Category: Politics

A Convention of Moderate Excitement

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Did the Romney Campaign attempt to be , shall we say, a wee bit cheeky, during a Rules Committee Meeting for upcoming Conventions, last Friday?

Businessinsider.com has the report:

The GOP convention doesn’t officially start until Monday, but trouble is already brewing between presumptive nominee Mitt Romney and Republicans who are concerned by his campaign making an aggressive power play to control the party.

The drama Friday centered around a contentious meeting of the powerful Rules Committee, where Romney’s campaign lieutenants, led by his legal counsel Ben Ginsberg, pushed through several changes that would give Romney broad authority over the Republican nominating process.

According to one source who was at the meeting, the saga ended with former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu, the committee chair, hightailing it out of the building before committee members could submit dissenting minority opinions, or “minority reports.”

In an interview with Business Insider Friday night, Maine’s newly-elected state committeewoman Ashley Ryan, said that committee members opposed to Romney’s plan drafted two minority reports immediately after the meeting, stating their position against the changes. Republican Party rules stipulate that people have one hour to submit a minority report after a meeting of the Rules Committee, and that it must have the support of at least 25 percent of the committee.

“The rules say that you have an hour after the meeting, but within 15 minutes, we couldn’t find [Chairman Sununu] anywhere,” Ryan, a Ron Paul supporter and member of Maine’s delegation, said. “Finally, we asked an RNC official if they had seen former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu. He said, ‘John Sununu! Everyone’s looking for him! But he left the building.'”

The details around Sununu’s Friday dip are still foggy, and it’s unclear if he ended up receiving the minority reports after all. Convention officials have not yet responded to our email asking for comment.

Earlier on Friday, Ginsberg and other Romney loyalists tried to neuter the threat of a minority report by raising the threshold of support to 40 percent.

BuzzFeed’s Zeke Miller reports that the attempt was forcefully shot down as overreach, even by committee members who voted for Ginsberg’s other proposals, including one that would force states to select delegates based on the results of their primary or caucus, and one that would allow the Republican National Committee to change the rules established at the convention.

“It’s important to make the rules four years in advance, before we know who the favorites are,” Ryan said. “If the national party can just change the rules, what’s the point of having a Rules Committee at all?

Indeed. On top of that, even though we all know that America has to fire our Manchurian President, a lot of us are still not all that thrilled over the GOP Establishment’s choice, as foxnews.com explains:

No matter when the Republican National Convention officially starts, it still marks perhaps the best chance for party leaders to ratchet up what has until now been bridled enthusiasm for Mitt Romney — as he and President Obama compete for the last of the undecided voters in a very tight race.

The balloons and confetti are set to cascade inside the Tampa Times Forum when Romney accepts the nomination, as planned. And party leaders have assembled Romney’s most ardent and passionate supporters to make their case on stage about why Romney is the best choice in November to lead the country.

“This is a huge opportunity to capture the attention of the American public and keep them focused for several nights,” said Juleanna Glover, a Republican strategist and co-founder of the Washington-based Ashcroft Group.

The biggest threat to that undivided attention will almost certainly be Tropical Storm Isaac, which has already postponed the election start from Monday to Tuesday and is projected to make landfall later this week along the northern Gulf Coast states.

Glover suggested the challenge for the Romney team will be to refrain from trying to re-invent the candidate or going over the top, instead generating enthusiasm through trying to reinforce that Romney is a leader, a church-goer and a family man.

Their biggest challenge may well be in convincing Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and private-equity manager who through the entire election cycle has argued his mission is to fix the economy not win a popularity contest.

The mantra even wore off on some of the Republican Party’s most influential leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, who in July said: “The American people probably aren’t going to fall in love with Mitt Romney.”

Boehner also said Romney, who founded the Bain Capital private equity firm, “was going to do a great job even if you don’t fall in love with him.” But the perception was already largely in place and has, at times, remained there.

Just last week, Romney vowed in The Wall Street Journal that he won’t be part of the celebrity-style culture often favored by politicians.

Voters, Romney suggested, are most interested in hiring a fix-it specialist for an ailing economy. And when he appeared before crowds at campaign stops, he doesn’t think, “What can I do here to portray myself in a way that would be appealing to the public?” Romney told the paper.

Romney’s favorability rating is now at 46 percent, according to an averaging of polls by the Real Clear Politics website. It was as low as 21 percent according to a CBS-New York Times poll in January and as high as 50 percent according to a CNN-Opinion Research poll this month.

If  Romney would act more like the fella appearing in front of his hometown crowd on Friday, cracking a joke about his birth certificate, and embrace Reagan Conservatives, instead of marginalizing us, that would certainly help his popularity numbers.

I’m just sayin’…

Reagan Conservatism Still Rules

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Are Americans more Socially Conservative or Fiscally Conservative?

Gallup reported on an interesting poll, back on May 25th.

Americans are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal on economic issues, 46% to 20%. The gap is narrower on social issues, but conservatives still outnumber liberals, 38% to 28%.

These results are based on Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 3-6. Since 2001, the poll has asked Americans to say whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative on “economic” and, separately, “social” issues. The interpretation of what qualifies as social or economic issues is left to the respondent, given that the question does not define or provide examples of these types of issues.

In the same poll, on Gallup’s standard measure of ideology — not asked in reference to any set of issues — 41% identified themselves as conservatives, 33% as moderates, and 23% as liberals. Those figures are similar to what Gallup typically finds when it asks people to identify their ideology.

