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.

Earthquake disrupts Obama's Golf game...

It was Bush's fault. Bush and Rove fire up their weather/natural disaster machine to keep Obama from teeing off on time.

That'll teach him.

The Undecider

Obama and his lapdogs, the legacy media outlets, have put me in a rather strange dilemma... whether to laugh or to cry.

Obama had precisely nothing of meaning to say about the situation in Libya until the UN Security Council decided Ghadafi was bad. So they are going to impose a no-fly zone over a sovereign country, who it could be argued, is merely trying to quell a foreign funded insurrection. Which is not untrue.

I could detail the reasons why Ghadafi is evil incarnate, falling just short of Idi Amin in the way of evil, except Ghadafi has not been accused of cannibalism... yet. And I say yet because in order for the UN and the US media to complete their portrayal of Ghadafi as a complete misanthropic bastard they have to try to overcome the complete asinine decision to put Libya on the human rights committee.

Ghadafi is not a friend of the US, but aside from the Lockerbie bombing Libya has not been an enemy either. He feared the US, offering to turn over his entire nuke program to the Brits in exchange for the US not bombing his house again while they conducted GW2. Of course he later amended his offer for his nukes in exchange for British and US conventional weapons, which everyone thought was a fair trade.

But back to why Obama is an embarrassing non-leader... after the UN granted Libya a seat on the Human Rights Committee they authorized armed force against Ghadafi because of his human rights violations. So when was the UN right, granted the grandfatherly author of children's books a high prestige position in the UN, or when the UN decided the strong arm dictator was committing genocide?

Obama, basing his position on Libya based on the schizophrenic asshats in the UN, demonstrates that he cannot make any decisions that don't involve brackets for the NCAA tournaments (and even there he chose the 1st seed in each division to make it to the final four.. not exactly taking any risks there.)

Don't get me wrong, Ghadafi is a blemish on the world, but he had been a relatively harmless blemish. And since there is credible evidence that his insurrection is being orchestrated by Al Qaeda, fighting along side him, instead of against him, might be in the best interests of the US.

But the Undecider took the path of least resistance and drifted along with the current... but what if the current is forcing his rudderless craft towards the precipice of a raging waterfall?

From his first crisis while in office, when he backed the legally deposed former President over the constitutionally backed President Obama is always on the wrong side of things to when he waited until Mubarack was on the ropes then jumped ugly and the Saudi King publicly told him to back off and let his former ally save face. Lets hope this is not another one of those times.

Grandma is a union thug

I was flying through Atlanta last week returning from spring break when in the train that runs between the terminals the car I was in was suddenly half filled with a gaggle of elderly women wearing matching hi-viz green tee shirts with a flag and the words "good Bless America" on front and a message on the back saying: 1. I will remember 2. I vote.

I was amused as I knew that there was a union rally in Atlanta the previous day. But these union Grandma's were all flying out of the city without carry on luggage. So curiousity won and I asked the woman who was closest to me what union they were with, instead of answering she looked at her friend and the obvious Alpha Granny who growled (literally) why I wanted to know. I explained it was obvious they were going to a protest and as former union member I supported their right (I didn't add to wear ugly shirts in public). She gave me their local number, but didn't identify the union nor my next question of where they were going, my attempt at breaking the ice failed so taking a picture of the stampeding herd as the door opened at Terminal B was out of the question.

Taking stock of the situation as I waited 5 hours for my flight while some ersatz Romeo penetrated me with his eyes (he literally stared at my crotch for most of the time except when we escaped to the Fox Sports bar for some Bloody Marias) left me disappointed I could not drag more information out the union thugs. They were all white, on the other side of 60, all in matching shirts, obviously representing a union but did not want to disclose which one, were spoiling for a fight before even getting to where they were going, and aside from one woman who appeared to be in her mid to late 70s they were all heavy weights... obese to morbidly obese, and reluctant to tell me where they were going.

It is my contention that if they really believed in the cause they were about to board a plane to rally for they would be talking about it. But from the anger displayed by the group so early in the morning and before getting to the demonstration, and the uniform air of contempt as they stormed onto and out of the train car it occurred to me as though they may have been at a perverse sort of pep rally prior to coming to the airport.

It also occurred to me that none of these people likely had jobs that paid enough to pay enough for them to take a vacation outside the state so it had to be the union that was footing the bill. And they had no carry ons, just purses, so they either checked their luggage, or more likely, were taking a day trip.

Union demonstrations are the new astroturf. Pelosi fired off that invective at the true grassroots TEA Parties, but note how she and the administration are saying nothing about scores of union members being shuttled around the country for finely orchestrated rallies that, like the Town Hall counter protesters of summer 2009, are inciting violence to which the left and their monkeys in the media have chosen to remain blind and ignorant.