---
Boo G-d! You might get the surprise of your wretched life down the road. (See 1 below.)
---
Democrats have become the Radicalized Party of Hate and Wilderness.
Both Conventions had their positive moments but when you contrast the two the difference is stark. I wonder what Sam Nunn must think of his party now? I doubt he would recognize it. (See 2 ,2a and 2b below.)
---
Jules Witcover, is a political writer from the old school as was Jack Germond. I had the good fortune of knowing both of them a little bit.
In this article Witcover discusses how President Cool believes he is going to coast to victory. (See 3 below.)
---
It takes a failure to recognize one! (See 5 below.)
---
For the next two months the core effort of Democrats, under the leadership of Axelrod, Carney, Gibbs, Schultz, Fluke, Emanuel etc., and based on the slash and burn tactics of good old radical Saul Alinsky, will be to portray Romney and Ryan as radicals. Radicals who will not stop throwing just a grandmother off the cliff but the entire nation. R and R will be painted as heartless, non caring, swaggering anti-middle class, rich, uncaring, unfeeling , women haters and dishonest. If that ain't enough icing on the mud they will be berated for wanting to take this nation back to the 'Dark Ages,' make millionaires richer at the expense of the 99% and the list builds
By the time the Chicago Crowd are finished you will not recognize R and R as even being American.
Will it work? It depends on how many pigeons are out there and show up when it counts. Creating a nation of haters does motivate.(See 5a below.)
Back in the days of Bunny Ear TV, facts were something useful and sought after but no more.
Facts have been supplanted by myths and lies because they are more effective. Perhaps after you read these well known facts you will, once again, affirm both Clinton and Obama either have a very convenient loss of memory or are actually very forgetful. In either case, the hope is the electorate are just as forgetful. But thanks to those of us who do remember history and do not have to rely on the liberal media for historical facts, these are some that caused the financial mess. (See 5b below.)
---
Self interview by a former Obama supporter: "Obama Supporter Interviews Herself - This is so hilarious! Love it! How dumb could you be to vote for Obama again???"
---
Will the media bring this out? (See 6 below.)
---
Yesterday, I reviewed a presentation made by a dear friend regarding The Fiscal Cliff, Fed Policy, The Economy and The Election.
Here is another article that touches on the same subject: "1 Attached file
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Satan Finally Found His Political Party—The Democrats!
Well, the DNC just wrapped, folks, and it looks like the Prince of Darkness has finally found his political party: the God-booing Democrats!
Booing God? Who the heck boos God? I’ll tell you who: Satan, his principalities and powers, devil worshippers and DNC delegates, that’s who.
Look, I get Democrats raising hell over a picture of George W. Bush, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s hairdo, or a video of Rosie speed drinking gallon jugs of chocolate milk … but God? Really?
Hey, media: You can say what you will about Republicans and their foibles, but you’ll never have audio or video of them, en masse, telling God to blank off. Wow.
I believe that three-minute display of divine disdain might have Chick-fil-A’ed the Dems come this November. I know if I were Romney I would run commercial loops of that sound bite over and over and over and over again. Back and forth. Back and forth. God handed Mitt a nugget that the greatest writers in Hollywood couldn’t script. Flog it, Mitt. Flog it.
One of the many funny things about the DNC’s Cirque du Freaklast week was when queried about why God was removed from their party’s platform and Jerusalem scrubbed as the capital of Israel, Dick Durbin and other dipsticks said it was no big whoop, that the Dems are down with Yahweh and that Republicans were grasping at straws.
This, of course, satiated the lamestream media and sounded totally peachy until the delegates voted on whether or not the big man upstairs was welcome back to the big scam downstairs, and God got a resounding “screw off” from Obama’s backers.
If you haven’t seen the video clip of over two-thirds of the Democratic delegates shouting down the God vote and Villaraigosa’s teleprompted skewing of the delegates’ overwhelming decision to dis God, you must watch it here after you finish my awesome column.
Obama thought he could bamboozle the U.S. and remedy the national outcry against his party’s platform by having a faux vote reinstating Jesus and Jerusalem to his group’s ticket. The only thing he did not figure on was his multitudinous freak patrol shouting that notion down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Socially Acceptable Hatred
By James Lewis
All the liberal Jews I talk to seem to believe that the age of anti-Semitism is over. That is often true, in countries that have mature, democratic political systems. The United States, which all good liberals learn to sneer at, has the single most mature political system in the world -- 230 years of a solid Constitution, which liberals don't much like.
Most of the world lacks a mature, time-tested and tolerant political system. Even the European Union is governed by an unelected ruling class today.
So the United States is the world home of political tolerance today. No other major country (except maybe Switzerland) has had that kind of stability and tolerance for 230 years. Naturally, the left has decided to import hundreds of thousands of the least tolerant people in the world today, so that today in London there are cases of children being sacrificed in witchcraft ceremonies; and there are cases of home-grown Muslim terrorists bombing civilian targets like the London Underground. Britain has now turned itself into a fearsome Big Brother state, with tens of thousands of CCTV cameras all over the cities. They put video cameras in garbage cans over there.
Jewish liberals are just as ignorant of history and politics as all the other liberals you know.
Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible.
Liberal Jews love the tolerance they enjoy in this country, and they often harbor a nasty case of guilt and anger against orthodox Jews, who don't assimilate the way liberals do.
Liberalism is a species of mental conformity. It makes thinking unnecessary.
Thinking is scary.
All you need to do is believe the 24/7 media, and you feel like a member of the herd. The herd protects. At least, it protects until it turns against you. The biggest fear of herd cattle is that crucial moment when the herd looks for a new scapegoat.
All the socially acceptable race hatred today is on the Left and in the Muslim world. I will repeat that, because it's the biggest point of denial among liberal Jews and liberal Christians. If you want to hear really dumb criticism of Jews and Israel, go to your nearest liberal Christian, who is really just a secular socialist. Just try it as an experiment.
It's the very leftists who shout the loudest about love of humanity who also harbor a very nasty case of the hatreds. They hate Christians for not accepting the gay political agenda. They hate Jews who are "neo-conservatives." They hate "fundamentalists" except if they are Muslims. They hate, hate, hate, because on the left, hating has become good again. It shows how much you really care.
