Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[jarhead]

Quote :
The facts matter little to liberals. Their assumption of intellectual superiority isn't based on actual knowledge.

Warph,
I would say those few words pretty much tell the whole story

[Warph]

Quote :
The facts matter little to liberals. Their assumption of intellectual superiority isn't based on actual knowledge.

Warph,
I would say those few words pretty much tell the whole story

I agree 100%... check this out:


Romney leads 52 to 46 in Gallup's early voting poll results. Gallup has released its latest election poll, and despite the water-carrying mainstream media's 24/7 hype singing hymns of praise about Pres. Barack Obama, the results for early voting show that Mitt Romney is significantly ahead in the presidential race.

Too early to start turning cartwheels just yet, boys and girls, but here's the early voting numbers:





From Guy Benson at Townhall, Oh My: Romney Leads 52/46 in National Early Voting?:

Am I missing something, or is this a rather significant development? Isn't early voting supposed to be Democrats' secret weapon, with which they run up the score, then dare the GOP to catch up on Election Day? And unlike the snapshot national polls that we obsess over each day (many of which are based upon samples of 800-1,200 respondents), this survey has a massive sample size of 3,312 registered voters. Of those who say they've already voted nationwide, the D/R/I is 33/37/29, or R+4. Glance over that chart one more time. If those stats are even close to representative of the 2012 electorate, Obama is going to lose. Right? Or have I managed to blind myself to a glaring caveat or two?

UPDATE – I suppose Obama could be cleaning up in swing state early voting, and Romney's apparent lead is being banked in places where it won't ultimately matter. But as Josh Jordan has written, major national trends and CW in the battlegrounds have to collide at some point. It will be interesting to hear Team O's spin on this...though they may just shout "outlier," as they have with much of the Gallup data in recent weeks.

UPDATE II- Two more reasons I'm taking something of a "too-good-to-be-true" approach to this poll: (1) I just can't reconcile it with the numerous other polls showing a close race. And this election at least feels like a close race. (2) Gallup's write up seems decidedly nonchalant about their own information. Here's a direct quote: "Political impact of early voting looks minimal...Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate."


From John Nolte, Big Government: GALLUP: Romney Up 52-45% Among Early Voters:

Romney's early voting lead in Gallup may not jive with the CorruptMedia narrative, but it does with actual early vote totals that have been released and show Romney's early vote totals either beating Obama in swing states such as Colorado and Florida or chipping away at the President's advantage in the others. For example, here's what we know about Ohio's early voting numbers, thus far:

But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.


From Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard, New Projection of Election Results: Romney 52, Obama 47:

The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its "vote election model," is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. The poll also found that Romney has an even greater advantage among middle class voters, 52 percent to 45 percent.

While Obama can close the gap with a strong voter turnout effort, "reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory," says pollster Ed Goeas.

Should Romney win by 5 percentage points, it would increase Republican chances of gaining control of the Senate. His coattails would help elect GOP Senate candidates in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. "Republicans are now certain to hold the House," Goeas said, "regardless of how the presidential race turns out."

The poll's election model takes into account variables including voter intensity, age, and education, and voters who are certain in their vote. The race "remains very close in the surface," Goeas said, "but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney."

[Warph]

Here's just a few unvarnished, non-hope-n-change reminders of the
past four HORRIBLE years under the self-absorbed, clueless Blamer
in Chief Obuma and his failed Marxist/statist policies:



'For Every 1 Person Added To Labor Force Since January 2009,' the chart reads,
'10 People Added To Those Not In Labor Force' – Source: Senate Budget Committee
ranking Member Jeff Sessions' Republican staff calculation of seasonally adjusted data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2009 through Sept 2012



'Number of individuals in America added to, or subtracted from, the food stamp
rolls highlighted by US presidential administration, 1970 – 2011'




'Before-tax median family income & family net worth, income and net worth fell
from 2007 to 2010 | Source: Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances 2010'




"Unemployment chart with and without Obama's costly 'recovery' plan"




'Unemployment by president: the Clinton years, Bush years, and Obama years |
Updated Sept 2012'




'Chart of labor force participation rate, through April 2012'




'Chart showing people no longer in the labor force, through April 2012'

[jarhead]

Quote from Warph:
Romney leads 52 to 46 in Gallup's early voting poll results

Warph, now that news sends shivers up MY leg. One of the scariest things about Obummer getting re-elected is the fact that Biden is just one heart beat away from being POTUS. I've heard he "supposedly " gets things done but the people who "actually" know him and have worked with him, they say he gets things done by using fear and being a bully . No wonder him and the O-man get along so well.

[Warph]

           


The Night of September 11th...
                          Was Obama in Charge—or Not?

by Gary Schmitt

Much has been made of President Obama's considerable use of the pronoun "I" on the night he announced to the nation the killing of Osama bin Laden. As Mark Bowden notes in his recently published account of the killing and the decision-making that led up to the operation, The Finish, the president was not shy about putting himself front and center when it came to the decision to proceed with the operation: "I directed Leon Panetta ... I was briefed ... I met repeatedly with my national security team ... I determined ... and authorized ... Today at my direction."

While a bit over the top when it comes to the "me" factor, nevertheless, the president is indeed commander in chief and, under the Constitution, with its unitary executive, he is, as the text of that document asserts, the sole holder of "the executive power." Unlike many of the state constitutions of the time, the national executive authority was not divided among various state office holders nor as under the Articles of Confederation—the country's first federal constitution—was it in the hands of the national assembly. So, whether critics of the president liked his rhetoric or not, whether they felt it was unseemly or not, it wasn't out of bounds from a constitutional perspective.

Now, the founders thought the "unitary executive" was necessary because it provided two distinct but complementary institutional qualities: decisiveness and responsibility. In times of emergency, one man could act more quickly than many and one man, whose decision it was to act, could be judged for that decision more clearly by Congress and the nation than a muddle of decision makers. One only has to remember the now iconic picture relayed around the nation and the world the next day of the president, surrounded by aides, the vice president and the secretary of state, intently watching the feed from an overhead drone in the White House situation room as the operation against bin Laden's compound went down to understand the role the president plays in such matters.

Of course, that was then.

There are no pictures of the president watching a live feed from the drone that was above Benghazi the night Ambassador Stevens was killed. There are no pictures of the president monitoring the hours-long assault on the American diplomatic compounds there or the resulting firefight between the Islamists militia and U.S. security guards, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both of whom were killed early in the morning of September 12.

What we do have are reports that U.S. commandos, gunships, and other specialized forces were moved into position to come to the Americans' assistance. Now, putting aside the fact that such deployments do not normally occur without the highest level of consultation within an administration, what we don't know is who made the ultimate decision not to deploy those forces into Benghazi. Did the president? If he did, what reasons can he give to justify the decision to keep from sending those forces in? It might even have been the right decision but we will not know that until we have a clearer picture of when he was informed, what he was told, how he stayed informed, and when and why he gave the order to stand down.

But the very fact that the White House and the administration have been reluctant to provide this information (and, indeed, seem to be passing the buck on who did what and when) raises another possibility: that the president was not carrying out his responsibilities as commander in chief. Yet whether distracted by the upcoming election, calls to the Israeli prime minister, or prepping for a fundraiser the next day in Las Vegas, presidents don't get to delegate that power, even to a secretary of defense.

So, the night of September 11 comes down to this: was the president in charge—or not? The Constitution makes it clear, he must be.

[Warph]

Hurricane Sandy: Could it delay Election Day?


Come Nov. 6, several states may still be struggling with the aftermath of the storm, raising the outside possibility of a postponement


As Hurricane Sandy, now downgraded to a "superstorm," churns inland, officials in states on or near the coast are assessing the damage left in Sandy's wake. In addition to the tragic deaths of at least 17 people, there are millions without power across several states; flooded roads and damaged infrastructure; and thousands who remain evacuated from danger zones. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has said it may take eight days to fully restore power to his state, raising concerns that New Jersey may not be prepared for Election Day. If other states are experiencing similar logistical problems, would it be possible to reschedule?


Technically, yes. The power to delay elections, even federal ones, lies with the states, says L.V. Anderson at Slate:

The details of the postponement would vary state by state. Many states have constitutional provisions or statutes that detail their ability to suspend or reschedule an election in the event of an emergency... As for states without specific provisions of statutes, the governor could still reasonably use his or her emergency powers to suspend the election during a state of emergency.


In addition, Congress has the right to determine when federal elections will take place. Since 1845, presidential elections have been held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that could hypothetically be changed. However, the truth is that there is so little precedent for such a delay that it could very well set off a constitutional crisis, says Ben Jacobs at The New Republic:

The solution would not be guided by statute since there is so little precedent but instead by what is both expedient and politically acceptable. The basic statutory framework and handful of court cases would be a guide, not an answer. Instead, like any other response to a natural disaster, adjusting Election Day would simply require improvising.


To avoid that kind of messiness, Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell is focusing on rehabilitating polling centers, says Rachel Weiner at The Washington Post:

[Officials] are focusing on arranging with power companies to restore power first to polling locations. They are also making sure voting equipment is battery-operated and that batteries are charged. And they are setting up contingency polling places in the event that polling locations are unusable for reasons going beyond power issues, such as flooding.


Some have taken issue with the whole notion of delaying the election. Jonah Goldberg at The National Review says voters need to grow a thicker hide:

[This] country held elections during the Civil War!...

This country is so bizarrely schizophrenic about voting it drives me crazy. We are constantly bathed in platitudes about how vital, wonderful, special, glorious and sacred voting is. But don't you dare ask the American people to put the slightest bit of effort into the practice. It must be convenient. It must be easy. It must be on my timetable, like a DVR'd episode of Nashville or The Price is Right. Why not ask the American people to demonstrate that they appreciate the importance of voting?

[Warph]

     

The Obama For America (OFA) Exception to Political Speech
By Mike Adams
10/31/2012


Two Fridays ago, I was busy preparing for a campus debate and finishing the final edits on my next book. It was a busy day and I simply did not have time to deal with a totalitarian college administrator posing as a genuine liberal. But these people never rest. So when the phone rang I should not have been surprised. And I knew I had a responsibility to help the distressed student, despite my busier than usual schedule.

The controversy in this case was pretty simple. The UNCW College Republicans (CRs) were hosting a political event. They put up posters on campus and all around Wilmington trying to draw people to the event. Then, one of the CR officers went to Cape Fear Community College (CFCC) to place political fliers on bulletin boards inside some of their publicly funded educational buildings.

Members of the taxpaying public should not have to ask for permission to put up political fliers on public campus bulletin boards. But the CR officer asked anyway. When she did, the CFCC administrator denied the request with this sweeping statement: CFCC does not allow political posters or fliers anywhere on campus.

I was proud of the CR officer for demanding that the administrator show her a copy of the policy that allows administrators to ban all printed political speech on a publicly funded college campus. I was unsurprised to hear that the administrator failed to produce evidence of the nonexistent policy. Nor was I surprised when she redirected the CR officer to two different administrators who were not present in their offices during the middle of the morning.

After being redirected to the two empty offices, the CR officer called me to explain the situation and seek my advice. I sent her back to the CFCC campus with her iPhone to complete a very simple research project: I asked her to take a walk across campus and take pictures of every single political poster she saw.

The results of our little study will not surprise you. Obama For America (OFA) posters were hanging in plain sight all across campus. So I called the administrator who had banned the Republican posters from the CFCC campus. When she picked up the phone, I said "Hi. My name is Mike Adams. I've called to ask some questions about one of your policies that restricts political speech on campus." Her reaction suggested that she may have heard of me before.

I did not get very far into my First Amendment lecture before that administrator transferred me to another office. The reception I got there was markedly more professional. I explained the illegality of a policy banning all printed political speech. I explained that it was irrelevant because the policy actually does not exist because the administrator simply made it up. Then, I arranged a time for the student to come back to seek approval with two things in her hand: 1. A stack of political posters advertising a Republican event. 2. An iPhone loaded with pictures of OFA posters hanging all over the CFCC campus.

By the end of the day, the posters were hanging on the campus. I went back to preparing for my debate and working on my book edits. When I finished those tasks I sat down to catch up on my column chronicles of the campus free speech wars. I wrote this specific column in order to illustrate the followings points:

1. Campus censorship, which began in the elite private schools and spread to the state universities has now reached our community college campuses.
2. All of these institutions are populated with armies of administrators who are, at best, indifferent to First Amendment principles.

3. Increasingly, many campus administrators, including those at small community colleges, are openly hostile toward the First Amendment.

4. Hostile administrators often invent campus policies in an effort to shut down the marketplace of ideas.

5. The goal of hostile administrators is to completely remove any semblance of conservative thought from the marketplace of ideas. Their goal is total domination of the ideological marketplace.

6. Administrators rely upon a combination of student apathy and student ignorance in their efforts to reduce intellectual diversity on campus.

7. When questioned by others in positions of authority, these administrators generally refuse to answer questions and try to pass responsibility on to other administrators.

8. When initially confronted, those other administrators claim ignorance of the facts concerning alleged constitutional violations.

9. When confronted again with explicit evidence and implicit threats of litigation, campus administrators often capitulate.

10. Even small free speech victories require substantial effort due to the size of the college administration and the ambiguity of its organizational structure.

There really is little wonder why some administrators at CFCC sought to keep OFA posters as the sole examples of political speech on campus. It really isn't political speech. It's just the way things ought to be. The OFA movement protects the administrative bureaucracy. The administrative bureaucracy protects the OFA movement. That is how these things move. Forward.

These days, the purpose of speech at government schools is to grow the government. It isn't about the students. It hasn't been that way since the 1960s.

[Warph]

       


Black and White Standards

By Walter E. Williams
10/31/2012


The Washington Post (10/25/2012), in giving President Barack Obama an endorsement for another four years, wrote, "Much of the 2012 presidential campaign has dwelt on the past, but the key questions are who could better lead the country during the next four years -- and, most urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing." The suggestion appears to be that a president is not to be held accountable to his promises and past record and that his past record is no indication of his future behavior. Possibly, the Washington Post people believe that a black president shouldn't be held accountable to his record and campaign promises.

Let's look at it.

***What about Obama's pledge to cut the deficit in half during his first term in office? Instead, we saw the first trillion-dollar deficit ever, under any president of the United States. Plus, it has been followed by trillion-dollar deficits in every year of his administration.

***What about Obama's pledge of transparency, in which his legislative proposals would be placed on the Internet days before Congress voted on them so that Americans could inspect them? Obama's major legislative proposal, Obamacare, was enacted in such secrecy and with such speed that even members of Congress did not have time to read it. Remember that it was Rep. Nancy Pelosi who told us, "But we have to pass the (health care) bill so that you can find out what is in it."

***What about Obama's stimulus packages and promises to get unemployment under control? The Current Employment Statistics program shows that in 2008, the total number of U.S. jobs was more than 138 million, compared with 133.5 million today. As Stanford University economics professor Edward Lazear summed it up, "there hasn't been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office."

While Obama's national job approval rating is a little less than 50 percent, among blacks his job approval is a whopping 88 percent. I'd like to ask people who approve of Obama's performance, "What has President Obama done during the past four years that you'd like to see more of in the next four years?"

Black support of politicians who have done little or nothing for their ordinary constituents is by no means unusual. Blacks are chief executives of major cities, such as Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington, Memphis, Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Oakland, Newark, Cleveland and Cincinnati. In most of these cities, the chief of police, the superintendent of schools and other high executives are black. But in these cities, black people, like no other sector of our population, suffer from the highest rates of homicides, assaults, robberies and shootings. Black high-school dropout rates in these cities are the highest in the nation. Even if a black youngster manages to graduate from high school, his reading, writing and computational proficiency is likely to be equivalent to that of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. That's even with school budgets per student being among the highest in the nation.

Last year, in reference to President Obama's failed employment policies and high unemployment among blacks, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said, "If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House." That's a vision that seems to explain black tolerance for failed politicians -- namely, if it's a black politician whose policies are ineffectual and possibly harmful to the masses of the black community, it's tolerable, but it's entirely unacceptable if the politician is white.

Black people would not accept excuses upon excuses and vote to re-elect decade after decade any white politician, especially a Republican politician, to office who had the failed records of our big-city mayors. What that suggests about black people is not very flattering.

[Warph]

Pants on Fire, Obuma.... Pants on Fire!!!




A Tale of Two Countries

By Ben Shapiro
10/31/2012


It has become an accepted truism in American politics that both Democrats and Republicans want the same things: a prosperous America, a strong America, an America true to principles of freedom and liberty.

Perhaps 50 years ago that was true.

Today, it no longer is.

The fact is that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are no longer arguing over means; we are arguing over ends. Democrats know that economic prosperity for the broad swath of the United States cannot be bought with higher taxes; even Bill Clinton recognized as much in the 1990s, which is why he lowered capital gains taxes dramatically after raising personal income taxes just as dramatically. Instead, Democrats argue, as President Obama did in 2008, that taxes must be raised "for purposes of fairness."

Democrats also know that American influence in the world can't be attained purely with negotiations, timetables and unilateral pullouts. Kind words don't win hearts, and they don't defend our friends from aggression. Democrats simply hope to be left alone. After all, as President Obama has said, America has demonstrated "arrogance" and sought to "dictate our terms" to other countries. And that just isn't fair.

Fairness lies at the root of the Democratic agenda. It's a leveling agenda, not a growth agenda. What's more, it's a philosophy of constant revolution since ultimate fairness can never be achieved in a world where we are all blessed with different gifts. The philosophy that prizes fairness above all else -- at least in material and cultural terms -- can never achieve human happiness, since such fairness can never be attained. And even if it could be attained, it would require unbelievable levels of suppression. The human spirit is not built to serve the god of fairness.

Prosperity and strength lie at the root of the Republican agenda. Conservatives don't support lower taxes because we hate the poor.

Conservatives support lower taxes because lower taxes create prosperity for everyone. Individuals always know more about their lives than any bureaucrat does. They know more about their needs and wants. They know which products they require, and they know how to find the best deal. No government can better distribute resources than individuals making individual decisions can. Competitive markets have done more to create wonderful products and raise the quality of living across the globe than any other institution. Central planning does not create wealth. It merely redistributes poverty.

When it comes to America's role in the world, conservatism does not rely on America to be one among many. We must be proud of our role as a global leader. Our values are superior to those of other countries. Our system, prizing limited government and preserving individual liberties, is the greatest system of government ever devised. Why would we run from the honor of leading? Why would we shirk that responsibility? Most importantly, if we wish to see the world a happier place, why would we deny to others the opportunity to share in our lot, especially if it preserves our interests to do so?

Mitt Romney knows all this. Barack Obama does not. That's why Obama suggests on Jay Leno that banks have to be regulated because they're "in it to make money." And that's why Mitt Romney knows that businesses must be encouraged to profit-seek, rather than punished for doing so. That's why Obama leaves American ambassadors to die overseas rather than giving an intervention order. That's why Romney knows that backing down in the face of foreign fire is a recipe for disaster, not peace.

The Democratic road leads to an end: Europe.

The Republican road leads to an end: a resurgent, dominant America on the world scene.

We can choose to fade into oblivion, suffering from high taxes and broken promises, telling ourselves that the government will take care of us even as we go broke. Or we can choose to rise again, believing in the values that made us great. In less than a week, that choice is in our hands.

[Warph]

             


Sen. Graham threatens Tunisia over
U.S. access to Benghazi suspect

Posted By Josh Rogin  Wednesday, October 31, 2012


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is threatening to cut U.S. aid to Tunisia if the American government is not given access to Ali Ani al-Harzi, a Tunisian suspected of being involved in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

The Daily Beast first reported last week that Harzi was arrested, at the behest of the U.S. government, in Turkey, where he fled after posting information about the attack on social media. The Turks handed him over to the Tunisian government, where he was held in military custody and then transferred to a prison to await a court trial. Fox News reported Tuesday that U.S. officials are frustrated that they still haven't been granted access to Harzi, and the State Department has refused to comment on the matter directly.

Graham, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee, has been a huge supporter of sending U.S. aid to Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began last year after a fruit vendor lit himself on fire, sparking widespread outrage.

But in his letter Wednesday to the Tunisian chargé d'affaires in Washington, Tarek Amri, Graham said that he would rethink his support for such aid if Harzi remains outside the reach of U.S. officials.

"I have visited your country on several occasions and through my role as the Ranking Member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, we have included multiple forms of assistance during the crucial new beginning of Tunisia.  However, if these reports are true, our partnership could be in serious jeopardy," Graham wrote.

"I urge you to engage your government to ensure cooperation between our intelligence services, law enforcement officials, as well as their Libyan counterparts, so that we may question this individual about the horrific attacks that cost us the lives of four brave Americans.  Please be informed that providing access to this suspect is of the highest importance to me and many other members of Congress."

Also Wednesday, the White House denied a widely circulated report that quoted former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich saying a "fairly reliable senator" told him that there exists a series of emails from the office of National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to a counterterrorism group on the night of the Benghazi attack ordering them to "stand down" rather than mobilize assets to respond to the attack.

"Neither the President nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi during the attack," NSC Spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Cable by email.