Media declares open season on the Mormon faith

An Editorial by Edward Klein, August 30, 2012, FoxNews.com

Several weeks ago, David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s maharishi, called together his Chicago gang to discuss what they should do if their mudslinging campaign against Mitt Romney and Bain Capital didn’t do the trick and Romney began to pull even with—or ahead of—Barack Obama in the polls.

According to my sources inside the campaign, Axelrod & Co. discussed what might be called the nuclear option: unleashing an attack on Romney’s Mormon faith via the mainstream media.

As Axelrod knew, many pundits credit evangelical Christians, who are heavily Republican and comprise some 14 percent of voters, with putting George W. Bush over the top in the election of 2004.Axelrod was also aware that Mormonism is a fraught subject among evangelical Christians, a substantial portion of whom believe that Mormonism is a cult that is separate and apart from Christianity.

        "Is this sudden, strange and unaccountable focus on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism by the mainstream media just an odd coincidence? Or is the “fine Italian hand” of David Axelrod behind the media onslaught?"

 

Axelrod calculated that if he could turn 5 to 10 percent of the evangelicals against Romney because of his Mormonism, he could deny Romney victory at the polls in 2012.

Of course, Axelrod and his team had already succeeded in pandering to special interest groups, such as Hispanics, gays, and women. They wondered whether they could have equal success playing on the fears of Mormonism among evangelical Christians and convince them to stay at home on Election Day rather than vote for Mitt Romney.

Axelrod recognized that playing the Mormon card contained several obvious dangers. For one thing, the Obama campaign was already embroiled in a bitter dispute with the Catholic Church over a health-insurance mandate for contraception. An attack on Mormonism would open the Obamaites to fresh charges of religious bigotry. For another, an attack on Romney’s religious beliefs might encourage the Republicans to reciprocate by reopening the whole tangled issue of Obama and the Reverend Wright.

During an interview I conducted with the Reverend Wright for my book "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House," I asked the pastor if he had converted Obama from Islam to Christianity. “That’s hard to say,” Wright replied.

Wright then went on to say: “I think I convinced [Obama] that it was okay for him to make a choice in terms of who he believed Jesus is. And I told him it was really okay and not a putdown of the Muslim part of his family or his Muslim friends…. And even after Barack and Michelle came to the church, their kids weren’t raised in the church like you raise other kids in Sunday school. No. Church was not their thing. It never was their thing… So the church was not an integral part of their spiritual lives after they got married.”

According to my sources, Axelrod at first hesitated to green light an attack on Romney’s Mormonism for fear it might boomerang and expose the campaign as clumsy and further tarnish Obama as a blundering amateur. However, a new set of polls convinced Axelrod that he had no choice but to go for the nuclear option and raise the issue of Romney’s Mormonism.

These recent polls show Romney beginning to close the gap in seven key swing states—Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

What’s more, according to an election model based on state-level economic data from the last eight presidential elections and put together by Colorado political science professors Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry, “Romney will win the popular vote and take the White House with more than 300 electoral votes.”

In case you haven’t noticed, the media has recently declared open season on Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Here are some of the most egregious examples:

• GQ, a men’s magazine of style and culture, printed a blistering piece about Romney’s Mormonism in its August issue. In one particularly repellent sentence, the writer noted that Mormon founder Joseph Smith, “despite having some forty wives, still endeavored to f*** everything in sight.”

• MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell went on one of his vein-popping tirades about Mormonism, charging that the religion was “created by a guy in upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it.”

• The New York Times Sunday Review section ran an article titled “Why Race Is Still a Problem for Mormons.” The caption accompanying the article said: “Brigham Young, who established the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and whose statue stands beside it, relegated blacks to second-class status in the church.”

• ABC “World News Tonight” ran a two-part series on Romney’s Mormonism. This is the same newscast that in 2008 refused to broadcast videotapes obtained by Brian Ross, the network’s chief investigative reporter, showing the Reverend Jeremiah Wright ranting against whites and Jews. Now, with two months remaining in the 2012 campaign, an ABC News reporter hammered home the theme that in the church’s “imposing temples, secret rituals are performed by all-male leaders.”

• NBC, which never felt an obligation to examine Barack Obama’s relationship with the Reverend Wright’s brand of black liberation theology, devoted a full one-hour episode of “Rock Center with Brian Williams” to examining Romney’s Mormonism.

Is this sudden, strange and unaccountable focus on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism by the mainstream media just an odd coincidence? Or is the “fine Italian hand” of David Axelrod behind the media onslaught?

In trying to answer that question, I am reminded of what NBC political analyst Mark Halperin recently said in another context: “The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants.”

An editorial piece from Fox News.com

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: How sick has the "Fourth Estate" become and how much sicker will they get? If it's on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, or in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or magazines like GQ, you know the truth is going to be twisted.

Obama Campaign Poster 2012

Internet Humor

Congressman Artur Davis

Former Democrat addresses the 2012 GOP Convention in Tampa, Florida.

His full remarks:

"Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

Some of you may know, the last time I spoke at a convention, it turned out I was in the wrong
place.

So - Tampa -  my fellow Republicans - Thank you for welcoming me where I belong.

We have a country to turn around. This week you will nominate the most experienced executive to seek the presidency in 60 years in Mitt Romney.

He has no illusions about what makes America great, and he doesn’t confuse the presidency with celebrity, or loftiness with leadership.

What a difference four years makes.

The Democrats’ ads convince me that Governor Romney can’t sing, but his record convinces me he knows how to lead, and I think you know which skill we need more.

Now, America is a land of second chances, and I gather you have room for the estimated 6 million of us who know we got it wrong in 2008 and who we want to fix it.

