Archive for the ‘Democrat Party’ Category

I have been shouting about our government’s actions from the rooftops for more than three years, while so many US voters just hide from the limelight and say “But Fox News says….” Fox News is owned by Murdoch, who is more concerned with ratings than the truth and has so much power over Fox commentors that they all had to parrot the liberal media or leave, like Beck. Besides, I would still like to know his connections with Soros, the Illuminati, and the Bilderbergs). (For those of you who are uninformed about the Illuminati and Bilderbergs–just Google them.)
I have been an investigative reporter for many years and found newspaper articles and photos of Obama while he was still a young man posing with his cabal of Communist organizers–joining clubs and advertising meetings. Plus, Obama is ineligible for President for three reasons: his British-citizenship father; his Indonesian stepfather who bestowed Indonesian citizenship on “Barry,” which allowed him to use his foreign passport to go to countries that did not allow Americans in; and his foreign birthplace, about which there is more than sufficient evidence to prove he is NOT an American.
As “Barry Soetoro,” he applied for student foreign aid at one of his colleges; at Columbia University, not one of his supposed classmates recognize him. He lied about being a Constitutional Professor–he was just a guest lecturer. He is using an illegal Social Security number. I could go on and on. Finally, enough judges are being convinced to order him to unseal all of his records–which he has spent $2 million of taxpaper money on legal fees to seal and keep hidden. Pray to God that his Traitorous actions, plus all those of the people who helped him get elected, will cause them all to be imprisoned and tried for Treason this summer before the election. I know that might throw the country into chaos, but that might just be the way that we can clean house and get rid of all corrupt local, state, and national politicians, judges, and even civilians.
Then we can start over with a restored Constitution and Bill of Rights. At least we will then be able to undo all the damage inflicted by Obama during the past four years, and we can start making new rules to protect us from this happening again…No ObamaCare! Give us back access to our own energy sources and provide the jobs we need. Throw out the UN and denounce our membership. Strengthen our Military personnel and bring them home from countries that we are not fighting.
Give term limits and civilian perks to all politicians. No public employee unions. No FED, Fannie May, or Freddie Mac. No corporate handouts–they sink or swim on their own. No government departments that do nothing but harm, like the Depts. of Energy and Education as well as alphabet soup agencies such the EPA, IRS (only flat tax). Go back to the Gold Standard and LOCK the lockbox for good… a secured border and all illegals deported, TORT reform with a cap of 10% for lawyers, workfare at minimum wage instead of welfare, no unemployment without training/classes attendance to learn a needed skill. No aid to foreign countries except directly to starving people who are victims of their own hierarchy or a natural catastrophe. No financial aid to any countries.
If we do all this and get rid of the corruption, we can catch up on our debt and keep a balanced budget for all of us. The problems for us is that we have become a country of “give-aways” to deadbeats or those we want to buy for friends. We need to go back to our original work ethics, God as our Savior, Golden Rule standards, and stop letting the corrupt rule us with “Political Correctness,” Elitist mentalities.

Team Obama includes a self-identified “Muslim Palestinian-American” campaign fundraiser who has a history of blasting Israel in highly charged letters and newspaper articles about the Middle East conflict.

Hala Hijazi, a Jordanian native and current San Francisco city employee, has personally secured between $100,000 to $200,000 for Obama’s reelection effort, according to Federal Election Committee filings.

She also has gone on record accusing Israel of war crimes while castigating America for providing the Jewish state critical military aid—a long-term investment that has bolstered U.S. security interests.

Hijazi, who has cultivated pristine left-wing credentials during her government career, is another name on an ever lengthening list of Obama-affiliated donors and bundlers who are either entangled in legal woes or hail from controversial backgrounds.

A prominent Hillary Clinton supporter who has long been entrenched in San Francisco’s left-wing political machine, Hijazi appears to be tapping a list of high profile West Coast liberals in an attempt to replenish the president’s campaign coffers.

Her public writings on Israel—an issue that has plagued Obama since the start of his presidency—reveal a longstanding and deep-seated hostility towards the Jewish state.

“As Americans we cannot allow the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to continue,” Hijazi wrote in a 2009 letter to the New York Times as rockets rained down on Israel from the Gaza Strip, provoking the Israelis to respond in self-defense. “The death of children and mothers and the Gaza blockade lack any moral justification and humanity.”

Hijazi went on to lament the U.S.-Israel military alliance and accuse Israel of destroying Muslim holy places.

“As God-fearing Americans, we cannot sit still and continue being silent when our taxpayer dollars are financing a war that is causing the death of innocent civilians and is destroying places of worship and education,” said Hijazi, who identified herself as “a Muslim Palestinian-American.”

American support for Israel is perverting the country’s collective morality, Hijazi claimed.

“We are citizens of a morally just country who believe in those rights; and once we Americans accept the loss of those rights for anyone, we risk losing them for ourselves,” wrote Hijazi, who currently serves as a project manager in the San Francisco City Attorney’s office. “We cannot allow the world to believe that we do not value life.”

Hijazi also alleged that Israel’s leaders wantonly kill Palestinian children in a 2001 San Francisco Chronicle article.

The election of Israeli military hero Ariel Sharon as prime minister “is a sad day in Palestine and all over the Mideast,” Hijazi told the paper.

“There is no peace,” she claimed, adding that Sharon’s “version of peace is security for Israel, and for him one death of an Israeli solider equals a thousand Palestinian children.”

As former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown’s “Palestinian campaign assistant” in 1999, Hijazi brought the mayor to an Arab cultural center to bolster his support in the minority community.

During the reception, attendees convinced Brown to express interest in having Beirut serve as San Francisco’s official “Sister City.” Hijazi also helped recruit Arab volunteers “from the audience to walk districts of the city in order to increase voter turnout,” according to a dispatch in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

One GOP operative blasted team Obama’s fundraising arm for what he described as its shameless associations with a cast of unsavory characters—among them Hijazi and a Persian-Jewish donor who stands accused of running a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

“This has the potential to make the Obama Super-PAC completely toxic to voters—not just Jews and supporters of Israel, but your everyday swing voter that has no warm and fuzzy feelings about radical Islamists and terrorism,” said the senior GOP communications aide, who closely tracks campaign donations. “Every time you see an Obama Super-PAC ad, you’ll have to think of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Americans blown up in Jerusalem pizza parlors.”

The aide recommended that Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod “disavow this woman as soon as possible.”

Hijazi is closely tied to San Francisco’s vast network of entrenched Democratic political figures.

“She’s clearly part of the machine,” said Stephen Schwartz, an author and former San Francisco Chronicle reporter. “It’s the radical left and she’s at the heart of it.”

Hijazi has positioned herself as “a representative of Arab interests in the San Francisco political machine,” and her views are “representative in the Bay Area of politically correct attitudes about the Middle East,” Schwartz added.

Hijazi’s status as an Obama bundler, Schwartz said, “is definitely a reflection of the support that the San Francisco machine gives to the national leadership group in the Democratic Party.”

When taxes become destructive they’ve surpassed the consent of the governed bending to the will of tyranny.  When regulations strangle competition instead of securing it from evil combinations they’ve become counterproductive and defeat the very purpose for which they were proposed.  When foreign entanglements bleed the nation but do not secure the peace or defeat the enemy they’ve become interventionist vehicles for vested interests.  When spending becomes a hemorrhaging of assists leading to national bankruptcy those who continue to pile debt upon debt seek not the good of the nation but instead its destruction.  When leaders selected to unite instead do all they can to divide they no longer advance the interest of the whole and are instead partisan leaders in a factional fight.

A social contract is one made between a people and their government.  It is an agreement whereby the people surrender certain aspects of their independence for the guarantee of corporate security and the enjoyment of a general welfare.  In the case of most countries this is an unwritten and unconscious arrangement built upon tradition and precedent as in the case of England.  However in the United States we have an actual contract, the Constitution.  This was ratified by the original states and the subsequent states were formed under it and admitted as full partners to it.

All contracts may be legitimately changed over time as long as there are mechanisms either within the document or established by the document to do so.  Within our Constitution there is an amendment process and it has been amended 27 times so far.  Whether we agree with those amendments or not they have been legally ratified and accepted becoming part of the document.  However, over the years our government structure has been changed and our manner of life transformed more by the informal changes than by the formal.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the central government given the power to wage unending undeclared war.  Nowhere is the central government given the right to ignore the requirement to protect the states from invasion.  Nowhere is there found any basis for executive orders, signing statements or bureaucratic regulations to have the force of law without legislative action by Congress.

