Breaking News -- Obama Actually Said These Words : "Al-Qaida/Terrorist"

October surprise? 

Remember when Obama said that we could: "absorb another terrorist attack"?  And remember how he avoided those words for all the other attacks we have had since he has been president? 

Yemeni Security Forces Arrest Woman In Mail Bomb Plot to U.S.

http://www.foxnews.com/

The Democrats are waking up to the fact that the leftist in the White House is not really for them, and in fact, is bringing down the Democrat party while he collapses all systems in America, all for the sake of making the moldy, outdated "Dreams From His Father" come true.

Washington Whispers

Poll: Most Want Obama Fired In 2012

Mitch McConnell, rapped by the White House for pledging to make Barack Obama a one-term president, seems to have the support of a majority of Americans. A new poll provided to Whispers says that 56 percent of likely voters want the president fired.

http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/10/27/poll-most-want-obama-fired-in-2012

Well, perhaps "dude" is a better name than what he is being called in blogs. BTW, our brainy president has a teleprompter embedded into the glass top of Jon Stewart's console.     

Should Jon Stewart Have Called the President ‘Dude?’

Barack Obama’s appearance on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” last night marked the first time a sitting president has been a guest on the Comedy Central program. It likely marked another first: the first time a president was called “dude” in a TV interview.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/10/28/should-jon-stewart-have-called-the-president-dude/

The Current Tide of Terror That is Sweeping America IS HERE

 

I Want Your Money

Just a reminder that the documentary "I Want Your Money," about the current economic conditions of Obamanomics Vs Reaganomics is opening at theaters all over the country tonight.  It should be showing Friday-Thrusday.  Longer if there is a big showing. 

Go to this link for theaters near you and to see the trailer.  I've heard it is very good.  Thx.  
 http://www.iwantyourmoney.net/

First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law -- when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!

Breaking news on Drudge:

First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law -- when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!

The drama began after Mrs. Obama stopped off at the Martin Luther King Center on the south side of Chicago to cast an early vote.

After finishing at the machine, Obama went back to the desk and handed in her voting key.

She let voters including electrician Dennis Campbell, 56, take some photos.

"She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband's agenda going," Campbell said. According to the pool reporter at the scene, the conversation took place IN the voting center not far from the booths. Illinois state law -- Sec. 17-29 (a) -- states: "No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place, within 100 feet of any polling place."

WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ELECTIONEERING

When questioned about the brazen nature of Mrs. Obama's campaigning, press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the action.

"I don't think it would be much to imagine, the First Lady might support her husband's agenda," Gibbs smiled.

Developing...

Elections Board refusing to look at Michelle Obama for polling place campaigning

October 15th, 2010 3:54 am PT

http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/elections-board-refusing-to-look-at-michelle-obama-for-polling-place-campaigning



Our professional-looking First Lady in the Chicago polling place prior to her electioneering conversation near the voting booths.

The View Gals Walk Off Stage Over Megga Mosque Issue

I guess Joy and Whoppi have never looked up the word "Al-Qaeda."

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=554&vid=348845726468999775

Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KYE-də or /ælˈkeɪdə/ al-KAY-də; Arabic:  al-qāʿidah, "the base"), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida, is a militant Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[6] and late 1989.[7] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army[8] and a radical Sunni Muslim movement calling for global Jihad. Most of the world considers it a terrorist organization.[9]
Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, most notably the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001. The U.S. government responded by launching the War on Terror.
Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets. Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous "al-Qaeda-linked" individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan, but not taken any pledge.
Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from the foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam, which is largely embodied in the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad.

A Good Tea Party Theme Song

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2010/08/could-this-be-a-tea-party-theme-song.html

What Happens When We Run Out Of Rich People's Money?

Today is 10-10-10

And it's minutes away from being:  10-10-10, at 10:10 a.m.

The Leftists Thought They Could Defeat Sarah

It looks like she is still in the game.  The leftists don't realize how determined we are.  They have underestimated Sarah Palin. 

The Correction is on its way.  There will soon be more balance.

Journolist Planned Attack on Sarah Palin, by Lori Ziganto

The most insidious form of media bias is deciding what to cover and, more importantly, what not to cover.  The revelations uncovered by The Daily Caller in regard to Journolist have been damning on that front. The latest involve Sarah Palin and while anyone with a speck of honesty already realized that the media has been out to marginalize her from the very beginning, Journolist members took it to an even more egregious level. I know. I didn’t think that was possible either, but apparently it is.
While it is obviously not unheard of for colleagues to discuss stories of the day, that wasn’t the case here. This was a group of reputed (or refudiated!) journalists colluding with openly leftist opinionators to not report the news, but to shape it. As evidenced in these postings to JournoList:

What followed was a clear attempt to, once again, Use the Women ™ under the guise of being For The Women ™ by playing up the perpetual victim-hood sexist trump card as a way to dehumanize and demean Sarah Palin and her accomplishments. How did they attempt to do this?  An idea first proffered by Suzanne Nossell, ironically of Human Rights Watch. It was then enthusiastically agreed to by more on the list, showing a classic case of femisogyny from the Left:

“I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick.  Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”
Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.
Another writer from Mother Jones, Nick Baumann, had this idea: “Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’.”

The single thing she brings to the ticket — her fancy womb. Once again, liberal femisogynists reducing a woman to the sum of her girly parts only. All while hilariously claiming that they believe women should feel umbrage that their vote should be attracted merely by dint of a fellow woman on the ticket. Hello? That is their entire modus operandi! Even down to the Supreme Court. Aren’t we always supposed to be thrilled when, say, a woman is nominated for the Supreme Court merely because she’s a woman?
This is how they ultimately will end up failing; their hypocrisy knows no bounds and is now incredibly transparent. The depth of their insane hatred for Sarah Palin has done more to expose their femisogyny than anything in my lifetime.
Sarah Palin, with customary courage and straight-talk openness, spoke out about the media to the Daily Caller:

“With the shackles off, I relish my freedom to call it like I see it, while starving the media beast that was devouring the false reports about me, my staff and my loved ones,” she said….
“…The lamestream media is no longer a cornerstone of democracy in America. They need help. They need to regain their credibility and some respect. There are some pretty sick puppies in the industry today. They really need help,” Palin said.

Sick puppies, indeed, as further evidenced by an earlier revelation regarding the more than disturbing desire of a JournoList member to watch Rush Limbaugh die in agony, while she “laughed loudly like a maniac.” What’s more, the list, comprised of mainly white males near as I can tell, indulged in the systematic patriarchal oppression (that’s right, faux feminists, I’m using your own term against you. Because you lie) of a woman merely because she didn’t suit their political agenda. An agenda that they used their positions as alleged journalists to further.
While they may have succeeded in aiding Barack Obama to win the election, ultimately they will fail. In part, we can thank Sarah Palin for that. The woman they tried to destroy has actually hoisted them on their own petard, by exposing them for what they are – not journalists, but corrupt ideologues who will stop at nothing, not even personal destruction, to further an agenda.  I, for one, thank her immensely.
http://www.redstate.com/snarkandboobs/2010/07/22/journolist-%E2%80%98sick-puppies%E2%80%99-planned-attacks-on-sarah-palin/

The Kid and The Real Man

The Kid:


A presidency on the verge of a nervous breakdown: 5 key reasons why Barack Obama’s future looks increasingly bleak:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100058278/a-presidency-on-the-verge-of-a-nervous-breakdown-5-key-reasons-why-barack-obama%E2%80%99s-future-looks-increasingly-bleak/

The Real Man:












Since March 2009, Bush's Gallup rating has climbed 10 points. Obama's favorability during the same period: down by more than 20 points.  The bottom line: Just 18 months after leaving office, Bush doesn't look so bad after all — despite the fact that the Obama administration has used him as a political piñata for months.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/georgebushpollspopular/2010/08/22/id/368129

Stimulus Checks Sent To Dead People, by Rick Moran

Well, isn't this just like the leftists?  Balance is on its way.

October 08, 2010
89,000 stimulus checks were sent to dead people.

More at:  http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/89000_stimulus_checks_were_sen.html

Progressive Feudalism, by Thomas Lifson

The corrupt and vile Allinsky-loving leftists have planned this condition for years, all for the sake of their power. 

Excerpt:

In progressive America, two groups today have a parallel distinction. Birth, and birth alone,* determines whether one is a member of a designated victim class, entitled to preferences in college admissions, scholarships, and employment, factors which have a major formative influence on life prospects. Moreover, the ability to litigate as the victim of discrimination with the possibility of massive financial returns is enhanced. According to the testimony of two Department of Justice lawyers, membership in a designated victim class brings with it immunity from prosecution under Civil Rights statutes.

More at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/progressive_feudalism_1.html

The Imbalance of Leftist Political Campaigners

If this were a Republican, he/she would be gone.  But the leftist minions love their corrupt politicians as long as they keep getting their part of the government dole.

An associate of Jerry Brown calls Meg Whitman a "whore" over pension reform

October 7, 2010 

In a private conversation that was inadvertently taped by a voicemail machine (audio below), an associate of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown can be heard referring to his Republican opponent Meg Whitman as a “whore” for cutting a deal protecting law enforcement pensions as the two candidates competed for police endorsements.

The comment came after Brown called the Los Angeles Police Protective League in early September to ask for its endorsement. He left a voicemail message for Scott Rate, a union official. Brown apparently believed he had hung up the phone, but the connection remained intact and the voice mail machine captured an ensuing conversation between Brown and his aides.

With evident frustration, Brown discussed the pressure he was under to refuse to reduce public safety pensions or lose law enforcement endorsements to Whitman. Months earlier, Whitman had agreed to exempt public safety officials from key parts of her pension reform plan.

“Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they’ll go to Whitman, and that’s where they’ll go because they know Whitman will give ‘em, will cut them a deal, but I won’t,” Brown said.

At that point, what appears to be a second voice interjects: “What about saying she’s a whore?”

“Well, I’m going to use that,” Brown responds. “It proves you’ve cut a secret deal to protect the pensions.”

The tape was released to The Times by the Los Angeles police union.

Brown campaign spokesman Sterling Clifford, confirming the tape’s authenticity, said that Brown was responding to the notion of accusing Whitman of cutting a deal to gain endorsements, not to the use of the word “whore.” The campaign was trying to determine the identity of the second speaker, he added.

Government Lied; Businesses Died

Well, well, well, are we not surprised.  Obamanomics is something that the leftist media will not discuss.  This leads me to believe that this is what they want too.  I wonder, when Obama finally collapses all systems, as in "Dreams FROM My Father," what will be left for the media?  If the leftist media was doing its job, Obama would not have gotten this far.

Job Losses in 2009 Likely Bigger Than Thought

(Reuters) - The economy likely shed more jobs last year than previously thought, but analysts say the undercount by the government should prove less severe than it did during depths of the recession.
The Labor Department on Friday will give an initial estimate of how far off its count of employment may have been in the 12 months through March. The government admitted earlier this year that its count through March 2009 had overstated employment by 902,000 jobs.
Analysts expect a much smaller miscount this time, given the economy's growth spurt in the second half of last year.
The department blamed its 902,000 miss on faulty estimates of how many companies were created or destroyed, and it has not yet made any changes to the so-called birth-death model that produces this projection.
Once a year, it compares payroll data from its monthly surveys of employers with unemployment insurance tax reports, which give it a much more comprehensive view of actual employment. It uses these tax records to produce a "benchmark revision" to adjust for discrepancies.
"That adjustment is probably overstating the employment gains because we are in a very subdued recovery and the likelihood is that the birth-death factor is making the data look better than it otherwise would be," said Neil Dutta, an economist at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York.
Tax records will probably show more businesses closed than initially estimated by the Labor Department, analysts said.
"It's not going to be that severe (as last time). A lot of it is sort of aligned with the performance in the broader economy," Dutta said, noting that the economy picked up in the second half of 2009 and entered this year strongly.
Other economists shared that view, while some said it was even possible that employment would be revised upward, citing other data, including a separate Labor Department survey of households, that had outperformed the monthly payrolls count.
They also said that while the department had not changed the birth-death model, it had incorporated new data from a period in which business start-ups were weak.
"Potentially, the model could have underpredicted for a time. With the incorporation of this new data you may see an upward revision," said Zach Pandl, U.S. economist at Nomura Securities International in New York.
"In our view, the risks are tilted toward an upward revision."
Whatever the outcome, it will probably have little implication for U.S. monetary policy, given that it is backward-looking and the economic recovery is very weak by historical standards.
But it could shed more light on the nature of the unemployment problem confronting the economy, with opinion increasingly divided on whether it is cyclical or structural.
Analysts will be looking at the sectors where job losses are concentrated. Steeper job losses than already reported in manufacturing and construction could strengthen the argument of a structural unemployment problem.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955IX20101007

A Letter from a Republican to Hispanics, by Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager was just talking about this on his radio show. It is currently all over the internet (also in Spanish), and Dennis is asking that we send it to as many people as we can. He will also send it to Hispanic publications.

A Letter from a Republican to Hispanics

I am writing to you as a concerned and sympathetic American who is a Republican. My sentiments do not represent every American -- that would be impossible. But I believe the following represent most Americans.
First, a message to those of you here illegally:
You may be very surprised to hear this, but in your position, millions of Americans, including me, would have done what you did.
If I lived in a poor country with a largely corrupt government, a country in which I had little or no prospect of hope for an improved life for me or my children, and I could not legally get into the world's freest, most affluent country, the country with the most opportunities for people of any and every background, I would do whatever I could do to get into that country illegally.
Mexico and many other Central and South American countries are largely hopeless places for most of their people. America offers hope to everyone willing to work hard. Who could not understand why any individual, let alone a father or mother of a family, would try to get into the United States -- legally preferably, illegally if necessary?
Now that I have made it clear that millions of us understand what motivates you and do not morally condemn you for entering America illegally, I have to ask you to try to understand what motivates us.
No country in the world can allow unlimited immigration. If America opened its borders to all those who wish to live here, hundreds of millions of people would come here. That would, of course, mean the end of the United States economically and culturally.
If you are from Mexico, you know that Mexico's treatment of illegal immigrants from south of its border is far harsher than my country's is of illegal immigrants. All it takes is common sense to understand that we simply cannot afford to take care of all of you in our medical, educational, penal and other institutions. However much you may pay in sales tax, most illegal immigrants are a financial and social burden in those states to which most them move.
Yes, many of you are also a blessing. Many of you take care of our children and our homes. Others of you prepare our food and do other work that is essential to our society. We know that. As individuals, the great majority of you are hardworking, responsible, decent people.
But none of that answers the question: How many people can this country allow into it?
The moment you have to answer that question is the moment you realize that Americans' worries about illegal immigration have nothing to do with "racism" or any negative feeling toward Hispanics.
Those who tell you it is racism or xenophobia are lying about their fellow Americans for political or ideological reasons. You know from your daily interactions with Americans that the vast majority of us treat you with the dignity that every fellow human being deserves. Your daily lives are the most eloquent refutation of the charges of racism and bigotry. The charge is a terrible lie. Please don't believe it. You know it is not true.
Democrats will act as your defenders by telling you that opposition to your presence here is race-based. There is no truth to that. As you probably know in your hearts, you have come to the least racist place on earth. The vast majority of us could not care less if your name is Gonzalez or Jones. That's why the chances are 50-50 that the child of Hispanic immigrants will end up marrying a non-Hispanic American.
One more thing: Many of you desire to return to your homelands. This is understandable, as many of you did not come here in order to become American but in order to earn the money that would allow you to afford to return home and lead a better life there. But as understandable as that is on an individual level, you must understand that that having millions of people in our midst who feel no bond to our country and who do not want to become one of us is a serious problem. You would feel the same about people who came to your countries to make money and use your country's medical, social, educational and other services paid for by the people of your country.
It is also a moral problem. There are countless people around the world who wish to come to America in order to become Americans, not just to earn money here. Many of you are taking their places. That is not fair to them or to America.
So, the truth is, in fact, simple: If you were an American, you would want to stop illegal immigration, and if most of us were you, we would do what you did to get into America. Neither of us is bad. You care about your family. We care about our country.
Now, a note to those of you who are here legally and to those of you who are American citizens.
First, while many of you understandably sympathize with the plight of fellow Latinos who are here illegally, you surely must understand that America cannot afford unlimited illegal immigration. This may well create a tension between your mind and your heart, and between your ethnic heritage and your allegiance to America.
If it does, your fellow Americans ask that you be guided by your mind (and we, believe, conscience) and by your concern for America. If anyone knows how extraordinarily welcoming America has been to Latinos -- from Mexico to Cuba to South America -- it is you. For your sake as well as America's, please do not succumb to the politics of victimization that are used solely and cynically to get your support for the Democrat Party.
Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled. Take the Mexican example. The Democratic Party is, in most important ways, an American version of the PRI. For 70 years, the PRI governed Mexico and brought its economy to its knees because of vast government spending, the squashing of individual initiative, a bloated bureaucracy, unsustainable debt and the subsequent devaluing of the Mexican peso.
Why, for God's sake, would you want to see that replicated in America? The very reason America has been so prosperous and so free -- the very reasons you or your ancestors, like almost every other American's ancestors, came here -- is that America has had more limited government and therefore more liberty than any other country in the world. The Republican Party represents all that you or your parents came to America for -- and why you left Mexico and other countries: individual opportunity and individual responsibility. It is also the party that represents your social values.
Admittedly, the Democratic Party appeals to your emotions. But a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote to make America like the Mexico of the PRI. And a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote to undo the great American achievement of uniting the children of immigrants from all over the world as Americans.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2010/10/05/a_letter_from_a_republican_to_hispanics/page/full/