Maybe we should have known that night in Denver that things that begin with plywood Greek columns and artificial smoke typically don’t end well.

Maybe the Hollywood stars and the glamour blinded us a little: you thought it was the glare, some of us thought it was a halo.

But in all seriousness, do you know why so many of us believed? We led with our hearts and our dreams that we could be more inclusive than America had ever been, and no candidate had ever spoken so beautifully.

But dreams meet daybreak: the jobless know what I mean, so do the families who wonder how this Administration could wreck a recovery for three years and counting.

So many of those high-flown words have faded.

Remember the President saying of negative politics and untrue ads, “not this time?”

Who knew “not this time” just meant “not unless the economy is still stuck and we can’t run onour record?”

Remember, too, when he said, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal?”

Who knew the plain English version of it was, “middle America, get ready to shell out 60 bucks to fill up your car?”

And in terms of their crown jewel legislative achievement: who knew that when asked, “will government impose a new federal mandate requiring middle class Americans to buy health insurance whether they can afford it or not?”

The answer would be “Yes we can!”

So, this time, in the name of 23 million of our children and parents and brothers and sisters who are officially unemployed, underemployed, or who have stopped looking for work, let’s put the poetry aside, let’s suspend the hype, let’s come down to earth and start creating jobs again.

This time, instead of moving oceans and healing planets, let’s get our bills in order and pay down the debt so we control our own future.

And of course, we know that opportunity lies outside the reach of some of our people.

We don’t need flowery words about inequality to tell us that, and we don’t need a party that has led while poverty and hunger rose to record levels to give us lectures about suffering.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are Americans who are listening to this speech tonight who haven’t always been with you, and I want you to let me talk — just to them – for a moment.

I know how loaded up our politics is with anger and animosity, but I have to believe we can still make a case over the raised voices.

There are Americans who voted for the president, but who are searching right now, because they know that their votes didn’t build the country they wanted.

To those Democrats and independents whose minds are open to argument: listen closely to the Democratic Party that will gather in Charlotte and ask yourself if you ever hear your voice in the clamor.

Ask yourself if these Democrats still speak for you.

When they say we have a duty to grow government even when we can’t afford it, does it sound like compassion to you — or recklessness?

When you hear the party that glorified Occupy Wall Street blast success; when you hear them minimize the genius of the men and women who make jobs out of nothing, is that what you teach your children about work?

When they tell you America is this unequal place where the powerful trample on the powerless, does that sound like the country your children or your spouse risked their lives for in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Do you even recognize the America they are talking about? And what can we say about a house that doesn’t honor the pictures on its walls?

John F. Kennedy asked us what we could do for America. This Democratic Party asks what can government give you. Don’t worry about paying the bill, it’s on your kids and grandkids.

Bill Clinton took on his base and made welfare a thing you had to work for; this current crowd guts the welfare work requirement in the dead of night.

Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson reached out across the aisle and said meet me in the middle; but their party rammed through a healthcare bill that took over one-sixth of our economy, without accepting a single Republican idea, without winning a single vote in either house from a party whose constituents make up about 50 percent of the country.

You know, the Democrats used to have a night when they presented a film of their presidential legends: if they do it in Charlotte, the theme song should be this year’s hit, “Somebody That I Used to Know.”

My fellow Americans, when great athletes falter, their coaches sometimes whisper to them “remember who you are.” It’s a call to their greatness at a moment when their bodies and spirit are too sapped to remember their strength.

This sweet, blessed, God-inspired place called America is a champion that has absorbed some blows.

But while we bend, we don’t break.

This is no dark hour; this is the dawn before we remember who we are.

May it be said of this time in our history: 2008 to 2011: lesson learned.

2012: mistake corrected.

God bless you, God bless America. Thank you!"

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Why wasn't this speech televised by the main media, or for that matter why wasn't Coni Rice's? What - they don't want to show a minority person that is leaning, or is, Republican and can think for themselves. Here's the video:

Don't Cross Your Fingers

Hunter Spanjer is just your average three year old little boy. However, Spanjer is deaf and as a result uses sign language to communicate. So what’s the problem you ask? His school says the sign he uses for his name violates their weapons policy.

I know, it sounds utterly ridiculous. But you can’t make this stuff up. This is the logical conclusion of liberals when they talk about “zero tolerance.” But wait till you see what they point to as the violation of the “no weapons policy.

This is how Hunter signs his name and below you see how the sign for ‘gun’ looks.

(Cross Your Finger - Hope to Die - Stick a Finger in Your Eye - I won't tell - I won't lie - I'm a big boy I won't cry)

((anyway it goes something like that.))

According to the Grand Island school board’s policy, students are prohibited from possessing, handling or transmitting a “firearm weapon” or anything that “looks like a weapon.”

Right there in the last section should give anyone and everyone cause for alarm. Anything can be viewed as a weapon. The policy in that case does not even limit the weapon to a firearm. So kids have pencils and staplers. My goodness they carry paper. They might cut someone!

“He’s deaf, and his name sign, they say, is a violation of their weapons policy,” said Brian Spanjer, Hunter’s father. “It’s a symbol. It’s an actual sign, a registered sign, through S.E.E. (S.E.E. stands for Signing Exact English, Hunter’s sign language.)”

“We are working with the parents to come to the best solution we can for the child,” said Jack Sheard, Grand Island Public Schools spokesperson.

That’s just about all GIPS officials will say for now.
Meantime, Hunter’s parents say that by Monday, lawyers from the National Association of the Deaf are likely to weigh in for Hunter’s right to sign his own name.

Despite whatever rules and regulations may exist, some Grand Islanders we spoke with said they don’t think it’s right to make a three year-old change the way he says his name.

