Tag Archives: 2012 Election News

Obama Mural at polling place not covered, GOP poll watchers evicted

Obama mural at Philadelphia polling place

Developing story – will be updated as new information is available:

In a stunning rebuke of election law, a Philadelphia polling center has refused to cover a pro-Obama mural despite a court order to do so. Adding insult to injury, GOP poll-watchers at several locationa have been kicked-out at least one female inspector was “physically removed.”

The mural (image right) is on the wall of a polling center in the 35th Ward, 18th Division and was ordered covered by Judge John Younge today in response to an oral petition by lawyer Linda Kerns on behalf of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee.

The order states that the mural must be covered “it its entirety with blank paper or other similar material so that the content of the mural is invisible in its entirety for the duration of the election.”

GOP, court-appointed election inspectors have been removed from at least 15 locations and reports state that some have been replaced by Democratic poll watchers and perhaps even New Black Panther members. A new court order has been issued to force poll officials to allow those inspectors back into any and all polling places in the state.

Update: The Mural has been partially covered, but not fully

Some time between 2:15 and 2:30 the mural was partially covered by polling center staff, but not in a manner fully complying with the court order (image below).

My Prediction: Romney Wins Comfortably

Screen Shot 2012-11-05 at 11.37.45 PM

The day has arrived.  In about twenty-four hours, the stains of Barack Obama will be wiped clean and honor and dignity will be restored to The White House under President-elect Mitt Romney.  It hasn’t been an easy road.  Conservatives waged a brutal primary battle that left us with a scarred nominee – Romney – coming out of the gate to take on President Obama in the general.  However, he licked his wounds, redeployed his campaign assets, and was laser focused on Barack Obama’s miserable record of debt, deficits, and high unemployment.  As a result, he’s polling slightly ahead of the President on Election Eve, and I’m confident Governor Romney will be the next President of the United States.

Granted there were some bumps in the road.  The last week of August and the whole month of September were especially lackluster – but his resounding and decisive victory in the first, and most important, presidential debate altered the electoral map in a way liberals couldn’t imagine.  His surge in the polls with women decimated Obama’s double-digit lead amongst women, and Romney’s double-digit lead amongst independents will prove valuable in the generals, as well as the down ticket races in the House and Senate.  Right now, I have Gov. Romney winning the 2012 Election with 289 electoral votes to Obama’s 249.  Some pundits, like George Will, predict a 321 Electoral landslide for Mitt Romney, but I’m more reserved.

First, to even begin to contemplate such a mandate, Romney needs to win Pennsylvania – a state that hasn’t gone Republican since 1988.  While some polls show that the races is tied (Romney is shown trailing by 2-4 points on D+8 polls) – I’m just not ready to bet the mortgage on a state we have failed to lock up for almost a quarter century.  Granted, the 2011 county courthouse races were indicative that Democrats in the western part of the state – the bitter clingers who are mostly pro-life and pro-gun rights – were getting sick of liberal policies.  Republicans took Westmoreland County for the first time in fifty years.  Now, Republicans control 51 of the 67 counties in PA, with most of the inroads being in the western part of the state.  Republican media consultant Michael  Hudome wrote on The Daily Caller on Nov. 2 that “half of the NRA membership in the entire country is within a four-hour drive of Pittsburgh.”

Recent electoral results signal a Republican surge in the Commonwealth. Conservative Pat Toomey was elected to the Senate in 2010 despite the best efforts of the White House.

Republicans control 12 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats. In the crucial Philadelphia suburbs, Democrats were only able to offer token opposition to Congressmen Mike Fitzpatrick and Patrick Meehan this year. In those critical counties near Philly, Governor Romney is a perfect fit for Independent and Republican women. Polls suggest there is no gender gap.

This election, voter intensity favors Republicans. Senator Bob Casey (of the Potted Plant Party) has his hands full with a challenge from businessman Tom Smith. Recent polls show that race is a toss-up.Given all these factors, it’s no wonder Romney and his allies have started an air war. In fact, Republicans have spent enough money on ads in Pennsylvania in the past week to fund a solid, month-long ad campaign in the state.

Furthermore, “semi-defrocked” Republican strategist Mike Murphy recently tweeted that if Romney is trailing by two in the PA polls – he wins Ohio.

In the end, it’ll all be about turnout, but I’m cautiously pessimistic about the Keystone State.  I think Obama will eek out a win here.  However, I will bet that  Tom Smith, the Republican Senate candidate, will defeat incumbent Democrat Bob Casey, Jr.  He made up a deficit of almost twenty points in the polls, and flooded the state with ads to hammer at Casey.  It has worked.  The race is a virtual tie. With Casey’s nonexistent campaign and low enthusiasm from Democratic voters, I think Smith will win.

Now, concerning the Buckeye State, Obama is trying to over-perform in the auto/industrial areas of Toledo and Akron.  However, in an election where Democratic enthusiasm isn’t nearly as high as Republicans, it’ll be an uphill struggle.  Whereas Mitt Romney is taking a page from George W. Bush in ’04 centering on the southeast portion of the state – coal country – and the swing suburbs around Cincinnati.  As of now, the race is tied – but The American Spectator’s Robert Stacy McCain has been on the Romney campaign crawl and posted this on Election Eve.

[ Ali] Akbar [Republican operative] stayed up all night Saturday poring over Ohio early-voting totals, comparing them to previous elections, studying recent Buckeye State polls, and crunching the numbers before waking me up before 8 a.m. Sunday to declare, “We’ve got Ohio.” His analysis of the early-vote numbers and his interpretation of the latest Columbus Dispatch poll as bad news for Obama quickly inspired an online buzz among Republicans who have been worried sick over Ohio. Even at the mid-October apex of Romney’s surge, the Republican never led the Real Clear Politics average of polls in this crucial battleground state. Although Obama’s lead has never been large — as of Sunday, he led the RCP Ohio average by 2.8 points — it has been remarkably persistent, prompting much theorizing about the factors behind it. The economy in Ohio hasn’t been quite as hard-hit as some other states; unemployment is only 7 percent. Ads from the Obama campaign have hit Romney hard for his opposition to the GM and Chrysler bailout, a reasonably popular measure in Ohio, where auto manufacturing jobs are a vital part of the state’s economy.

However, it’s a false narrative considering that Mr. Romney’s plan would have also saved the auto industry, which was reaffirmed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by auto expert Edward Niedermeyer.  However, the trend with overall early voting doesn’t favor Obama.  Gallup stated that 15% of the electorate has already voted and they’re splitting 52%-46% in Romney’s favor.


Given the Obama administration’s ‘War on Coal,’ I will hedge my bets that there will be a high turnout from these counties adjacent to the Appalachian Trail, but if Hamilton County swings Republican, we can all breath a sigh of relief.

In Wisconsin, I didn’t give this to Romney because it’s Paul Ryan’s home state, and therefore, a safe win.  As George Will aptly noted back in April:

 …in the 16 elections since World War II, 10 presidential candidates have failed to carry the home state of their vice presidential running mates. Gov. Earl Warren could not carry California for Tom Dewey in 1948; Sen. Estes Kefauver could not carry Tennessee for Adlai Stevenson in 1956; former senator Henry Cabot Lodge could not carry Massachusetts for Richard Nixon in 1960; Rep. Bill Miller could not carry New York for Barry Goldwater in 1964; Gov. Spiro Agnew could not carry Maryland for Nixon in 1968; Sargent Shriver could not carry Maryland for George McGovern in 1972; Rep. Geraldine Ferraro could not carry New York (or women, or even her congressional district) for Walter Mondale in 1984; Sen. Lloyd Bentsen could not carry Texas for Michael Dukakis in 1988; Jack Kemp could not carry New York for Bob Dole in 1996; Sen. John Edwards could not carry North Carolina for John Kerry in 2004.

No, it’s because no state has swung more to the right in the Midwest than Wisconsin.  They booted incumbent Democratic Senator Russ Feingold for Ron Johnson, elected Gov. Scott Walker, and took tow formerly Democratic congressional districts that covers most of the northern part of the state in 2010. Additionally, Republicans took control of both chambers of the state legislature as well.  Furthermore, Gov. Scott Walker became the only governor in American history to survive a recall attempt last June receiving more votes than he did in the 2010 gubernatorial race.  Wisconsin State Senate Republicans also faced a recall of their own on two separate occasions.  The first salvo being fired in August of 2011, where Republicans maintained the majority. The second occurred in 2012, where Democrats gained control, but turned out to be a useless exercise since the the general session will not begin until after November 2012, when the seats will be contested again.

While the race is tied, given the reaffirmation of Walker’s policies, the infrastructure Walker has built to successfully maintain his residency in the Governor’s Mansion, and the conservative swing of the state’s electorate – suffice to say that a Romney victory here is likely. Disrupting the pattern where Wisconsin has gone Democratic in nine of the last ten presidential races.

In Indiana, Romney is ahead – on average – by 9.5 points.  Safe state.

In North Carolina, Romney is up by 3.  Given that the State Democratic Party of NC was distracted by a sex scandal and was saddled with an unpopular Democratic Governor, Bev Purdue, Romney should win the state. And Republicans will take the Governor’s mansion for Pat McCrory – the Mayor of Charlotte.  When he’s elected, McCrory will be the third Republican in the past thirty-nine years.

In Florida, it looks as if “Romney has pretty much nailed [it] down,” according to Guy Benson.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air added to this sentiment noting a poll from the Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald showing Gov. Romney with a comfortable six point lead.

Florida continues to look good for Mitt Romney. The Republican holds a 6-point lead in the state essential to his hopes of defeating President Barack Obama, according to a new Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald poll.

The poll shows slight tightening, with Romney’s 51-45 lead down 1 percentage point from the Times’ statewide poll a month ago. …

Still, nearly every key indicator in theTimes’ pre-Election Day poll reveals Romney’s advantage in a state Obama won four years ago.

Florida voters trust Romney more to fix the economy and give him an edge, 50 percent to 48 percent, on who will look out more for the middle class — a stark turn from past months when Obama and his allies unleashed a barrage of TV ads portraying Romney as an out-of-touch corporate raider.

Romney even has a slight advantage on foreign policy, with 2 percent more voters saying they trust him over Obama, who has faced criticism over the fatal attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya.

The Herald has an interesting analysis, one that confounds the national media narrative.  Romney now gets more crossover votes than Obama, contra to the common assumption that independents are proto-Republicans and Romney has trouble with his base:

Romney’s strengths: independent voters and more crossover support from Democrats relative to the Republicans who back Obama, according to the survey conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

Real Clear Politics Average has Romney with a 1.5 point advantage over the president going into Election Day.

 

Virginia will be a squeaker, but given the coal counties to the far western parts of the state, especially around the town of Grundy, I think Mitt will have success.   Ed Morrissey, who along with Allahpundit and most of the full-time staff, have been doing an excellent job detailing the recent polls and debunking the liberal drivel.  He wrote that:

Mitt Romney still earns 50% support in Virginia just before Election Day.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Virginia Voters shows Romney with 50% of the vote to President Obama’s 48%. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and another one percent (1%) is undecided.

This is unchanged from two weeks ago and the week before that when it was Romney 50%, Obama 47%.

This one’s tight enough to look at the internals, which are somewhat surprising given the closeness of the toplines.  Obama actually loses the overall gender gap by three points (-7 among men, +4 among women), but he’s also losing independents in Virginia by 21 points, 58/37.  In 2008, Obama had a +11 in the gender gap and won independents by one point, 49/48.  The D/R/I in this sample is D+2 at 38/36/25; in 2008 it was 39/33/27 but in 2009′s gubernatorial election it was 33/37/30.

Romney wins the economic argument by six points, 51/45 over Obama.  There’s a significant gender gap on this question as well, but it also favors Romney (+10 among men, +1 among women).  Romney has a 25-point lead among independents on this question, 58/33.  On the other hand, Obama does have a positive job-approval rating at 51/49, which is probably why the toplines look as close as they do.  I’d guess, though, that Virginia’s going to break significantly for Romney

Lastly, New Hampshire is a bet.  Obama is ahead of Romney by two points, but I will take a gamble, and say  that Romney will take the “Live Free or Die” state due to depressed turnout and a little luck.  It’s my wild card.  Either way, it doesn’t matter.  It’s for fun.

Right now, it’s all about turnout.  Republicans are more enthused to vote this cycle.The Huffington Post posted about Chuck Todd’s breakdown of  Republican voter enthusiasm.  Here’s what he said on Meet The Press on October 7, which was the Sunday after the first presidential debate.

CHUCK TODD: Well, it’s simply an enthusiasm gap. And we’re seeing it across the board. Look at here in this first one. 79% of Republicans call themselves extremely interested in this election. On a scale of one to ten, that means they said they’re a nine or a ten on interest in the election. 73% of Democrats.

Look at four years ago. It was a 13 point gap in favor of the Democrats. Let me go through some various voting groups. This is an important voting group. Seniors are an important voting group to Mitt Romney now. He leads them by about 10 points in our NBC Wall Street Journal poll. Look at this in engagement in the election. Four years ago was 81%, pretty higher. Even higher this time at 87%. And Romney’s doing better among seniors than McCain did.

Let me go to an important voting group for the president, young voters. Look at this engagement level: 52% now they call themselves, voters 18 to 34, call themselves extremely interested in this election. Four years ago it was 72%. That 20 gap. The president wins young voters by huge margins. He’s winning them by some 20-plus points. But if you don’t have this kind of enthusiasm, they’re not going to show up to the polls.

And then let me give you this last one here, because this is, I think, the most important one. And that’s Hispanics. The President’s winning Hispanics by 50 points. He hit the 70% mark. However, look at this in terms of interest in the election. 59% now, it was 77%. What does that mean? President got 65%, I believe, of Hispanics four years ago.

So even though he’s going to get more Hispanics, if less of them turn out, it’s a net zero. And yet, you look at Republican enthusiasm, up, senior enthusiasm, up. It’s a huge problem. And by the way, all of this, pre-debate.

Furthermore, liberals are citing polls based on 2008 turnout levels that oversample Democratic voters.  A D+13 poll isn’t an accurate gauge in this election.  We’ve had an unemployment rate above 8% for over forty consecutive months – with the rate being over 9% for twenty-six of those months.  We have $6 trillion in new debt, 23 million unemployed, and a litany of new regulations.  What has Obama shown for this investment in trickle down government?   

We have seen an anemic economic recovery, with our third quarter growth at an insipid 2%.  President Obama is the personification of the dependency agenda.  A pernicious crusade to establish a hyper-regulatory progressive state and break all institutions within our nation to the will of Washington.  More women have lost their jobs under the Obama administration, and with women more on the economic frontlines, they’ve seen that the president may not be the best choice for their checkbook.

Granted, tonight will be a LONG night. So, make sure those coffee mugs are filled, Red Bulls are plentiful, and champagne fully stocked – because Republicans should be optimistic that Gov. Romney will soon be called ‘President Romney’ fairly soon.

 

 

Advice for Obama: Better Pray You Lose

Obama Competitive 2

Barack Obama is a vain and competitive person.  He detests losing.

When the First Ego is on the line, defeat is not an option.  And maybe that’s the reason behind Obama’s frantic campaign efforts.

After all, he certainly couldn’t want to remain president.  Could he?

With a tanked economy, near 15% unemployment, Radical Islam on the rise, dead Americans in Libya, nuclear Iran rising, the Obamacare/Tea Party/Catholic Church Rebellion and Darryl Issa’s jaws clenched like a Moray eel around Fast and Furious, Obama would be well-advised to sacrifice his incalculable ego in hopes of a calmer life and more prosperous future.

He should pray he loses.

If Obama wins reelection, he’ll inherit from himself a far worse economy and a far more skeptical electorate than he did from George W. Bush.

He’ll have to deal with a disillusioned and angry public who will demand real solutions versus the hype, racial division and class warfare of the last four years.

He’ll have to face determined congressional investigators, legislative gridlock to block his progressive agenda and, most likely, impeachment proceedings.

The second term for most presidents is often much more challenging than the first.  But, Obama’s would be filled with unprecedented political and legal landmines.  It would be a true nightmare.

For him and for us.

Barack Obama started out as a transformative figure in the minds of many Americans.

He was their Messiah.  The One.  He was to fulfill the dreams of every Miss America contestant and heal the earth, slow the rise of the oceans, make all things fair and institute world peace.

Cue the deep sigh.

Today that is all gone.  The warm and fuzzy of 2008 has been replaced by the harsh reality of living in 2012 America.  The shine is off the Obama penny.  The bloom is off the rose.  The emperor has no clothes.

Pick your favorite cliché.

The point is, Barack Obama is a known quantity.  The magic is over and the thrill is definitely gone.  Americans see him for who he really is.  A petty, narcissistic, toxic, partisan politician with a far left, radical ideology who is intent on remaking America into a European Socialist model.

That’s a far cry from Messiah.

The metamorphosis from prophet to partisan attack dog was breathtaking in its speed as the “real Barack” was revealed to America.

When Obamacare was passed in opposition to public opinion and without a single Republican vote, congressional Democrats used the questionable tactic of “reconciliation” to avoid a Republican filibuster.  To this day, Americans remain outraged that Obama and his Democrat allies would dare to forcibly ram legislation down the throats of an unwilling American public.

When Obama pushed back against Republican lawmakers’ concerns regarding the stimulus bill we were shocked at his arrogance.  “I won” he told Republicans.  As if that settled all concerns.

We remember Obama, sounding more like Fidel Castro than an American President, as he told Latino voters that “we’re going to punish our enemies and reward our friends.

And then, briefly exposed, we saw the bitter, racially motivated Obama when he said “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us.  They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Wow.

And just last week, Obama urged his supporters to vote because “voting is the best revenge.

Revenge?  Against whom?

Obama regularly displays contempt and disregard for his political opponents.  Like all narcissists, Obama isn’t interested in compromise or in finding common ground with those who disagree with him.  He seeks only to win, to be victorious and to demonstrate his superiority.

Barack Obama is all about conquest.

Americans now know this.  We get it.

Another four years of Obama will be another four years of the same political maneuvering and partisan, ideological battles that we are all just so sick and tired of.

We’re not interested in political power plays.  Our situation is too dire.

We don’t care about class warfare.  We want the economy to rebound.

We’re not looking for more handouts, more unemployment benefits, more food stamps or free contraceptives.

Americans want to go to work.

We want good jobs.  A thriving economy and the freedom to pursue our dreams through our own hard work and ingenuity.

We want the government out of our lives.

And we want the American Dream back.

America needs a leader who can heal the nation by providing reasonable solutions that actually work.  And we will not tolerate a repeat of the last four years.

For his own sake and for that of all Americans, Barack Obama must lose.

It’s in his own best interest.  And certainly in the best interest of America.

Today, millions are praying for Obama to be defeated.

If he’s wise, he’ll be one of them.

 


 

 

Will you vote against Obama’s War on America’s Religious Freedom

Religious freedom in America is at stake with November 6th presidential election

Will you vote against Obama’s war on The Soul of America and its religious freedom on Tuesday, November 6th? In President Barack Obama’s first term he took advantage of the 340,000 social conservative who did not show up at the polls in 2008’s presidential election. Armed with this free pass given to him, Obama has riddled America’s landscape with executive orders and legislation that abandoned congressional law on gay marriage, abortion, religious choice and many other issues.

Now, four years later in battle ground states like Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Virginia he wants to complete his anti-religious assault on religious freedoms which are America’s bedrock. So one has to ask, what it will take to motivate social and religious conservatives to vote to preserve and to save America’s freedoms.

Understand this, that the race for the presidency is as close as it could ever be in swing states all over the nation. Gallup just released its final pre-election survey of likely voters on Monday, November 05, 2012 and Mitt Romney is holding onto a bare one percent difference over Obama. Romney’s 49% to Obama’s 48% truly means that ever religious and social conservative voter holds the keys to religious freedom in his or her hands.

What’s at stake is more serious than one might imagine.

Do you believe that your child’s right to be protected from being assaulted with pro-abortion literature in school or gay rights seminars in elementary school against your protests will be listened to, your wrong. School systems have already begun to implement this in schools across the nation.

The Catholic universities and colleges across America are under assault daily from the Obamacare edicts that mandate they obey the Obama pro-contraception insurance mandates. They are being forced to disregard their constitutional right to their religious freedom, or risk the legal wrath of Obama’s federal government.

In fact in Ohio, in May of 2012, Catholic University, in Steubenville, Ohio, decided to fight back against the attempt by the Obama Administration to strip their institution of its religious freedom. Catholic University refused to implement the Obama administration mandates that require a school use their health care plan to provide sterilization, contraceptives or other pregnancy prevention drugs to students.

Michael Hernon, the VP of Advancement at the University, stressed to Fox News in May that Obama Care’s mandates amounted to “moral and economic injustice.” This is clearly a deliberate and intentional act of war on America’s religious freedom!

What more evidence do you need than the very dismissive conduct portrayed at the August Democratic National Convention, where God was booed and denied on the convention floor. Democrat convention organizers under supervision from White House political operatives removed God from the convention platform. When it was discovered, Obama quickly moved to cover up the exclusion with denials from convention handlers. Soon after, Obama’s convention handlers brought it to a vote and God was booed and voted down several times by convention attendees.

The rejection of God in the original Democrat Platform which is a statement of the position of the Democrat Party and its President going into the fall election should serve as a true call to arms by America’s religious community. The move to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance, abandonment of religious prayer in public schools, at public meetings and at football and other games is just the beginning.

The religious freedom that children in America and their children will inherit can only be guaranteed and protected by preventing Obama and his congressional and local elected cadre from winning November 6th!

On Tuesday, will you be able to look into your children’s eyes or grandchildren’s eyes and affirm you did what you could to protect their right to religious freedom that you enjoyed in your youth. This is a war that America cannot afford to lose.

President Reagan saw the dangers that were on the horizon for America’s religious freedoms when he spoke January 31, 1981 to the National Religious Broadcasters. He warned:

“To those who would crush religious freedom, our message is plain: you may jail your believers. You may close their churches, confiscate their Bibles, and harass their rabbis and priests, but you will never destroy the love of God and freedom that burns in their hearts. They will triumph over you.”

On November 6th, let every vote in America’s religious community be a vote of triumph over the forces that support a second term for Obama. Show Obama that America’s religious community will not be threatened, nor allow its religious freedom to be crushed. America will continue to remain yesterday, today and tomorrow, one nation under God!

( Click  – Let me know what you think )

Prediction: Romney Wins 321-217 Electoral Vote~Main Stream Media Skewed Polls

Romney VS Obama

The Main Stream Media is out in force touting “polls” that have errors in 3 basic elements.

  • Most of these polls, are including all the minority and “younger” vote that launched Obama as the 44th President of the United States.  Pew polls and Gallup state that this part of the electorate is not as engaged, and in fact they will not impact the 2012 race as they did in 2008.
  • Motivation-Pew polls have indicated that Republican voters have the edge at +3.  The polls the MSM are basing their stats on all have the “old” 2008 model (Dem +4),  for motivation among likely voters.  This isn’t 2008, no matter how much they want it to be–thus their polls are off.  Example, Obama just had a Bruce Springsteen event and only drew 18,000.  In 2008 the same event with the “Boss”, 40,000 attended.  Romney sans Rock Star drew 40,000 in Virginia today.  The “motivation” is all Republican, period.
  • The “Undecided”vote.  This always “tips” against the incumbent. Yet, the MSM is using again the 2008 model tipping it +2 to +3 for Obama.  This needs to be changed to +2-3 for Romney.

The Main Stream is predicting a “tight” race, and most are calling it for Obama.  Are they doing this to “help” Obama, hoping to keep “spirits” up within the Democratic Electorate?  Hoping to “will” their Messiah to victory?   We can only speculate, but what is clear, from Benghazi, they will stop at nothing to cover for Obama.  Just today, stories are circulating about CBS with holding parts of the Obama interview which aired the Sunday that Susan Rice took to the airwaves, with the bogus “video” excuse.  CBS seems to have done some “selected” editing to help out the narrative on Benghazi.  So, is there any doubt, that the Main Stream would either intentionally or unintentionally skew the polls?  It makes all the difference as I have demonstrated above, how the polls are analyzed, using the 2008 models– just skew it a tad in favor of Obama.  Here is how I predict the Electoral College to go Tuesday.  This is my prediction, and yes, I am standing by it!

Obama to implement economy-crushing coal regulations after election

WASHINGTON, NOV. 5, 2012 – On September 22, 2011, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, held a hearing with one witness, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lisa P. Jackson, on regulatory reform. At the hearing Stearns predicted that President Obama would not push through controversial environmental regulations before the 2012 election. As Stearns stated then, “issuing such a rule would cause [Obama] severe electoral problems in the next election.” Today, the Washington Times is running a story* on Obama halting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for a “political split second” before tomorrow’s election and then imposing massive coal regulations after the election.

As chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Stearns held a hearing on the EPA’s plans to impose severe regulations on coal development, transportation, and use that would harm the coal industry, cost thousands of jobs, and limit domestic energy production. In response to Stearns’ oversight and the lack of economic growth and job creation, the Obama Administration and the EPA withdrew its regulatory plan. With the election ending tomorrow, the White House and the EPA are preparing anti-coal regulations that are expected to be released at the end of November.

Added Stearns, “According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, regulations cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion each year. The looming regulatory burdens at the center of President Obama’s agenda contribute toward the broad uncertainty that prevents economic growth and job creation. I’m proud of my role in exposing the cost of these regulatory schemes, but I cannot be heartened by my prescientprediction that the 2012 election only would delay temporarily these new coal regulations.”

Slate Writer: White Guys Voting for Romney ‘In Defiance of Normal Americans’

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 3.16.48 PM

Remember when liberals scoffed at the fact that Romney could win more than 60% of the white vote? Not only has Romney successfully tackled that hurdle, and liberals are apparently mad about it. Tom Scocca of Slate Magazine wrote on November 2 about the “tribal appeal” that Mitt Romney has with whites and why “white people think” he’ll be a better president. I’ll give you a hint: It’s R _ C I S M.

After proudly declaring his support for President Obama (and how Slate will traditionally list all its staffers’ votes for the Democrats), Scocca insists they are not in a liberal bubble. He channels the insufferable and dismissive tone American liberalism has successfully monopolized over the past years.  He claims “White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans.”

“White people don’t like to believe that they practice identity politics. The defining part of being white in America is the assumption that, as a white person, you are a regular, individual human being. Other demographic groups set themselves apart, to pursue their distinctive identities and interests and agendas. Whiteness, to white people, is the American default,” according to Scocca.

He then cited the National Journal piece stating that Obama needs to win 80% of the minority vote to win the election.  Scocca laments “again, why are “minorities” treated as a bloc here? The story mentions no particular plan by the Obama campaign to capture the nonwhite vote. Instead, it discusses how the Romney forces hope to get a bigger share of white voters than John McCain did—by “stressing the increased federal debt” and attacking “Obama’s record on spending and welfare.”  Yes, as if, spending, welfare, and debt are code words for racism.  I wonder if Scocca will share his secret race decoder because Americans don’t have enough time to drink the amount of Ovaltine for a device of their own.

In all, Romney is polling better amongst whites, especially women, which is all due to the racism of the Romney campaign.  This   is based on “the foundation of Republican presidential politics for more than four decades, since Richard Nixon courted and won the votes of Southerners who’d turned against the Democratic Party because of integration and civil rights. The Party of Lincoln became the party of Lincoln’s assassins, leveraging white anger into a regional advantage and eventually a regional monopoly.”  Or, it could be that the economy is bad.  Women are surging in the workplace, therefore, more on the frontlines of the economic decisions in the household – and they don’t like what they see from this president.  It should also be noted that Democrats in the south supported Jim Crow legislation.  Does Gov. Ross Barnett ring a bell?

Nevertheless, Scocca claims there are two races going on right now.

And so we have two elections going on. In one, President Obama is running for re-election after a difficult but largely competent first term, in which the multiple economic and foreign-policy disasters of four years ago have at least settled down into being ongoing economic and foreign-policy problems. A national health care reform bill got passed, and two reasonable justices were appointed to the Supreme Court. Presidents have done worse in their first terms. In my lifetime—which began under the first term of an outright thug and war criminal—I’m not sure any presidents have done better. (The senile demagogue? The craven panderer? The ex-CIA director?)

In the other election, the election scripted for white voters—honestly, I’m not entirely sure what the story is. Republican campaigns have been using dog-whistle signals for so long that they seem to have forgotten how to make sounds in normal human hearing range. Mitt Romney appears to be running on the message that first of all, Obama hasn’t accomplished anything, and second of all, he’s going to repeal all the bad things that Obama has accomplished. And then Romney himself, as a practical businessman, is going to … something something, small business, something, restore America, growth and jobs, tax cuts, something. It’s a negative campaign in the pictorial sense: a blank space where the objects would go. A white space, if you will.

Granted, racism does exist in the United States, but to construe this as the overall mentality of the white electorate is disingenuous, ignorant, and outright nonsensical.  In the world of Scocca, it’s all due to the alleged race baiting.  He noted how it was racist to partake in the “baiting of Obama, throughout his term, for supposedly being unable to speak without a teleprompter.”

More bizarrely, Scocca says that “Republicans predicted, over and over, that the president would be exposed and humiliated in face-to-face debate with an opponent (Newt Gingrich especially fantasized about being that foe). Eventually this led to Clint Eastwood haranguing the empty chair. And then in the first presidential debate, Obama was slack and ineffectual against a sharp Romney. See? It was true!”  Yes, it was true.  He came unprepared, and even The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank made a citation of the president’s debate performance.  Adding that Obama’s lack of press conferences – his last one was in June – contributed to an insular mindset that produced and insipid showing in Denver.  Is Dana Milbank racist?

Concerning the 47 percent comments, Scocca noted how this was a giant race baiting move to court whites.

Here, Romney is speaking fluent White. In white people’s political English, “personal responsibility” is the opposite of “handouts,” “food stamps,” and particularly “welfare,” all of which are synonyms for “niggers.” This was Ronald Reagan’s rallying cry, and it was the defining issue for traumatized post-Reagan white Democrats. Like George Wallace vowing not to be out-niggered again, the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Republic and Bill Clinton made Ending Welfare as We Know It the policy centerpiece of the 1990s.

The actual policy never mattered. Now the Romney campaign is running ads in Ohio saying that Obama “gutted the work requirement for welfare” and “doubled the number of able-bodied adults without children on food stamps.” In mixed company, Romney glosses the food-stamp lines as concern about the country’s economic status, but that’s not why “work requirement” and “able-bodied” are in there. It’s the rusty old Confederate bugle, blown one more time.

So, is this whole get out the white vote is based on coded racism and dog whistling, or is it that Scocca is so frustrated that his favorite in this race isn’t performing as well as he did in ’08?  It’s petulant.  Forgetting the fact that Democrats haven’t won the so-called “white vote” since 1964, Scocca is saying that the whites who decided to leave the president in 2012 are racists.  Therefore, they’ve lost their credibility and their sanity as well.  They’re not “normal.”

If liberals ever get a chance to look in the mirror and ask themselves why they’re so bad at winning elections, they need to go no further than Tom Scocca’s laughable attempt at ‘white people’s studies’.  It seems the seeds of the bitter narrative liberals will hurl against Republicans in a plausible post-Obama defeat have already been laid.

Originally posted on NewsBusters.

Congress Has To Buck DC Culture And Investigate Benghazi

benghazi victims

For whatever reason, Washington DC has a bizarre culture of failing to get the entire story out. There’s a belief in popular culture that the federal government attempts to conceal as much of the truth as possible and only puts out what the public wants to hear.

This needs to be avoided with Benghazi. The whole truth has to come out. There is too much conflicting information. The Pentagon appears to be blaming the State Department. The State Department blames the CIA and the White House. The CIA appears to blame the Defense Department, the White House and State Department. The White House has been noticeably silent. A special investigation team needs to look into which information is true and which isn’t.

Capitol Hill doesn’t always appear interested in doing this. It seems more interested in keeping the status quo and avoiding accountability as much as possible.

This probably started with the Warren Commission looking into the assassination of President Kennedy, but the best example is the Watergate investigation. That was shut down after President Ford pardoned President Nixon to get the case over with as quickly as possible. Ford was hoping to keep Nixon’s name from being dragged any further through the mud. It may have been noble reasoning, but was ultimately irresponsible.

It also set a dangerous precedent the presidency has been willing to go along with time and time again. In the Iran Contra scandal, President George H.W. Bush pardoned Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger before he could go up to trial. In the end, only Oliver North and John Poindexter were tried and convicted. Both convictions were thrown out on appeal and independent counsel Lawrence Walsh declined to continue the investigation.

During the Whitewater scandal, both Bill and Hillary Clinton were able to avoid charges. President Clinton was later impeached for lying under oath, but that related to the Monica Lewinsky affair. A part of the failure of the Whitewater investigation could be because ex-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, Webster Hubbell and Susan McDougal refused to cooperate with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Clinton later pardoned McDougal. Another part is the decision by the Clintons to fight the Whitewater investigation tooth and nail, instead of cooperating with it. Starr’s successor, Robert Ray, admitted he was pressured to come up with a deal with President Clinton so he wouldn’t be indicted further.

These examples make it seem like there’s no accountability in the White House. Instead, it shows presidents are willing to use their political positions to either protect themselves, their friends or their previous bosses from accepting responsibility.

Congress is no better.

During the investigation into Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, Congress criticized the Justice Department for their “aggressive raid” on Jefferson’s office. Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner wanted to hold hearings on whether the FBI had trampled on the Constitution for their actions. Jefferson was later convicted of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison.

After Peter Schweizer’s fantastic 2011 book on insider trading in Washington DC called “Throw Them All Out,” Congress was criticized for not passing strong enough insider trading prevention laws. Schweizer himself criticized the SEC for not indicting any members of Congress during the hearing on the law. Congresswoman Maxine Waters was able to avoid ethics charges for helping OneUnited Bank get money from TARP. These are examples of members of Congress deciding not to police themselves and hold each other to the highest standard possible.

These types of situations do nothing to end the notion that Washington politicians are more interested in protecting their own, instead of working for the people who elected them.

The good news is there are people in Congress who want the truth to get out. California Congressman Darrell Issa, South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy, Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul have all been at the forefront of the Benghazi situation demanding answers. This is a good thing. Their calls for an investigation even have House Speaker John Boehner demanding answers. There need to be more people like Issa, Gowdy, Chaffetz and Paul willing to do this.

Congress has to investigate the situation involving Benghazi, regardless of who wins the presidency. Ignoring it would deny the truth not only to the families of the four killed but also the American people, who have been lied to.

Yes, Nate Silver is a Joke

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 11.53.59 PM

If you’ve ever gone on Nate Silver’s 538 Blog for The New York Times, you’ll see where reality ends, and fantasy begins.  It was more vividly displayed after the third and last presidential debate where I wrote, in a previous post, for Hot Air that “the headline for his [Silver’s] October 23 post after the last presidential debate read ‘Obama unlikely to get big debate bounce, but a small one could matter.”  Talk about grasping at straws.

Still, with the contest being so tight, any potential gain for Mr. Obama could matter. Mr. Obama was roughly a 70 percent Electoral College favorite in the FiveThirtyEight forecast in advance of the debate, largely because he has remained slightly ahead in polls of the most important swing states.

If Mr. Obama’s head-to-head polling were 2 percentage points higher right now, he would be a considerably clearer favorite in the forecast, about 85 percent. A 1-point bounce would bring him to 80 percent, and even a half-point bounce would advance his position to being a 75 percent favorite in the forecast.

Still, Mr. Obama should not take even that for granted. There have been some past debates when the instant-reaction polls judged one candidate to be the winner, but the head-to-head polls eventually moved in the opposite direction.

[…]

So, since Obama is ahead of Romney within the margin of error, why does that constitutes a win for the president?  I think most analysts would put a 2-4 point lead, for any candidate, in the toss-up column – especially for a battleground state.  Thus, making his 70% prediction of an Obama victory a nonsensical exercise.   Silver has states listed as toss-ups on the blog, but didn’t reference them here.

Furthermore, Silver’s notion that a half point ounce would increase Obama’s probability of re-election to 75%, a 1 point bounce to 80%, and a 2 point bounce to 85% is abjectly senseless.  He is lying and waiting for a miracle to happen.

However, while we shouldn’t expect much from a former Daily Kos blogger, he seems to be keeping liberal spirits high.  As Rosie Gray at BuzzFeed wrote on October 29:

Here in New York, Silver is very much on the tongue of the media and the left-leaning professional elite: Everyone from photographers to the managing partner of a major law firm cops to hitting refresh every hour to stay sane. And out in the Democratic hinterlands, the reaction is much the same.

“I was at a Halloween party last night and it was just kind of funny because we’re down here in South Carolina and none of these people are media people or DC kind of types,” said Teresa Kopec, a substitute teacher from Spartanburg, South Carolina. “And they were kind of whispering to each other, ‘But Nate Silver says…’”

“If people have heard of him down here in South Carolina that’s kind of amazing,” Kopec said.

Furthermore, Gray noted that “some Democrats, meanwhile, concede that their affection for the wonky analyst is less the details of his model than the consistency of his message.”  That being Obama wins – in every projection he runs.

With Silver catching flak it wasn’t long before his allies at The Washington Post, namely Ezra Klein, decided to jump in front of the train for his liberal colleague. “Before we get too deep in the weeds here, it’s worth being clear about exactly what Silver’s model — and that’s all it is, a model — is showing. As of this writing, Silver thinks Obama has a 75 percent chance of winning the election. That might seem a bit high, but note that the BetFair markets give him a 67.8 percent chance, the InTrade markets give him a 61.7 percent chance and the Iowa Electronic Markets give him a 61.8 percent chance. And we know from past research that political betting markets are biased toward believing elections are more volatile in their final weeks than they actually are. So Silver’s estimate doesn’t sound so off,” says Klein in his October 30 post on the WonkBlog.

Klein then goes on to trivialize the whole matter by saying:

…it’s just as important to be clear about this: If Mitt Romney wins on election day, it doesn’t mean Silver’s model was wrong. After all, the model has been fluctuating between giving Romney a 25 percent and 40 percent chance of winning the election. That’s a pretty good chance! If you told me I had a 35 percent chance of winning a million dollars tomorrow, I’d be excited. And if I won the money, I wouldn’t turn around and tell you your information was wrong. I’d still have no evidence I’d ever had anything more than a 35 percent chance.

There are good criticisms to make of Silver’s model, not the least of which is that, while Silver is almost tediously detailed about what’s going on in the model, he won’t give out the code, and without the code, we can’t say with certainty how the model works. But the model is, at this point, Silver’s livelihood, and so it’s somewhat absurd to assume he’d hand it out to anyone who asks

Here’s the catch.  We know his code.  In fact, anyone of us can replicate Silver’s methodology on Microsoft Office.   As Sean A. Davis, COO of Media Trackers, wrote in The Daily Caller on November 1:

Silver’s key insight was that if you used a simple simulation method known as Monte Carlo, you could take a poll’s topline numbers and its margin of error and come up with a probability forecast based on the poll. The effect of this method was to show that a 50-49 lead in a poll with 1,000 respondents wasn’t really a dead heat at all — in fact, the candidate with 50% would be expected to win two-thirds of the time if the poll’s sample accurately reflected the true voting population.

To a political world unfamiliar with mathematical methods that are normally taught in an introductory statistics course, Silver’s prophecy was nothing short of miraculous.

But was it? To find out, I spent a few hours re-building Nate Silver’s basic Monte Carlo poll simulation model from the ground up. It is a simplified version, lacking fancy pollster weights and economic assumptions and state-by-state covariance factors, but it contains the same foundation of state poll data that supports Nate Silver’s famous FiveThirtyEight model. That is, they are both built upon the same assumption that state polls, on average, are correct.

After running the simulation every day for several weeks, I noticed something odd: the winning probabilities it produced for Obama and Romney were nearly identical to those reported by FiveThirtyEight. Day after day, night after night. For example, based on the polls included in RealClearPolitics’ various state averages as of Tuesday night, the Sean Davis model suggested that Obama had a 73.0% chance of winning the Electoral College. In contrast, Silver’s FiveThirtyEight model as of Tuesday night forecast that Obama had a 77.4% chance of winning the Electoral College.

So what gives? If it’s possible to recreate Silver’s model using just Microsoft Excel, a cheap Monte Carlo plug-in, and poll results that are widely available, then what real predictive value does Silver’s model have?

That’s a very good question.   In the meantime, this is Silver’s Electoral College and Election forecasts, which were updated at 7pm on November 4.  Immerse yourself in the ignorant – or delusional – bliss.

 

GOP Could Gain Seats in ’12, Dubious About The Senate

Screen Shot 2012-11-04 at 11.03.58 PM

While the chances of Republicans retaking the U.S. Senate have diminished, thanks to a few unnecessary comments about rap, House Republicans could make gains in 2012.  The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake noted how Democrats were euphoric about retaking the House, but admit that opportunity will not come to fruition due to ten Democratic seats leaning Republican this cycle.

Here are the races that are leaning Republican.

PA-12 moves from “tossup” to “lean Republican”

Critz is in a very tough spot right now, with Republican polls this month showing him slightly behind Republican Keith Rothfus. This district would have given John McCain 54 percent of the vote in 2008.

UT-4 moves from “tossup” to “lean Republican”

A new poll for the Salt Lake Tribune shows Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love (R) opening up a 12-point lead on Matheson, and all the polling in this race has gone in one direction: Love’s.

NY-27 moves from “tossup” to “lean Republican”

Hochul is in a 53 percent McCain district, which also happens to be the most conservative district in New York. Polling here has been close, but a GOP internal poll last week shows Republican Chris Collins opening up a seven-point lead.

IA-3 moves from “tossup” to “lean Republican”

The race between Reps. Leonard Boswell (D) and Tom Latham (R) has been tight from the start, and remains tight. We give Latham a slight edge, though, in light of the district’s very slight GOP lean and Latham’s intangibles (money, anecdotal reports, etc.).

KY-6 moves from “lean Democratic” to “tossup”

Chandler is a survivor of the first rank, but he’s also got a 54 percent McCain district, and a GOP poll last week showed him trailing by four in his rematch with Republican Andy Barr.

AZ-2 moves from “likely Democratic” to “lean Democratic”

Barber remains a slight favorite in his race with Republican former Air Force colonel Martha McSally. McSally has proven a better candidate than Jesse Kelly, who lost to Barber in the special election for Gabrielle Giffords House seat earlier this year.

While this is great news, it’s the Senate that matters.  With Republicans defending 10 seats and Democrats tasked with holding on to 23 seats – that conservatives didn’t have much luck putting a lock on at least a few of these races.  Tom Smith may pull off an upset in Pennsylvania and oust incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey, Jr.  I’m hoping Scott Brown may be able to survive Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Indian assault,’ but that race will come down to a few thousand votes.  Despite Todd Akin’s ‘legitimate rape’ fiasco this past summer, he could win – and I’ll bet the mortgage that he does.  In Indiana and Ohio, it looks like it’ll be a disappointing night for Richard Mourdock and Josh Mandel.  Regardless, the Senate is where we kill Obamacare.  We only need 51 seats, and it isn’t set in stone that we will reach the number.

Should Ohio and Texas Election Officials Prosecute United Nation Election Observers

The New Black Panther Party, ACORN and NAACP have engaged in voter Intimidation and fraudulent tactics – not Republicans

The state of Ohio and Texas along with Florida and Wisconsin are on the United Nation’s Election Day hit list when it comes to their officials showing up at state polling locations.  It seems that these United Nations officials have the mistaken belief that they have the legal right to intervene in how Ohio and other states are running their Election Day activities.  Their organization the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe is showing up because the nearly impotent NAACP and the discredited ACORN organization requested that they oversee possible voter suppression.

 

The fact that outside countries can use the guise of the United Nations to come into sovereign states and cities like Cleveland, or Columbus, Ohio, or Houston Texas, or any other city in America is without merit.  If one single United Nation’s official illegally steps within the 100 foot limit of a polling precinct they will become quite familiar with American jurisprudence.

 

The Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has already publically stated that if a United Nation’s official breaks Texas law by interfering with its election process within the 100 foot limit, he will have them prosecuted to the full extent of Texas law and justice.  Jay Sekulow, head of the American Center for Law and Justice affirmed this and other similar developments around the nation, on Fox News, Friday, November 2nd.

 

First and foremost is the erroneous notion that a foreign nation has the purposeful audacity to believe it can set one soiled boot on Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin state soil.  Could these so-called officials of the NAACP or ACORN be that incompetent about how state government and the U.S. Constitution actually work?   The United States Constitution is still the law of the land, as is the 10th Amendment, which clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  This includes election law.

News flash, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that state election officials should bow, submit,  or be subject to interference by the United Nations.  Foreign governments do not dictate terms to the United States of America or states about how and what it does regarding elections or any other sovereign action.  In other words, United Nations officials take your pens, pads and notebooks to the nearest motel room and watch the election results like any other person.

 

What is disturbing about this entire misleading scenario is how the United Nations could ignore due diligence in taking a letter from organizations that offered them no legal proof of voter suppression or intimidation.  Before the United Nations started snooping into America’s business, why not go over legal proof of voter suppression and intimidation legal cases from the U.S. Justice Department?  What about the states they are targeting?  Oops, that would be a big negatory since no proof of voter suppression or voter intimidation by Republicans exist!

 

Why did this so-called finder of fact committee set up by the United Nations not investigate the organizations that made the request?  Take ACORN, which had officials engaging in voter fraud in Cleveland in 2008, who were illegally signing up voters multiple times.  One voter even testified that ACORN voter registrars signed him up 72 times to vote.  Their voter fraud activities are legendary.  In Missouri in 1986, 12 ACORN members were convicted of voter fraud. Also in 1986, in St. Louis, six ACORN volunteers plead guilty to a myriad of election law violations.

 

The NAACP which also requested United Nations intervention into suspected Republican voter suppression has election fraud skeletons in its own closet. The organization made up fraudulent claims in 2000 against then Governor George Bush about voter intimidation and the lack of prosecution of a fatal attack on a black man.  In addition, in 2011, NAACP Tunica County, Mississippi executive committee member Lessadolla Sowers was convicted on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots in a substantial voter fraud scheme. So much for integrity!

 

Then of course there is the infamous voter intimidation case in 2008 against the New Black Panther Party, which openly intimidated white voters in Philadelphia.  The Obama U.S. Justice Department refused to prosecute the case, despite overwhelming evidence, and an actual video which captured their thug-like tactics.

 

Where is the voter intimidation?  Where is the voter fraud?  The answer is real simple and it lands squarely at the feet of the NAACP, New Black Panther Party and ACORN.  They engage in these divisive tactics to intimidate, threaten, and if nothing else works, cry racism while attempting to steal elections.  Well, legally appointed poll watchers in Texas, Ohio, and Florida and at other state polling location will have their camera phones and they will be recording on Election Day.  This will prevent United Nation officials and their NAACP, ACORN or New Black Panther Party comrades in arms from disrupting the legitimate business of voting.

 

In the end, the lesson for the unwelcome United Nations visitors is clear and it should be convincing.  America is a sovereign nation which has a system of justice that is based on the U.S. Constitution, and not on some third-world dictatorship masquerading as a legitimate democracy.  You cannot bully nor can you intimidate America or any sovereign state.

 

So, UN officials take the hint, if you step within that 100 foot limit in Cleveland, Ohio, Houston, Texas, Tampa, Florida or any other voter precinct on the sovereign soil of the United States of America, you will get the full taste of what it means to break the state’s laws.  It will definitely be at your peril.

 

This is America and when its officials insist to you to “get off of my land,” Americans do not take kindly with having to remind you twice.   ( Click and let me know what you think  )

 

Creepy: Florida- Crowd Chants ‘Hail Obama’

hail_obama

There are eerie similarities between Barack Obama and Adolph Hitler, and it appears as though Obama’s followers are going to a creepy, new level in Florida. In the 1930’s and 1940’s it was “Heil Hitler”, now, in 2012, it is “Hail Obama”.

For those who are not familiar with history, here is a quick note from Wikipedia:

Characteristic of a cult of personality, it was adopted in the 1930s by the Nazi Party to signal obedience to the party’s leader Adolf Hitler and to glorify the German nation and later the war effort.

If Obama is re-elected, I wonder if history will repeat itself once again. In Germany, the salute eventually became mandatory for citizens. Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic appears to have learned from their history, as the salute a criminal offense in all four countries now.

 

FOX 35 News Orlando

H/T The Blaze

« Older Entries Recent Entries »