If you doubt that, just watch the Occupy kids and the phony anarchists rioting in black KKK outfits.
Changing the color of your KKK outfit from white to black does not make you a good human being. On the contrary. It's just the same-old, same-old, another body tent that hides your individual identity and therefore allows you to smash a store window with a big rock. Welcome to the psychology of mob violence. Wearing black all over is just like wearing white all over.
Today, ethnic hatred is encouraged among the "protected victim classes" -- there is black anti-Semitism in Jerry Wright and his good bud Louis Farrakhan; there is a huge oil-fueled web campaign of Muslim anti-Semitism, going back to Mohammed's genocide of the Jewish tribe of the Khureishi when they refused to convert to his new religion; there is a multibillion dollar hate campaign against Israel in countries like Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia; and oddest of all, there are tons of left-wing Jews who really, really hate Israel, like Noam Chomsky.
I've talked with liberal Jews who have never heard of all that. They can't bring themselves to Google Memri.org, which carries daily translations of hate speech straight from the gates of hell. MEMRI (sounds like "Memory") is for anybody who wants to be informed today, when political hate speech has gone global, right along with Google. MEMRI also covers the heroic moderates of the Muslim world, who are even braver today, because they have to live with Obama's "Arab Spring." MEMRI.org tries to cover the good and the bad.
Nazi propaganda is alive and well today, and with mass media on the web, it's streaming bigger than ever. There are people who fall for it, because even nice people cannot resist the 24/7 tide of canned hatred they hear in countries like Egypt, Saudi, and Iran. They are drowned in hate speech, just like North Korean peasants are as they stoop in the rice paddies.
Jews who forget are out of touch with reality. They are blocking out today's scary truths. I know some Jews who tell me they never read the news because it's too upsetting. So they choose a life of ignorance.
What's even worse, liberal Jews have happily voted for the racial spoils system that now governs America (and Europe), where victim groups get special privileges in jobs, education, and government goodies. Blacks get special privileges, women do, gays do, liberals do especially, and Muslims do, too. The dreaded quota system from Tsarist times is back, and liberal Jews voted for it.
Nobody reminds liberals of the obvious fact that devout Muslims who attend Friday mosque get their week sermons by Wahhabi imams trained by the Saudis to peddle the most radical Muslim line available, on the Sunni side of the street. Many liberals Jews are so ignorant that they even don't know that old game of ethnic musical chairs: Once you start playing the ethnic Russians against the Poles, the Catholics against the Orthodox, you also start playing the Muslims against the Jews. It's the same formula for any demagogue. They don't care who plays the scapegoat. All they care about is having a good one to beat up on. Basic mob politics.
Once you start playing musical chairs with race and ethnicity, somebody is always left standing when the music stops. At some point there aren't enough chairs left. Gee, I'm sorry about that. I guess you're the goat today!
Those are the Jews who forget. Like Monica's Lewinski's rabbi, who gave the final invocation for the Democrats who booed God and Jerusalem the day before. Because hating religious Christians is okay today. On the left it's encouraged just like the Dixiecrats used to encourage and justify race hatred against blacks. The color doesn't matter. It's the hate industry that does the job.
Liberals want to worship a messianic figure like Obama because like infants they put their trust in Princes. There is a Biblical wisdom literature that anybody can learn from, even atheists, because wisdom is wisdom. "Put not your trust in Princes" is a very wise and practical saying. There are Chinese wisdom sayings and Buddhist ones that are celebrated by liberals, which is fine. It's just odd that they ignore the vast number Western and Biblical wisdom sayings, because traditional religion is now bad. Except for the "religion of peace" of course.
Liberal Jews have shifted their faith to secular socialism. It's as simple as that. In that process they've lost track of their own wisdom literature, which warns against demagogues like Obama and the rest.
We know that secular socialism can flip on a dime. Socialism turned into National Socialism in fascist Italy and in Nazi Germany. Hitler preferred to recruit Marxists, because he could see they made good Nazis.
After World War II, socialists used to despise divide and conquer by race and ethnic identity. But today we have Third World Socialism (Obama's kind), which celebrates revenge against imperialistic whites. Now we celebrate diversity -- meaning racial, gender, and sexual divide and conquer, and racial revenge is back, just like Hitler used to cook up.
Racial revenge talk is what keeps Jerry Wright and the other Chicago demagogues rolling in the dough. Just listen to their words. It's not a mystery, except to liberals who tune them out, because Chicago race-baiters have to be Good People. You have to understand their rage.
Liberal belief is a very odd thing.
Conservatives tend to pursue reality wherever it leads, even if it shows some pretty bad things about some people. Conservatives can keep track of the bad guys, even when they change their hats. Liberals can't figure it out. They are the useful idiots, as Vladimir Lenin said, because they yearn to believe. They are sucker bait. Con artists can spot them at a glance.
Conservatives can tell the difference between Christians who support Israel and who love tolerance, and those who can be seduced by the nasties. Devout Christians have better things to do with their lives than follow some mad totalitarian creed. Traditional religion is in fact a great protection against totalitarian ideologies, which is why Vladimir Putin now makes a big thing out of being photographed kneeling down with the Patriarch of Moscow. The Russian Orthodox survived 70 years of Soviet persecution and they are still a force in that culture. All the traditional religions have survived persecution. They know how.
In Nazi Germany, some of Hitler's biggest opponents and victims were Catholic priests and Lutheran clerics, as well as Jewish rabbis.
Liberal Jews don't know that either. They foolishly believe the Nazi swastika was a Christian symbol. It's an Aryan symbol from India, and it was flipped around by the Nazis to make it their own. The Nazis were not Christians -- although there were plenty of professed Christians who joined the Nazis, contrary to their creed. Mussolini did not persecute Jews in the early days, because after all, Jews look just like Italians. Mussolini did not turn against Italian Jews until Hitler actually invaded Italy.
Jewish ignorance about the Nazi period is astonishing. It is only exceeded by contemporary ignorance about the Muslim hate propaganda industry that's right at your finger tips. (It's translated free of charge every day by MEMRI.org).
Liberalism is a defense against reality.
That's why liberals are such useful idiots. Jewish liberals like Noam Chomsky can be intelligent in one part of life and abysmally ignorant in another part. They wear ideological blinders.
Holocaust survivors had one big message for the world:
Never Forget!
