Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

                           

Romney Has Already Lost the Debate

By Jeffrey Lord on 10.2.12 @ 6:08AM

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/02/romney-has-already-lost-the-de

Media Research Center 25th Gala a graphic reminder: media bias to cast Romney as loser.

Why bother?

Forget all the fuss and feathers.

Tomorrow night's presidential debate between President Obama and Governor Romney has already been settled.

Obama wins. Romney loses. Case closed.

One had only to attend another recent event to know this.

That event was the Media Research Center's 25th Anniversary Gala. Held last week in Washington to celebrate Brent Bozell's ingenious idea-turned-reality to document liberal media bias in the glossy chapter-by-chapter, newscast-by-newscast way in which it actually unfolds in real time. The evening, attended by almost a thousand, was a glittery affair populated by conservatives in and out of the New Media, a considerable tribute to Mr. Bozell. The Master of Ceremonies was talk radio's Chris Plante of Washington's WMAL. The evening's presenters were talk radio and Fox star Laura Ingraham, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, and National Review's Jonah Goldberg, with a presentation by columnist Cal Thomas. The crowd feasted on a complete menu that ranged from good food to an uproarious collection of biased liberal media video clips that, well aside from their always unintentional hilarity, were stunning in their reality.

While the subject of the presidential debates never came up -- those video clips made plain what the outcome of the presidential debates will be.

If Mitt Romney turned in the best debate performance since Lincoln took Douglas, Kennedy clobbered Nixon, or Reagan trounced Carter, it would not matter. If Barack Obama forgot not only the size of the debt (as he did on the David Letterman show), but admitted that, well, yes, he knew the attacks in Benghazi were coming about six months earlier but had a golf game scheduled and forgot to warn anybody -- it would not matter.

No matter what happens tomorrow night -- Barack Obama will be declared the winner of not only this debate but the two that follow. Not to mention that the gaffe-prone Joe Biden will suddenly be recast as experienced, seasoned, and don't forget compassionate when he puts that young whipper-snapper Paul Ryan in his place.

If you had any doubt as to what a set up the media coverage of these debates will be, let's go through some of the clips presented at the MRC dinner. Clip after clip that showed in vivid living color exactly how the "mainstream media" plays the game -- and will play the game in covering the debates.

The clips were presented in a series of Oscar-style "awards" with the various presenters -- Ingraham, Hayes, and Goldberg -- opening the envelope announcing the winner after each set of clips were played.

The judges were an All-Star team of conservatives (listed alphabetically): Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, Lou Dobbs, Erick Erickson, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, Al Regnery, Cal Thomas, Walter E. Williams and Thomas S. Winter.

The first award, presented by radio talker and O'Reilly substitute Laura Ingraham, was the, um, well, "Obamagasm Award." The nominees were NBC's Chris Matthews, ABC's Diane Sawyer, and CNN's Piers Morgan. (Note: links to all the nominated video clips are provided here courtesy the MRC.)
http://www.mrc.org/notable-quotables/25th-anniversary-gala-and-2012-dishonors-awards#obamagasm

Now let's be real.

What chance does Mitt Romney have for objective analysis from the winner of this award -- NBC's Chris Matthews? Matthews won the "Obamagasm" award over Sawyer and Morgan for this wonderful example of objective journalism in discussing Obama:
"This guy's done everything right. He's raised his family right. He's fought his way all the way to the top of the Harvard Law Review, in a blind test becomes head of the Review, the top editor there. Everything he's done is clean as a whistle. He's never not only broken any law, he's never done anything wrong. He's the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American. And all they do is trash the guy."

Matthews, by the way, was already famously on record as saying:

"I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

But not to be left out were CNN's Morgan and ABC's Sawyer.

Here's Morgan on Obama to Obama aide David Axelrod from Morgan's December 5, 2011 CNN show:

"When you watch the President like that, I always feel he's got so many pluses, doesn't he? In a sense, he's personable, he's handsome, he can be funny. You know, abroad he has this great image for America. A lot of things are just perfect about Barack Obama."

And here's ABC's Sawyer on October 10, 20122 waxing enthusiastic about the Obama-endorsed Occupy Wall Street movement:
"We thought we'd bring you up to date on those protesters, the Occupy Wall Street movement. As of tonight, it has spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries -- every continent but Antarctica."

Get that? The Occupy Wall Street movement is so fabulous it has spread to 1,000 countries around the world! Wow! Incredible! Particularly considering that -- taking into account the usual wars and border disputes -- there are only about 190-250 countries on all of Planet Earth, give or take.

Also, take note of the 2009 video collection found on the above link, with various reporters waxing on enthusiastically about everything from the socialism of the Soviet Union (from a Ted Turner special on TBS before the Evil Empire was tipped into the abyss by Ronald Reagan) to Cuba's Castro to Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega. The gushing over both Clintons. Nancy Pelosi. And the must see of media figures comparing Obama to the "messiah" and -- yes indeed -- God.

Really.

There's more.

Next up was the cheeky "Vast Right-Wing Knuckle-Draggers Award" (linked here).
http://www.mrc.org/notable-quotables/25th-anniversary-gala-and-2012-dishonors-awards#knuckle-dragges

The three nominees were selected based on the degree of contempt these media pooh-bahs expressed on-air for conservatives.

The winner was NBC's daytime anchor Thomas Roberts for this gem on September 23, 2011. What was Roberts discussing when he said what follows about -- that's right -- the previous night's debate featuring the various Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney prominently included? Here's how Roberts did his bit:

"I get out of all of these things that many of these candidates would rather take legislation to build a time machine and go back in time to where we had, you know, no women voting, slavery was cool. I mean, it's just kind of ridiculous."

Got that? Quite aside from the simple fact that it was all those white liberals who supported slavery, that making sure women had the right to vote was a cornerstone of the Republican Party, and that in fact it was liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson who resisted women's suffrage (here being picketed by suffragettes outside the White House, getting with the program only after he felt he was getting bad PR), the ridiculous Mr. Roberts seems to have zero knowledge of American history.

Does anyone really think Roberts will be fair to Mitt Romney?

Not to mention the other two nominees for this award. The first being former CNN'er Bob Franken, now transplanted to an NBC show to say this:

"These seem to be appeals to the extreme white wing of the Republican Party. That is to say that there continues to be among many conservatives a real resentment against blacks.... I think it is part of a hateful campaign that is being very methodically run in the hope it's going to appeal to voters who would love to see us return to the good old days of Jim Crow."

Franken is a smart guy. Does he really not know that Democrats were the Party of Jim Crow -- and that it was the GOP that consistently opposed segregation? Yes, he surely does. But hey... who cares about the facts?

Number three in this category was our old friend Chris Matthews, losing out to Roberts but still declaiming last November:

"The utter confusion in the Republican presidential nominating process results from two discernible facts. One: they hate. That's the simplest explanation of the disastrous course of this selection process. They hate so much they are not in the mood to fall in love with a candidate or even fall in behind someone. Their brains, racked as they are by hatred, they lack the 'like' mode. They are in no mood to go around looking a politician they like. The hating is so much more satisfying."

This Matthews gem was one more contribution to the gales of laughter that swept the dinner last week. Here are television personalities who are so unbelievably caught up in sheer hatred, not to mention racism (remember those Al Sharpton rants about the "n...." this and that, along with his graphic, televised "punk faggot" gay bashing moment?) that it becomes crystal clear they are engaged in a vast game of what psychoanalytic theory refers to as "projection." Specifically defined here:

In Psychoanalytic Theory, the defense mechanism whereby we transfer or project our feelings about one person onto another.

Which is to say, being on the side of a political philosophy that literally enslaved blacks and had to be shamed into giving women the right to vote, these media personalities deal with the issue by ascribing what their side did to others. This is the reason the Media Research Center is so valuable -- it catches liberal media types in these out and out lies, and puts the video evidence out there for all to see... and remember. It creates a video record, a library that among other things has documented over time just why it is places like CNN and MSNBC have long been sucking ratings-wind.

Again. Does anyone seriously think Governor Romney will get a fair shake from the media based on these "did he/she really just say that?!!!," moments of undisguised hostility captured on tape?

Please.

The MRC's next award was the "Damn Those Conservatives to Hell" award. The three nominees were Howard Fineman, Piers Morgan, and Ann Curry.

Here's Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post (and formerly of Newsweek, the once powerful magazine whose liberalism had so damaged the magazine's circulation it sold not long ago for a dollar) on NBC just this past July discussing Mitt Romney:

"He [Mitt Romney] is playing to -- and has from the beginning of the campaign -- played to the kind of nativist base of the Tea Party. And by nativist, I mean people who are, in essence, afraid of the world.... The Republican Party is going to cripple itself beyond recognition if they don't quit being xenophobes."

Ahhhhhhhh yes. Mitt Romney the panderer to xenophobes. Coming from Fineman, an advocate for a political party that stays alive by playing the race card from slavery to illegal immigration and once foamed about legal Chinese immigration ("servile races" was the Democrats' reference to Chinese and Mongolian immigrants), that's quite an interesting statement.

So too this from Piers Morgan, who went after Rush Limbaugh over Sandra Fluke in this fashion:

"Limbaugh's disgusting comments are the work of an archaic old dinosaur living in a warped, ugly swamp, who thinks it's okay to degrade decent young women for sport and ratings. Well, it isn't. Shame on you, Rush Limbaugh."

But wait! Once again the MRC was on the job. Here's Brent Bozell directly calling Morgan out in a letter to the CNN host noting that Morgan mysteriously didn't have the same standards for Bill Maher's tirades using the "C-word" about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin or when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "slut."

Morgan looked the fool.

The winner of the "Damn Those Conservatives to Hell Award," however, was NBC's then-Today host Ann Curry. In yet another example of "unbiased" journalism, here's Ms. Curry opening an "interview" with Congressman Paul Ryan -- way back in April -- which is to say before Ryan was picked as Romney's running mate:

"The Center of [sic] Budget and Policy Priorities says, you're smiling because you know about this, says 62 percent of the savings in your budget would come from cutting programs for the poor, that between eight and ten million people would be kicked off of food stamps, that you would cut Medicare by $200 billion, Medicaid and other health programs by something like $770 billion. Where is the empathy in this budget?... Do you acknowledge that poor people will suffer under this budget, that you have shown a lack of empathy to poor people in this budget?"

Right.

Be sure to take a good look at some of the other videos of the American "unbiased media" on these clips. From one "mainstream" network to the next there is a symphony of hate, disdain, racism, and more flowing from network anchors and correspondents past and present. They have not the slightest pretense to fairness, to balance, to evenhandedness.

They are, in the vernacular, "in the tank."

And Governor Romney is seriously thought to have a chance in these upcoming debates?

There's a joke out there about a man visiting a zoo and seeing a child stick her head between the bars of the lion cage to see the lions. A lion pounces, the child is caught as her terrified parents scream. The man leaps into action, pounds the lion on the nose and pries the girl free unharmed. A reporter witnesses the whole incident, interviews the man, and the next day the local paper runs a front page story headlined:

Bigot Assaults African Immigrant, Steals His Lunch.

Which is another way of saying, the media coverage of the 2012 campaign is a joke.

To drive home the point the other night, the last award was "The Worst Reporter in the History of Man." The nominees were ex-CBS anchorman Dan Rather, ex-Today host Bryant Gumbel, current NBC anchor Brian Williams, and the perky Katie Couric, once of both NBC and CBS, where she co-anchored respectively the Today show and sat in Dan Rather's old seat as the anchor of The CBS Evening News.

It was a tough competition -- and this award was voted on by the MRC audience. Gumbel's liberal propaganda was hysterical to watch. After repeatedly attacking Ronald Reagan, dismissing the allegations of sexual harassment against Bill Clinton (it would be hard, said Bryant, to determine exactly who was really being harassed -- the women or Clinton), and lauding Jimmy Carter, Gumbel sat straight-faced and told the late Tim Russert of NBC that gee... why... no... of course he never let his bias show on the air!!! The MRC audience roared with laughter. But alas, even Gumbel's liberal media shenanigans couldn't catch up to the other two.

Dan Rather made it to the run-off based surely on his "news" story about those documents that "proved" George W. Bush had played fast and loose with his service in the Texas National Guard. The documents, recall, were ID'd as phonies... computer generated in an age when computers did not exist. Rather lost his job at CBS, sued CBS for $70 million, and lost.

Williams is shown gushing -- absolutely gushing -- over Bill Clinton. Then playing the sycophant to Barack Obama. One wonders how Williams can look himself in the mirror with on-camera performances like this.

But the winner by popular acclaim was Couric. (All the collected videos of Gumbel, Rather and Couric can be found here). There is our Katie gushing over Al Gore as a "movie star" and pounding President Obama with such hardball questions as -- really -- this:

"You're so confident Mr. President, and so focused. Is your confidence ever shaken? Do you ever wake up and say 'damn, this is hard'?"

The only possible reaction to this kind of "journalism" was sheer, hysterical laughter. The audience howled. Katie won the nod as the "Worst Reporter in the History of Man."

So.

What more is there to say?

There they were, the liberal media captured in all their glory. The stars past and present. The well-paid from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN whose multi-million dollar salaries make them the certain 1%. (No Occupy Wall Streeters protesting them, are there? How strange.) All captured in vivid living color doing their damndest to indoctrinate the other 99% with liberal dogma.

All of which proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The moment the debate concludes this week, Governor Romney will still be on-stage shaking the President's hand when the liberal media will be pronouncing him the loser.

Which leads to the obvious question.

Why have these debates anymore in the first place?

The media deck, as they say, is stacked.

No thrills will run up Chris Matthews' leg as he listens to Mitt Romney. If Brian Williams discusses a Time magazine cover on Mitt Romney it will be about the current Time cover that portrays Romney as some sort of stern religious nut, not the glowing, smiling portrait of Obama on a Time cover that Williams lovingly showed to Obama back in 2008. There will be no report from Ann Curry asking why Obama is plunging the nation into a death-spiral of debt. There will be no Piers Morgan reports about how handsome and personable is Mitt Romney.

Are you kidding?

The deck is stacked.

And the pro-Obama media is determined to cut the cards.

[Warph]

Joe Biden: Middle Class "Buried The Last FOUR Years" (Under Obuma)

In the middle of a standard-issue fact-free Obuma-bot rant about Mitt Romney's tax reform proposals, ol' Joe Biden drops a rhetorical bomb (again) by declaring that the American middle class has been "buried the last four years."

Check this out:

For once, the 'Gaffemaster'  is on to something.  Obuma's policies have left us with a shrinking middle class, a $4500 decline in median household income, permanent double-digit unemployment, exploding dependency on Food Stamp Nation's constellation of welfare programs, and a painful increase in health care premiums due to ObamaCare.  And don't forget about the doubled gasoline prices!

And the worst is yet to come!  The amateur Obuma and his party of cronies have left the American middle class at the mercy of Taxmageddon, which will drop a $4,000 tax hike on the average family. 
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/study-obamas-big-budget-deficits-could-mean-a-4000-a-year-middle-class-tax-hike/

Biden's boss is fond of blaming all his problems on Dubya, but unfortunately he can't wait to end the Bush tax cuts, which are the only thing keeping Obuma malaise from curdling into a new recession.[/font][/size]

[Warph]

 

Obama's Amateur Hour

By: John Gizzi
10/3/2012 10:48 PM
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/03/first-presidential-debate-is-obama-amateur-hour/


With little argument, Mitt Romney had a great evening Wednesday.

From his reference to the present Democratic economic plan as a "middle class squeeze" to his standard about a program "not being worth it if you have to borrow from China," the Republican nominee emerged from the first presidential debate as if he were a Hall of Fame pitcher for his beloved Boston Red Sox.

By far, Romney's best line—used more than once—was to dub the Obama administration's overall policy of enhancing the role of government "trickle-down-government." In so doing, he needled the president by turning around the standard Democratic putdown of GOP calls for across-the-board tax cuts as "trickle-down-economics."

Proudly recalling how he worked with a Democratic-controlled legislature to pass his own health care plan, the former Massachusetts governor invoked John Kennedy's famous call to "get the country moving again." He even paraphrased the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's (D-N.Y.) admonition that "you are not entitled to the facts" by telling him that "you have your own house, you have your own plane, but you don't have your own facts."

In contrast, President Obama appeared defensive, off his game, and, at times, harsh. After a half-hour into the debate, Obama rambled and returned to well worn rhetorical lines: from references to "millionaires and billionaires" who are benefiting from the Bush tax cuts to insisting he has "reduced domestic discretionary spending to the lowest level since Eisenhower."

Obama clearly failed in his attempt to come up with anything truly fresh and relied on now familiar-attacks on his opponent's tax plan and energy policy. More than a few times, he appeared less the candidate-in-command than Romney, whose mastery of facts and knowledge of government programs was akin to that of Bill Clinton in his now-celebrated nomination speech for President Obama in Charlotte last month.

Romney also worked in some themes that are likely to resonate among conservatives who still have doubts about the nominee who was obviously the least conservative of the GOP candidates for nomination this year. He made a forceful case for the 10th Amendment and referred to the states as the "laboratories for policy," underscored the importance of state and local control having the most impact on public education, and vowed that he would "build that pipeline"—a reference to the Keystone XL pipeline that the Obama administration has held up.

Overall, even those who admire Obama in the liberal media agree he had, at worst, an "off night tonight." Those in his own party are clearly somewhat more worried than they were a few hours ago. And among conservatives, there is a budding sense that, hey, "tonight might be the first day of the rest of the Romney campaign."


Health Care
Health care was a major section of the Denver debate in the second half.

Romney had a tough task, needing to acknowledge his universal health care plan in Massachusetts, while also criticizing the president's 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was not inspired by Romney's plan, but was developed by many of the same advisers who staffed the Romney effort.

Romney said the biggest problem with the president's plan is that people cannot afford it.

Too many businesses that currently provide health care insurance for their workers are considering dropping that benefit because they cannot afford it, he said.

"The cost of health care is just prohibitive, and we gotta deal with cost," he said.

"When you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office said it will cost $2,500 more than traditional insurance; so, it is adding to cost," he said.

"In fact, when the president was running for office, he said that by this year, he would have brought down the cost of insurance for each family by $2,500," the Republican nominee said.

Obama had a bad night.

The health care section was supposed to be where he should have been running up points. If he would have praised Romney's Massachusetts health care law, he would not only have neutralized criticism of his own plan, he would have driven a wedge between the GOP standard bearer and his party rank-and-file anxious about the federal takeover of medical care.

Instead of running up points, Obama repeatedly missed opportunities. He told wandering family health care stories, presented disconnected facts and made mind-numbing data points.

–Neil W. McCabe



Energy & Environment
The first zinger of the night came from Romney, who criticized Obama for spending $90 billion on "green energy" like Solyndra, the failed solar panel company that was propped up with more than $500 million in a guaranteed government loan.

"You don't pick winners and losers, you just pick losers," Romney said.

Obama said he agreed with Romney that energy production needs a boost in the U.S., "but I also believe that we've got to look at the energy sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments."

Obama did not say how he wanted to boost oil production or lower gas prices, but did say that oil companies, which pay some of the highest tax rates in the U.S. corporate world, should pay even more.

"Does anybody think that ExxonMobil needs some extra money, when they're making money every time you go to the pump?" Obama asked.

Romney pointed out that in Obama's four-year term, gas prices have doubled and electricity prices have increased.

"Middle income families are being crushed," Romney said.

"Energy is critical. The president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas are up ... but not due to his policies, in spite of his policies," Romney said.

Increased production is occurring on private property, but not on public lands that provide revenue to the Treasury. Obama has cut the number of permits to drill on public land in half — Romney said that if he is elected, he would double the number.

"And, by the way, I like coal," Romney said. "I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs."
–Audrey Hudson



Defense & National Security
Despite early speculation that the first presidential debate would veer into discussion of recent events in Libya and the Middle East, both candidates seemed content to keep to the set domestic policy topics Wednesday night.

But Romney, perhaps eager not to repeat his convention mistake of failing to mention the troops, was the only candidate to specifically discuss his support of the military, bringing up sequestration cuts to defense on two occasions.

"I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in protecting the strength of our military," Romney said as he discussed the role of government, calling U.S. forces "second to none."

Near the end of the debate, Romney reiterated the roughly $1 trillion in cuts to defense that are slated to come on Obama's watch, vowing to fight them if he was elected.

Obama tried to make up ground as the candidates' face-off came to a close, reminding the audience that his presidency saw the death of Osama bin Laden and repeating his claim, disputed in some sectors, that the terrorist group al Qaeda has been significantly weakened.

But Obama never countered Romney's assertion that he wouldn't stop sequestration cuts, even though defense leaders and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have deplored them.

And, as the universal rules of debate make clear, silence is tantamount to concession. Romney won the point.
–Hope Hodge



Free Enterprise
There's a severe contradiction in the philosophy Obama sought to express Wednesday night, which has ramifications for every part of the American business sector: the president felt it necessary to offer ritual praise for "free enterprise," but in every practical application, he describes it as dangerous and untrustworthy. He saluted "opportunity" rhetorically, but his policies are based on the idea that only government can detect and manage opportunity. He likes to use the word "choice," but accuses Romney of throwing Medicare beneficiaries to the wolves by offering them choices.

Obama can use the language of liberty for the odd rhetorical flourish, but Mitt Romney demonstrated that he understands what it means. Romney's was a coherent vision of American energy and innovation unleashed against every national challenge, from job creation to education. Obama thinks an awful lot of things are just too important for free people to handle through voluntary cooperation ... and he doesn't like being reminded of Big Government's awful track record at handling them. As Romney mused, it's hard to think of an example of anything that has actually been made more efficient, and less expensive, through government control.

One of Obama's big problems is that he was defending theories, while Romney was talking about principles ... and Obama's dismal record disproves his theories. Romney's discussion of what could have been bought with the billions wasted on Solyndra and other green energy boondoggles — 50 years of the oil tax credits Obama complained about, or 2 million teachers — was devastating. Obama's attempt to boast about increased oil and gas production was short-circuited when Romney pointed out that all of that development is happening in spite of Obama's policies, on private land where Obama can't shut it down. No one watching that debate could have the slightest doubt which candidate was serious about a high-energy, independent future ... in every sense of both words.
–John Hayward

[Warph]

                  

Bombshell: Obama Administration Withdrew 16 Member Special Forces Team From Libya One Month Before Attack (Video)

By: Jim Hoft
10/7/2012 10:48 AM


Bombshell: The Obama State Department withdrew a 16 member special forces team from Benghazi one month before the deadly attacks on 9-11-2012.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood was the leader of the 16 member special forces team whose job it was to protect US personnel in Libya. His team's mission ended in August a month before the deadly Al-Qaeda attack on 9-11-2012. A six member mobile security team was also withdrawn around the same time. This was despite the fact that there were over a dozen attacks in the country this year.

Lt. Col. Wood was subpoenaed to appear at a House committee hearing this coming week. Wood told CBS News it was unbelievable to him that the State Department withdrew security when they did because of the 13 security incidents before 9-11-2012.

Video at:  http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/07/bombshell-obama-administration-withdrew-16-member-special-forces-team-from-libya-one-month-before-attack-video/

[Warph]

          

Supreme Court Shocks Life into Obamacare Challenge
By Matt Barber
10/8/2012
http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2012/10/08/supreme_court_shocks_life_into_obamacare_challenge/page/full/

The emperor wears no clothes. The bloom is off the rose. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Pardon the barrage of stale metaphors, but it's difficult to put into words the utter pasting Mitt Romney put on Barack Obama last week.

Pat Buchanan called Romney's "the finest debate performance" in 52 years "with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan's demolition of Jimmy Carter in 1980."

         

Indeed, when all of CNN and MSNBC – to include Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow – hysterically admit that President Obama got smoked; he got smoked. Bad.

Liberal blogger and Obama sycophant Andrew Sullivan captured the universally shared "progressive" panic as the brutal mismatch came to a close: "How is Obama's closing statement so f—ing sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight."v

For those of us who have long recognized the messianic myth that is Barack Hussein Obama, the debate was especially gratifying.

The world had fallen prey to a cartoonish hoax. This media-crafted Iron Man has proven a mere mortal, a tin man, an international embarrassment.

The jig is up.
In just 90 minutes, Mitt Romney stripped away the Iron Man costume and exposed, naked beneath, a man more closely resembling Robert Downey Jr.

Recall the image, so often seen, of a young Robert, head downcast in shame, standing before the judge to rationalize why, yet again, he'd screwed up magnificently. Last Wednesday was Barack's turn.

Don't get me wrong, I like Robert Downey Jr. – I'm glad he turned his life around. But he's an actor. He reads his lines. He's not Iron Man. And he's not qualified to be president.

Neither is Barack Obama.
And so, lost with no teleprompter binky, and, thus, suffering a debate trouncing unparalleled in history, it would seem that the president's not so good, very bad week couldn't get worse.

It got worse.
Just two days prior, the U.S. Supreme Court revived hope – long thought dead – that Obamacare, the president's signature achievement, might yet be ruled unconstitutional. The High Court shocked the legal community by opening its new term with an order giving the Obama Justice Department just 30 days to respond to Liberty Counsel's petition for rehearing. Liberty Counsel filed the petition on behalf of Liberty University and two private individuals.

An appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act, or AIA, barred the court from addressing the merits in Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, which challenged the individual mandate (Section 1501) and the employer insurance mandate (Section 1513) of Obamacare.

In addition to the constitutional arguments that Congress lacked authority to pass the law, the suit also raised the Free Exercise of religion claim because of the forced taxpayer funding of abortion.

You may recall that the first day of oral argument was dedicated to the AIA, the issue that Liberty University's case placed before the High Court. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the AIA does not apply to Obamacare. Therefore, Liberty Counsel asked the Court to grant the petition (because Liberty University prevailed on the AIA claim), vacate the Court of Appeals ruling and remand (send back) the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the Free Exercise claim and the employer mandate, neither of which were decided by the High Court.

Long story short: If the Supreme Court ultimately hears the case on appeal – which is highly possible as the claims are unique – and rules that the employer mandate and Free Exercise claims are legit, Obamacare dies on the vine. It's effectively overturned. It's like a shiny new Chevy Volt without the exploding battery. It goes nowhere fast and is towed to the junkyard of really, really stupid ideas.

This means, among other things, that people who value human life won't be made complicit in abortion homicide on the taxpayer dime.

"Obamacare is the biggest funding of abortion in American history," said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. "Under the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, Obamacare will, for the first time, require employers and individuals to directly fund abortion.

"This abortion mandate collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience. I am very pleased with the Court's decision today," concluded Staver.

During the debate, Mitt Romney took Obama to task over Obamacare: "I just don't know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the – at the kitchen table and spent his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs."

Obama was left stuttering and stammering – sheepishly defending his grossly unaffordable, wholly unsustainable and wildly unpopular Obamacare monstrosity.

I was left encouraged.

Whether by legislative repeal, or through Liberty Counsel's ongoing case, freedom-loving America should be confident. This freakish Frankenstein monster will, God willing, be soon laid to rest beneath the cold, clammy earth from which Democrats dug it up.

Obama's shovel-ready debate performance was the groundbreaking.

[Warph]

Corruption: Exposing Barack Obama's Illegal Foreign Campaign Money Loophole

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/08/exposing_barack_obamas_illegal_foreign_campaign_money_loophole
By Katie Pavlich
10/8/2012

A new report obtained by Townhall from the non-partisan Government Accountability Institute [GAI] shows the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage.

For the past eight months, GAI has been investigating the potential influence of foreign online campaign donations in House, Senate and presidential elections. The report was conducted using spidering software and found thousands of foreign sites linking to campaign donation pages. The investigation was conducted with the guidance of a former U.S. attorney. GAI is led by Peter Schweizer, who recently exposed congressional insider trading in his book Throw Them All Out.

"As FBI surveillance tapes have previously shown, foreign governments understand and are eager to exploit the weaknesses of American campaigns," the report says. "This, combined with the Internet's ability to disintermediate campaign contributions on a mass scale, as well as outmoded and lax Federal Election Commission rules, make U.S. elections vulnerable to foreign influence."

OFA seems to be taking advantage of a "foreign donor loophole" by not using CVV on their campaign donation page. When you donate online to the Obama campaign using a credit card, the contribution webpage does not require donors to enter a secure CVV number (also known as CSC, CVV2 or CVN), the three-digit securing code on the back of credit cards. This code, although not 100 percent effective, is used to ensure a person making a purchase physically possesses the card. According to the report, 90 percent of e-commerce and 19 of the 20 largest charities in the United States use a CVV code, making its use standard industry practice in order to prevent fraud. Another anti-fraud security measure includes software, better known as an Address Verification System, to verify a donor's address matches the address on file with the credit card company. The investigation could not determine whether OFA is using this type of software to prevent fraudulent or illegal donations.

Because of the lack of a CVV code requirement, the door is opened for OFA to accept robo-donations, or in other words, large numbers of small and automatic donations made online to evade FEC reporting requirements. Although it isn't illegal to decline the use of a secure CVV credit card code for campaign donations, it is illegal to accept campaign donations from foreign sources. Campaigns are required under criminal code not to solicit, accept or receive foreign donations in any amount. The Federal Elections Commission doesn't require campaigns to disclose the names of donors making contributions of less than $200 unless audited. In addition, FEC rules don't require campaigns to keep records of those giving less than $50. These rules combined with the lack of a CVV numbers make it easy for campaigns to get away with taking foreign donations.

According to GAI, it is the duty of the campaign to "ensure compliance with the law. Indeed, they risk criminal prosecution for the conscious failure to do so. This means that whether or not the FEC requires it to be reported, campaigns have an independent duty under the law to discover and protect against criminal campaign contributions." Protecting against criminal campaign contributions is easily accomplished by requiring a CVV code on the campaign donation page.

OFA has specifically touted its "grassroots" success by showcasing the majority of its donations coming from those giving less than $200. It appears the campaign also solicits funds for less than $200 in order to avoid having to report the name of the person making a donation under FEC rules. The GAI documents included the following email from Barack Obama to campaign supporters:



IT ALL ADDS UP

A large part of the Team Obama operation is outsourced. More than 200 domain names with the word "Obama" in the web address have been purchased. The most significant of these websites may be Obama.com, which is owned by an Obama bundler in Shanghai, China with "questionable business ties to state-run Chinese enterprises," according to the report.

Obama.com was purchased in 2008, and, although Obama.com is owned by a third party, not the campaign itself, the site redirects its foreign traffic, a whopping 68 percent, directly to the official Obama for America campaign donation page. The Obama campaign's official and main website, BarackObama.com, sees 43 percent of its traffic coming from foreign IP addresses, according to web metrics firm Markosweb and noted in the report.

According to industry leading web analytics site Markosweb, an anonymously registered redirect site (Obama.com) features 68 % foreign traffic. Starting in December 2011, the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official BarackObama.com campaign website for ten months. The page loaded a tracking number, 634930, into a space on the website labeled "who encouraged you to make this donation." That tracking number is embedded in the source code for Obama.com and is associated with the Obama Victory Fund. In early September 2012, the page began redirecting to the standard Obama Victory Fund donation page. Search engine optimization (SEO) efforts, using common spamming techniques, may have been undertaken by unknown third-parties, generating foreign traffic to Obama.com.

China has a long history of trying to illegally influence American elections. Their efforts were most prominent in the 1990s.
In the past, foreign governments have relied on middlemen to transfer illegal campaign contributions. With the explosion of Internet campaign fundraising, the prospect of foreign powers, criminal gangs, foreign individuals, or domestic fraudsters making direct campaign contributions to American elections becomes far more likely. Put simply, campaign fundraising crimes are now just a click away. Rather than risking detection or relying on a middleman, donations can be anonymously donated through campaign websites. The state of Internet security of many political campaigns' websites leaves American elections vulnerable to fraud or foreign influence.

AN HONEST MISTAKE, OR SOMETHING MORE?

Is the non-use of CVV code verification simply an oversight or mistake made by Obama for America? Most likely, no. The Obama campaign is willing to pay millions in fees in order to accept unsecured contributions on their donation page without the CVV code. Attorney Kenneth Sukhia analyzed the GAI's findings and this revelation in the following way in a separate report.

"As GAI points out, if a campaign is truly seeking to do all it can to prevent illicit contributions, there is no reason not to employ these basic fraud prevention tools. First, these tools are easily installed, and once set up, operate with a minimum of administrative oversight by the vendor. They are fully automated, but can be easily re-calibrated as called for. "

"Under these circumstances, a campaign's decision to turn off either of these systems despite the increased fees raises legitimate questions as to a campaign's knowing failure to use its best efforts to comply with the laws prohibiting foreign contributions. Indeed, it's reasonable to ask why any campaign would ever opt to pay card issuers more for less information and less security. More importantly, why pay card issuers more when doing so lessens a campaign's ability to comply with the law? It's hard to imagine any campaign would pay extra for less security and marketing intelligence, unless it stood to benefit in some way from doing so."

"Because a campaign's decision to opt out of the standard security measures and to pay more to receive less information about their contributors defies all conventional campaign logic, and because it is difficult to identify a more plausible motive, there is reason to suspect that such decisions may be motivated by the belief that more money could be raised through foreign contributions than lost in added fees by declining security tools designed to stop them."

OFA isn't run by amateurs and has a highly sophisticated online presence. OFA is known as the "gold standard" in online technology with a Facebook co-founder, veteran YouTube videographer and an award-winning CNN producer keeping everything running smoothly.

Not to mention, the campaign obviously sees the benefits in using a CVV code to prevent fraud. After all, OFA uses a CVV security code for merchandise purchases. To purchase a sweatshirt or other item in the OFA store, a CVV code must be entered at check out, but the donation page does not require a credit card security code to be used. In addition, the chief technology officer of the Obama campaign, Harper Reed, is a former chief technology officer of the T-shirt company Threadless. Threadless requires a CVV code for online purchases. They clearly know how CVV codes work.

THE NUMBERS

As of September 26, 2012, the Obama campaign has raised $271,327,755 in contributions under $200 for the 2012 cycle. In 2008, it was $335,139,233. The Romney campaign has raised just $58,456,968 in contributions under $200 and has all CVV and online security measures in place. In total, the Obama campaign raised $500 million online in 2008 with $335 million in contributions--more than half--falling under the $200 reporting requirement. Obama has raised more online funds than any campaign in history.

As reported over the weekend, the Obama campaign raised $181 million in September alone--only 2 percent of those donations are required to be reported to the FEC.

The campaign said that just over 1.8 million people made donations to the campaign last month. According to the campaign, over 500k of these were brand-new donors, having neither given in 2008 nor 2012. 98% of contributions were under the reporting threshold of $250. Of these, the average contribution was $53. [It's] really a tale of two worlds. 35k people gave an average of $2,600, while just over 1.7 million people gave an average of $53. Half the campaign's haul came from people giving around the maximum amount and half from people who don't have to be disclosed. Seems a bit odd. The average of $53 from small donors is particularly noteworthy. Contributions under $200 don't have to be disclosed, but the campaign still has to keep track of the donor's name, in case subsequent donations push their contribution over the reporting threshold. For contributions under $50, however, the campaign doesn't even have to keep track of the donor's name. It is effectively considered a "petty cash" donation. A person could theoretically make 10 $49 donations and never be reported, even though their total contributions are above the FEC's reporting threshold. With an average donation of $53 from small donors, Obama has A LOT of donors who will never be disclosed and whose names aren't even known to the campaign. Tens of millions of dollars worth.

HOW LIABLE?

As previously mentioned, the GAI report mentions campaigns have an obligation to protect against illegal campaign contributions. The law under U.S. Code makes it illegal for campaigns or political committees to accept direct or indirect contributions of money from foreign nationals. It is also illegal for a campaign or committee to "solicit, accept, or receive a contribution from a foreign national." Penalties for violations are stiff, according to the report.

While no person can be held accountable under the law for violations he or she is powerless to prevent or for violations of which a person had no knowledge, the law recognizes that to permit meaningful enforcement a person cannot escape responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a crime is most likely being committed. Moreover, the FEC regulations make it clear that a campaign official cannot avoid criminal culpability by ignoring facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether foreign nationals are contributing funds to the campaign.

DIRECT SOLICITATIONS FROM OFA TO FOREIGN NATIONALS AND THE ONLINE PAPER TRAIL

The internet for the Obama campaign has proved to be a cash cow, but it's also provided a digital paper trail of potential illegal activity for investigators. When foreign bloggers received donation solicitations from the Obama campaign, they wrote about it online. GAI found their sites and documented their experiences. Social media accomplished the same thing--an online trail of Obama campaign solicitations to foreign nationals.

1. In July and August, a Chinese blogger reposts letters he has received from the Obama campaign, each of which contains a solicitation for $3 or $5 (note that these smaller donations don't require the campaign to keep any record of them).118 Markosweb states that 87.8% of the traffic flowing to the site comes from China while only 4.5% is from the United States. The website contains hyperlinks that lead to the campaign's donation page. The website also contains graphics showing the disparity between Romney's and the President's fundraising and a countdown clock to the date of the election. Other than the campaign solicitation letters, the website is in Chinese characters.

2. On August 9th, 2012 the Obama campaign sent a solicitation letter to "Hikemt Hadjy-Zadh," an Azerbaijani citizen. His email address is on an Azerbaijani domain and he posts numerous solicitation letters he has received from the Obama campaign. Mr. Hadjy-Zadh reposts the complete letters on a discussion forum, including numerous hyperlinks that go directly to the campaign's donation page.

3. A writer in Vietnam writes on a website for the Vietnam Institute for Development Studies (a government-backed think tank) and posts emails he has received from my.barackobama.com with more than 24 total links to the campaign's donate page embedded in the emails. The website is in the Vietnamese language, hosted on a Vietnamese server, and uses a Vietnamese domain address. In one instance, a letter from Mitch Stewart, Director of the Obama campaign's "Organizing for America," asks for donations. Ironically, Stewart laments that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is reportedly taking money from foreign sources. The reader is then prompted to give his name and email address and thereafter begins receiving solicitation letters for donations.

4. A Dutch blogger writing in Dutch on a Dutch website reprints an email from March 22, 2010 in which President Obama thanks his supporters for their help. "You're welcome, Mr. President," he writes back.

5. The Dutch blog "His Dirk" received a donation request from the campaign. Aware of the U.S. law, the blogger decided not to contribute. The blogger observed, "I imagine many non- Americans have money transferred to the Obama campaign. It's just too easy."

6. A member of the Italian Radical Socialist movement and an administrator of their website reposts solicitations from the Obama campaign which he reports receiving regularly for three years. "And because we are three years in his mailing list...But frankly after 3 years his letters excite me much less..."

7. A Japanese blogger named Isogaya posts a link to the Obama campaign's donation page. When posting the link, Isogaya notes that an option in giving would be to give a gift card.

8. A Norwegian blogger posts a solicitation from the Obama campaign, including the link to the donate page. When another blogger opines that non-U.S. citizens cannot contribute because of American law, the blogger responds in Norwegian,"I have in practice given money to Obama, I had done it."

9. A blogger in Egypt who serves on the board of the Union of Arab Bloggers posts the solicitation letters he reports to regularly receive from the Obama campaign.127 "We as Arabs and Muslims" support the "Democratic party, compared to the Republican Party," but notes his objection to the President's stand on gay marriage.

WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION

Although GAI's findings were most prominent with Obama for America, the "CCV loophole" is a problem across the political spectrum. The report found nearly half of Congress is at least vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations.

Of the 446 House and Senate members who have an online donation page, 47.3% do not require the three or four digit credit card security number (officially called the Card Verification Value, or the CVV) for Internet contributions.

During his run for U.S. Senate, then Republican candidate Marco Rubio's campaign donation website didn't have CVV protection. The protection was put in place in May 2012 after the campaign was over. The report alleges the connection to foreign websites could be a violation of the Federal Election Commission solicitation laws and at minimum put Rubio at risk for fraud in his campaign.

The Government Accountability Institute found considerable international interest in the Rubio campaign, including significant foreign traffic going to the website marcorubioforussenate.com. Links on foreign websites often took the form of videos that featured links to "donate" to the Rubio campaign.

Sukhia also mentioned the Rubio campaign in his anaylsis of the report.

"The Government Accountability Institute found considerable international interest in the Rubio campaign, including significant foreign traffic going to the website marcorubioforussenate.com."

"GAI found numerous video links on foreign websites that featured running ads to "donate" to the Rubio campaign."

Although campaigns may have CVV in place, organizations they take money from often times do not. For example, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has accepted more than $5.7 million from ActBlue, a fundraising organization that does not require U.S. citizenship verification or a CVV code when accepting contributions.

Because the problems of potential fraud due to a lack of CVV use are so widespread, GAI created a 50-state interactive map to show which members of Congress lack standard secure campaign donation websites.

SOLUTION FOR OBAMA CAMPAIGN

In his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama said, "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities."

In this situation, the foreign donation problem coming from online sources can be solved and President Obama's promise of transparency can be kept in one click by enabling all security protections and releasing the names and records on all transactions under $200 to verify Obama for America is a clean campaign operating within FEC law.

Overall, major reforms are needed to ensure foreign contributions are not interfering with or influencing elections in the United States.

Obama for America did not return calls for comment.

[Warph]

           

Why the Obama Bubble Still Hasn't Burst

By Star Parker
10/8/2012

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2012/10/08/why_the_obama_bubble_still_hasnt_burst/page/full/

Can there be political bubbles like financial bubbles?

Financial bubbles, inflated by hopes and dreams, burst when reality negates any possibility that those hopes and dreams will be realized. At that point, sky high stock or bond or real estate prices come crashing down to earth.

Can the same thing happen in politics? Can a skilled politician, who has become popular with soaring rhetoric and promises, deflate when it starts becoming clear that he is not going to deliver?

Of course, I am thinking about our president.

Mitt Romney demonstrated in the first presidential debate that the considerable gap between President Obama's rhetoric and his performance makes him a vulnerable candidate.

Yet, the president's bubble is far from bursting.

Romney, in the debate, was aggressive but deferential toward Obama. He was deferential because, despite the poor state of the country after almost four years of the Obama administration, Barack Obama is still a popular president.

Recent polling shows his approval remains around 50 percent. At similar stages in the presidencies of the last two presidents voted out after one term, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, their popularity ratings were in the thirties.

What accounts for Barack Obama's Teflon? How is it that, after almost four years of terrible economic results – high unemployment, sluggish growth, huge deficits and mounting national debt – that Obama's persona is not more tarnished?

Shouldn't today's economic facts on the ground be sufficient to puncture the Obama bubble?

One part of the answer to this puzzle is the changing demographics of the country.

The United States today is a nation that is much less white, much less married, and less traditional than it once was. These are growing trends and each reflects in at least some large part constituencies with values supportive of Obama's world view - activist government and moral relativism.

What was once the exception to the rule in America – not being white, not being married, not having traditional views on family, sex, and abortion – is now becoming the rule. And these constituencies are becoming sufficiently large to elect a president.

National Journal released a poll right before the debate showing Obama and Romney dead even nationwide – 47 percent each – among likely voters.

The poll shows Obama's white support at just 38 percent.

Obama was elected in 2008 with 43 percent of the white vote. It appears that he could be re-elected with even less.

In Gallup's polling of last week, Obama's approval among white voters stood at 39 percent.

He gets 38 percent approval among those who attend church weekly compared to 55 percent among those who attend church seldom or never.

And his approval among married voters is 40 percent compared to 57 percent among those not married.

According to data compiled by the Tax Foundation, the large majority of those now filing tax returns in the U.S. are single. In 1960, 65 percent of all tax filers were married and 35 percent single. In 2010 it's reversed - 61 percent of filers were single and 39 percent married.

When Barack Obama pushes for taxing the rich, he's not just pitting those with the highest incomes against everyone else. He's pitting married against singles. Eight of ten tax filers in the top twenty percent of earners are married. The majority of middle income and below filers are single.

It's really a cultural divide, one you can be sure that Barack Obama is very aware of, that is keeping his bubble inflated.

The fact that Obama's support is still this strong despite his terrible record sends a clear warning to those looking for a new birth of American freedom.

Romney and Ryan should consider taking these constituencies on directly – blacks, Hispanics, singles – explaining why America's future hinges on shutting down the government plantation.

[Warph]

         Obama's Jobs Flimflam

                           


By Jeffrey Lord on 10.9.12 @ 6:11AM

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/09/obamas-jobs-flim-flam

1.7 million illegals suddenly added to job pool -- but the unemployment rate drops?

Flimflam!!!

Defined as:
1. Nonsense; humbug.0
2. A deception; a swindle.
3. To swindle; cheat.

Well, now. What do we have here?

Back there on June 15, 2012, there was a considerable commotion involving President Obama as he made an announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House.

Remember? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration

On a nice, sunny day the President suddenly appeared in front of the carefully assembled White House press corps to announce that he was granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants. After running through his highly controversial reasoning -- critics hotly charged that he was wrongly using an executive order to end-run Congress for the sake of election year politics -- the President said (bold emphasis mine):

Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.>

Which is to say, as the Pew Research Center noted here, using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau, somewhere around 1.7 million new workers were abruptly dumped into the U.S. job market.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/08/14/up-to-1-7-million-unauthorized-immigrant-youth-may-benefit-from-new-deportation-rules/

Remember the kerfuffle over Neil Munro?

The Daily Caller reporter who angered the President by trying to ask a question about all of this? The President claimed he was being interrupted, then kept reading -- and finally finished, stalked back to the Oval Office with Mr. Munro's lone voice echoing as the President's back receded?

To refresh, take a look here at this clip from Hannity in which the clip is replayed and Munro is interviewed.

What was the very last question that Mr. Munro shouted at the departing President's back?

That's right. As reflected in the official White House transcript, it was this question:

Q. What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?

Now flash forward to last Friday's highly controversial announcement from the Obama Department of Labor that the unemployment rate has dropped under 8% (to 7.8%) for the first time in 44 months. Amazingly, the dip below 8% came with just a little over a month to go before Mr. Obama's fate is decided by voters. The announcement was immediately derided in this fashion by legendary ex-General Electric chairman Jack Welch, who Tweeted:

Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers.

First, a hat tip to reader Ken Rohrbaugh, a former college classmate turned eagle-eyed CPA out there in the beautiful swing state of Colorado.

Mr. Rohrbaugh makes the obvious point that a CPA would instantly spot.

If the Obama administration announces in June that 1.7 million new workers are being added to the American workforce. Then announces in September that only 114,000 jobs have been created in September -- how can the unemployment rate possibly drop?

What happed to all those newly work permitted Americans? Did all 1.7 million suddenly get jobs in a suddenly hot economy? Which would require a job increase of some 15 times that 114,000? Obviously not.

While Mr. Munro's videotaped tangle with the president may be what many remember, fewer may recall that Munro (who called the high unemployment rate "extraordinary" in his Hannity appearance) wrote about the issue of adding so many new workers into the workforce and what it would do to the unemployment rate.

Wrote Munro later that same day of June 15 after his attempt to question the President:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/munro-obama-ignores-questions-about-controversial-de-facto-amnesty-decision/

The announcement of the decision comes at a time of record unemployment among low-skilled workers, Hispanics and African-Americans.

For example, less than 50 percent of younger African-Americans have full-time jobs, according to data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Unemployment among Hispanics, youth and African-Americans rose in May, according to the BLS.

All correct.

Take a look at this report from ABC News on August 15, the first day applicants could actually show up to apply and legally jump into the American employment pool -- where they will be officially counted. There is Diane Sawyer introducing this story by saying (bold emphasis mine):

"All day long images like these have been pouring into our newsroom. Tens of thousands of undocumented young immigrants coming out of the shadows. This is the day the President's new initiative begins to take hold giving them a chance at the legal right to work and live openly in this country.... the lines stretched into the distance.">

Reporter David Wright talks as cameras pan those "tens of thousands" filmed in various cities across America, "the lines stretched into the distance."

Take a look at this report from Chicago's WMAQ, and proudly uploaded by Chicago's Democratic (and Hispanic) Congressman Luis Gutierrez, which has an aerial shot of what it says is some 12,000 undocumented immigrants signing up for the right to jump in the U.S. pool of unemployed Americans. Gutierrez is in the clip calling the location for the event the new Ellis Island. And that was just in Chicago.

So.

How can the addition of these 1.7 million new workers plunging into the already high pool of the unemployed in June -- miraculously lower the unemployment rate by September?

Obviously, they can't.

Not to get too graphic, but what happened when that tsunami hit the coastline of Japan a while back? Right.
This happens:

Too much water suddenly surging inside the natural coastline caused -- shocker -- the water level to rise. Abruptly, water was abruptly flooding everywhere, tossing cars, buildings, and everything else every place else. A siren alarm goes off, a frantic voice is heard on a loud speaker as the water level rises -- and rises and rises and rises.

Now take another look at those photos shown on ABC News and WMAQ. Those ABC photos and the WMAQ aerial shots are literally the equivalent of an unemployment tsunami suddenly hitting the United States.

Yet Americans are being asked to believe -- seriously - that the Obama administration, having generated this human unemployment tsunami, has miraculously caused unemployment to drop?

Yes, they are being asked to believe just that. By no less than President Obama himself.

Right. Just like the day that tsunami hit Japan and the water level dropped.

Pay no attention to those floating buildings and cars! Move along!
Stop. Stop, stop, STOP!

What did Jeremiah Wright say about Obama and truth telling?

We discussed the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in this space last week, focusing on his relationship with Obama. The Reverend Wright -- on tape -- told the following story to author Edward Klein of Barack Obama's belief on telling the truth (in Klein's bestselling book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House). The story revolved around Wright's controversial taped sermons finally bursting into the media in 2008 -- and a personal visit by Obama to convince Wright to stop speaking until the election was over. Wright refused (in spite of an offer of $150,000 through an intermediary). Wright recounted his story this way:

Barack said, "I'm sorry you don't see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?'" And I said, "No, what's my problem?" And he said, "You have to tell the truth."

Wright's point: that Obama believed that he, Obama, was excused from telling the truth. In other words, Wright is saying that Barack Obama has no hesitation in lying straight out when needed. Telling the truth is not Obama's problem -- now or, according to Wright, ever.

Not telling the truth.
Where else have we seen this kind of behavior before in the Obama administration?

How about:

• Benghazi.> Where the Obama administration spent days -- weeks -- insisting the attack on the American consulate that killed Ambassador was a spontaneous event and not a planned terrorist attack. Spokesperson after spokesperson -- from the President on down through his press secretary, Secretary of State and Ambassador to the United Nations -- one person after another boldly told a laughable untruth - pinning the blame not on terrorism but on an Internet video. Now the scramble is on to cover up, with at least one congressional investigation already underway.

• Fast and Furious.> Once again, the Justice Department is under fire for a cover-up. Fox's William La Jeunesse reports three White House national security officials now admit they were briefed on Fast and Furious, contradicting the President. The number of violent crimes committed by these Fast and Furious weapons has shot up from 11, as first claimed, to possibly 28. Third, newly revealed documents indicate a cover-up by the U.S. Attorney's office to try and conceal the fact that weapons recovered from the murder scene where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered.

• General Motors.> The mantra Joe Biden loves to shout is that "Osama is dead and General Motors is alive." Well aside from the fact that the attack in Benghazi shows clearly that al Qaeda is alive and well and crowds all over the world are shouting ("Obama, Obama, we are all Osama") -- General Motors wants the government out of its company. Specifically, it wants the government to sell the 27 shares Obama took in the company because company officials have become convinced Obama's stake is bad for GM's business. But the government refuses to sell, the Wall Street Journal reports, because the American taxpayer would have to take a financial bath to the tune of some $15 billion. So Biden blithely goes about the business of covering-up yet another embarrassing administration misadventure.

• Lockheed Martin.> As reported by ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House today — one with political overtones — and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.

Lockheed, one of the biggest employers in the key battleground state of Virginia, previously warned it would have to issue notices to employees, required by law, due to looming defense cuts set to begin to take effect after Jan. 2 because of the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — the so-called Super-committee, which was created to find a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade.

Such massive layoffs could have threatened Obama's standing in the state he won in 2008 and is hoping to carry again this November.

In other words, the White House is quite deliberately demanding of Lockheed that it violate the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. WARN requires companies to notify workers 60 days ahead of time of coming layoffs -- but the administration can't have that because the notices would have been sent out mere days before the election. So -- the decision was made to just violate the law. And cover up by pretending there's nothing amiss.[/font][/size]


When you add it all up -- what is now obvious to more and more Americans is that just as Reverend Wright has said -- this President has a problem telling the truth.

Is there any wonder that on one day in June the President says he's pouring 1.7 million new people into the job pool -- and apparently believes they are one big no-never-mind when tallying the unemployment rate for September?

Is there any wonder there are all manner of cover-up accusations now gaining on the Obama administration -- over Libya, Fast and Furious, General Motors, and Lockheed Martin.

What all these things have in common is that they reflect Reverend Wright's hard-earned lesson -- that Barack Obama has a problem telling the truth.

Either that, or there are now 1.7 million formerly undocumented immigrants who have jobs.

So what's happening here?



Can you say "flimflam?"

[Warph]

"The Wisdom of Thomas Sowell"

[Warph]

       
"A Libyan girl places flowers at the gate of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 17"

Timeline of Libya Attack (according to USAToDay)

3:44PM EST October 10. 2012


April-June:
Several security threats occur against U.S. installations in Libya, according to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They include an explosive device thrown over the fence of the U.S. consulate, an explosive device blowing a hole in a consulate security perimeter big enough for a large force to enter, armed men carjacking a vehicle with diplomatic plates used by U.S. officials, and the British embassy set on fire.


July:
An American real estate developer releases on YouTube, a very stupid 13-minute trailer for "The Real Life of Muhammed," an anti-Islam video:

============================================================

(The Obama State Department withdrew a 16 member special forces team from Benghazi one month before the deadly attacks on 9-11-2012.  Lt. Col. Andy Wood was the leader of the 16 member special forces team whose job it was to protect US personnel in Libya.  His team's mission ended in August a month before the deadly Al-Qaeda attack on 9-11-2012.  A six member mobile security team was also withdrawn around the same time.  This was despite the fact that there were over a dozen attacks in the country this year.

Lt. Col. Wood was subpoenaed to appear at a House committee hearing this coming week.  Wood told CBS News it was unbelievable to him that the State Department withdrew security when they did because of the 13 security incidents before 9-11-2012.
...Warph)

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/07/bombshell-obama-administration-withdrew-16-member-special-forces-team-from-libya-one-month-before-attack-video/

VIDEO:

==============================================================

Sept. 8:
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade that provides security at the U.S. consulate, and a battalion commander meet with U.S. diplomats in Benghazi to say the security situation there is "frightening," he recounts to CNN in an interview after the attack.


Sept. 10:
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri appears on an Internet video calling for Libyans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, his Libyan deputy, killed in a drone strike in June.


Sept 11:
Egyptians attack the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, raising the flag of al-Qaeda in place of the U.S. flag. The embassy releases a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims," in reference to the U.S. video.

News reports say the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has been attacked.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney releases a statement embargoed for midnight condemning the attacks and criticizing the Obama administration for blaming the American filmmaker instead of the attackers.

The White House repudiates the original U.S. Embassy statement, saying it was released without proper approval. The Obama campaign attacks Romney for issuing his statement before an investigation is complete.


Sept 12:
Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens is reported dead with three other Americans in the Benghazi attack.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemns "this senseless act of violence," saying some have sought to justify the attack and protests "as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

President Obama says in a Rose Garden statement that an investigation is underway. He condemns the attackers and in an allusion to the video he says the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but all must oppose such senseless violence against public servants.

U.S. intelligence agencies conclude internally that the incident was a planned terror attack likely by al-Qaeda affiliates on the embassy in order to release resources to respond, according to reports from several news media outlets.

Obama is interviewed on 60 Minutes and defends his Mideast policies as aligning the USA with democracy, saying, "There are going to be bumps in the road."

Republican members of Congress say they are have been told by intelligence officials that the Benghazi attack was a well-planned assault timed to the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, not an anti-video protest gone awry.


Sept. 13:
Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for the State Department, which oversees embassies, says State had evaluated the "threat stream" in Libya prior to the attack, "and we determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew."

Clinton issues a statement saying, "There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence."

White House spokesman Jay Carney insists: "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie."


Sept. 14:
The bodies of Stevens and three Americans arrive at Andrews Air Force base. Obama says at the base that the United States will "stand fast" against the violence, Both he and Clinton criticize the video for prompting the attacks. "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with," Clinton said.

Carney denies the White House was aware of "any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." "The story is absolutely wrong," he says. "That report is false."


Sept. 16:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talks shows and says the attacks were spontaneous eruptions over the anti-Islam video, saying, "This was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack."

President of Libya's general National Congress Mohammed Magarief contradicts the Obama administration, saying there is "no doubt that this (attack) was pre-planned, predetermined."


Sept. 17:
Nuland is asked whether the attack was a terror attack. "I'm not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation. I don't think we know enough," she says.


Sept. 18:
Obama appears on The Late Show with David Letterman and is asked by the host if the attack was an act of war. "Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here ... a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam ... so this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world."


Sept. 19:
The first U.S. administration official to testify on the matter, Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olsen, says the Americans in Benghazi were killed "in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."

A diary belonging to Stevens found in the burned-out Benghazi consulate by a reporter for CNN indicates Stevens was concerned about security threats.


Sept. 20:
Carney, when asked about Olsen's testimony, says it is "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack.

In an interview at Univision Town Hall, Obama is asked whether the attack was the work of terrorists. He says his administration is still investigating the attack and cannot say for certain. "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," Obama says.


Sept. 21:
Clinton says at a meeting with Pakistan's foreign minister that, "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."


Sept. 25:
ABC airs the television show The View, in which Obama is asked about Clinton's statement. "We don't have all of the information yet so we are still gathering," he says. He says there is "no doubt" that "it wasn't just a mob action."

"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," he says.

In a speech to the United Nations, Obama condemns the attacks and the American filmmaker, saying, "A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."

Clinton issues a statement acknowledging that an al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya and other Islamist terror groups "are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions."


Sept. 26:
Libya's Magarief tells NBC's Today show that the attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism "directed against American citizens."


Sept. 27:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says, "I think it pretty clearly was a terrorist attack."


Oct. 1:
Nuland declines to address reports that embassy officials in Libya were seeking additional security in Benghazi and denied. "I think it's fair to say that we are still working through what we have in this building in terms of documentation, in terms of information about what we knew, who knew it, when they knew it, and that's part of the process that we have to go through," she says.


Oct. 2:
Carney declines to discuss reports of requests from diplomats in Libya for more security due to the State Department's internal investigation, he says.[/font][/size]