Carville Says Tea Party is Over

Comments Off

Boy, has this guy got a surprise coming….November! From the

James Carville: ‘The Tea Party Is Over’


By Hunter Walker 6/27/12


Liberal political consultant James Carville sent a fundraising email to supporters of upstate New York congresswoman Louise Slaughter entitled “The Tea Party is Over.” In the email, Mr. Carville claimed the Tea Party isn’t entirely finished, but he said they can be eliminated by donating to “proud Democrats like Louise Slaughter.”

“These Tea Party Republicans have worn out their welcome. But I’m telling you — getting rid of ‘em won’t be easy. They’re not leaving on their own. We’re going to have to boot them out the door like unwanted house guests,” Mr. Carville wrote. “That’s why we’ve got to get behind proud Democrats like Louise Slaughter to make sure we can win a Democratic Majority.”

Mr. Carville pointed to the conservative mega donors Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers as evidence Democrats need to open their wallets if they want to take out the Tea Party and win a majority in Congress.

“With the Koch boys, Mr. Rove and a Fat Cat Las Vegas casino mogul writing multi-million dollar checks to try and buy this election, it’s going to take every last one of us kicking in what we can to make sure we reelect good folks like Louise and win a Democratic Majority,” Mr. Carville wrote.

Ms. Slaughter is facing a challenge from Republican Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks. Ms. Slaughter currently has $670,189 cash on hand compared to Ms. Brooks’ $367,583. Despite Ms. Slaughter’s financial advantage, Ms. Brooks is seen as a formidable candidate and is rather popular in the district, which is favorable to Democrats, but grew more Republican through redistricting.


Black Lawmakers Going to Walk on Holder Vote?

Comments Off

Exceptionally stupid…whichever party is in power. If you don’t cooperate with Congress, you evade taxes, you won’t turn over papers…you get charged. Now, here’s where the real politics starts, a Democrat tells Juan Williams on FNC’s “O’Reilly Factor that the NRA is to blame, and then this grandstanding. Looks to me like it’s hard to admit that you’re not just wrong, but stupid too….

Black Lawmakers Plot ‘Walkout Strategy’ During Holder Contempt Vote

By Shane Goldmacher, National Journal.
June 27, 2012 

The Congressional Black Caucus has called a members-only “emergency” meeting on Thursday to plot a “walkout strategy” ahead of the scheduled contempt vote of Attorney General Eric Holder later in the day.

The plans, detailed in an email from the executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus obtained by the Alley, include circulating a letter disapproving of the vote and having lawmakers walk out of the Capitol to hold a press conference during the roll call.

The letter, a draft of which is being circulated for signatures, accuses the GOP leadership of “rushing recklessly to a contempt vote.” The letter is being circulated among the Black, Hispanic, Asian and Progressive caucuses, among other.

“We cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold the Attorney General in contempt,” says the letter, in which the signers urge that “all members of Congress to stand with us during a press conference on the Capitol Building steps during this appalling series of votes to discuss our nation’s most significant priority–creating jobs.”

The House is expected to vote on Thursday hold Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to release certain documents related to the failed “Fast and Furious” gun-running program.

At moments, the fight has taken on racial undertones, most notably when Holder, who is African American, told the New York Times in December 2011 that he served as a stand-in for GOP attacks on President Obama. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

A copy of the full draft letter is below:

Dear Colleague:

We write to urge you to stand with us in the pursuit of justice for the Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric H. Holder. In its history, the United States House of Representatives has never held a United States Attorney General, or any other Cabinet official, in contempt.

Instead of focusing on job creation and other critical issues before this Congress, we have been asked to engage in a political stunt on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Our constituents elected us to do real work, not to engage in meaningless partisan activity.

Over the past 15 months, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have cooperated with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s requests for information on “Fast and Furious”, an unfortunate operation that began under the Bush Administration and, in fact, was terminated by Attorney General Holder. The Department has made extraordinary efforts to accommodate Congress by turning over almost 8,000 documents–including all the documents that relate to the tactics in this investigation and the other flawed investigations that occurred in Arizona during the Bush Administration. The Attorney General also participated in a bicameral meeting in a good faith effort to satisfy the Committee’s information requests. While the Attorney General has advised House Republicans that he is willing to work with them in attempting to reach an agreement, the Republican Leadership is instead rushing recklessly to a contempt vote.

