Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube

Manny Pacquiao’s Gay Marriage Remarks Attracting Evangelical Fans?

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - Manny Pacquiao’s Gay Marriage Remarks Attracting Evangelical Fans?

A boxing promoter has suggested that the recent controversy surrounding world champion boxer Manny Pacquiao defending the traditional definition of marriage may encourage Filipinos who have not been following the sport to now get behind Pacquiao in his next fight.

“It may very well resonate with people,” Top Rank promoter Bob Arum was quoted as saying by CBS News, as Pacquiao gets ready to fight Timothy Bradley on June 9 in a Pay-Per-View event. “We have so many evangelical Christians living in this country that have paid attention to this whole thing. Some of these people would never think of buying a fight and they might buy it, I don’t know. It certainly isn’t what was intended.”

The fight, available on HBO on June 9 at 9 p.m. EST, has not been priced as yet – but boxing PPV’s sometimes cost over $60 dollars.

The issue over Pacquiao’s comments exploded two weeks ago when the boxer responded to President Barack Obama’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage by saying that he stands behind the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

His comments were published by Examiner.com, but the author of the article included the Bible verse Leviticus 20:13 following Pacquiao’s comments. The verse reads: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Readers who misunderstood the report by believing Pacquiao had made that reference himself stirred up a media storm that even led to the Filipino congressman being banned from a Hollywood mall, where he was scheduled to give an interview. Officials unhappy with the alleged anti-gay comments told the boxer to find an alternate venue for his meeting. At the same time, a petition started on Change.com urging sponsor Nike to drop Pacquiao gathered 4,000 views before being taken down after the Examiner.com reporter clarified that he had added in the Leviticus reference himself.

Pacquiao explained last week that he has nothing against gay people and that he loves everybody.

“To the gay community, I apologize. I’m against same sex marriage, but I’m not condemning you. My favorite verse is ‘Love one another as you love yourself. Love your neighbor.’ So, I love everybody!,” he shared with Extra.

The Philippines remains a largely Christian nation, with the vast majority of the 85 percent religious population belonging to the Roman Catholic faith.

Mitt Romney’s New BFF: Donald Trump

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - Mitt Romney’s New BFF: Donald Trump

Forget Clooney for Obama. Team Romney now has a Trump fundraiser, a Trump super PAC, and a former presidential aspirant who won’t stop talking about where the president was born.

First things first: Donald Trump is delighted that Mitt Romney is using The Donald’s star power to lure lottery contestants and donors to a major fundraiser June 28 for Romney’s presidential juggernaut.

MSNBC leads ‘Hardball’ with talk of Trump’s renewed concern for President Obama’s birthplace.

“I’m honored that they feel that way about me,” Trump told The Daily Beast on Thursday night, as the reality-television star/real-estate mogul was being described in the media as the Republican answer to George Clooney (whose movie-star magnetism helped raise $15 million for President Obama at a similarly touted event two weeks ago). “I feel strongly that Mitt is really doing well. I think he’s gonna be a great candidate and a great president. We need a great president. I feel a lot of people listen to what I have to say.”

No sooner were those dutifully gooey sentiments out of the way than The Donald—who plans to host a lunch or dinner for the presumptive GOP nominee and some of his lucky supporters at one of the Trump properties in Manhattan—launched into a furious disquisition concerning Obama’s place of birth.

“Look, it’s very simple,” said Trump, who has spent the past 13 months questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to occupy the White House (and only doubled down with his stubborn skepticism after Obama produced a long-form birth certificate, certifying he was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Hawaii, and then hilariously roasted him at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner. “A book publisher came out three days ago and said that in his written synopsis of his book,” Trump went on, “he said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. His mother never spent a day in the hospital.”

Actually, Obama’s literary agency at the time, two decades ago, published a recently discovered catalogue of clients and their projects that included erroneous information about Obama and a prospective book about race that he ended up not writing. An agency assistant back then, Miriam Goderich, said last week that she was mistaken when she wrote that Obama was born in Kenya.

But Trump isn’t buying it.

“That’s what he told the literary agent,” Trump insisted. “That’s the way life works… He didn’t know he was running for president, so he told the truth. The literary agent wrote down what he said… He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia… Now they’re saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her she said, ‘Oh, I mean Hawaii.’ Give me a break.”


Businessman Donald Trump (R) shakes hands with Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney after announcing his endorsement of Romney at Trump International Hotel & Tower on February 2, 2012 in Las Vegas, Nevada ahead of the February 4 Nevada caucus. (Stan Honda / Getty Images)

The Democratic National Committee was quick to pounce on Romney’s apparent willingness to be associated with Trump’s birtherism after The Apprentice star’s role was disclosed in an emailed Romney campaign fundraising solicitation earlier Thursday.

“Once again Mitt Romney is failing the moral leadership test,” DNC press secretary Melanie Roussell said in a statement. “Instead of rejecting Donald Trump’s ‘birther’ conspiracy theories and divisive attacks, he’s endorsing them by campaigning and fundraising with him… This type of false and extremely divisive rhetoric has no place in the political discourse of our country and Mitt Romney should stand up against it instead of standing with Donald Trump to raise money for his campaign.”

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt chimed in: “Quite the match for a candidate who said he likes being able to fire people.”

The Romney campaign didn’t respond to request for comment by deadline. Nor did George Clooney, who erected a tent on the basketball court of his Los Angeles estate to accommodate 150-odd Hollywood types who paid $40,000 a plate (plus two lucky civilians who were among more than a million who bought $3 lottery tickets), not to mention additional millions from eager donors who didn’t attend.

Trump—who displayed his patented genius for self-promotion last year by flirting with running for president himself—declined to predict whether his fundraiser next month will come anywhere near the Clooney number. (Prices haven’t been set, but lottery contenders also will be charged $3 per ticket for a shot at attending.)

“Donald Trump’s popularity is substantially greater than that of George Clooney,” Cohen maintained, though he offered no supporting statistics. “I think it’s just self-evident.”

 “I don’t know,” he said, noting that he raised more than $600,000 recently at two $1,000-a-person receptions for Ann Romney, with 600 women at his and Melania’s apartment in Trump Tower. “A lot of that money [for Obama, at the time of the Clooney dinner] poured in automatically because they did it the day after he came out in favor of same-sex marriage. It wasn’t because of the dinner.” As for the June 28 Trump/Romney meal, fortunate attendees will receive, according to the campaign, “airport transportation in the Trump vehicle… stay at the Trump International Hotel & Tower… [get a] tour of Trump Tower” and “dine with Donald Trump and Mitt Romney.” Trump will host a fundraiser for Romney, featuring a drop-by by former rival Newt Gingrich, next Tuesday at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas.

Trump, meanwhile, confirmed reports that he is planning to start a self-funded super PAC in support of the Romney campaign. “We may do our own commercials out of the super PAC,” he said, adding that he has yet to focus on the enterprise.

Before The Donald hopped on the phone, his in-house political adviser, attorney Michael Cohen, called Trump “a very significant surrogate” for Romney—somewhat of a downgrade from his claim to ABC News that Trump is “the single most significant surrogate for Governor Romney.” Cohen sounded slightly aggrieved that Clooney would be mentioned in the same breath as his fearless leader.

“Donald Trump’s popularity is substantially greater than that of George Clooney,” Cohen maintained, though he offered no supporting statistics. “I think it’s just self-evident.”

Who is more handsome?

“Next question. These are silly questions. Why don’t you ask me who’s richer?”

Who’s richer?

“Donald Trump—by a lot.”

Quien es mas macho?

“Yo no se,” Cohen gamely responded.

Obamacare Decision Paralyzes Dems

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - Obamacare Decision Paralyzes Dems



RUSH: I have a lot of people sending me e-mail, “What do you mean, Rush? I thought you made the complex understandable.” I do, I do. But sometimes things are so simple, it’s hard to understand. All it means is that sometimes the least conspiratorial, the least complicated, answer explains something.

And it’s thought to be so simple, it just can’t be. It’s gotta be more complicated. Oftentimes it’s not. And liberalism and the Democrat Party are so simple to explain that sometimes it’s difficult to understand it. But I look at Obama’s Bain attack, and it makes total sense based on everything we knew and suspected last fall about the regime desperately wanting Romney. They wanted Romney for two reasons. They wanted Romney because of Bain and Wall Street. That’s what Occupy Wall Street was all about. That’s why it was created and manufactured. And they wanted Romney because of health care.

By the way, that’s another thing. I think that the regime and the media and the Democrats are a little paralyzed. I really do. This is a movement — liberalism, Marxism, whatever — in the Democrat Party today. They are a party driven by events, and I think they are in a state of near paralysis over their fear the Supreme Court is gonna overturn Obamacare. That’s gonna be the biggest room in his presidential library and it’s just about to be declared unconstitutional. I think that’s their fear. I think they’re paralyzed waiting for that to happen, in part.


RUSH: Let me expand a little bit on what I was just talking about. This Bain business, so many Democrats, “Don’t talk about private equity, Barack, we like private equity.” Not only do they like it, they’re in it.  They’re getting rich in private equity, and they are laying people off when they buy businesses, Obama’s own campaign managers.  I will ‘splain this in mere moments.  I want to expand here for mere moments on a point that I made right before the break.  The stumbling out of the gate, and why.

Why is the Bain thing backfiring on ‘em?  Why are all of these problems happening?  Why is The Messiah seen to be muddling through?  Why does he seem to be so blatantly political?  Why is he so uncool and unsmooth now?  How is it that Romney looks like he knows what he’s doing and Obama doesn’t?  This is what they’re asking themselves.  And I don’t think most people realize the importance of the Obamacare decision on the campaign.  Forget whether or not they know the decision, ’cause even if they’ve been told what a vote was, they may know it, but let’s put that aside for a second.  What they do know is that the oral arguments were a disaster.

They know that every argument made on behalf of Obamacare that the public was able to learn about was horrible, an absolute train wreck.  It was a disaster, because there’s nothing to say about it.  That’s why they had to pass the bill before telling anybody what’s in it.  They don’t want people to know what’s in the health care bill.  And because of the oral arguments, the court people got an idea, didn’t like it, they didn’t like it going in.  Instinctively a majority of the people didn’t want it.  Now, Obama’s campaign is organized around events, and the reason for this is, they have no record that they can run on.  There is no mythological characteristic about Obama.  He’s not larger than life anymore.  Now he’s a guy that plays golf too much, goes on vacation all the time. His wife goes on vacation all the time.

There is a new reality about Obama.  He’s no longer the empty canvas that you can paint whatever you want him to be on it.  And so they’re organized around events.  A typical event, Osama Bin Laden’s death.  That’s an event.  That’s an event that they point to.  It’s an event that’s driven much of their campaign.  It’s an opportunity to talk about something other than the jobs numbers or the housing market, and it’s events like this that drive the campaign and of course the news cycle.  But there isn’t anything that approaches the level of Obamacare, and the big event in Obamacare is the court decision on whether or not it’s constitutional.

This idiotic column by this guy Rex Nutting saying that Obama is not the big spender we all know him to be, that event seized upon, and that horse is gonna be ridden until it dies of exhaustion. And Obama’s out there still trying to ride that horse. (imitating Obama) “Guess what?  There’s a story in the paper the other day that said I’m not a big spender, and you know what?  I’m not.”  I mean, it’s a joke.  But they’re hanging onto that one with their fingernails, too.  Obamacare, however, defines Barack Obama.  It’s the cornerstone of the forthcoming Obama presidential library.  It’s his place in history, and it is where he gets to transform this country.  He’s out there saying America has never worked.  He means capitalism has never worked. And it’s health care, it’s Obamacare, fully implemented, that gives him the slam-dunk opportunity to finally, in his mind, remake this country, transform it into what it shoulda always been.  But it, in their minds, is hanging in the balance.  They are not confident.

This was his victory over America, folks.  Obamacare was the victory over America.  Obama at war with the America that was founded.  Osawatomie, Kansas, he said this year: It’s not working; it’s never worked.  America, capitalism.  And Obamacare, that was the death knell, his victory over America, his victory over free markets, his victory over the Constitution.  He has received countless toasts, tributes, congratulatory notes since that abysmal law was shoved down our throats.  Obamacare’s passage was nirvana for Obama.

Now the campaign’s frozen.  The Bain thing’s backfiring.  This story by Rex Nutting is quickly becoming a joke, the point of the story is a joke, that Obama is the most responsible president in terms of spending since Eisenhower.  I mean it’s a joke.  Nobody believes it.  The Democrats don’t even believe it.  And as I say, I’ve got stories from the past three years, I’ll treat you to headlines to show you, Obama has desired more spending.  So now the regime is consumed with planning how to handle the next event, and that’s the court decision on Obamacare.

Now, if it’s unfavorable to Obama, that’s gonna require his team to massage his ego and his feelings.  They’re gonna have to be managed.  Some other huge event will be necessary to make him feel better about himself, give the State-Controlled Media a reason not to talk about the health care decision for months.  I know if they lose it they’ll turn it into a big campaign event.  Exactly.  Everything is an event with these people.  I know what the campaign’s gonna be.  If the court overturns this — and, by the way, there’s been a couple stories this week already aiming at Roberts.  I know, Pat Leahy went nuts, but there were a couple of journalist stories, columns, Washington Post, I forget where, doesn’t matter, really talking about the legacy of the court, and if Roberts makes this a 5-4 decision, then the court may as well pack up its reputation forever, ’cause it’s gonna be worthless.

They’re trying to intimidate Roberts.  They think Roberts is the place to go, not Kennedy.  They think Roberts is the guy, he’s the chief, they think Roberts is the one malleable. They think Roberts can be humiliated and shamed into honoring the court’s reputation at the expense of the law.  It’s what they think.  The reason they think that is because they behave that way.  They will put themselves ahead of the Constitution.  They will put themselves ahead of the law.  Hell, they’re doing it.  The Senate’s not authorized to spend money, but Dingy Harry’s doing it.  All spending bills have to start in the House.  They’re aiming at Roberts.  But if the decision goes against them, you know what the campaign is gonna be:  Five Republicans have taken away your health care today.  They still have theirs.  Five Republicans today took away your health care, and it’s gonna be a huge campaign event.  And there’s a part of me that thinks the regime might not mind if that happens, but still waiting on this to happen.

They are a little discombobulated. I don’t know that they’re so worried. I don’t know that they’re obsessing about it, but it is the next big event, and they are stumbling.  Nothing is working. The unions are not gonna beat Scott Walker in Wisconsin.  In fact, they may be turning Wisconsin into a state for Romney.  The Bain thing isn’t working.  The Obama is not a big spender thing isn’t working.  Obama’s out there — you know, this cow pie joke he made?  That’s akin to John Kerry going into that place in Ohio or Iowa, wherever it was, and looked like Johnny Carson’s character when he made fun of a hunter, (imitating Kerry) “Is this where I get me a huntin’ license?”  John Kerry.  Well, here’s Obama, probably had to be told what a cow pie was when they gave him the joke.



