Will It Be “Morning in America”, Again?

Obama’s minion “Baghdad Bob” Gibbs tried to attack the highly successful Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, concerning his opinion concerning last week’s suspicious Unemployment Rate.

Foxnews.com has the story:

Obama senior campaign adviser Robert Gibbs on Sunday criticized former General Electric executive Jack Welch for suggesting the Obama campaign has influenced or manipulated the most recent U.S. unemployment numbers.

“The notion, quite frankly, that somebody as well respected as Jack Welch would go on television and single-handedly embarrass himself for the entire day of Friday by saying somehow that these statistics are made up … it’s incredibly dangerous,” Gibbs said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Conservatives and others suggested Friday, after the Labor Department report showed the September unemployment rate had dipped to 7.8 percent, that the number, the lowest since President Obama took office, might have been an outlier or based on incorrect data and assumptions.

Welch appeared to take the idea a step further Friday, two days after an unspectacular debate performance by President Obama, when he tweeted: “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything . . . can’t debate so change numbers.”

Welch appeared later on Fox News and said he was not sure how the federal government arrived at the numbers, but suggested the report should make officials look at measurements used.

“I don’t know what the right numbers are,” the 76-year-old Welch said. “But I’ll tell you these numbers don’t smell right when you think about where the economy is right now.”

He argued in his defense that 25 of the country’s top economists predicted the August unemployment rate of 8.1 percent would remain the same this month or drop to 8.1 percent.

“That’s why I tweeted,” Welch said.

The other Labor Department numbers being questioned by Welch and others are those on jobs added to the economy.

As I’ve gathered by  communicating with other Americans over the weekend, I can assure you:

No one is buying the 7.8% Unemployment Rate.

In fact, it does not appear to have made a bit of difference.

Per colorado.edu:

An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes — down five votes from their initial prediction — and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

While many election forecast models are based on the popular vote, the model developed by Bickers and Berry is based on the Electoral College and is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. They included economic data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Their original prediction model was one of 13 published in August in PS: Political Science & Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association. The journal has published collections of presidential election models every four years since 1996, but this year the models showed the widest split in outcomes, Berry said. Five predicted an Obama win, five forecast a Romney win, and three rated the 2012 race as a toss-up.

The Bickers and Berry model includes both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors. The new analysis includes unemployment rates from August rather than May, and changes in per capita income from the end of June rather than March. It is the last update they will release before the election.

Corroborating this report:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided.

And, finally, Jim Geraghty, in an Op Ed for the New York Daily News writes

So the choice before Americans is a rerun of the gridlock of the past two years, or something different — a Republican-controlled Washington, but with a President Romney whose record, demeanor and style is quite different from that of George W. Bush.

None of this means that the task remaining before Romney isn’t difficult. But for most of this general election, the race featured an incumbent and a poorly-defined caricature.

The debates demonstrated that no one can make the case for a candidate better than the candidate himself — not the SuperPACs, not the national party, not the surrogates nor the running mate. Only Romney himself could look the voters in the eye and demonstrate that he had the knowledge, the composure, the deftness and the concern they wanted to see. Romney’s message was simple but resonant — if we can get more Americans in jobs, we’ll see dramatic improvement in our budgetary, debt and social conditions.

If, by Nov. 6, Americans conclude they believe Romney can deliver on that vision, then the conventional wisdom of just a few weeks ago may prove spectacularly wrong. Romney may not just win, he may win handily.

Make it so, Americans.

 Last Thursday, after being pumped up by Mitt’s stellar debate performance, I Tweeted:

It may not be Morning in America again yet, but, after last night, we can see the first rays of sunlight on the horizon.

Judging for the reaction of the Obama Administration, their sycophants in the Main Stream Media, and their paid and unpaid Internet “pundits”,  they’re are all afraid of the light of day.

Hmmm. Perhaps they’re all vampires.

But…that’s a whole ‘nother Blog.

Christians Killed in Kenya

Adherents to “the religion of peace” are now murdering Christians in the formerly stable country of Kenya.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that

A grenade attack on an Anglican Church in Kenya’s capital has left one child dead and seven others injured in what is viewed as a response by the Somali Islamist group Al Shabab to the capture of its stronghold Friday by Kenyan troops.

The Sunday morning attack on the St. Polycarp’s Anglican Church in Eastleigh area, which the police said was carried out by Al Shabab or its sympathizers, prompted analysts to warn of more attacks as the Kenya Defense Forces achieve more military success in next-door Somalia.

The troops, which rolled into the war-torn country in October 2011, entered Al Shabab’s final stronghold city of Kismayo on Friday. Fighting together under the African Union banner, Kenyan and Somalian troops are now moving to consolidate their gains in Kismayo.

The apparent reprisal attack on the Nairobi church offers early confirmation of concerns here that while Al Shabab’s conventional fight may be ending, the group will continue to be a regional menace through guerrilla and terrorist attacks.

“Kenya should brace itself for these attacks. It is obvious. Al Shabab has said, you come to my hole, I will come to yours,” says Madobe M.A, a Nairobi-based analyst on Somali issues.

The attack came as children were singing in a church Sunday school service. In a style reminiscent of Boko Haram, Nigeria’s violent Islamist sect, the assailants hurled a grenade inside the school, with most children being injured in the stampede for the exits.

Hours after the attack, two policemen were shot dead in the town of Garissa, where 14 people had been killed back in July in twin church attacks.

You’re probably asking yourself, Why is KJ writing about this? It’s a world away! We’ve got an election going on in this country.

It may be inconsequential to you, but it is not me and my church. You see, one of our young ladies is teaching at the International Christian School in West Nairobi, Kenya.

From nics.org:

Nairobi is the capital and largest city in Kenya, having about four million inhabitants. West Nairobi School (WNS) is located in Karen, Kenya, a suburb to the west of Nairobi. Adjacent to the Ngong Forest, WNS is very scenic and peaceful. The temperature is consistent year round, remaining between 20 and 27 degrees Celcius (65 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit) with rains occurring in November-December and again in March-May. English is the national language of Kenya and Kiswahili is the language of culture. Tourism is the number one industry in Kenya, followed closely by the tea and coffee industry.

West Nairobi School is an international Christian community founded on biblical truths, existing to educate and nurture students to become responsible citizens and devoted followers of Jesus Christ.

WNS is uniquely poised to serve both the missionary and national population in Kenya. By offering quality education, it frees parents to serve the people of Kenya and the rest of East Africa.

West Nairobi School serves children from pre-school through the 12th grade and is fully accredited.

The history of NICS is an example of God’s Grace.

In 1983, Joe Hale along with his wife Ann and some other missionaries formed a school in South Korea. They initially anticipated that this school would educate about 30 students, but on the school’s inaugural day 83 students arrived for classes.The school continued to grow, and currently there are 3 different NICS schools in South Korea with a total enrollment of over 1000 students.

It quickly became apparent that the need for international schools, particularly those of a Christian nature, was present in many countries beyond Korea, and schools perpetuating the same approach soon appeared in other countries, and eventually on other continents. The vast growth of the initial schools was such that the Network of International Christian Schools (NICS) was born in 1991 and a home office was established in Memphis, TN to facilitate the operations and staffing of the schools. In 1992, NICS became an incorporated independent mission agency. In 2001 the home office was moved to Southaven, MS, where it is currently located. After operating out of the Southaven municipal building for several years, the current location was secured and occupied in the fall of 2007. The home office is housed in three buildings on 9.5 acres, and there are future plans for additional buildings to be built, which will be used as a conference and training facility. The home office currently houses 20 employees, as well as the offices of NorthStar International Academy, the online school. Joe Hale serves as the president of NICS, and now works out of the home office, or international headquarters. The peak enrollment of all 17 NICS schools during the 2009-10 school year was over 3600 students. There are over 500 teachers serving the 17 schools throughout the organization.

Per Joel Hale:

Today, we take a moment to look back at our history and see that our “trail” is filled with the fingerprints of God all along the way. Sure, we have made changes as we have grown and learned better how to accomplish our goals and purposes. Yet, the goal still remains. I cannot think of a better strategy to impact the world than through the influence and mentorship provided by Christian teachers in an international school setting. God continues to open doors of opportunity to us, and we must pursue those opportunities with passion and urgency.

We continue to lean heavily on God’s hand of provision; our needs are great; our challenges many. We must not rest until all the world is reached with the Good News! Let us not forget, however, that we must also take time to look back and see how His miraculous hand has touched us in the past in such a way that we can never be the same. This gives us confidence to look forward and trust that He will continue to unfold his plans for this ministry before us… among all nations!

NCIS Teachers rely on funding from their family, friends, and congregations. The sacrifices they make are great. I attended a presentation by this young lady. She was so excited to be going over there to serve. Her contract will be over soon. She is presently trying to decide what she will do.

I know that whatever she decides, God’s Grace will be with her.

I only hope that she makes it home safely soon.

Election 2012: Class Warfare: United We Stand…Divided We Fall

The other day, the 44th President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, inadvertently gave voters another insight into his decidedly Marxist political Philosophy, when he said:

This country doesn’t just succeed when just a few are doing well at the top. It succeeds when the middle class gets bigger. Our economy doesn’t grow from the top down — it grows from the middle out. We don’t believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country,” said Obama. “But we do believe in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules.

Remember what Jar Jar Biden said about those of us struggling in America’s Middle Class?

Vice President Biden said Tuesday that the middle class has been “buried the last four years” — a practically gift-wrapped gaffe that Republicans immediately grabbed to hammer President Obama on the eve of the first presidential debate.

Biden made the remark at a campaign stop in Charlotte, N.C., in the course of slamming Republican tax policies which Democrats claim would cut taxes for the rich and hike them for the middle class.

“This is deadly earnest,” Biden said. “How they can justify — how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that’s been buried the last four years. How in the lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts?”

Mitt Romney, it turns out, couldn’t agree more with the first part.

He tweeted: “Agree with @JoeBiden, the middle class has been buried the last 4 years, which is why we need a change in November #CantAfford4More.”

Running mate Paul Ryan echoed, saying at a rally in Iowa that “we need to stop digging” and elect Romney.

The last post I wrote was about the magical 7.8% Unemployment Rate, that just happened to appear one month before the most important election in our lifetimes.

While over at my favorite Conservative Website, hotair.com, I had a poster tell me

Right now Mitt is doing well and its better to focus on getting him elected than distractions from the WH, real or imaginary.

This struck a nerve with me, because, quite frankly, even though I have a wonderful job now, I continue to struggle with paying bills after a period of being under-employed. I replied,

The entire country and Internet were buzzing about this yesterday. To those who are out of work, or under-employed, and don’t know how they are going to pay their bills from month-to-month, or provide for their family, the Unemployment Rate is not a distraction. it is a reality.

A drop in the Unemployment Rate, one month away from the most important election in our lifetime is not a “distraction”. It is Chicago Politics…at it’s finest.

Now is not the time for squishiness, nor political niceties. This is a war for the future of the greatest nation on Earth.

Now, there are those of you who are reading, that believe I’m bloviating.

No. I’m being factual. In Professional Wresting Parlance, this is a “Falls Count Anywhere Match…No Holds Barred”.

As Bill Flax wrote back in March on americanthinker.org, Obama’s political philosophy speaks for itself,

Every fiscal policy from sundry stimulus programs to tax credits is steeply progressive. Obama champions wealth-redistribution and punitively taxing the affluent, even as political reality prevents implementing his complete agenda. Still, spending relentlessly rises long after the recession’s end, propelling government dependency to record heights. Meanwhile, regulatory impositions grow ever more invasive, further extending Leviathan’s lurching grasp.

The administration’s rhetorical assaults on business and repeated allusions to Republicans or the rich as “enemies” betray Marxist moorings. To Obama, profits represent not satisfied customers, but swindles; businesses are “greedy” until proven innocent. Acquittals come via campaign contributions or penance to progressive causes. Those who cooperate obtain ObamaCare waivers and lucrative public contracts; those who won’t get vilification from the presidential bully pulpit.

…But the Breitbart footage showing Obama supporting Derrick Bell’s racialism highlights the precise hue of the president’s Marxist perspectives. Professor Bell has been nicknamed the “Jeremiah Wright of the academic world.” Bell’s Critical Race Theory, the pinnacle of political correctness, applies Marxism to culture, as orthodox Marxism antagonized class differences.

Whereas Marx proffered that the pivotal hinge was economic, as explained here, cultural Marxism, aka political correctness, features other factors. It’s still victims and villains, but the culprits extend beyond capitalists and bourgeois to whites, men, Christians, and other “privileged” parties. Western culture’s prey are racial or religious minorities, women, and those behaving in ways previously considered anti-social.

Obama perceives society through lenses skewed by this modern version of Marxism. Obama’s proposals inevitably leverage left-wing radicals or government organs to redistribute wealth, power, or caches of moral superiority under pretense of combating prejudice. Power shifts from private to public — or from parties previously seen as oppressors to those whom progressives deem oppressed.

…The apologies, the appointments, the executive orders, the spending priorities — all embody untrammeled political correctness. The consistent thread knitting this Marxist quilt is anti-traditional America, which, as the president haughtily scoffs, was founded by “men of property and wealth.” Obama borrows from Marx, who thought government an instrument protecting the rich. Marx found faith, tradition, and patriotism impediments preventing the proletariat from recognizing their class interests.

The desensitization and placating of the Middle Class, as it was in classic Marxist Theory, is a key element, of Obama and his Party’s Re-election Campaign, as it was in the 4 years of his presidency.

By taking the ambition of the Middle Class away, by offering a “safe and comfortable” cradle-to-grave Nanny-State, “Uncle Sugar” Federal Government, they are buying American voters by giving them bribes of free Obamaphones, paychecks for not working, free food, etc.

Unfortunately, as Mitt Romney alluded to recently, there is a great percentage of American voters who will buy and be content with this “Mother’s milk”, instead of yearning for the thrill and the challenge of the hunt for American Individual Success and Freedom.

Mitt Romney also said,

…And the American people are the greatest people in the world. What makes America the greatest nation in the world is the heart of the American people: hardworking, innovative, risk-taking, God- loving, family-oriented American people.

The will and exceptionalism of the American people will be the way out of our woeful economic plight, not Obama and his Administration’s benevolent bribery.

And, that’s what I’m counting on …one month from today.

7.8% Unemployment: Figures Lie. Liars Figure.

The hot topic right now, is  a fortuitous lower Unemployment Rate that miraculously appeared in yesterday’s Jobs Report.

Noel Sheppard of newsbusters.org has the story:

The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, a number certain to impact the presidential race.

Pundits have been saying for months this number had to drop below 8 percent for it not to be a hindrance to President Obama’s reelection chances.

The economy added 114,000 nonfarm payrolls in the month according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with gains in healthcare, transportation and warehousing.

Truly shocking in the report was that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 to 12.1 million.

Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873,000 in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June 1983.

As such, total employment now stands at the highest level it’s been since December 2008 before Obama was inaugurated.

But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department.

The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September – resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate – while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000.

Here’s an interesting fact:

At least two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have contributed to President Barack Obama’s campaign. Harley Frazis of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama and $9,000 to the Democratic National Committee over the last three election cycles. During his time at BLS, Harley has published a number of papers including his most recent, “How to Think About Time-Use Data: What Inferences Can We Make About Long- and Short-Run Time Use from Time Diaries?”

Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle. According to his LinkedIn profile, Phillips served as an economist at BLS between June 2009 and July 2012. Phillips was responsible for examining the impact of Obamacare on Healthcare North American Industry Classification System indices. Phillips was also assistant coach for a girls’ high school tennis team in 2010.

To say that yesterday morning’s jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is being met with skepticism is an understatement.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis appeared on CNBC yesterday morning, where they actually asked her if the books were cooked.

Solis called the charges insulting and “ludicrous.”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former economics adviser to John McCain and the former head the Congressional Budget Office, calls the numbers “implausible.”

“Sept. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent due to an extraordinary – but implausible – estimate of 873,000 #jobs in household survey,” said Holtz-Eakin on Twitter.

“The report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number,” said CNBC’s Jeff Cox.

The Washington Post’s Neil Irwin adds, “Weird that payrolls are exactly on forecast but household survey is far better.”

And the Wall Street Journal warns that these numbers should be taken “with a grain of salt.””The big jump in the household survey is certainly a welcome sign. But take this data with a grain of salt, especially considering the volatile reputation this data point holds,” writes the Wall Street Journal.

“No way in the world these numbers are accurate,” said Ed Butowsky of Chapwood Capital Investment on Fox Business. “Somebody needs to do an investigation. … Investigate these numbers.”

The Republican Candidate for President agrees.

“This is not what a real recovery looks like,” Mr. Romney said in a statement, pointing to what he said was a downward trend of job-creation. “We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics‘ key jobs survey said the economy added 114,000 new jobs in September, and BLS said the unemployment rate dipped to 7.8 percent — a drop of three-tenths of a percent.

That means the rate is now back down to what it was in January 2009, when Mr. Obama took office, inheriting a recession from President George W. Bush.

BLS also revised July and August job numbers upward by a combined 86,000, suggesting a slightly better jobs picture over the summer than was reported at the time.

The jobs news comes just two days after Mr. Romney seemed to be gaining momentum from a strong debate performance.

The Republican presidential nominee loses a major talking point from the campaign trail, where he regularly talked about the streak of consecutive months the unemployment rate had remained above 8 percent.

Mr. Romney on Friday said the jobs picture is still bleak — particularly because of the millions who have dropped out of the market altogether.

“If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent,” Mr. Romney said in his statement. “The results of President Obama’s failed policies are staggering — 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty, and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years. If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone.”

A Cleveland , Ohio businessman summed up America’s economic problems in one sentence:

Potus stopped to meet people waiting for him, where he did the requisite hand-shaking, high-fiving and the rare baby-holding before going on to chat with proprietors at Turczyk’s Meats and the adjoining Larry Vilstein’s, Christopher Bakery and Edward Badbuster & Son. He then asked the proprietor at Rolston Poultry how business was going. “Terrible since you got here,” the man said. Pool could not get close enough to the Rolston Poultry man to get his name or political affiliation. Potus didn’t appear amused by the sentiment.

Hang in there, sir. Things will get better after we throw the Manchurian President out of OUR house.

C’mon, November 6th!

Presidential Debate #1 – Excuses, Excuses

You’re President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm). You wake up yesterday morning, with a ringing in your ears from a world-class chewing out from your wife, near hysterical over the possibility that  her free lavish vay-cays are about to go bye-bye.

And, on top of that, your posterior is sore from the butt-kicking that Mitt Romney gave you last night.

So, what do you do? You have personal appearances today. Do you go out all humble and apologetic, promising to do better in the next debate?

Oh, heck no. You erroneously claim that the guy who beat your butt at the first debate last night, was not Mitt Romney, but his doppelganger.

I think Barry’s been hanging out with the Choom Gang, again.

The New York Times reports that

President Obama and his team woke up here [Denver] on Thursday morning confronted by the realization that he lost his first debate by passively letting Mitt Romney control the conversation. Then the president and his advisers resolved to do what he himself did not the night before.

Under fire from fellow Democrats, Mr. Obama came out swinging, accusing Mr. Romney of lying to the American people about his plans for the nation. “I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,” Mr. Obama told 12,000 supporters during a lakeside rally. “But it couldn’t be Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow onstage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.”

He said the Mr. Romney of the debate wanted to put more teachers in classrooms and claimed not to know companies get tax breaks for outsourcing jobs. “The man onstage last night, he does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney’s decisions and what he’s been saying for the last year,” the president said. “And that’s because he knows full well that we don’t want what he’s been selling for the last year.”

The vigorous assault on Mr. Romney suggested just how worried Mr. Obama’s campaign has become. The president’s advisers concluded that he had lost his first debate by not pressing Mr. Romney enough. After a series of late-night and early-morning consultations, the Obama team decided to try to correct that Thursday with a more aggressive stance, including the rally rhetoric, a new television ad and a conference call questioning Mr. Romney’s truthfulness.

David Axelrod, the president’s strategist, called Mr. Romney an “artful dodger” whose debate comments were “devoid of honesty,” “rooted in deception,” “untethered to the truth” and “well delivered but fraudulent.

“Not surprisingly, what we learned is he’ll say anything,” Mr. Axelrod said. “That makes him effective in the short term but vulnerable in the long term.” He added, “He may win the Oscar for his performance last night but he’s not going to win the presidency.”

The Romney team, feeling rejuvenated, fired back. “In full damage-control mode, President Obama today offered no defense of his record and no vision for the future,” said Ryan Williams, a Romney spokesman. “Rather than a plan to fix our economy, President Obama simply offered more false attacks and renewed his call for job-killing tax hikes.”

In trying to turn the tables on Mr. Romney, the president’s team was hoping to salvage a debate performance widely criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Aides described Mr. Obama as out of practice at debating and said he made a conscious decision not to bring up some of the campaign’s favorite attack lines of recent months, a decision they left little doubt disappointed them.

Well, boys and girls, ol’ Uncle KJ believes that there is a different reason:

The Emperor has no clothes!

That is to say, Obama has never been tested like this before.  Sans teleprompter, he was out there naked, as it were, armed only with his wits, and grasp of the duties of his job.

In other words, it was a dog’s world last night, and Scooter was wearing Milkbone underwear.

Now, sit back, and ol’ Uncle KJ will tell you a Bedtime Story:

In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) decided to run for The United States Senate.

Obama had to run against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires).

Besides Obama being able to garner unlimited campaign funds from his Uncle George Soros, as the campaigns entered their closing rounds, the news broke (was leaked) to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan had “personal scandals” in their past. The timely release of this news wiped out both of their campaigns, leading to an easy victory for Obama in the primary and then in the general election.

The New York Times Magazine revealed that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political and media adviser, may well have been behind the leak of the story that doomed the Hull candidacy as the primary reached its home stretch.  

As he has shown over the years, Axelrod was right at home operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. One can not bring up Axelrod’s name  in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. Approaching the 2004 Senate primary, it was clear that it was a two-man race: the millionaire liberal, Hull, leading in the polls, and Obama, who was the figurehead of an impressive grass-roots campaign. One month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune “just happened” to reveal, at the end of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. This revelation proceeded to erupt into a full-fledged scandal.  This scandal destroyed Hull’s campaign and handed Obama an easy primary victory.

The Tribune reporter who wrote the story later admitted in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. However, a lot of folks in Chicago believe that Axelrod leaked the initial story. They will tell you that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign just happened to start at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was in the works for a long time.

Axlerod’s explanation?

An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you.

What happened to Obama last night?

He wasn’t able to eliminate Romney through the dirty tricks which he and Axlerod used back in Chicago, forcing him to face Mitt man-to-man in an honest and fair debate.

Hence, the smirking look on his pompous puss, which showed the world that Obama would rather have been anywhere else than at that debate last night.

The Emperor had no clothes…and no clue.

Presidential Debate #1 – Mitt Rocks! Preezy Looks Queasy

Oh, wow! I just watched the worst one-on-one political Massacre since the Ronald Reagan Presidential Debates. In the parlance of professional wrestling: It was a squash match.

Obama looked like he really did not want to be there last night. He remembered his talking points okay, but, he had no fire. He just smirked a lot, as if, somehow this whole thing was beneath a suuuuper-genius like himself.

Even poor old Mr. PBS himself, Jim Lehrer, could not save his bacon last night. However, that did not stop him from trying. At least a couple of times, Lehrer was obviously trying to coach Obama, and it seemed as if Obama was given a lot longer than 2 minutes to answer the questions asked.

Obama was on defense the entire evening.

Gov. Romney, on the other hand, was flawless. He looked presidential and seemed totally prepared. He was respectful, friendly, and merciless. Romney was a Human Jackhammer, riveting him on every point with deadly accuracy.

From the get-go in last night’s debate, it was apparent that the 44th President of the United States of America was waaay out of his league.

By the time the evening was done, Obama looked like one would expect Pee Wee Herman to look after a Hell in a Cell Cage Match with the Undertaker.

TheHill.com summarized the debate in the following manner:

Mitt Romney came out firing on President Obama in the opening minutes of the presidential debate, drawing sharp contrasts with the president’s economic plan and accusing him of misleading the public on Romney’s own plan.

Romney peppered his attacks with memorable phrases, claiming Obama’s policies were “trickle-down government” and that the president was instituting an “economy tax” on the middle class.

“The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government — would work. That’s not the right answer for America,” the GOP nominee said.

Obama responded by slamming Romney’s economic plan, saying the GOP nominee hadn’t explained how he’d pay for his proposed tax cuts.

“Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts — that’s another trillion dollars — and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for. That’s $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign,” he said.

Romney charged back that the president was misrepresenting his plan.

“I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about,” he said.

“I’ve got 5 boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it,” he added.

Economic issues dominated the first 45 minutes of the president debate, the first showdown between the two contenders.

There was a noticeable contrast in the candidate’s demeanor: Romney was much more animated and punchy than the president, who came off as subdued, tentative and at times irritable.

Romney, who has narrowly trailed Obama in recent polls, seemed to be looking to shake up the race with a strong attack on Obama’s record, talking directly to the president as he spoke.

He repeatedly attacked Obama’s record: among his charges were that Obama was instituting an “economy tax.”

“The people who are having the hard time right now are middle-income Americans,” he argued. “Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed. Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing.”

Obama fired back: “I believe that we do best when the middle class is doing well. And by giving them those tax cuts, they had a little more money in their pocket, and so maybe they can buy a new car. They are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession that we went through. They can buy a computer for their kid who’s going off to college, which means they’re spending more money, businesses have more customers, businesses make more profits, and then hire more workers.”

Romney also charged Obama with doubling the federal debt.

“The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it. Trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years. The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined,” he said.

Obama replied: “When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from: two wars that were paid for on a credit card; two tax cuts that were not paid for; and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for; and then a massive economic crisis.”

Dr. Charles Krauthammer on Fox News said that Romney “won by two knockouts” and Obama “phoned it in”.

I agree.

Pride goeth before the fall.

Getting Ready for the Big Show

So…here we are…the day when the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and Republican Candidate Mitt Romney square off in their first National Debate.

Channel 9 News reports

The presidential candidates are leaving the heavy lifting of campaigning to their running mates as they spend one more day preparing for their first debate, scheduled for Wednesday night.

President Barack Obama is in Henderson, Nev., for a strategy run-through ahead of the debate in Denver. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is set to spend most of Tuesday in debate prep at a Denver hotel.

He told supporters at a rally Monday night that he would get America working again.

In Iowa, Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, is set to visit three towns during a bus tour.

The Wisconsin congressman will be in Clinton, Muscatine and Burlington on Tuesday. Vice President Joe Biden has two campaign events scheduled in another swing state, North Carolina. He’ll be in Charlotte and Asheville.

This debate could, if you believe the polls, actually make a difference in the outcome of the election.

According to NationalJournal.com, Obama and Romney are in a dead heat:

President Obama and Mitt Romney are deadlocked among likely voters as they prepare to square off in their first presidential debate, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll.

The survey showed that voters remain resistant to either Obama or Romney holding full control of the federal government.

Obama and Romney each pulled in 47 percent support in the poll among likely voters. It is among the narrowest margins of several presidential surveys published ahead of the debate this week. Other polls have shown the president with a slim lead. In this survey, while the race is tied among likely voters, Obama has a 5-point lead, 49 percent to 44 percent, among registered voters.

The survey was conducted Sept. 27-30 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Romney led in the poll among independents, 49 percent to 41 percent, with both candidates winning more than 90 percent support from their respective parties. The survey had Obama winning 81 percent of the nonwhite vote and Romney carrying 55 percent of white voters.

In estimating the turnout on Nov. 6, the poll projects an electorate that is 74 percent white, 11 percent African-American, and 8 percent Latino. The likely-voter party splits are 36 percent Democratic, 29 percent Republican, and 30 percent independent.

The estimates are similar to the 2008 turnout, when, according to CNN exit polling, 74 percent of voters were white, 13 percent black, and 9 percent Latino, with Democratic turnout at 39 percent, Republicans at 32 percent, and independents at 29 percent.

Of course, that was before Tucker Carlson and The Daily Caller aired an Obama video, circa 2007, on Hannity last night. What was so special about the video, is that Obama had a Hillary “no ways tard” (tired) moment, affecting a homeboy attitude and dialect that would make the Rapper “Fifty Cents” proud.

Per FoxNews.com:

In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country’s leaders “don’t care about” New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to a video uncovered by The Daily Caller.

In the address, delivered during the upswing of the Democratic presidential primary season, candidate Obama specifically criticizes in outspoken terms the decision not to waive a federal law known as the Stafford Act that requires communities hit by disasters to match 10 percent of federal aid.

“When 9/11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act. … And that was the right thing to do,” he tells the crowd at Hampton University in Virginia. “When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with your own money. Here, here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not going wait for you to scratch it together, because you’re part of the American family.’ “

Obama, echoing rapper Kanye West’s infamous anti-Bush remarks a couple years earlier, then argues that New Orleans was treated differently, suggesting the reason was that the city is mostly black.

“What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama says. “Makes no sense. … Tells me that somehow the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much.”

The speech was reported on at the time, but the Daily Caller said it had obtained clips from the speech that had never aired. It posted what it said was the complete speech on the website.

FoxNews.com asked the Obama campaign to comment on the the Daily Caller report and the video but has yet to receive a response.

By January 2007, nearly a year and a half after Hurricane Katrina hit, the federal government had committed $110 billion to relief efforts in areas hit by Katrina through a variety of programs, including Community Development Block Grants, funding for the Corps of Engineers and Small Business Administration loans, according to a report that May by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic and Statistics Administration.

But at the time of Obama’s speech, there were still concerns about federal response to the disaster under the Stafford Act, which governs relief efforts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency was unwilling to waive the law’s 10 percent local match provision for aid, like it did after the Sept. 11 attacks and other hurricanes.

“One reason cited for FEMA’s reluctance to waive the 10 percent match in New Orleans is concern about corruption,” the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies said in a 2008 report on the relief efforts.

That report also noted that then-Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco was pushing in early 2007 for a federal law eliminating the 10 percent match. The House passed the bill, but it stalled in the Senate and President Bush had threatened to veto it.

The video of Obama’s 2007 speech, surfacing barely a month before the presidential election and the night before Obama’s first debate with Republican rival Mitt Romney, could complicate Obama’s efforts to avoid a politically risky debate over race that partly ensnared him during the 2008 race. Four years ago, his fiery pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, became a political liability over videos that showed Wright making controversial statements.

Obama, after initially defending him, eventually was forced to condemn Wright publicly, and the controversy prompted Obama to deliver his much-heralded 2008 address on race in Philadelphia.

Wright reportedly attended the 2007 speech, and in the video obtained by the Daily Caller, Obama is heard calling Wright “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”

The Daily Caller also highlighted a segment in which Obama questions federal priorities in transportation spending.

“We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest-need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs. If we have people in the cities right now who want to work but have no way to get into those jobs, we’ve got to help connect them to the jobs that exist,” Obama said. “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”

Yeah, I know. Big surprise: Obama’s a Black guy.

The only problem is:

He’s supposed to be the President of all Americans. In fact, he’s supposed to be our biggest cheerleader…not our biggest critic.

The President of the United States is supposed to pick us up.

Not put us down.

Obama: More Debt, More Taxes

If Americans allow Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) to have a second term, he has big plans.

Judging from his last four years, all of his plans require a lot of money.

Our money.

Per cnsnews.com:

According to the U.S. Treasury, the debt of the U.S. government climbed by a total of $1,275,901,078,828.74 in fiscal 2012, which ended yesterday.

That means the federal government borrowed approximately an additional $10,855 for each household in the United States just over the past twelve months.

The total debt of the United States now equals approximately $136,690 per household.

In fiscal 2011, the debt increased by about $10,454 per household–$401 less than the $10,855 per household increase of 2012.

The $1.2758 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2012 was about $47.18 billion more than the $1.2287 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2011.

The federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30.

At the close of business on Sept. 30, 2011, the total debt of the U.S. government was $14,790,340,328,557.15, according to the Treasury. At the close of business on Sept. 28, the last business day of fiscal 2012, it was $16,066,241,407,385.89

That meant the debt increased in fiscal 2012 by $1,275,901,078,828.74.

At the close of business on Sept. 30, 2010, the debt had stood at $13,561,623,030,891.79. Over the course of fiscal 2011, it increased by $1,228,717,297,665.36 before closing at 14,790,340,328,557.15 on Sept. 30, 2011.

The fiscal 2012 increase of $1,275,901,078,828.74 exceeded the fiscal 2011 increase $1,228,717,297,665.36 by $47,183,781,163.38

The Census Bureau estimated that there were 117,538,000 household in the United States in 2010. The $1,275,901,078,828.74 that the debt increased in fiscal 2012 equaled about $10,855 for each one of those 117,538,000 households.

Here is how much the debt has increased in each of the last six fiscal years:

Fiscal 2007: $500,679,473,047.25

Fiscal 2008: $1,017,071,524,650.01

Fiscal 2009: $1,885,104,106,599.26

Fiscal 2010: $1,651,794,027,380.04

Fiscal 2011: $1,228,717,297,665.36

Fiscal 2012: $1,275,901,078,828.74.

So, how does America crawl out of this financial abyss?

Will Obama pledge to be a better steward of our money, and, actually, finally be fiscally responsible?

Does Toure write Polka Music?

Don’t worry, boys and girls. Obama has a plan. He’s simply going to tax the stew out of us.

A typical middle-income family making $40,000 to $64,000 a year could see its taxes go up by $2,000 next year if lawmakers fail to renew a lengthy roster of tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, according to a new report Monday

Taxpayers across the income spectrum would be hit with large tax hikes, the Tax Policy Center said in its study, with households in the top 1 percent income range seeing an average tax increase of more than $120,000, while a family making between $110,000 to $140,000 could see a tax hike in the $6,000 range.

Taxpayers across the income spectrum will get slammed with increases totaling more than $500 billion – a more than 20 percent increase – with nine out of 10 households being affected by the expiration of tax cuts enacted under both President Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The expiring provisions include Bush-era cuts on wage and investment income and cuts for married couples and families with children, among others. Also expiring is a 2 percentage point temporary payroll tax cut championed by Obama.

The looming expiration of the large roster of tax cuts is one of the issues confronting voters in November, with the chief difference between Obama and GOP candidate Mitt Romney being the tax treatment of wealthier earners. Obama is calling for permitting rates on individual income exceeding $200,000 and family incoming over $250,000 to go back to Clinton-era rates of as much as 39.6 percent.

Both candidates call for rewriting the tax code next year, but any such effort promises to be difficult and could take considerable time.

Monday’s study, by the independent Tax Policy Center, deals with the immediate increases set to slap taxpayers in January under the existing framework of the tax code.

Few are talking of renewing Obama’s payroll tax cut, even though that would mean a healthy tax increase for many working people. Working families with modest incomes would be hit hard as the child tax credit would shrink from a maximum of $1,000 per child to $500.

As a result, a married couple earning $50,000 with three dependent children that currently receives an almost $1,500 income tax refund largely due to the child tax credit would see their fortunes reversed by more than $3,000 next year and pay more than $1,500 in income taxes while seeing their payroll taxes go up by $1,000 if the full menu of tax cuts expire.

“It’s just a huge, huge number,” said Eric Toder, one of the authors of the study.

Economists warn that the looming tax hikes, combined with $109 billion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in January, could throw the fragile economy back into recession if Washington doesn’t act. The automatic spending cuts are coming due because of the failure of last year’s deficit “supercommittee” to strike a bargain. The combination of the sharp tax hikes and spending cuts has been dubbed a “fiscal cliff.”

“The fiscal cliff threatens an unprecedented tax increase at year end,” says the report. “Taxes would rise by more than $500 billion in 2013 – an average of almost $3,500 per household – as almost every tax cuts enacted since 2001 would expire.”

The Greatest President of our Generation, Ronald Wilson Reagan once said:

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Ronaldus Magnus was a prophet.

The Obama Administration, quite frankly, for all of his platitudes, does not  care that average Americans are having trouble paying their bills. As we say in Dixie,

It don’t bother him none. He’s got his.

In fact. he and Moochelle are worth $11 million!

He would rather everyone turned to Uncle Sugar in their time of need, instead of pulling themselves up by their boot straps, bucking up, and carrying on, with help from their family, friends, and neighbors.

There are several catch phrases that we’ve learned during these last few years such as  “social justice” and “spread the wealth around”.

However, one phrase has been missing from Obama’s vocabulary:

American Exceptionalism.

He doesn’t believe in it…or us.

We’ll make believers out of him on November 6th.

The Liberal Pundits’ Poll Propaganda Campaign

The Main Stream Media, and all the Liberal Pundits, both paid and unpaid, have been all over the Internet in the last couple of weeks, trying feverishly to discourage Americans from voting for Mitt Romney on November 6th, 2012, by bombarding us with one skewed poll after another.

We’ve seen this tactic before.

From Time Magazine, 9/15/1980, courtesy of cnn.com:

The latest public opinion poll conducted for TIME by Yankelovich, Skelly and White discloses just how close the race is once again. Carter and Reagan are deadlocked at 39% each, while Anderson’s support is 15% — precisely the level set by the League of Women Voters for him to qualify as a “viable” candidate and therefore earn a third spot in its crucial opening debate, set tentatively for Sept. 21 in Baltimore. Carter, who insists on meeting Reagan first without Anderson, still threatened last week not to appear if the Congressman was included. The league’s directs were to meet this week to examine the range of recent poll results and decide whether or not to invite Anderson.

For so early in the campaign, a surprisingly low 7% of registered voters claim to be undecided about whom they now favor. (The study was based on a national sample of 1,644 registered voters interviewed between Aug. 26 and 28. The sampling error is thus plus or minus 3% and 4.5% when comparing present trend readings with previous TIME studies.) Still, the survey discloses just how shaky those current preferences are. Fully 55% say they are not “personally interested or excited about” any of the candidates. Only 11% report genuine enthusiasm for Reagan; a mere 9% feel that way about Carter and 6% about Anderson. In fact, much of the support given their preferred candidates is based on voters’ opposition to the others, the choices are essentially anti votes. Thus 43% of the voters who prefer Reagan say they do so because they are “really voting against Carter.” Similarly, 34% of Carter’s supporters say their choice is based on opposition to Reagan, while a hefty 61% of Anderson’s followers admit that they are motivated by being “against Carter and Reagan.”

Though Carter and Reagan are even up in the race, the poll discloses areas of serious slippage for Reagan in important areas. For one thing, 59% of those preferring Carter claim they do so out of a positive feeling for him: they like his “experience,” and consider him “safer” in foreign affairs. Only 48% of Reagan’s followers feel a similar sense of confidence in their choice’s ability to get things done and to answer the need for a change. At the same time, Reagan’s rating on abilities regarded as important by voters has declined. In TIME’s last survey in May, 49% of those sampled agreed that Reagan was a leader “you can trust,” while 42% believe that now. Reagan was then considered “acceptable” as a President by 64%; the current figure is 54%. Voter confidence in Reagan’s ability to handle the economy has dropped from an impressive 75% to 66%, and his perceived competency in foreign affairs has slipped from 72% to 63%.

And, now, once again, we are being told that “it’s a tight race”.

Per RasmussenReports.com:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows President Obama attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

n Reports tracking showed Obama leading John McCain by a 51% to 45% margin. The numbers barely budged for the rest of the campaign season as Obama enjoyed a comfortable lead and stayed between 50% and 52% every day for the last 40 days.

When “leaners” are included, it’s now Obama 49%, Romney 47%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question. Today is the last day that results will be reported without leaners. Beginning tomorrow, Rasmussen Reports will be basing its daily public updates solely upon the results including leaners. Platinum Members will be still be able to see the more detailed numbers along with demographic breakdowns, and additional information from the tracking poll on a daily basis.

Currently, 43% of voters are “certain” they will vote for Romney. Forty-two percent (42%) are that certain they will vote for Obama. The remaining 15% are either uncommitted or open to changing their mind. To many Americans, especially partisan activists, it is hard to imagine how someone could be anything but certain at this point in time. One of the distinguishing features of these potentially persuadable voters is that they don’t see the choice between Romney and Obama as terribly significant. In terms of impacting their own life, just 28% say it will be Very Important which man wins.

There is particular pessimism among these persuadable voters about the economy. Only 14% think it will get better if the president is reelected. But just 28% believe it will improve with a Romney victory.

Allow me to point out a few things.

1.  These polls are telephone based. How many Americans still have land lines as their personal telephone number?

2. Look around the parking lot at work, the grocery store, or where ever you go during the day. How many Obama/Biden bumper stickers do you see? How many Obama/Biden yard signs do you see?

3. Talk to your friends at work, school, or lunch after church. How many voluntarily admit that they are going to vote for Obama?

4.  Per Gallup.com, as of 1/12/12, 40% of Americans continue to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

Liberals remain the minority political ideology in America. They are just loud.

5.  Again, per Gallup.com, as of 12/23/2011, 78% of American adults identify with some form of the Christian religion in 2011. Less than 2% are Jewish, less than 1% are Muslim, and 15% do not have a religious affiliation.

Christianity is not just a Sunday-only Faith. Christians vote.

The point is, the Liberal desperation over trying to determine the outcome of November 6th is palpable. You can smell their fear…and they will do anything…I mean, anything, to maintain political power.

Unfortunately for them, Americans have more ways of keeping up with the news in 2012, than we did in 1980.

Like this Blog, for instance.

Free Speech: The Right of All Americans

Recently, we have all been witness to a disturbing trend going on in the Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth: a not-so subtle war on Free Speech.

The scary thing is, it is not some foreign power going to war with us. It is our OWN GOVERNMENT!

We’ve seen two examples of this, this past week:

First, the producer of a youtube.com video, which no one has seen, and yet, was used by the Obama Administration as a scapegoat to excuse Muslim Extremist violence in the Middle East, was brought in for questioning by the Los Angeles police, and now faces charges for a “violation of parole” for posting the video.

Then, a Liberal Pundit from the seldom-watched cable news channel, MSNBC, took it upon herself to rip up a New York Subway Advertisement, which was anti-Muslim. Evidently, the MTA endorses her actions, because, next thing you know, they banned the advertisments under one of their rules, which states:

The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.

Let’s review the First Amendment, shall we?

The First Amendment (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The following are quotes by famous Americans about this American Right:

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

George Washington

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.

Mark Twain

I live in America. I have the right to write whatever I want. And it’s equaled by another right just as powerful: the right not to read it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people.

Brad Thor

I begin to feel like most Americans don’t understand the First Amendment, don’t understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don’t understand that it’s the responsibility of the citizen to speak out.

Roger Ebert

We don’t have an Official Secrets Act in the United States, as other countries do. Under the First Amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are more important than protecting secrets.

Alan Dershowitz

Freedom of speech is always under attack by Fascist mentality, which exists in all parts of the world, unfortunately.

Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Hans Bader at OpenMarket.org, wrote the following, concerning this situation:

This idea that you can ban speech because people react violently to it is at odds with Supreme Court rulings and basic First Amendment axioms. The Supreme Court has rejected this so-called “heckler’s veto” in cases like Terminiello v. Chicago (1949). In that decision, the Supreme Curt ruled that the First Amendment protected unsavory, anti-semitic speech that enraged an “angry and turbulent” crowd. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that speech can be banned to prevent unrest, declaring that “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.”

Banning speech because someone reacts violently to it sets a terrible precedent. It gives the most violent or angry members of society a veto over free speech and what issues are discussed. It is always possible to blame the victim of violence for inciting aggression by an angry person through expression of views that offended that person. (For example, when a security guard working for a conservative group was shot by a critic of the group, some people blamed the group’s rhetoric for supposedly creating a “climate of hate” that led the outraged shooter to react by attacking it, and said it must “share” the “blame” for the “growth of” such “violent acts.”)

…Banning speech because it offends violent people will backfire and lead to more violence in the future by emboldening, rewarding, and conditioning them.

As I’ve written before, my father was a Master Sergeant with an Army Engineering Unit in World War II.  He was one of our Brightest and Best, who waded onto Normandy Beach on D-Day, in a hail of gunfire.

He also led me to Christ, through his leading of the singing of hymns in his 150 person Sunday School Class, his powerful, loving witness in his daily life, and “instructing me in the way I should go”.

Regardless of the wishes of forces, both seen and unseen, who would restrict our rights as Americans to state our opinion, and to stand for Traditional American Values at this important moment in our country’s history, I will be here, doing just that, as is my God-given right as an American.

And, I will exercise my right to vote on November 6th, 2012.

God Bless America.