Their liberal children have a different slogan:
Always Forget!
It feels much better that way!
Somewhere in the universe the nasties are having a big laugh.
After all, Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer, the personification of evil.
It's right there in front of our eyes.
Liberals can't look. It's their biggest problem.
2a) Obama and the DNC Running on Empty
By Clarice Feldman
The once mainstream media is increasingly despondent as its power to shape opinions and influence this election diminishes. My favorite of the moaning journalist cries was that of Walter Shapiro:
"This is worse than normal, a lot less fun, and it feels impossible for us to change the conversation," Walter Shapiro, who has covered nine presidential campaigns and now writes for Yahoo News and Columbia Journalism Review, told POLITICO.
The conversation is changing, but a entirely new crowd has a voice. Nothing better illustrates this than the emergence a devastatingly new campaign symbol as an enduring meme, the empty chair -- the icon Clint Eastwood used at the RNC to signify our vacuous president.
The chair came to Eastwood in a moment of inspiration, just before he was about to go onstage at the RNC.
...he was taken to a Green Room, where Archbishop Dolan of New York sought him out to say hello. Then he was taken backstage to wait for his cue. And that was when inspiration struck."There was a stool there, and some fella kept asking me if I wanted to sit down," Eastwood said. "When I saw the stool sitting there, it gave me the idea. I'll just put the stool out there and I'll talk to Mr. Obama and ask him why he didn't keep all of the promises he made to everybody."He asked a stagehand to take it out to the lectern while he was being announced."The guy said, 'You mean you want it at the podium?' and I said, 'No, just put it right there next to it.'"Then, with the theme song from "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" as a musical introduction, and a huge picture of him as Josey Wales as the backdrop, Eastwood walked out to tremendous applause.
Eastwood could have granted an interview to any publication he wished, but chose to share the story behind his historic speech with the Carmel Pine Cone, where he lives and once served as mayor.
Following the speech, almost on cue a handful of my online friends at Just One Minute took an empty chair, and turned it into a nationwide campaign theme. Sandy Daze submitted a picture of the empty chair in front of his house to Legal Insurrection; Sara twittered the theme; Jane, I believe it was, suggested that since there was no work we should make Labor Day Empty Chair Day. Others , like Janet, sent in their photos of the chairs on their lawns, put the shout out on Facebook and emailed their friends.
In no time alternate media around the country were buzzing with the thought and people from around the country were sending in pictures of empty chairs in front of their houses. In twenty four hours the campaign was a proven success, Jane reporting back: "
There were 103 million hits on Google. We were headlined in Drudge, mentioned on Fox and Friends, the Five and Special Report. The WSJ did a story on us. We should not cower from making our voices heard."
I don't mean to suggest we can easily overtake all the prevailing leftward blowing cultural winds, but we are making the present style setters luff their sails and disrupt their forward movement. Sometimes we do it just by not showing up, something Hollywood, or at least, its financiers, might take notice of. Maybe not. The entertainment industry might just be impossible to save from a fed up public. After all Dan Savage is going to get a Governors Award at the Prime Time Emmys for his anti-bullying campaign, although as Newsbusters has so thoroughly revealed he is an out of control, over the top potty mouthed bully, who has among other things aggressively attacked Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, wished Republicans were all dead, and cursed Christian high school students. It's our choice, and their money is at stake.
Well, let them go broke. And if they keep this up they certainly will. In 2008 the media diminished itself trying to prop up a guy whose chief accomplishment was that as a community organizer in Chicago he almost got the asbestos out of Altgeld Gardens, and the media haven't been able to acknowledge what they've done, much less change course. The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto discussed the preposterous new media pose, "fact checking", and found it wanting credibility, in the course of which he offered a broader read of the media's present situation:
You see the progression. Journalists claiming to be engaged in "fact checking" make tendentious arguments against Republicans. Left-wing partisans rely on the authority of the "fact checkers" to call their opponents liars or even Nazis.One gets a sense of desperation from both the Democrats, who are trying to re-elect a president with a lousy record, and the MSM, who are trying to restore the authority they enjoyed when they aspired to objectivity, or at least pretended convincingly to do so.Obama may yet eke out an ugly victory, but the decline of the MSM's authority seems inexorable.
So we laugh at the journalists ' earnest attempts to make unreality real, we ignore the movies and turn off the television, and in that atmosphere we can see even more clearly that Obama and his inner circle -- his wife and Valerie Jarrett -- in Rick Ballard's words "march to a different ukulele backed by a vuvuzela ensemble. It's all in Chapter XII - 'Beyond the Precipice' of the ACME Political Strategery Manual."
Depending which day you read Politico, the semi-official White House blog organ, Obama either did or did not approve the wording of the Democratic party platform which this year altered the old formula crediting God for our national favors and declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
Out went God and Jerusalem. But there was a lot of unhappiness when the word got out, and it's clear Obama said ix-nay on the surgical excision of the Deity and Jerusalem. Mayor Villaraigosa was directed to get the convention to amend those planks and his teleprompter announced before the votes that the changes had passed, but they hadn't as this video shows. He called for the votes three times and it was apparent that on none of them did the voice vote indicate he had the necessary 2/3 vote to amend the proffered planks. So he just announced the vote had carried and a cry of boos went up. Someone likened it to the way Obamacare was enacted. They asked if we wanted it; we said no; they declared it passed.
There's only so far even CNN is willing to go though:
[quote] CNN White House correspondent Brianna Keilar, on the floor of the convention with Wasserman Schultz, asked about the process of changing the platform, the three voice votes, and the "discord."Wasserman Schultz amazingly replied, "There wasn't any discord."Keilar responded that it seemed like people on the floor didn't feel it was a two-thirds vote.Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied, "It absolutely was two-thirds."Continuing to press, Keilar noted that this seemed to be a change in policy from yesterday by the Obama campaign because they made it clear Tuesday that they stood by the platform with the controversial language regarding Jerusalem and the word "God" left out."No, no, it's not actually," Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied.At the end of the interview, the segment switched back to CNN's booth at the convention where Anderson Cooper said, "I just got to go to the panel with this. I mean, Debbie Wasserman Schultz said it wasn't a change of language, there was no discord that we saw, and it was a two-thirds vote."And it was a technical oversight," added David Gergen."I mean, that's an alternate universe," replied Cooper."That's why people I think, one reason people are so tired of politicians frankly in both parties," observed Republican strategist Alex Castellanos."But let me just again point out that this is the same person who last week or two weeks ago was attacking the Romney campaign saying that it is the candidate who sets the platform, who designs and writes the platform," interjected Cooper. "It wasn't true what she was saying two weeks ago, but now isn't it fair if she claimed that about the Republican platform to claim that about the Democratic platform?"Cooper added a few moments later, "I just think from a reality standpoint, you can defend it as the head of the DNC, but to say flat out there was no discord is just not true."
Tom Maguire was certainly not buying any defense of this clown show:
God Is Back! (After Only Three Tries And A Disputed Ruling...)I may have been wrong about the Democratic Convention - you could pay me to watch this entertainment.Politico uses the word "debacle", and even Pravda Print provided coverage. The NY Times led with the strong leadership of President Empty Chair:Pushed by Obama, Democrats Alter Platform Over JerusalemBy MARK LANDLERCHARLOTTE, N.C. - President Obama, seeking to quell a storm of criticism from Republicans and pro-Israel groups, directed the Democratic Party on Wednesday to amend its platform to restore language declaring Jerusalem the Israeli capital.The change, approved in a voice vote that had to be taken three times because of a chorus of noes in the arena, reinstated the line "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel" in a section that describes Mr. Obama's policy toward the country. That sentence was in the 2008 platform, but the Democrats removed it this year, saying that they wanted to spotlight other elements of Mr. Obama's policy and that the platform should reflect a sitting president rather than a candidate for office.After a day of protests, however, and the prospect of an onslaught of Republican attack ads, the president and the Democrats abruptly reversed course. The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, said in a statement that the change was made to "maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the president and in the Democratic Party platform in 2008."[/blockquote]So Obama, devout politician and stalwart friend of Israel that he is only became bothered by the Jerusalem and 'God' issues when Republican read the platform and mocked it. And this is the leadership the Dems have on offer for the next four years? Is there any reason this wasn't taken care of weeks or months ago, or was Team Obama too busy comparing golf scores?
Still , the White House insisted the Administration has not changed its policy that the decision about the capital of Israel is for Israel and her neighbors to decide, and the amended platform only conforms to Obama's "personal views," whatever that means.
The convention had other highlights, of course. There was Bill Clinton praising himself while lying through his teeth; he was followed by Monica Lewinsky's rabbi (seriously), there were oodles of praise for Ted Kennedy, who as one wag said had the only confirmed kill on the war on women, and there was Caroline Kennedy supporting unrestricted abortion "as a Catholic woman." There was the usual inconsistent dated feminist blather and appeals to various tranches of the cobbled together party of gimmes, and the wind up was a speech by a president who must run on a record of failure so substantial he could offer up nothing to justify his time in office, and who is so mendacious he dare not state his plans for the next four years should he win them.
I cannot find a single journalist, left or right, who praised it.
In the end the only victory was Cardinal Dolan. You may recall he spoke at the Republican convention, but initially was excluded from the Democratic convention -- no doubt because of his rebellion against the demands from HHS that Catholics comply with Obamacare by providing contraceptive and abortifacient coverage for their employees. As Obama surely feared Dolan would, he began by praising God and life. The Convention which was thematically designed around contraception (Fluke) and abortion- -- it adopted the most aggressively pro abortion platform ever -- ended with words like these:
Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected. Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life's end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile. [snip]Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature's God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community.
2b) Inside the Big Tent
By Jeff Lipkes
Both the DNC and RNC featured divisive internal splits, over platform and rules changes, respectively. The Democrats settled their fight with a top-down diktat. The Republican dispute was resolved by a compromise, but one that still left some delegates unhappy.
At about 4:15 on Tuesday, August 28, the opening day of the Republican convention, loud booing broke out in the Tampa Bay Times Forum. Reince Priebus seemed surprised. He had just called for a vote on the recommendations of the Committee on Credentials. In the voice vote that followed, the "nos" seemed to have outshouted the "yeas." When Priebus ruled that the "yeas" prevailed, the cacophony intensified. Delegates rose and shouted, "point of order!" after Priebus ignored the first person to make the request. When other delegates began chanting "USA, USA," the dissenters increased their volume. The woman now at the podium, a committee chair from Puerto Rico, was drowned out. After trying a couple more times to read her statement, she stepped back, a bewildered look on her face. Priebus banged his gavel and pleaded with the delegates, but it took several minutes before order was restored.
What was going on?
The objections were to two rule changes submitted to the Credentials Committee. Briefly, Rule 12 would have permitted the RNC, the GOP's 168-member governing body (three representatives from every state and territory), to change the rules governing the party by a simple majority vote, without consulting the membership.
Rule 15 made two changes. 1) It required those states that held primaries to make the primaries binding on the delegates. These could be allocated proportionately or by winner-take-all, but no state with a primary could hold caucuses to select delegates. 2) Those delegates who were pledged to the party's nominee could be unseated at will by the nominee and replaced by someone else of his or her choosing.
Longtime conservative activist Morton Blackwell, head of the Leadership Institute, called the changes "the most awful I've ever seen" -- and he's been a delegate at each convention since 1964 and a member of the Rules Committee since 1972. They amounted to "a power grab by Washington, D.C. insiders and consultants" and were nothing but an "outrageous" ploy to hand delegate positions to big donors. Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum also objected strenuously. "This battle is not about preferring one candidate over another; it is about protecting each state's right to choose how it selects and governs its own delegates," Schlafly said. Other grassroots conservative organization were equally incensed.
Blackwell and Schlafly, needless to say, are not Ron Paul supporters.
Ultimately, the RNC backed down, and a compromise was reached. The changes to the party's rules would now have to be made by a super-majority of 75% of the RNC, and the nominee would no longer have the right to replace delegates at will. But if the state has a primary, the results are still binding; no caucus can ignore them.
The Paul delegates and some grassroots conservatives, including Blackwell, were unhappy with the compromise and still smarting about the coup attempt.
The delegates pledged to the Texas congressman had other reasons to feel aggrieved. The RNC had already interfered with the selection processes in several states. Delegates pledged to Paul were unceremoniously ousted. In Oregon, the state's executive body was pressured to cancel the state convention after regional conventions selected too many Ron Paul supporters. In Louisiana, a pro-Romney rump walked out of the convention and had its delegate selection ratified by the RNC. The most egregious example was Maine, where legitimately selected Paul delegates were unseated. Maine has a primary, which Romney won, but it is non-binding. When the state's caucuses selected too many Paul delegates, in the view of the RNC, these men and women were disbarred and replaced in some cases by individuals who had not even attended the caucuses. In other words, before they were even voted on, the controversial rules changes were applied retroactively. The governor of Maine, Paul LePage, was furious and refused to attend the convention.
The Paul organization claimed that their candidate would have had majorities in ten delegations had not the RNC intervened. This would have been double the number required to have Paul's name placed in nomination and to allow him to speak at the convention.
What did rank-and-file conservative delegates feel about the changes and their impact?
To find out the sentiments among ordinary delegates, it's useless to try to buttonhole them at the convention. If you have a floor pass, the honchos of the delegation will be happy to give you a few sound bites, especially if you're trailed by a cameraman. But the delegates sitting on the aisles are interested in listening to the speeches, or, if you snag them as they leave the hall, their priority is finding the men's or ladies' room or grabbing some $6 fries.
You have to go to their hotels. So on Wednesday afternoon I headed out to Saddlebrook, the famous tennis resort and home for the week to the Texas delegation. The Lone Star State is dyed deep red. So-called "social conservatives" are part of the establishment. Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum since 1993, was also chair of the Republican State Party from 2009 to 2010. But Texas is also the home of Ron Paul and includes a large and vocal contingent of his delegates. Also, Texans by reputation are warm, friendly, and open. And so they were; they spoke freely and candidly.
Virtually the entire delegation, I was told, had opposed the changes, but a majority was won over by compromises. Paul supporters were still very upset.
At issue, essentially, are two different concepts of democracy. The first derives from the Greek original. In 6th-century Athens, all citizens assembled in the agora, the marketplace, and debated issues of concern to the city-state. Attendance was mandatory. Women, slaves, and foreign businessmen were excluded. Policy was determined, and leaders were selected. Voting was either by a show of hands or by tossing a stone into one of two jars.
Democracy adopted by nation-states beginning in the 18th century was very different, of course. These were republics, not true democracies. Representatives were chosen who would debate and vote on legislation, trusted by constituents who lived days away.
Do you prefer direct or representative democracy?
Opponents of the caucus system say that it allows a small, well-organized group of zealots to take over a state's delegation. This was how Obama won the nomination.
Supporters of the caucus system say that a primary gives the advantage to the candidate with the most money, whose ads and mailers will influence voters who have not paid attention to the candidates or the issues. This was how Obama won the election. His voters may never have heard of the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, the FCC, the FDA -- or the Founding Fathers -- but they knew their man was a cool dude.
What you risk losing when you disempower local grassroots activists is the energy and enthusiasm they will bring to the general election campaign.
Texas is red to the marrow. The outcome of the voting in November is not in doubt. But will Texans get on chartered buses and planes and visit purple states like Ohio and Florida, and ring doorbells and talk to people in malls?
***
I didn't drive out to Saddlebrook just to see how Texans reacted to the proposed rule changes. I wanted to learn how "social conservatives" and "libertarian conservatives" define themselves and view each other.
There are two additional groups not represented in the Texas -- or any other-delegation: "neo-conservatives" and "paleo-conservatives." These factions have plenty of generals but few troops. They have think-tanks, magazines, and websites, but you never see a paleo-con table at a state convention with "Vote Paleo" bumper stickers or a neo-con booth selling t-shirts saying "Neo-con and Proud!"
The question of "influence" is always tricky, but the neo-cons did have the ear of George Bush at the beginning of his presidency. And they don't have a lot of reason to be proud. Undeterred by the discovery that the Iraqis didn't behave like liberated French, Dutch, and Belgians in 1945, some went on to embrace the "Arab Spring." Their influence has waned, but they are still the Great Satan to many paleos and libertarians, who believe that, like a latter-day Council of the Elders of Zion, they are pulling the strings from behind the curtain.
The guy with the tables, the bumper stickers, and t-shirts is Ron Paul. No one has as devoted a following. No one on the right is loved and hated as passionately as he.
The Paulists at Saddlebrook were bright and articulate, but many were undoubtedly true believers. When asked who might succeed Paul as leader of the movement, one guy looked at me aghast. "Has there been another Thomas Jefferson since Thomas Jefferson?" he asked. Another delegate also compared Paul to Jefferson, and someone else likened him to George Washington. One group was talking about a post-convention t-shirt that would announce simply "We Are Ron Paul."
They believe he's been misrepresented. He does not support legalizing marijuana and opposes abortion. He is not anti-Semitic or anti-black. Israel has the means to defend itself. Netanyahu just wants to be left alone to do this.
Above all, they believe that if voters knew him better, he'd trounce Obama. "The average person would like him because he's like the average person," I was told.
To get a more dispassionate perspective from the party's libertarian wing, I turned to Dave Nalle, the former chair of Gary Johnson's campaign in Texas and head of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
So how big a presence are libertarians in the party and in the electorate?
All the high-intensity interest groups represent only a small fraction of the party, but Nalle is convinced that most Republicans have quasi-libertarian beliefs, citing polls that show that well over 50% of registered party members are pro-choice, that about 50% support gay marriage, and that 60% support civil unions between gays. Of course, the support for abortion always depends on how the question is phrased.
As for actual vote totals, however, Ron Paul garnered about 2,096,000 votes in all of the primaries, a little under 11%. Johnson's total was negligible. Romney received about 52% of the vote.
But only 20% of the rank-and-file, Nalle believes, are "social conservatives."
Nalle reiterated the unhappiness of his wing over the tactics of the RNC. His own group endorses Romney and will vote for him, but he expects some defections to Johnson, now the Libertarian Party candidate. (Johnson's decision to jump ship took Nalle and other state chairs by surprise. He was always viewed as more pragmatic than Paul, and they hoped he would run for the U.S. Senate.)
But Nalle warns that few in his camp will work for Mitt, whom he doesn't expect to win. They will concentrate instead on congressional and Senate races. With solid majorities in both Houses, the party will be able to stymie Obama's extra-Constitutional initiatives. Nalle is very optimistic about the audit movement -- the EPA is next in line after the Fed and the Pentagon -- and the possibility of impeaching Sibelius, Holder, and others.
The Paulists are not so sanguine. Delegate Regina Imburgia was eloquent and indignant about NDAA, passed last December, that gives the DOD and DHS wide latitude in designating who is a "terrorist." Once labeled, you lose your constitutional rights. Take that, Tea Party subversives! Lots of Republicans, including Mitt Romney, supported the bill.
On two major issues that divide the libertarians from the rest of the Party, Nalle gives sophisticated responses, but they are not likely to convince many of those who disagree.
On illegal immigration, a fence, he claims, is too expensive, and e-verify threatens to become a national ID system readily exploited by a left-wing administration. Among other things, names of non-unionized workers could be passed along to unions to intimidate. A well-run guest-worker system is the solution. The market is, as always, the best regulator, and labor, like capital, should be permitted to flow across national frontiers. However, he finds the open borders position of many libertarians an embarrassment. National sovereignty dictates that the guest workers be monitored and not be given "amnesty."
On Islam, Nalle speaks with some authority. The son of foreign service officers, he was raised in Lebanon and Iran, spoke Arabic, and has spent time in Central Asia. He dismisses Islamic fundamentalism as a fringe movement. Though Wahhabis are "nuts," they're a minority, even with Saudi backing. The Quran has aggressive language, and Mohammed wanted to exterminate his opponents, but Muslims don't reference their Holy Book much, he believes, compared to the body of secondary literature, and they are largely peaceful. By intervening in the Middle East, we provide radicals with an easy adversary and make them look sexy.
The differences between the GOP libertarians and the Libertarian Party are largely tactical. Nalle feels it's much more effective to work within an established party. He didn't put it this way, but others did: there's an evil party and a stupid party, and it's easier to teach the stupid party than to transform the evil party.
It's hardly surprising, therefore, that social conservatives view Paulists and other libertarians with suspicion. They are interlopers bent on imposing an alien ideology on conservatives with long-held and deeply felt principles of their own. To themselves, social conservatives are the real Republicans. "Libertarians should be in a party of their own and not be invading ours," says delegate Kathy Haigler, a board member of Texas Alliance for Life and a former Republican committeewoman. "They don't belong in our party."
There is a thriving sex-drugs-and-rock-'n'-roll libertarianism, and I'd expected that social conservatives would mention this right off the bat. But for Haigler, it's Ron Paul's position on Israel that's the biggest turn-off. "I disagree strongly with his stance. He doesn't support Israel; he thinks Palestine should be recognized, more land given up, more compromises made." Others seconded this.
The tactics of the Paulists are also offensive. Even in the voice vote on the floor, she and others believe that Paul's alternates and guests contributed to the volume of "nays," against convention rules. There is a pattern of unethical behavior on the part of Ron's troops. When disbarred from voting at a recent convention according to rules in place, they stormed the doors and banged on the windows until the police were called.
They're immature, says Cathie Adams, the Eagle Forum president. "Lots of people came forward at the state convention, wives of men serving overseas, saying I'm the new generation, I'm young, I want to be a delegate. But they only wanted to go to Tampa to raise a ruckus for Ron Paul. The process is working," she said. "You don't go in, lob a bomb, and turn around and run away."
The soc-cons were also critical of the congressman's hypocrisy in loading up spending bills with pork for his district, then voting against the bills, knowing that they would pass. This way he can say he's never voted for a spending bill. In fact, he's number three in Congress in the amount of earmarks he's introduced.
But all the social conservatives I spoke with objected to the power-grab by the Romneyites. It was the near-unanimous opposition of the huge Texas delegation that forced Mitt to compromise on rules 12 and 15. And when the decision was put to a vote, many felt that the first individual shouting "point of order" ought to have been recognized. There could have been a show of hands on his point. And they felt Ron Paul's vote totals ought to have been announced by the clerks and displayed on the screens.
For Paul's supporters, this was the final indignity. They'd worked hard to get to the convention. It's not easy winning even a half-dozen delegates in a state. But only the Romney vote was announced by the clerks, even when it was the minority, and no running total was posted. For libertarian Republicans, this was a sign of weakness and petty vindictiveness.
Delegates in the Romney camp were unsympathetic. They cited Paul's failure to endorse the nominee. Naturally, the congressman wanted to withhold his support until he'd extracted the maximum number of concessions. He got planks in the platform endorsing the gold standard and a Fed audit. But at some point before the convention, they said, he needed to join hands with the nominee and pledge to work with him to defeat Obama.
***
In Wednesday night's speech by Ann Romney and remarks on Thursday by people who've known Mitt Romney and worked with him, delegates and viewers at home were introduced to a person they hadn't encountered in the media. The guy is not the Mormon Gordon Gekko, but a decent, honest, compassionate individual, who has consistently helped others in large ways and small ones. Romney folded laundry for neighbors, chased bees out of an attic, and consoled grieving parents. He stands in stark contrast to the egocentric rock-star president. If you lived next to Obama, you'd be lucky to get an occasional smile and wave as he rushed out to the limo. So if voters ask themselves whom they'd prefer as a neighbor, the election is won.
It's a shame Romney's people have not been such good neighbors within the party. They have not been magnanimous in victory. Just as surely, Ron Paul's supporters have not been gracious in defeat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Is Obama cruising to re-election? He seems to think so
The president's stay-the-course speech suggests an incumbent who expects to win
By Jules Witcover
In President Barack Obama's much-anticipated acceptance speech in Charlotte, he sounded at times to be relying on the reverse of the old breakup line: "It's not you, it's me." He told the American public that it is "you," and not he as president, who must hold firm behind his recovery efforts if the country is to bounce back economically over the next four years.
Rather than taking advantage of Mitt Romney's failure in Tampa to provide specific details on what he would do to turn the economy around, Mr. Obama likewise fell short on any new approaches to break the stalemate. Instead, he called on the millions who put him in the Oval Office four years ago to trust the cards he has been holding all along.
As Bill Clinton did with more spark and detail the previous night, the president cited the immense challenge he still faces after years of fiscal neglect and policy calamities, pleading for more time to stay the course. It is a plea that could not save Republican President Gerald Ford in 1976, for the obvious reason that he struggled under an unlucky inheritance of his own in Watergate, plus his pardon of Richard Nixon upon succeeding him.
)Mr. Obama, however, is not weighed down by any similar anchor, but rather by an intransigent Republican leadership in Congress, whose obstructionism persuades him to try again to rally public support. In that effort, too, he got a boost from Mr. Clinton the night before, arguing that Mr. Obama remains "committed to constructive cooperation" despite having had the door slammed on him repeatedly in his first term.
The president's apparent willingness to stand pat and not offer any striking new initiatives suggests that his chief strategists believe that, despite tight polling numbers nationally, he is on a course to re-election in November.
Such a reading is encouraged by voter surveys and evaluations of the scope of the Obama campaign's organizational efforts in key battleground states. Their electoral votes can give the president a more comfortable route to retaining the presidency than is available to Mr. Romney. It could well be wishful thinking, but Mr. Obama did not sound in Charlotte like a desperate incumbent ready to throw a Hail Mary pass to jolt the campaign, as John McCain did four years ago by plucking perky Sarah Palin from nowhere as his running mate.
The closest Mr. Obama came to hinting at any surprises ahead was when he told the convention that "it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades." He went on to observe that "it will require common effort, shared responsibility and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one."
However, he said little of any such FDR-like rolling of the dice for the next four years to match the gambles Mr. Obama himself took in his first term -- the auto-industry bailout that arguably saved it from collapse, and his gutsy call on authorizing the Navy SEALs to deliverOsama bin Laden to another world. Those two calls remain his strongest sound-bite pitches, already capsulated with bumper-sticker economy by Vice President Joe Biden's line: "Osama bin Laden is dead, and Genera Motors is alive."
In addition, as he did with Bill Clinton, the president left it to Mr. Biden in his warmup speech to make the strongest appeal to middle-class America, pushing the emotional buttons that are his specialty as the son of a car dealer from gritty Scranton, Pa. As a package, the show in Charlotte outdid the one in Tampa on the intensity meter.
Whether that will be enough to carry Mr. Obama over the finish line first in November will, of course, be up to the collective "you" that the president so urgently appealed to. In openly placing his fate in the hands of the same folks who delivered for him four years ago, he is counting on them to retain the hope he so effectively stirred then.
Jules Witcover is a syndicated columnist and former long-time writer for The Baltimore Sun. His latest book is "Joe Biden: A Life of Trial and Redemption" (William Morrow).A Failed Governor Talks Up a Failed President
If I were Jennifer Granholm, I’d crawl under the desk and not come out for a good, long while. Her performance last night at the Democratic convention was so bizarre that an amused and bemused Nolan Finley of The Detroit Newsspeculated that she was either possessed by the ghost of Joe Biden -- “or maybe she had a squirrel up her pant leg.” Cartoonist Henry Payne, editor of Michigan View, thought that maybe she was channeling “Arsenio Hall on crack.” Me? I think she got drunk on her own clever lines. (Her quip that “Mitt Romney’s cars take the elevator and workers get the shaft” was admittedly a hoot.)
But even more bizarre than Granholm’s convention appearance was that she was invited to make one in the first place. She was arguably the worst governor of her time who, during her eight-year term, took Michigan’s teetering economy into her firm hands and gave it a good, hard push off the cliff.
On her watch, the state's ranking in per capita GDP plummeted to 41st place from 24th. Michigan became the only state to suffer a net out-migration during the past decade, and its credit rating was repeatedly downgraded.
But since unemployment is the topic of the day, how was Granholm’s job-creation record? Worse than Katrina-struck Louisiana’s. Unemployment jumped from 6.8 percent when she was elected to 14.1 percent at its peak in 2009 – although some believe it reached as high as 15.2 percent. Consider this (generously inaccurate) chart from The Daily Caller comparing Michigan’s unemployment rate with the national average:
Michigan’s unemployment figures would undoubtedly have looked even worse if its residents hadn’t hit the exit doors. But none of that prevented Granholm from brazenly writing a grand paean to herself titled: A Governor's Story: The Fight for Jobs and America's Future.
Granholm, then, has long practice pretending that she has saved jobs that she has actually killed – which, of course, is precisely Obama’s campaign theme. Consider his jobs record:
In other words, Granholm understands Obama’s dilemma better than anyone else on the planet and the kind of political pole dances that must be performed on convention floors to keep people distracted.
And the loss of dignity is just a small price to pay for a future Cabinet position.
5a.) Dems exploit the empathy gap
By Charles Krauthammer
Given the state of the economy, by any historical standard, Barack Obama should be 15 points behind Mitt Romney. Why is he tied? The empathy gap. On "caring about average people," Obama wins by 22 points. Maintaining that gap was a principal goal of the Democratic convention. It's the party's only hope of winning in November.
George H.W. Bush, Romney-like in aloofness, was once famously handed a staff cue card that read: "Message: I care." That was supposed to be speech guidance. Bush read the card. Out loud.
Not surprisingly, he lost to Bill Clinton, a man who lives to care, who feels your pain better than you do – or at least makes you think so. In politics, that's a trivial distinction.
On Wednesday night, Clinton vouched for Obama as a man "who's cool on the outside but who burns for America on the inside." Nice phrase, but not terribly persuasive. The real job of Clintonizing Obama was left to Mrs. Obama. As she told it in the convention's most brilliantly cynical speech, her husband is not just profoundly compassionate but near-Gandhiesque in feelings
Others spoke about what Obama had done. Michelle's job was to provide the why: because he cares. Her talk was a syllogism: Barack loves his wife, he loves his children, he loves his family – therefore, he loves you.
I have no doubt about the first three propositions, but the fourth is a complete non sequitur. We were assured, nonetheless, that the president is a saintly man, dispensing succor – health care (with free contraceptives), auto bailouts, fairness lawsuits – to his people.
The flood of tears in the hall testified to the power of this spousal paean. Its brilliance lay in Michelle's success in draining from Obama any hint of ideological or personal motivation.
The problem with swallowing the "he cares, therefore he does" line is that it so plainly contradicts what we've seen over the last four years. Barack Obama is a deeply committed social-democrat who laid out an unashamedly left-liberal agenda at the very beginning of his presidency and then proceeded to try to enact it.
