Category Archives: white house

Obama wins hustle Romney wins debate, John Sununu trumps Queen of media bias and stupidity Soledad O’Brien, Facts not lies win debates and voters

Obama wins hustle Romney wins debate, John Sununu trumps Queen of media bias and stupidity Soledad O’Brien, Facts not lies win debates and voters

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”…Candy Crowley

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

Rush Limbaugh today stated that he believed that Romney won the debate. I agree. Focus groups gauging the reaction of formerly undecided voters confirm the win as well.

Obama, as usual, won the lie contest. Obama the hustler.

From GOPUSA October 17, 2012.

“CNN Anchor Slammed Over Twisting of Obama Statement on Libya”

“Don’t mess with John Sununu… at least if you don’t come armed with the facts. That’s what CNN’s Soledad O’Brien found out when she tried to imply that Mitt Romney erred at Tuesday night’s debate when he called out Barack Obama over the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

First, a review for those of you who missed the debate and have not followed the timeline regarding the murders in Libya and Obama’s public statements regarding them. Make no mistake… Barack Obama and his team purposely tried (and are still trying) to mislead the American people over the cause of the attack.

September 11, 2012 — Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens were murdered in a terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The very next day, Obama gives a speech in the Rose Garden talking about the murders. The full transcript can be found here. The important passage as follows:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

When you look at the context of the full speech AND the exact words as presented here, it is clear that this is a GENERIC statement of American policy. Basically, acts of terror will not be condoned. Barack Obama did NOT say that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist act.

Here’s the video of the speech:

So… what happened next? September 11, 2012 was a Tuesday. On that Sunday, September 16, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on five talk shows and mentioned NOTHING about a terrorist attack. She said over and over again that it was a spontaneous uprising because of an anti-muslim Internet video.

Barack Obama was interviewed by Univision and asked if the attack was terrorism. He said he’d get back to them. He was asked on The View… same response. Obama also made a speech to the United Nations and NEVER mentioned that the murders were an act of terrorism. Oh… but he did mention the Internet video six times.

Why is all this important? Because during the debate, Obama made it sound as if he stated it was a terrorist attack the very next day:

Candy Crowley’s behavior here was not only unprofessional, it was wrong. She was wrong when she sided with Obama. As pointed out by Fox News, in a interview on CNN, Crowley admitted she was wrong:

The moderator in Tuesday night’s presidential debate, after appearing to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start, conceded afterward that Mitt Romney was “right” on the broader point — that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.

“He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word,” Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.

Crowley was referring to the tense exchange in the final half-hour of the debate, when Romney questioned whether Obama had called the attack an “act of terror” rather than “spontaneous” violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.

So Romney was right. We all know he was right. For days and days, Barack Obama and his team perpetuated a lie. The murders were never about an Internet video. And yet, that’s what he kept saying. At the debate, he tried to step back from that storyline, and Romney would have hammered him on it if not interrupted by Crowley.

Those are the facts, and yet, people like Soledad O’Brien continue to spin for Obama. Watch John Sununu work his magic:

It’s unreal that O’Brien tries to label as fact something that does not exist. Obama did not say the Libyan murders were a terrorist act. Yet she goes on and on.

Even though the economy still is front and center on the minds of most Americans, this is a HUGE issue. Please inform people about it. Why would Obama perpetuate a story about a video knowing that it was untrue? What does he have to gain by that? To make it seem that is efforts against terrorism are working? Guess what? They aren’t!”

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2012/10/17/cnn-anchor-slammed-over-twisting-of-obama-statement-on-libya/?subscriber=1

For her Orwellian efforts to prop up Obama,  Soledad O’Brien and CNN are awarded 5 Orwells.

Candy Crowley bias aids Obama lies, Romney succeeds despite Crowley’s efforts to select questions fact check Libya terror statement and cut off Romney, Crowley awarded 5 Orwells

Candy Crowley bias aids Obama lies, Romney succeeds despite Crowley’s efforts to select questions fact check Libya terror statement and cut off Romney, Crowley awarded 5 Orwells

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”…Candy Crowley

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984”

This is a teachable moment. Candy Crowley’s performance in the Obama Romney debate last night was predictable. She has a history of liberal slant, she is a member of the mainstream media and she works for CNN.

Are there enough intelligent, informed and concerned Americans left out there to discern the truth? Obama lied again and Candy Crowley helped him.

From the Washington Times October 17, 2012.

“Another debate, another debacle for America’s media.

In the runup to the second presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley declared that she would not just be a “fly on the wall” as she played the tiny role of moderator, that she would step in whenever she chose to say, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”

And boy did she, cutting off Republican Mitt Romney repeatedly and often throwing the floor to President Obama with an open “let me give the president a chance here.”

More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called “undecided” voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama — Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her).

She even chose this question, directed to both men: “I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”

Ms. Crowley, who called Mr. Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate a “ticket death wish,” asserted her unilateral power at the outset, telling the audience before the cameras went on that she planned to “give the debate direction and ensure the candidates give answers to the questions.”

After both candidates answered Question One, she blurted: “Let me get a more immediate answer” — whatever that means. But when Mr. Romney sought to correct falsehoods told by the president, she cut him off: “We have all these folks here.” In the end, Mr. Obama would get 9 percent more time.

At Question Two, Mr. Obama, asked by Mr. Romney how much he had cut federal oil permits, took over the floor — with Ms. Crowley’s silent approval. “Here’s what happened,” he said as he filibustered for a full minute. Mr. Romney sought to get the last word — as the president had the question before — but the moderator shut him down: “It’ doesn’t quite work like that.”

When Mr. Romney sought to counter Mr. Obama’s assertion after Question Three, Ms. Crowley again cut him off: “Before we get into a vast array….” she said before asking a completely different question.

The next question was pure Obama — workplace inequality (the president mention at every stop his Lily Ledbetter legislation). But the query gave him the platform to demand Americans pay for contraception for all women, saying the governor “feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.”

For the record, Mr. Obama spoke for two minutes, then Mr. Romney, then Mr. Obama again. Ms. Crowley then rushed into the next question.

When the immigration question came up, both candidates gave their answers. Then the moderator once again butted in, ordering Mr. Romney to “speak to the idea of self-deportation.”

By then, Mr. Romney had had enough, and talked over her demands. “No, let — let — let me go back and speak to the points the president made and — and — and let’s get them correct.”

At the next question, the moderator lost all control. “Candy,” Mr. Obama said. “Hold on.” “Mr. President,” the governor said, “I’m still speaking.” They mixed it up for a bit, then Ms. Crowley said: “Sit down, Mr. Romney.”

The most shocking exchange took place on the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others dead.

Mr. Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying.”

Mr. Obama made no defense. “Please proceed, governor.”

“I want to make sure,” Mr. Romney said. “Get the transcript,” the president said. Then Ms. Crowley jumped in to do her own fact-check, on the spot. “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”

The truth is, he didn’t. The day after the attack, he said only this: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” It took another two weeks before the White House would label the attack an act of terror.

The Obama people, of course, loved it — having blamed Mr. Obama’s dismal performance in the first debate on poor moderating.

“He’s back,” said Team O spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who lauded Ms. Crowley for her fact checking.

But then she caught herself and quickly added: “He was never really gone, but he’s back.””

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/curl-crowley-skews-hard-obama-disastrous-debate/?page=all#pagebreak

For her Orwellian efforts to prop up Obama, Candy Crowley is awarded 5 Orwells.

Obama Romney debate moderator Candy Crowley liberal bias, Crowley selects audience questions , Crowley will not follow rules, Biased history

Obama Romney debate moderator Candy Crowley liberal bias, Crowley selects audience questions , Crowley will not follow rules, Biased history

“I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.”…CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”…George Washington

***  Update Oct. 17, 2012, 8:35 AM  ***

Candy Crowley did not disappoint us. She performed as her history and associations predicted. More on this later today.

From Media Research Center October 16, 2012.

“MRC Study: By 2-to-1 Margin, Journalists Favor Liberal Questions at Town Hall Debates”

“Tonight’s town hall-style presidential debate will ostensibly feature questions from undecided voters, but the evening’s agenda will really be decided by the moderator, as CNN’s Candy Crowley will select which of the more than roughly 80 voters in the room will actually get a chance to talk to the candidates.

Reviewing the five previous town hall debates, the journalist-moderators have tended to skew the agenda of these so-called citizen forums to the liberal side of the spectrum, but not always. In 2004, ABC’s Charles Gibson selected a balanced menu of questions, with questions from the left matching those from the right.

But Gibson is the lone exception. The other journalists who have moderated these forums — ABC’s Carole Simpson in 1992, PBS’s Jim Lehrer in 1996 and 2000, and NBC’s Tom Brokaw in 2008 — all favored liberal agenda questions as they chose which of the undecided voters would actually participate in the debate.

The bottom line: if history is a reliable guide, Mitt Romney has twice the chance of facing a hostile liberal question Tuesday night as Barack Obama has of facing a question based on a conservative agenda, as the record shows a 2-to-1 tilt to the left in past town hall debates.

The Media Research Center has examined the agenda of every town hall debate since the format debuted 20 years ago. In the 1992 Bush-Clinton-Perot debate in Richmond, we scored eight audience questions as straightforward requests for information, four liberal questions, and no conservative questions. One participant that year described the election as about choosing a father who would take care of citizens, whom he referred to as “children.”

The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?

Four years later, we tallied ten questions as straightforward, five as conveying a liberal agenda, and three as conservative. That year, one voter asked Bill Clinton whether he had “plans to expand the Family Leave Act,” while another insisted during a discussion of health care that “the private sector is a problem.”

In 2000, moderator Jim Lehrer favored liberal questions by an 8-to-2 margin over conservative questions. Examples from that debate: One voter asked George W. Bush and Al Gore: “Would you be open to the ideal of a national health care plan for everybody?” while another targeted Bush:

We’d like to know why you object to the Brady handgun bill, if you do object to it. Because in a recent TV ad, it showed that the [NRA] says if you are elected that they will be working out of your office…actually, that kind of bothers me.

In 2004, anchor Charles Gibson picked an ideologically balanced set of questions: eight from the left/pro-Kerry, eight from the right/pro-Bush and two ambiguous/neutral. From the left, one voter lectured then-President Bush about the “intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation,” while another complained about the Patriot Act “which takes away checks on law enforcement and weakens American citizens’ rights and freedoms….Why are my rights being watered down?”

But balancing the night, Gibson also showcased a voter who posed this tough question to John Kerry: “You’ve stated your concern for the rising cost of health care, yet you chose a vice presidential candidate who has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals. How do you reconcile this with the voters?”

Another voter aimed at Kerry’s cynical use of stem cell research to paint Republicans as anti-science. “Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn’t it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?”

In 2008, NBC’s Tom Brokaw selected a dozen questions from citizens — three from the left, none from the right, and nine that were neutral/informational. The Obama-McCain town hall debate took place at the height of the financial panic that year, and one voter demanded to know “What’s the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people [retirees and workers] out of the economic ruin?”

Another voter wanted to see a flurry of legislation to create “green jobs,” telling John McCain: “We saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know, what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?”

As the Gibson example shows, a moderator has it within their power to ensure an ideologically balanced discussion of the issues — to serve all of the potential voters who might be watching. It’s up to Crowley to determine whether the candidates will face equally tough questioning, or whether the liberal Barack Obama will face a friendlier agenda than Mitt Romney.”

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/mrc-study-2-1-margin-journalists-favor-liberal-questions-town-hall-debates

Candy Crowley has stated she will not abide by the rules.

From Politico October 16, 2012.

“In an interview with CNN this afternoon, Candy Crowley reiterated that, like past town-hall debate moderators, she intends to do more than just hold the microphone at tonight’s debate in Hempstead, N.Y. — an intention that has caused concern for both campaigns.

“They will call on ‘Alice,’ and ‘Alice’ will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there’s time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it,” Crowley said. “So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there’s the time to go, ‘But Alice asked oranges? What’s the answer to that?” Or, ‘Well, you say this, but what about that?'”

(Also on POLITICO: 5 things to watch at the debate)

Crowley’s vision of her role at tonight’s debate is in keeping with past town hall debates, but it would defy the expectations agreed to by both campaigns in the co-signed memorandum of understanding, obtained and released yesterday by Time’s Mark Halperin. From section 7, part (c), sub-part (iv) (italics mine):

7. Additional Rules Apllicable to the October 16 Debate…

(c) With respect to all questions…

(iv) The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.

There is hardly any gray area here. Crowley is expected to do nothing except to acknowledge questioners, enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments. Many people — especially journalists — would and have objected to that, but that’s the agreement. ”

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-promises-to-defy-debate-contract-138596.html

Candy Crowley’s history.

From News Busters August 15, 2012.

“Affirmative-action lovers were thrilled that CNN’s Candy Crowley would be the first female to moderate a presidential debate since Carole Simpson’s sneering turn in 1992. Crowley deserves the opportunity after being in the field of political news for decades, and is the closest thing the current crop of moderators has to a Tim Russert type in being able to question firmly both sides of the aisle.

However, Crowley still fits within the CNN media-elite mold of liberalism, and not just with her unfortunate channeling of “some Republicans” on Saturday who anonymously felt the Paul Ryan pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.” Below are a list of some of Crowley’s more liberal moments on the CNN airwaves:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
“Usually you kind of give the President a pass on leaking confidential stuff.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on Obama’s self-promoting national security leaks, June 10, 2012 State of the Union.

“Let me talk to you a little about the swing state of Virginia, and I want to show our viewers your unemployment rate which has basically stayed two to three points below the national unemployment rate. It’s a success story really. Okay? You like this. I understand that. But, but, even as you embrace it as a Republican governor, does it not make it difficult for Mitt Romney, who has the same problem in other swing states, to come in and say, ‘The economy is terrible and, you know, you need to elect a new president?’ Because Virginia is doing very well under President Obama. – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, June 3, 2012 State of the Union.

“Do you have a problem with being inclusive, because most people do look at Republicans going ‘They’re a conservative bunch of white guys who want to protect Big Oil.’ And now you’re even hearing Republicans saying, ‘It’s not big enough. We haven’t opened up the tent door.’” – CNN’s Candy Crowley touting an Arnold Schwarzenegger op-ed to Newt Gingrich, May 6, 2012 State of the Union.

“We have a poll where the majority of Americans said you all need to compromise on this debt ceiling, you all need to raise the debt ceiling, and it out to be — the deal ought to include a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. You are opposed to both raising the debt ceiling and that kind of compromise. So doesn’t that put you outside the mainstream?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Rep. Michele Bachmann, August 14, 2011 State of the Union.

“There’s that term, ‘penny wise and pound foolish.’ Would you worry that, by cutting off those services, people…would have sicker babies, or certain people…wouldn’t have HIV testing…and that would just cost us more?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley questioning Rep. Steve King on Planned Parenthood subsidies while guest-hosting The Situation Room on February 18, 2011.

“So let’s get down to the basic question, who’s going to get hurt in this budget?…So you have said in an editorial you wrote that the budget is an expression of our values and aspirations. So if I look at this what we call discretionary spending, things we don’t have to spend on, you want to cut back community development block programs. That creates jobs in communities; it helps them with infrastructure, that kind of thing. Home heating assistance; education, as you just mentioned. You’re also going to do — the Great Lakes Restoration Fund Initiative is getting a pretty healthy cut in what they get from the feds, eight states involved, in trying to keep the Great Lakes economically viable. What does that say about our values and aspirations?: – CNN’s Candy Crowley pressing Obama budget director Jack Lew from the left on State of the Union, February 13, 2011.

“It’s probably less of a phony issue than a passe issue. This might have had some resonance had he done it early on, and he had a whole, you know, springtime to begin to, you know, chip away. The problem is, that the economy just came down on him.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley after the third presidential debate raised the issue of Obama’s friendship with radical Sixties bomber Bill Ayers, October 15, 2008.

“If you raised more than a quarter billion dollars in the primary season, would you limit yourself to $85 million in the fall campaign? Duh!” – CNN’s Candy Crowley’s spin when Obama decided to break his promise to abide by campaign spending limits to accept public financing, June 19, 2008.

“I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008.”

Read more:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/08/15/cnns-moderator-candy-crowley-political-news-pro-still-liberal-media-elit

I will be commenting live on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/citizenwells

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

“I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.”…George Washington

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

Anyone paying attention for years should be aware of the bias from CNN and Candy Crowley. Yesterday at Citizen Wells, the bias in favor of the LGBT community at Hofstra University was revealed.

“A cursory examination of the Hofstra University website reveals what can only be described as an inordinate emphasis on gay issues.

For example. On the first page of the scholarship opportunities we find:

“LGBT Activism Scholarship

In 2002, Hofstra University established an unprecedented scholarship program for students engaged in service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The program is designed to demonstrate Hofstra’s commitment to equality and support for LGBT individuals. The program also includes the Hofstra Law School Fellowships for Advocacy for the Equality of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, as well as the Mildred Elizabeth McGinnis Endowed scholarship for students in the humanities.”

“School of Law Scholarships”

“LGBT Rights Fellowship – The Law School supports a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Fellowship for students interested in pursuing advocacy work on behalf of these communities.”

LGBT Studies.

“LGBT Studies focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, their history and culture, considering sexualities and genders as identities, social statuses, categories of knowledge, and as lenses that help us to frame how we understand our world. A central core of courses is complemented by interdisciplinary courses taught across campus or by specialized syllabi for students taking a course that could lend itself to LGBT studies. Currently, a minor in LGBT Studies is available as part of the Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/HCLAS/LGBT/index_LGBT.cfm

And last but not least.

“LGBT STUDIES PROGRAM, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY

and

HOFSTRA CULTURAL CENTER
present
a conference

Queer Rhetoric
The 6th Annual LGBT Studies Conference

Friday and Saturday, March 16-17, 2012
Queer Rhetoric is a relatively new field situated at the intersection of LGBT Studies, Queer Theory, Rhetoric and Cultural Studies. In short, Queer Rhetoric seeks to uncover the symbolic and performative strategies whereby queer identities have been and continue to be constructed in different times and places. Scholars working in this field locate the heteronormative occlusion of queer voices within a given cultural and social context and describe how queer voices develop a battery of technologies that offer a means of resistant expression. This conference will be the first ever devoted entirely to the subject of Queer Rhetoric. For more information click here.

Keynote Addresses will be given by:
Erik Gunderson
University of Toronto, Canada
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Symposium Scholar
The Reluctant Queerness of Ancient Rhetoric

and

Chuck E. Morris III
Boston College
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Conference Scholar
My Old Kentucky Homo: Abraham LIncoln is Here,
Queer, and Wants to Recruit You”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/obama-romney-debate-october-16-2012-hofstra-university-hempstead-ny-town-meeting-format-moderator-candy-crowley-cnn-hofstra-not-neutral-site/

Gallup is selecting the town hall meeting audience from undecided voters. Most of you are aware of the controversies surrounding polling methodologies and in many cases the skewing of results with an unrealistic representation of Democrats in the numbers. Recently Gallup changed it’s methodology midstream in the election cycle to the benefit of Obama.

From The Hill October 11, 2012.

“Obama approval rating gets a boost after Gallup tweaks its polling methodology”
“President Obama’s job approval rating spiked this month, according to Gallup’s daily tracking survey, but the jump may be the result of a shift in the polling outlet’s survey methodology.

Since late 2011, President Obama has held steady at just under 50 percent saying they approved of the job he was doing and just under 50 percent saying they disapproved.

Earlier this month, the trend line moved in favor of the president, and on Thursday it sat at 53 percent positive and 42 negative — a greater job approval rating than Obama enjoyed after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

However, this movement may have been provoked by a change in the pollster’s methodology, without which the president may have seen no change in job approval.

“As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures,” Gallup CEO Frank Newport wrote on Wednesday.

Gallup increased the proportion of cellphones in its tracking survey from 40 percent, and now splits its calls to cellphones and land lines evenly. Newport defended the switch, saying it was an attempt to “stay consistent with changes in the communication behavior and habits of those we are interviewing.”

“Gallup switched primarily to telephone interviewing a few decades ago based on the increased penetration of phones in American households and the increased costs of going into Americans’ homes for in-person interviewing,” Newport wrote. “Now we know, based on government statistics (and what we observe around us), that Americans are shifting rapidly from reliance on landline phones to mobile devices.”

Still, the timing of the change — one month out from the presidential election — has some on the right exasperated.

“What I can say is that it’s problematic to alter one’s methodological approach to polling elections just five weeks before the biggest election in a generation,”writes Jay Cost, polling analyst for the conservative Weekly Standard. “In fact, I think this is a highly inopportune time to make such a change; do it in the summer of 2012 or the winter of 2013, but for goodness sake not the fall of 2012!”

The controversy will likely be fuel for those conservatives who claimed polls from earlier in the cycle were skewed in favor of Democrats.

The Romney campaign and other Republicans said polls showing Obama with a significant lead over their candidate were inaccurate.”

Read more:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/261485-obama-gets-a-boost-after-gallup-tweaks-polling-methodology

It appears to me on the surface that using a higher percentage of cell phones could include more young people.

From Gallup.

“How does Gallup polling work?

Gallup polls aim to represent the opinions of a sample of people representing the same opinions that would be obtained if it were possible to interview everyone in a given country.

The majority of Gallup surveys in the U.S. are based on interviews conducted by landline and cellular telephones. Generally, Gallup refers to the target audience as “national adults,” representing all adults, aged 18 and older, living in United States.

The findings from Gallup’s U.S. surveys are based on the organization’s standard national telephone samples, consisting of directory-assisted random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone samples using a proportionate, stratified sampling design. A computer randomly generates the phone numbers Gallup calls from all working phone exchanges (the first three numbers of your local phone number) and not-listed phone numbers; thus, Gallup is as likely to call unlisted phone numbers as listed phone numbers.

Within each contacted household reached via landline, an interview is sought with an adult 18 years of age or older living in the household who has had the most recent birthday. (This is a method pollsters commonly use to make a random selection within households without having to ask the respondent to provide a complete roster of adults living in the household.) Gallup does not use the same respondent selection procedure when making calls to cell phones because they are typically associated with one individual rather than shared among several members of a household.

When respondents to be interviewed are selected at random, every adult has an equal probability of falling into the sample. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, either a traditional stand-alone poll or one night’s interviewing from Gallup’s Daily tracking, is 1,000 national adults with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Gallup’s Daily tracking process now allows Gallup analysts to aggregate larger groups of interviews for more detailed subgroup analysis. But the accuracy of the estimates derived only marginally improves with larger sample sizes.

After Gallup collects and processes survey data, each respondent is assigned a weight so that the demographic characteristics of the total weighted sample of respondents match the latest estimates of the demographic characteristics of the adult population available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, educational attainment, and region.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx

Obama Romney debate October 16, 2012, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, Town meeting format, Moderator Candy Crowley CNN, Hofstra not neutral site

Obama Romney debate October 16, 2012, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, Town meeting format, Moderator Candy Crowley CNN, Hofstra not neutral site

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”…Abraham Lincoln

“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”…George Washington 

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin”...Samuel Adams, 1776

The next presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will be held Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. The format will be Town meeting and the moderator is Candy Crowley of CNN. The audience will consist of  about 80 undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.

From the  Hofstra University website.

“Hofstra University, located in Hempstead, New York, approximately 25 miles east of Manhattan, is a dynamic private institution where approximately 12,500 students choose from more than 140 undergraduate and 155 graduate programs in liberal arts and sciences, business, communication, education and allied human services, and honors studies, and a School of Law. Hofstra University, which was founded in 1935, has more than 110,000 alumni. Hofstra offers a faculty whose highest priority is teaching excellence; cutting edge technology; extensive library resources; internships and special educational programs that appeal to students’ interests and abilities.”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Debate/debate_abouthofstra.html

From the Washington Post October 13, 2012.

“Every week after Labor Day is touted as a critical week in presidential politics. The coming week may actually live up to that characterization.

During the next eight days, President Obama and Mitt Romney will meet for their final two debates — Tuesday night at Hofstra University on Long Island and the following Monday in Florida. At that point, it should be clear whether the momentum Romney picked up from the first debate in Denver has stalled or whether he continues to gain ground against the president. In the meantime, the front-page headline in Saturday’s Columbus Dispatch should serve as a warning to Obama’s headquarters in Chicago. It read, “Romney on the rise in Ohio.”

Obama advisers were saying earlier in the past week that they believed the post-Denver Romney surge had stopped. But virtually every recent poll since Denver, here in Ohio and in other battleground states, has shown movement toward the Republican challenger. Obama may still lead in enough states to win reelection, but the margins are no longer comfortable.

On Friday night, a huge crowd filled the town square in nearby Lancaster to greet Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, for a joint appearance after Thursday’s vice-presidential debate. Sen. Rob Portman, who is rapidly emerging as the Romney campaign’s most valuable player for his multiple roles as Ohio point man and Obama stand-in for debate prep, joined them on stage.

Romney spoke of seeing a “growing crescendo of enthusiasm” around the country. All candidates say that in the final weeks of a campaign, but there is more than a little truth to it in this case. Republicans are energized in ways they weren’t before, still driven more by their anti-Obama feelings but increasingly happy with their nominee.

The vice-presidential debate did not change the race in any significant way. In fact, it ended up as a booster for both sides. Vice President Biden’s aggressiveness cheered Democrats who were morose after Obama’s lethargic showing in Denver. They believed Biden dominated and won. Republicans, who saw Biden as overbearing and condescending, came away convinced that Ryan proved himself more than ready to be vice president. To them, a draw was a victory.

The pressure is squarely on the president Tuesday night, given his performance in Denver. But Romney, too, needs a strong evening to cement the first. He cannot afford any backsliding. His advisers know that if, as expected, the president does a better job Tuesday, stories will inevitable be written about his bounce-back. No one expects a second mismatch.

Biden laid out the angles of attack that the president will pursue on Tuesday, including confronting Romney about his “47 percent” comment, the percentage of income he pays in taxes, the holes in his tax plan and the GOP ticket’s position on abortion — none of which Obama hit hard in Denver. The president’s challenge will be to deliver those attacks in a town hall debate that features questions from an audience, a format that generally rewards empathy over aggressiveness.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-romney-face-a-truly-crucial-week/2012/10/13/a0cd4c90-1552-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html

Hofstra University hardly appears to be a neutral setting.

On October 10, 2012, Chris Matthews, one of the most biased members of the mainstream media spoke at Hofstra.

“Journalist Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, discussed the 2012 election and the importance of presidential debates. Matthews told the audience at the John Cranford Adams Playhouse that the Town Hall-style debate at Hofstra University on Oct. 16, 2012 will be a pivotal event in the tight race between President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney.”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Debate/debate_gallery_matthews101012.html

A cursory examination of the Hofstra University website reveals what can only be described as an inordinate emphasis on gay issues.

For example. On the first page of the scholarship opportunities we find:

“LGBT Activism Scholarship

In 2002, Hofstra University established an unprecedented scholarship program for students engaged in service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The program is designed to demonstrate Hofstra’s commitment to equality and support for LGBT individuals. The program also includes the Hofstra Law School Fellowships for Advocacy for the Equality of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, as well as the Mildred Elizabeth McGinnis Endowed scholarship for students in the humanities.”

“School of Law Scholarships”

“LGBT Rights Fellowship – The Law School supports a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Fellowship for students interested in pursuing advocacy work on behalf of these communities.”

LGBT Studies.

“LGBT Studies focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, their history and culture, considering sexualities and genders as identities, social statuses, categories of knowledge, and as lenses that help us to frame how we understand our world. A central core of courses is complemented by interdisciplinary courses taught across campus or by specialized syllabi for students taking a course that could lend itself to LGBT studies. Currently, a minor in LGBT Studies is available as part of the Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/HCLAS/LGBT/index_LGBT.cfm

And last but not least.

“LGBT STUDIES PROGRAM, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY

and

HOFSTRA CULTURAL CENTER
present
a conference

Queer Rhetoric
The 6th Annual LGBT Studies Conference

Friday and Saturday, March 16-17, 2012
Queer Rhetoric is a relatively new field situated at the intersection of LGBT Studies, Queer Theory, Rhetoric and Cultural Studies. In short, Queer Rhetoric seeks to uncover the symbolic and performative strategies whereby queer identities have been and continue to be constructed in different times and places. Scholars working in this field locate the heteronormative occlusion of queer voices within a given cultural and social context and describe how queer voices develop a battery of technologies that offer a means of resistant expression. This conference will be the first ever devoted entirely to the subject of Queer Rhetoric. For more information click here.

Keynote Addresses will be given by:
Erik Gunderson
University of Toronto, Canada
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Symposium Scholar
The Reluctant Queerness of Ancient Rhetoric

and

Chuck E. Morris III
Boston College
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Conference Scholar
My Old Kentucky Homo: Abraham LIncoln is Here,
Queer, and Wants to Recruit You”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Community/culctr/culctr_events_LGBT_6th.html

A custom setting for Barack Obama.

Obama deficit lies, Obama blames Bush tax cuts, AP repeats Obama lie, Washington Post reveals Obama lie, 4th Straight $1 Trillion Plus deficit spending

Obama deficit lies, Obama blames Bush tax cuts, AP repeats Obama lie, Washington Post reveals Obama lie, 4th Straight $1 Trillion Plus deficit spending

“With a 63.7% labor force participation, “conditions in the labor market are considerably worse than indicated” in July’s report”…economist Joshua Shapiro, WSJ August 3, 2012

“Since the Democrats took control of both houses of congress in January 2007, the number of people who could only find part time work has gone up 215 percent”…Citizen Wells

“Student health care costs have doubled, tripled and in some cases increased over 1000% in 2012. Premiums for employer provided family coverage rose $2,370 since 2009, Obamacare penalties to hospitals will average $125,000 per facility in 2013 and gasoline has risen over $2 per gallon since Obama took office.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Obama has been blaming Bush for the deficit and bad economy since he began running for the presidency. He continues to blame the Bush Tax cuts for the deficit even though it is a lie. The Washington Post recently exposed this lie.

From Citizen Wells October 8, 2012.

“From the Washington Post October 1, 2012.

“Obama’s claim that the Bush tax cuts led to the economic crisis”

“Now Governor Romney believes that with even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy, and fewer regulations on Wall Street, all of us will prosper. In other words, he’d double down on the same trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place.”

— President Obama, in a new two-minute television ad released Sept. 27, 2012

“This election to me is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. This is a clear choice. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper income people and go back to deregulation. That is what got us into trouble in the first place.”

— Former president Bill Clinton, in an Obama campaign ad running since August

When two different people give virtually the same message in two different ads, it’s a good bet that the language has been carefully poll-tested. Both President Obama and former president Bill Clinton assert that Mitt Romney wants to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut financial regulations — which they suggest is a recipe for another economic crisis.

The name “George W. Bush” is never mentioned but is certainly implied. This leads to the question: Did the Bush tax cuts cause the economic crisis?

We’ve been interested in the Clinton comments for some time and never quite got a satisfactory response from the Obama campaign. But Clinton used the vague word “trouble,” which could be broadly defined as also meaning higher deficits. (Clinton’s staff did not respond to queries about what he meant.) Certainly the Bush tax cuts did play some role in higher deficits, though, as we have noted, increased spending played a bigger role.

But Obama is not vague at all. He highlights the tax cuts and then says the “same trickle-down policies” — Democratic code for tax cuts for the wealthy — led to the “crisis.” The campaign’s back-up material labels that as “economic crisis,” thus leaving no ambiguity about his reference.”

The Pinocchio Test

It is time for the Obama campaign to retire this talking point, no matter how much it seems to resonate with voters. The financial crisis of 2008 stemmed from a variety of complex factors, in particular the bubble in housing prices and the rise of exotic financial instruments. Deregulation was certainly an important factor, but as the government commission concluded, the blame for that lies across administrations, not just in the last Republican one.

In any case, the Bush tax cuts belong at the bottom of the list — if at all. Moreover, it is rather strange for the campaign to cite as its source an article that, according to the author, does not support this assertion.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/washington-post-and-labor-dept-facts-expose-obama-lies-bush-tax-cuts-employment-data-democrats-controlled-both-houses-of-congress-playbook-of-goebbels-orwell/

Despite the fact that Obama knew it was a lie, Obama continued to blame the Bush Tax cuts in his debate with Mitt Romney.

“When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from: two wars that were paid for on a credit card; two tax cuts that were not paid for”

From NPR and the AP October 12, 2012.

“US Runs A 4th Straight $1 Trillion-Plus Budget Gap”

“The United States has now spent $1 trillion more
than it’s taken in for four straight years.

The Treasury Department confirmed Friday what was widely expected: The
deficit for the just-ended 2012 budget year — the gap between the
government’s tax revenue and its spending — totaled $1.1 trillion. Put
simply, that’s how much the government had to borrow.

It wasn’t quite as ugly as last year.

Tax revenue rose 6.4 percent from 2011 to $2.45 trillion. And spending
fell 1.7 percent to $3.5 trillion. As a result, the deficit shrank 16
percent, or $207 billion.

A stronger economy meant more people had jobs and income that
generated tax revenue. Corporations also contributed more to federal
revenue than in 2011.

The government spent less on Medicaid and on defense as U.S. military
involvement in Iraq was winding down.

Barack Obama’s presidency has coincided with four straight $1
trillion-plus annual budget deficits — the first in history and an
issue in an election campaign that ends in 3½ weeks.

When Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget
Office forecast that the deficit that year would total $1.2 trillion.
It ended up at a record $1.41 trillion.

The increase was due in large part to the worst recession since the
Great Depression. Tax revenue plummeted, and the government spent more
on stimulus programs.

Tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and military spending
in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the deficits.”

Read more:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162821416

The AP, Associated Press, repeats the Obama lie about Bush Tax Cuts contributing to the deficits.

“Tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and…contributed to the deficits.”

For their continued efforts to help Obama the AP receives 4 Orwells.

Biden lie revealed by Catholic Bishops, October 12, 2012 US Conference of Catholic Bishops USCCB statement, HHS mandate, Infringements on religious freedom

Biden lie revealed by Catholic Bishops, October 12, 2012 US Conference of Catholic Bishops USCCB statement, HHS mandate, Infringements on religious freedom

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”…Barack Obama

“It’d be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu.”
“They’re the enemy,” “by “they” he meant Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.”…Hank Williams Jr.

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me –
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.”…Pastor Martin Niemoller

From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops October 12, 2012.

“USCCB Responds To Inaccurate Statement Of Fact On HHS Mandate Made During Vice Presidential Debate”

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued the following statement, October 12. Full text follows:

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”
This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

For more details, please see USCCB’s regulatory comments filed on May 15 regarding the proposed “accommodation”: http://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-on-advance-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-preventive-services-12-05-15.pdf”

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-163.cfm

 

Thanks to commenter observer.

Biden Ryan debate response, October 12, 2012, Citizen Wells commenters nail it, Joe Biden and Obama have no record to run on, Chicago style politics

Biden Ryan debate response, October 12, 2012, Citizen Wells commenters nail it, Joe Biden and Obama have no record to run on, Chicago style politics

“Vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. (left), has been advised since 1984 by Joseph Cari (right), the Chicago lawyer and onetime mega-fundraiser who has been tied to the Antoin “Tony” Rezko patronage scandal.”…ABC News August 25, 2008

“Why did Joe Biden’s son have Larry Sinclair arrested at the end of Sinclair’s National Press Club presentation?”…Citizen Wells

“Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured… but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”

“Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are
citizens will receive free insurance, paid for by those who are forced to
buy insurance because they are citizens.”…Ben Stein

I watched as much of the debate as I could stomach last night. Joe Biden and his running mate Obama have no record to run on and continue to resort to Chicago style and Alinsky politics. Biden, with his constant interruptions and undignified responses, revealed his lack of respect for the office and the American public.

The good commenters of Citizen Wells nailed it.

SueK:

“Joe ‘Plugs’ Biden is an idiot. Paul Ryan was dignified and stated his case perfectly, even though he was nervous. If Plugs and that ever-present (fake) smirk kept interrupting me, I would’ve embarrassed him on the national stage and told him he was rude and condescending. Either that, or I would’ve crawled across the table and smacked him”

Philo-Publius:

“Moderator bias was on full display and she neglected to mentioned O and her hubby were Harvard buds and invited him to their wedding.”

observer:

“All the dufus public who could only say Biden was “passionate” apparently could not tell that he was using his display as a cover for his ignorance. Within his “passion” he was lying and demagoguing. This moderator is still definitely biased towards her specially invited marriage guest. She willingly lost control of Biden’s blatant interruptions when the program was to have 2 min. each. I’d prefer a VP who has control of himself. Also apparently Biden doesn’t know that that “death panel” is already in action with the new penalties against hospitals who receive back Medicare patients before a now ordered time limit.”

SueK:

“Raddatz is the former Martha Bradley and started out on Boston TV years ago; I didn’t like her then, and I don’t like her now. It was obvious who she was for, and against.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have either Beck, Hannity, Rush, Jeff Kuhner, or Savage (da bomb!) moderate one of these debates but apparently, Conservatives need not apply…the moderator’s job is restricted to moonbats, and moonbats only. I’m surprised Schmepaloupolous hasn’t been up there yet….”

observer:

“CNN Poll on debate winner: Ryan 48%, Biden 44%

I think Sharyl Attkisson, CBS, would have been a more intelligent and neutral moderator who would have the facts to challenge the Biden BS.”

“WOW! Read some of the comments about Biden here….even from the marxstream media:”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82313.html

“CNBC Poll: Paul Ryan Smokes Biden At Debate, 56% – 36%…”

“Number Of Times Biden Interrupted Ryan During 90-Minute Debate: 82”

oldsailor80:
“I still cannot understand why every person in the audience of the debate was NOT GIVEN a SCOOP SHOVEL as they entered the debate chambers. At least the spectators would have had something to dig their way out of the flood tide of BULLFECES pouring out of Bidens errant mouth. Wouldn’t it have been a more meaningful debate if all of the audience would have held up their scoop shovel everytime Biden said something. But would Biden have been intelligent enough to get the message?”

Biden and Chicago style politics.

From Citizen Wells August 9, 2011.

“Joseph Cari, 58, is one of the first notable figures to be sentenced of those who took plea deals and testified against the impeached Illinois governor. Blagojevich’s former chiefs of staff John Harris and Alonzo Monk are among those still awaiting sentencing.

Cari, who pleaded guilty to attempted extortion, told Judge Amy St. Eve just before she sentenced him that he took full responsibility for his actions and was sorry.

“I will live with the shame and pain for the rest of my life,” he said.

A former finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Cari described to jurors at Blagojevich’s first corruption trial how the then-governor boasted to him in 2003 about how governors could pressure companies desperate for state business for campaign cash.”

“Vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. (left), has been advised since 1984 by Joseph Cari (right), the Chicago lawyer and onetime mega-fundraiser who has been tied to the Antoin “Tony” Rezko patronage scandal.”

“Chicago lawyer and onetime mega-fundraiser Joseph Cari has advised Biden and his campaigns on and off since 1984, serving in posts as varied as a Senate adviser on crime to the Midwest Political Director for Biden’s aborted 1987 presidential bid. In 2005 Cari helped arrange private meetings for Biden with potential supporters, as the senator explored another run for the White House. He has also worked to raise money for Biden . “

“Cari admitted that in 2004 he helped a Rezko associate by making calls in what turned out to be a kickback scheme. The deal was an offshoot of a complex corruption scheme wrought by Antoin “Tony” Rezko , whose ties to Obama have vexed the White House hopeful . Cari has maintained he did not know the details of that scheme or any other.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/joseph-cari-sentenced-blagojevich-rezko-obama-biden-ties-cari-pressured-by-stuart-levine-john-harris-and-alonzo-monk-await-sentencing/

Birds of a feather flock together.

From Citizen Wells May 25, 2012.

From the FEC  May 25, 2012.
“ENFORCEMENT”

“MUR 6524

RESPONDENTS: Biden for President, Inc.; and Melvyn Monzack, in his official capacity as treasurer
COMPLAINANT: FEC-Initiated
SUBJECT: In the normal course of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities, the Commission found that Biden for President, Inc. (the Committee) and Monzack, in his official capacity as treasurer, did not retain adequate records to document the notification of contributors of the Committee’s presumptive redesignation of $1,092,899 in excessive contributions. Biden was a 2008 primary candidate for president.

DISPOSITION: The Commission entered into a conciliation agreement whereby Biden for President, Inc. and Monzack, in his official capacity as treasurer, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $50,000.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/biden-for-president-fined-50000-by-fec-2008-inadequate-records-over-one-million-dollars-excessive-contributions-melvyn-monzack-treasurer-breaking-news/

Biden and Obama have some of the same Chicago corruption connections.

Biden and Obama campaigns both violated FEC contribution rules.

Biden and Obama have both tried to silence Larry Sinclair.

Obama ring There is no god but Allah, Obama worn ring for 30 years, Shahada first part of Islamic declaration of faith, Obama not Christian

Obama ring There is no god but Allah, Obama worn ring for 30 years,  Shahada first part of Islamic declaration of faith, Obama not Christian

“Christians never use the statement,” “By wearing the Shahada on jewelry, a person communicates that Allah is in control of all circumstances. Allah controls you; Allah is the one and only one.”…Egyptian born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D

Obama recited for Kristof the opening lines of the Arabic call to
prayer. The opening lines of the Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer,
translated, read as follows, with each line repeated twice:

“Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
I witness there is no God but Allah.
I witness there is no God but Allah.
I witness that muhammad is his prophet…”

Kristof said Obama recited the prayer “with a first rate accent.”…New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof

“In Indonesia, I spent two years`at a Muslim school and two years at a Catholic school.”
”In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I would pretend
to close my eyes , then peek around the the room. Nothing happened.
No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and thirty brown children, muttering words.”…Barack Obama

I told you that Obama is not a Christian. The actions of a person always reveal what is in the heart. And this is a big action.

From WND October 9, 2012.
“OBAMA’S RING: ‘THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH’
He’s worn it on his wedding-ring finger since before he met Michelle”

“As a student at Harvard Law School, then-bachelor Barack Obama’s practice of wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger puzzled his colleagues.

Now, newly published photographs of Obama from the 1980s show that the ring Obama wore on his wedding-ring finger as an unmarried student is the same ring Michelle Robinson put on his finger at the couple’s wedding ceremony in 1992.

Moreover, according to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no God except Allah.”

The Shahada is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam, expressing the two fundamental beliefs that make a person a Muslim: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.

Sincere recitation of the Shahada is the sole requirement for becoming a Muslim, as it expresses a person’s rejection of all other gods

Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., examined photographs of Obama’s ring at WND’s request and concluded that the first half of the Shahada is inscribed on it.

“There can be no doubt that someone wearing the inscription ‘There is no god except Allah’ has a very close connection to Islamic beliefs, the Islamic religion and Islamic society to which this statement is so strongly attached,” Gabriel told WND.

“Dreams from My Real Father” producer Joel Gilbert, an Arabic speaker and an expert on the Middle East, was the first to conclude that Obama’s ring, reportedly from Indonesia, bore an Islamic inscription.

Photographs published last week by the New Yorker from Obama’s time at Occidental College, taken by fellows students, indicate that the ring Obama wore three decades ago is the one he is wearing in the White House.

As WND reported in July, previously published photos have shown Obama wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger continuously from 1981 at Occidental, through graduation at Columbia in 1983, in a visit to Africa in 1988 and during his time at Harvard from 1988 to 1991. But none, until now, have displayed the ring with enough detail to identify it as the one he currently is wearing.

WND reported a satirical edition of the Harvard Law Review published by students in 1990 contains a mock Dewers Scotch profile advertisement poking fun at Obama. Among a list of Obama’s “Latest Accomplishments” is: “Deflecting Persistent Questioning About Ring On Left Hand.”

The comment suggests the ring was a subject of student curiosity at the time and that Obama was not forthcoming with an explanation.

He still has not explained why he wore the band on his wedding-ring finger before he married Michelle.

Gabriel, born to Muslim parents in Upper Egypt, grew up immersed in Islamic culture. He memorized the Quran at age of 12 and graduated in 1990 with a Masters degree from the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the preeminent Sunni Muslim institution of learning.

He explained that on Obama’s ring, the declaration “There is no god except Allah” (La Ilaha Illallah) is inscribed in two sections, one above the other.

On the upper section, “There is no god” is written in Arabic letters, from right to left: Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Ha.

On the lower section is “except god,” written in Arabic letters from right to left: Alif, Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Lam, Ha.

In the lower section, the word “Allah” is written partially on top of the word “except,” noted Gabriel, the author of “Islam and Terrorism” and “Journey Inside the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.”

It is common in Islamic art and Arabic calligraphy, especially when expressing Quranic messages on jewelry, to artfully place letters on top of each other to fit them into the allotted space.

The exhibit below shows how the Arabic inscription fits over the two parts of the Obama ring.”

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah/

Small Business hiring plans plunge, September another month of low expectations and pessimism, Rising health care and energy costs, Federal taxes

Small Business hiring plans plunge, September another month of low expectations and pessimism, Rising health care and energy costs, Federal taxes

“With a 63.7% labor force participation, “conditions in the labor market are considerably worse than indicated” in July’s report”…economist Joshua Shapiro, WSJ August 3, 2012

“Since the Democrats took control of both houses of congress in January 2007, the number of people who could only find part time work has gone up 215 percent”…Citizen Wells

“Student health care costs have doubled, tripled and in some cases increased over 1000% in 2012. Premiums for employer provided family coverage rose $2,370 since 2009, Obamacare penalties to hospitals will average $125,000 per facility in 2013 and gasoline has risen over $2 per gallon since Obama took office.”…Citizen Wells

From the National Federation of Independent Business October Survey.

“Hiring Plans Plunge: Small Business Optimism Drops 0.1

Expectations for the Future Remain Low

September was another month of low expectations and pessimism for the small-business community, with the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index losing 0.1 points and falling to 92.8. The recession-level reading was pulled down by a deterioration in labor market indicators, with job creation plans plunging 6 points, job openings falling one point and more firms reporting decreases in employment than those reporting increases in employment. Since the commencement of NFIB’s monthly surveys in 1986, the Index has been below 93.0 a total of 56 times; 32 of which have occurred since the recovery began in June 2009.”

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT   READ THE PRESS RELEASE

Small business optimism index

“Highlights

  • Capital Expenditures: Small-business owners are still in “maintenance mode,” with the frequency of reported capital outlays over the past six months falling 4 points to 51 percent. Of those making expenditures, 34 percent reported spending on new equipment (down 7 points from the previous month), 16 percent acquired vehicles (down 5 points), and 14 percent improved or expanded facilities (unchanged). Four (4) percent of owners acquired new buildings or land for expansion (down 2 points) and 12 percent spent money for new fixtures and furniture (unchanged). Overall, there was a substantial reduction in capital spending activity. The percent of owners planning capital outlays in the next three to six months fell 3 points to 21 percent. While the number of owners who characterized the current period as a good time to expand facilities went up 3 points (seasonally adjusted) to seven percent, this is only half of the 14 percent of owners who said the same in September 2007. The net percent of owners expecting better business conditions in six months rose 4 points to two percent after posting a 6 point improvement last month, albeit still registering a pessimistic collective view. Not seasonally adjusted, 15 percent expect an improvement in business conditions (up 1 point), and 20 percent expect deterioration (down 4 points). A net one percent of all owners expect improved real sales volumes.
  • Sales: Weak sales continue to be an albatross for the small-business community. The net percent of all owners (seasonally adjusted) reporting higher nominal sales over the past three months was unchanged at a negative 13 percent, cementing the 17 point decline since April and affirming weak GDP growth for the second quarter. Twenty-one (21) percent still cite weak sales as their top business problem—historically high, but down from the record 34 percent reached in March 2010. Seasonally unadjusted, 23 percent of all owners reported higher sales (last three months compared to prior three months, down 1 point) and 30 percent reported lower sales (up 1 point). Consumer spending remains weak and high energy costs continue to “tax” consumer disposable income. The net percent of owners expecting higher real sales was unchanged at one percent of all owners (seasonally adjusted), down 11 points from the year high of net 12 percent in February. The weak reading is unlikely to trigger orders for new inventory or business expansion. Not seasonally adjusted, 24 percent expect improvement over the next three months (down 4 points) and 31 percent expect declines (up 3 points).
  • Job Creation: Job creation plans showed that small-business owners created fewer jobs in September than in the two previous months. Not seasonally adjusted, 10 percent plan to increase employment at their firm (down 3 points), and 11 percent plan reductions (up 2 points). Seasonally adjusted, the net percent of owners planning to create new jobs fell 6 points to four percent, a historically weak reading, especially in a recovery. Essentially, hiring is keeping up with population growth, but not exceeding it. Seasonally adjusted, 10 percent of the owners reported adding an average of 2.2 workers per firm over the past few months, and 13 percent reduced employment an average of 3 workers. The remaining 77 percent of owners made no net change in employment. Fifty-one (51) percent of the owners hired or tried to hire in the last three months and 41 percent (80 percent of those trying to hire or hiring) reported few or no qualified applicants for open positions. The percent of owners reporting hard to fill job openings fell 1 point to 17 percent of all owners. The only region of the country that saw any positive job growth was the West North Central states, largely because of energy production. “

“Consumer spending has barely advanced this year, and consequently so has job creation. Employment is still 4 million lower than it was in the first quarter of 2008 (first quarter). The population grows about 1% annually. A few more jobs are needed to take care of that, and that seems to be about all we are getting. The percent of owners reporting hard to fill job openings fell 1 point to 17% of all owners, no help for a lower unemployment rate. Seasonally adjusted, the net percent of owners planning to create new jobs fell 6 points to 4%, a historically weak reading, especially in a recovery. Owners remained pessimistic about the future in September and consequently hiring plans remain weak. Reported job creation for the past few months was negative. More workers let go than hired, signaling a weak BLS jobs report for September, around 100,000 new jobs overall.”

“Uncertainty has cast a cloud over the future for small business owners, making it difficult to make commitments to new spending and hiring. In a recently released NFIB Problems and Priorities survey, owners rated the severity of 75 business issues. Uncertainty about the economy ranked second while uncertainty about government policy ranked fourth. For perspective, securing long term funding was 56th and finding qualified workers 32nd. With a 50/50 election, according to the polls, and very different sets of policies that might be put in place, owners are unwilling to put their own capital on the line until the future path of the economy and economic policy becomes clearer.

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM: 2012
1.  Rising Cost of Health Care Insurance
2.  Uncertainty over Economic Conditions
3.  Energy Costs
4.  Uncertainty over Government Actions
5.  Unreasonable Government Regulations
6.  Federal Taxes on Business Income
7.  Tax Complexity
8.  Frequent Changes in Federal Tax Laws and Rules
9.  Property Taxes
10. State Taxes on Business Income”

Read more:

http://www.nfib.com/research-foundation/surveys/small-business-economic-trends