Contempt power should be used sparingly, carefully and only in the most egregious situations. The Republican Leadership has articulated no legislative purpose for pursuing this course of action. For these reasons we cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold the Attorney General in contempt. We adamantly oppose this partisan attack and refuse to participate in any vote that would tarnish the image of Congress or of an Attorney General who has done nothing but work tirelessly to protect the rights of the American people. We must reflect upon why we are elected to this body and choose now to stand up for justice.

We call upon all members of Congress to stand with us during a press conference on the Capitol Building steps during this appalling series of votes to discuss our nation’s most significant priority–creating jobs. At this critically important time in our nation, we must work as colleagues rather than political enemies.

No Cajones in Congress…


OK, then what? If he’s usurping the law, he should be tried…where are the representatives of our country to call him to task? Huh? They have as much power as he, and can stop it.


Lamar Smith: Obama’s amnesty for illegal immigrants is against the law

The Obama administration decision for immunity from deportation for young illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with Americans. It also blatantly ignores the law. This isn’t the first time Obama has waived rules or refused to enforce laws against illegal immigration, writes Rep. Smith.


President Obama responds June 15 as he is interrupted while announcing that his administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants. Op-ed contributor Rep. Lamar Smith writes that to ‘ignore Congress and the Constitution is exactly what the president has done.’ 


It’s said that desperate times call for desperate measures. But in these dismal economic and political times, the Obama administration has called for unlawful measures that grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.

Today, Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, announced immunity from deportation for illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and who are younger than 30 – among other criteria. They can apply for a two-year work permit that can be renewed indefinitely.

The decision is not just a breach of faith with the American people. It blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy.

In an interview with Univision television earlier this year, President Obama said that he can’t just “waive away the laws that Congress put in place” and that “the president doesn’t have the authority to simply ignore Congress and say, ‘We’re not going to enforce the laws that you’ve passed.’”

But ignore Congress and the Constitution is exactly what the president has done –  and this isn’t the first time. Throughout the past three years of his administration, Mr. Obama has waived applying several of our immigration rules and has refused to enforce other immigration laws.

Earlier this year, administration officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) outlined their plan to ignore a rule that requires illegal immigrants to leave the US before they can then ask the federal government to waive a law that bans them from legally returning here for several years.

While the waiver of this rule is sometimes allowed under current law, it is only applied on a case-by-case basis, not to entire categories of illegal immigrants. But Obama and his administration have bent these established rules by applying them to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.

And this decision comes on the heels of an even larger plan to reward illegal immigrants. Last year, political appointees at DHS issued new deportation guidelines to target illegal immigrants that have been identified by DHS. That amounts to backdoor amnesty and strikes another blow at the 13 million unemployed American workers.

Under Obama’s deportation policy, DHS officials review all incoming and most pending cases before an immigration court to determine if the illegal immigrant can remain in the US. Since DHS political appointees have made clear that many illegal immigrants are not considered “priorities” for removal, this means that potentially millions of illegal immigrants can remain in the US without a vote of Congress.

The administration’s amnesty policy, expanded once again, not only violates the rule of law, it only benefits illegal immigrants, not Americans, and is a magnet for fraud. Many illegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children or are under the age of 30 and the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true.

And once these illegal immigrants are granted deferred action, they can then apply for a work permit, which the administration routinely grants 90 percent of the time. This could put even more US citizens on the unemployment rolls.

Ignoring Congress and the Constitution may be politically convenient for President Obama, but this huge policy shift has horrible consequences for unemployed Americans looking for jobs. It violates the president’s oath to uphold the laws of this land.

It doesn’t matter how bleak poll numbers are or how low campaign coffers may be, the president of the United States cannot ignore the rule of law.

A Constitutional Precedent Presents Itself…Who Will Listen?

Comments Off

Please don’t say you haven’t noticed…even better, why aren’t you telling people about this fake-in-chief? It’s time to send him packing before he declares himself King…

From the National Review…


Are We in Revolutionary Times?

By Victor Davis Hanson

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

Politically, Obama calculates that some polls showing the current likely Hispanic support for him in the high 50s or low 60s would not provide enough of a margin in critical states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, or perhaps also in Florida and Virginia, to counteract the growing slippage of the independent vote and the energy of the clinger/tea-party activists. Thus, what was not legal or advisable in 2009, 2010, or 2011, suddenly has become critical in mid-2012. No doubt free green cards will quickly lead to citizenship and a million new voters. Will it work politically? Obama must assume lots of things: that all Hispanics vote as a block in favoring exempting more illegal aliens from the law, and are without worry that the high unemployment rate hits their community among the hardest; that black voters, stung by his gay-marriage stance, will not resent what may be seen as de facto amnesty, possibly endangering his tiny (and slipping) lead in places like Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And because polls show overwhelming resistance to non-enforcement of immigration law, Obama also figures that the minority who supports his recent action does so far more vehemently than the majority who opposes it. Time will tell; but my gut feeling is that his brazen act will enrage far more than it will delight — and for a variety of different reasons. As with all his special-interest efforts — the Keystone cancellation, war-on-women ploy, gay-marriage turnabout, and now de facto amnesty — Obama believes dividing Americans along class, ethnic, gender, and cultural lines will result in a cobbled together majority, far more preferable than a 1996 Clinton-like effort to win over the independents by forging  a bipartisan consensus.

Economically, why would we formalize nearly a million new legally authorized workers when unemployment is approaching its 41st consecutive month over 8 percent — especially when Democrats used to label 5.4 percent unemployment as a “jobless recovery”? Here in California, the slowing of illegal immigration, due mostly to the fence and tough times, has led to steep wage hikes for entry-level and farm labor, and given a little more clout to Americans in so-called unskilled-labor fields. In other words, it really is true that the real beneficiaries of border enforcement are low-paid Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans who become more valued when they are not competing with virtually unlimited numbers of illegal-alien workers.

When you collate this recent act with the class-warfare rhetoric, the “punish our enemies” threats, the president’s and Eric Holder’s serial racialist statements, the huge borrowing, the national-security leaks, the takeover of health care, the push for redistributive taxes, and even the trivial appointments like a Van Jones, Anita Dunn, or Armendariz, you can fairly conclude that Obama most certainly did not like the way the United States operated for the last 30 or so years, and has tried his best, through hook or crook, to change America in ways that simply were not possible through legislative or even judicial action. Give the president credit. He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my vision of the way the new America should work — and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November, if you dare.

Waaaaaaa, the Republican Money Raising Is Damaging Democracy…

Comments Off

Puh-leeze…California, send her home. Why just the Republican fund raising is causing a problem with Democracy? What about all the Hollywood fund raisers for “O”? Wasn’t all this hair splitting when they were bragging about the Obama war chest during the Republican primary. Oh, and by the way Nancy….it’s not a democracy, it’s a Republic.

Pelosi reflects on 25 years in Congress
June 6th, 2012
07:19 PM ET

Pelosi reflects on 25 years in Congress


Posted by

CNN’s Ashley Killough

(CNN) – At an event to commemorate her 25 years in Congress, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi talked about the need for less money and more women in politics.

“The answer to almost every ‘How can we do better?’ is one word: women. More women in power,” Pelosi said at the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum in Washington.

Her comments came in a discussion with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who largely praised Pelosi throughout the interview and at one point referred to her former speakership as “Sam Rayburn-esque.”

While the minority leader reflected on her two and half decades in Congress, she mostly discussed her time as House speaker and being the first woman to hold the position.

She went into detail about the bitter 2004 fight between Republicans and Democrats over President George W. Bush’s agenda to privatize Social Security. Offering a rare bout of praise, however, Pelosi repeatedly described the former president as a “lovely man” and made a point to mention bipartisan legislation passed during his tenure.

