The Obamas…Still Community Organizing

In 2008, all the Liberal Pundits were marveling over the “ground game” of the Obama Campaign, and their success in “getting out” the vote.

Four years later, the Obamas are still Community Organizing…as hard as they can:

During a campaign stop for her husband in Miami, Fla., on Tuesday, first lady Michelle Obama urged grassroots volunteers to find unregistered voters and “shake ’em,” reminding them that President Obama has predicted this election “will be even closer than the last one.” Obama also told voters to “multiply” themselves to help get the president reelected.

“He needs you to keep making those calls, doing that hard work. Knocking on those doors. Treacherous work, right? Tiring work. He needs you to keep registering those voters. You know, the ones, you know, that aren’t registered and you gotta get ’em and shake ’em. Find them, get them registered,” Michelle Obama said at the campaign event.

“And even more important, he needs you to multiply yourselves,” Obama said to supporters. “Think about it like that. Multiply yourselves. Reach out to everybody you know. Your friends, family, neighbors and tell them to go to barackobama.com — find out how they can roll up their sleeves and get involved.”

“And let me just say that if anyone in here has any doubt about the difference that you can make, I just want you to remember that in the end this election could all come down to those last few thousand people that we registered to vote. Think about it like that,” Obama said.

Of course, the Obamas cut their teeth in Community Organizing:

In the summer of 1988, while still at Harvard, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) landed a job as an intern in the Chicago office of the influential law firm of Sidley Austin. ( How does a first-year law student get an internship at such a prestigious law firm?) He was dating Michelle Robinson, a young lawyer from a working-class family in the South Shore area of the South Side. She also just happened to be his mentor at the firm. The lovebirds got married in 1990, and settled in the Hyde Park neighborhood on the South Side along the lakefront. Built around the University of Chicago, both black and white affluent families lived among the middle class and the poor. Hyde Park boasts a strong base of independent voters who are committed to political reform, which influenced Obama’s political message.

He worked for seven months in 1992 on a voter registration and education project that helped elect Bill Clinton as president and Carol Moseley Braun as the state’s first African-American female senator.

You may have heard of it: Project Vote. In 2008, Project Vote and ACORN were responsible for a voter registration drive targeting battleground states Obama needed to win the White House.

Though officially non-partisan, the ACORN/Project Vote voter drive focused on groups that they thought would vote Democratic in the presidential contest: African-American, young, Latino and low-income earners. They referred to these groups as “historically underrepresented in elections” in a press release they issued, in an attempt to justify what they were doing.

ACORN/Project Vote operated voter registration drives in 21 states in 2008; including the battlegrounds Colorado, Florida, Michigan (since move to Obama) Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They were very instrumental in Obama’s victory.

The good news is, that, at least as a national organization, ACORN has shut its doors:

On November 2, 2010, Bertha Lewis announced that ACORN had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. In a statement posted on the group’s website, Lewis claimed that ACORN, because of its own “highly effective strategies,” had been unfairly targeted for a “political onslaught” and a “barrage of unmitigated accusations” by its “right-wing” foes.

In 2010, at least 15 former ACORN employees were convicted of voter fraud-related activities.

In August 2011, the former ACORN, having previously pleaded guilty to unlawfully paying cash bonuses to voter-registration canvassers who managed to meet their quotas, was convicted of felony voter fraud. This marked the first time that ACORN itself, as opposed to its individual workers, had been convicted of a crime. The court fined ACORN $5,000, the maximum allowed under state law. At the sentencing hearing, Las Vegas Judge Donald Mosley said:

“It is making a mockery of our election process. If I had an individual in this courtroom … who was responsible for this kind of thing, I would put that person in prison for 10 years, hard time, and not think twice about it…. This is the kind of thing you see in some banana republic, Uruguay or someplace, not in the United States.”

While ACORN as a national entity officially disbanded in 2010 after 40 years of activism, its aforementioned offshoot organizations continued, undeterred, to pursue ACORN’s traditional agendas.

In July 2012, however, it was reported that the Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA) — formerly known as ACORN Housing — had vacated its Chicago premises and ceased operations due to bankruptcy.

However, ever though ACORN has gone bye-bye, all those Democratically-controlled Foundations that funded it are still around…and you can bet your bottom dollar that they are going to do whatever it takes to overcome the will of the American people and put the Manchurian President back on the Throne of the Regime.

Romney: Slipping in the Swing States

Before I begin the subject of today’s post, let me re-iterate:  on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012, I am going to hold my nose and pull the voting lever for the Massachusetts Moderate, Mitt Romney, because I have no other legitimate choice.

Evidently, a lot of Americans aren’t as sure about their vote as I am.

USA Today reports that ol’ Mittens is having some trouble convincing folks in the Swing States:

In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of swing states, an overwhelming majority of voters remember seeing campaign ads over the past month; most voters in other states say they haven’t. In the battlegrounds, one in 12 say the commercials have changed their minds about President Obama or Republican Mitt Romney — a difference on the margins, but one that could prove crucial in a close race.

At this point, Obama is the clear winner in the ad wars. Among swing-state voters who say the ads have changed their minds about a candidate, rather than just confirmed what they already thought, 76% now support the president, vs. 16% favoring Romney.

“We gave them new information,” says Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. “Romney had been out there claiming success as governor,” but Democratic ads have prompted voters to “take a look at his record” on job creation and as head of the private-equity firm Bain Capital. Messina also credits a $25 million buy for a positive ad “about the challenges the president inherited and what we had to do to move this country forward.”

To be sure, Obama’s ads have done more to win back Democrats than to win over independents or Republicans: Thirteen percent of Democrats say their minds have been changed by ads, compared with 9% of independents and 3% of Republicans.

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse calls the findings unsurprising. “It is expected to find that more voters say their views have changed about Mitt Romney; they simply don’t know him all that well,” he says. “On the other hand, there are few voters who are going to say their views have changed about President Obama. They know him pretty damned well.”

Obama and his allies have outspent Romney’s side on ads so far by almost a third. Although the TV spots didn’t start earlier than in recent elections, there have been more than ever before — including a negative flood from the new breed of super PACs — and they are continuing without the traditional summertime letup.

On July 3rd, thehill.com reported that

Mitt Romney has a sizeable lead in 15 battleground states, according to a CNN/ORC poll released late Monday.

The Republican candidate leads President Obama 51 percent to 43 in 15 states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the 2012 election.

Obama won 12 of these battleground states in 2008 — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin — and will need to keep about half of those in 2012 if he’s to secure reelection. The poll also included Missouri, Indiana and Arizona as battleground states.

Why is Scooter gaining ground on Mittens in these key states?

Last Thursday, after Romney aide, Eric Fehrnstrohm, earlier in the week, put both feet in his over-sized mouth, by stating that the Romney Campaign agreed with the Administration that Obamacare was not a tax, The Wall Street Journal posted the following:

The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it’s Mr. Obama’s fault. We’re on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that “Obama isn’t working.” Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President’s policies aren’t working and how Mr. Romney’s policies will do better.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is assailing Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch rich man, and the rich man obliged by vacationing this week at his lake-side home with a jet-ski cameo. Team Obama is pounding him for Bain Capital, and until a recent ad in Ohio the Romney campaign has been slow to respond.

Team Obama is now opening up a new assault on Mr. Romney as a job outsourcer with foreign bank accounts, and if the Boston boys let that one go unanswered, they ought to be fired for malpractice.

All of these attacks were predictable, in particular because they go to the heart of Mr. Romney’s main campaign theme—that he can create jobs as President because he is a successful businessman and manager. But candidates who live by biography typically lose by it. See President John Kerry.

The biography that voters care about is their own, and they want to know how a candidate is going to improve their future. That means offering a larger economic narrative and vision than Mr. Romney has so far provided. It means pointing out the differences with specificity on higher taxes, government-run health care, punitive regulation, and the waste of politically-driven government spending.

Mr. Romney promised Republicans he was the best man to make the case against President Obama, whom they desperately want to defeat. So far Mr. Romney is letting them down.

The FACT is:  this country is looking for a leader, a man of conviction.

Governor Romney hasn’t told us yet what he stands for…and it does not help his poll numbers that, from week to week, his convictions seem to change.

Americans want another Reagan.  Unfortunately, right now, Romney seems to be acting more like Clinton.

Carter Slams Obama…Pot Meet Kettle

Are you old enough to remember the Carter Presidency?

Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis? I sure do.

I was a Radio News Director in college and I spent over one hundred days pronouncing the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s name over and over again.

For those who don’t remember, time to travel on the Wayback Machine, Sherman!

By the 1970s, many Iranians were fed up with the Shah’s government. In protest, they turned to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a radical cleric whose revolutionary Islamist movement seemed to promise a break from the past and a turn toward greater autonomy for the Iranian people. In July 1979, the revolutionaries forced the Shah to disband his government and flee to Egypt. The Ayatollah installed a militant Islamist government in its place.

The United States, fearful of stirring up hostilities in the Middle East, did not come to the defense of its old ally. (For one thing, President Carter, aware of the Shah’s terrible record in that department, was reluctant to defend him.) However, in October 1979 President Carter agreed to allow the exiled leader to enter the U.S. for treatment of an advanced malignant lymphoma. His decision was humanitarian, not political; nevertheless, as one American later noted, it was like throwing “a burning branch into a bucket of kerosene.” Anti-American sentiment in Iran exploded.

On November 4, just after the Shah arrived in New York, a group of pro-Ayatollah students smashed the gates and scaled the walls of the American embassy in Tehran. Once inside, they seized 66 hostages, mostly diplomats and embassy employees. After a short period of time, 13 of these hostages were released. (For the most part, these 13 were women, African-Americans and citizens of countries other than the U.S.–people who, Khomeini argued, were already subject to “the oppression of American society.”) Some time later, a 14th hostage developed health problems and was likewise sent home. By midsummer 1980, 52 hostages remained in the embassy compound.

Diplomatic maneuvers had no discernible effect on the Ayatollah’s anti-American stance; neither did economic sanctions such as the seizure of Iranian assets in the United States. Meanwhile, while the hostages were never seriously injured, they were subjected to a rich variety of demeaning and terrifying treatment. They were blindfolded and paraded in front of TV cameras and jeering crowds. They were not allowed to speak or read, and they were rarely permitted to change clothes. Throughout the crisis there was a frightening uncertainty about their fate: The hostages never knew whether they were going to be tortured, murdered or set free.

The Iran Hostage Crisis: Operation Eagle Claw

President Carter’s efforts to bring an end to the hostage crisis soon became one of his foremost priorities. In April 1980, frustrated with the slow pace of diplomacy (and over the objections of several of his advisers), Carter decided to launch a risky military rescue mission known as Operation Eagle Claw. The operation was supposed to send an elite rescue team into the embassy compound. However, a severe desert sandstorm on the day of the mission caused several helicopters to malfunction, including one that veered into a large transport plane during takeoff. Eight American servicemen were killed in the accident, and Operation Eagle Claw was aborted.

Of course, we all know what happened next:  the greatest president of our generation, Ronald Reagan, succeeded where Carter failed…in all sorts of ways.

Back to the present…

The president who was formerly considered the most inept ever, has fallen out of love with the man who usurped his title.

Former president Jimmy Carter has blasted the United States for anti-terror strategies such as targeting individuals for assassination and using unmanned drones to bomb suspected targets, saying they directly flout the basic tenets of universal human rights and foment anti-US sentiment.

In an article written for the New York Times headlined “A Cruel and Unusual Record”, Mr Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his work trying to resolve conflicts around the globe, suggested that the US is in violation of 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a rare attack by a former commander-in-chief on a sitting President – especially of the same party.

While Mr Carter does not name President Obama, there is little disguising that he is the principle target of his stinging words. Recent weeks have seen a slew of media reports detailing how Mr Obama has grown increasingly dependent on drones to take out suspected terror cells and describing how he has the final word to approve names on a “hit-list” of most-wanted terror suspects overseas for assassination. “Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended,” Mr Carter wrote, concluding that the US is “abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights”.

In the past, Mr Carter, 87, has meted out similar criticisms, most notably George W Bush. This latest assault is embarrassing for Mr Obama as it will serve as a reminder that he specifically pledged to adjust America’s posture in the war on terror. He began by banning interrogation techniques he considered to be torture, such as water-boarding, and by closing down Guantanamo Bay. On the latter, of course, he has failed to deliver.

It is poignant, moreover, that both men are Peace Prize winners. Critics believe Mr Obama has proved himself unworthy of the honour which he received soon after taking office. His supporters believe however that he has pre-empted criticism of his foreign policy performance. Under his watch, Osama bin Laden has been killed and much of the top echelons of al-Qa’ida have been gutted.

Yeah…Scooter hit him with his 5-Iron.

Hopefully, after January 21, 2013, Scooter will have plenty of time to work on his golf game.

Class Warfare Being Turned Into Race Warfare?

On August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, said the following while delivering a very famous speech at the base of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Unfortunately, sir…we aren’t there , yet.

“Romney is very, very comfortable, it seems with people who are like him,” Politico’s Joe Williams said on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir program today. “That’s one of the reasons why he seems so stiff and awkward in some town hall settings, why he can’t relate to people other than that. But when he comes on “Fox & Friends,” they’re like him, they’re white folks who are very much relaxed in their own company. So it really is a very stark contrast, I think and a problem that he’s not been able to solve to date and he’s going to have network harder if he’s going to try to compete.”

And evidently, it’s not just Mitt Romney that’s a bigoted silver-spoon sucker.  It’s all of us “crackas”.

The University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD) is now sponsoring an ad-campaign designed to achieve “racial justice” by raising awareness of “white privilege.”

The project disseminates its message, that “society was setup for us [whites]” and as such is “unfair,” through an aggressive campaign of online videos, billboards, and lectures. The ads feature a number of Caucasians confessing their guilt for the supposed “privilege” that comes along with their fair features.

The self-titled Un-Fair Campaign, is sponsored and supported by the University of Minnesota – Duluth, along with several liberal organizations including the NAACP, YWCA, and The League of Woman Voters.

“You give me better jobs, better pay, better treatment, and a better chance – all because of the color of my skin,” reads one poster that features a close shot of a Caucasian male.

The Un-Fair campaign also held a series of lectures and events on campus last semester. One included a presentation by Tim Wise, author of Dear White America. In his book, Wise confesses a “longstanding fantasy” where he turns to a man with a “God Bless the USA” button and asks him, “why can’t you just get over it?”

These lectures were publicly endorsed by university Chancellor Lendley Black. Black sent a message to the campus community in April describing his effort to “create an inclusive campus climate for all” through providing “support and… leadership to the Un-Fair Campaign.”

FLASHBACK: UMD Administrator Calls Conservative “White Supremacist” for Giving Away Free Pocket Constitutions

Documents obtained exclusively by Campus Reform this week, through a public records request, however, show that students on campus have expressed outrage over the administration’s support of the racially-charged campaign.

One student, whose identity was redacted in the documents released by UMD, e-mailed Chancellor Black expressing his discontent, writing that the Un-fair campaign “is in fact UNFAIR.”

The student proceeded to write: “It may be drawing awareness to factors that we might otherwise not pay attention to, but it’s creating a gap between people. It’s only making people more racist on both sides.”

LI’s Campus Reform contacted the school seeking further comment, but was unable to reach a spokesperson for comment by the time of publication.

On April 25th of this year, wsj.com ran the following article:

After securing victory in all five Republican presidential primary contests last night, Mitt Romney told an audience in New Hampshire that President Obama is resorting to class warfare because he can’t run on his record.

Last week, Mr. Obama told an audience that “I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth,” a clear swipe at the privileged background of Mr. Romney. And yesterday the president told a group of college students that student loan debt “is something Michelle and I know about firsthand . . .. [W]e’ve been in your shoes. Like I said, we didn’t come from wealthy families.”

In his speech last night, Mr. Romney pushed back. “You might have heard that I was successful in business, and that rumor is true,” he quipped and then went on to defend his background in private equity. But the real issue in this campaign, he added, is what do we have to show for three-and-a-half years of President Obama.

“Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?” asked Mr. Romney. “If the answer were ‘yes’ to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements, and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions.”

Ol’ Mitt sure called that one, didn’t he?

Given the failure of the OWS movement, could this be a new tactic to distract from Obama’s miserable record?

You betcha.

The Holder Contempt Charges: All This for a Flag

Today was an extraordinary day.  It was unprecedented…and unsavory.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) issued the following statement after the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee approved a resolution holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents related to the Fast & Furious operation:

“Despite being given multiple opportunities to provide the documents necessary for Congress’ investigation into Fast and Furious, Attorney General Holder continues to stonewall. Today, the Administration took the extraordinary step of exerting executive privilege over documents that the Attorney General had already agreed to provide to Congress. Fast and Furious was a reckless operation that led to the death of an American border agent, and the American people deserve to know the facts to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. While we had hoped it would not come to this, unless the Attorney General reevaluates his choice and supplies the promised documents, the House will vote to hold him in contempt next week. If, however, Attorney General Holder produces these documents prior to the scheduled vote, we will give the Oversight Committee an opportunity to review in hopes of resolving this issue.”

The Fast and Furious Fiasco reminds me of some other unsavory business by the Executive Branch:

On 17th June 1972, 5 men were arrested for breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Initially, it was assumed that it was just a simple burglary that went wrong. However, when investigations started, it was found out that the men had entered the office to repair bugs that they had installed into the office nearly a week earlier.

On further investigations, it was found out that the so-called burglars were some how connected to the White House and were given the task to spy on the Democrats. One of the “burglars” arrested was named Jim McCord Jr. He was the security officer for Richard Nixon’s Committee to Reelect the President. Even a diary was found which had the contact number of E Howard Hunt, who was an intelligence agent and a member of the White House plumbers, which was a secret team of agents working at the behest of the White House. The investigators went on to figure out that the E Howard Hunt along G Gordon Liddy were the brains behind the first break in. Soon it was found that there were many agents responsible for spying on the Democrats. A check meant for Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign was traced to the bank account of one of the burglars. This led the investigators to conclude that the campaign funds were being used to fund these illegal activities. However, even at this stage, it did not stop Richard Nixon, a Republican, to win the US president election.

James McCord sent a letter to the trial judge naming other people who were part of this conspiracy. With more and more evidence being unearthed, it was soon clear that Richard Nixon was personally involved in the scandal along with several members from his administration. It was also discovered that many of the conversations regarding the conspiracy took place in the Oval Office and these conversations were taped. Initially, Nixon denied the presence of the tapes, but due to US Supreme Court order, he was forced to hand over the tapes containing the damning conversations. However, some important conversations from these tapes were missing.

The US Congress was forced to begin the process of impeachment against Richard Nixon. However, before the culmination of the process, Nixon resigned on 9th August 1974. While Nixon himself did not serve any prison time, many of his aides were found guilty by the Grand Jury.

There is a major difference, however, between the two.  200-300 Mexican nationals and two members of United States Law Enforcement were killed during Fast and Furious.  No one died as a result of Watergate.

There is more at stake here than a political dirty trick.

To clarify, let’s go back to 9/13/11, 2 days after America solemnly remembered the 10th anniversary of the worst attack ever on American soil by Islamic Terrorists.  James Robbins wrote the following story for The Washington Times, in which he illuminated a whispered conversation between the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and First Lady, Michelle Obama:

The internet was buzzing this week with video of First Lady Michelle Obama apparently showing extreme disrespect to the American flag at a ceremony in honor of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. As police and firefighters fold the flag to the sound of marching bagpipers, a skeptical looking Mrs. Obama leans to her husband and appears to say, “all this just for a flag.” She then purses her lips and shakes her head slightly as Mr. Obama nods.

Yes.  All this for a flag.  And, for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in its service.

Israel Prepares for Their New Rowdy Neighbors

Even if United States President Barack Hussein Obama sees nothing wrong with the current events in Egypt, our greatest ally, Israel, doesn’t particularly care for the goings-on at the neighbor’s house…especially, when they come over uninvited:

Militants crossed from Egypt’s turbulent Sinai Peninsula into southern Israel on Monday and opened fire on civilians building a border security fence, defense officials said. One of the Israeli workers was killed, and two assailants died in a gunbattle with Israeli troops responding to the attack.

No group claimed responsibility for the attack, which underscored the growing lawlessness in the Sinai desert since longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was toppled by a popular uprising last year.

Military spokeswoman Lt. Col Avital Leibovich said the assailants have not been identified but acknowledged that defense officials suspected Palestinian militants in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, which also borders the Sinai desert in that same area, might have been involved.

Several hours after the attack, an Israeli airstrike killed two men riding a motorcycle in the northern Gaza Strip near the Israeli border. The Islamic Jihad militant group said the men were members on a “reconnaissance” mission and vowed revenge. Military officials said the incident was not connected to the earlier infiltration from Egypt.

Israeli security officials have grown increasingly anxious about the security situation in the Sinai since Mubarak’s ouster. Continued political turmoil in Egypt, weak policing in the Sinai and tough terrain have all encouraged Islamic militant activity in the area. The mountainous desert now harbors an array of militant groups, including Palestinian extremists and al-Qaida-inspired jihadists, Egyptian and Israeli security officials say. The tumultuous situation surrounding Egyptian elections, in which Islamic groups made a strong showing, has added to Israeli unease.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio that there has been “a worrisome deterioration of Egyptian control” over the Sinai. Barak said he expected the winner of this week’s presidential elections in Egypt to honor the country’s international obligations – an apparent reference to Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has said it would respect the historic peace accord but that it would also seek modifications.

Vice Premier Shaul Mofaz, a former defense minister and military chief, said he hoped Israel could conduct a security dialogue with the Egyptians and demand more forceful policing in the Sinai.

“No doubt Sinai has become a security problem,” Mofaz told Army Radio. “Today’s incident ratchets it up a notch.”

There was no immediate comment from Egypt on the attack.

They’ve been a little busy:

The Muslim Brotherhood has vowed to face down Egypt’s ruling generals in a “life or death” struggle over the country’s political future, after declaring that its candidate had won the presidential election and would refuse to accept the junta’s last-ditch attempts to engineer a constitutional coup.

As final ballot results trickled in and unofficial tallies suggested that Mohamed Morsi had secured approximately 52% of the popular vote, the Brotherhood deployed its harshest language yet against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), promising to bring millions of Egyptians back on to the streets if attempts to rebuild the old regime continued.

“Over the past 18 months we were very keen to avoid any clashes or confrontations with other components of Egypt’s political system because we felt that it would have negative consequences for the democratic system and for society as a whole,” said Fatema AbouZeid, a senior policy researcher for the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party and a media co-ordinator for the Morsi campaign. “But now it’s very clear that Scaf and other institutions of the state are determined to stand in the way of what we’re trying to achieve, and we won’t accept this any more. Egypt will not go back to the old regime through any means, legal or illegal.

“If we find that Scaf stands firm against us as we try to fulfil the demands of the revolution, we will go back to the streets and escalate things peacefully to the highest possible stage,” she said. “Now we have a new factor in Egyptian politics, the Egyptian people themselves, who will not accept a return to the old regime in any form, not after so much Egyptian blood was shed to remove it.

“The revolution is facing a life or death moment and the Egyptian people have put their faith in Dr Morsi to represent them at this time.”

On Monday the parliamentary speaker, Saad el-Katatni, a Brotherhood veteran, said he did not recognise last week’s decision by Mubarak-era judges in Egypt’s supreme constitutional court to dissolve the legislature, a move widely viewed as highly politicised and designed to bolster the generals. Katatni said MPs planned to attend parliament – which was surrounded by armed soldiers – as usual on Tuesday or convene in nearby Tahrir Square, setting the stage for a showdown between the generals who have held sway for six decades and the long-outlawed Islamist movement now on the brink of political control.

An 11th-hour constitutional declaration issued unilaterally by Scaf awarded the generals sweeping powers including the right to put forward legislation and an effective veto over clauses in the new constitution, and formalised the army’s ability to detain civilians and sweep out of barracks at moments of “internal unrest”.

Political analysts described the move as a constitutional obscenity and said it left the three major institutions of the post-Mubarak Egyptian state – the presidency (now curtailed), the parliament (now dissolved) and the constitutional assembly (now floundering in legal uncertainty) – all under the full or partial influence of the armed forces.

With the oldest of all (and the father of all) Islamic Extremist Organizations taking over Egypt, you can hardly blame Israel for being ready to go to war.

Speaking of war, remember when ol’ Scooter declared that Israel should go back to its old borders, as they stood before the 1967 war?  PJTV’s Andrew Klavan had a better idea.

And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you.

Genesis 12: 3

Don’t Ask. Obama Won’t Tell. Update: He Did!

Last night, the voters of the Tar Heel State joined the citizens of 30 other American states in making their voices heard plainly and clearly on an issue that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is avoiding like the plague.

North Carolina voters have approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th U.S. state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama’s cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment

Meanwhile, supporters ran their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

So, what does the “Leader of the Free World” say about the controversial subject?

Don’t ask.  He won’t tell.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan broke ranks with the White House on Monday, stating his unequivocal support for same-sex marriage one day after Vice President Joe Biden suggested that he supported gay marriage as well.

Obama aides worked to manage any political fallout. They said the back-to-back remarks by two top administration officials represented personal viewpoints and were not part of a coordinated effort to lay groundwork for a shift in the president’s position. Obama aides also tried to use the latest flare-up in the gay-marriage debate to shine a light on GOP rival Mitt Romney’s history of equivocating on some gay-rights issues, an attempt to turn a potential political problem into an opportunity.

Obama, who supports most gay rights, has stopped short of backing gay marriage. Without clarification, he’s said for the past year and a half that his personal views on the matter are “evolving.”

The White House held firm on Monday to that position, which polls show puts the president increasingly at odds with his party and the majority of Americans on gay marriage. But with Biden and Duncan’s comments reinvigorating the debate, Obama is likely to face renewed pressure to clarify his views ahead of the November election.

Throughout his first term, he has sought to walk a fine line on same-sex marriage. He’s trying to satisfy rank-and-file Democrats by supporting a range of gay rights issues without alienating crucial independent voters who could be turned off by the emotional social issue.

The president’s aides acknowledge that his position can be confusing. In states where gay marriage already is legal, the president says married gay couples should have the same rights as married straight couples. But he does not publicly support the right of gay couples to enter into a marriage in the first place.

Duncan, a longtime friend of the president as well as a member of his Cabinet, made clear Monday that his position on gay marriage was not in lockstep with the White House. Asked in a television interview whether he believed gay couples should legally be allowed to marry, Duncan said simply, “Yes, I do.”

His comments followed Biden’s assertion Sunday that he was “absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.”

Obama aides said Duncan was speaking about his personal views on the issue and was not under orders from the White House or the campaign to take his position.

As for Biden, White House and campaign officials said the vice president’s remarks were no different from what he and Obama have said in the past.

“They were entirely consistent with the president’s position, which is that couples who are married, whether they are gay or heterosexual couples are entitled to the very same rights and very same liberties,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign. “When people are married, we ought to recognize those marriages.”

So, what is the president’s position?  Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary, was asked that during yesterday’s daily press briefing, per politico.com.

Pay attention to this dance recital.  Fred Astaire would be proud.

Q: On the gay marriage issue, Jay, has the intensity of interest in this and the statements from some of the President’s supporters led him to consider clarifying his position? And considering that his views are evolving, does he want to maybe consider his views more thoroughly?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have a readout of any conversations involving the President on that issue. I can tell you that I’m sure it is the case that he will be asked again at some point when he gives interviews or press conferences about this issue, and I’ll leave it to him to describe his personal views.

I think it’s important to note, as I attempted to do yesterday, that what is abundantly clear is this President’s firm commitment to the protection of and securing of the same rights and obligations for LGBT citizens as other Americans enjoy. He has been a strong proponent of LGBT rights, and I think that’s demonstrated by his record, which is unparalleled, as President in support of those rights.

Q: Jay, you said yesterday on this issue in reference to Vice President Biden’s remarks and the President’s, that the President’s personal views obviously were evolving, and you stressed the personal views. I guess is there maybe a disconnect between his policies and his personal views in terms of maybe his policies are ahead of his personal views on this?

MR. CARNEY: No, I don’t think so. I think the President’s absolute commitment to the rights of LGBT citizens demonstrated by the path he took to ensure the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the opposition that he and his administration have expressed towards DOMA and the fact that he believes it ought to be repealed. It is also the case that the President and the Attorney General believe that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, which is why the federal government no longer defends Section 3. And from hate crimes legislation to hospital visitation rights, the list of accomplishments is quite long and I think demonstrates his feelings about, broadly, this issue.

Q: Do you think he’ll talk about it with Cuomo considering he’s received a lot of plaudits from the LGBT community?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think — I don’t know what their conversations will contain. I know that they’ll focus on the issue that the President has come to discuss in upstate New York. I think the President has taken a position on some of these state issues, and I think he did on New York and he has in North Carolina. And I think the position he takes has — the positions he has taken are consistent with his belief that it is wrong to take actions that would deny rights to LGBT citizens or rescind rights already provided to LGBT Americans. And that’s a position that you can fully expect him to maintain.

Since when has marriage been a right?  

I’ve never seen the word “marriage” listed in the Constitution under “inalienable rights”, nor in the Bill of Rights itself.

With 62% of America’s population (31 states) voting against Gay Marriage, I believe other Americans haven’t either.

KJ Update:  Today, in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, Obama said:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

The interview will air on Thursday’s Good Morning America.

After all, the American public’s opinion doesn’t mean squat to “The Lightbringer”.

Palin to Obama: Any Time…Any Place

President Barack Hussein Obama, in his zeal to be re-elected to the most powerful office in the Free World, recently launched a campaign ad attacking a private citizen.

ABC.News.go reports:

Hours before the premiere of HBO’s “Game Change”, the Obama campaign released a web ad Saturday focused on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who is portrayed in that premium cable film – fairly, according to her detractors, unfairly per her supporters.

…The ad shows graphics, in McCain/Palin campaign font style, reading: “MORE THAN FOUR YEARS LATER. SARAH PALIN AND THE FAR RIGHT SAY PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL BRING BACK RACIAL DISCRIMINATION … AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.”

Palin is then shown saying the following: “Barack Obama has never been seen in the conventional, traditional way of we who would describe a man of valor … And his profession as a community organizer, what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism … He is bringing us back, Sean, you can hearken back to days before the Civil War … What Barack Obama seems to want to do is to go back to those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin, why are we allowing our country to move backwards?”

Back to the graphics: “THESE ATTACKS ARE WRONG AND DANGEROUS. IF YOU’RE TIRED OF IT, DO SOMETHING. DONATE TO THE TWO TERM FUND.”

The quotes from Palin come from one interview, but from a few subjects. The “man of valor” quote came from a part of Palin’s conversation when she was impugning the president since a Super-PAC supporting him has accepted a $1 million contribution from comedian Bill Maher (also starring on HBO) who has made crude comments about her.

Late Monday afternoon, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin replied to the 44th President’s attack on her with the following  Facebook Note, titled, “Let’s Talk About the Real Issues, Mr. President”.

The far Left continues to believe American voters are not smart enough to grasp the diversionary tactics it employs to distract us from the issues our President just doesn’t want to talk about – issues that affect us all every day and must be addressed. Exhibit A in these diversionary tactics is an absurd new attack ad President Obama has released taking my comments out of context. I’m not running for any office, but I’m more than happy to accept the dubious honor of being Barack Obama’s “enemy of the week” if that includes the opportunity to debate him on the issues Americans are actually concerned about. (Remember when I said you don’t need a title to make a difference?) Just off the top of my head, a few of these concerning issues include: a debt crisis that has us hurtling towards a Greek-style collapse, entitlement programs going bankrupt, a credit downgrade for the first time in our history, a government takeover of the health care industry that makes care more expensive and puts a rationing panel of faceless bureaucrats between you and your doctor (aka a “death panel”), $4 and $5 gas at the pump exacerbated by an anti-drilling agenda that rejects good paying energy sector jobs and makes us more dependent on dangerous foreign regimes, a war in Afghanistan that seems unfocused and unending, a global presidential apology tour that’s made us look feeble and ridiculous, a housing market in the tank, the longest streak of high unemployment since World War II, private-sector job creators and industry strangled by burdensome regulations and an out-of-control Obama EPA, an attack on the Constitutional protection of religious liberty, an attack on private industry in right-to-work states, crony capitalism run amok in an administration in bed with their favored cronies to the detriment of genuine free market capitalism, green energy pay-to-play kickbacks to Obama campaign donors, and a Justice Department still stonewalling on a bungled operation that armed violent Mexican drug lords and led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. I’m sure I missed a few things, but the list is just for starters. Along with millions of others, I’m willing and free to discuss these issues with the President anywhere, anytime; and I’m sure any of the four patriots currently running for the GOP nomination would also welcome the opportunity to talk about the problems everyday Americans face due to the abject failure of our current administration’s policies. The President will dismiss all of these problems by saying, “Well, uh, ‘change isn’t easy.’” But considering that candidate Obama promised to turn back the waters and heal the planet, the American people had at least a reasonable expectation that, at the bare minimum, he wouldn’t bankrupt our country. This latest ad is quite odd, but also quite telling. It shows that our President sure seems fearful of discussing the economy, energy prices, and all the other problems people need addressed. And intended or not, now that his ad opens up the discussion of Barack Obama’s radical past associations and the radical philosophy that shaped his ideas about his promised “fundamental transformation” of our country, I welcome the media to join ordinary Americans in finally vetting Barack Obama. The media failed to do so in 2008 to the detriment of us all. Maybe this time around they can do their job.

Y’know…it’s pretty sad that Sarah Palin, a private citizen who is not even running for President (Don’t I wish!), is the only Republican to speak out against this Manchurian President so forthrightly and succinctly, in a straightforward manner which can be understood by all Americans.

I guess she just has more tes…err…intestinal fortitude than they do.

Obama Doubles Down on…Malaise

I put $20 worth of gas in my 1992 Buick yesterday. Don’t laugh.  My wife drives our 2009 Equinox because I’m a good husband…and well-trained.

Anyway, I noticed that it did not even fill up to half a tank, as the price here in DeSoto County, Mississippi is sitting at $3.59 per gallon.

Why is it that Democratic Presidents, who are supposed to be brilliant leaders, (just ask them) can’t control the price of a gallon of gasoline?

Oh, they can sure tell you what you need to do in order to cope with their poor leadership in this area, though.  For example:

Jimmy Carter delivered a televised speech, presenting his Proposed Energy Policy for the nation on April 18, 1977.  Here is an excerpt:

These are the goals we set for 1985:

-Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

-Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

-Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

-Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months’ supply.

-Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

-Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

-Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home and on every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we’ve had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don’t act.

I’ve given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don’t like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful — but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Carter’s Energy Policy stank on ice, and Ronald Wilson Reagan beat Jimmy Carter for the presidency in a landslide.

Is America experiencing Deja Vu…all over again?

WFTV anchor Greg Warmoth conducted a one-on-one interview with President Barack Hussein Obama, Monday in Washington, D.C.  One of the things they discussed was the skyrocketing price of gas:

Obama referred to the phrase, “there’s no magic bullet.” The president said any politician who says there is one is not being truthful.

Still, an ABC poll released on Monday shows Obama is taking the blame.

The poll shows two-thirds of Americans disapprove of his handling of gas prices, which is a record high for the president, and only eight months before the election.

“Well look, as long as gas prices are going up, people are going to feel like I’m not doing enough, and I understand that,” Obama said.

The president said his fight for a payroll tax cut last year will help Americans afford higher gas prices.

“Ultimately, though there’s no silver bullet. The way we’re going to solve this problem is what we talk about today in our energy report,” Obama said.

The president said America has had the highest domestic oil production in more than a decade.

The nation now exports more crude than it imports, reducing dependence on foreign oil, along with new fuel efficiency standards for cars and investments in alternative fuels.

“The bigger driver of these gas prices is speculation of war in the Middle East, which is why we’ve been trying to reduce loose talk about a war there,” Obama said.

Republicans on the campaign trail see gas prices as a political opening against Obama.

‘Your opponents say they can get gas to the $2.50 range. What do you think Americans should be OK with?” Warmoth asked.

“First of all, nobody believes that. They know that’s just politics. Anybody who says we can get gas down to two bucks a gallon just isn’t telling the truth,” Obama said.

Obama did not give Warmoth an answer as to how much Americans should pay for gas.

However, Obama said his energy advisor did not rule out tapping the country’s oil reserves.

In the latest version of the normally-Democrat-over-sampled New York Times/CBS Poll, Obama’s Job Approval Rating has dropped from 47% to 41%. Just a month ago, he was sitting pretty at 50%.

Carter on steroids…indeed.