Florida Democratic Headquarters Desecrates American Flag With Obama's Picture

By Susan Duclos


News video below:



Local veterans became enraged when a Florida Democratic headquarters thought it would be a good idea to fly an American flag that had been desecrated with Obama's picture.

Florida Political Press reports:

A veterans group arrived late this afternoon with the media in tow and demanded that the second flag be taken down. Don Van Beck, executive director of the Veterans Memorial at Fountain Park asked that the altered flag be removed, explaining that it was in violation of federal flag code. He offered a POW/MIA flag to fly in its place.

Nancy Hurlburt, the Democratic Party Chair for Lake County, said she would research the issue but didn’t take the Obama flag down immediately, prompting Van Beck to declare that they would take the flag down for her.

“No, you will not. This is private property,” Hurlbert responded.

After a short time spent ‘researching’, Hurlbert relented and took down the flag while the veterans looked on. She did not accept the POW/MIA flag offered as a replacement.

Via Fox News:

Lake County Democratic Party officials took down the flag, which flew just below a standard Old Glory on the flagpole outside headquarters in Tavares following complaints by local veterans. But merely taking it down wasn't enough for several local veterans, who said they fought for the flag Betsy Ross made famous, not one with a politician on it.

"It's absolutely disrespectful," Jim Bradford, a 71-year-old veteran who participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion told FoxNews.com. "It's totally ridiculous. To put somebody's picture there, to me, it's a disgrace to do that."

Bradford, an organizer with the Veterans Memorial at Fountain Park in Leesburg, Fla., snapped photos of the flag and distributed them to fellow veterans and friends. By late afternoon, he and several other veterans delivered a copy of the federal flag code to Nancy Hurlbert, chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party.

"We read that to her, but she would not accept that," Bradford said. "The discussion finally got a little bit heated."

More:

Hurlbert said she intends to contact an attorney regarding the matter and remained non-committal as to whether she'll fly the flag again.

"I won't say no and I won't say yes," she said. "We want to find out what our legal rights are."

Jenn Meale, communications director for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, referred FoxNews.com to state laws that pertain to the use of flags on public lands and property when asked for clarification as to whether Hurlbert could face any penalties.

Statute 256.05, which covers improper use of state or United States flag, or other symbol of authority, reads: "No person shall, in any manner, for exhibition or display:

"(1) Place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, color, ensign or shield of the United States or of this state, or authorized by any law of the United States or this state; or

"(2) Expose to public view any such flag, standard, color, ensign or shield upon which shall have been printed, painted or otherwise produced, or to which shall have been attached, appended, affixed or annexed any such word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement."

Meanwhile, Jay Agg, communications director for AMVETS, told FoxNews.com that the American flag should never be altered.

"While we are pleased the flag in question has since been removed from public display, the reported fact that it had flown for months without protest is a clear indication that we have much work to do in educating the public of the importance of protecting our flag," Agg wrote in an email. "This issue is especially important to AMVETS' members, the men and women who have proudly worn our nation's uniform and served under her flag."

The final insult to veterans? The flag is made in China.

Finally, a flag I wouldn't mind seeing burned.


.

Gallup Poll Shows America Moving To The Right

By Susan Duclos

As Barack Obama has moved America's policies to the left, the country's response has been to move to the right.

Via Gallup:

Democrats have lost their solid political party affiliation advantage in 18 states since 2008, while Republicans have gained a solid advantage in 6 states. A total of 17 states were either solidly Republican or leaning Republican in their residents' party affiliation in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including the District of Columbia showed a solid or leaning Democratic orientation, down from 23 in 2010 and 36 in 2008. The remaining 15 states were relatively balanced politically, with neither party having a clear advantage.

Click image to enlarge

.

Democratic Lawmaker's Statements Criticizing Obama For Keystone Decision

By Susan Duclos

Speaker Boehner's website has provided a list of Democratic lawmakers who have made public statements criticizing the leader of their own party, Barack Obama on his political decision to reject the Keystone pipeline from Canada.

A chorus of criticism is being directed at the White House for rejecting 20,000 Keystone pipeline jobs, and by a surprising group: members of the president’s own party. The White House is not just taking heat from labor unions, governors and editorial boards, but also Democrats in Congress who say the president’s decision to play politics with tens of thousands of American jobs is “disappointing and frustrating.” Here’s more:

• Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT): “As I said before, families in this country want elected officials to address the jobs crisis and restore economic growth. This project is estimated to create thousands of high-paying jobs and will provide access to an affordable, secure source of energy. … This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security.” (Press Release, 1/18/12)

• Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): “The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence.” (Press Release, 1/18/12)

• Rep. Gene Green (D-TX): “I am very disappointed in the President’s decision today. … Any further delays by the Administration only prolong our dependence on oil from nations that are hostile to us and could encourage the Canadians to sell their product elsewhere.” (Press Release, 1/18/12)

• Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): “U.S. Congressman Mike Ross of Prescott on Wednesday criticized President Obama’s decision to reject the permits to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline … ‘We need jobs and we need jobs now. Building and opening this pipeline are commonsense, straightforward actions our government can take to create private-sector jobs, boost economic development and lower the price of fuel for all Americans,’ said Ross.” (Press Release, 1/18/12)

• Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY): “‘With conflicts overseas driving up prices at the pump and so many Americans out looking for work, I am deeply disappointed that the White House has formally rejected the Keystone XL pipeline permit,’ said Owens. ‘As we work toward a long-term renewable energy program, beginning construction on the Keystone pipeline is the right short-term solution for the nation’s energy concerns and putting Americans back to work.’” (Press Release, 1/18/11)

• Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT): “I am disappointed in the President’s decision.” (Press Release, 1/18/12)

• Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): “We've done three years of analysis and worked hard on strict environmental considerations — now it's time to move forward on the jobs and energy security our nation deserves, and I'll keep fighting tooth and nail until that happens.” (Great Falls Tribune, 1/19/12)

• Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): “President Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America's energy independence. … I respectfully urge the President to reconsider this decision.” (Press Release, 1/18/12)

• Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK): “America needs more affordable energy and the jobs its development would produce, so the Obama administration’s decision to deny or delay the Keystone Pipeline project from moving forward is disappointing and frustrating. I’ll continue to push the administration to approve this jobs-creating project.” (Press Release, 1/18/11)

• Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR): “I strongly disagree with President Obama’s decision to postpone the Keystone pipeline project. This project will sustain and create jobs in the United States.” (Press Release, 1/18/12)

[Update] Around the web today on Obama's Keystone decision includes, Wapo with "Obama's Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept";

The Politico with "Nebraska governor: ‘The president made a mistake’";

Heritage with "House Committee to Consider Bill to Advance Keystone Pipeline."

Recent related posts by WuA:

Obama Rejects Keystone As Obama's Jobs Council Says Expedite Projects Like Pipelines

Obama To The American People:

Keystone XL Pipeline: Since Obama Is Dragging His feet, Canada Looks To Asia To Sell Energy Supplies

.

Only A Democrat Could Try To Create A Board To Determine 'Reasonable Profits'

By Susan Duclos

Everyone that starts a business does so to earn as much in profit as possible. It is capitalism and the American dream to not have a limit of how high you can fly.

Which is why The Hill headline "Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits," simply astounded me.

Democrats want to set up a board that would determine what type of business profits are "reasonable" and not even have any industry representative on the board.

Brings me right back to 2010 when Barack Obama went off script and teleprompter and informed an audience that "at a certain point you’ve made enough money."

I repeat... only a Democrat would propose creating a board to determine what "reasonable profits" are for a company that is in business to make as much money as possible.

Turning this over to Hot Air's Ed Morrissey for some context here:

First, a reality check is in order. While politicians like to hyperventilate over the gross dollar amounts of profit from oil companies, profit is most accurately measured as a percentage — the ratio of profits to the cost of producing those profits. Does the oil industry have a record of exploitive profit margins? Hardly. For 2009, the oil and gas industry ranked 9th on Fortune’s list with a margin of 10.2%, exactly half of that of the network/communications industry, which finished first in 2008 as well. In fact, the margin for oil/gas decreased by three and a half points between 2008 and 2009.

The 2009 list is actually rather instructive. Internet retail has a 19.4% margin, and no one in Congress would dare talk about seizing profits from Amazon (for instance) as “unreasonable,” even though the margin in that industry is almost twice that of oil/gas. That, however, highlights a pattern of politically-motivated outrage for Democrats on profit. Remember in 2009-10 when Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats castigated insurance companies as “villains” who profited while Americans suffered? They finished 22nd on the Fortune list with a barely respectable 4.5% average profit margin.

So let’s put this in real terms. If the oil/gas industry had $500 billion in sales, then a 10.2% margin would be roughly $60 billion in profit — after investors spent $440 billion to generate those sales. Is that unreasonable? That’s a decision that should be left to the investors and the consumers who buy the product. Guess who gets excluded from the “Reasonable Profits Board”?

Oil Related

Washington Post "Obama's Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept."

.

In Defense Of Newt: Unemployment For African-Americans Highest In 27 Years

By Susan Duclos

There has been an indignant firestorm across the liberal blogosphere about comments that Newt Gingrich made referencing "why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Slate's Dave Weigel tweeted a slightly altered version of Gingrich's quote at 9:34 a.m., and Talking Points Memo put it up less than 20 minutes later with the headline, "Newt: African Americans Should Get Off Food Stamps; Demand Paychecks." An hour after that, The Daily Beast ran its story with the headline, "Gingrich to African-Americans: Get Off of Food Stamps." By the end of the day, the AP was comparing the quote to a remark made by Rick Santorum that the president of the National Urban League criticized as pandering to racist elements in the GOP.

Context:

A reporter on the trail notes that Gingrich frequently says in his stump speeches that he would urge people to demand paychecks instead of food stamps — a talking point that it is not usually met with great alarm by the media. He also frequently says that he would go to the NAACP convention if it invited him. On Thursday morning, the two points came together when he said he would go to the NAACP convention and explain "why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Now, for those unaware, the NAACP stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Here is another handy fact: In September of 2011 it was reported that unemployment for African Americans surged to the highest levels in 27 years to 16.7% in August of 2011.




Add in another fact: Since 2009 there has been a 31 percent increase in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) which was known as the Food Stamp Program until 2008.




So, all together, even the left leaning Politico admits that Gingrich's frequent themes are to demand paychecks instead of food stamps which addresses the high unemployment levels, he was speaking of going to the NAACP convention and the NAACP focuses on issues that affect African-Americans and blacks have the highest levels of unemployment in 27 years.

Now back to Gingrich saying "why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Makes sense in context. Any candidate that plans to speak in front of NAACP members and did not plan to address African-American issues specifically, would be a moron.

So why is the liberal blogosphere up in arms screaming racism yet again?

Here is why: Blacks have been the Democrats’ most reliable voting bloc for the last 50 years. Obama's approval among blacks peaked at 96 percent in five different weeks in 2009 and by August 0f 2011 his approval among blacks had dropped to 81 percent according to Gallup's demographic breakdowns.

National Review explains:

Both parties know this. If the GOP peeled off just 5 or 10 percent of the black vote, Democrats would be in perpetual electoral jeopardy, and not just at the presidential level.

So the reason liberals are losing their minds over Newt's statement is because they know that if a conservative, any conservative, offers African-American's a viable alternative to Barack Obama's policies which has landed blacks into the highest unemployment rate in decades, then the chances of Obama being reelected in 2012 dives.

In September, Barack Obama himself told the Congressional Black Caucus to "Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying....." (Video here)

Was Obama a racist for saying that?

Might not have been the smartest thing to say, but it wasn't racist.

Neither was what Newt said.

When a Democrat addresses African-Americans and issues facing them, in a liberal's mind it is because they care.

If a conservative addresses African-Americans and issues facing them, in a liberals mind, it is because they are racist.

.

News Flash: Iowa Is A Closed Primary/Caucus State- Only Registered Republicans Count

By Susan Duclos

Headline from Democratic leaning Public Policy Polling today blares "Paul Maintains His Lead."

Dig into the article and the poll shows that Paul's lead is mainly with Democrats and Independents and has in fact shrunk among Republican voters.

Paul's strength in Iowa continues to depend on a coalition of voters that's pretty unusual for a Republican in the state. Romney leads 22-20 with those who are actually Republicans, while Paul has a 39-12 advantage with the 24% who are either independents or Democrats.

News Flash: Iowa is a closed primary/caucus state.

Closed primary/caucuses mean that only voters registered with a given party can vote in the primary.

Caveat: Voters may change registration on the day of the primary.

Using PPP's polling from a week ago and again this week, we see that favorable impressions among Democrats rose from 59 percent to 70 percent. Favorability among Independents rose from 60 percent to 63 percent.

Favorability among Republicans fell from 52 percent to 49 percent.

Perhaps a percentage of those Democratic Paul supporters will change their registration to Republican and for the sake of argument lets say a portion of Independents will give up their party freedom to register as a Republican.

How many? Will there be enough that change party affiliation or register to push Paul into a win in Iowa? Are the Democrats that are willing to change party affiliation to Republican, just to participate doing it because they are disappointed in Obama or to cause "mischief ?"

With all the headlines and discussions talking about the Paul lead in Iowa, not much is seen mentioning the fact that Iowa is a closed primary/caucus, so a simple Google search finds some mention although not a whole lot.

Neil Stevens over at RedState on December 13, talks about it.

But these numbers are not as great for Ron Paul as some would have us believe. Ron Paul is only winning among Paul caucusers in the state, and he came in fifth place in 2008 at 10%, well behind Mike Huckabee’s 34%. The only way Paul wins is to register new Republicans by the truckload and then drive them to the caucuses. As the polls show, so far that’s not happening. His supporters are still independents, not Republicans, and thus don’t matter in the final tally.

The bottom line here is a Republican nor Democratic candidate of choice, the eventual nominee, no matter who takes Iowa and/or New Hampshire primaries and caucuses, is chosen by the party faithful not "the other party" and Paul's highest level of support is from Democrats.

.

Voters Leave Political Parties But Independents Lean Toward Conservative

By Susan Duclos


USA Today reports that voters are leaving the Republican and Democratic parties in droves.

A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states.

The trend is acute in states that are key to next year's presidential race. In the eight swing states that register voters by party, Democrats' registration is down by 800,000 and Republicans' by 350,000. Independents have gained 325,000.

There are still more registered Democrats than there are Republicans and Independents have gained significantly.

The good news for Republicans here comes from a Pew Research poll in September 2011, that shows "All Voters" and "Independents" lean towards conservatism, not liberalism.

Click image to enlarge

Swing states are going to be critical in the 2012 presidential election and according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll, in December 2011, "Sixty-one percent of Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president next year, compared with 47% of Democrats."

Among the most enthusiastic are some of the GOP's core voters: conservatives, middle-aged men and those 50 to 64 years old. Those who are least enthused include core Democratic groups that were critical to Obama's election in 2008, including minorities and younger voters.

If these numbers hold in the swing states, this will largely negate the lead Democrats have in the amount of Democrats registered compared to Republicans, leaving Independents to a very important voting bloc for deciding the 2012 presidential election.

.

Harry Reid And Barack Obama Take America Hostage

By Susan Duclos

Headline might be snark but once again we see the "hostage" tag being used against a political party, this time used by Republicans against Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid.

Not many have forgotten that Barack Obama in December of 2010 called GOP lawmakers "hostage takers" and throughout 2011, Democratic lawmakers continued to use the term "hostage" in every public budget, spending or tax battle.

Did anyone doubt the shoe would be put on the other foot and come back to bite Democrats in the butt?

Via The Hill:

With government funding due to run out Friday, McConnell said averting a government shutdown should be the first priority. He suggested Congress could revisit the payroll-tax debate later this month or early next year. The payroll-tax holiday is scheduled to expire Dec. 31.

“Let’s deal first with the deadline that happens this Friday, two days from now,” McConnell said. “Fund the government through the rest of the fiscal year and then turn immediately to the payroll-tax extension.”

McConnell has accused Reid of holding the omnibus spending bill, which Republicans want to pass, hostage to gain leverage in negotiations over the payroll-tax holiday.

According to Roll Call, quoted earlier here, Barack Obama and Harry Reid deliberately are delaying the vote on the "omnibus spending package because they worry that approving it would remove the incentive for House Republicans to stay in town and reach a compromise on the payroll tax cut extension."

Roll Call continues and yes, the word hostage is again used.

But in the process, they've made themselves vulnerable to the attack they've been using all year against Republicans: that they're holding the government hostage until they get what they want.

Back to the original Hill report:

Reid said the omnibus is not ready for a vote because there are unresolved issues related to Cuba travel, the Defense Department’s use of coal, new light bulb standards and funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The problem with Reid denial is that other Democrats have said the bill was done and ready.

Even some Democrats were frustrated at the tactic.

"Our bill is done, and it should go to the president immediately," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), ranking member on Simpson's subcommittee. "We're not holding it up. ... I can't speak for Harry Reid. I can't speak for him. As far as I'm concerned, it should be done."