Thus, compared with the standard measure of ideology, slightly more Americans say they are economically conservative and slightly fewer say they are socially conservative. Also, significantly more Americans say they are socially liberal than identify their basic ideology as liberal.

Over the last four years, an average of 48% of Americans have said they are conservative on economic issues, including a high of 51% in May 2010. From 2001-2008, an average of 42% said they were economically conservative. This increase in economic conservatism has been coupled with a decline in the percentage who say they are moderate on economic issues. There has also been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans identifying as economic liberals, to a high of 20% this year.

The changes in self-identified economic conservatism coincide with the economic downturn and President Barack Obama’s time in office. But because the jump occurred between 2008 and 2009, and Americans were already concerned about the economy in 2008, the change in presidential administrations from Bush to Obama may be the bigger factor.

The major shift in Americans’ identification on social issues in recent years has been a decline in the percentage who say they are moderate, from 39% as recently as 2005 to 31% today. There have been roughly equal increases in the percentage of self-identified social liberals (four percentage points) and social conservatives (three points) today compared with 2005.

For the most part, Americans fall on the same ideological side on economic and social issues. Sixty-one percent are conservative, moderate, or liberal on both dimensions, with the largest percentage, 31%, conservative on both. Fifteen percent are liberal on both social and economic issues, and 15% are moderate on both.

The bulk of those who are not consistent say they are economically conservative and socially moderate (11%), or economically moderate and socially liberal (10%). Only 4% are liberal on one dimension and conservative on the other, with most of those being economically conservative and socially liberal.

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

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

Also, the moderate label seems to be losing some of its appeal in recent years, as Americans have become less likely to say they are moderate on both social and economic issues. The movement away from the moderate label may be another example of the increasing polarization of U.S. politics.

Throughout the Republican Primary and now on the eve on the Convention, there has been a concerted effort by Romney “supporters” on the internet to try to discourage, insult, and downright mock the beliefs of Reagan (Social) Conservatives.

As a matter of fact, if you read what they are still writing on Conservative websites, one would think that we Reagan Conservatives are outnumbered by “Fiscal” Conservatives and Moderates, when, at least according to this survey, that ain’t necessarily so.

The fact that people are becoming more polarized is interesting.  People are taking a stand, one way or another.

Where do you stand?

Do you stand with those who feel no compunction at all about ending an innocent life in its Mother’s womb. while babbling some nonsense about the baby not being human or being some sort of “punishment”?

Do you stand with those who believe that a nanny-state Federal Government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself and your family?

Do you stand with those who would take away law-abiding citizens’ firearms in the naive belief that somehow an unarmed populace is safer from outlaws and psychos than a populace who is trained in the use of firearms and carrying?

Finally, do you stand with those who believe that the schemes and plans thought up by limited men overrule those created by a limitless God?

You see, what 92% of Americans have already figured out for themselves, is no matter where you go, you can’t run away from the reach of God.

Just ask the RNC what happened to the first day of their Convention.

Romney Started a Joke….

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

…that started all the Libs whining.

In an unanticipated move from the presumptive Republican Candidate, Mitt Romney actually reeled off a one-liner. …And it was funny!

Of course, the Obama Campaign, the DNC, and the MSM did not think so.

CNN.com has the story:

Mitt Romney denied in an interview Friday that his reference to a highly charged political symbol – a birth certificate – was anything more than simply of homecoming humor.

“No, no, not a swipe,” Romney said in the CBS interview referring to President Obama and the conspiracy theories over whether he was born in the United States. “I’ve said throughout the campaign that and before, there’s no question about where he was born.”

“He was born in the U.S. This was fun about us and coming home, and humor – you know, we’ve got to have a little humor in the campaign as well,” Romney continued.

Of course, humor needs a punch-line or it’s not a joke.

It was a Friday campaign rally in Michigan, the state where Romney was born, where he chose to say, “Ann was born at Henry Ford hospital, I was born at Harper hospital. No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”

A fringe of conservative Republicans continue to believe that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Those in that movement are referred to as “birthers.”

A certification of live birth released by Obama during the 2008 campaign, and then the long-form certificate released by the White House in the spring of 2011, both stated the president was born in a Hawaii hospital on August 4, 1961. Contemporaneously published newspaper announcements also noted the birth in the Aloha State. Only “natural born” citizens of the United States are eligible to be president.

Romney said in the interview that the comment was some much-needed humor in this fiery campaign.

“Well we’re in Michigan and Ann and I were both born in Detroit, and of course a little humor always goes a long way,” Romney said. “So it was great to be home, to be in a place where Ann and I had grown up and the crowd loved it and got a good laugh.”

But Obama’s campaign was not laughing.

Throughout this campaign, Governor Romney has embraced the most strident voices in his party instead of standing up to them,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement after the campaign stop, but before the interview.

“It’s one thing to give the stage in Tampa to Donald Trump, Sheriff Arpaio, and Kris Kobach. But Governor Romney’s decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement should give pause to any rational voter across America.”

I wonder if that includes Obama’s Literary Agent, also?

I reported the following information back on May 18th, in a post titled, “Obama: Sweet Home Hawaii…or Kenya?”