Obama passed Obamacare, regulated Wall Street, subsidized Solyndra because that fits an ambitious left-wing agenda developed in his youth, now made possible by his power: redistributionist, government-centered, disdainful of success, suspicious of private enterprise, committed to his own vision of social justice.
Also missing from her speech was any hint of his outsized self-regard and personal ambition. Is he pursuing re-election because he cares? Or because it's the ultimate vindication of the self-created man who came from nowhere to seize the prize? And whom defeat would turn into a historical parenthesis?
In 2008, Obama tellingly said that Ronald Reagan was historically consequential in a way that Bill Clinton was not. Obama clearly sees himself as the anti-Reagan, the man who reverses the 30-year conservative trajectory that Reagan launched (hence his consequentiality), and returns America to the 50-year liberal ascendancy that FDR began and Reagan terminated.
This makes you world-historical. This is what drives the man who kept inserting the phrase "New Foundation" in the major speeches he gave in the early months of his presidency. The slogan was meant to make him the rightful heir to the authors of the "New Deal" and "New Frontier."
The phrase never took. But the ambition was unmistakable.
All this does not make Obama either bad or unique among presidents. But it does give lie to the lachrymose portrayal of him as the good family man writ large, presiding kindly over his flock.
His pledge in 2008 of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" speaks to the largeness of both his ideology and his self-regard. That's the far more plausible explanation of his drive to win, characterized by a ruthless single-mindedness that undid the Clintons in 2008 (and at times unhinged Bill) and that has so relentlessly demonized Romney in 2012.
The millions of dollars devoted to that demonization account for some of that 22-point "empathy gap." Michelle's soap-opera depiction of her husband as a man so infused with goodness that it spills over onto his grateful subjects was meant to maintain the other part of that gap.
I didn't buy a word of it, but as a speech, Michelle's was very effective. After all, what else do you say when you're running for re-election in a land – as described so chillingly the next night by Elizabeth Warren – wracked with misery and despair?
5b) Do you remember January 3, 2007??
Many who don't like George W. Bush, will declare the facts in this email are all wrong! But this is a History lesson and I bet I know who won't read it -- those afraid of the truth. But it IS history, and nothing we do can change the facts listed here!!
The day the Democrats took over was not January 20, 2009, it was actually January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
On January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took control of Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies had SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day...?
January 3rd, 2007 was the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney), for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie &Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (but...the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from FannieMae AND Freddie Mac? -- OBAMA!!!
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel while they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets are not passed in the White House. They are passed by Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011. Obama has now gone 1,000 days without a budget, and is still blaming it on the Republicans! In that first year, Congress had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending when Bush, somewhat belatedly, got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed Lame Duck President George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of those massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself and a
Democratic Congress.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is: "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I expanded that deficit four-fold since January 20th 2009."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Obama Lies About Mother To Promote Obamacare
Both Barack and Michelle Obama along with vice president Joe Biden shared stories about Obama’s mother’s battle with cancer, from which she died in 1995. However, the versions they tell are vastly different from previous versions, including those of two of Obama’s biographers and Obama himself.
6)Obama Lies About Mother To Promote Obamacare
Both Barack and Michelle Obama along with vice president Joe Biden shared stories about Obama’s mother’s battle with cancer, from which she died in 1995. However, the versions they tell are vastly different from previous versions, including those of two of Obama’s biographers and Obama himself.
“Barack had to sit at the end of his mom’s hospital bed and watch her fight cancer and insurance companies at the same time,” Biden said.
Mrs. Obama also said during her speech on Tuesday that “watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented — that’s a tough thing to deal with.”
Obama himself said, “When my mother got cancer she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources.”
Obama himself said, “When my mother got cancer she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources.”
The problem is that Mr. Obama seems to have difficulty with his past (as if we all didn’t know that). In 2004 he told the Chicago Sun-times that he was not even present when his mother was facing her final days.
But that is far from the truth. Because of her job at Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda, Maryland, Ms. Dunham had health insurance, which covered her uterine and ovarian cancer.
“The biggest mistake I made was not being at my mother’s bedside when she died,” he said then. ”She was in Hawaii in a hospital, and we didn’t know how fast it was going to take, and I didn’t get there in time.”David Maraniss reported back in 2008 that Obama did not visit his mother:
“He was into his Chicago phase, reshaping himself for his political future, but now was drawn back to Hawaii to say goodbye to his mother. Too late, as it turned out. She died on Nov. 7, 1995, before he could get there.”The problem is not just that the Obamas and Biden lied, but that they lied to push the agenda of Obamacare, because they were saying that Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham suffered and died because she didn’t have health insurance.
But that is far from the truth. Because of her job at Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda, Maryland, Ms. Dunham had health insurance, which covered her uterine and ovarian cancer.
According to Janny Scott, Dunham’s biographer, “Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment.”
“Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”
“Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”
This wasn’t the first time that Obama has pulled on the heartstrings and the legs of people with this fabricated story to promote Obamacare.
In 2007, he told a Santa Barbara, California audience, ““She (Dunham) wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality. She had been diagnosed just as she was transitioning between jobs. And she wasn’t sure whether insurance was going to cover the medical expenses because they might consider this a pre-existing condition.”
“I remember just being heartbroken,” Obama continued. “Seeing her struggle through the paperwork and the medical bills and the insurance forms. So I have seen what it’s like when somebody you love is suffering because of a broken health care system. And it’s wrong. It’s not who we are as a people.”
“I remember just being heartbroken,” Obama continued. “Seeing her struggle through the paperwork and the medical bills and the insurance forms. So I have seen what it’s like when somebody you love is suffering because of a broken health care system. And it’s wrong. It’s not who we are as a people.”
During a presidential debate with John McCain, Obama said, “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
While Obama was trying to appeal to those in our society who struggle with health care without insurance or even with insurance they face high deductibles, he did so dishonestly. There is nothing in the historical record that puts him either at the bedside of his mother (as though he cared) or that she was without insurance and living in abject poverty. She was not. She was fully insured, paid a deductible and was far from living in poverty. This is just another case of Obama “hoping” that things were different, but the stubborn facts he wants to “change” keep resurfacing to expose him as a fraud.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment