SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (50861)4/21/2012 12:33:28 PM
From: joseffy
2 Recommendations   of 70693
 
Obama came to the White House claiming that he alone was qualified to unite the country behind common objectives. The fact that he's losing support from his own party on two of the most important issues of the day is significant.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Farmboy who wrote (50838)4/21/2012 4:13:12 PM
From: FUBHO
2 Recommendations   of 70693
 
Obama accepting ILLEGAL donations.

Once Again… Obama Campaign Accepting Illegal Donations From All Over the World


Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, 4:57 AM
thegatewaypundit.com 
In 2008, by turning off their Address Verification System, or AVS, at the Obama website, the Democratic candidate was able to raise a record $150 million in donationsin one month from millions of donors from all over the world.

The Obama Camp continued to break the law and accept donations from anyone anywherein the world during the campaign.

One reader sent in proof of the corruption.
Rezko Donation Entered at Obama Campaign website:



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: FUBHO who wrote (50863)4/21/2012 7:47:46 PM
From: Farmboy
5 Recommendations   of 70693
 
Remember the campaign promise that Obama would have "the most transparent administration in history"?

Well, he should have said "the most corrupt administration in history", because that is in fact, what he has created.

And he knows he'll get away with it because there's no one in any department of government who would dare bring up any misconduct against Obama.

And they called Reagan the "teflon president".

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: joseffy who wrote (50862)4/22/2012 10:57:11 AM
From: Hope Praytochange
   of 70693
 
‘Presidential’ vs. ‘Political’ Trips: A Blurry Line, and Tricky Math

Luke Sharrett for The New York Times
President Obama heading to fund-raising events last month in Chicago and Atlanta.


By JACKIE CALMES Published: April 21, 2012






WASHINGTON — Facing 5,000 enthusiastic students at Florida Atlantic University, President Obama rolled up his sleeves and raised his voice to chastise Republicans for their spending cuts and “broken-down theories,” evoking chants of “Four more years!”






The Election 2012 App A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

  • Download for iPhone
  • Download for Android




  • Doug Mills/The New York Times Presidential travel in election years has long been an issue.



    And that was the nonpolitical stop on Mr. Obama’s swing-state itinerary for that day early this month. The president sandwiched the 34-minute speech, billed as an official address on his so-called Buffett Rule for a minimum tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, amid three overtly partisan fund-raisers that accounted for the bulk of his time along the south Florida coast.

    Mixing policy and politics, Mr. Obama is picking up the pace of his travel with that ultimate incumbent’s perk — unlimited use of Air Force One. The trips are mostly to about a dozen swing states that will decide the election and to two reliably Democratic states, New York and California, for campaign money.

    And Mr. Obama is not the only frequent flier with a re-election agenda. Both Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the first lady, Michelle Obama, are increasingly stumping around the country as the campaign seeks to repeat its fund-raising success of 2008 and counter a building wave of G.O.P. cash.

    The trips yield a payoff not only in donations — collected at small-crowd, big-dollar events in the sumptuous homes of donors and at small-dollar, big-crowd rallies — but also in local headlines trumpeting Mr. Obama’s message of the day. Taken together, they raise the quadrennial question of how much of a president’s travel should be paid for by taxpayers and how much by his party.

    “It’s very opaque,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group. “You’re kind of left in the position of, ‘Trust us; we’re doing it right.’ ”

    Since Mr. Obama filed for re-election a year ago, he has taken 60 domestic trips, of which 26 included fund-raisers, according to Mark Knoller, a White House correspondent for CBS News who for years has compiled such data.

    Mr. Knoller’s count shows that since Mr. Obama took office, his most frequent destinations besides Maryland, Virginia and Illinois, his home state, have been fund-raising centers and swing states: New York (23 visits), Ohio (20), Florida (16), Pennsylvania (15), Michigan (11), California and North Carolina (10 each), Massachusetts (9), Wisconsin (8), Iowa and Nevada (7 each), and Colorado (6).

    On Wednesday, Mr. Obama made an official visit to an Ohio community college and a political trip to Michigan for two fund-raisers. This week, he is scheduled to visit North Carolina, Iowa and Colorado for official addresses on student loans at three campuses, prime territory for his drive to motivate young voters.