The Post-Obama American Economic Boom

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - The Post-Obama American Economic Boom



RUSH: Whether it’s during the next 10 years or 20 years, we, the United States, are going to be the world’s leading supplier of carbon-based energy.  Whether Obama knows it or not, this is a reality Obama cannot escape.  I am always gonna bet on my country instead of betting on somebody who doesn’t like it, who wants to shut it down.  And I hate to say it’s Obama, but there’s no doubt, and there can be no doubt, Obama is running for reelection against capitalism.

There are people who say, in the energy business, that we’re going to be the Saudi Arabia of energy, and I think they underestimate the profundity of this reality.  We’re gonna have an oil boom. We’re gonna have a gas boom.  Fracking is going to lead the way.  We have more oil that is retrievable than is beneath the ground in Saudi Arabia.  And this country has people that are gonna go get it.  We’re in the process of getting it now.  In North Dakota there is a boom.  Obama may try to shut this down.  The left may try to shut this down.  The left is not gonna succeed.  The entrepreneurs, the producers are going to triumph at some point over whatever obstacles are thrown in their way.  It’s always been the story of this country.  It’s always been the unique story.  It’s always been the history of this country, and it’s going to happen.

And when it happens, it’s gonna be an energy boom, and an energy boom is gonna lead to a jobs boom, and that’s gonna lead to a real estate boom, and that’s gonna lead to a travel boom.  In short, it’s gonna lead to an everything boom.  Now, that’s great news for us.  It’s not great news for Obama.  This stuff is going to happen despite him.  It may not happen ’til he’s gone. I don’t know what’s gonna happen in 2012.  I mean I sit here and tell you that I think we’re looking at a potential landslide and I mean that, but anything between now and then can change.  So I’m not predicting it. Just telling you my gut today, and I think if more people would be honest with you, they would tell you the same thing.

Now, not the people who analyze this state by state, looking at polling state by state, then construct their electoral vote map.  They’re not gonna ever tell you that.  But I don’t look at that.  That’s not the gut.  That is polling data, and that’s standard political formula, and I don’t know about standard political formula.  I don’t want to be involved in standard political formula.  What I know is the people of this country.  It is the people of this country for whom I have empathy.  And I see it now, the anger, the frustration, and the energy that is building to overcome the obstacle that is Barack Obama and the modern day Democrat Party.  And I don’t know when it’s gonna happen, but it will happen.  These obstacles will be overcome.  The greatness of this country will triumph once again.  It is going to happen.  And when it does, the real history of these years of Obama will be written as abject failure and disaster.

I am here to tell you that no matter what happens in 2012, Barack Obama is going to be looked back on, not for everything he did to encourage America’s greatness in rebound,  Obama is going to be looked back on for everything he did to discourage it.  Obama has delayed, impeded, blocked, and said “no” to virtually every carbon energy project from drilling in the Gulf to exploration on federal lands, to pipelines, to ANWR, to delaying hydraulic fracking.  To every bit of progress in the carbon-based energy world, Barack Obama is a giant roadblock.  He’s delayed, impeded, blocked, and said “no” to everything.  He has said “no” to American progress.  He has said “no” to a jobs boom.  He has said “no” to getting rid of dependence on foreign sources of energy.

And as we sit here today in the Memorial Day weekend, I’m here to tell you, May 25th of 2012, history is going to look back on this period and this president with wonder.  People in the future are gonna look back at this time and they’re going to ask, “How did it happen?”  What was going on that made the American people make this near fatal decision, electing Barack Obama?  They’re going to ask, did he really think he could hold back the tide of American ingenuity?  Did Barack Obama really believe that he could be the Berlin Wall to US energy independence?  Did Barack Obama really believe he could hold back the tide of American ingenuity, entrepreneurism, and greatness?  Or was he just playing politics?  Now, the sooner this happens, the better, obviously, but it is going to happen, of that I have no doubt.



Are Democrats Finally Seeing What We Knew About Obama Four Years Ago?

Categories: News: Elections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - Are Democrats Finally Seeing What We Knew About Obama Four Years Ago?



RUSH: Last night, PBS, Charlie Rose had as his guest a guy named Donald Gogel, president, chief executive officer at private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice.  Charlie Rose said to Donald Gogel, “You were a strong supporter of the president in 2008.  Are you concerned about the nature of the president’s rhetoric on private equity and Bain Capital and Mitt Romney?”

GOGEL:  I’m concerned that in the noise, in the tornado of politics (and unfortunately it’s become a tornado) we’re gonna lose what is most essential to this country, which is the ability for individuals to band together, free association, free enterprise, create businesses, and create jobs.

RUSH:  Okay, now, here’s a CEO, private equity, big Obama guy 2008, you hear him talk like this.  This is my question.  See, this is what frustrates me.  Why did it take this guy three years to see who Obama is?  Let’s be honest, folks.  You and I know and knew who Obama was and is four years ago.  We knew who he was when he made that speech at the Democrat convention in Boston in 2004.  Why?  Because we know who liberals are.  We know what liberalism is.  This is why I always say that if more people would simply look at politics through an ideological lens rather than a party lens… even now, I’m probably not gonna express this very well.  I wish I had printed this out, what I’m gonna refer to.  I wish I had it in front of me.

It was a piece I was reading last night about presidential politics and the election, and it spoke of Obama and his campaign as a standard, ordinary Democrat Party campaign with all of the assumptions.  And the big assumption was that Obama wants jobs created and Obama wants the country to recover from this economic downturn and he’s got some policies.  I read this and I’m incredulous.  By the way, and people that write this stuff, comment on it, are in the establishment.  They’re the supposed smartest people in the room, and even they don’t get it, like this guy didn’t get it, Donald Gogel.  And I’m not being critical.  I don’t want anybody calling Donald Gogel and telling him that Rush Limbaugh’s ripping him.  It’s not what I’m doing.  I’m just incredulous.  This Gogel guy is obviously very smart.  He voted for Obama.

I could have told him that Obama would create a tornado of politics, that Obama was behind the effort to lose what’s most essential to this country: individuals banding together, free association, free enterprise, create business. I coulda told him just based on what I heard Obama say in private that we had the tape of and in public in campaign speeches, I coulda told him that what was gonna happen has happened. I could have be predicted it for him.  He could have, too, if he would have seen Obama as a liberal and not just a Democrat, or worse than a liberal.  But the good news is Mr. Gogel has seen it.  A lot of people are seeing it.  The frustrating thing is that ten years from now this is all gonna happen again, all be repeated.  Some brand-new liberal will come along and they’ll say the same things they said about Obama. “Unlike anybody we’ve ever seen, smart, smooth, educated, Harvard, unifier.”

It will be the same load of crap, and everybody will fall for it, knowing full well what Obama was. Just other Democrat. This Democrat may work out.  And yet if these people had the ability to see Obama not as a Democrat, but as a liberal, they would have never taken a chance on the guy, knowing full well what his attitude is about private equity.  I don’t know, maybe Obama’s lying to these people when he’s raising money from ‘em, I don’t know.  But I have to tell you, I was incredulous over this, as you would be if you ran into somebody who thinks two plus two is five.  Well, that’s the way I am when people don’t see liberals for who they are.  That’s the way I am, because it’s so abundantly clear to me.  I’m concerned that in the noise, a tornado of politics, that we’re gonna lose what is most essential.  He’s responding to a question about Obama’s attacks on private equity, which is his business.  So here’s the next bite.  Donald Gogel, CEO, private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice.

Charlie Rose says, “You told me in a Businessweek interview, when I asked you, that you were a strong supporter of Obama — and then you had this change. Were you now trending to supporting Governor Romney?”

GOGEL: (whispering) I believe that a number of the policies that Governor Romney is proposing are pro-growth. Uh, we’d like to see a lot more. It’s a long time between now and the election. I think we’ll see more about the policies for job formation, about tax reform and a variety of other things. But right now I am disappointed that President Obama’s –

ROSE: (whispering) You think right now Governor Romney is better for the economy and for business than President Obama?

GOGEL: I do.

ROSE: And you’re more likely to support Governor Romney?

GOGEL: I am.

RUSH: No, no, that’s great. Now, don’t misunderstand. This is wonderful. Maybe I’m living a pipe dream. See, I don’t think I’m that smart. I think every would be at least as smart as I am when it comes to liberals. I’m not kidding. Spotting liberals and… For God’s sakes, what was the Great Society? What the War on Poverty? Show me where it’s ever worked. I know that half the country’s getting checks. And I know that 88 million Americans are not working but they’re eating, and it’s a statistic that worries me.

It’s quite telling that 88 million are not working but they’re eating.

I understand this. I understand all of it. But I’m not… (interruption) No! (sigh) I want them to have more than what they’re eating! I don’t want to have ‘em have to eat food stamp potato chips and whatever — or maybe they’re getting Dom Perignon. Hell, I don’t know. I want them to be able to provide as much for themselves as they want, not have to depend on meager handouts. But I look at the lie of the 1980s and everybody who lived through the eighties knows full well what happened.

Yet they’re able to be convinced that it was all a lie and that this is the way to go? I’m telling you, I’m stupefied. It’s never worked anywhere! Liberalism, socialism, they have to build walls to keep people in the country! You have to have an expanding government and be dictating to people what they can and can’t do for these “wonderful programs” to work. These are smart people that run these private equity firms. Look, a lot of these private equity guys on the Republican side, I know are just as dense when it comes to ideological politics.

To them it’s all Republican versus Democrat.

That’s why they all supported McCain.

“He’s the Republican.”

I’d tell ‘em what my problems with him were and it was like talking to a brick wall. They didn’t get it. These are the people who fall for this notion, “We gotta compromise, gotta bring everyone together!” Hell, at this golf tournament I was talking to a guy. He said, “The biggest problem we have, Rush, is we gotta make everybody Americans again. We gotta bring people together.” I said, “Aw, crap,” except I didn’t say “crap;” I said something else.

And I got up, and I went back to the lavatory, and I practically threw up.

“Gotta bring people together,” my ass!

We have got to defeat liberals, so that guys like Mr. Gogel don’t make the mistake of voting for ‘em and learning through actual experience about his company being brought to its knees that he shouldn’t have. (groans)

I don’t know.

To hell with it.


RUSH: Folks, don’t misunderstand me here. I, of course, would love everybody come together. I love unity. I’d love it if everybody got along. But I live in Realville. It’s not gonna happen. It’s never happened. It’s never been the case in human history. The country has never been unified. Even in the days of the founding there were people that wanted to stop it. And after we were founded, and after the Constitution was ratified, there were people that set out to undermine it.

We’ve never been unified! I would love everybody to come together and understand the perils of liberalism. I would love that, but I know it’s not going to happen. What then needs to be done is to keep them in a permanent minority so that they’re always losing elections and kept away from power. I don’t want to be unified with people who are diametrically opposed. The kind of country we have matters to me; it’s one of the most important things.

Anyway, we have one more sound bite from Mr. Gogel, Donald Gogel. He’s the president and CEO of a private equity firm. He’s just said to Charlie Rose he’s supporting Romney, believes Romney is much better for job creation and the economy and for business. So Charlie says, “Well, President Obama was here in New York. He went to see some people in the very business that you’re in and raise money from them. When he comes to raise money, what does he say?”

GOGEL: I can tell you that a number of the people surrounding the president that are trying to gain support of Wall Street — people in the financial community and the broader business community, so that’s Main Street as well as Wall Street — have asked people for a little more forbearance. That we should just recognize this is typical politics and that things will settle down and we’ll get a more measured approach to all of these issues.

RUSH: So what Mr. Gogel is saying is that Obama’s minions said, “Look, we have to say this stuff. We have to attack private equity. We have to attack you. But understand it’s just politics. When we win the election, it’s cool.” It’s just like he told Dmitry Mededev, “Hey, tell Vlad I’ll be able to get rid of the nukes after I win. I’ll have more flexibility.” Now it’s, “You private equity guys gotta understand that I have to hit you. I have to criticize you. It’s the only way I can get reelected. It’s not gonna be bad. We’ll work together after the election, but I gotta say these things.”

Well, hello?

This is one of the reasons people hate politics.

‘Cause Obama was basically telling them, “Look, guys, I have to lie. My base is so stupid they hate your guts, and I gotta make ‘em think that I do, too. But hang with me. How about that?”


RUSH:  Okay, so Mr. Gogel of the private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, says that when Obama’s minions come to raise money they wink and they say, “Look, we don’t really hate you. We just have to say we do.  We’ve gotta do these things to get elected.  We have to criticize what you do.  After we get elected, it’s all gonna be fine.”  So essentially Obama’s minions say to the private equity guys, “My base is so stupid, they hate your guts, and I’ve gotta make ‘em think I hate your guts too in order to get elected. But after I get elected, it’s gonna be cool.”  He said the same thing to Dmitry Medvedev.  “Look, tell Vladimir after the election I’ll have a lot more flexibility on getting rid of nukes.”  Thing is, he was not lying to Medvedev.  He was lying to the fat cats.  He is lying to the private equity guys.

Every syllable he says is the truth when he talks about hating people who pursue profit, because this guy is running against capitalism, in the midst of an economic recession.  How bizarre is this?  To run against capitalism when your country is in the middle of a recession, when you’re trying to get the economy to expand, and when you say you’re trying to get businesses to hire.  It is perverse.  It’s perverse unless you don’t want the economy to expand, unless you want to prolong the misery in order to pass more safety net welfare funding.  We all know Obama wants to expand the government.  The fact that 88 million Americans are not working, but that they are eating, Obama loves, because he’s the one getting credit for feeding them, in his mind.  And not only are they eating, they’ve got their televisions and they’ve got their cell phones, and they’ve got cable.  And a number of these 88 million who aren’t working but have food, have cable, have cell phones, and have flat screens, may be saying, “What more do I need?”




Rush Limbaugh Bust Gets Own Dittocam!

Categories: Issues: Conservative
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - Rush Limbaugh Bust Gets Own Dittocam!



RUSH: My bust is on display right outside the House doors, the doors to the House of Representatives Chamber in the Missouri State Capitol. There’s a story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that has a picture of the bust, the Rush bust. (I like that: The Rush bust.) “The Missouri House has spent more than $1,100 … on a security camera to keep watch over a new” Rush bust. House “Clerk Adam Crumbliss said he authorized the camera after discussions with Republican legislative leaders because of concerns the sculpture of Limbaugh’s head and shoulders might be vandalized.”

This is the Hall of Famous Missourians. The story goes on to complain. The writer is upset that taxpayer dollars are being spent on security for my bust. This may be the first time on record we have found a journalist upset with government spending. But they clearly, at the Post-Dispatch — in my own hometown, the paper there — are not happy with this. This $1,100 is irresponsible government spending.




Website Asks Women to be Proud of Their Abortions (!)

Categories: Issues: Pro Life
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - Website asks women to be proud of their abortions

May 25, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) – Since xoJane.com prides itself on being the website “where women go when they are being selfish, and where their selfishness is applauded,” it’s no surprise they are asking women to brag about their experience with abortion. The site is asking women to submit photos of themselves declaring why they support the act of killing one’s own child. They want women to end their silence and proclaim to the world that they’ve had abortions and feel zero guilt about it.

In the post, “It Happened to Us: Abortion,” author S.E. Smith writes:

For a medical procedure that should be routine, like getting a filling at the dentist or getting a vaccination, it sure is politically charged. I wear my abortion on my sleeve (so to speak) because I want other people to know that they don’t need to feel shame about choosing to get an abortion[.]

First, abortion isn’t something that “happens” to anyone. It is not an arbitrary, unexpected event beyond a woman’s control, but an act of aggression, which she sought out. Second, it is not and should not be routine to rip your own child out of your womb. Unlike vaccinations and dental fillings, abortion ends the life of a baby and can leave mothers with a lifetime of remorse and bouts of depression.

Smith also says:

There’s a tendency in some corners of the pro-choice movement to talk about abortion as a tragic but sometimes necessary procedure, to talk about the need to reduce the overall number of abortions, and this is a mistake. It plays into the hands of the anti-choice movement by assigning a moral value to abortion.

There’s a reason so many people who affiliate themselves with the pro-choice side call abortion tragic but necessary. There’s a reason so many of them say that no one wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it’s the right thing to do. It’s because they know that abortion is tragic and wrong, but they have become so snarled up in politically correct lingo that they can’t see straight anymore. They know that abortion is a gravely horrific act of murder, but they cannot get themselves out from under the weight of their own misguided attempts to help women. The fact is that murdering someone is legally wrong because it is morally wrong. Since abortion is murder, the same rules should apply. To help someone commit a murder is also morally and legally wrong. And the pro-choicers who assign a moral value to abortion know this, but they live in denial, preferring to ignore their own consciences.

Smith tells all of her readers:

If you had an abortion, you can rock on with your bad self, whether you braved the dangers of illegal abortion pre-Roe v. Wade or took some mifepristone this morning. And if anyone has a problem with that, that’s their problem, not yours.

She believes that women who have had abortions should celebrate themselves and that those women who risked their health to kill their own children in pre-Roe days (and really, in these days, too) should honor their twisted principles. When did women who would risk death in order to kill their child become more admirable than those who risk their lives to save their children? Imagine slave owners who may have told those fighting for freedom for slaves: “If you don’t like that I own slaves, that’s your problem, not mine.” Or picture an abusive man telling his wife’s family: “If you don’t like my relationship, that’s your problem.” Envision terrorists telling us that if we don’t like their actions, that’s our problem. Abortion is about a woman and her doctor the way child abuse is about a parent and her child. To imply that none of us has a right to protect victims of violence is unacceptable.

Interwoven in Smith’s post are photos of women supporting abortion.

Lesley Kinzel holds up a note with drawings of three cats. It reads, “If I was pregnant TODAY, I would get an abortion. (Cats are enough, thank you.) (Less crying) (Self reliance) (Smaller poops).” It seems that for Kinzel, having to love a child is a horrid task.

When Sari Botton proclaims in her photo, “Had 1 surgical + 1 chemical. Been perpetuating the shame by keeping silent…until now. 1+1=2 abortions,” all I picture (graphic link) is a baby burned to death by saline and another being ripped to pieces. Never given a name, never given a hug, never allowed to feel love from another person.

It is all obviously and pathetically egocentric. And it all plays into the master plot of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council to shift society’s view of children from blessing to curse, to alter the perception of family to be a unit that includes only one or two children, and to convince everyone that there is no one more important than I am.

Helena Andrews’ photo stating, “I Choose Life. Mine,” says it all.

Reprinted from LiveActionNews.org

N. Korean Officials Executed in Staged Traffic Accidents

Categories: News: International
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - N. Korean officials executed in staged traffic accidents

Kim Jong Un salutes during a mass military parade (AP Photo/Korean Central News Agency via Korea News Service) …A new Amnesty International report paints a gruesome picture of summary executions, torture and ill-treatment in North Korea as Kim Jong Un succeeded his late father, Kim Jong Il, as the country’s ruler last December.

The country used firing squads or staged traffic accidents to execute 30 officials involved in talks to unite North and South Korea, according to the 2012 Amnesty International report released Thursday. It also notes that the country had been questioned about another 37 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 for “financial crimes.”

As the ruling authority shifted to Kim Jong Un, the country’s State Security agency detained another 200 North Korean officials, some of whom are now feared executed or in prison camps, the report notes.

Credible reports estimated that up to 200,000 prisoners were held in horrific conditions in six sprawling political prison camps, including the notorious Yodok facility. Thousands were imprisoned in at least 180 other detention facilities. Most were imprisoned without trial or following grossly unfair trials and on the basis of forced confessions.

Men, women and children, who were kept in the prison camps,  were tortured and forced to work in dangerous conditions, according to the report. Many of the prisoners die or get sick while in custody due to the horrendous conditions, beatings, lack of medical care and unhealthy living conditions.

Meantime, the North Korean government denies the existence of the political prison camps.

Amnesty International also reports that hunger is widespread in the country, as 6 million urgently need food and the country is unable to feed its people. The country earlier this year reportedly requested its embassies to appeal for international aid. While the the European Commission has helped, the United States has not provided aid to North Korea, “reflecting concerns over the monitoring of its distribution,” according to the report.

North Koreans do not have freedom of speech, and criticism of the government and its leaders is forbidden. Few people have access to the Internet, and there are tight controls on mobile phones and phone connections, according to the report. Citizens’ movement inside and out of the country are tightly monitored. People who escape to China are often returned to North Korea, where they are often detained and beaten by the government.

Man Admitted to Hospital for Kidney Stone, Discovers He’s a Woman (Riiiiiight….)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 25, 2012
ht Steve Crecelius nt 120524 wblog Man Admitted to Hospital for Kidney Stone, Discovers Hes a Woman(@photowonder/Twitter)

A Colorado man who was admitted to the hospital for a kidney stone received surprising news when the nurse came back with test results revealing he was actually a woman.

Denver photographer Steve Crecelius said he’s felt a little different all his life.

“When I was about 6 years old, I started having these feminine feelings, but that was in the ’60s. Wearing my mom’s makeup, I thought I looked pretty,” Crecelius told ABC News.

So when he went to the emergency room five years ago, he wasn’t too shocked when the nurse told him she found traits of both genders in his ultrasound results.

He was intersex, meaning he had both male genitalia and internal female sex organs.

“The nurse is reading the ultrasound and says, ‘Huh, this says you’re a female,’ Crecelius said. “It was very liberating. I had spent so much energy after the age of 13 constantly evaluating how people looked at me and acted towards me.”

Steve, who now goes by “Stevie,” said his wife and their six children accepted his new identity right away.

“We told them individually. Some were in person and some weren’t,” Crecelius said. “Every one of them said, ‘We don’t care one way or the other. We love you for who you are and you’re still my dad.’”

Crecelius and his wife, Debbie, have been together for 25 years and she’s supported him every step of the way, including taking him to buy his first bra.

She told Crecelius, “You know, when I first saw you, I said to myself,  ’He runs like a girl.’”

“I think we were pretty good when she began to mourn the loss of her husband,” Crecelius said. “We worked through what we needed to. The concept of unconditional love is a larger story.”

Intersex is a term used to describe people who bear both external genitals and internal organs, such as testes and ovaries.

A person with the condition may have male genitals along with fallopian tubes and ovaries.

“The condition used to be called hermaphroditism, meaning that person can’t be identified as male or female,” Crecelius said.

According to the Intersex Society of North America, more than 1,500 children a year are born intersex.

For Crecelius, he hopes he can be an advocate for those born intersex and same-sex couples. (This is about HOMOSEX ACTIVISM -ed)

“I think of bullying, because I haven’t heard anyone talk about this. It’s important to talk about,” Crecelius said. “People need to be accepting and understand. I was born this way, and loving each other and supporting each other will always be the main factor in our household.”

Is Justice Ginsburg Risking the Future of the Supreme Court?

Tags: No Tags
Comments: 1 Comment
Published on: May 25, 2012

Original Article Link - Is Justice Ginsburg Risking the Future of the Supreme Court?

The calls for her retirement started last year—she’s nearly 80 and a two-time cancer survivor—but Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t going anywhere. Chris Geidner looks into the tricky world of politicking and the court.

A little more than a year ago, Harvard Law School Prof. Randall Kennedy sounded the alarm.

“Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire,” Kennedy wrote in the pages of The New Republic. “That would be the responsible thing for them to do.”

If they didn’t, Kennedy warned, and “if Obama loses, they will have contributed to a disaster.”

As the presidential race heats up, and the Supreme Court justices settle into their chambers to write their last and most consequential rulings of the 2011-12 term—from health care to immigration—Kennedy’s question once again seems relevant, even revelatory: most court watchers agree it’s now too late for Ginsburg—or Breyer, or any other justice—to give President Obama a third nomination to the high court before the election.

Kennedy’s hypothetical has taken on renewed significance, however, since Mitt Romney is currently polling close to or above President Obama in several key battleground states. If he were to unseat Obama this fall, and Ginsburg—a two-time cancer survivor who turns 80 next March—doesn’t feel she can continue through Romney’s first (or possibly second) term, should liberals fault her for potentially tilting the balance of the court for decades to come? (Breyer, 72, has had no reported major health scares, although he does seem to be a burglar magnet.)

This is the “disaster” Kennedy foresaw: a multigeneration conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Since the 1990s, the court has been in ideological equipoise: a conservative bloc and a liberal bloc, each regularly finding itself in the position of needing to win the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy (or, until her retirement in 2006, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor).

Of course, the justices themselves resist characterizing their votes as “liberal” or “conservative,” instead arguing that they are guided by the Constitution and other supposedly “neutral” principles. But that pretense took a hit in 2000 by the vote in Bush v. Gore, the core of which was decided 5-4, with the conservative justices (including Kennedy) voting in favor of Bush’s argument and the liberal justices voting in favor of Gore’s.


Supreme Court Portrait


Roger L. Wollenberg, UPI / Corbis

Ginsburg was on the losing end of that one, but a switched vote by Kennedy or O’Connor could have tipped the scale in her direction—as has happened in several other cases over the dozen years since. If Ginsburg were to be replaced by a President Romney, liberals reasonably fear a string of votes against them in cases ranging from abortion rights to criminal defendants’ rights, from LGBT equality to affirmative action.

This isn’t a new concern: In the mid-1970s, Justice William O. Douglas, who’d been appointed by FDR in 1939, faced his replacement being named by a Republican president.

As Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong recounted in The Brethren, Douglas told a friend he would not step down despite suffering from debilitating illness. “Even if I’m half-dead, maybe it will make a difference about someone getting an education,” Douglas said. “There will be no one on the Court who cares for blacks, Chicanos, defendants, and the environment.”

In the long run, Douglas’s fears did not come to pass: he stepped down in 1975, giving a nomination to President Gerald Ford, who picked John Paul Stevens—a moderate Republican at the time who turned into a steadfast member of the court’s liberal bloc.

Dawn Johnsen, a professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, told The Daily Beast that Douglas was not alone in looking at who is in the White House when considering stepping down. “Supreme Court justices (including Justice Ginsburg) undoubtedly are keenly aware of the tremendous stakes involved in when they retire and who appoints their successor.”

Although several political-science scholars describe the court in directly political terms, few legal scholars on either the left or right share Randall Kennedy’s desire for such a politically timed retirement.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who characterizes himself as a libertarian-leaning conservative, defends Ginsburg choosing the time for her own retirement.

“Justice Ginsburg has to make a decision that makes sense for herself based on her judgment about what she wants to do and how long she wants to serve her country and how much it matters to her that her replacement be named by a President Obama rather than a President Romney, and how she feels. She has a better sense about her health than you or I do,” he said.

Perhaps reflecting the generally high level of respect accorded the justices, Kennedy did not suggest that Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom he once clerked, had damaged the court by failing to retire under a Democratic president. The first President Bush filled Marshall’s seat with Clarence Thomas, by many measures the most conservative justice on the court.

Rush Limbaugh: Michael J. Fox Admits Embryonic Stem Cells Likely Won’t Cure Parkinson’s

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 24, 2012

Original Article Link - Rush Limbaugh: Michael J. Fox Admits Embryonic Stem Cells Likely Won’t Cure Parkinson’s

RUSH: This Michael J. Fox stem cell story at LifeNews.com, this is really big.  Do you realize we wouldn’t have Claire McCaskill in the United States Senate from Missouri were it not for this stem cell debate, Michael J. Fox doing those commercials for it back whenever it was?  Michael Steele might have won a Senate seat in Maryland had it not been for what turns out to be bogus TV spots for stem cell research.

At any rate, if you’re just tuning in, the story is that Michael J. Fox is admitting that stem cells are not ever going to cure his Parkinson’s disease.  Embryonic.  Embryonic stem cells are not going to cure — remember, embryonic stem cells, that was like the magic elixir, embryonic stem cells were gonna cure and fix everything, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, everything.  And there hasn’t ever been anything and there’s not going to be, not in the near future.  Adult stem cells are a different ball of wax.  But embryonic, zilch, zero, nada, all of which you in this audience were informed of back during the heat of the debate.

RUSH: Here are the details from LifeNews.com: Where are all of those cures that we were supposed to have after the Feds started funding embryonic stem cell research in 2006? Remember John Edwards said that Christopher Reeve would be walking today if the Republicans had funded embryonic research? Back in 2004, John Edwards said (impression), “Christopher Reeve would be walking today!” We had Senate campaigns run on this very premise.

Stem cell research — embryonic stem cell research — held the cure for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

They had Michael J. Fox out doing the commercials.

LifeNews.com: “Michael J. Fox was one of the leading campaigners for embryonic stem cell research. He aggressively pushed to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research, opposed pro-life limits on it, and even attended a State of the Union address by President George W. Bush in order to flaunt his position. Now, with embryonic stem cells nowhere closer to yielding any beneficial results for patients, [Michael J.] Fox is admitting embryonic stem cell research isn’t all he claimed it was cracked up to be. In a new interview with ABC News, he told Diane Sawyer there have been ‘problems along the way,’ to a supposed therapy for Parkinson’s from embryonic stem cells and said new drug therapies are showing real promise and are ‘closer today’ to providing a cure.”

There is nothing there.

A giant See, I Told You So.

Probably one of the reasons Claire McCaskill is in the Senate, and one of the reasons that Michael Steele lost his Senate race in Maryland, is because this whole phony embryonic stem cell debate. Back in the middle of this, remember the grief I took? Michael J. Fox entered the political arena by doing commercials for this, and I was critical, and you can’t be critical!