Once upon a time….within the mythical halls of a fabled ivy-covered Law School named Hahvahd, there dwelt an ambitious young scion known as Barry Soetoro…err…I mean Barack Hussein Obama.  He was known far and wide as the Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

The young “born leader” soon signed with a Literary Agency, for the purpose of marketing an upcoming book.  The Literary Agency, Acton & Dystel, published a brochure in 1991 which included the following short biography of the young liege:

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

Mysteriously, in 2007, his birthplace on that biography was changed from Kenya to Hawaii.

An explanation of this curious biography was given yesterday:

Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me–an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

A copy of the booklet was published on Breitbart.com, under the headline: ” Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.’ It was part of the “vetting” of the president the site’s late founder, Andrew Breitbart, had promised.

Buzzfeed.com described yesterday’s crowd’s reaction to Romney’s one-liner:

The line, which prompted laughter and then cheers from the roughly 5,000 people gathered here, was an apparent reference to the long-debunked conspiracy theory that President Obama was born in Africa, and therefore not Constitutionally qualified to be president.

It was fun yesterday, watching all the Liberal heads exploding, sitting here bitterly clinging to my gun and Bible.

I hope Mitt talks about his college transcripts, next.

DNC 2012: “Indians”, Muslims, and Fluke…Oh, My!

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

Per the Democratic National Committee, here is their official list of Speakers, as of August 22nd:

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin

Former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth

Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Student

Denise Juneau, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Montana

Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America

Caroline Kennedy

Lilly Ledbetter

Eva Longoria, Obama Campaign Co-Chair

U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, together with the women of the U.S. Senate

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Previously announced speakers include: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who will be the first Latino keynote speaker at a Democratic National Convention, President Bill Clinton, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, Former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Elizabeth Warren.

The DNCC will unveil additional convention program details and speakers in the coming days. The first two days of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Tuesday, September 4 and Wednesday, September 5, will be held at Time Warner Cable Arena. President Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President on Thursday, September 6 at Bank of America Stadium.

Quite a stellar line-up, huh?

Let’s dwell on some of the acts in this circus.

Elizabeth Warren – On May 23rd, George Will wrote:

Blond, blue-eyed Elizabeth Warren, the Senate candidate in Massachusetts and Harvard professor who cites “family lore” that she is 1/32nd Cherokee, was inducted into Oklahoma’s Hall of Fame last year. Her biography on OklahomaHeritage.com says that she “can track both sides of her family in Oklahoma long before statehood” (1907) and “she proudly tells everyone she encounters that she is ‘an Okie to my toes.’ ” It does not mention any Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother. A DVD of the induction ceremony shows that neither Warren nor anyone else mentioned this.

The next week, politico.com reported…

Some 150 people purporting to be “concerned” members and descendants of three Cherokee tribes have put up a new website called “Cherokees Demand Truth From Elizabeth Warren.”

The group is demanding that the Massachusetts Senate candidate come clean about her heritage – a topic that has dominated media coverage of Warren’s bid again incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown ever since it was revealed that the Harvard law professor was previously listed as having ethnic minority status.

“You claim to be Cherokee. You forget, it isn’t who you claim, but instead, who claims you. We don’t claim you!” a banner splashed across the top of the group’s website reads. The group argues that Warren has made “false claims of Cherokee ancestry,” and that it is bothered by those who “fraudulently” claim Cherokee heritage.

White woman speak with forked tongue.

Last night, in a post titled, Jumah at the DNC: No Pork Ribs Allowed, I found the following information:

…the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC is none other than Siraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj is one of the most sought-after speakers on the Muslim circuit, and has addressed audiences all over the country; in 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. After 9/11, his renown as a moderate Muslim grew when he declared: “I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism.” But as with so many other Muslim leaders in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj is not as moderate as he may appear at first glance.

Wahhaj was several years ago designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He himself has denounced this designation as essentially meaningless, but he didn’t earn it by doing nothing. In the early 1990s he squired the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, all around New York City and New Jersey, sponsoring talks by him in area mosques. The Blind Sheikh, of course, is now serving a life sentence for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, as well as in jihad plots to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

Hey, America…”Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”

Finally, let’s talk about the far-from-innocent Sandra Fluke.

In a post titled, Just a Fluke?, I blogged

So, to recap, it turns out that the “sweet little co-ed” has turned out to be a 30 year old “Women’s Right’s” (i.e., Abortion) Activist, who entered Georgetown, a Catholic University, with a dual purpose:  to achieve notoriety and advance her political ideology.

She achieved that notoriety by appearing before Congress demanding that Americans pay for the $3,000 a year she puts out…err…spends on Birth Control.

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it…

Per Gallup, 19% of Americans are Liberal. An even smaller percentage of Americans subscribe to the teachings of the Far Left.

Judging from the dubious line-up and circus-like atmosphere of this year’s DNC, it would seem that the Democrats, the former “Party of the People”, are pitching an awfully small tent.

Jumah at the DNC: No Pork Ribs Allowed.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

Guess what religious group is being featured at Obama’s Democratic National Convention? I give you a clue: it ain’t Christians.

Breitbart.com reports:

The first Muslim to deliver the daily prayer to the U.S. House of Representatives was black convert Siraj Wahaj in 1991. It was an artful prayer, though he would deliver a very different message elsewhere just one year later. His ideas of what he really wanted as regards our federal government were fairly clear, “If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. . . . [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

Later, in 1995, he was a character witness for Omar Abdel Rahman, or blind sheikh, who was found guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the American government. The U.S. attorney for New York even listed Wahaj as an “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in that case.

