Proverbs 29:9

Pure supposition about Obama's dismal debate performance

On the first Thursday of September Obama turned in a lackluster speech at the DNC in Charlotte accepting the nomination for the Democrat Presidential candidate.

It was quietly posited that his subdued demeanor could have been due to his having been briefed on the jobs numbers that were due to be released the next morning. Rumors that took on a life of their own when the job numbers, as weak as Obama's speech, were released.

Last night, the first Wednesday of October, Obama performed miserably in the first Presidential debate. The September jobs report has been prepared, but will not be released until this Friday morning. Could his horrible debate performance be linked to the jobs numbers?

Cry baby Chris Matthews accidentally tells the truth

While crying about Obama's lackluster performance in the debate last night Chris Matthews accidentally told the thruth about MSNBC.

"Tonight wasn't an MSNBC debate tonight, was it?" Chris Matthews said after the first Obama-Romney presidential debate concluded on Wednesday night.

"I don't know what he was doing out there. He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. Romney, on the other hand, came in with a campaign. He had a plan, he was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive, he was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively, he was going to relish the evening, enjoying it," Matthews said.

"Here's my question for Obama: I know he likes saying he doesn't watch cable television but maybe he should start. Maybe he should start. I don't know how he let Romney get away with the crap he throughout tonight about Social Security," Matthews complained.

Matthews then demanded that President Obama start watching cable news, specifically his program.

"Where was Obama tonight? He should watch -- well, not just Hardball, Rachel, he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence. He would learn something about this debate. There's a hot debate going on in this country. You know where it's been held? Here on this network is where we're having the debate," Matthews said.

"We have our knives out," Matthews said, admitting his network is trying their best to defend Obama and his policies. "We go after the people and the facts. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed."

(continued)

Matthews admits that at MSNBC they attack the people, and the facts, that don't agree with their narrative. He also admits, with encouragement from Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, that MSNBC is in the tank for Obama. He also indicates that the MSNBC moderators woud be less than impartial, taking a more active role int he debate... perhaps he should learn about debates and the role of the moderator.

However, his accidental truth is hidden in the litany of lies about Romney and the way he dominated the time and bullied the moderator, when in fact he was respectful. If you can stomach Chris Matthews in his whiny meltdown the video shows shows it live on air... a far cry from "I've got tingles running down my leg".

I'm a libertarian, and I'm voting for Romney

Despite the chnting hordes extolling the fantasy that there is another choice, there is not. My three reasons I am not voting for the Libertarian candidate but rather the Republican.

1. SCOTUS: if Obama is reelected he will likely have the opportunity to replace Ginsberg. And the Reagan appointees will be 80 in 2016.
   
2. Economy: It sucks. It will get worse if Obama is reelected.
   
3. Libertarian Party: isn't a party. It has a national platform but each state organization is so frakked up there is no cohesion or common vision. Plus at the state level they are more concerned about legalizing drugs than fiscal. constitutional conservatism.

Hey, I get it about the two choices sucking. But the TEA Parties have made great strides at wresting away control of the GOP from the establishment. Unllike Ronald Reagan and the way he envisioned a strong party, meaning good congresssional whips to keep RINOs in line, the TEA Party is just taking over. Just as the Socialist Party took over the Democrats... of course they also took over the media so it made the changes easier and appear much more subtle than they were.

Voting for Gary Johnson would be great, if he were running under the GOP ticket, but he is Libertarian. He will not win. Even if he gets 5%, 10%, or even 15% of the vote... heck, make it 25%... he loses. And Obama wins a second term.

"But," I can hear people saying, "we'll be sending a statement." Good for you. That statement is that you want Obama to continue destroying our economy, to allow Obama to appoint another radical to replace Ginsberg and perhaps replace two conservative Justices with judicial activists ensuring a 6-3 liberal majority on the SCOTUS for another 30 years.

As bad as the economy is it can servive another Obama term, but the country we all profess to love will cease to exists as we know it if the economy continues to grind to a halt AND Obama can appoint a judicial activist majority.

If you don't want to vote for Romney because who he is or because of your principles I can understand... don't vote for Romney, vote against Obama. But a vote for Johnson, or not voting at all is the same for a half vote for Obama.

Because your choice is simple, vote for Romney or risk losing America. I do not like Romney as the candidate, he would not have been in my list of top three candiates, but make no mistake, we had this discussion four years ago about not wasting votes for Barr/Root, but now more people are clamoring for the Libertarian party more than ever.

I used to be one of the token Libertarians and now more consitutional conservatives are stepping forward. But this is not the time, this is not the year.

Release the blind sheik

from 37,000 feet.

And the want Guantanamo closed too? There is enough room to get them all on the one plane.

Lets engage in a fun post hoc ergo propter hoc exercise

This started as a reply to one of Debbie's posts, but I added a few links to "make" the case...

September 4th: Egyptian military alerts it's security forces of possible planned attacks on the US and Israeli embassies.

September 5th: Obama begins a week long hiatus from his daily security briefing.

September 11th: prior to the scheduled briefing the Egyptian embassy was overrun.

Therefore, Obama could have prevented the attacks had he attended the security briefings.

August employment number in... and they suck

No doubt people who just read headlines will notice the unemployment rate dipping to 8.1% from 8.3% and believe it as a sign of economic progress. They may even pick up on the creation of 96,000 jobs.

However, the drop in unemployment is not due to the creation of 96,000 jobs it is due to approximately 364,000 people dropping out of the workforce.

How does one "drop out" of the workforce? Two methods; the most common is people report that they did not look for any jobs that week, the other is they run out of unemployment benefits.

So where are the jobs?

• Foodservice and drink establishments: 28,000
• Professional and technical servies: 27,000
• Healthcare: 17,000
• Financial Services: 11,000
• Manufacturing: -15,000

And average salaries? They dropped also.

Added to the mix is the bad news that the previous job creation figures were adjusted -19,000 for June and -22,000 for a total of 41,000 less than anticipated this summer.

Job growth failed to hit the rather modest estimate of 125,000 despite the average monthly job growth YTD being 139,000.

[edited to add link to BLS data]

Democrats just demonstrated on live TV that they don't care about fairness or the will of the people

On national TV, the Democrats showed to God and everyone that they do not care about fairness, or the will of the people, and that they are willing to break their own rules to get what they want.

On Tuesday the Democrats unveiled their 2012 platform, omitting references to God or the long standing plank that identified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

On Wednesday, Antonio Villaraigosa called three times for a vote on Ted Stricklands proposal to reinstate God and Jerusalem back into the platform statement before declaring it passed. Three votes were necessary because it was painfully obvious that 2/3s of the audience did not agree with the DNC. Unfortunately for the committee chair those viewing, heard that it was obvious the 2/3's majority needed was never reached, if anything the nay's had a slight edge on each vote. But being a good foot soldier Villaraigosa flushed his integrity down the toilet and declared the amendment to the platform passed.

In order to avoid the obvious, that these changes were made because talk radio and Fox News bullied them into it, they spun it that they were merely affirming Obama's long held beliefs on those issues.

So, if you accept that version of the story, what we all witnessed was the DNC, tossing their own members under the bus to get Obama what he wanted, in violation of their own rules, and it can be argued, contrary to the democratic process.

Watch "the Chicago way" in action:

and never the twain shall meet

When people talk about the polarization in politics getting unbearably uncomfortable it usually ends up with liberals blaming the Republicans for their rigid right wing ideology and conservatives blaming liberals for their far left moonbat ideology.

They are both wrong. This video sums up the difference between the dichotomy.

You see liberals believe we, the people, belong to the government. Whereas conservatives know that government, at least the government established by the US Constitution, exists to serve the people.

Now most Americans understand our government is not, by any stretch of the imagination, similar to that envisioned by our forefathers, historically some of the most brilliant statesmen to ever gather at one time. However, most Americans do not envision themselves being vassals devoid of real freedom either.

Yet the Democrat National Party, at the Democrat National Convention, informs us how we all belong to the government. Dependent upon this government to bestow permissions, privileges and licenses to them in the guise of rights. The trap being that the government does not grant rights, as the government can take away things as quickly as they can grant them.

However, I digress, the point I intended to make is that the way most people misunderstand the schizm in modern American politics as a right wing ideology vs. left wing ideology. But it is much more than that, it is defending freedom and liberty vs. being a subject to a government, which while not omnipotent, is on the way to being made so by the choices of we, the people... or at least 50% + 1 of the people... make mostly in the name of partisan politics and afte receiving government bribes in the way of the bestowing of rights, the granting of entitlements, or the giving privileges that offer preferences (biases) to one group over another..

Obama's disconnect from real people are why is is going to lose the electoral college

Obama loves to protray himself as a man of the people. Remember his beer summit after he accused a Cambridge police office of racism?

Above is the picture they wanted you to see. Below is the man of the people ignoring his friend while the racist cop helps the man whose civil rights Obama accused him of violating.

And if you are looking at the electoral maps you may have noticed that two states that Obama won easily in 2008 are now toss ups... Iowa and Colorado.
(cnn electoral calulator map 8.31.12)

Now why would Colorado and Iowa suddenly be toss ups when they were solidly blue in 2008, and New Mexico has moved from solid D to leaning D as well. Well two words can sum it up, but why use two words when I can use a lot more.

The morning after the RNC officially made him their candidate for President Romney changed his scheduled speaking engagement to visit the flooded out areas of Louisiana.

The unexpected detour forced Obama to also change his schedule to accommodate a trip to the flooded area.

Now what does the flooding from Isaac in Louisiana have to do with Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico?

Natural disasters.

In 2008 and 2011 Iowa suffered harsh flooding. However, in 2011 the President's reaction was greatly tempered than the attention the state received in the election year. Obama did sign a declaration of a state of emergency, but didn't visit like he did in 2008.

In 2012 Colorado and New Mexico were hit with record wild fires. Again Obama signed declarations of emergency, and again Obama didn't visit or make public statements of support.

Obama's standard rhetoric addresses compassion for those in need. But when compassion is called for Obama, like a classic progresssive liberal, thinks sending money to the victims is showing compassion.

The President's problem (well, one of them) is that the majority of Americans are not progressive liberals and that compassion is not just releasing FEMA funds. His lack of understanding this simple fact, one he is blinded to because of his devotion to his ideology, is putting more states in the toss up category.

Great American Stateswoman Cynthia McKinney speaks out on Israel and world peace

Former Congresswoman Claims US Lawmakers Forced To Pledge Support to Israel

Posted by Mallon Khanon August 24, 2012

In June of 2011, former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney travelled to Iran to attend an International Anti-terrorism Conference. The conference, despite being also anti-western, had the support of the United Nations.

McKinney sat down with Press TV to discuss the relationship between the US and Iran as well as the inner workings of the US Congress. A supporter of 9/11 truth among other alternative viewpoints, McKinney is no stranger to controversy. In this interview she drops a bomb about the close relationship between the US Congress and the State of Israel. Watch the whole interview here.

At about 16 minutes into the interview, McKinney shocks the intervier with her testimonial; that during her time in office (1993-97) all members of Congress, in order to retain campaign funding, were required to sign a pledge to support Israeli military superiority in the region.

"Every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge...You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel, that the economic assistance that Israel wants, that you would vote to provide that....this is what is done for 535 members of the United States Congress, 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives have to now write a paragraph which basically says the same thing."

Next week, another meeting is happening in Tehran; a summit meeting of leaders from developing nations refereed to as NAM (Non-Aligned Movement). NAM members and observers encompass nearly the entire southern hemisphere.

The ultimate goal of this meeting is to:

"focus on multilateral cooperation, disarmament, sustainable world peace, rights of nations, and horizontal relations defying hegemonic structures."

Also proposed, is a trip to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Despite a US & Israeli call for boycott, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be attending the summit.

Mallon Khan is writer and multimedia artist based in New York City.

How Obamacare is not just the largest tax increase of all time, it is the most regressive

Bad news concering Obamacare

Unfortunately not that kind of bad news. Rather... well let me start at the beginning.

Conventional SCOTUS watch wisdom has the vote on Obamacare being 6-3 to strike down the individual mandate or 5-4 striking down the law as a whole if the SCOTUS rules the law cannot stand without the individual mandate.

However, this morning I heard Jake Tapper being interviewed on the Imus show. Now Mr Tapper, while not hard to look at, is no rocket scientist by any stretch of the imagination. I'd find myself asking him to move heavy furniture before asking him to do any heavy thinking; he's not going to be seen at any Mensa meetings anytime soon. During the interview he predicted that his take on the vote would be 6-3 in favor of upholding the law. Which intrigued me until he explained why he thought that way... then I laughed so hard I almost choked. He said Kennedy would vote with the majority (meaning the liberals) because he was worried about his legacy as a moderate and didn't want to be remembered for siding with conservatives on such an important vote. The other vote would be Roberts concerned with his legacy and not wanting to maintain his judicial conservatism. Indicating that Kennedy is about ready to retire and this may be his last big case, and a vote against Obamacare would brand Roberts as a judicial activist.

Considering that this is coming from Jake Tapper I am not surprised he is once again so off the reservation there is a bounty on him. However, as I wrote up something about this on another site where I've been hanging out, it occurred to em that Tapper is well liked by Obama. And it occurred to me that Obama's people on the inside (clerks for Sotomayor, Kagen an perhaps Ginsberg) may already know the results and are letting it slip a few days early so their friends in the media can make predictions that will be proven correct in a few days. Being right about these things are what makes the next Tim Russert or Walter Cronkite, then they will be in a position to control the narrative in the news.

I certainly hope not, I really hope I'm wrong on this. I hope the individual mandate is struck down, or even the whole law being found unconstitutional. I believe it may even be a 6-3 decision in that direction despite the odds makers saying Kennedy will be the deciding vote. But that Tapper would make such a statement backed up with such moronic reasoning makes me think that it is more than just leftard hopes and dreams, but he knows something he is not supposed to know.