“Why, why, it’s not nice to be critical of somebody suffering this disease!”

Well, wait a minute, now. Once you enter the political arena, you’re not inoculated from criticism. That was my point. But, of course, Michael J. Fox was inoculated. That was the whole reason for using him, so he couldn’t be criticized — and I didn’t get the memo.

Well, I got the memo; I just ignored it.

RUSH: Yeah, yeah. Michael J. Fox was asked about me in this embryonic stem cell story. He was “asked about earlier criticism he received from” me and Michael J. “Fox said it only ‘sharpens your resolve.’” So he’s basically saying I make people better, which we all know to be the case.

Obama’s Grand Miscalculation With Catholics

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 24, 2012

Original Article Link - Obama’s Grand Miscalculation With Catholics

The news Monday that 43 different Catholic entities across the country are suing the Obama administration, in response to the Health and Human Services’ (HHS) rule mandating employer health care coverage of contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization, comes as a blow to the president’s strength among Catholics, a demographic that helped carry him to victory in 2008.

This news comes on the heels of the the latest CBS News/New York Times poll which finds Mitt Romney now leading President Obama among women, yet another demographic that he previously commanded.

If Mr. Obama was hoping to once again rely on Catholics and women to help carry him to electoral success in 2012, it appears as though he is miscalculating.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center shows that, despite the administration’s self-portrayal as the champion of “women’s issues” amidst a supposed Republican “war on women,” the president’s reelection advantage among women has declined in recent months as well as with another key demographic — Catholics.

Obama was ahead among Catholics by 9 points in early March, and is now trailing by 5 points.

The Pew survey finds that, among Catholic voters with an opinion, 47% would today vote for President Obama, and 52% for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

That same margin, were it to hold on Election Day, would mark a swing of 18 million voters away from Obama.

The loss of these Catholic votes alone would remake the 2008 electoral map, delivering Florida to Governor Romney and leaving the president no margin for error in Colorado or Ohio.

Women appear to be unimpressed by the Democratic strategy of alleging a “war on women,” with the president in the role of their defender.  And that very strategy to turn women against Republicans has only served to alienate Catholic voters – including, of course, Catholic women.

The “war on women” narrative was a strategic shift, invented after polls revealed strong public support for exempting religious employers and charities from the heavy-handed HHS mandate.

The Obama administration no doubt knew it would lose some support with Catholics in the mandate. But they surely did not anticipate the strong and unified voice with which Catholic leaders, in particular bishops, responded even after the administration offered a compromise widely rejected as an accounting gimmick.

In the most comprehensive survey conducted on the issue yet, Washington-based public opinion firm QEV Analytics recently found that some 50% of regular churchgoing Catholics heard a statement during Mass setting forth the bishops’ serious misgivings about the insurance mandate. Of all the Catholics who heard this statement, most apparently agreed with it.

The administration likely gambled that minor losses with the Catholic vote would be more than compensated for by surging support from women, in particular young, single women. But the QEV findings indicate that this was a major miscalculation.

Even among women under age 45, the survey found that a majority – 54% – support the Church’s position that religious institutions should not be required to violate their own teachings.

Among women age 45 or older 58% felt the same; they question the wisdom of a mandate that would leave many faith-based charities no choice but to curtail their services to the needy, or close down altogether.

As for whether the government should single out birth control to be mandated and cost-free when so many other drugs are not, again a clear majority of women — sixty-three percent — say “no.” After all, is your mother’s blood pressure medication or your child’s asthma medicine free by federal decree?

When all of the QEV findings are added up, the mandate has yielded no advantage for the administration among the young female voters it was presumably targeting: only 17% of women under 45 say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of it, while 26% say they are less likely.

And among every other category of women, the issue turns out to be a loser, while also carrying a very tangible cost among Catholics: Twenty-nine percent say they are now less likely to vote for the president because of this issue, more than double the 13% who say it makes them more likely to support him.

For its part, reading only the approving editorials of the secular press, the Obama political team may view its election tactics with religious groups and women as working.

The administration will no doubt feel emboldened to assert yet more federal power over religious groups in a second term.

If the quickly changing sentiments among Catholics and women are any indicator of things to come, however, the administration is not going to get that chance.

Ashley McGuire is a Senior Fellow with The Catholic Association and the editor-in-chief of AltCatholicah.

Maureen Malloy Ferguson is Senior Policy Adviser with The Catholic Association.

Unearthed: Young Obama took Racial Swipe at Colin Powell

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 24, 2012

Original Article Link - Unearthed: Young Obama Took Racial Swipe at Colin Powell

President Obama took an apparent racial swipe at Colin Powell in a 1994 NPR interview in which he implied the four-star general is acceptable to “white America.”

In the same interview, Obama advocates that the government should provide jobs for every citizen and prenatal care for all women.

Obama in 1994 was a community organizer and lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

WND unearthed an Oct. 28, 1994, interview the future president gave to NPR in response to political scientist Charles Murray’s controversial book “The Bell Curve,” which argues that there are racial differences in intelligence.

During the radio interview, Obama said “the idea that inferior genes account for the problems of the poor in general, and blacks in particular, isn’t new, of course.”

“Racial supremacists have been using IQ tests to support their theories since the turn of the century,” he said.

Obama accused Murray of “pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically, the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor.”

Implied 4-star general acceptable to ‘white America’

Obama then made the remarks about Powell.

120524powellreagan“With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it’s artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell,” Obama said.

While Obama clearly focused his ire on Murray, his singling out of Powell as acceptable to “white America” may raise some eyebrows.

In 1994, Powell was coming out of a six-year high-profile stint as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including during the first Gulf War.

Radical black leaders have long taken racial swipes at Powell, accusing him of being a “sell out” and an “Uncle Tom” for joining Republican administrations.

Such anti-Powell rhetoric, for example, was routine for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who in the 1990s was a regular guest lecturer at Obama’s Trinity United Church. In 1995, Obama, Wright and Al Sharpton marched in Farrakhan’s Oct. 16 Million Man March.

In an Oct. 24, 1989, Washington, D.C., speech, Farrakhan even claimed Powell was planning “a war against the black people of America.”

To this day, Farrakhan still sounds off about Powell. In an address in April, the extremist preacher called Powell “a black man in front of a policy to kill black people.”

In the same speech, Farrakhan stated both Obama and Powell want a “pat on the back” from their “former slave-masters and their children.”

In a May 2003 speech sponsored by Harvard Law School, Sharpton likened Powell and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to subservient house slaves.

In a 2007 Tennessee speech, Sharpton was asked by an audience member whether Powell and Rice are “house Negros.”

Sharpton replied: “I don’t know that they are viewed as house Negros in the term. I believe that they are in the house and the rest of us are in the field. So it would not be an inaccurate description.”

In 2002, actor and activist Harry Belafonte compared Powell to a plantation slave who moves into the slave owner’s house and says only things that will please his master.

“Colin Powell’s committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.”

In 2008, Powell crossed party lines and endorsed then-Sen. Obama, calling him a “transformational figure.” But now Powell is shrinking away from the topic every time a pundit asks him if he will throw his support behind Obama this election year.

The Associated Press reports that he credits Obama with stabilizing the financial system and “fixing the auto industry” but says the president should have spent more time improving the economy, lowering the unemployment rate and closing Guantanamo.

Earlier this week, Powell told NBC’s Matt Lauer:

“I feel as a private citizen that I ought to listen to what the president says and what the president has been doing. but I know I also have to listen to what the other fellow is saying. I’ve known Mitt Romney for many years, good man. … I’m still listening to what the Republicans are saying they’re going to do to fix the fiscal problems we have, to get the economy moving. I think I owe that to the Republican Party.”

Powell is currently promoting his new book, “It Worked For Me: In Life and Leadership,” a compilation of lessons learned and anecdotes drawn from his childhood in the Bronx, his military service and his work under four U.S. presidents. The book also includes Powell’s candid thoughts on the lead-up to the war in Iraq in 2003.

Government provided jobs, healthcare

In the NPR interview, Obama also advocated massive government expansion over jobs and health care.

“Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children,” he said. “Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity to people’s lives and give inner-city children something more than a basketball rim to shoot for.”

Obama said that in the short run, “such ladders of opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or affirmative action.”

“But, in the long run, our investment should pay off handsomely,” he said. “That we fail to make this investment is just plain stupid. It’s not the result of an intellectual deficit. It’s the result of a moral deficit.”

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Biography Paints Cronkite’s Darker Side

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 24, 2012

Original Article Link - Biography Paints Cronkite’s Darker Side

Walter Cronkite (AP Photo/Evan Agostini, File)

To millions of TV news viewers, Walter Cronkite might well have been the most trusted man in America. But, according to a new biography, he committed unethical, biased no-nos that would get him fired these days, writes Newsweek’s Howard Kurtz.

Kurtz describes the new book, Cronkite, by Douglas Brinkley, as “sweeping and masterful” in its portrayal of the newsman who anchored the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981.

Kurtz draws on his own first-hand dealings with Cronkite, who died in 2009. After reading the book, which will be released May 29, Kurtz notes that the former anchor was not exactly the man he knew.

In reading this first major biography of Cronkite, I came to realize that the man who once dominated television journalism was more complicated—and occasionally more unethical—than the legend that surrounds him. Had Cronkite engaged in some of the same questionable conduct today—he secretly bugged a committee room at the 1952 GOP convention—he would have been bashed by the blogs, pilloried by the pundits, and quite possibly ousted by his employer.

Kurtz also writes that Cronkite was much more liberal than TV viewers would have thought. He dissed Barry Goldwater on the day of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

[Related: Key witness says Sirhan Sirhan didn't act alone]

In another questionable move, he met privately with Robert Kennedy and encouraged him to run for president, only later to get an exclusive interview to discuss Kennedy’s plan to run for president. Kurtz adds:

I am shaking my head at the spectacle of a network anchor secretly urging a politician to mount a White House campaign—and then interviewing him about that very question. This was duplicitous, a major breach of trust.

There also was the time when Cronkite spliced unflattering segments of an interview with Johnson about the Vietnam War—editing that was later undone by CBS.

And despite the news anchor’s “pipe-puffing family man” image, Cronkite did get into a bit of, er, manly mischief. Kurtz notes a reference in the biography to a night that Cronkite went to an “infamous topless bar.”

[Cronkite] was later spotted dining with a go-go dancer in a miniskirt and plunging neckline. Cronkite drew a bit of tabloid attention for his exploits; I can only imagine what TMZ would have done with the inevitable paparazzi shots.

Indeed, you do have to wonder.

Obama Campaign Starting to Think They Might Lose

Categories: News: Elections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 24, 2012

Original Article Link - Obama Campaign Starting to Think They Might Lose

It’s amazing what a few competitive polls can do to concentrate the mind.

Democrats had taken comfort for months in the Republican Party’s seeming inability to get behind Mitt Romney, Obama’s healthy lead in the polls, and equally healthy job growth. And for a few, fleeting, moments, Democrats thought the election might just be easy. But Republican division appears to have been merely an artifact of primary politics, and Mitt Romney has proved a consistent, if unglamorous campaigner…

“There was this sense maybe a month or two ago that Obama was really riding high — that he had gotten his base behind him and the economy was doing better and it had this Clinton vs. Bob Dole 1996 feeling — that he was going to cruise,” said one 2008 Obama aide who does not work for this year’s campaign. “And now it feels like it’s going to be really tough — a 2004 race.”

Indeed the campaign is shaping up to be a close-combat battle for one percent of swing voters in a few hundred precincts across three or four states…

Moreover, a campaign that two months ago seemed infallible has proven to be very capable of making mistakes. Obama’s aides were taken aback when Vice President Joe Biden publicly backed same sex marriage — and spent a week punishing him for speaking out in the press. Long preparation for attacks on Romney’s time at Bain Capital, aimed at changing the narrative, nevertheless left them flat-footed when Republicans (and even a few Democrats) counter-attacked. Romney, who stumbled into the Republican nomination, scored his first tactical victory of the general election and further shored up the Republican base in the process.

Were there really any Democrats who thought Republicans wouldn’t unite behind Romney? Conservatives have spent three years lamenting every move the White House makes; when given a choice between Obama and Not Obama, there was never a scintilla of doubt how enthusiastic they’d be for the latter. And Romney’s big selling point, of course, was electability, so there was also never much reason for Democrats to think they’d win easily among the center. Their only strong hands against Mitt were O’s likability advantage, which might move votes at the margins but likely won’t be decisive, and the hope/prayer that a crude class-warfare campaign might get traction among working-class voters. No dice so far. They still might win — Romney’s political track record suggests he needs a big spending advantage to make him competitive and that’s not happening this time — but this is a national election in a 50/50 age after a rough first term economically. Go figure that the polls might narrow.

Karl Rove says a Romney win is as easy as 3-2-1:

After this initial hurdle, Mr. Romney’s victory road starts with “3″—as in Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia, a trio of historically Republican states. In 2008, Mr. Obama won by narrow margins in Indiana (barely 1%) and North Carolina (0.32%)…

[I]f Mr. Romney can put these states’ combined 39 electoral votes back into the GOP column, the Electoral College vote would be 319 for Mr. Obama, 219 for Mr. Romney…

Next up is “2″—as in Florida and Ohio. They flipped from Republican in 2004 to Democratic in 2008. Both were close—a 2.8% margin for Mr. Obama in the former and 4.6% in the latter…

These two states have a combined 47 electoral votes. If Mr. Romney wins them, the Electoral College would stand at 272 for Mr. Obama, 266 for Mr. Romney.

If he wins those five then all he needs is any one of the following: New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, or Nevada, the last of which has a famously large Mormon population and, as Rove notes, the nation’s highest unemployment rate. I think Romney can win there given his advantages; I think he can win Florida too given how close it was last time and how well he did in the primary this time. (The bombshell Quinnipiac poll yesterday was surprising but not that surprising.) I’m less sure about Virginia and Ohio and so is Romney, I’d bet, which is why Rob Portman is quickly becoming a heavy favorite to land on the ticket. With him as VP, not only do you get a boost in Ohio and the reassurance of a seasoned and uncontroversial pol at number two, but maybe you’ll get just enough extra interest from his neighbors in western Pennsylvania to make that state a bit more competitive too. I don’t think Romney will bother with PA unless the polls start to look shockingly good for him, and even then they probably won’t look shockingly good unless something dramatic happens nationally and he seems on his way to a landslide. But Portman probably helps a little there and a little could mean a lot.

As a cherry on top of O’s anxiety sundae, here’s the Democrat who’s running to replace Gabby Giffords in Arizona politely declining to say whom he’ll be voting for in November.

ArabicChinese (Traditional)DanishDutchEnglishFilipinoFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanNorwegianPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedish
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab

Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Twitter Feed
Welcome , today is Friday, May 24, 2013