Yet, none of that seems to matter to Democrats intent on focusing on Islam as part of their party’s upcoming national convention with an event, “Jumah at the 2012 DNC.”

The Democratic National Convention will open with a focus on Islam. 20,000 Muslims are expected to attend according to the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the national Muslim American non-profit coordinating the two days of events they claim are non-political.

As noted by M. Zuhdi Jasser here, the leaders of Jumah at the 2012 DNC are Jibril Hough and the same Siraj Wahhaj. “They are radicals,” writes Jasser. “These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.”

As for Jibril Hough, when not putting on events for the Democrat Party, he’s busy trying to undermine America’s war on terror.

‘Myrick’s latest attempt at fighting terrorism is nothing more than a fear campaign,’ said Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte. ‘It is nothing more than a new McCarthyism, or Myrickism. As Muslims, we have become expendable as politicians like Myrick seek political gain.’

Is it fair to say Democrats are embracing radicals at their upcoming national convention? It seems more than fair to say it, based upon the evidence.

But wait…there’s more! As frontpagemag.com reports:

But the most disturbing aspect of the entire “Jumah at the DNC” is not the obvious victimhood-mongering of its agenda, but the people involved. The Democrats are playing host to an unsavory gang of Islamic supremacists with numerous ties to jihad groups. Even this is not surprising, but it should be a matter of concern to any Americans who are more aware of the jihad threat than the average politically correct Democrat pol.

Take, for example, BIMA spokesman Jibril Hough. Hough’s mosque, the Islamic Center of Charlotte, is owned by a Muslim Brotherhood group, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case. When confronted about this on a radio show, Hough first professed not to be aware of the charges against NAIT, and then refused to disavow the organization, saying only that he himself was “not necessarily” a member of NAIT and: “I was not involved in the decision to allow NAIT to be the [title] holder.”

Meanwhile, the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC is none other than Siraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj is one of the most sought-after speakers on the Muslim circuit, and has addressed audiences all over the country; in 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. After 9/11, his renown as a moderate Muslim grew when he declared: “I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism.” But as with so many other Muslim leaders in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj is not as moderate as he may appear at first glance.

Wahhaj was several years ago designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He himself has denounced this designation as essentially meaningless, but he didn’t earn it by doing nothing. In the early 1990s he squired the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, all around New York City and New Jersey, sponsoring talks by him in area mosques. The Blind Sheikh, of course, is now serving a life sentence for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, as well as in jihad plots to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

Hold on…there’s even more! Per militantislammonitor.org:

In September 1991, Wahhaj stated the following:

“…And he [Allah] declared ‘Whoever is at war with my friends, I declare war on them.’ Who is a friend of Allah? [He chants a passage in Arabic] Allah. Your true friend is Allah, the messenger, and those who believe. Americans and Canadians. Hear it well. Hear what I’m telling you well. The Americans are not your friends, hear what I’m telling you, hear it well. The Canadians are not your friends, hear what I’m telling you, hear it well. The Europeans are not your friends. Your friend is Allah, the Messenger and those who believe. These people will never be satisfied with you until you follow their religion. They will never be satisfied with you…”

And boy, was he excited when Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) got himself elected. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s former associate wrote this  prayer, praising Allah:

MIM: A message from Siraj Wahhaj the Amir of MANA.

MANA Congratulates President-elect Barack Hussein Obama

The Muslim Alliance in North America congratulates President-elect Barack Hussein Obama on winning his bid for President of the United States of America. This election was historic in many ways and we know Muslims became actively involved.

We pray that Allah, Most High, will purify Obama’s heart, guide his actions and policies, and protect him and his family as he leads this nation. Furthermore, we encourage American Muslims to engage in forging an agenda and shaping the future of our society.

Let us all strive to be at the forefront of change in America–fighting for truth, justice and peace, and advocating for issues and policies that impact American Muslims and Muslims around the world, insha’Allah. I’m thankful to Allah that this striving is truly what drives the goals and initiatives at MANA.

May Allah, Most High, keep all of us rightly guided and obedient to His will.

Lovely.

So, this is how the 44th President’s Political Party rewards those who hate the fact that Americans are still living ?

 Are there fireworks planned?

God save the Union.

Obama: Of Bad Spelling and Ignored Sovereignty

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Have you ever heard the old spelling riddle about the Buckeye State?

What’s high in the middle and round on both ends?

Evidently the 44th President of the United States never has.

The hill.com has the story:

President Obama needed a do-over to spell “Ohio” correctly on the campus of Ohio State University this week.

Although Obama and several students at a campaign stop Tuesday morning at Sloopy’s Diner on the campus of OSU tweeted out photos of the president correctly posing as the “I” in Ohio, another student supplied a photo of a spelling mishap to Mitt Romney’s campaign.

The photo, tweeted by Romney’s Ohio communications director, Christopher Maloney, shows Obama and three students all a little confused about how to spell the state’s name, with Obama holding his hands up in what seems to be an “H” and as the third letter.

“A word of advice to @BarackObama: It’s ‘O-H-I-O’ that has 18 electoral votes, not ‘O-I-H-O,’ ” Maloney tweeted.

The Washington Post incorrectly reported the photo was doctored, but Maloney told The Hill it is authentic. He said the photo was passed along to him directly by a student. There were several photos being taken by students at the diner.

More from The Hill:

♦ Obama’s Charlotte convention lacks star power of Denver

♦ Tropical Storm Isaac puts GOP convention organizers on alert

♦ Joint Chiefs head ‘disappointed’ by ex-officers anti-Obama video

♦ Akin says Ryan asked him to exit race, slams GOP ‘party bosses

♦ Soros trumps Exxon over payments to foreign governments

♦ Romney’s GOP convention bounce: How high will it go?

♦ Obama to campaign in swing states during GOP convention

“I’m sure President Obama would like a do-over of his first term as well,” Maloney added. “Ohio isn’t going to let that happen.”

Neither the White House press pool nor local reports such as the Columbus Dispatch noted the original spelling error, suggesting the confusion was brief. The pool report from the stop reads:

As he greeted another group of young women, Obama posed for a photo with three students pantomiming the O-H-I-O of Ohio State. Obama put his hands up as the letter “I.”

According to a Texas judge, if Obama somehow gets re-elected, we’ll have a lot more to worry about than just bad spelling.

DFW.CBSlocal.com reports:

A Texas leader is warning of what he calls a ‘civil war’ and possible invasion of United Nations troops if President Barack Obama is re-elected.

Lubbock County Judge Tom Head is convinced that Mr. Obama winning a second term would lead to a revolt by the American people and he’s is pushing a tax increase for the district attorney’s office and the Lubbock County Sheriff’s Office. He says the money is needed to “beef up” it’s resources in case President Obama wins the November election.

In the event of civil unrest Judge Head said he’s concerned the President would hand over sovereignty of the United States to the U.N. and that the American public would react violently.

“He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the U.S. to the United Nations, what’s going to happen when that happens?” Judge Head told FOX 34 in Lubbock.

“I’m thinking worse case scenario,” Judge Head explained. “Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe…we’re not just talking a few riots or demonstrations.”

The West Texas judge’s proposed tax increase is to help the sheriff’s office hire a law enforcement large enough to protect the county and to drive away the invaders.

“I don’t want rookies,” Head said flatly. “I want trained, equip and seasoned veteran officers to back me.”

The republican judge said that he himself will meet the enemy, “in front of their armored personnel carriers” to tell them they are not welcome, and has the county sheriff to back him up. “I don’t want U.N. troops in Lubbock County,” he said.

Tom Head, a graduate of Highland Park High School, has been a county judge since 1999.

The judge is not quite as crazy as you might think.  Back on May 31st, townhall.com reported that

The latest threat to U.S. sovereignty is the United Nations’ Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that is being pushed by the Obama administration. LOST rises from the dead every few years. For more than thirty years, the United States has refused to become a party to LOST for good reasons. But this could be the year that the United States surrenders its sovereignty over the seas to an international body if Obama gets his way.

Under this treaty, the U.N. would have control over 71 percent of the Earth’s surface. This would be a huge step towards global governance. The Senate may vote to ratify the sea treaty as early as next week. President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST back in 1982, stating it would grant the U.N. the power to tax U.S. companies and redistribute wealth from developed to undeveloped nations.

For the first time in history, the U.N. would have the authority to collect taxes from U.S. citizens. The thought of global taxation should send goose bumps down the spine of every American.

Well, luckily, that didn’t happen. But the fact that it could have, is unthinkable.

America is a Sovereign Nation of Free People, blessed by God since its founding. We are not some third-rate European Socialist country, As Mitt Romney made very clear yesterday.

The presumptive Republican Candidate spoke at LeClaire Manufacturing in Bettendorf, Iowa, yesterday, and said that…

It is free men and women that drive our economy. Freedom is what makes America work. And President Obama, bless his heart, has tried to substitute government for free people–and it has not worked, and it will never work.

C’mon, November 6th!

Stimulating Propaganda

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

On December 13, 2010, in a post titled Obama’s Two Year Descent, I wrote the following:

Almost two years later, we have found out that the total cost of the Stimulus was 862 billion dollars, 75 billion more than expected.  Americans have also found out that it is a miserable failure.  Here is a breakdown by the numbers, courtesy of gop.com:

3.5 MILLION: Jobs Obama Promised Stimulus Would Create By End Of 2010.

3.3 MILLION: Jobs Lost Since Obama Made That Promise.
 
6.8 MILLION: Jobs Obama Must Now Create To Keep Promise By End Of 2010.
 
1.1 MILLION: Jobs Obama’s Economists Project Will Be Created By End Of 2010.
 
5.7 MILLION: Jobs By Which Obama’s Economists’ Projection Leaves Him Short In Keeping Promise. 
 
6 PERCENT: Not Surprisingly, Number Of Americans That Say Obama’s Stimulus Created Jobs.
7.7 PERCENT: Unemployment Rate When Obama Was Selling Stimulus In January 2009.
8 PERCENT: Unemployment Rate Obama Pledged Stimulus Would Prevent Us From Reaching.
9.7 PERCENT: Current Unemployment Rate.
16.5 PERCENT: Current Unemployment Rate When Underemployed And Discouraged Workers Are Included.
334,000: Americans That Have Given Up Looking For A Job Since Stimulus Was Signed.
47: States That Have Lost Jobs Since Stimulus Was Signed.
10: States That Moved From Single-Digit To Double-Digit Unemployment Rate Since Stimulus Was Signed.
$862 BILLION: Updated Cost Of Stimulus, $75 Billion Increase From Last Year’s Cost Estimate.
440: Number Of Nonexistent Congressional Districts That Received Stimulus Funds.
$6.4 BILLION: Amount Of Stimulus Funds That Went To Nonexistent Congressional Districts.
$18 MILLION: Cost Of Stimulus Website, Recovery.gov.
This catastrophic failure of a bill was actually written by the Apollo Alliance. Per discoverthenetworks.org:
Apollo Alliance exerts a powerful influence on the views and policies of the Obama administration. AA helped craft portions of the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation (officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) that President Obama signed into law in early 2009. Specifically, AA had a hand in writing the “clean energy and green-collar jobs provisions” of the bill, for which $86 billion was earmarked. This included funds “to build new transit and high speed rail lines, weatherize homes, develop next generation batteries for clean vehicles, scale up wind and solar power, build a modern electric grid, and train a new generation of green-collar workers.” AA recommended that the stimulus bill allocate $11 billion for the development of a so-called “Smart Grid,” which would use digital technology to deliver electricity from suppliers to consumers; ultimately the bill allocated precisely that amount to Smart Grid-related projects, including a $100 million provision for job training related to Smart Grid technology.

Confirming the magnitude of AA’s role in shaping the stimulus bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reidsaid in mid-2009: “The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us [the U.S. Senate] develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.”

Now, in 2012, we have found out that “Obama Money” (as those women in Detroit called it) can buy him friends…or, at least more propaganda.

Per The Washington Times:

The Labor Department paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal stimulus funds to a public relations firm to run more than 100 commercials touting the Obama administration’s “green training” job efforts on two MSNBC cable shows, records show.

The commercials ran on MSNBC on shows hosted by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in 2009, but the contract didn’t report any jobs created, according to records reviewed recently by The Washington Times.

Spending reports under the federal Recovery Act show $495,000 paid to McNeely Pigott & Fox Public Relations LLC, which the Labor Department hired to raise awareness “among employers and influencers about the [Job Corps] program’s existing and new training initiatives in high growth and environmentally friendly career areas” as well as spreading the word to prospective Job Corps enrollees.

The firm ultimately negotiated ad buys for “two approved spots” airing 14 times per week for two months on “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” and “The Rachel Maddow Show,” according to a project report, which listed the number zero under a section of the report asking how many jobs had been created through the stimulus contract.

David Williams, president of the nonprofit watchdog Taxpayers Protection Alliance, called the contract “questionable” because it created no jobs and because of the placement of the ads on shows viewed as friendly to the administration’s policies.

“Hiring a PR firm does not create jobs, and this was obviously meant for selling a particular political agenda,” Mr. Williams said. “The placement really reeks of a political ad rather than a job ad, and taxpayers see through this.

“Taxpayers would be a lot happier at the end of the day to see a completed road rather than a bunch of ads on cable television,” he said.

The public relations firm did not respond to inquiries from The Times about who directed the ads to appear on MSNBC, but Labor Department officials defended the expenditures, saying the decision to place the ads on the network — now NBC News — had nothing to do with politics.

And, I’m Elvis.

Thankyaverymuch.

Akin: Was It Something I Said?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics12 Comments

Words have weight, something once said cannot be unsaid. Meaning is like a stone dropped into a pool; the ripples will spread and you cannot know what back they wash against.                                – Phillipa Gregory

Take the example of Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO).

From washingtontimes.com:

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus appeared on CNN’s Out Front on Monday evening and spoke to Erin Burnett about the controversial statements made by Rep. Todd Akins, Missouri Republican, regarding rape. He called for Mr. Akin, who is running for Senate against Democrat Claire McCaskill, to “step aside and let someone else run for that office.” Chairman Priebus also said that he “prefer that Todd Akin do the right thing for our party and our candidates” and “not come” to the upcoming RNC Convention in Tampa.

I half-expected Reibus to cover his mouth and start yelling “Unclean! Unclean!”

If you haven’t heard what Akin said, yet, Fox2now.com has a recap of the story for you:

U.S. Rep. Todd Akin says he misspoke when making a comment about rape and abortion during the taping of The Jaco Report on FOX 2. That remark made national headlines and sparked responses from both Akin’s opponent, Sen. Claire McCaskill and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

During that interview the congressman and U.S. Senate candidate was asked whether abortion should be allowed in the case of rape.

Akin’s response was that it was his understanding from doctors that it’s rare for someone to become pregnant from rape. He said, “The female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.”

He went on to say that punishment should be on the rapist and not the child. Democrats started circulating his comment after the show aired citing statistics regarding rape and pregnancy.

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” said Sen. McCaskill through a statement sent to FOX 2.

The Akin camp responded with a statement indicating the congressman misspoke.

‘But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.’

The resulting hue and cry from Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, “Fiscal” Conservatives (oops…repeated myself) vaulted this story to the top of the news cycle.

Nationalreview.com has posted the following editorial:

Some voters may nevertheless find a candidate’s theoretical view so abhorrent that they cannot support him, and it is a perfectly legitimate issue for opponents to raise. Most Republicans who hold the view that unborn children have a right to life regardless of the circumstances of their conception will have the wit to explain themselves in a way that prevents most voters who disagree from vetoing them for that reason.

While Akin is a stalwart conservative and an honorable man, we regret to say that he inspires no such confidence. That is one reason why Senator Claire McCaskill, the sitting Democratic senator, boosted him during the Republican primaries with ads calling him a “true conservative.” She knew that she is the weakest Senate incumbent on the ballot this year and that her only hope was to draw a weak opponent. Akin won a three-way primary with a plurality of the vote; there was no run-off. McCaskill’s strategy is now paying off.

Akin has backed off from his remarks, albeit with the politician’s excuse of “misspeaking.” People who make such remarks on television are typically capable of making more like them, or rather incapable of exercising the judgment to refrain. We suspect that this same lack of judgment will cause Akin to blow past tomorrow evening’s deadline for him to leave the race and allow the Republicans to select a better nominee. We hope the congressman, who surely wants to see a Senate with as much conservative strength as possible next year, will prove us wrong.

Abhorrent to some. Just plain stupid to others.

As a Christian man, who was born a month premature, with underdeveloped lungs, my heart is always on the side of the unborn.

My daughter was born with complications, and had to undergo cranial surgery at 5 weeks of age. I had to endure watching my precious little girl being split open from ear-to-ear.

Now she is a wonderful 25 year old, who meets her challenges of a “special” life head-on, with an ear-to-ear grin.

I. along with many others, understand Akin’s heart, but, unfortunately, while Democrats tend to shore up their ranks and defend their own, like a lioness defends her cub (see Bubba Clinton), Republicans tend to banish our wounded, like a leper to a Leper Colony.

And, Rep. Akin shot himself in both feet.

On June 23, 2009, for that very same nationalreview.com, that is now calling for Akin’s resignation, the great American, Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following prophetic words:

The current intramural fighting among Republicans does not necessarily mean any fundamental rethinking of their policies or tactics. These tussles among different segments of the Republican party may be nothing more than a longstanding jockeying for position between the liberal and conservative wings of the party.

The stakes in all this are far higher than which element becomes dominant in which party or which party wins more elections. Both the domestic- and foreign-policy direction of the current administration in Washington are leading this country into dangerous waters, from which we may or may not be able to return.

…Unfortunately, the only political party with any chance of displacing the current leadership in Washington is the Republican party. That is why their internal squabbles are important for the rest of us who are not Republicans.

The “smart money” says that the way for the Republicans to win elections is to appeal to a wider range of voters — including minorities — by abandoning the kinds of positions Ronald Reagan held and supporting more of the kinds of positions that Democrats use to get elected. This sounds good on the surface, which is as far as many people go when it comes to politics.

A corollary to this is that Republicans have to come up with alternatives to the Democrats’ many “solutions,” rather than simply be naysayers.

However plausible all this may seem, it goes directly counter to what has actually happened in politics in this generation. For example, Democrats studiously avoided presenting alternatives to what the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration were doing, and just lambasted them at every turn. That is how the Democrats replaced Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ronald Reagan won two elections in a landslide by being Ronald Reagan — and, most important of all — by explaining to a broad electorate how what he advocated would be best for them and for the country. Newt Gingrich likewise led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives by explaining how the Republican agenda would benefit a wide range of people.

Neither of them won by pretending to be Democrats. It is the mushy “moderates” — the “kinder and gentler” Bush 41, Bob Dole, and John McCain — who lost disastrously, even in two cases to Democrats who were initially very little known, but who knew how to talk.

And, unfortunately for Akin, “words have weight”.

Ryan Re-energizes Republican Base

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Paul Ryan, the Vice-Presidential pick of the presumed Republican Nominee for President, Mitt Romney, sure does have everyone’s attention, including that of Niall Feguson.

Who’s he? well…

Per his website:

Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford.

Here is an excerpt of a 4-page piece  he has written for Newsweek, appearing on thedailybeast.com:

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

So do us commoners, Niall.

I like what I’m seeing out of Ryan, so far. He’s definitely got Obama nervous, as yahoo.com reports:

Romney’s choice of Ryan as his running mate has put a spotlight on the Wisconsin congressman’s best-known achievement – a budget plan that would slash Medicare’s projected costs by converting it to a program that provides limited subsidies to buy coverage.

But on the campaign trail, Ryan has moved away from his plan to emphasize less contentious proposals by Romney.

Talk of shrinking the health program for the elderly could lose votes in the November 6 election in the hotly contested state of Florida, home to the highest concentration of retirees in the country.

“Their plan would put Medicare on track to be ended as we know it,” President Barack Obama said to a crowd of about 2,300 at a campaign event on Saturday in Windham, New Hampshire.

“You’d think they’d avoid talking about Medicare given the fact that both of them have proposed to voucherize the Medicare system. I guess they figure the best defense is to try to go on offense,” Obama said.

Polls show Romney and Obama running neck-and-neck in Florida, where the cliffhanger 2000 presidential election was decided.

Republicans accuse Obama of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to pay for the healthcare overhaul law that the Democratic president signed in 2010.

But Ryan’s plan also would cut that money from Medicare, even as he proposes repealing the broader healthcare law. Romney says he would keep those funds for Medicare.

Ryan talked on Saturday about his grandmother who had Alzheimer’s disease and moved in with him and his mother when he was in high school.

“Medicare was there for our family, for my grandma when we needed it then. And Medicare is there for my mom, when she needs it now. And we have to keep that guarantee,” he said.

