It was like watching a slow train wreck and culminated in Oabam rehashing old and worn out slogans. And it seemed like the crowd had no enthusiasm and more like concessions speeches.
It does not look good for Obama in November. But there will be some that will go over the cliff and vote for him like lemmings
It will be interesting to see the polls in the next week or so. Is having abortion as one of your main issues for the Convention going to really help you when there is unemployment over 8% and the economy still in the tank.
And the delegates booing the inclusion of God and Jerusalem will probably not go over good with the general public. The LapDogMedia will probably give cover for Obama on this, but the videos will get out. the country still has a majority of Christians as citizens and is maninly a center right country
We will see
Bring on the Debates
also posted at Stix Blog
As the national debt finally passes the $16 trillion mark, are Democrats serious about addressing deficit spending?
Several Democratic delegates and supporters that Reason TV spoke with at the 2012 Democratic National Convention said that Democrats care deeply about the debt, but when it came to offering solutions, they said that serious reductions in government spending would actually be counterproductice. Instead, many suggested increasing public works spending to stimulate job growth, despite the fact that President Obama’s first stimulus still hasn’t moved the economy above 8 percent unemployment.
They also defended Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on anyone earning more than $200,000 a year, even though this won’t even come close to closing the annual budget deficit.
From Hartford Courant (opinion/cartoon)
Chris Murphy’s campaign for United States Senator reminds me of the Barbara Kennelly gubernatorial campaign back in the last century. Kennelly, the daughter of the late powerful Connecticut Democratic political boss John Bailey, served from 1982 until 1999 in the United States House of Representative.
She decided she wanted to be governor, so she ran against Republican incumbent John Rowland. Her campaign was very similar to Chris Murphy’s, that is to say, nonexistent. The only way I could understand it was that apparently being the daughter of a big shot Democrat in a blue state, she never really had to campaign hard for any office. She expected it to be handed to her on a silver platter. What she got instead was a big fat resounding defeat.
I don’t know what Chris Murphy’s problem is. He says he doesn’t have any money. To that, I would ask, do you know how to raise any, oh Democratic candidate, in a Democratic state? I hate the thought of Connecticut sending a Republican to the Senate at this historically precarious time, but maybe I’ll get used to it. If I drink enough Scotch.
Obama’s Debt/Deficit Disconnect
Arlington, Va.—Gretchen Hamel, executive director of Public Notice, today issued the following statement in response to reports that an essay signed by President Obama in the official program for the Democratic National Convention confuses the terms “debt” and “deficit”:
Today’s report that the president doesn’t understand the difference between our national debt and our annual deficit is frightening. But for an administration that has overseen wasteful spending projects such as Solyndra and whose lack of responsible oversight allowed federal employees to party in the GSA, this lack of attention to detail isn’t surprising. Responsible budgeting isn’t glamorous or fun, but it is a necessary, core function of government. For reference, our national debt is at a historic high of $16 trillion and our annual deficit is about $1.2 trillion, exceeding the trillion dollar mark for the fourth straight year. Additionally, Congress has failed to pass a budget into law for the past three years. President Obama may be hoping the American people award him an “incomplete,” but on his understanding of budgetary issues he’s clearly failing.
Obama essay confuses debt and deficit
From USA Today
There’s no question budgets are complicated. In President Obama’s first-person essay in the official program for the Democratic National Convention, he appears to have mixed up the words debt and deficit.
“Our plan will reduce the deficit by $4 trillion by cutting spending we can’t afford,” he wrote. …
Deficit refers to the annual amount the United States goes over-budget, currently about $1.2 trillion. The debt refers to the total amount of money the U.S. owes other countries, currently just over $16 trillion.
If Obama had it right, that would mean replacing the annual budget deficit with the highest surplus in history — $2.8 trillion dollars — an unlikely scenario.
Still No Answers from Berkley about Her Attempts to Mislead Nevadans on Ethics Issues
(Las Vegas, NV) – It’s been six days, and seven-term Congresswoman Shelley Berkley still has not come clean about whether she is misleading Nevadans regarding her ethics charges. During an interview with Jon Ralston on June 25, 2012, Shelley Berkley said that any conflict of interest “did not occur” to her. But in an interview with Steve Sebelius on Saturday, September 1, 2012, Shelley Berkley claims her staff did contact the House Ethics Committee about a potential conflict of interest.
One statement is true, and one statement is not. So, which is it?
“Shelley Berkley has based her entire campaign on the ‘Lie of the Year,’ so now we can just add another one to the mix. Either Shelley Berkley’s office did contact the House Ethics Committee, or it didn’t. Did Shelley Berkley just not care enough to ask her staff how the House Ethics Committee responded? One way or the other, Shelley Berkley is misleading Nevadans, a pattern she has established since the beginning of this campaign,” said Chandler Smith, Heller for Senate spokeswoman.
What Shelley Berkley said in June:
Jon Ralston: “You wrote two letters to regulators…you don’t think it could be seen by some people…that you were pursuing a narrow financial interest?”
Shelley Berkley: “NO. Number one there are millions of kidney patients throughout the United States…would I have really stood back and do nothing when I knew that there was a possibility that the only kidney transplant program in the entire state of Nevada was going to be closed?
Jon Ralston: “Have you thought about it enough…?”
Shelley Berkley: “I wasn’t thinking about the politics of it and I wasn’t worried about the politics.”
Jon Ralston: “This isn’t politics. This is the financial benefit side of it.”
Shelley Berkley: “IT DID NOT OCCUR TO ME. My only concern was to provide good health care in the state of Nevada for the people that live here. That’s it.”
Source: Jon Ralston, Face to Face, June 25, 2012. Guest: Shelley Berkley; http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/face-face/
But according to Shelley Berkley’s interview on PoliticsNow with Steve Sebelius, apparently it did occur to Shelley Berkley, or at least someone in her office.
Steve Sebelius: “Before you advocated on that…did you contact the House Ethics office and ask them is it appropriate, is it ok if I do this…?”
Shelley Berkley: “Let me say this, it’s my understanding that my office did contact the Ethics Committee but I didn’t personally do that. And all of the other issues that are involved with the ethics complaint and the ethics investigation, we’ve been asked to keep them confidential…”
Steve Sebelius: “Did you hear back from them?”
Shelley Berkley: “I don’t know. I don’t know and I can’t give you an answer…”
Source: Steve Sebelius, PoliticsNow, September 1, 2012:
As President Bill Clinton took center stage at the Democratic National Convention, let’s not forget what he said just four years ago about President Obama: “Give me a break.”
The Most Disturbing Image From The DNC Convention Last Night… Bill Clinton Bowing to Barack Obama!
(WASHINGTON D.C.) – BetterDirection.org, a project of the Independent Women’s Voice, today released a 30-second web video, “Boyfriend,” ahead of President Obama’s convention speech.
Women, who four years ago overwhelmingly supported candidate Obama based on his promise of a robust economic recovery and a new tone in Washington, are feeling a bit cheated.
For the first time this year President Obama is going through a rough patch with women, leaving him upside down on favorability rankings, with a majority (50%) of women voters, single and married alike, viewing him unfavorable while only 46% find him favorably.
Despite his dubious efforts to win women over, his policies have resulted in the real war on women: chronic unemployment, rising cost of living and a less-than thrilling economic recovery.
Perhaps if Obama learns some basic economics and implements policies to turn the relationship and our country around, women will give him another chance?
Melissa: I was so excited at first
Mary: I know
Melissa: He seemed so perfect
Mary: They always do
Melissa: And I could listen to him talk for hours
Mary: Did he ever do more than talk?
Melissa: I wanted to believe him.. I trusted him
Mary: Melissa.. we all did
Melissa: I’m tired of waiting for him to get his act together. It’s been almost four years
Mary: You can’t change him
Melissa: He always has an excuse for everything.. there’s always somebody else to blame
Mary: You can’t live on excuses
Melissa: Why do I always fall for guys like this?
Mary: You know you deserve better
BetterDirection.org is a project of the Independent Women’s Voice focused on advocating a better policy direction for the future of our country.
Independent Women’s Voice is a 501(c)(4) nonpartisan, nonprofit organization for mainstream women, men and families dedicated to promoting limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility.
Originally posted at the Center for Security Policy By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
In October 2001, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon issued a prophetic warning: “Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a ‘convenient temporary solution’.” He declared: “Israel will not be Czechoslovakia.”
Tragically, President Obama today is increasingly treating Israel as Western leaders did in abandoning the Czechs seventy-four years ago. He is signaling to a genocidal regime in Iran that the Jewish State is on its own – a signal like the one to which Hitler responded with the worst bloodletting in world history.
To be sure, Team Obama has engaged from the get-go in what Governor Mitt Romney has called “throwing allies like Israel under the bus.” For example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been treated with utter contempt by President Obama. His demands that the Jewish State make serial and unreciprocated concessions to its Palestinian enemies – including adopting indefensible borders – have been dictated in public and high-handed ways.
Even more troubling has been the cumulative effect of Obama policies towards the Middle East that are helping transform large swaths of the region into a festering Islamist sore, prone to jihad – most immediately against Israel and, inevitably, against the United States. In particular, Mr. Obama’s determination to legitimate, empower and enrich the government of Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi adds materially to the danger confronting the Jewish State and American interests.
The legitimation will reach new heights later this month when Morsi gets the red-carpet treatment in New York and Washington. The empowering included not just demands conveyed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July that the Egyptian military surrender power to Brotherhood-dominated presidency and legislature; it also apparently entails U.S. acquiescence to Morsi’s moves to remilitarize the Sinai in violation of the Camp David Accords. And the enriching piece involved an unconditional, lump-sum payment earlier this year, over bipartisan congressional objections, and is reportedly to be followed by the incipient transfer of a further $1 billion.
Predictably, as with the sell-out of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s, what such concessions will produce is an emboldening of freedom’s enemies. And that will not be good for its friends – abroad or here.
Much the same can be said of the Obama administration’s appeasement of Iran. Yes, it has reluctantly imposed – usually at the insistence of the Congress – sanctions on various aspects of the regime and its supporting industrial, commercial and security edifices. But in virtually every other regard, Team Obama has bought time for the mullahs to complete their nuclear weapons program and efforts to render it essentially invulnerable to attack through relocation of enrichment operations to hardened underground factories.
President Obama and his civilian and military subordinates have done just about everything short of a preemptive strike on the Jewish State to prevent the Israelis from trying to neutralize a looming existential threat to their nation. They are said to have employed both carrots and sticks – for example, promises of help with doing the deed after the election (trust us!) and evidently compromises of Israeli operational plans for recovering strike aircraft in Azerbaijan, which had the desired effect of foreclosing that option.
In the face of mounting evidence that Israel feels compelled to act alone and within the next two months, the Obama administration has become even more aggressive. In London last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, went so far as to declare his opposition to such an attack, saying, “I don’t want to be complicit if they choose to do it.”
While the exact meaning of that statement is unclear, an indication of what the general – and his boss, the Commander-in-Chief – have in mind might have been the subject of a report in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. It claims that U.S. diplomats have gone to third-parties to communicate to Iran that the United States will not support an Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear program provided the mullahs “steer clear of strategic American assets in the Persian Gulf.” One can almost hear Neville Chamberlain pledging no objection to the Chechs losing the Sudetenland to the Nazis as long as Hitler agreed to leave the French and Brits alone. While the White House spokesman says the report is “false,” it sure sounds right.
But what if Israel does attack Iran and Iran does retaliate – not only against U.S. “assets” in the Persian Gulf, but elsewhere including in this country? Can the possibility be ruled out that this President – simpatico as he clearly is with the Iranian regime and hostile as he clearly is towards Israel – responds by finding ways to punish the Jewish State that go beyond a refusal to sustain its military capabilities, as Nixon did in 1973? Could he even use the pretext of attacks by Iran or its proxies here to invoke the sweeping emergency powers he has granted himself and his subordinates in a series of executive orders to disrupt an election that might otherwise unseat him?
We cannot know the answers to such questions at the moment. We can only imagine, though, if this is how President Obama behaves on the eve of a national election in which Jewish votes may be critical to his bid for a second term, imagine how he will treat Israel if he has “more flexibility” post-November.
WASHINGTON, DC September 2012: A vital platform plank proclaiming that foreign laws must not be used in U.S. and State courts was included in the national Republican Party platform presented on August 27, 2012 at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. The platform language is consistent with the American Laws for American Courts model law developed by the American Public Policy Alliance
The American Public Policy Alliance applauds this principled and inclusive position taken by the GOP, and urges the Democratic Party to amend its current platform with similar language at the convention this week in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The platform states, in a section entitled We The People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government, under the heading American Sovereignty in U.S. Courts:
Subjecting American citizens to foreign laws is inimical to the spirit of the Constitution. … There must be no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws. Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts’ adjudication of criminal or civil matters.
The platform further states, in a Section entitled Reforming Government to Serve the People, under the heading Judicial Activism: A Threat To The U.S. Constitution:
The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Judicial Activism which includes reliance on foreign law or unratified treaties undermines American law.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, provided a video commentary on the Republican platform position here in which he emphasized the need for this platform position, to protect all Americans from enforcement of unconstitutional foreign laws. This need has been illustrated emphatically in the Center for Security Policy’s 2011 report entitled Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. In that report, the Center identified 50 legal cases from 23 U.S. states involving conflicts between American state laws and foreign Shariah (Islamic law) from 16 foreign countries.
The key findings: In 27 of those legal cases at the trial or appellate level, the courts ruled in favor of the foreign laws over American state laws, in spite of conflicts with the Constitution and state public policies.
Alarmingly, there are lobbyists and activists who actually want foreign Shariah law to rule in American courts. These advocates for Shariah law have found even more cases – 72 cases so far - which are posted as legal precedents by Shariah lawyer and expert witness Abed Awad, at his website promoting Sharia in America.
Fortunately, in states that pass the inclusive American Laws for America Courts bill, the courts will have clear guidance to extend constitutional due process and equal protection to all American citizens and legal residents, without regard to anyone’s religion or nation of origin.
The Republican platform plank, which was adopted unanimously without objection by the 112 delegates serving on the Platform Committee, and then adopted without objection by the delegates to the convention, was spearheaded by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who served as one of two Kansas delegates.
It was no coincidence that the Kansas delegation was at the forefront of the effort to include a plank in the party platform, as Kansas became the latest state to pass American Laws for American Courts legislation into law in May 2012. The American Laws for American Courts bill has also been enacted into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arizona – and never challenged in court on constitutional or any other grounds.
Secretary Kobach told former Congressman Fred Grandy on Secure Freedom Radio that the intent of his amendment was to urge all states to follow the example set by Kansas, Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona and pass American Laws for American Courts legislation.
Stephen M. Gele, a director of the American Public Policy Alliance, stated that “the 2012 Republican Platform clearly supports the protection of American Constitutional rights from encroachment of foreign law, which is the essence of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation. We call upon Republican State legislators and governors to honor their party platform by supporting ALAC in their states, and the Democratic Party should honor the scores of Democrats who have already voted for ALAC in state legislatures by including similar planks in the Democratic Party platform.”
The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA), a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to government transparency, government accountability and the constitutionality of U.S. and state laws and policies, is working with legislators nationwide on policies and initiatives. Along with allied organizations, APPA is working to defend free speech, preserve and promote human rights, maintain the strength of our U.S. and state constitutions, and aid and promote public safety.
One of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today comes from foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines which have been influencing our legal system at the municipal, state and federal levels. This phenomenon is known as “transnationalism” and includes the increasingly frequent appearance of Islamic Shariah law. APPA focuses largely on combating this process across a broad variety of issues.
For more information visit http://www.publicpolicyalliance.org