Q: When is it time for Obama supporters to panic?
A: When the largest daily newspaper in Chicago endorses… Mitt Romney.
Choice of quotes via Breitbart.
In endorsing Illinois’ favorite son in 2008, we declared Obama “has a chance to be a great president.” We said, “He offers a new kind of politics. A politics that breaks down the old partisan walls. A politics that strives to bring people together. A politics of hope.”…
But four years later, where is the hope? Where is the confident swagger and leadership to uplift the nation’s mood?…
[W]e endorse Romney because he, unlike Obama, understands that jobs are a creation of business, not of government. And that to encourage job growth, we need policies that incent business to grow and provide it with a stable environment for that growth.
In the end, we need moderation, not ideology, to facilitate an economic recovery. It is the central issue that affects us all.
As the voice of the suburbs, we always have embraced this free enterprise philosophy as a bedrock of our principles. We view ourselves as independent, fiscally conservative, socially progressive, an advocate always for individual liberty. The Mitt Romney who governed Massachusetts governed it for the most part on those core beliefs as well….
Mitt Romney for president.
CHICAGO (CBS) — Chicago surpassed last year’s total of 435 homicides Monday when a man died after being shot, authorities said.
The victim was one of two people wounded in separate shootings that occurred just four blocks and half an hour apart Monday morning in the South Chicago neighborhood.
The first shooting occurred at 9:51 a.m. in the 8000 block of South Manistee Avenue, police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli said.
A male, whose age was not immediately known, was hospitalized for multiple gunshot wounds to the leg and arm. He was reported in serious condition.
The second shooting occurred at 10:34 a.m. when a man in his 30s was shot in the 7900 block of South Escanaba Avenue.
He was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office, which had no further information on the victim.
Area South detectives are investigating.
This comes after a man was shot and killed inside a home late Sunday on the South Side, marking the city’s 435th homicide of the year — equaling the total last year.
Bariffe Fitz, 68, was found shot in the chest about 11 p.m. inside a residence in the 9400 block of South La Salle Street.
“It’s a disappointing milestone,” Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said on the CBS 2 Morning News. “You can’t manage this and you can’t talk about murder in a positive fashion.”
While murders in Chicago will easily exceed last year’s total, the murder rate has been declining since April 1, when police began to initiate new gang-fighting strategies, McCarthy said. The numbers are high because of a big spike in violence in the first three months of the year, McCarthy said.
I was watching all the coverage about the super duper storm called Sandy, and noticed that every time they showed the Wall Street area, all these useless sandbags. Really, notice how high they are and that they are open at either end. Like how is this going to stop water?
Obama and the Women’s Lobby
The Affordable Care Act mentions “breast” 44 times, “prostate” not once. It also establishes an elaborate and expensive network of special programs to promote women’s health. Programs for men are nowhere to be found. What explains the imbalance?
When President Obama took office, he promised to insulate his administration from organized lobbyists. Yet, from day one, he granted the women’s lobby unprecedented influence. The results should trouble fair-minded feminists.
The 2009 stimulus program set the pattern. The president had originally called for a two-year “shovel-ready” plan to modernize roads, bridges, electrical grids, and dams. Women’s activists were appalled. Op-eds appeared with titles like “Where Are the New Jobs for Women?” and “The Macho Stimulus Plan.” More than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Mr. Obama not to favor a “heavily male-dominated field” like construction: “We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges.” Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), attacked the “testosterone-laden ‘shovel-ready’ terminology.” Christina Romer, who chaired the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, would later say, “The very first e-mail I got . . . was from a women’s group saying, ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.’”
The president’s original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct transfer programs. The whole idea was to get Americans back to work, and it was “burly men” who had lost most of the jobs following the financial collapse of 2008. But as protests mounted, the president’s team reconfigured the bill according to NOW’s specifications. In a column entitled “Economic Recovery: What’s NOW Got to Do with It?” Gandy could hardly contain her elation: “As we looked through the act, over and over we saw reflections of the very specific proposals that we had made, and with big numbers next to them. Numbers that started with a ‘B’ (as in billion).” To read Gandy’s column is to understand why shovels are still standing idle and the stimulus was such a disappointment
A year later, the 2010 Affordable Care Act created an Office of Women’s Health, a National Women’s Health Information Center, a Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health, and more — right down to the mandate that universities pay for students’ birth-control pills.
The average lifespan of American men is five years shorter than women’s, and men contract the big diseases several years earlier. According to the American Cancer Society, men’s lifetime risk of developing cancer is approximately 1 in 2; for women, it is 1 in 3. But the Act is informed by the spirit of NOW and other women’s organizations such as the American Association of University Women. It would never occur to these groups that the health and longevity of men are matters of interest to women. To them, relations between the sexes are a zero-sum game — and their role is to fight for women and against men.
Most striking of all is the Obama administration’s blindness to the growing problem of male academic underachievement. Girls outshine boys by nearly every measure of classroom success. They earn better grades, take more advanced-placement and honors courses in high school, and are far more likely to go to college. Women earn 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 63 percent of master’s degrees, and 53 percent of doctoral degrees. According to a recent Harvard study (“Pathways to Prosperity”), the new passport to the American Dream “is education beyond high school.” Today, far more women than men have that passport.
Yet the president persists in acting as if our schools are a hostile learning environment for girls, one that warrants aggressive federal intervention. Pressured by groups like the AAUW and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), the White House recently announced that the Department of Education would be adopting a more rigorous application of Title IX to career, technology, and engineering programs in high school and college — to stop the alleged boy-favoritism that is shortchanging girls. To avoid federal investigations that threaten withdrawal of financial support, programs will simply enroll fewer males.
President Obama explained his rationale in a Newsweek op-ed: “Let’s not forget, Title IX isn’t just about sports. . . . Title IX ensures equality for our young people in every aspect of their education. . . . I’ve said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it.” But it is our underachieving young men that destiny is leaving behind. Using the federal government’s power to unleash divisive gender politics on our schools is the last thing the president should be doing.
Within living memory, the American women’s movement was a broad-based, bipartisan vehicle for social equality. It achieved historic victories that changed American society dramatically for the better. Unfortunately, in recent years it has become a hard-nosed, K Street–style interest group — one that works without embarrassment for special deals for women.
I have never entertained the idea that Obama was a Muslim and always believed he was a socialist. But Obama’s behavior over the last four years regarding Islam has convinced me that Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered worldview — a combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world.
Having been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the seventies, I have witnessed socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism, and even communism, have managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to full-fledged Sharia. The two ideologies have blended together in cases including the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies, such as the United States, are alien to Islam and socialism both because they regard government as a servant of the people and hold that human rights are granted by God and not by government or the code of Sharia.
Both Sharia and socialism are united in their envy of Western society and need to change it. That is why Obama has become the savior of both Islam and socialism. He embodies both ideologies. The claim that Obama is a Christian was a silly joke, but a necessary lie for the greater cause of changing America to fit the goals of both creeds.
Obama became the One, the savior of both Islam and socialists. To do that, Obama had to deny who he really was, which explains why his actions and words have never added up. At the recent Alfred E. Smith Catholic Charity dinner speech, Obama did not seem to be just kidding when he said that Romney uses his middle name Mitt and “I wish I could use my middle name.” Obama was referring, of course, to his Islamic middle name of Hussein. In Obama’s mind, he was not ashamed for having deceived America — he blamed America for putting him in the position of having to deny his true pride in his middle name.
The New Obama Campaign Poster:
Why Is Obama so Nasty and Vulgar?
Rude, insulting language about Romney (“bullsh****r) from the president. Vulgar sexual innuendo, aimed at seducing young women to vote for him. The vice president asking a bereaved parent about the size of his murdered son’s testicles. It’s quite a spectacle. We’re a fractious people, and our politics have always been full of colorful language, but I can’t recall the current depth of vulgarity. The “politics of personal destruction” have gotten uglier. Does it mean anything? Should we try to understand it?
First, it bespeaks a coarsening of public language. No surprise there (Romney’s gentlemanlyness is more surprising, in fact); for a long time our movies and television have abandoned the rules that banned certain words and phrases. Still, until recently, our political leaders have avoided such vulgarities, at least in their public rhetoric. No more, at least at the highest level of the current Democrat Party.
Second, it shows the shrinking vocabulary of our political life. There are plenty of usable and powerful synonyms of “buls*****r,” but a graduate of Harvard Law School didn’t have any of them on the tip of his tongue. Or perhaps he just preferred the vulgarity.
Third, it is yet another step in the erasure of the line that once divided public and private. We always knew that there was (sometimes) a big difference between public image and private behavior. No man (except maybe Sir Winston) is a hero to his valet, etc. etc. But still, there were proprieties, rules for public decorum, and those who fell from grace in public were criticized and excoriated for falling. No more, at least so far as I can see among the Democrat faithful.
To be sure, there’s a difference between the two parties. When male Republican candidates make disgusting and ridiculous statements about rape, the faithful turn on them, properly so IMHO, but neither Obama nor Biden has come in for punishment for their use of obscenities and vulgarities.
So the rules for proper decorum are out the window, and the former arbiters of good taste are on board, ratifying the changes by their silence. It’s a shame, but there you have it.
But the arbiters–the intellectuals, the elite punditocracy et. al.–can’t dictate standards to the rest of us, even though they often delude themselves into believing they can. The politicians who indulge in the new nastiness clearly believe it’s fine with us, because they think their elitist friends dictate standards to the rest of us. I think they’re wrong. When only EIGHT PERCENT of Americans have a positive view of the media, it tells you something, after all. And when I read about the sudden 7 percent drop in Obama’s approval ratings in three days, I suspect it has something to do with bulls*****r and losing-your-virginity-is-like-voting-for-Barack ads, and Biden’s disgusting remarks to a bereaved father.
It’s a continuation of a process that began with the first debate, in which Obama tip-toed out from behind the curtain on the central stage of Oz, and showed us who he really is. Not a great leader, certainly not a messianic figure. Indeed, as we now see, he’s a bum. It’s a shock to lots of Americans, who previously were willing to grant that the president had his faults but was basically a good man, a nice guy, and a cultured gentleman. He showed them he was none of those things.
I think that was a real shock to a meaningful chunk of the electorate, and it would not have been nearly so potent if it had come from a book or an oped. Its power comes from the fact that Obama showed it himself.
It shouldn’t have been hard to foresee the consequences of his self-revelation. So why did he do it? He’s certainly capable of dissimulation. The One who won the presidency four years ago did not present himself this way. He and his acolytes very carefully portrayed him as a transcendent figure, a new kind of leader, the incarnation of elegance and brilliance. And that succeeded. So what’s up?
I think he’s cracking, and the inner nastiness and vulgarity are on display. He’s losing, and he’s angry, and he can no longer sustain the pretense of elegance and coolness.
Nobody ever said he was disciplined, did they?
Moreover, he is the victim of his own myth, the “I have a special gift” legend that is the core doctrine of his powerful narcissism. He thinks he is so charismatic, and so wonderful, that if we see him in all his splendor, we will love him as he so loves himself.
Romney, Not Obama, Shows Concern For Nation’s Poor
CINCINNATI – There’s an odd imbalance that few have noticed in this presidential campaign. In the midst of a continuing economic downturn, one candidate talks regularly about poverty, and the other doesn’t. The one who does is the Republican, Mitt Romney.
He’s done it for a long time. Go back to Romney’s March 30 speech in Appleton, Wis., in which he introduced the charge that President Obama is creating a “government-centered society.” “Over 46 million Americans are now living in poverty, more than ever before in our nation’s history,” Romney said. “In households with single moms, over 39 percent are living in poverty.”
In speech after speech since then, Romney has included the nation’s poverty rate in his case against Obama. “Today, more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before,” he said in his address to the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., on Aug. 30. “Look around you. These are not strangers. These are our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans.” Romney also brought up poverty at both presidential debates that covered domestic policy.
In contrast, President Obama rarely utters the word, and usually not in a campaign context. For example, he mentioned poverty at the dedication of the Cesar Chavez National Monument in Keene, Calif., on Oct. 8, but mostly to discuss the conditions Chavez addressed in the 1960s and ’70s. Obama spoke the word again in his Sept. 25 address to the United Nations — also not a campaign speech — but only in the context of discussing religious tolerance around the world.
In his speech to the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., Obama said “poverty” twice, once when discussing a hypothetical “little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college,” and later when declaring, “We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone.” Neither reference suggested there is a particularly acute poverty problem right now.
In short, even though the fight against poverty has long been associated with Democrats, and even though he is in a tight re-election race, and even though poverty is a particularly compelling problem at the moment, Barack Obama ignores the issue when it comes time to campaign. A sky-high poverty rate doesn’t fit his theme that things are getting better. So he doesn’t talk about it.
But the problem is still there. According to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate has gone from 12.5 percent in 2007 to 13.2 percent in 2008 to 14.3 percent in 2009 to 15.1 percent in 2010 to 15.0 percent in 2011. The last time it was higher than 15.1 percent was in 1965, when the nation’s anti-poverty programs were just taking effect.
According to aides, Romney has thought about, and been concerned about, poverty his entire life. They point to a biographical video the Romney campaign produced for the Republican convention and now plays before campaign events around the country. The video features old film of George Romney, Mitt’s father, saying, “I’ve been poor. I’ve worked from the time I was 12. I know what poverty is, I’ve been up through it.”
Indeed, on the stump, Mitt Romney often talks about his father’s modest beginnings. “There were times in my dad’s life when he lived in poverty,” Romney said in a speech to a Hispanic group in June. “My dad didn’t finish college … He held odd jobs — lath and plaster and selling paint. He was lucky enough to live in America, where hard work can turn aspirations into realities.” The elder Romney went on to become CEO of American Motors and, later, governor of Michigan.
Of course, Mitt Romney never lived in poverty and is today fabulously wealthy. But he heard his father every day growing up, and it’s probably fair to say that he hears him still today. And so Romney thinks about poverty and what to do about it. He believes his proposals to spur economic growth will lift large numbers of Americans out of poverty. And he’s willing to talk about it.
The irony is that, after the leak of the “47 percent” video on Sept. 17, Romney has fought the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. But the fact is, if you listen to both Romney and Obama on the stump, you will hear concern about the nation’s poor from one candidate and virtually nothing from the other.
Wonder how many did go to the local bar and going to sit out the storm?
Something else the left wing media aren’t telling you about Benghazi
Witnesses who live near the U.S. Consulate report that Islamic terrorists were sealing off streets and setting up checkpoints two hours before the attacks began.
Obama’s Trust and Transparency
Why does it take an investigation for President Obama to tell the American people what he knew and what he did or didn’t do in response to calls for help from Americans under enemy fire in Benghazi?
It doesn’t. He’s the gate keeper of his own mind.
Consider what Obama told KYLE CLARK of Colorado’s 9News.com on Oct. 27, when he asked Obama about Benghazi:
KYLE CLARK: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”
Obama said: “The minute I found out what was happening.”
Which minute was that? He used the present tense, meaning the attack was occurring when he learned about it. Did he watch any of the seven to eight hours of live feed from a Drone circling above the battle?
Obama said he “gave three very clear directives.”
“Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”
What does “securing our personnel” mean? What personnel? What specific directives did he give and to whom? He mentioned “the state department, the military, the CIA” Who else?
“Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again.” Why was Obama concerned about an investigation to prevent reoccurrence during an ongoing attack with American lives at stake?
“Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”
Former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty fought gallantly together on the roof of the CIA safe house, pointing a laser on those who were firing mortars at them. They called for help twice.
Help didn’t come. Both men died. Obama refuses to tell Americans why he didn’t bring justice to the terrorists then and there.
It’s about trust and transparency.
Obama claims that we know him and can trust him, unlike Mitt Romney.
Romney can’t be trusted as President, Obama told those attending a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio on Oct. 24:
“There’s no more serious issue in a presidential campaign than trust. … Trust matters. You want to know that the person who’s applying to be your president and commander in chief is trustworthy, that he means what he says, that he’s not just making stuff up depending on whether it’s convenient or not.”
Obama pledged on Jan. 21, 2009, that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency?”
Instead, we have a cover up, aided by mainstream media, which portends to be worse than Watergate. Nixon lied but nobody died.
The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Watergate paper of record, have buried Benghazi on back pages. The Post’s endorsement of Obama was page one on Oct. 25, and with an editorial on Oct. 26. And Big Bird’s Beak is sealed.
Obama might want to put Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on bayonet watch, judging by her comments during her press conference on Oct. 24. She barely looked up and chuckled inappropriately about “an attack like this.”
What were her “clear directives”? What did she do to locate Ambassador Chris Stevens when she learned that he was missing as a result of the attack?
Were Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s “clear directives” to do nothing militarily? According to Bloomberg News, Oct. 25:
“Panetta said the U.S. military lacked intelligence needed to respond during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, during which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. ‘The basic principle is don’t deploy into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on,’ Panetta said today at a Pentagon news conference. He said he and top generals ‘felt very strongly’ that deploying forces sooner wasn’t the right option.”
Seven hours of real time video taken by a Drone hovering above the attack site wasn’t sufficient intelligence to send a fighter jet or a gunship to strafe a crowd waving guns and torching the consulate?
Is Panetta admitting that he advised Obama not to intervene militarily, or did Panetta advise intervention and Obama refused?
CIA Director David Patraeus issued a statement that raises questions about Obama’s “clear directives.” According to Fox News on Oct 26, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied claims that requests for support were refused.
“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”
Is Patraeus acknowledging that it was a CIA Drone circling above the attack site that was providing the Agency’s “aid to our colleagues”? Was it armed? Is that all Obama directed Patraeus to do?
There are more questions for Obama that don’t require an investigation: