2012 Presidential Election

[Valin]

 

Love it!

 

Now I could be wrong but I am detecting a little spin from Scott.

[Geee]

 

Love it!

[righteousmomma]

Hannity has a good interview with Senator Rand Paul in which Paul says he loves and supports his dad but now that Romney is the nominee he is thoroughly behind him and will support and campaign on Romney's behalf. Says America will not survive 4 more years of the o or the Dems.

[Valin]

OMG! Mitt Romney is (oh ick!) Rich!

 

Am I the only one who didn't know Mitt Romney was rich!

[Draggingtree]

National Review

 

 

June 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Obama’s Third-Party History

New documents shed new light on his ties to a leftist party in the 1990s.

By Stanley Kurtz

 

 

 

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising

read more http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz

[Draggingtree]

Kopp OnLine

 

Ist Obama ein Kommunist?

Jeff Nyquist

Am 5. Mai startete Präsident Barack Obama offiziell seine Kampagne zur Wiederwahl. Warum gerade am 5. Mai? Wie Obama und seine Freunde zweifellos wissen, ist der 5. Mai der Geburtstag von Karl Marx. Vielleicht handelt es sich hier nur um einen Zufall? Würde es Sie überraschen, zu erfahren, dass Obama von einer »linken Aktivistin« namens Alice Palmer in die Politik eingeführt wurde?

 

Obama war im Jahr 1995 Palmers designierter Nachfolger im 13. Wahlbezirk des Senats von Illinois. Vielleicht ist es auch nur Zufall, dass Palmer am 27. Kongress der KPdSU teilgenommen hat, über den sie einen begeisterten Bericht verfasste (siehe hierzu: Discover the networks). Palmer arbeitete auch für den US-Friedensrat – eine kommunistische Frontorganisation. Aber das ist sicher alles ohne Bedeutung, denn Barack Obama sagt, er ist kein Kommunist.

 

snip Read More http://info.kopp-ver...kommunist-.html

 

This news has not only made the rounds in the conservative media here in the United States, but is making news overseas in a German paper; Kopp Online: Ist Obama ein Kommunist?

[Draggingtree]

German Paper: “Ist Obama ein Kommunist?”

 

June, 7, 2012 — nicedeb

 

 

Here is a rough translation of what is being reported about Dear Leader overseas:

But the fact (is ) that Obama has many connections to people who are involved in the international communist movement. The question that we do not dare to ask is, of course, why Obama concealing his ideological beliefs. Many will reply that it was surely only a coincidence that he has just started on the birthday of Karl Marx his campaign. Many will reply that ignorance is the reason that Obama has a Marxist activists (Van Jones) has been appointed as his Special Representative for the Green Jobs Initiative. And many claim to be, it did not matter that Obama’s former mentor Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party.

As the journalist Stanley Kurtz Obama looked past as a “community organizer” he began by the question: “What in the world makes such a> community organizer, ‘” The answer to this question gives us Kurtz, in his book Radical-In -Chief: Barack Obama: The Untold Story of American Socialism.

Read More

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/

This news has not only made the rounds in the conservative media here in the United States, but is making news overseas in a German paper; Kopp Online: Ist Obama ein Kommunist?

[Pepper]

@Draggintree

 

Er ist ein Kommunist und ein Nitvit

[righteousmomma]

gut vune , herr pepper. ve hope er ausfart en November.

[nickydog]

Pepper and righteousmomma!

[Draggingtree]

@Draggintree

 

Er ist ein Kommunist und ein Nitvit

Nitvit in his case = stupid (not fooish)

[Draggingtree]

By Good Lt. at 10:40 AM

 

 

 

Doing Fine?

 

 

Posted by Chairman Reince Priebus (Diary)

Friday, June 8th at 5:00PM EDT

31 Comments

Obama can’t fix a problem he can’t see.

No, you heard him right. At a press conference this morning, the President of the United States

, “The private sector is doing fine.”

Mr. President, are you paying attention? Take off the rose-colored glasses. (Although, thanks to your fashion industry fundraising friends, I’m sure they’re very stylish rose-colored glasses.)

The private sector is small businesses. It’s middle class families that run them. It’s entrepreneurs and start ups and job creators. And it’s not “doing fine.” Read More http://www.redstate.com/reincepriebus/2012/06/08/doing-fine/

[Valin]

Barack Obama visits small town America and gets in touch with the little people.

[Draggingtree]

@Draggintree

 

Er ist ein Kommunist und ein Nitvit

 

 

'New Party' Literature Suggests Obama Paid Dues to Join

by John Sexton6 hours ago

n the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama's involvement with Chicago's extremist "New Party," online literature from the Party likely reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to commit financially to membership.

 

This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing for the affirmative, Kurtz demonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.

First, there's a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz originally raised the question of Obama's involvement with the New Party back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved and referred to the allegation as a "crackpot smear." Ben Smith, then at Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party because the New Party didn't have members.

On Thursday, Kurtz announced the discovery of new documents that supported his original claim. In particular, he found minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting which read: Read More

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/08/New-Party-Literature-Suggests-Obama-Paid-Dues-to-Join

[Draggingtree]

Barack Obama visits small town America and gets in touch with the little people.

Obama meeting with athletes 06/08/2012

Read More http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/06/obama-meeting-with-athletes/000191-002293.html

[Draggingtree]

@Draggintree

 

Er ist ein Kommunist und ein Nitvit

Posted on June 8, 2012 by Paul Mirengoff in Barack Obama

Barack Obama — still a “social democrat” after all these years

As I discussed yesterday, Stanley Kurtz has found conclusive new evidence that, in 1996, Barack Obama joined the New Party, the political arm of the radical group ACORN. The Obama campaign had denied this fact when Kurtz raised the matter during the last presidential campaign. The Obama campaign lied.

Kurtz has a longer story in the National Review (available online only to subscribers) about Obama’s membership in the New Party. The article expands on Kurtz’s discussion of what the New Party was about:

What was the New Party’s ideology? National cofounders Daniel Cantor and Joel Rogers saw the group as a “social democratic” party, roughly modeled on the Swedish labor movement. A party standing on the left side of even Sweden’s political spectrum would clearly be radical by American standards. While Cantor and Rogers initially hoped to make the New Party’s social-democratic stance explicit, other party leaders saw such openness as too risky. An early New Party document, however, makes the party’s social democratic stance very clear.

This manifesto, “The New Party:‘Building the New Majority,’” is dated April 1992, the very beginning of the party’s existence, just before formal membership sign-up began. It calls New Party members “not just liberal” Democrats but “social democrats.” http://www.powerline.../2012/06/barack-obama-still-a-social-democrat-after-all-these-years.php

[Draggingtree]

POSTED ON JUNE 7, 2012 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BARACK OBAMA

“HE COULD BE PRESIDENT NOW IF HE WANTED TO BE”

I am not a particular fan of Peggy Noonan, for a lot of reasons. But every now and then she makes a point in a way so simple and insightful that its truth is overpowering. That was the case in her Wall Street Journal column today, on Wisconsin and its aftermath. Much of what she said was true but familiar. But then we have this:

President Obama’s problem now isn’t what Wisconsin did, it’s how he looks each day—careening around, always in flight, a superfluous figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn’t go to Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker’s place, where the money is.

There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. …

Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that’s all he is now, that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly, on every issue. He isn’t even trying to lead, he’s just trying to win.

Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are becoming a national scandal—the “avalanche of leaks,” according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out of the administration. Snip Read More http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/a-blinding-flash-of-insight-from-peggy-noonan.php

[Valin]

Barack Obama visits small town America and gets in touch with the little people.

Obama meeting with athletes 06/08/2012

Read More http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/06/obama-meeting-with-athletes/000191-002293.html

 

Unlike the 4th best President they at least have done something.

[Valin]

[nickydog]

Can I make a totally mindless, female comment and say I think she looks great and I like the look without the bangs?

[Draggingtree]

Can I make a totally mindless, female comment and say I think she looks great and I like the look without the bangs?

I think from a male point of view

[Draggingtree]

Sunday, June 10, 2012

 

 

 

 

Headwinds: One Long Excuse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Via Bloomberg:

 

 

 

The errand boy sent by grocery clerks has talked about them at least seventeen times in the past three years.

 

 

 

That’s how many times the Republican National Committee has recorded the president talking about those headwinds on tape—Obama on a factory floor, Obama in the Rose Garden, Obama in the Oval Office, Obama with Angela Merkel and Obama with a voter at a coffee-counter—“headwinds” again and again and again.

 

Picture and subject thanks to

 

http://politicalclownparade.blogspot.com/2012/06/headwinds-one-long-excuse.html

[Draggingtree]

Chicago Tribune

June 10, 2012

Quick — who's the most fearless politician in America? Not the one with whom you most agree. Not the one whose dulcet words and seductive smile best say, You people have no choice but to love me. No, who's the politician who courageously risks his or her career with every provocative proposal — and who doesn't care if multitudes of us flagrantly disagree?

Clues: He lives beyond The Cheddar Curtain. And on Tuesday he decisively won an election.

Scott Walker, the governor so polarizing that TV talking heads have made that adjective part of his name, took office early last year committed to live or die by his agenda for rescuing Wisconsin from deficit spending and dangerous debt. You decide the significance of his introducing his bombastic 2011 legislative package on Feb. 14 — a toxic Valentine, perhaps, to his apoplectic opponents.

And on Tuesday, Walker not only lived, he lived large. He had delivered solutions. We'll pause here for the side debate on whether his style — choose uncompromising or obnoxious, principled or vicious — is one to emulate.

On this we all can agree: Wisconsin's election was a referendum on Walker. All else paled. A traditionally liberal electorate knew he had made mistakes, then decided that, on balance, his policies had helped his state. That conclusion — not whichever Democratic candidate opposed him — sealed Walker's fate.

We invoke Wisconsin not to predict the outcome of the nationwide presidential race, but rather for what it teaches about the sitting president.

On Nov. 6, 2011, when we launched this series of occasional editorials on a defining contest in a divided nation, we didn't anticipate that the election of Nov. 6, 2012, would narrow in scope to a referendum on Barack Obama. But it has.

Yes, the balky U.S. economic recovery and the rise of taxpayer debt (see today's companion editorial) were destined to play large roles, and they have. But over the past seven months, Americans mostly have used these issues as prisms through which to view the one overarching issue of this yearlong campaign cycle: Obama, yes or no. Vote.

We wish the White House understood that Americans won't make their choice because of Bain Capital, or Romneycare in Massachusetts, or whether the Republican nominee transported his dog atop his car. No, the issue is the president.

Like their Wisconsin brethren, other Americans, too, are split on how to move forward. They're judging Obama on how he responds to challenging times. They would allow him some mistakes. But they need to see how he addresses an array of problems — the meltdown of Europe's overspent welfare states, the showdown over Iranian nukes, the rising clamor from both major parties over national security leaks.

In her weekend column, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan writes that as these tumults build, Americans don't see their president leading; they instead see him dashing between celebrity fundraisers: "He's busy. He's running for president. But why? He could be president now if he wanted to be."

The Obama campaign has settled on an unfortunate strategy of stoking class envy: We'll demonize the rich guy. That message has utilitarian merit but already it's muddled, exhausted.

Even Bill Clinton publicly praises Mitt Romney's

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-nation-20120610,0,2461741.story

[Draggingtree]

June 10, 2012

Mark Steyn on 'Our Celebrity President'

Rick Moran

 

 

Leave it to the master wordsmith to identify, define, and then skewer President Obama's "celebrity fundraising presidency."

NRO:

So far this year, President Obama has been to three times as many fundraisers as President Bush had attended by this point in the 2004 campaign. This is what the New York Post calls his "torrid pace," although judging from those remarks in California he's about as torrid as an overworked gigolo staggering punchily through the last mambo of the evening. According to Brendan J. Doherty's forthcoming book The Rise of the President's Permanent Campaign, Obama has held more fundraisers than the previous five presidents' reelection campaigns combined.

Any American can attend an Obama event for a donation of a mere $35,800 - the cost of the fundraiser hosted by Dreamworks honcho Jeffrey Katzenberg, and the one hosted by Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and the one hosted by Will Smith and Jada Pinkett, and the one hosted by Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas, and the one hosted by Crosby, Stills, and Nash. $35,800 is a curiously non-round figure. Perhaps the ticket cost is $36,000, but under Obamacare there's a $200 co-pay. Those of us who grew up in hidebound, class-ridden monarchies are familiar with the old proverb that a cat can look at a king. But in America only a cool cat can look at the king. Read more: NRO: http://www.americant...l#ixzz1xPW0CA1V

[righteousmomma]

Mind boggling that the ChicagO Tribune actually has an editorial recognizing that it may be about their golden one. Of course there is still no mention of his left wing IDEOLOGY. Least it's a start.