More:

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers said Democrats reneged on the deal at the eleventh hour.

"It's settled. The big four were ready [Monday] night to file the bill," the Kentucky Republican said, referring to the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Appropriations panels. "Then the word came that Sen. Reid had put a hold on our bill, that the Senate conferees would not sign the report."

Not only has Reid and Obama taken America hostage but Harry Reid has just been busted by a member of his own party in a huge lie to Americans about it.

.

House Passes Payroll Cut Extension 234 to 193 Despite Veto Threat By Obama

By Susan Duclos

"This Congress needs to do its job and stop the tax hike that’s scheduled to affect 160 million Americans in 18 days"--- White House press secretary Jay Carney

Carney said this after the House of Representatives did pass the bill. (Roll call here on 234/193 House vote) 10 House Democrats voted for the bill and 14 Republicans voted against it.

The White House threatened to veto the bill prior to it being passed because the method the Republican controlled House used to pay for the the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits, two central elements of Obama's own job plan.

The Hill explains:

The administration’s veto threat referenced provisions that Republicans use to pay for the bill, including the repeal of funding for the 2010 healthcare law and measures that, the White House said, broke a spending agreement hatched this summer during the debt-limit deal. Obama has previously threatened to reject the GOP bill over the inclusion of a measure forcing the administration to expedite a decision on the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.

According to the New York Times piece on this, Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid is declaring this bill "dead on arrival" in the Senate.

Reid, of course, predictably, wants to pay for the payroll cut extension, with... wait for it, three guesses and the first two don't count......... that's right!!!! TAXES!!!!

In the meantime, Reid and Obama have decided to play a game of chicken with Republicans by deliberately delaying action on the end of the year omnibus spending package until Congress comes to an agreement on the bill that includes the payroll tax cut extension, to which even some Democrats are finding frustrating. (Source- Roll Call)

The White House and Senate Democrats are delaying action on the omnibus spending package because they worry that approving it would remove the incentive for House Republicans to stay in town and reach a compromise on the payroll tax cut extension. But in the process, they've made themselves vulnerable to the attack they've been using all year against Republicans: that they're holding the government hostage until they get what they want.

[...]

A frustrated Rep. Mike Simpson — who as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Environment has slogged his way through dozens of riders to reach a bipartisan deal — said Democrats are playing shutdown politics.durb

"They're trying to get some leverage on the tax bill," the Idaho Republican said. "After six months of trying to blame Republicans for trying to shut down the government, they're the ones that won't sign the conference report that would keep the government open."

Even some Democrats were frustrated at the tactic.

"Our bill is done, and it should go to the president immediately," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), ranking member on Simpson's subcommittee. "We're not holding it up. ... I can't speak for Harry Reid. I can't speak for him. As far as I'm concerned, it should be done."

From Speaker of the House, John Boehner's blog:

Last night, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed legislation, with bipartisan support, to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for Americans struggling in President Obama's economy. In keeping with Republicans’ continued focus on job creation, the legislation includes sensible, bipartisan measures to help the private sector create jobs. Unfortunately, with the clock ticking, the Democrats who run Washington have no cohesive plan or unified strategy for passing their own priorities, instead resorting to holding government funding hostage – a tactic senior Democrats are openly criticizing . Even the linchpin of Democrats’ maneuvering – the president’s veto threat – is based on fictitious claims and lacks any mention of the Keystone energy project he explicitly said he would reject. As Speaker Boehner said last night after the House vote, it’s time for the Senate to act.

It also provides a virtual link fest of media stories and quotes on the passage of the bill, referencing both Republicans and Democrats.

The White House had created a "countdown clock" to pressure Congress to act on this bill, after the passage in the House, Republicans updated the White House's clock to reflect the fact that the ball is now in the Democratically controlled Senate's court.:



.

USA TODAY/Gallup: Enthusiasm Gap Favors GOP Over Dems By 61% To 47%

By Susan Duclos

Via USA Today, the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll has more bad news for Barack Obama and Democrats as the enthusiasm gap between parties, which favored Democrats in 2008 has swung towards Republicans.

And the "enthusiasm gap" that helped fuel a Democratic victory last time has turned into a Republican asset. Sixty-one percent of Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president next year, compared with 47% of Democrats.

Among the most enthusiastic are some of the GOP's core voters: conservatives, middle-aged men and those 50 to 64 years old. Those who are least enthused include core Democratic groups that were critical to Obama's election in 2008, including minorities and younger voters.

Another finding in the poll shows the ideological makeup of America where self identified Conservatives more than double those that self identify as Liberal.

But the nation's ideological makeup creates more stress for Democrats than Republicans. In the 12 swing states identified by USA TODAY, 44% of those surveyed are conservatives, more than double the 21% who call themselves liberal.

To win a majority, the GOP needs to attract the lion's share of conservatives plus only a fraction of the 35% who call themselves moderates.

In contrast, the Democratic candidate has to claim the solid support not only of liberals but also most of the moderates.

By and large, the majority of Conservatives will coalesce behind the GOP nominee once one wins the Republican nomination as the majority of Democrats will unite behind Obama.

Which brings us to a key voting bloc... Independents.

According to Gallup in August of 2011, more Independents consider themselves Conservative than they do Liberal.

By 44% to 35%, more independents are moderate than conservative -- with the percentage conservative continuing to be a notch higher than it was from 2000 to 2008. Another 20% are liberal, similar to the national average. Conservatism among independents increased fairly sharply in 2009, from 30% to 35%, largely explaining the expansion of conservatism nationally at that time, and it has held at that level since then.

With Republicans being more enthused than Democrats, self identified Conservatives doubling Liberals, and a 15% Republican lead over Democrats within the Independent bloc of voters, Barack Obama's reelection prospects continue to dwindle.


(Cartoon via Google images)

.

Occupy Wall Street To Target The Democratic National Convention

By Susan Duclos

Democrats and Barack Obama have embraced the Occupy Wall Street movement but do they want Occupiers occupying the Democratic National Convention in 2012?

Via New York Mag:

In John Heilemann's cover story "2012=1968?," he wonders whether Occupy Wall Street protesters will do to Charlotte's Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2012 what demonstrators did to the Chicago DNC in 1968. The North Carolina city, sometimes called the "Wall Street of the South," is not taking any chances, and is already working to pass an ordinance that would make occupying downtown spaces with tents a "public nuisance," in addition to banning "noxious substances," padlocks, and other camping equipment. The fact that it would knock out the city's current overnight demonstrators is an added bonus.

Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx said dubiously last month that the rule, which could be enacted in January, is not aimed at a specific group. "Unlike many cities that have well-developed regulations governing protest activity, our local regulations contain gaps that need to be filled," he said. But a memo about the ordinance does note, "The recent issues related to camping on city property have further amplified the need to review whether the city wants to regulate this activity during the DNC." A city councilman added of the current Occupy Charlotte faction, "Once those ordinances go into effect, those overnight stays will end."

A local National Lawyers Guild director says that the rule's constitutionality might be challenged and could even spur "increased confrontation between protesters and police." For their part, the protesters say they don't even have a plan for the DNC yet, but acknowledge the opportunity it presents. "Everybody I talked to said the DNC is ground zero for everything," said one organizer. "Everybody wants to be involved. We're estimating several thousands of people coming especially from the Occupy community." The idea of an alternative convention has been floated, while another Occupy organizer called the DNC "a powder keg." Tents or no tents, Charlotte "has got a big target on it," he said.

Reminds me a bit of Dr. Frankenstein creating the monster that turned against him for breaking his promises, from the famous Mary Shelley novel.

Barack Obama created the Occupy movement with his class warfare rhetoric. Will the Occupiers now help bring Obama and Democrats down in the 2012 elections?

.

CBO Admits Obama's Stimulus Cost More, Did Less And Hurt Economy In The Long Run

By Susan Duclos

Investors.com notices a few thing from the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest quarterly report on the economic effects of the Obama stimulus aka American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

The CBO report explains why they revised the employment numbers downward, and specifies how the economy is hurt in the long run.

Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run.

The CBO's 22 page PDF report can be found here.

Page 9 of the PDF shows the original cost estimate of the ARRA and how it has taken a 5 percent hike in how much it cost American Taxpayers:

When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to about $825 billion.

Unemployment is 9 percent, U6 unemployment which is the figures when over 2 million unemployed who haven't sought work in the four weeks preceding the survey, is over 16 percent, according to the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to a recent FED report released in November, there is a 50-50 chance of the U.S. heading into a double dip recession. (Source- LA Times)

Back to the November 22, 2011 CBO report, page 9:

By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and nearly 90 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of September 2011.

Page 16 of the CBO report revises previous estimates on employment downward:

The current estimates of the impact of ARRA on output and employment differ from those CBO presented in August 2011 because CBO has adjusted its methodology and slightly revised its projections of the timing of changes in federal spending as a result of ARRA. All told, CBO’s estimate of the increase in employment attributable to ARRA for calendar year 2011 was revised downward from a range of 1.2 million to 3.7 million FTE jobs to a range of 0.6 million to 3.6 million FTE jobs.

Page 17 of the report explains how Obama's stimulus hurts economic growth in the long run:

ARRA’s long-run impact on the economy stems primarily from the resulting increase in government debt.14 To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates. (The remainder of the rise in debt is offset by increases in private saving and inflows of foreign capital.) Because of uncertainty about the degree of crowding out, however, CBO’s range of estimates of ARRA’s long-run effects reflects the possibility that the extent of crowding out could be more or less than one-third of the added debt.

Over the long term, the output of the economy depends on the stock of productive capital, the supply of labor, and productivity. The less productive capital there is as a result of lower private investment, the smaller will be the nation’s output over the long run.

Reports like this explain clearly why Nancy Pelosi and Democratic politicians, including Barack Obama, have made a calculated decision to stop using the word "stimulus" as reported in The Hill and other news agencies back in September.

Democrats are now being careful to frame their job-creation agenda in language excluding references to any stimulus, even though their favored policies for ending the deepest recession since the Great Depression are largely the same.

Indeed, with President Obama scheduled Thursday to lay out his job-creation plans before a joint session of Congress, liberal Democrats and left-leaning policy groups are pressuring him to ignore short-term deficit spending concerns in favor of sweeping spending initiatives designed to boost hiring.

The Democrats’ signature “Make it in America” platform aims to create jobs by increasing infrastructure spending, providing financial help to struggling states and expanding tax credits for businesses, all of which were key elements of their 2009 economic stimulus bill.

Recognizing the unpopularity of the 2009 package, however, Democratic leaders have revised their message with less loaded language – “job creation” instead of “stimulus” and “Make it in America” in lieu of “Recovery Act” – in hopes of tackling the jobs crisis.

So, the next time you hear Obama or Democrats talk about "investing in America" aka spending more money we do not have, understand they want more of the same "stimulus" that failed to accomplish what their Keynesian ideology thought it would accomplish in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

.

Democratic Pollsters Want Obama To 'Abandon His Candidacy For Reelection'

By Susan Duclos

In 2010 Douglas E. Schoen, a Bill Clinton pollster and Patrick H. Caddell, a pollster for Jimmy Carter, published a piece in the Wall street Journal which expressed disappointment in Barack Obama's deliberately divisive and cynical approach to governance.

WSJ July 2010:

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

We have been watching the division of class Obama created, stoked, encouraged, and embraced, play itself out in the headlines over the last two months with the Occupy Wall Street antics.

In November of 2010 in the Washington Post op-ed pages, Caddell and Schoen begin making the argument that Obama should not run for reelection in 2012 saying they did not come to that conclusion lightly but that it was clear to them that Obama had "largely lost the consent of the governed," going on to state that the 2010 midterm elections was a "referendum on the Obama presidency," a vote of "no confidence in Obama and his party," and that Obama "has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents."


Today, the same two men write that Obama should abandon his candidacy for re-election, citing examples of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson who, according to Caddell and Schoen, "accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House," further stating that Truman and Johnson took the "moral high ground" in their decision against running for a new term as President.

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.

President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president's performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.

They also believe that Hillary Clinton would be the natural choice to play savior to the Democratic party.

I have my doubts as to why Clinton would want to save a party with leaders that turned against her in 2008 when they stripped Michigan of their delegate's votes which favored Clinton.

We have seen multiple examples of buyer's remorse from individuals and groups that voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and the feel of the Caddell/Schoen pieces encouraging Obama to abandon his 2012 candidacy for reelection, seems to have that same type of regret attached to it.

It is doubtful if Obama's ego would allow him to withdraw and more doubtful still that Hillary Clinton would want the presidency at this time, but to see what Andrew Malcolm at Investors Business Daily describes as "friendly fire" continuing to come from Caddell and Schoen is indicative of party supporters who are desperate for "anyone but Obama."

.

Democrat Civil War

Party Eating Its Own



I belong to political groups from across the political spectrum, if only so I can keep on top of what everybody is up to. One of the groups I'm a member of is MoveOn.org which is one of the largest and most powerful lefty organizations around. Today I received a request from them to donate money to a campaign to destroy the Senator who represents our neighbors in Connecticut - Joe Lieberman. Although technically an independent, Lieberman is part of the Democrat caucus and has all the rights and privileges of a full-fledged Democrat. Why is MoveOn.org raising money to attack one of their own? Here's what it says in the email they sent me:



First, Joe Lieberman helped President Bush invade Iraq, and the Democrats in Washington forgave him. Then, he endorsed John McCain, and they forgave him again. Then, he personally attacked Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention, and still the Democrats forgave him.

Now, Joe Lieberman is single-handedly gutting health care reform. The time for forgiveness is over. It's time to hold Senator Lieberman accountable.

First, we're going to launch a huge ad campaign to make sure every last Connecticut voter knows that Senator Lieberman is blocking strong reforms. Then, we'll push Senate leaders to strip him of his chairmanship and seniority. Finally, we'll work to defeat him in his next election.

Our goal is to raise $400,000 in the next 24 hours, to send a deafeningly loud message that we've had enough of Joe Lieberman. That'll take at least 9 donations from Amherst—can you chip in $5?



Oh my, what a turn of events! With the Obama Administration less than a year old the Democrats are already at each other's throats, with litmus tests and banishment into political exile for those who don't pass. Ten months ago Democrats were talking about a new renaissance of the Left, but with the Bush foreign policy now fully endorsed by Obama in his Nobel Prize speech, the economy in shambles and an electoral bloodbath shaping up for the Democrats next year, instead of a renaissance the American Left appears to be entering the era of its final collapse.

Bill of Rights Day



Today is Bill of Rights Day, as officially declared by Congress in 1941. Sadly, surveys show that most people are very ignorant about the Bill of Rights. An American Bar Association poll showed that only 33% of Americans even know what the Bill of Rights is and 70% couldn't say what the First Amendment protects. Great job, government schools! For those who don't know, this is the Bill of Rights:

1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to assemble peaceably, right to petition the government about grievances.
2. Right to keep and bear arms.
3. Citizens do not have to quarter soldiers during peacetime.
4. No unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Rights of the accused.
6. Right to a fair trial.
7. Right to a trial by jury in civil cases also.
8. No cruel and unusual punishments.
9. Unenumerated rights go to the people.
10. Reserves all powers not given to the national government to the states or the people.

As you can see, one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is freedom of religion. But is the Christmas tree and Chanuka lights in Northampton's Pulaski Park a proper expression of that right?



Amherst too has a Chanuka display.



Most of us think that it's okay for Christians and Jews to put up these displays, but what if Muslims wanted to put up a display honoring Islam?



Or what if atheists wanted to put up a banner reading THERE IS NO GOD across Pulaski Park or the Amherst Common? Is that cool? Why do we put religious displays in public places anyway? It's not as if there are no displays on private property, in fact nearly every storefront in downtown Hamp has a Christmas theme.



Chestnuts roasting on the cathode ray tube.



So why do we need religious displays on public property? What sort of God needs that kind of homage anyway? God is everywhere, and doesn't need to be put on display in the public square. The best way to respect the religious rights of all people is to show favoritism to none and do nothing that appears to publicly endorse one religion over another - or any religion at all. Atheists have rights too! Next year, for God's sake let's do the enlightened thing and discontinue these religious displays on public property.

Political People

Neal challenger Dr. Jay Fleitman greets his female fans at a Springfield fundraiser last weekend.



Neal challenger Tom Wesley campaigning last night at a Holyoke American Legion.



Photo of Northampton City Councilor Jesse Adams by Bill Dwight.



Around Amherst

Looking out of Starbucks with a snowflake sticker on the window.



Captain Candy has moved in where the Gypsy Dog Gallery used to be. Sure to be a hit with the after-school crowd.



On the wall outside Raos Coffee Shop.



Today's Music Video

Trevor Hall may be the latest psychedelic reggae-jamband sensation, but babies get down to him too.



I hope I don't get death threats from the tribes for saying this, but I think most reggae is repetitious. I mean I like it, but it all sounds sorta the same to me, like a song that never ends. I never quite got the religious trip that goes along with it either, although all music that praises God has virtue. I guess it just takes a white kid from South Carolina getting painted by an elephant to make it fresh.