She also took sharp aim at the soaring increase in campaign spending, especially nodding to the 2010 Supreme Court case that paved the way for the start of super PACs. The landmark decision, she argued, was the primary reason Republicans won the House majority two years ago, thereby ending her tenure as speaker.

She warned the outpouring of money from third party groups was the largest threat to democracy.

“This is a government of the plutocracy, of the wealthy, or of the few oligarchs,” she said. “Nothing less is at stake in this debate than our democracy, when the voice and the vote of the many determine elections, not the checkbooks of the very, very few.”

Pelosi has long been an advocate for campaign finance reform, and in an election year amplified by an aggressive fight for women voters, Pelosi said a less money-fueled political system would bring greater diversity to the halls of Congress.

“It’s gone too far. It’s over the edge. We have to pull it back, and when we do, one of the benefits will be much more diversity and people able to take a chance and run,” she said.


Ineligiblity….It’s Coming to a News Source Near You…Just Not In The MSM

Comments Off

OK, enough. Why didn’t you hear this from the MSM they ask. Simple…didn’t want to cover it..refuse to believe it. It’s in black and white, well, blue and white, yet they still spin it into non existance. OK, you believe a proven photoshopped birth certificate, you take him at his word, but NEVER vetted him. Our Congress should be more ashamed than the MSM, because this could rock the US now if they have to erase the 4 years. What would be gratifying is the rest of his “protection” be in Leavenworth…

The link for you to read the stammering spin of this is….Breitbart

The link for you to read real reporting is….World News Daily

Joseph Farah, owner of WND’s commentary on it….Farah

Bob Unrah’s article on states now questioning eligibility….Unrah


Blame it on Bush, No, Wait, I already did…

Comments Off

So, can he “double” blame Bush? He will never admit it, but by the time November gets here, he will have NOTHING to campaign on. Mitt Romney can all but sew it up by asking “Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago”? The same question Ronald Reagan asked can put him in office as well. And, I guess THAT can be blamed on Bush as well….from Bloomberg…

Obama Fails to Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed on Bush

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened.

The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even those who are employed.


Job Fair

A job seeker during a job fair hosted by the State of New York on April 12, 2012 in Brooklyn, New York. Photographer: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


“It started long before Obama, but he hasn’t done anything,” said John Forsyth, 58, a railroad-car inspector and political independent from Lebanon, Ohio. “He kept pushing this change, change, change, and he hasn’t done anything.”

Underlying the erosion of the middle class, defined by some economists as the middle 60 percent of income earners, are trends that stretch back decades, including competition from lower-wage workers overseas and technological advances that allow factories and offices to produce more with less labor.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households — those headed by someone younger than 65 — had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.

1% Get 93%

A president who attacked Bush’s policies for favoring the rich has overseen a recovery in which the wealthiest 1 percent captured 93 percent of per-capita real income gains in 2010, according to an analysis of tax data by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

On average, families in the top 1 percent saw their inflation-adjusted incomes rise by $105,637 that year from 2009, according to Saez.

While there is no settled definition of middle class, the middle 60 percent of households nationwide in 2010 earned between $20,000 and $100,000, according to the U.S. Census.

In and around Dayton, Ohio, a region that has endured a wrenching shift from dependence on the auto industry to new sources of growth such as distribution warehouses and information technology, disappointment with Obama is often balanced by wariness of his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

“I don’t know if there’s anybody I’m going to vote for,” Forsyth said of the candidates.

Limited Opportunity

While the U.S. unemployment rate fell from a peak of 10 percent in October 2009 to 8.2 percent in March, the jobs data that dominate public discussion obscure a shift that has limited opportunity for workers such as Forsyth.

Ninety-five percent of the net job losses during the recession were in middle-skill occupations, such as office workers, bank tellers and machine operators, according to research by economists Nir Jaimovich of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Henry Siu of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

The job growth since has been clustered in either high- skill fields inaccessible to workers without advanced education or low-paying industries, they found.

In March, 3.2 million fewer Americans held sales and office jobs than five years earlier, and 1.2 million fewer were employed in transportation and production fields, all areas that typically pay middle-income wages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Dayton’s Dreams

By contrast, the number of better-paid managerial and professional employees grew by almost 2 million over that period and employment in lower-paying service jobs expanded by 1.5 million.

In Dayton — the birthplace of aviation and such inventions as the mechanical cash register, the self-starting car engine, the stepladder and cellophane tape — these trends have diminished incomes and curtailed dreams.

Mandy Copeland, a 34-year-old occupational therapy assistant, and her husband, a heating and ventilation technician, have given up hope of trading their three-bedroom ranch house for a home with a basement that they could turn into a recreation room for their three children.

Eighteen-year-old Alex Ray recently decided he would wait on attending a four-year college and instead spend his first year at a local community college. His father, Tom Ray, a 47- year-old information-technology project manager who only recently regained a wage cut his employer imposed during the recession, praised his son for a “very mature” choice that he estimated would save $20,000.

Falling Birthrate

Fewer children are being brought into the world; the birthrate in Montgomery County, where Dayton is located, has fallen every year since 2007, in keeping with a national trend. Even the rituals of death have changed.

To save money, families are increasingly choosing cremation over burial, said Anne Dunbar, co-owner of a funeral home in the Dayton suburb of Springfield. Others are forgoing memorial services for simple graveside ceremonies. Rather than flowers or donations to a charity, 15 to 20 families a year now ask that newspaper obituaries include a plea for contributions toward funeral expenses, she said.

‘The Real Majority’

The challenges facing residents in this Ohio city about 60 miles north of Cincinnati have been emblematic of the issues that have moved centrist swing voters ever since the 1970 publication of “The Real Majority,” a top-selling political analysis. Authors Richard Scammon and Ben Wattenberg created a mythical 47-year-old Dayton housewife to argue that her most pressing concerns had the potential to turn presidential elections.

Today, the most pressing concern for Lisa Meeks, 47, is making herself “more marketable” to potential employers. Meeks, who left her pre-school teaching position because her hours were reduced, now rides the bus to Sinclair Community College in the morning and then boards another bus to get to her new job, working the evening shift as a call-center manager.

“I’m still seeing people struggling,” said Meeks. “You hear people saying, ‘I’ve put in four job applications and I haven’t heard anything back. What am I doing wrong?’”

Though the scale is greater, the workplace shifts that Dayton and the rest of the country are seeing parallel the Bush- era job trends that Obama criticized four years ago, when he said that during President Bill Clinton’s administration “the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of go down $2,000, like it has under George Bush.”

Stopping Downturn

Arriving in the White House during a financial crisis, Obama concentrated on stopping a downturn that many economists feared could turn into a depression. He pressed for an $831 billion stimulus package and an auto-industry bailout. He cut taxes for middle-class workers and backed a health-care overhaul that he said would help middle-income families by keepingmedical costs down and easing access to insurance coverage.

To promote a skilled workforce, the Obama administration has stressed support for education, including aid to local schools to reduce teacher layoffs. It has emphasized infrastructure improvements to promote competitiveness and backed clean-energy technologies that could provide future jobs.

Romney says deficit spending to finance the stimulus, uncertainty generated by the health law, and tighter regulation of the financial industry have deterred businesses from hiring. He backs reductions in government spending and tax cuts, including for wealthy “job creators” to spur investment.

Nothing Obama has accomplished in office so far has stopped what Siu calls “the hollowing out of the middle.”

No Overnight Fix

Just 19 percent of registered voters believe the president’s policies favor the middle class, compared with 25 percent who say they benefit the rich, according to a CBS-New York Times poll conducted Feb. 8-13. Still, asked to choose which candidate would do a better job protecting the middle class, 49 percent say Obama and 39 percent Romney, according to an April 5-8 ABC News-Washington Post poll.

“The economic crisis, deep recession and wage stagnation weren’t created overnight and they won’t be solved overnight,” Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “While we are making progress and the economy is growing and creating jobs, too many middle class families are still struggling to recover from the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes caused by the reckless economic policies of the past.”

Fundamental Forces

Siu and other economists attribute the phenomenon to such fundamental forces as the movement of production offshore to lower-cost countries and technological gains that have made U.S. companies more efficient. Even with 5.2 million fewer Americans employed since January 2008, the U.S. is turning out more goods and services than before the recession, one reason corporate profits hit record levels and wealthy investors prospered.

Robots are replacing factory workers. Airport kiosks are taking the place of ticket agents. Intuit Inc. (INTU)’s TurboTax software performs the work of accountants.

“This is early days. We see the next 10 years as being more disruptive than the last 10,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the MIT Center for Digital Business and co-author of the book “Race Against the Machine.” He cites developments in artificial-intelligence technologies such as those in Google Inc. (GOOG)’s experimental self-driving car, International Business Machine Corp. (IBM)’s Jeopardy-playing Watson computer, and Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s Siri voice-recognition software.

Plant Closing

That disruption is being felt in the Dayton area. Thousands of auto workers and employees at related parts manufacturers and machine-tool makers lost their jobs after General Motors Co. (GM) closed its plant in nearby Moraine two days before Christmas in 2008. Less than six months later, NCR Corp. (NCR), once called National Cash Register Co. and founded in Dayton in 1884, said it would move its headquarters to Duluth, Georgia, taking more than a thousand jobs with it.

Unemployment in the Dayton metropolitan region reached 12.4 percent in January 2010, though the jobless rate had come down to 8.7 percent in February.

Some of the lost manufacturing and office jobs have been replaced by growth in warehouse centers that take advantage of the area’s location near the intersection of two interstate highways, said Richard Stock, director of the Business Research Group at the University of Dayton.

Caterpillar Logistics, a unit of Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), and Carter Logistics LLC opened distribution centers in the area. Employees at those and other warehouses are paid “above a living wage, but they’re definitely for the most part lower-middle-income jobs,” Stock said.

High Skills Needed

The other major sources of growth have been in information technology, exemplified byTeradata Corp. (TDC), headquartered in Dayton, and Reed Elsevier Plc (REL)’s Lexis Nexis unit, which has a facility in the area, Stock said

Aeronautics and advanced materials manufacturing have also expanded around Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, home of the Air Force Materiel Command and Air Force Research Laboratory, Stock said. GE Aviation, a unit of Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. (GE), broke ground last year on a $51 million research center in Dayton.

“Those jobs are at the very high-skilled end, jobs that require quite a bit of education,” Stock said. “There are not too many jobs in the middle.”

As a result, pay has declined. Real average weekly earnings in the metropolitan area dropped to $800 last year from $817 in 2007, according to U.S. Labor Department data analyzed by Stock.

Sitting on a metal bleacher watching her 7-year-old son at an early evening baseball practice, Mandy Copeland reflected on the expectations she and her husband had six years ago when she finished the coursework that qualified her for her occupational therapy job.

“We had pretty high hopes,” she said. “Now we’re just happy we have jobs.”

Romney Wouldn’t Have Killed Bin Laden…I did it!

Comments Off

Why is it that you have to read a news story with truth about our country from outside our country? Could it be because we have no news outlets in today’s liberal media. I have already told you about Fox News selling itself to the left. Will anyone actually step up and change their vote because this man places himself above the people who protect and serve? He has not served…he has “glorified” himself to his lovers….from the Mail Online…


SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.


Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden's death as a campaign toolTaking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden’s death as a campaign tool

Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.

‘I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.’

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year agoTarget: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year ago

Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compoundMission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compound

Mr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.

She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It’s one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room… all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’

Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it. 

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot. 

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the sameRival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the same

Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command. 

Mr Kyle added: ‘He’s trying to say that Romney wouldn’t have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it’s going to get him some pretty good mileage.’

A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.

‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’

Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.

‘Obama inherited a very robust package with regards to special ops and the intelligence community. But Obama deserves credit because he got bin Laden – you can’t take that away from him. 

‘My friends that work in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) that have been on video teleconferences with Obama on these kill or capture situations say that Obama has no issue whatsoever with making decisions and typically it’s kill. He’s hitting the kill button every time. I have a lot of respect for him for that.’

But he said that many SEALs were dismayed about the amount of publicity the Obama administration had generated about SEAL Team Six, the very existence of which is highly classified.

‘The majority of the SEALs I know are really proud of the operation but it does become “OK, enough is enough – we’re ready to get back to work and step out of the limelight.” They don’t want to be continuously paraded around a global audience like a show dog.

‘Obama has a very good relationship with the Special Operations community at large, especially the SEALs, and it’s nice to see. We had the same relationship with George W. Bush when he was president.’

It was ‘stretching a little much’ for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ‘I personally I don’t think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional. 

‘He may not have charisma but he clearly has leadership skills. I don’t think he’d have any problem taking that decision.’

Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ‘We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.

‘It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.

‘Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.’

Dems vow to Legislate against SCOTUS Decision

Comments Off

Boy, some folks need to read up on the rules. Constitutional Rules. If SCOTUS rules that Arizona’s law is constitutional, and then congress does this, it would be an act of defiance of the final arbiter of the constitution. Do you think that falls in the realm of the definition of failure of their oath to the Constitution and sedition against the 10th Amendment? Whether it could be called Treason is shaky, but certainly within the realm of abuse of elected powers. From the Washington Post


Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court

By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: April 23

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.

The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states.

“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.

He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration, Schumer will hold a hearing Tuesday on the impact of the Arizona law. The state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as will opponents of the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), the law’s chief proponent, was invited but declined to attend.

The Obama administration sued to prevent implementation of the Arizona law — which included a provision requiring local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they suspect is in the country illegally — arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration laws and that the state’s statute interferes with federal efforts.

In response, federal courts have blocked key portions of the law from going into effect. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state has the power to pass the legislation because Washington has failed to deal with the illegal-immigration problem.

Schumer said he believes the court will side with the federal government. But if it does not, he will propose a new law requiring federal approval for new state immigration laws, essentially blocking implementation of Arizona’s law and others like it that have passed elsewhere.

The legislation would also bar states from imposing their own penalties, beyond federal sanctions, for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some business leaders have said they are concerned new state rules on hiring could lead to a patchwork of conflicting employment rules across the country.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said he opposes the federal lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to block the Arizona law.

But he has been working to improve his popularity with Hispanic voters, who according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll favor President Obama by more than 40 points.

Those numbers come after Romney took a hard line on immigration during the Republican primary season, opposing the Dream Act — which would provide a path to citizenship for some young adults brought to the country illegally by their parents as children — and indicating that he supports making life in America tough enough for illegal immigrants that they voluntarily “self-deport.”

His campaign has protested that his February comments describing the Arizona law as a “model” for the nation were misinterpreted.

Campaign officials have insisted that Romney meant only a provision requiring employers to use an electronic database to check the immigration status of potential employees. They have said recently that he believes states should be able to decide whether Arizona-style laws are appropriate.

A congressional debate on the issue would probably force Romney to take a more definitive position on Arizona’s statute and the broader issue of the proper balance of state and federal power in immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Republicans would surely cite the proposed legislation as another example of Democratic attempts to expand the federal government and squash state power.

“It’s a calculated decision,” said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School who has been following the case. “It would keep focus on an issue, but in a way that may or may not be a winner for Democrats.”

Dick “Turban” Durbin on Tornadoes and Hybrids…

Comments Off

Senator Dick Durban needs to go back to Illinois and retire. He’s losing it. Don’t believe me? (Don’t look for the science to back it, he didn’t need it since he’s the authority I guess…)

Durbin Says We Must Buy Hybrid Cars Because Of Tornadoes: “It’s Your Money Or Your Life”

Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.

“It’s your money or your life,” he said a press conference. “We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.”

You can hear him say it yourself, the video is at Real Clear Politics….

Older Entries Newer Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers