a charter school.
That might be a tall order. The new school year is already a month old and most charters accept students through a lottery system.
State Rep. John Taylor, who counts the Pawlucys as constituents, is acting as an intermediary with the district and helping the family land a school. It's "a very difficult process for anyone," he said.
Taylor said he spoke Wednesday afternoon with Hite, who was "perfectly willing to cooperate."
Hite told Taylor the family can get him a list of the public schools they'd consider, the state rep said.
"It sounds great, but we were already burned once by Dr. Hite," Richard Pawlucy said. "I don't think we want that."
A disciplinary hearing is scheduled this week for Gaymon, school district spokesman Fernando Gallard said.
Source: Philadelphia Daily News
SAMANTHA PAWLUCY, the Port Richmond teen embroiled in a high school controversy over her T-shirt choice, will no longer attend Charles Carroll High School, her attorney and her father confirmed Wednesday.
"She's totally uncomfortable. She doesn't want to go back there," said Richard Pawlucy, the student's father. He and his wife, Kristine, also pulled their two other daughters from the school.
Samantha wore a pink Romney/Ryan T-shirt to Carroll High on "Dress Down Day" nearly two weeks ago. Her geometry teacher, Lynette Gaymon, asked her to leave the class and wondered why she was wearing a Republican top at a "Democratic" school, according to the student.
The Pawlucys want to enroll the girls at "anything that's not associated with the School District of Philadelphia," Richard Pawlucy said.
Kristine Pawlucy told Larry Mendte on his WWIQ-FM (106.9) show that she felt "betrayed" by, among others, district superintendent William R. Hite and Mayor Nutter.
Richard Pawlucy said his ideal destination for his kids is a charter school.
That might be a tall order. The new school year is already a month old and most charters accept students through a lottery system.
State Rep. John Taylor, who counts the Pawlucys as constituents, is acting as an intermediary with the district and helping the family land a school. It's "a very difficult process for anyone," he said.
Taylor said he spoke Wednesday afternoon with Hite, who was "perfectly willing to cooperate."
Hite told Taylor the family can get him a list of the public schools they'd consider, the state rep said.
"It sounds great, but we were already burned once by Dr. Hite," Richard Pawlucy said. "I don't think we want that."
A disciplinary hearing is scheduled this week for Gaymon, school district spokesman Fernando Gallard said.
Source: Philadelphia Daily News
Obama's America: Bus Driver Tells 12 Year-Old He Should Have Been Aborted Because of Romney Yard Sign
October 11, 2012
Jim Hoft @
The Gateway Pundit
A bus driver told a 12 year-old student that he should have been aborted because his family had a Romney-Ryan sign in their yard.
Freedom Eden reported:
Mark Belling discussed this story on his radio program yesterday. It’s another tale of a Leftist behaving badly.
The Leftist, a 78-year-old woman, a New Berlin school bus driver, has been harassing a student on her bus route because there’s a Mitt Romney yard sign at his home.
The child attends a Catholic school in New Berlin. He rides a Durham school bus. The company also provides service to the New Berlin public school district.
Belling read a letter from the 12-year-old boy’s mother, detailing the alleged abusive behavior by the bus driver.
Apparently, the Romney-Ryan yard sign bugs the bus driver and she’s been harassing the boy, making rude comments to him related to politics.
When the driver engaged the 12-year-old boy in a political conservation, he responded by saying that Obama is pro-abortion.
The bus driver allegedly said to the child, “Maybe your mom should have chosen abortion for you.”
Understandably, this really upset the boy. Other kids on the bus verified the boy’s account and are providing written statements.
The mom made her son’s school aware of the situation. She also went to Durham School Service in New Berlin and spoke to Michael Bennett, the manager.
UPDATE: The bus driver was fired after the report on Mark’s show.
Jim Hoft @
The Gateway Pundit
A bus driver told a 12 year-old student that he should have been aborted because his family had a Romney-Ryan sign in their yard.
Freedom Eden reported:
Mark Belling discussed this story on his radio program yesterday. It’s another tale of a Leftist behaving badly.
The Leftist, a 78-year-old woman, a New Berlin school bus driver, has been harassing a student on her bus route because there’s a Mitt Romney yard sign at his home.
The child attends a Catholic school in New Berlin. He rides a Durham school bus. The company also provides service to the New Berlin public school district.
Belling read a letter from the 12-year-old boy’s mother, detailing the alleged abusive behavior by the bus driver.
Apparently, the Romney-Ryan yard sign bugs the bus driver and she’s been harassing the boy, making rude comments to him related to politics.
When the driver engaged the 12-year-old boy in a political conservation, he responded by saying that Obama is pro-abortion.
The bus driver allegedly said to the child, “Maybe your mom should have chosen abortion for you.”
Understandably, this really upset the boy. Other kids on the bus verified the boy’s account and are providing written statements.
The mom made her son’s school aware of the situation. She also went to Durham School Service in New Berlin and spoke to Michael Bennett, the manager.
UPDATE: The bus driver was fired after the report on Mark’s show.
Report: Duke professor confirms Arabic on Obama ring
'It is the first part of the Islamic Shahada'
Oct. 10, 2012
WND Exclusive
WND’s report that Arabic-language and Islamic experts claim the gold band Obama has been wearing on his wedding-ring finger for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith naturally was met with skepticism in some circles, but Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze.com news service published a report citing a Duke professor who confirmed the WND experts’ assessment.
Earlier today, before it published the report, four members of The Blaze editorial team, including Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker, cautiously discussed the Obama ring story in their “Blazecast Rewind” Internet broadcast, without mentioning WND.
Baker, noting he had been inundated with links to the WND article, said he approached the story as he does other “memes” that float around the Internet and need to be either debunked or verified.
TheBlaze.com reporter Billy Hallowell told Baker he spoke with a professor from Duke who read the article, examined the photos and affirmed the conclusion of the WND experts.
“Based on what he saw, he said that this is, essentially, Arabic script on the ring and that it is the first part of the Shahada,” Hollowell said.
Hallowell pointed out the professor, who declined to be named, also cautioned that there is Islamic teaching that forbids wearing gold.
In WND’s report, Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., explained that despite prohibitions in Islamic law, many Muslim men wear gold rings, even in strict Muslim countries, particularly if they contain a religious message.
The Duke professor told Hollowell that it is, indeed, common for gold jewelry of that sort to be worn in the Middle East but often for superstitious reasons.
“Outside of the religious realm, it’s more about warding off bad spirits or protecting people from snake bites,” Hollowell said, citing the professor.
Later, TheBlaze.com posted a story by Hollowell reporting the WND article “has been making its way across social media and the blogosphere.”
In addition to citing the Duke professor who confirmed that the script appears to be Arabic and includes the first part of the Shahada, Hollowell reported he spoke with Harvard University’s Ali Asani
Asani, a professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic Religion and Cultures, said that the images of Obama’s ring were not clear enough to make a determination.
“I’d actually have to see it much closer to see exactly what it says,” Asani told TheBlaze.com
Like the Duke professor, Asani believes that the first half of the Shahada is a statement that any monotheist, including a Christian, could accept, that there is only one God. Only the second part of the Shahada is exclusive, he said, declaring Muhammad is his prophet.
Meanwhile, a posting at the blog Irregular Times by JClifford compared photographs of Obama’s ring to examples of Shahada rings on the Web and concluded Obama’s ring “looks like it’s got some decorative swirls on it, and nothing more.”
However, Joel Gilbert, who was first to conclude that the ring bears the Shahada, has issued a more detailed follow-up report he prepared with the assistance of Yousef Shehadeh, a native Arabic speaker from Nazareth who studied Arabic for 13 years in the Holy Land and now works as a graphic artist in Los Angeles.
Gilbert, who has studied Arabic himself, told WND he sent close-up photographs of the ring to Shehadeh “cold,” without offering any opinion, and asked Shehadeh to evaluate them.
Shehadeh replied to him that the script on Obama’s ring is Arabic, and it is the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith.
Oct. 10, 2012
WND Exclusive
WND’s report that Arabic-language and Islamic experts claim the gold band Obama has been wearing on his wedding-ring finger for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith naturally was met with skepticism in some circles, but Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze.com news service published a report citing a Duke professor who confirmed the WND experts’ assessment.
Earlier today, before it published the report, four members of The Blaze editorial team, including Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker, cautiously discussed the Obama ring story in their “Blazecast Rewind” Internet broadcast, without mentioning WND.
Baker, noting he had been inundated with links to the WND article, said he approached the story as he does other “memes” that float around the Internet and need to be either debunked or verified.
TheBlaze.com reporter Billy Hallowell told Baker he spoke with a professor from Duke who read the article, examined the photos and affirmed the conclusion of the WND experts.
“Based on what he saw, he said that this is, essentially, Arabic script on the ring and that it is the first part of the Shahada,” Hollowell said.
Hallowell pointed out the professor, who declined to be named, also cautioned that there is Islamic teaching that forbids wearing gold.
In WND’s report, Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., explained that despite prohibitions in Islamic law, many Muslim men wear gold rings, even in strict Muslim countries, particularly if they contain a religious message.
The Duke professor told Hollowell that it is, indeed, common for gold jewelry of that sort to be worn in the Middle East but often for superstitious reasons.
“Outside of the religious realm, it’s more about warding off bad spirits or protecting people from snake bites,” Hollowell said, citing the professor.
Later, TheBlaze.com posted a story by Hollowell reporting the WND article “has been making its way across social media and the blogosphere.”
In addition to citing the Duke professor who confirmed that the script appears to be Arabic and includes the first part of the Shahada, Hollowell reported he spoke with Harvard University’s Ali Asani
Asani, a professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic Religion and Cultures, said that the images of Obama’s ring were not clear enough to make a determination.
“I’d actually have to see it much closer to see exactly what it says,” Asani told TheBlaze.com
Like the Duke professor, Asani believes that the first half of the Shahada is a statement that any monotheist, including a Christian, could accept, that there is only one God. Only the second part of the Shahada is exclusive, he said, declaring Muhammad is his prophet.
Meanwhile, a posting at the blog Irregular Times by JClifford compared photographs of Obama’s ring to examples of Shahada rings on the Web and concluded Obama’s ring “looks like it’s got some decorative swirls on it, and nothing more.”
However, Joel Gilbert, who was first to conclude that the ring bears the Shahada, has issued a more detailed follow-up report he prepared with the assistance of Yousef Shehadeh, a native Arabic speaker from Nazareth who studied Arabic for 13 years in the Holy Land and now works as a graphic artist in Los Angeles.
Gilbert, who has studied Arabic himself, told WND he sent close-up photographs of the ring to Shehadeh “cold,” without offering any opinion, and asked Shehadeh to evaluate them.
Shehadeh replied to him that the script on Obama’s ring is Arabic, and it is the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith.
Russia Won’t Renew Pact on Weapons With U.S.
Published: October 10, 2012
MOSCOW — The Russian government said Wednesday that it would not renew a hugely successful 20-year partnership with the United States to safeguard and dismantle nuclear and chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union when the program expires next spring, a potentially grave setback in the already fraying relationship between the former cold war enemies.
The Kremlin’s refusal to renew the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program would put an end to a multibillion-dollar effort, financed largely by American taxpayers, that is widely credited with removing all nuclear weapons from the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus; deactivating more than 7,600 strategic nuclear warheads; and eliminating huge stockpiles of nuclear missiles and chemical weapons, as well as launchers and other equipment and military sites that supported unconventional weapons.
“The American side knows that we would not want a new extension,” a deputy foreign minister, Sergey Ryabkov, told the news agency Interfax. “This is not news.”
In a statement on its Web site, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the Obama administration had proposed renewing the arrangement but that Washington was well aware of Russia’s opposition. “American partners know that their proposal is not consistent with our ideas about what forms and on what basis further cooperation should be built,” the statement said.
Russian officials, meanwhile, noted that their country’s financial situation is far improved from the days after the collapse of the Soviet Union, raising the possibility that Russia would be willing to continue initiatives started under the Nunn-Lugar agreement, but with its own financing and supervision. The Foreign Ministry, in its statement, noted that Russia has increased its budget allocation “in the field of disarmament.”
American officials, including one of the original architects of the program, Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, have said they still have hope of reaching some form of new agreement with Russia.
But the prospects seem bleak.
President Vladimir V. Putin, while expressing a willingness to cooperate on nonproliferation issues, has said that a more pressing priority is to address Russia’s opposition to United States plans for a missile defense system based in Europe. President Obama has shown little willingness to make any concessions, other than to offer repeated reassurance that the system is not intended for use against Russia. And the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, seems even less likely to compromise on the missile defense issue.
The plan to end the Nunn-Lugar program appears to be the latest step by the Russian government in an expanding effort to curtail American-led initiatives, and especially the influence of American money, in various spheres of Russian public policy.
Last month, the Kremlin directed the United States Agency for International Development to halt all of its operations in Russia, which similarly entailed two decades of work, but in support of nonprofit groups like human rights advocates and civil society and public health programs.
The Russian government had made no secret of its unhappiness with some programs financed by the Agency for International Development, like Golos, the country’s only independent election-monitoring group, which helped expose fraud in disputed parliamentary voting last December.
Mr. Lugar, who is leaving the Senate at the end of this year, visited Moscow in August to begin pressing for renewal of the program and found Russian officials resistant. “The Russian government indicated a desire to make changes to the Nunn-Lugar Umbrella Agreement as opposed to simply extending it,” he said Wednesday. “At no time did officials indicate that, at this stage of negotiation, they were intent on ending it, only amending it.”
But Mr. Lugar, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, lost a primary election this year in his bid for a seventh term, and he has acknowledged that there are few lawmakers who seem willing to carry on his efforts, which began in partnership with Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia.
During his August visit to Moscow, Mr. Lugar said he hoped that the United States and Russia could use their past successes as a basis for expanding their efforts to reduce the threat of unconventional weapons in other countries. He raised the idea of trying to eliminate chemical weapons in Syria.
Russian officials, however, seem increasingly unwilling to let the United States set the agenda in global diplomacy — blocking demands, for example, for more aggressive intervention in Syria.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 11, 2012
An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a deputy foreign minister. His name is Sergey Ryabkov, not Ruabkov.
Source: New York Times
MOSCOW — The Russian government said Wednesday that it would not renew a hugely successful 20-year partnership with the United States to safeguard and dismantle nuclear and chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union when the program expires next spring, a potentially grave setback in the already fraying relationship between the former cold war enemies.
The Kremlin’s refusal to renew the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program would put an end to a multibillion-dollar effort, financed largely by American taxpayers, that is widely credited with removing all nuclear weapons from the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus; deactivating more than 7,600 strategic nuclear warheads; and eliminating huge stockpiles of nuclear missiles and chemical weapons, as well as launchers and other equipment and military sites that supported unconventional weapons.
“The American side knows that we would not want a new extension,” a deputy foreign minister, Sergey Ryabkov, told the news agency Interfax. “This is not news.”
In a statement on its Web site, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the Obama administration had proposed renewing the arrangement but that Washington was well aware of Russia’s opposition. “American partners know that their proposal is not consistent with our ideas about what forms and on what basis further cooperation should be built,” the statement said.
Russian officials, meanwhile, noted that their country’s financial situation is far improved from the days after the collapse of the Soviet Union, raising the possibility that Russia would be willing to continue initiatives started under the Nunn-Lugar agreement, but with its own financing and supervision. The Foreign Ministry, in its statement, noted that Russia has increased its budget allocation “in the field of disarmament.”
American officials, including one of the original architects of the program, Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, have said they still have hope of reaching some form of new agreement with Russia.
But the prospects seem bleak.
President Vladimir V. Putin, while expressing a willingness to cooperate on nonproliferation issues, has said that a more pressing priority is to address Russia’s opposition to United States plans for a missile defense system based in Europe. President Obama has shown little willingness to make any concessions, other than to offer repeated reassurance that the system is not intended for use against Russia. And the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, seems even less likely to compromise on the missile defense issue.
The plan to end the Nunn-Lugar program appears to be the latest step by the Russian government in an expanding effort to curtail American-led initiatives, and especially the influence of American money, in various spheres of Russian public policy.
Last month, the Kremlin directed the United States Agency for International Development to halt all of its operations in Russia, which similarly entailed two decades of work, but in support of nonprofit groups like human rights advocates and civil society and public health programs.
The Russian government had made no secret of its unhappiness with some programs financed by the Agency for International Development, like Golos, the country’s only independent election-monitoring group, which helped expose fraud in disputed parliamentary voting last December.
Mr. Lugar, who is leaving the Senate at the end of this year, visited Moscow in August to begin pressing for renewal of the program and found Russian officials resistant. “The Russian government indicated a desire to make changes to the Nunn-Lugar Umbrella Agreement as opposed to simply extending it,” he said Wednesday. “At no time did officials indicate that, at this stage of negotiation, they were intent on ending it, only amending it.”
But Mr. Lugar, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, lost a primary election this year in his bid for a seventh term, and he has acknowledged that there are few lawmakers who seem willing to carry on his efforts, which began in partnership with Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia.
During his August visit to Moscow, Mr. Lugar said he hoped that the United States and Russia could use their past successes as a basis for expanding their efforts to reduce the threat of unconventional weapons in other countries. He raised the idea of trying to eliminate chemical weapons in Syria.
Russian officials, however, seem increasingly unwilling to let the United States set the agenda in global diplomacy — blocking demands, for example, for more aggressive intervention in Syria.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 11, 2012
An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a deputy foreign minister. His name is Sergey Ryabkov, not Ruabkov.
Source: New York Times
Don't tell Mitt! The actor who brought Big Bird to life makes $314,000 a year
October 11, 2012
It looks like Mitt Romney was on to something when he promised to fire Big Bird during his first presidential debate: Big Bird makes big bucks!
Tax returns from PBS's Sesame Workshop show that the television show shelled out at least $314,072 for the actor behind Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch.
That makes Caroll Spinney, who has played everyone's favorite yellow-feathered friend since 1969, a true blue member of the One Percent.
But Mr Spinney isn't even the highest paid member of the puppetry staff. Jospeh Mazzarino, who plays Murray, Stinky the Stinkweed, the Two-Headed Monster, Papa Bear and directs some episodes, makes a cool half a million.
The other characters make around on average between $300,000 and $450,000 per year in salary.
The Sesame salary scandal broke when Mitt Romney pledged to cut funding to PBS.
'I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird,' the candidate said.
'But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.'
The comment quickly went viral, with thousands sharing their dismay that the Republican would axe their childhood pal.
The show's creators sent out a tweet purportedly from Big Bird saying: 'My bed time is usually 7.45, but I was really tired yesterday and fell asleep at 7! Did I miss anything last night?'
Moments later, a more serious tweet appeared distancing the show from partisan politics.
'We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization,' the message read. 'We do not comment on campaigns, but we’re happy we can all agree that everyone likes Big Bird!'
In reality, however, funding cuts to PBS would not cause Big Bird to disappear from television screens.
Those funds represent a meager 2 per cent of Sesame Workshop's annual budget, MSNBC reports.
Still, every cent counts. The Sesame Workshop reported losses of more than $10.8 million in 2011 and earlier this year, they announced plans to lay off more than a dozen employees.
VIDEO: Romney catches flack for Big Bird comments
source
It looks like Mitt Romney was on to something when he promised to fire Big Bird during his first presidential debate: Big Bird makes big bucks!
Tax returns from PBS's Sesame Workshop show that the television show shelled out at least $314,072 for the actor behind Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch.
That makes Caroll Spinney, who has played everyone's favorite yellow-feathered friend since 1969, a true blue member of the One Percent.
| Perched: That makes Caroll Spinney, pictured, who has played everyone's favorite yellow-feathered friend since 1969, a true blue member of the One Percent |
But Mr Spinney isn't even the highest paid member of the puppetry staff. Jospeh Mazzarino, who plays Murray, Stinky the Stinkweed, the Two-Headed Monster, Papa Bear and directs some episodes, makes a cool half a million.
The other characters make around on average between $300,000 and $450,000 per year in salary.
The Sesame salary scandal broke when Mitt Romney pledged to cut funding to PBS.
'I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird,' the candidate said.
| Comment: Mitt Romney promised to fire Big Bird during his debate with President Barack Obama |
| Dapper: Barack Obama's re-election campaign has latched on to the statement issuing campaign ads that feature the Sesame Street character, right |
'But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.'
The comment quickly went viral, with thousands sharing their dismay that the Republican would axe their childhood pal.
The show's creators sent out a tweet purportedly from Big Bird saying: 'My bed time is usually 7.45, but I was really tired yesterday and fell asleep at 7! Did I miss anything last night?'
Moments later, a more serious tweet appeared distancing the show from partisan politics.
'We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization,' the message read. 'We do not comment on campaigns, but we’re happy we can all agree that everyone likes Big Bird!'
In reality, however, funding cuts to PBS would not cause Big Bird to disappear from television screens.
Those funds represent a meager 2 per cent of Sesame Workshop's annual budget, MSNBC reports.
Still, every cent counts. The Sesame Workshop reported losses of more than $10.8 million in 2011 and earlier this year, they announced plans to lay off more than a dozen employees.
VIDEO: Romney catches flack for Big Bird comments
source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