“But in order to make sure that we can guarantee that promise for my mom’s generation, for those baby boomers who are retiring every day, we must reform it for my generation.”

Medicare benefits nearly 50 million elderly and disabled Americans, but its financing will be squeezed by the growing numbers of retirees.

Concerns about the program’s future have become the top healthcare issue in the 2012 election, surpassing worries about Obama’s controversial healthcare law, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found earlier this week.

Joseph Bulla, 62, a Romney supporter at The Villages, said he liked Ryan’s voucher plan for Medicare. “It will give us a chance to choose what we want instead of being dictated to,” he said.

With Obama’s VP Joe Biden, sent home to Delaware to keep him from destroying Obama’s re-election bid by spewing forth more gaffes over the weekend, the nation is wondering what ol’ Scooter is going to do.

He says that he’s going to keep crazy Uncle Joe. But then again, Michael Corleone reassured Fredo, too.

If he doesn’t dump him, the Vice-presidential Debate will be the biggest massacre America has witnessed, since Custer said,

Hey! would you look at all of those Indians!

Will Obama Take a Stand For or Against Israel?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Our ally, Israel, is surrounded on all sides by her enemies and all eyes are turning toward Washington, D.C.

The Jerusalem Post has the story:

Former Military Intelligence head Amos Yadlin on Saturday urged President Barack Obama to visit Israel to allay fears that the US is not fully committed to stopping the Iranian nuclear program.

“The US president should visit Israel and tell its leadership – and, more important, its people – that preventing a nuclear Iran is a US interest, and if we have to resort to military action, we will,” Yadlin said in an opinion piece published in The Washington Post.

Yadlin also asked the US to provide Israel with advanced military technology and intelligence, contingent on Israeli pledges to delay a strike.

Yadlin presented a five-point plan to the Obama administration designed to convince “allies and adversaries alike that military action is real, imminent and doable.”

He called on Obama to notify Congress in writing that he reserves the right to use military force on Iran. He added that the US should increase its military presence in the Persian Gulf, and should also publicly commit to the security of its allies in the region.

Yadlin, who left his IDF post in 2010 and is currently the head of the Institute for National Security Studies, has been a vocal supporter of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who have both hinted that Israel would not leave the fate of Israel in the hands of the US.

“Israel cannot afford to outsource its security to another country,” Yadlin wrote in the Washington Post. “But if the United States wants Israel to give sanctions and diplomacy more time, Israelis must know that they will not be left high and dry if these options fail.”

Yadlin, one of the pilots who took part in the 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, hinted that Israel was capable of hitting the heart of the Iranian nuclear program, but said Israel would need US support “both the day after and the decade after a strike.”

President Ronald Wilson Reagan said the following in a speech he made in 1982:

America has long been committed to bringing peace to this troubled region. For more than a generation, successive United States administrations have endeavored to develop a fair and workable process that could lead to a true and lasting Arab-Israeli peace.

Our involvement in the search for Mideast peace is not a matter of preference; it’s a moral imperative. The strategic importance of the region to the United States is well known, but our policy is motivated by more than strategic interests. We also have an irreversible commitment to the survival and territorial integrity of friendly states. Nor can we ignore the fact that the well-being of much of the world’s economy is tied to stability in the strife-torn Middle East. Finally, our traditional humanitarian concerns dictated a continuing effort to peacefully resolve conflicts.

When our administration assumed office in January of 1981, I decided that the general framework for our Middle East policy should follow the broad guidelines laid down by my predecessors. There were two basic issues we had to address. First, there was the strategic threat to the region posed by the Soviet Union and its surrogates, best demonstrated by the brutal war in Afghanistan, and, second, the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

With regard to the Soviet threat, we have strengthened our efforts to develop with our friends and allies a joint policy to deter the Soviets and their surrogates from further expansion in the region and, if necessary, to defend against it.

With respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we’ve embraced the Camp David framework as the only way to proceed. We have also recognized, however, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict in and of itself cannot assure peace throughout a region as vast and troubled as the Middle East.

…Tragic turmoil in the Middle East runs back to the dawn of history. In our modern day, conflict after conflict has taken its brutal toll there. In an age of nuclear challenge and economic interdependence, such conflicts are a threat to all the people of the world, not just the Middle East itself. It’s time for us all — in the Middle East and around the world — to call a halt to conflict, hatred, and prejudice. It’s time for us all to launch a common effort for reconstruction, peace, and progress.

It has often been said — and, regrettably, too often been true — that the story of the search for peace and justice in the Middle East is a tragedy of opportunities missed. In the aftermath of the settlement in Lebanon, we now face an opportuntiy for a broader peace. This time we must not let it slip from our grasp. We must look beyond the difficulties and obstacles of the present and move with a fairness and resolve toward a brighter future. We owe it to ourselves — and to posterity — to do no less. For if we miss this chance to make a fresh start, we may look back on this moment from some later vantage point and realize how much that failure cost us all.

Back in March of 2011, the Palestinians wanted Israel to return to the little narrow strip of a country that it was before the 1967 war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat across from President Barack Hussein Obama and told him:

What we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluation of any prospective deal.

The ball is firmly in Obama’s court. Let’s see if he sinks a game-winner or throws up an air ball.

I’m not holding my breath.

Genesis 12: 1 – 3: 

1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”