    Officials at the White House, the Chicago campaign headquarters and the Democratic National Committee declined to say how they decide which events are political and how much to reimburse the government. That secrecy has a tradition dating at least to the late 1970s.

    Katie Hogan, a campaign spokeswoman, said, “The campaign will follow all rules and pay for the portion of travel that relates to political events, as has been true for previous incumbent presidential candidates.”

    A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said, “As in other administrations, we follow all rules and regulations to ensure that the D.N.C. or other relevant political committee pays what is required for the president to travel to political events.”

    While it is not possible to know for sure, the Democratic Party is probably paying more than other presidents have for Air Force One because of a regulatory change in 2010. Instead of repaying the government based on the cost of first-class commercial airfare, as presidents had since Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald R. Ford, reimbursements must now reflect the cost of chartering a 737 aircraft. (Air Force One, the name for whichever plane in the fleet carries the president, is usually a 747.)

    Past presidents have been accused of adding official events to political trips to reduce their campaign’s spending, but Mr. Schultz said that was no longer an issue. “The fact that there is an official event on the schedule doesn’t reduce the travel costs paid by the campaign to the federal government,” he said.

    The Democratic Party’s latest monthly report of travel reimbursements, filed last week to the Federal Election Commission, had precise entries like $3.82 for “White House Airlift In-flight services” — a sandwich from the Air Force One galley perhaps? — and 23 payments totaling nearly $100,000 for airfare, including $95,759.10 to White House Airlift Operations and $3,833.19 to the Treasury Department. Aides would not describe what trip, traveler or expense were reflected by each entry.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    From: calgal4/22/2012 7:11:22 PM
       of 70693
     
    Man Bites Dog…Likes the Taste
    Derek Hunter


    Apr 22, 2012





    The theater of the absurd that is our presidential election keeps chugging along with all the vigor our economy doesn’t. One can’t blame Democrats for attempting distraction upon distraction, given the alternative of talking about President Obama’s record.

    After all, if it is indeed about the economy, stupid, the only votes there for Democrats are mindless drones who don’t care that nary an economic indicator has improved since Barack Obama took office $5 trillion in new debt ago.

    Those of us with eyes open and an IQ above that of our shoe size can’t help but notice. The spin of the last 3 ½ years has left people so dizzy distraction is all that’s left.

    So what do we get from the Obama White House? That government should pay for everyone’s contraception – a non-issue that Democrats flat-out lied about and whose only “accomplishment” was to give MSNBC something to put in their chyron rotation alongside “war on the poor,” “war on the elderly” and “war on the middle class. That’s about it.

    We also get Ted Nugent. The Motor City Madman said of the President and his fellow Democrats, “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions?”

    The outrage from Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media was quick and desperate. It’s a violent threat, and it’s Mitt Romney’s fault … because Terrible Ted endorsed him. They hadn’t cranked the high-dudgeon machine that high since they tried to deny the connection between President Obama and endorser Jimmy Hoffa Jr., after Hoffa, the Teamsters president, called on a crowd at a Labor Day rally to “take these son-of-a-bitches out.”

    Only it’s somewhat more difficult to deny the connection when the president was at the rally and spoke after Hoffa and thus had every opportunity to discuss his friend’s “over the top” rhetoric – but didn’t. But you know how it is. If it weren’t for double standards, Democrats and the media would have no standards at all.

    MSNBC spent the better part of two days highlighting Nugent’s remarks. The outrage and indignation applied to this non-story would lead one to believe Mitt Romney had launched his political career in the home of a domestic terrorist or something.

    But again … we can’t expect much from a media that serves as a lapdog for the president and his extreme ideology.

    And speaking of dogs…

    Thirty years ago Mitt Romney took a family vacation and put his dog in a crate on top of the car. Anyone who has seen a dog in the back of a pick-up truck or sticking their head out a car window wouldn’t think much of this because a.) dogs like the wind, and b.) it’s a dog.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    From: calgal4/22/2012 8:33:39 PM
       of 70693
     
    Who is the real dog?

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


    To: FUBHO who wrote (50863)4/22/2012 10:04:49 PM
    From: joseffy
    2 Recommendations   of 70693
     
    Bullying incident shows pervasive school bias against self-defense

    David Codrea April 19, 2012 Gun Rights Examiner


    “9-year-old suspended after he says he stood up to a bully,” a Fox 31 Denver report informs us

    Third-grader Nathan Pemberton “was kicked out of school Tuesday after he says he stood up to a bully who was beating him up.”

    “One kid kicked me in the back, then punched me in the face. Then I punched him in the face, and then I got in trouble,” he says.”

    The school has a “no tolerance” policy that results in an automatic suspension, regardless of who started a fight. In other words, children are required by law to attend—under legal truancy penalties if they don’t comply—and then forbidden to defend themselves from other inmates.

    “District 11 schools employ many anti-bullying teaching techniques,” spokesperson Devra Ashby said in a public statement, “and none of these methods include violence or retaliation.”

    One wonders, were someone physically violating Ms. Ashby, if she’d insist that she, too, would deserve punishment for fighting back.

    Still, some agree with the policy.

    “Kids will hopefully learn that violence is not the answer,” viewer “Liz” tweeted between cud regurgitations, lowing approval for the decision to impose "equal punishments" on aggressors and defenders.

    There are those of us who would argue the answer all depends on the question, and sometimes, the only thing to do is fight back with all means at your disposal. Still, it does give insight into an anti-defense mindset that is being drilled into young minds from the earliest age the state can get its indoctrinating clutches on them.

    Which may explain why, by the time they grow into college-age young adults, not only are students mandated to be helpless against berserkers, many of them are overtly hostile to the suggestion that they should fight back like free men and women in the prime of their lives, and instead insist the safest course is for those lives to be forfeit.

    Except there’s been a strong recent counter to the Nobility of Victimhood lobby, with a statement made Monday, the fifth anniversary of the Virgina Tech massacre, by Holly Adams, mother of shooting victim Leslie Sherman:

    I ask a simple question: Would the other parents of victims be forever thankful if a professor or student was allowed to carry a firearm and could have stopped Seung-Hui Cho before their loved one was injured or killed? I would be. I also suspect that the tragedy may not have occurred at all if Cho knew that either faculty members or students were permitted to carry their own weapons on campus.

    It’s a simple question for which the Colin Goddards and Devra Ashbys of the world have no answer. We're supposed to just take it and then, assuming we haven't bled out, go find an adult.

    Bullying incident shows pervasive school bias against self-defense - National gun rights | Examiner.com examiner.com 

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    To: Farmboy who wrote (50838)4/22/2012 11:46:39 PM
    From: DuckTapeSunroof
       of 70693
     
    (Perhaps it is!)

    So I suppose that you agree with it's thrust? <G>

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

    To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (50827)4/22/2012 11:47:45 PM
    From: DuckTapeSunroof
       of 70693
     
    Swinging Obama’s way: Unemployment drops in battlegrounds, lifting re-election hopes

    By Associated Press,
    Updated: Sunday, April 22, 10:13 AM
    washingtonpost.com 


    WASHINGTON — The improving economy is swinging the pendulum in President Barack Obama’s favor in the 14 states where the presidential election will likely be decided.

    Recent polls have shown Obama gaining an edge over his likely Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, in several so-called swing states — those that are considered up for grabs.

    What’s made the difference is that unemployment has dropped more sharply in several swing states than in the nation as a whole. A resurgence in manufacturing is helping the economy — and Obama’s chances — in the industrial Midwestern states of Ohio and Michigan.

    And Arizona, Nevada and Florida, where unemployment remains high, are getting some relief from an uptick in tourism.

    “The biggest reason for the president’s improving prospects probably is the economy,” says Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    The Great Recession of 2007-2009 hit several swing states particularly hard. Unemployment peaked at 14.2 percent in Michigan, where the auto industry faced ruin. It also hit double digits in Arizona, Nevada and Florida, which were at the center of the housing bust, and in North Carolina, which lost jobs in textile and furniture plants.

    In 2010, the economic misery helped Republicans retake control of the House and gain seats in the Senate. But the GOP can’t count on a repeat when voters return to the polls — with much more at stake — on Nov. 6.

    After an agonizingly slow recovery, several swing-state economies are finally accelerating:

    — The job market is improving in Michigan and Ohio. In Michigan, unemployment fell to 8.5 percent in March from 10.5 percent in March 2011. And in Ohio, it dropped to 7.5 percent from 8.8 percent over the same period, putting it well below the national average of 8.2 percent. A Fox News poll released Friday showed Obama leading Romney 45 percent to 39 percent among registered voters in Ohio.

    Many blue-collar workers in Ohio and Michigan credit the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler for saving tens of thousands of auto industry jobs, says Paul Allen Beck, a political science professor at Ohio State University. The bailout began under President George W. Bush, but Obama expanded it. “There’s a feeling the administration went out of its way to protect jobs that are very important,” Beck said.

    — In Florida, unemployment tumbled to 9 percent in March from 10.7 percent a year earlier. That was more than twice the nationwide drop of 0.7 percentage point (from 8.9 percent to 8.2 percent) over the same period. A rise in tourism is helping. “People who put off vacations or a trip to Disney World for two or three years got to the point where they feel safe in terms of financial security to finally take those trips,” says Sean Snaith, director of the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Economic Competitiveness.

    — Even Nevada, a focal point of the real estate collapse, has seen some improvement: Unemployment dropped to 12 percent in March from 13.6 percent a year earlier.

    — Unemployment is down over the past year in the 10 other states the Associated Press identifies as swing states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

    Still, political analysts caution that voter sentiment — not to mention economic momentum — can turn fast. A month before the most recent polling, for instance, Obama was running behind or neck-and-neck with Romney in battleground states.

    “The election is not today; it is seven months away,” Quinnipiac’s Brown says.

    A jobs recovery fizzled in mid-2011, so there’s no guarantee the unemployment rate will continue to fall this year.

    Indeed, Romney was quick to pounce after the government said job creation plunged in March after three strong months of growth. Romney called the numbers “weak and very troubling.... Millions of Americans are paying a high price for President Obama’s economic policies.”

    Higher gasoline prices, up 60 cents this year to a national average $3.88 a gallon, could also turn voters against Obama. Still, prices have dropped over the past two weeks, and analysts say they could fall further.

    Political analysts also wonder whether voters will end up holding Obama responsible for the poor state of the housing market, even if the job market has improved.

    Jonathan Ketcham, a marketing professor at Arizona State University who has analyzed voting behavior, says academic studies haven’t investigated how housing trends affect voters’ decisions. Housing hasn’t been a major issue in a presidential campaign before. But since 2006, a drop in home prices has wiped out $7 trillion in home equity, the biggest source of wealth for most families.

    In Nevada, more than six in 10 homes are “underwater” — they’re worth less than the mortgages on them.

    In February, foreclosures surged more in Florida’s two biggest cities — Miami and Tampa — from February 2011 than anywhere else, according to RealtyTrac. Foreclosures are up partly because they were delayed last year by a legal fight over lenders that processed foreclosures without verifying documents.

    Now, foreclosures are rising again in places like Florida where the housing bust did the most damage. That is worrisome for Obama, whose housing policies haven’t made much of a dent in the crisis, says Susan MacManus, a government professor at the University of South Florida.

    Then again, state economic trends might not even make much difference. Political scientists who study voter behavior say most Americans tend to base their views about the economy — and their votes — more on what’s happening nationwide than on what’s happening closer to home.

    The academic findings might seem to defy common sense. But reports on the ups and downs of unemployment, gross domestic product and other nationwide economic indicators appear constantly on television news, in newspapers and on the Internet.

    So in some ways, ordinary Americans hear more about the national economy than they hear about economic conditions in their own communities, says Arizona State’s Ketcham. Ketcham also says it “could be that people simply understand that local conditions are beyond the reach of national politicians.”

    The national economic trend favors Obama, too. Unemployment is down significantly from its 10 percent peak in October 2009. No incumbent president dating to 1956 has lost when unemployment fell over the two years leading up to his re-election contest. And none has won when the rate rose.

    Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010.

    Last month, eight months before Election Day, the rate was 8.2 percent.

    Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    © The Washington Post Company

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


    To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (50869)4/22/2012 11:47:52 PM
    From: Farmboy
    1 Recommendation   of 70693
     
    You're no fun at all when you are two days late in responding!

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
    Previous 10 | Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.