This and That...

[Teresa]

During a recent Romney campaign stop, a heckler from the audience hollered, "Hey Mitt , where are you hiding your tax returns?

Governor Romney politely responded, "I've found a very secure place that I'm certain they won't be found."

The insistent heckler, then shouted, "And just where is that, dummy"?

Governor Romney smiled and said, "They are underneath Obama's college records, his passport application, his immigration status as a student, his funding sources to pay for college, his college records, and his Selective Service registration.

"What's your next question?"

[Warph]

Dead on, Mitt... dead on. 


Charles Krauthammer today on Fox's Special Report:

"Well, he says he's not concerned about the impact on the elections. I'm sure he's very sincere on that. But it is a little odd that he shows up in the Briefing Room where he hasn't shown up in the Briefing Room for what, a month-and-a-half? For Libya or for anything else for that matter. Then you get the photo-ops of him in the Situation Room deploying I guess the utility crews who restore power all over America. Where you would think he might want to use the Situation Room to convene high level people during the night hours when our people were under attack in Benghazi. It's hard to look at this, playing the president, playing the Commander in Chief in what's a natural disaster that really doesn't require a lot of from the White House. It's up to the governors mostly. The White House and the government release money. That's all they do and he's really good at releasing money."


LOL... Sandy and Obuma have something in common, Charley... they are BOTH natural disasters.

[Warph]

Obuma's sutter reminds me of Max

[Warph]

The craziest, most nail-biting elections in U.S. history

You may be surprised to learn that Bush-Gore doesn't even crack the top 3

by Paul Brandus
posted on October 31, 2012, at 6:18 AM


In case you haven't been paying attention: The presidential election is shaping up to be very, very, very close. The scenarios are mind-boggling. One possibility: Mitt Romney could win the popular vote but lose what counts: the electoral college. It would be fitting revenge for Democrats still angry about the Bush-Gore debacle from 2000. The opposite could also occur: Obama, popular in voter-rich California, New York, and Illinois, could win the most votes but be edged out in the electoral college.

Perhaps the craziest of all is the possibility of Romney and Biden winning. You heard that right: a Romney-Biden administration. Imagine, if you will, that Obama and Romney wind up with an electoral college tie of 269-269 (a very slim possibility). It takes 270 to win. So what happens?

The House of Representatives decides. Under Article 12 of the Constitution, each state gets one vote, according to which party dominates that state's House delegation. There are more Democrats in California's House delegation, and more Republicans in Texas', for example. And so forth. Since more state delegations in the House are controlled by Republicans, there's no question who they'd award the presidency to: Mitt Romney.

But the VP would be picked by the Senate. And the Senate is controlled — and is likely to be controlled after election day — by the Democrats. Who would they vote for? You guessed it: Joe Biden.

Bizarre (or hilarious) as that would be, it would hardly be unprecedented. The election of 1800 was equally screwy, and the contests of 1824 and 1876 were also ones for the books. All three make the 2000 mess seem almost like a picnic. Judge for yourself:

1800: Thomas Jefferson vs. Aaron Burr
In the early days of the republic, electors each cast not one, but two electoral votes for president. Adding to the confusion: There was no such thing as "election day" as we know it now. States voted whenever they felt like it over a period running from April to October. It was a long, drawn-out, and often confusing process.

The republic was just 24 years old when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr squared off against President John Adams and Charles Pickney. Yet electors gave both Jefferson and Burr — who were on the same ticket — 73 electoral votes apiece. Adams got 65, and Pickney 64.

So what do you do in the event of a tie? The Constitution said the House of Representatives would decide. Since Jefferson and Burr got the most electoral votes, the former running mates suddenly became rivals. Voting went on for days, with ballot after ballot. Finally, after 36 ballots, the tie was broken: Thomas Jefferson was declared the president-elect. Aaron Burr was declared vice president. But Jefferson, at this point, didn't trust Burr and gave him nothing to do.

In an unrelated matter, by the way, Burr later shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury secretary, in a duel.

1824: John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson
Jackson (you know him from the $20 bill) crushed John Quincy Adams, the son of our second president, John Adams, in both the popular vote (41 percent to 31 percent) and in the electoral college (99 to 84). Yet Adams won. How could Adams lose both the popular vote and electoral college yet win the White House?

Unfortunately for "Old Hickory," as Jackson was known, there were two other men on the presidential ballot in 1824: William Crawford of Georgia, who received 41 electoral votes, and Henry Clay of Kentucky, who got 37. Because the four men received a combined 271 electoral votes, Jackson had a plurality but not a majority. He needed 136, but had only 99.

Once again, it was up to the House. Because the 12th Amendment to the Constitution said that only the top three presidential candidates could be considered, Clay was out. He threw his support to Adams, and on Feb. 9, 1825, the House gave Adams 138 electoral votes. John Quincy Adams — loser of both the popular vote and, at first, the electoral college — would become the sixth president of the United States.

Now, a story like this can't be told without a little dirt. After all, it's presidential politics. Just before the results of the House election became public, an anonymous letter appeared in a Philadelphia newspaper. Said to be from a member of Congress, it accused Clay of selling his support to Adams if Adams made Clay secretary of State. Jackson and his supporters were outraged over what they called "the corrupt bargain."

Clay did indeed become secretary of State in the Adams administration.

This is also a cautionary tale. You've got to be careful what you wish for. John Quincy Adams hated being president. He called it the "four most miserable years of my life." One reason: He was hounded at every turn by Jackson and his supporters. In 1828, both would clash again when Adams sought re-election. This time, Jackson got his revenge, crushing Adams in both the popular vote and winning a majority of the electoral college. Adams later spent 17 years in Congress — the only president to do so after leaving the White House.

1876: Samuel Tilden vs. Rutherford Hayes
It happened again: A candidate lost after getting the most popular votes and the most electoral votes on election day.

In addition to snagging 51 percent of the popular vote, New York Gov. Samuel Tilden (D) won 184 electoral votes — one short of winning the White House. His rival, Ohio Gov. Rutherford B. Hayes (R), won just 48 percent of the vote and 165 electoral votes. Here's the catch: Twenty other electoral votes in several states were disputed and went uncounted. The states: Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon.

In all three southern states, it looked like Tilden won the popular vote. But there were allegations of fraud (ink-smeared ballots and bribery) and voter intimidation. Chaos ensued. In Florida, for example, the Republicans said they won by 922 votes. Democrats say they did — by 94 votes.

Meantime, in Oregon, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Hayes won the state. But when the Democratic governor found out one Republican member of the electoral college was a federal worker (a postmaster) and ineligible to serve, he replaced him with a Democrat. The Republican elector promptly resigned his post office job and said that as a private citizen, he would cast his electoral college vote for Hayes.

All four states submitted two sets of electoral vote counts each to Congress, all with different results. To untangle the mess, Congress set up an electoral commission: five members of the House, five members of the Senate, and five Supreme Court Justices.

By the way, there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution saying this is how an election standoff was to be resolved. After much maneuvering, the commission voted along party lines — 8 to 7 — to award the disputed electoral votes, and the presidency, to Hayes.

But it still wasn't over. Democrats threatened to filibuster the counting of electoral votes to keep Hayes from winning. In 1877 — just weeks before inauguration day — Democrats gave in, with one big string attached. Republicans must agree, they said, to withdraw all federal troops from the South. This was just a decade after the civil war. The GOP agreed — and thus the Compromise of 1877.

And you thought Bush-Gore was messy...

[Warph]

                           

[Warph]

[Warph]

The photo below was taken at La Bastille Plaza in Paris, during the election celebration for the comrade socialist president Hollande. See any French flags?  Anywhere?  Actually, there is ONE towards the bottom right.  The other flags are in order of appurtenance, Palestinian (2 flags top right+1 center left), Algerian, Turkish (towards center), Syrian (towards left of pic + below Palestinian flag), Moroccan (w. star in center), and European Union flag.  The other flags I cant recognize, there are also Syndicates or Unions flags.

That's France in a nutshell.


Also please read this from a French citizen - Maxime Lépante:


Hello to my American friends,

As you know, the Socialist François Hollande won the presidential elections in France, last Sunday. It is a catastrophe for France.

Hollande was elected by the Muslims:

A survey (of 10,000 Muslims) shows that 93% of the Muslims voted for him.

As 2 million Muslims participated in this election, Hollande got 1,720,000 Muslim votes more than Sarkozy did: (0.93-0.07) x 2,000,000 = 1,720,000. But at the end, from the entire population, he got only 1,139,316 votes more than Sarkozy. So, without the Muslims' votes, Sarkozy would have been re-elected.

All the Muslim criminals feel now empowered. Criminality is already on the rise (1,700 cars were
burnt in France for the first night). Muslims are screaming anti-French and anti-Jews watchwords in our streets.

Veiled women, wearing the illegal burqa, are strolling in our streets.

And, as if this wasn't enough, Hollande wants to give to all the foreigners the right to vote in our elections!!
France will face a very hard situation. We are heading for civil war in a few years.

That's the last news from occupied France.

Maxime Lépante.

[Warph]

[Warph]

The Decline and Fall of Western Culture in One Photo

Posted: October 31, 2012 | Author: The Butcher


The other day I visited The Oakland Museum, and while I wandered through one of its rooms this scene presented itself to me:




Immediately a thought struck me: This is it — the decline and fall of
Western culture is encapsulated perfectly in this one scene.


Let me explain.




In the foreground we have a marble sculpture entitled "California Venus,"
in a timeless neo-classical style.




It was carved in 1895 by sculptor Rupert Schmid.
   



In the background, just a few steps away, we have its companion piece,
a sculpture entitled "Pink Lady."



It was created in 1965 by artist Viola Frey.

In just 80 years, the state of sculpture in America went from beautiful and exquisitely refined to ugly, klutzy and incompetent.

I don't know whether the curators at the Oakland Museum juxtaposed these two pieces intentionally, or if it was just an accident, but either way they deftly summarized everything that went wrong with 20th century art.

Striving for Beauty — or for Ugliness?

The very goal of art changed radically between 1885 and 1965. Back at the end of the 19th century no one yet questioned the assumption that art was an attempt to capture or create beauty. It had been that way for millennia. Little did anyone know that within just a few decades the very philosophy of art would move away from idealization first toward abstraction, then to realism, and finally to grotesquerie.

By the second half of the 20th century a new paradigm had emerged: art no longer existed to inspire the viewer, but instead its sole purpose was to make the viewer uncomfortable — to "challenge your worldview" or "take you out of your comfort zone."

It's not just that Rupert Schmid was a "better artist" than Viola Frey; it's that his intent was to create something of eternal beauty. ("California Venus" was originally a plaster statue of the most perfectly beautiful woman in California, and was exhibited at the 1893 Columbia Exposition in Chicago; Schmid later spent an entire year rendering the plaster version into marble so that his creation would last forever.) Frey's goal with "Pink Lady," on the other hand, was not to create beauty, but to create ugliness — on purpose.

Entire books have been written as to why this disastrous paradigm shift happened in Western culture, so I won't expend a lot of verbiage exploring the reasons for this change in cultural attitudes. All we need to know is that it happened, and these two sculptures are proof.

The Death of Skill

A side-effect of this artistic shift is that it opened the door to incompetents. Let's just be frank: Rupert Schmid was simply a better artist Viola Frey. Even if they had worked during the same era and were both informed by the same cultural attitudes, whatever he created would always be superior to whatever she created.

But, you see, that could never have happened, because if someone like Viola Frey had crafted "Pink Lady" back in 1885 and tried to pass it off as art, she would have been laughed out of the gallery. And if someone like Rupert Schmid had created "California Venus" nowadays, he'd be pitied as a pathetic unoriginal throwback from the Unenlightened Ages.

Just look at the structure of each sculpture; you can practically feel the bones and the muscles of "California Venus," which was self-evidently created by someone who grasped human anatomy and how to render it and honor it. Now look at "Pink Lady": globular, cartoonish, oddly out of proportion (notice the size of her right hand, for example). The monkey she's holding has no anatomical structure whatsoever; it's just a lump of clay with a face. I understand that Viola Frey was trying to fashion something repulsive and grotesque, but I have the very strong suspicion that she couldn't have created something like "California Venus" even if she had tried (a suspicion that is borne out by other examples of her work, which are equally kludgy).

Whatever Happened to the Model for "California Venus?"

Long after I took these photos I discovered that "California Venus" had a fascinating but tragic story associated with it. As revealed in this newspaper article from October 21, 1902 (almost 110 years ago to the day), the woman whom Schmid chose to represent perfection met a horrifying fate seemingly straight out of the tabloids:

California Venus Dies Most Terrible Death

Shot Down in Cold Blood by Ardent Lover Who Commits Suicide

In a tragedy as shocking as it was unexpected, the life chapter of a woman whose name is well known in this and other States, came to a violent close last night in San Francisco when Marion Nolan, the widely celebrated "California Venus," was shot down in cold blood while on her way home at about 6 o'clock, by Edward Marschuts, who had long been an ardent admirer of the famous beauty, after a violent quarrel who crowned his crime by taking his own life...."

Read the original article for the full story. In short, a teenage Marion Nolan was chosen in a contest to be the model for a statue to represent California at the 1893 World's Fair; she subsequently became famous, and was in demand as a "performer" in living tableaux; she parlayed her fame into a marriage with an older millionaire, but the relationship did not last, and she moved to San Francisco in an attempt to become an actress. As her career floundered, an obsessed stalker began harassing her, and eventually he gunned her down (and then himself) when she rebuffed his clumsy rape attempt.

Two statues in a room. So much to think about. So much to learn.

[Warph]

               

Obama Lies to America Again About al Qaeda


By Katie Pavlich
11/1/2012

At a campaign event today in Wisconsin, President Obama once again misled the country about the status of the terrorist group al Qaeda.

"Al Qaeda has been decimated," he said to the crowd.

This statement is simply not true.

Recently, "al Qaeda is on the run" was dropped from Obama's campaign trail stump speeches due to the fallout over the 9/11 attack in Benghazi which was carried out by al Qaeda terrorists. That move by the campaign doesn't change the fact that al Qaeda has not been "decimated" and is not "on the run" as President Obama suggested to the American people for months.

In Libya alone, al Qaeda has had a strong presence, especially in the Benghazi area, since the beginning of this year. Congressional testimony given by State Department officials both on the ground in Libya and in Washington revealed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other officials repeatedly requested more security for the consulate in Benghazi and all of their requests were denied. In July, Stevens received a death threat from al Qaeda on Facebook and even sent a request for more security on 9/11, the day he was killed. While the State Department denied more security, they did increase the amount of "hardship" pay officials in Benghazi received.

Overall, al Qaeda has regained strength in many sensitive areas of the world. Some say al Qaeda is stronger than ever. More on that from Bloomberg:

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, he said, is using ransom money to expand its reach and influence, and as of earlier this year was expected to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to other extremist groups in Africa.

Cohen said the two, as well as other terrorist groups in the Philippines, Pakistan and elsewhere use ransom money to help finance all their activities, "including recruiting and indoctrinating new members, paying salaries, establishing training camps, acquiring weapons and communications gear, staging deadly attacks," and "helping to support the next generation of violent extremist groups.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/01/obama_lies_to_america_again_about_al_qaeda

Obama says al Qaeda has been "decimated" when it is politically convenient.  It's too bad he wasn't willing to face the reality of al Qaeda getting stronger before four Americans were killed in Benghazi.