One Grand Island resident said, “I find it very difficult to believe that the sign language that shows his name resembles a gun in any way would even enter a child’s mind.” I agree with this perfectly sane person.

I recall as a kid that we use to play with toy guns. We would climb trees and play army or cowboys and Indians. No one ever thought of picking up a real gun and shooting anyone. We knew better because our parents taught us better.

The fact that a school is this extreme tells me one thing, the parents need to protest this school system till they get them to remove such stupid measures in their policies. And then, if they were wise, they would arm people at the schools and issue them CCW permits in order to defend these same children, should some person decide they want to go on a shooting spree. In addition I would propose that as moms and dads be instructing their children on gun safety and the responsible and efficient use of a firearm.

Leave Hunter alone. Leave his parents alone and for God’s sake teach kids what you are supposed to be teaching them and quit worrying about being politically correct. While Hunter is not of age to be in elementary school there, apparently this type of focus on silly PC policies is part of the problem that results in their test scores.

Personally, I say the parents should take them out of public education in the first place and teach them at home. That would end this silliness if there were no children there for them to impose such nonsense.

Found at Freedom Outpost.com

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Ah, Mr. Jack Sheard (Grand Island Public Schools Spokesperson) don't cross your fingers in court when the Judge finds you guilty of violating this childs and his parents rights!

Transparency

A former classmate has added a tantalizing question to the mysteries surrounding Barack Obama's college years. Perhaps the GOP nominee, whose tax records are demanded, should call the president's bluff.

Not many students whose grades supposedly were good enough to get into Harvard Law School can say that 400 of their classmates taken randomly don't remember a single thing about him or his even being there. But Barack Obama, Columbia University class of '83, can.

Student Obama spent two years at Columbia after transferring there from Occidental College in Los Angeles. And for all the impression he made on his classmates, he might as well have been in the witness protection program.

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News called that random group of 400 Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.
Like most transfer students, Obama lived off-campus, a factoid defenders use to explain his apparent lack of human contact during his Columbia years. Obama himself does not speak much about his years at Columbia and Harvard Law, other than he attended both and was elected president of the Harvard Law Review.
Interestingly, Obama contributed not one signed word to the Harvard Law Review or any other legal publication. As Matthew Franck has pointed out in National Review Online, "A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at anytime." A curious factoid for an alleged scholar.

In October 2007, the New York Times ran a piece titled "Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say," which would have won the Pulitzer Prize for understatements if there was one.

The article noted that Obama, when asked, "declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."

One of those fellow students is Wayne Allen Root, former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He wonders, as we do, what's in Obama's Columbia file that warrants standards of secrecy higher than, say, the details of the Osama bin Laden raid or our efforts to derail Iran's nuclear program with a computer virus.

Root asks if Obama's grades were good enough to get into Columbia. We have a copy of Mitt Romney's high school report card, which was deemed by the Boston Globe important enough to reveal to the world, but President Obama's Columbia transcripts remain a mystery.

Root asks another question, namely how did young Obama, raised by a single mom and from a modest background, pay for all this education? Root wonders if one of the secrets in Columbia's files is perhaps an application for aid given to poor foreign students.

Root has been dismissed in some quarters as a "birther," and we too might dismiss him out of hand if not for the fact that so much of what Obama has said about himself is not true. Recently we asked the question, "Is President Obama A Pathological Liar?" and provided tales he has told about himself that are simply false.

We've also noted that Obama waited five years to apply to Harvard Law. As World Net Daily reports, from 1985 to 1988 he worked as a consultant and trainer for a subsidiary of Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation, founded on the principles of Saul "The Red" Alinsky. On the board of Gamaliel sat Northwestern University professor John McKnight, a student of Alinsky's radical tactics.

Getting into Harvard Law School is not easy. Mc-Knight wrote Obama a letter of recommendation after Obama begged him for one. But why didn't Obama's college grades speak for themselves and cause the scholar to be drowning in scholarships?

Suggestion to Mitt Romney: Agree to release all your tax returns if President Obama releases all the records pertaining to his college years.

This article was found at New Investors.com

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: I do not agree with the suggestion that Gov. Romney release all his tax record if Obama releases his records. He has release enough. However, with all the lies that Obama has told, it's about time he does release some records to prove his past statements. At this time, I could care less about what his friends and cohorts say about his past. How about some records to back up whats said? Tranparency by this administration - that's what Obama promised. Have we seen any? NO! Is it past the time for it? YES! Is it past the time for the main stream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN) to vet Obama? YES - way past the time. Will we see it fom them? NOPE!

More Internet Humor

Canderville

 

Prickly City

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: There's more, yet I can't get them to load for some reason. The comics have been great for the last few days.

Internet Humor

Don't care who you are, this is funny... FREE KITTENS

A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the sidewalk in front of her home. Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing - FREE KITTENS.

Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man.

"Hi there little girl, I'm President Obama.What do you have in the basket?" he asked.

"Kittens," little Suzy said.

"How old are they?" asked Obama.

Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet."

"And what kind of kittens are they?"

"Democrats," answered Suzy with a smile.

Obama was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens.

Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that the president should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.

So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of "FREE KITTENS," when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN.

Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Obama got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy.

"Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away."

"Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're Republicans."

Taken by surprise, the president stammered, "But...but...yesterday, you told me they were DEMOCRATS."

Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know, but today, they have their eyes open."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Many thanks Ruby! We all need to remember to laugh at ourselves. If we don't, then surely others will. ---- and don't call me Shirley!

GM - Banning Presidential Candidates

General Motors -- or Government Motors, as it's known to critics of the auto bailout -- reportedly is steering clear of the political spotlight this year.

The Detroit Free Press reports that GM is banning presidential candidates from visiting its plants at least until Election Day passes.

"We would like to put all of our energy behind selling our cars and trucks," GM Vice President Bob Ferguson told the Free Press.

The move comes as the Obama campaign folds the GM story into its campaign message. Vice President Biden often tells campaign crowds that the unofficial Obama bumper sticker should be: "Usama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive."
But GM is apparently loath to appear siding with one party or another, considering it relies on Americans to buy its products.

Mitt Romney, for his part, has been critical of the nearly $50 billion auto bailout. The Treasury Department still owns roughly a third of the stock. And while GM has emerged from bankruptcy proceedings, the company's stock value has dropped 36 percent since its opening.

Read the rest of the article at Detroit Free Press

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Two other reasons for this could also be that 1) they don't want to remind anyone their sockholders were screwed by them and the Obama Administration when they were bailed out. 2) All the profits and privilages were given to the Unions. Oh and 3) Ford didn't take any bailout money and continued to have high profits - hum. Lastly, 4) they paid off their loans to the Federal Government, by taking out more loans from the Federal Government - Oh that's it's not the Federal Government = it's US, the taxpayers that are not even getting a good return on the investments (loans).

Another Source of Information

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: I like these guys, they put a lot of information together concerning Jihadists. The total issues we have with them, not just Iraq and Afganistan.

1389 Blog.com

Obama Getting Agitated by Romney / Ryan Tactics

In an interview with the Associated Press, President Obama has accused Mitt Romney of holding “extreme positions” on the economy. In typical socialistic rhetoric, he made the point that Romney’s solutions to American economic woes will only hurt everyone but the “very rich.” Obama claimed that:

Romney lacks serious ideas, refuses to “own up” to the responsibilities of what it takes to be president, and deals in factually dishonest arguments that could soon haunt him in face-to-face debates.

I suppose Obama should know a thing or two about lacking serious ideas and factually dishonest arguments. It seems to be bothering Obama in a big way that Romney is essentially energizing his support base with the most important message of all: “Hey Ho Obama’s Gotta Go.” Republicans aren’t particularly concerned about what Romney is saying, simply because they are convinced that anyone is better than what we got now.

Later in the interview, Obama admitted that America “is not where it needs to be. Everybody agrees with that.” Uh, yeah. Where’s the award for understatement of the year? This is precisely the point that the Romney/Ryan campaign is making. Obama seems to think that “not being where we should be” after four years of failed big government intervention and runaway spending, is a good enough reason to give him another four, Romney/Ryan disagrees.

Taking the opportunity to play off the comment, Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said:

“Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan agree. The American people know they aren’t better off than they were four years ago. He promised to change how Washington works, but he admits the nation’s capital is as broken as ever. He raided Medicare to pay for Obamacare and is proposing massive tax increases that will kill jobs and hurt our economy. Too many middle-class families are going to sleep each night worried about the future. This may be the best President Obama can do, but it’s not the best America can do. The Romney-Ryan plan for a stronger middle class will jump start our economy and create 12 million new jobs – and most importantly, give Americans hope for a better future.”

This seems to be the recurring tactic of the Romney/Ryan campaign. Wait for Obama to say something stupid (it doesn’t take long), and then respond in generalities. The strategy seems to be working, at least if annoying Obama is the goal. Romney/Ryan have the luxury of being able to constantly point to Obama’s record, while Obama has nothing much to give back. This was the Bill Clinton method of operation for eight years: speak in vague statements and admit nothing. And since Obama campaigned so heavily during the 2008 election for the economic stimulus, and since the stimulus did next to nothing but increase debt and inflation (surprise, surprise), Romney/Ryan really doesn’t need to say much besides “look at his record, it speaks for itself.” And apparently Obama isn’t very happy with Americans being reminded about what he said and what he has done. And an unhappy Obama is a very good thing.

Say what you will about Mitt Romney, but he seems to have a good understanding of what it takes to get under Obama’s skin. Keep it up, Mitt. You will have plenty of ammunition to use in face-to-face debates, so long as you stick to pointing to Obama’s record. This is where the campaign needs to keep its focus. Don’t let Obama set the rules of debate, and if he is already expressing frustration, then you must be doing something right.

Found at: Political Outcast.com

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: How about Obama addressing the issues of why half, or more, of the American Citizens taking issue with his twisting the truth and out-right lies. Or his lack of candor when talking about his past.

Lie - Lie - Lie

More lies from the left: Two Republican Women for Obama Ad - Exposed as being Democrats

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Lie like you mean it. Someone will believe you. You got to love the age of computers - (Skype, Twitter, You Tube, Facebook, ect) - people leaving trails!

While the Obama campaign continues putting out so many lies it’s hard to keep up with, this latest one by campaign manager Stephanie Cutter is a Whopper!

We’re talking Nuclear Whopper!

 

Appearing on MSNBC, she was interviewed by Willie Geist who asked her, “What would you say to that same person that said, ‘Well, that hasn’t worked for four years. I haven’t had the job over time, it’s time for a change.’” Cutter responded, Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what’s happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That’s more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery, there’s obviously more we need to do, and as I said to Mika at the at beginning of the program, I think that unemployed worker probably sees one person in this race trying to move the country forward and that’s the president.

 

Well, we know that Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan and I pointed that out and gave the numbers to prove it. We also know that Stephanie Cutter knows how to put the ‘sin’ in spin..

 

In a piece by Jame Pethokoukis titled “Sorry, Stephanie Cutter, the Obama recovery hasn’t created more jobs than the Reagan recovery”, he gives Cutter a major rude awakening of the real numbers involved when it comes to jobs and inheriting a bad economy. Remember, Obama inherited nothing like Reagan did. Pethokoukis writes, ...

 

From the end of the recession in June 2009 through July 2012 — the first 37 months of the Obama recovery — the U.S. economy has generated 2.7 million net new jobs. From the jobs low point in February 2010, the U.S. economy has generated 4 million net new jobs.

 

From the end of the 1981-82 recession through the end of of 1985 — the first 37 months of the Reagan recovery — the U.S.created 9.8 million net new jobs. And if you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the comparable figure is more than 12 million jobs.

 

Cutter counts the job gains from the low point of Obama’s term forward. The low point was February 2010 when U.S. nonfarm payrolls measured 129,244,000. In July, they measured 133,245,000 for a gain of 4.0 million jobs in 27 months If you measure the Reagan recovery the same way, he created 8.0 million new jobs in 27 months. And if you measure the Bush recovery the same way, the low point was in August 2003 when U.S. employment stood at 129,820,000. But 27 months later, the figure was 134,654,000 in November 2005 — a gain of 4.8 million jobs.

 

However, the reality is this: Neither Reagan or Obama actually created any jobs! Reagan simply set the economic policy of the nation so that jobs could be created by private citizens. Obama has done the opposite and thrown money at his backers.

 

But in terms of the reflection of their numbers side by side, Reagan’s record reflects so much better than Obama’s. In fact, Jimmy Carter’s record reflects better than Obama’s.

 

This must be why the DNC asked Jimmy Carter to address the DNC. Even the previous worst President of the United States fairs better than the current one.

 

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: There the right goes using facts again! Darn it! Why doesn't the political right just take what's being said by the political left as the truth. Why does the right keep looking for trouble? Relax, sit back, chill, have a cold one, people will figure it out on their own. I did - some of the American electorate have been paying attention.

Grrrrrreat Signs!

The sign was sponsored by a guy from Gainesville, Texas. 

Gainesville is about 65 miles north of Dallas and was recently voted

"MOST PATRIOTIC TOWN IN THE NATION"

by USA Today/Rand Mc Nally.

Way to go! Pass it on!

As seen on I-35...

 

 

and another from New York.  Who knew there were conservatives in New York City?

 

 

Republican Entertainers in Hollywood

Full List:

1. Stephen Baldwin   2. Jessica Simpson

3. Britney Spears       4. Tony Danza

5. Clint Eastwood      6. Sarah Michelle Gellar

7. Mel Gibson            8. Kelsey Grammer

 

9. Drew Carey            10. Matthew McConaughey

11. Freddie Prinze Jr. 12. Heather Locklear

13. Arnold Schwarzenegger   14. 50 Cent

15. Bruce Willis          16. Adam Sandler

17. Sylvester Stallone 18. Vince Vaughn

19. Tom Selleck         20. Alex Trebek

21. Angie Harmon      22. Elisabeth Hasselbeck

23. Joan Rivers           24. Donald Trump

25. Chuck Norris        26. Ted Nugent

27. Marie Osmond      28. Gary Sinise

29. Shannen Doherty  30. Alice Cooper

 

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Their not perfect, and neither am I, yet at least a few entertainers have a little "common sense." If this is the full list, as stated by Zimbio.com (Famous Republicans), no wonder Hollywood has totally gone down the tubes. 

The Government, nor I, are NOT YOUR BABY’S DADDY!

by Jan Morgan, This article was found at Jan Morgan Media.com

According to Treasury, every month, 80 million Americans receive checks from the federal government in the form of entitlements.

This post is not directed at people who worked for the government or served our country and are drawing retirement checks. This post is not about people who are disabled and have no other choice, or people who are down on their luck and need TEMPORARY help until they can get back on their feet.

This post is about the lazy, the whiners, the leeches who are able but do not try. They are content to sit back and do nothing but wait for their next government check in the mail while the rest of us go to work every day, come home, live within out budgets, and do without in order to be fiscally responsible.

There are Americans who want to have more children, yet do not reproduce because they know their incomes can not support anther child. At the same time, there are women on welfare who make a living off of tax paying responsible citizens, by engaging in irresponsible sexual behavior and have a house full of fatherless children.

“How did the greatest, most industrious nation on earth become the land of government dependent whiners? 80 million people nursing off mother government is beyond excessive.”

“What happened to an attitude of pride in being self sufficient?”

“The government is NOT your health insurance provider, your business bail out savior, your college fund resource, or your recreational sex birth control distributor and … finally … for all the irresponsible women who make a living off welfare by continuously having babies they can’t afford: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR BABY’S DADDY.”

**** Jan Morgan is an Associated Press Award Winning Veteran investigative television journalist, now turned citizen activist for the Conservative Movement. Her Conservative voice has generated a following of over 140 thousand friends and subscribers on her two Facebook blog pages.

About Jan Morgan

More articles by Jan Morgan

ThougthsjustoffCenter: My thoughts as said by thismustend - I just LOVE listening to all the STRONG, INDEPENDENT WOMEN BRAGGING how they do NOT NEED A MAN! No, they don't need ONE man, they need THOUSANDS of MEN to pay for their abortions, birth control & their illegitimate offspring.

WHY should I have to pay for YOU, the strong, independent women who don't need a f--king man, to have an abortion, I did not have sex with you. WHY should I pay for YOUR birth control? I am not having sex with you. WHY should I support YOUR ILLEGITIMATE offspring, I did not get you pregnant. By the way, since you are SO tough, strong, independent & MUCH more intelligent than men WHY can't YOU pay for your own abortions, birth control & illegitimate offspring?
Yes, you have come a LONG way, ladies. You are no longer dependent on men, you are now HOPELESSLY dependent on the government & you vote accordingly. Yep, those Democrats/leftists made you independent & those big, bad Republicans are waging a war against you. WOW!

ICE agents sue Napolitano, Morton over immigration policies

Ten Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton Thursday, taking on recent Obama administration directives which they say prevent them from upholding the law.

The suit, filed in federal court in Dallas, Texas, challenges the administration’s June 15th deferred action directive which instructed ICE agents not to arrest certain illegal immigrants for deportation and facilitate the granting of work permits for some directive beneficiaries.

“We are federal law enforcement officers who are being ordered to break the law. This directive puts ICE agents and officers in a horrible position,” President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and former ICE agent Chris Crane said in a statement.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an adviser Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, is the lead attorney on the case.

“The Directive is an extension of the DREAM Act, which was rejected by Congress, and aims to grant an amnesty to 1.7 million illegal aliens,” Kobach said. “It violates federal immigration laws that require certain aliens to be placed in removal proceedings, it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and it encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress as defined in Article I of the United States Constitution.”

“The lawsuit notes the position that these ICE agents are being put in, they are being ordered by their political appointee superiors to break federal law, or if they don’t break federal law, according to their orders, they will be disciplined. This is an absolutely breath taking assertion of authority and an abuse of authority,” he added in a conference call with reporters, comparing the situation to Fast and Furious.

Republican lawmakers came out in support of the lawsuit Thursday, including Texas Reps. Louie Gohmert, John Carter and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith.

“The Obama administration’s amnesty program not only rewards lawbreakers, it also forces ICE agents to violate federal law. ICE agents should enforce our immigration laws and apprehend illegal immigrants. But the Obama administration makes it impossible for ICE agents to do their jobs,” Smith said in a statement. “Instead of enforcing the law, the Obama administration requires ICE agents to release illegal immigrants. This policy not only hurts ICE agents but also unemployed American workers who have to compete with illegal immigrants for scarce jobs.”

Fox News points out that Napolitano offered a defense of the guidance in testimony before Smith’s Committee last month.

“These policies promote the efficient use of our resources ensuring that we do not divert them away from the removal of convicted criminals by pursuing the removal of young people who came to this country as children and who have called no other country home,” she said.

Read more at Daily Caller.com

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Yeah, It's about time! The American Citizeney also need to file lawsuit (class action) against the Senate for not passing a budget - for the last three years - as required by law.

Dishonorable Dislclosures

Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk.

The unwarranted and dangerous public disclosure of Special Forces Operations is so serious -- that for the first time ever -- former operators have agreed to risk their reputations and go 'on the record' in a special documentary titled "Dishonorable Disclosures." Its goal is to educate America about serious breaches of security and prevent them from ever happening again.

Use of military ranks, titles & photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement of the Dept of the Army or the Department of Defense. All individuals are no longer in active service with any federal agency or military service.

(This video was found on You-Tube.)

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: I cringe everytime an intelligence disclosure happens - authorized or not. With each one, it leads our allies to further distrust our intelligence services because they know that the politicians don't care about the time, effort, and pain staking trust being built between intelligence collectors, undercover subjects and informants - or the loss of freedom and possible death the disclosure may create. Disclosures to tell the citizenry "as proof" that they have been being protected should never be disclosed. Anyone that discloses an intelligence operation or collection mission should have to face an immediate criminal proceeding for treason. Especially if that person is a politician "in-the-know" and they should be hung if it is disclosed for political gain of one party over another.

Gun Control

First I would like to say that I am not a member of the N.R.A., nor am I politically affiliated with any left or right wing side. I am simply a very concerned American. I am outraged by the ignorance that is being fed to the people of the United States about gun control! What’s worse is the media and the government is expecting us to buy this load of crap they are selling us on a silver platter. The government and the media expect the public to be too ignorant to have the common sense to know, the more gun control laws for the law abiding citizens will create the law abiding public to be lambs to the slaughter. What criminal will be worried about the gun control laws? Not one of them. That is why they are a criminal, they do not care about the law, nor do they care to break them. 

Our founding fathers were wise enough to realize that without a way for us to protect ourselves from enemies that are both foreign and domestic, that we ourselves would perish as a Nation. That is why they put the 2nd Amendment in our great Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in our constitution did it state that it was open to interpretation from a foreign leader (U.N.). Nor did it give our government the right to add to it, making it almost impossible for us (the American people) to have the right to bear arms. We not only have the right to own them, we have the right to bear them!

Now for some facts:

On March 25, 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia signed into ordinance that all head of households were required to own and keep at least one firearm in the home. (With some exceptions). The city’s population grew from 5,000 in 1980 to 29,783 people as of 2009 (that is the latest statistics I can find). The crime rate since the inception of this ordinance has become almost nonexistent.

Kennesaw went against the grain when they made it mandatory for every head of household to own and have a gun in their place of residence. They have proven putting guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a deterrent for any criminal. If a criminal knows a person has a weapon, they are going to move on to an easier target.

Another point to prove this is, all of the mass shootings that have happened in the United States since 1950 have all (save one) been in very strict gun control states. Why isn’t the American public being informed about this? Because it doesn’t fit in with the agenda of those that would take our guns and leave us defenseless to protect ourselves, our family, and our home against criminals and big government.

Many people are being told about the mass shooting called the “Batman Killings”. But how many people are diving into the facts, asking the right questions, and really looking at the bigger picture? First and foremost LAW ABIDING CITIZENS EVEN WITH PERMITS were not permitted to carry their weapons in this theater. I am sure the shooter knew this, and knew that he didn’t have to worry about meeting any resistance or being shot at. Why would he know that? Because common sense is that law abiding citizens follow the law! It was well known that No guns were allowed in that theater.

Had there been someone there that was carrying their weapon that night, I truly believe this story would have played out much differently. The media is not playing that up for us to hear, why? Because the truth is that those victims were lambs to the slaughter. Neither the media nor anti-gun lobbyists want to admit that had a law abiding citizen been in there with a gun on that terrible night things would have turned out much differently. Anti-gun activists and the media do not want to admit it should be against the law to forbid a law abiding citizen from carrying their weapon with them. Because the law abiding citizens obeyed the law, and once again the criminal did NOT, 12 people are dead and 58 more were injured.

To make this story even more interesting. I wanted to know some answers to some very important questions. The anti-gun activists, police, and media all state that James Holmes purchased 6000 rounds of ammunition online. The question is: How does a 24 year old drop out from college (with no job to my knowledge) afford not only 6000 rounds of ammunition but also tactical gear, smoke bombs, tear gas, explosives, etc… According to police reports he had two .40 cal pistol, a shot gun, and an AR15.

Checking on the internet I found that AR15 rounds/ 1000 count is 229.99 then multiply that by 6 = 1379.94 which is not including shipping and handling. The .40 cal bullets cost (at the lowest price I could find) 15.50 per box a count of 50 per box, and the 12 gauge shot gun shells run 5.50 per box for OO buck shot with only 5 per box. Not to mention bullet proof vest 350.00 and up, gas mask 19.95 up to 300.00 depending on the type of mask Mr. Holmes had, and let’s not forget the price of the weapons themselves. Is anyone else seeing this money just add up? Is anyone else here wondering where all this money came from? Whose credit card was used or bank account was used to pay online? With the economy the way it is, people do not just have 5000.00 or more hanging around in their bank account. Especially a 24 year old drop out, with no job, living in a small apartment.

Now the plot thickens even more. James Holmes is supposedly so crazy and deranged that he shoots all those people, rigged his apartment to blow up the police and everyone involved. Yet James Holmes supposedly waited in his car not shaken and calm. Then warned police about the bombs, explosives, and booby traps that were in his apartment? Saving their lives and the lives of others? Does that make any kind of sense to you? If he was so intent on killing these people, why did he warn them?

Even better yet, not one witness can identify him as the shooter, because the shooter was in full body armor, gas mask, etc… Two of the witness’s stated that there was a man in the front row of the theater that answered his cell phone, got up and went to the exit door and opened it. He waived at someone, held the door open with his foot, then approximately 10-15 minutes later is when the gunman came in. Why aren’t we hearing about this in the media? Why aren’t we hearing about the second gas mask that was found? Because they want us, the American public, to believe it was James Holmes that did this and that he acted alone.

The more you dig, the more it seems as if James Holmes is a patsy for a much larger agenda. I am not saying that he is not one of the shooters. However in none of the reports by the police, or media, did it describe Mr. Holmes as being covered in blood, or even having blood on his clothes. Yet they have stated that James Holmes is the shooter. That he walked up to people just shooting them. There would have been blood splatter on his clothes from the victims and lots of it. I am saying that looking at all the facts there is no way that he did this alone, maybe he didn’t even do it at all). Too much doesn’t add up.

What is even more disturbing is this happened only 7 days before the UN wanted to make an agreement with the United States about our gun control laws under the facade of the UN Gun Control Treaty, the same way they did with Japan, Britain, Canada, and Australia. Since the UN gun treaty went into effect in these countries, all the guns were taken out of the hands of law abiding civilians. The crime rate country wide has gone into an uproar, and has spiraled out of control. That is because the criminals now know they can kill, rob, beat, and break into your homes and you have no weapon for self defense.

In April 2012 there was another shooting in Aurora, Colorado. However the media isn’t telling us about this one. I will tell you why. An off duty police officer had his weapon on him while he was attending church. He heard the gun fire, came out and stopped a massacre from happening by using his weapon to defend himself and others.

What if he hadn’t been carrying his weapon, what if he wasn’t allowed to carry his weapon on church grounds? This could have been a very different story, much like the one at the theater that night. This is another case that has saved many due to a law abiding citizen being armed.

This article is continued at Freedom Outpost.com

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: I don't agree in total with this article although I have the same thoughts and concerns. I'm not a member of the National Rifle Association either and I am really tired of people continuing to blame the "law abiding citizens" and not holding criminals accountable for their actions.

Additionally, In my view, the politicians are becoming more criminal in their actions as the days, weeks, and years continue to roll by. Quite a few of them need to be prosecuted for their actions instead of receiving a slap on the wrist from the ethics committee, which can not be trused either. After all most of them are a bunch of lawyers.

SSA Responds To Bulk Ammo Purchase

In light of recent articles about ammunition purchases by the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies, including the Social Security Administration’s own purchase of 174,000 .357 Sig 125 grain hollow point bullets, the SSA decided to come forward with an explanation for why they were purchasing the ammunition.
The SSA’s Office of the Inspector General addressed the solicitation in a blog post on the agency’s website with the title, “Beyond the Numbers“:

As we said in a recent post, our office has criminal investigators, or special agents, who are responsible for investigating violations of the laws that govern SSA’s programs. Currently, about 295 special agents and supervisory special agents work in 66 offices across the United States. These investigators have full law enforcement authority, including executing search warrants and making arrests.

Our investigators are similar to your State or local police officers. They use traditional investigative techniques, and they are armed when on official duty. 

Media reports expressed concerns over the type of ammunition ordered. In fact, this type of ammunition is standard issue for many law enforcement agencies. OIG’s special agents use this ammunition during their mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions, to ensure agent and public safety. Additionally, the ammunition our agents use is the same type used at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Our special agents need to be armed and trained appropriately. They not only investigate allegations of Social Security fraud, but they also are called to respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees, and customers.

The blog went on to say that they do have a high regard for employee and visitor safety:

As we explained in another post, SSA is processing more applications than ever, which means more traffic in SSA offices. Employee and visitor safety is the highest priority for OIG, which, together with the Federal Protective Services and local law enforcement, has jurisdiction over SSA workplaces.

So they did explain this without mentioning anything about qualifying, which some of my readers pointed out that they do annually and of this I have no doubt. Thus I posted that information on the preceding articles.

However, what I want to note from this is simply that the federal government is in effect making the case for citizens to be armed.

Our federal government assumes they will be dealing with people with guns, both at homes they may go to and at the offices in which they work. Why should American citizens not assume the same thing? Why should we not have the mindset that anyone we come in contact with just might be someone who is bad and intends to do us harm?

I am one that does not trust government because they have demonstrated how untrustworthy they are.

I’ll accept their explanation with extreme caution, but I’ll also do likewise and purchase bulk ammunition as I am able. It’s just the right thing to do. After all I want my family, visitors, and home safe and secure. Thanks, Social Security Administration, for making a great argument for the Second Amendment.

Read more articles at http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/social-security-responds-to-bulk-ammo-purchase-makes-case-for-armed-citizens/#ixzz23uwksoOj

Defense Spending Bill

PANEL ADVANCES DEFENSE SPENDING BILL
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the $604.5 billion fiscal 2013 defense spending bill before heading out for the August recess.  The bill provides $511.2 billion in base funding and $93.3 in overseas contingency operation funding.

The bill:

* Funds an active duty end strength of 1,401,697, and reserve component end strength of 846,163.

* Funds a 1.7 percent authorized pay raise for military personnel

* Adds $392 million above the budget request to cover shortfalls in military personnel accounts which were identified by the Services after the budget was submitted.

* Recommends $33.2 billion for the Defense Health Program which will provide medical services for military personnel and their families; continues advancements in medical research; modernizes and maintains medical infrastructure, and develops the next generation of electronic health records.

* Aligns with the National Defense Authorization Act reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which rejects the proposed increase to TRICARE fees.

* Fully funds family support programs and provides enhancements for programs such as Impact Aid and the Educational Partnership Program that assist military dependent students.

* Adds $1 billion in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account.

What’s next?

Nothing!  The Senate leadership refused to bring the bill to the floor for a full vote before they left town.  In fact, it won’t even go to the floor after they return in September or even after the November elections.

Instead, House and Senate leaders have agreed on a six-month continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government from October through March 2013, but at the fiscal 2012 level.  This means that we will see a repeat of last year when the defense bills were finally approved six months after the start of the new fiscal year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that the long term CR “will provide stability for the coming months.”

Stability for whom?  Not the Defense Department.  Working under a continuing resolution severely hampers normal day to day business for the Pentagon.  Program managers are unable to initiate any new programs, procurement accounts are frozen, military bases will probably issue only short-term contracts and training hours will be affected.  These are but a few of the factors that will drive up costs at a time when the Pentagon could have to trim billions ofdollars more from its budget under sequestration.

THE REST OF THE STORY?

We reported last week on the Defense Department’s request to reprogram $708 million in excess funds from the military’s healthcare budget to higher priority items.  We, along with a couple of dozen members of Congress, questioned how they had any excess funds when they have told us repeatedly that the spiraling costs of health care threaten the active force and are “eating us alive.”

Last week the department provided an explanation.  Robert Hale, DoD Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer and Dr. Jonathan Woodson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs held a conference call with reporters.  Hale said, “Two years ago, we made an estimate of the amount of funding we would need for the Defense Health Program, which pays TRICARE bills, and was approved by Congress.  Uncertainties inherent in such forecasting resulted in an estimate that was2 percent, or $708 million, higher than the actual $32.5 billion budget for fiscal 2012.”

Okay, but this is not the first time this has happened.  Defense officials overstated the Defense healthcare budget by over $772 million for fiscal 2010 and $1.4 billion for fiscal 2011.

When asked about the department's plan to raise fees, Hale said the department believes that the issue of TRICARE fee increases is separate from the reprogramming issue.  “In 2001 through 2012, the overall military healthcare budget went up 175 percent, … and it is that growing trend line that has caused us to look at issues like changing the TRICARE fees and [finding] a way to reduce the growth in health care costs, as well as the fact that [TRICARE] feeshaven’t been significantly increased for 15 years,” he said.

We aren’t buying this.  We continue to believe that the department wants to fund other “higher priority” items on the backs of military retirees.  It's wrong and we will continue to fight them vigorously.

Congress isn’t buying it either.  In addition to the letter from lawmakers to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking for an explanation, House and Senate appropriators are putting the money where the mouth is by recommending that millions of dollars be cut from the military healthcare budget because, they say, the Pentagon has consistently overstated its costs by exaggerating medical inflation.

In its defense spending bill for fiscal 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that $807 million be cut from the $16.2 billion request for private sector care for Defense personnel.  The report that accompanied the spending bill said, “The Department recently submitted an omnibus reprogramming for fiscal year 2012 in which they identified an additional $707,949,000 of unexecuted funding due to lower than budgeted private sector care cost growth rates.  Given this continued trend of prior-year underexecution, the Committee recommends a reduction of $807,413,000 to the fiscal year 2013 budget request, a 5-percent reduction, which is consistent with the fiscal year 2012 anticipated execution level.  The Committee urges the Department to submit future year budgets that are more closely aligned with recent provided care patterns.” 

Citing the same reason, the House-passed defense spending bill would cut $400 million.

SEE YOU IN SEPTEMBER

Congress is in recess until September.  Accordingly, this legislative update is also.  The update will return on Monday, 10 September.  Have a great August.

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: This AUSA Legislative Update continues to show everyone that we need to COMPLETELY revamp/elect new Senators and Representatives that will do the job we pay them to do.