Well-connected rabble rousers now say equality will not be achieved until everything is equal in everybody’s house.  Leveling the playing field has finally thrown off its cloak of deceit and exposed itself as, “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.”  The professional civil rights entrepreneurs who’ve extorted vast amounts of personal wealth with threats of boycotts and demonstrations have been unmasked as the true purveyors of prejudice seeking to keep race and gender differences alive for their own benefit.  Union bosses build political empires using the legally forced dues of members with more money spent on political activity than on member service.  The union bosses ride in limousine comfort from board meetings to political rallies while their members lose jobs.  The pensions of the bosses are golden parachutes while the pensions of the members are underfunded.

The Land of the Free is held captive, locked in a two party system where both parties are merely two heads on the same bird of prey.  Both parties are dedicated to more spending and bigger government.  Both parties exploit gerrymandering of districts and overwhelming corporate donations to ensure a hierarchy of the perpetually re-elected using a system of seniority to enhance their power.  Legal barriers exist at every turn to stop any new parties from gaining the access that might deflect the central government from its ever increasing growth towards totalitarianism.

When will enough be enough?  When will citizens rise in their righteous anger and demand not a New Deal, not a Great Society, a New Frontier or a Fundamentally Transformed America but instead their original deal.  The one we wrested from the hands of the tyrant King George.  The one we’ve fought to establish and defend from Yorktown to Kandahar and the right of a people to be free to live as they desire, to work for their own benefit and choose their own destiny.  Free from the smothering governmental control which has been the lot of most people in most places since the beginning of time.  When will the yoke of tyranny become too heavy to be borne?  What will be the spark that lights the torches and brings the incensed villagers to the gate of the castle demanding, “Bring the monster out!” so that a stake can be driven through the heart of tyranny and freedom can return to the land?

When that day comes what will we the people do?  Will we try to resurrect the government of old that ultimately brought us full circle or will we be bold enough to forge a new the social contract and design better ways to ensure that the beast of tyranny doesn’t once again break the chains of restraint.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the Historian of the Future and the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

by Jeffrey klein

This bombshell dropped on Monday in Washington, D.C., causing outrage throughout the halls of Congress, and now beyond, to the “genuine” taxpayers who have been robbed all across America.

Investigative television reporter Bob Segall of Indianapolis NBC affiliate WTHR TV Channel 13, was contacted by a long-time central Indiana tax preparer, who blew the whistle on a multi-billion dollar tax fraud about which the IRS has done nothing, according to the TV news show video segment that aired on Monday.

“There is not a doubt in my mind there’s huge fraud taking place here,” he said, slowly flipping through the pages of a [heavily redacted] tax return.

“We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar fraud scheme here that’s taking place and no one is talking about it,” he said.

The scheme involves illegal immigrants that are filing tax returns, claiming child credits for multiple dependents under their support in “their” U.S. household, and collecting enormous cash refunds–such as one persons tax return that showed income of over $14,000, who collected a cash refund of over $10,300.
This bombshell dropped on Monday in Washington, D.C., causing outrage throughout the halls of Congress, and now beyond, to the “genuine” taxpayers who have been robbed all across America.

Investigative television reporter Bob Segall of Indianapolis NBC affiliate WTHR TV Channel 13, was contacted by a long-time central Indiana tax preparer, who blew the whistle on a multi-billion dollar tax fraud about which the IRS has done nothing, according to the TV news show video segment that aired on Monday.

“There is not a doubt in my mind there’s huge fraud taking place here,” he said, slowly flipping through the pages of a [heavily redacted] tax return.

“We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar fraud scheme here that’s taking place and no one is talking about it,” he said.

The scheme involves illegal immigrants that are filing tax returns, claiming child credits for multiple dependents under their support in “their” U.S. household, and collecting enormous cash refunds–such as one persons tax return that showed income of over $14,000, who collected a cash refund of over $10,300.

Advertisement

In 1996 during the Clinton Administration, the Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) was created in order for both resident and non-resident aliens, regardless of immigration status, to fulfill their tax filing and payment obligations under IRS regulations–even though an ITIN does not confer the right to work and receive income in the United States.

This year tax preparation offices across the country were flooded by an estimated 2 million illegal immigrants, who in growing numbers have been taking advantage of a tax loophole called the Additional Child Tax Credit–a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child–meant to ease the income tax burden on working families who have children living at home.

However, Segall’s investigation and reporting found many illegal immigrants who were claiming these tax credits, but for kids who live in Mexico–even listing nieces and nephews.

“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower told Eyewitness News. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”

After Segall reviewed many of the heavily redacted tax returns, it was still clear that the tax filers had received large tax refunds after claiming child tax credits for many dependents.

“Here’s a return right here: we’ve got a $10,3000 refund for nine nieces and nephews,” he said, pointing to the words “niece” and “nephew” listed on the tax forms nine separate times.

“We’re getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return. There’s seven nieces and nephews,” he said, pointing to another set of documents. “I can bring out stacks and stacks. It’s just so easy it’s ridiculous.”

Under agreement not to reveal their identity or filming them face on, Segall of WTHR was able to speak with several of the illegal immigrants who, using Segall’s translator–confirmed it is easy.

One of the workers, who was interviewed at his [appeared to be a 2 bedroom mobile home] in southern Indiana, admitted that four other illegal immigrants used his address to file tax returns–even though they don’t even live there.

These four workers claimed that not only they, but a total of 20 children between them–about 30 people–lived in the residence.

As a result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling $29,608.

Upon Segall questioning the man regarding that incredible residency claim, he replied … “They don’t live here … the other kids are in their country of origin, which is Mexico,” later saying that none of the 20 children have ever visited the United States–let alone lived here.

Segall then asked why ‘undocumented workers’ should receive tax credits for children living in a foreign country, which is a violation of IRS tax rules?

“If the opportunity is there and they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?”

Segall then met with Russell George, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration, who stated … “The magnitude of the problem has grown exponentially,” but that the IRS has known about the problem for years.

Mr. George said his department has repeatedly warned the IRS that additional child tax credits are being abused by undocumented workers–in 2009 alone, their annual audit report showed that ITIN tax filers received about $1 billion in additional child tax credits.

The same audit report from 2010 showed it cost the American tax payers more than $4.2 billion.

“Keep in mind, we’re talking $4 billion per year.” George continued by saying “It’s very troubling” that the IRS has not taken any action on the matter–despite these multiple warnings from their own inspector general.

“Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we believe, are not entitled to it,” said the inspector general. “We have made recommendations to [IRS] as to how they could address this, and they have [still] not taken sufficient action in our view to solve the problem.”

Segall’s investigation revealed that claims for additional child tax credits by ITIN filers have skyrocketed during the past decade–from $161 million in 2001 to $4.2 billion in tax year 2010.

He also found that illegal immigrants filed 3.02 million tax returns in 2010, with 72% of those returns (2.18 million) claiming the additional child tax credit.

Segall’s attempts to speak with any of the 100,000 employees of the IRS were rebuffed; instead they emailed this statement…

“The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS shouldn’t be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies it as it is written,” the statement said.

George disagrees with that position and believes the IRS should be doing more to prevent undocumented workers from getting billions in US tax dollars.

“The IRS is not doing something as simple as requesting sufficient documentation from people seeking this credit,” he said. “Once the money goes out the door, it’s nearly impossible for the IRS to get it back.”

Segall says that the IRS says it can’t change the system unless it gets permission from Congress; and closing this loophole requires lawmakers to pass a new law specifically excluding illegal immigrants from claiming additional child tax credits.

However, the IRS “Ten Facts About Child Tax Credit,” does not concur, as illegal immigrants, by definition, fail the citizenship qualification test.

Let’s remember, this is an election year, Barack Obama is CEO, Harry Reid can block any legislation in the Senate, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who is George Russell’s boss, is still claiming that Obamacare will reduce healthcare costs.

OBAMA’S RESCUE OF CHRYSLER AND GENERAL MOTORS UNPOPULAR WITH VOTERS, CREDITORS, AND GM MANAGEMENT

BY: Bill McMorris – April 30, 2012 5:00 am

President Barack Obama has made the auto bailout a centerpiece of his reelection campaign, using it to bash Republican nominee Mitt Romney. But the tactic may backfire as the general election heats up, public opinion surveys suggest.

Recent polling from Rasmussen indicates that 59 percent view the bailouts as a “failure” and only 44 percent think the bailouts were “good for America.”

The administration has already written off $7 billion in taxpayer losses in the American takeover of Chrysler and General Motors; those losses are expected to climb as high as $23 billion—27 percent of the $85 billion spent on the bailout.

While the bailout is widely credited with saving the two companies, increasing taxpayer losses have made it nearly as unpopular in 2012 as it was when Obama was elected. More than half of Americans still disapprove of the auto bailout compared with 61 percent in 2008.

That has not stopped Obama from using the bailout as a bludgeon against Romney, who backed bankruptcy measures, in a number of campaign speeches.

“We could have just kicked the problem down the road. The other option was to do absolutely nothing and let these companies fail,” Obama told the United Automobile Workers union in February. “And you will recall there were some politicians who said we should do that. Some even said we should ‘let Detroit go bankrupt.’”

The line drew a chorus of boos from the crowd and Obama has used the talking point often in his recent campaign addresses. He has deployed the line in a number of speeches in front of friendly crowds, despite the surprising lack of enthusiasm among Democrats for the bailout.

Obama’s job approval ratings among Democrats remain at nearly 85 percent, according to RealClearPolitics.

That is 20 points higher than the 63 percent of Democrats who support the auto bailout.

Obama is using the talking point as a targeted message to interest groups, rather than a broad appeal to his overall base, bailout experts say.

“The reason Obama likes it is because labor likes it,” one bankruptcy expert said. “The administration went in and took UAW and pulled them up.”

The administration handed $85 billion to GM and Chrysler and guided them through reorganization. Obama took on the role of bankruptcy court and bumped the unions to the front of the line, handing them control of Chrysler, while preserving pay and benefits at General Motors.

“They came in and forced these companies into pre-packaged bankruptcy where unions were made whole and creditors were squeezed out,” the expert said. “In normal bankruptcy they don’t rearrange stakeholders rights willy-nilly…there’s no way those union contracts would have been untouched.”

Labor is not the only constituency to which Obama has tried to appeal by championing the bailout. “After three decades of inaction, we’re gradually putting in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history for our cars and pickups,” Obama said in the same February speech. “That means the cars you build will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade—almost double what they get today.”

Obama tied the bailouts to strict environmental standards that have led to increasingly efficient cars, an achievement he has used to woo green advocates. The move has affected more than just the environment, establishing “dangerous” legal precedents, according to some legal experts.

The fuel-mileage regulations are expected to drive up vehicle prices by $3,200 and keep consumers out of car lots, according to the National Auto Dealers Association, which sued to block the regulations. A Washington D.C. Appeals Court tossed the suit, ruling that only manufacturers could sue for damages associated with the expensive rules.

“This is a great incentive for cronyism,” an attorney familiar with the regulations said. “The manufacturers colluded with the feds and they pushed these costs onto car dealers and consumers; the government had its first taste of cronyism and learned that if they can bully enough stakeholders and companies, they can get away with it.”

Auto executives hailed the bailout as a lifesaver in 2008, but are increasingly uneasy about the government’s ownership in the two companies. While the government liquidated a number of its shares in GM during its record-setting stock offering in 2010, it has retained partial control of the company.

“GM’s executives have wanted the government out for a while now … it’s a huge PR liability for them—they hate the ‘Government Motors’ stigma,” said Edward Niedermeyer, editor-at-large of TheTruthAboutCars.com. “The government can’t get out now, they don’t want to take an even bigger loss on the bailout.”

GM’s stock price has dropped about $10 per share since its IPO, meaning any sale would increase the taxpayer’s multi-billion dollar losses in the bailout.

Niedermeyer said the administration might wind up its involvement in GM even if it means higher losses. Timing, he added, will play a key role in that decision.

“They’ll wait until after the election before they act,” he said.

Senate Dems violate federal law: No plan for a budget plan

From Eric Odom, Liberty News Network

News is now breaking that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D) will refuse to draft a Democrat budget before the 2012 election. While it’s not surprising to see Democrats kick the can down the road, this move is likely to create a significant problem for Democrats attempting to run on the idea of leadership in government. A refusal to draft a budget before the November election is a confession that Democrats refuse to address our spending crises with any meaningful plan. Or any plan at all for that matter.

Even worse, this is an open announcement that if Democrats are allowed to stay in power, they will continue spending us into bankruptcy as a nation when they do not face immediate elections.

Posted by Ben Howe

I’ve written several posts here about the cost of EPA interference in our lives. Estimates of job losses at the hands of the supposedly well-intentioned Environmental Protection Agency are in the millions. As Lisa Jackson’s EPA continues its unrelenting war against coal, an obvious thing is going to happen: the cost of powering your home and your daily life is going to go up. In fact, it’s going to skyrocket. Don’t take it from me, take it from the man himself.Oh but no worries right? The Congress rejected Cap and Trade, so nothing to fear! Well, not if Obama has anything to say about it. To him, congress is simply an obstacle to overcome. So with the help of a litany of coal targeted EPA regulations, the squeeze begins.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said Sunday that the two parties probably will not be able to agree on a budget plan before the election, even as his panel prepares to hammer out a fiscal 2013 blueprint.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” made clear that he is at peace with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s position that the chamber does not need to bring a budget to the floor.

“I think Senator Reid has made the judgment, probably quite correctly, that there is very little chance that we’re going to get the two sides together before the election,” Conrad said.

The committee chairman said Congress can simply defer to the agreement from last summer’s debt-ceiling debate, which set spending caps for 2013 and beyond.

House Republicans, though, are trying to lower those caps further and make sweeping changes to federal entitlement programs with the budget that passed out of their chamber late last month.

ONLY DEMOCRATS COULD INVESTIGATE THE WRONG PEOPLE INTENDED TO COVER UP THEIR OWN STUPIDITY.
The District of Columbia Board of Elections opened an investigation Tuesday after an undercover video posted online showed an activist against voter fraud going into a Washington polling station and beginning the process to vote under the name of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

If you went to bed oblivious of the news last night, there was a mini-bruhaha over a comment Hilary Rosen, the former head of the RIAA and a DNC Advisor, made to Anderson Cooper on AC360 last night. I was on AC360 with both Hilary and Paul Begala.

Hillary said that Ann Romney, a mother of five sons who has had breast cancer and MS, had “actually never worked a day in her life.” Ann Romney made her debut on twitter to take issue with the remark. The White House and Obama campaign were quick to distance themselves and say Hilary should offer an apology.

For what it’s worth, in context Hilary was talking about the workforce and recession and I don’t think she meant to insult stay at home moms or Mrs. Romney. On Twitter, Hilary explained she was taking issue with Mitt Romney using Ann Romney as his expert on women and Ann Romney did not work both a full time job and raise the five boys concurrently.

But more than that, I actually never even heard her make the remark originally because I was still dwelling on how Hilary had started her statement. Hilary said the Democrats had actually never used the phrase “War on Women,” and that it was a Republican invention. I turned on twitter and saw all the outrage and literally said out loud, “How’d I miss that?”

Saying the Democrats had never coined the “war on women” terminology threw me for a loop.

As the other statement about Mrs. Romney was being made, I was replaying in my mind where I’d heard the “war on women” rhetoric. Turns out the Democrats started it all the way back in February of 2011 and even Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the DNC and a congresswoman has gone all in with the rhetoric.

Hilary saying the Democrats hadn’t started it threw me for a loop because I’d played on my radio show DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Meet the Press from March 4, 2012. From the transcript:

MR. GREGORY: Nice to have you here in studio. So let me ask you about this issue of contraception and this fight over social issues. Just as I’ve asked your–the two other guests I’ve had this morning, can you appreciate where they’re coming from, which is–this is not a war on women, which they say is a vast overstatement, or about access to contraception, but this is about religious liberty that started with the president’s new regulation about faith institutions and access and who pays for contraception.

REP. SCHULTZ: Well, if it’s not a war on women, then let’s just look at what happened this week in contraception. First, you had the Blunt-Rubio bill that was on the floor in the United States Senate that wouldn’t just deal with making sure that women couldn’t have access to contraception, it would actually say that any boss could use their own moral conviction to decide what access to health care their employees could have, making sure that women would have to have their own access to health care, whether it’s to mammograms or contraception or to amniocenteses or any other type of health care access, decided by their boss. And that was defeated in the Senate. So the Republicans actually want to go much further than just saying women shouldn’t have access to, to contraception. They want to say that bosses should be able to decide what kind of access to health care women can have.

On Political Capital with Al Hunt on April 6, 2012, there was this exchange with the Democratic Congresswoman and DNC Chair:

HUNT: You have charged that the Republicans are waging a war on women. They say that is nonsense. The gender gap issue will disappear as we get closer, at least it will erode as we get closer to the election. And that the Democrats, in fact, have a Catholic problem.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Well, it is clear in this country that the jury of women across America have ruled, that the Republicans have been unbelievably extreme and out of touch and hyper-focused on cultural issues.

I mean while we are supposed to be focusing, and should be, as President Obama has been, focused on getting the economy turned around and continuing to move us forward and create jobs, their side is obsessed with cultural issues.

Note that she does not deny using the phrase.

Likewise, there was Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley just this past weekend pressed on whether or not there really was a “War on Women.”

“The focus of the Republican Party on turning back the clock for women really is something that’s unacceptable and shows how callous and insensitive they are towards women’s priorities,” she said. That’s not exactly a denial.

At the same time, liberal Talking Points Memo from just yesterday characterizes the “war on women” this way:

Mitt Romney has tried to turn Democrats’ claim of a “war on women” by the GOP against them this week, accusing President Obama of waging his own “war on women.” Slower job growth for female workers, Romney insists, is evidence of Obama’s war.

On just about every MSNBC show — official press organ of the Democratic Party — the hosts routinely use the phrase to characterize the GOP. For the past two weeks, it has been a consistent theme on the show. Given how MSNBC doesn’t actually read news, but DNC talking points, it’s a stretch to say the Democrats aren’t behind it.

MoveOn.org sent out a letter on February 19, 2011 (yes, that long ago) accusing the GOP of a “war on women” writing

Dear MoveOn member,

It might seem hyperbolic to say that Republicans have declared a war on women.

Sadly, it’s not.

On March 25, 2011, NARAL Pro-Choice America, EMILYs List, and MoveOn.org started a “Stop the War on Women” campaign.

The list goes on.

It is the Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, Democratic Party mouthpieces, and outside groups pushing the Democrats’ agenda that have all said the GOP is at war against women.

To now deny that the Democrats came up with the term and to say the GOP did it is not just unfair, it is factually wrong. But my guess is that this is an admission that the “war on women” approach isn’t working well for the Democrats.

In fact, we can verify that.

Just last week, Gallup released a new poll with this finding:

Eight in 10 independent women in the swing states said they were not familiar with Romney’s position on contraception, but those who were familiar disagreed with it by a 2-to-1 ratio. Independent women were more likely to have an opinion about Obama’s views on contraception (58% were unfamiliar), and were divided about evenly between saying they agree or disagree with them.

Two things stick out like a sore thumb to me on this. First, 80% of independent women in swing states have no idea what Romney’s position is on contraception despite all the Democrats’ rhetoric. Second, of those who know about Obama’s position, they are split roughly 50-50 on liking his position. That doesn’t seem like it’ll be a problem for Mitt Romney.

Now, what does that tell you? They have to take one of the most popular presidents in history, a Republican, a person with whom they have absolutely nothing in common and without any agreement whatsoever and try to convince the American people Barack Obama is Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan did what Obama’s doing. It is shameless. It is offensive, and, like everything else Obama is doing, it’s a lie. But here’s the problem with this. The Republican establishment — and we discussed this during the elongated primary process — the Republican establishment is scared to death of conservatives, scared to death of a conservative nominee, because their formative lesson is the Goldwater landslide defeat. That’s what they think will happen, or would have happened had the nominee been an unabashed conservative. So they’re happy.

The Republican establishment is happy ’cause now there won’t be this massive landslide defeat because we don’t have a conservative. They do not look to 1980 and 1984 and see two massive landslide victories. But it gets tiresome, and it’s frustrating at the same time. We’ve talked about this countless times before. Obama, last night, right here. I mean he was within a nine iron, effectively, at least as Hank Haney hits ‘em, from where we are right now in Palm Beach Gardens, and he said, “This election will probably have the biggest contrast that we have seen maybe since Johnson-Goldwater of ’64, maybe before that.” But for God’s sake, folks, look around. The US today is not anything like it was in 1964 when Goldwater lost in a landslide. The country does look almost exactly like it did in 1980 when Reagan trounced Carter. That’s the lesson. The lesson here is that Obama is the second term of Jimmy Carter. But here they trot out Reagan and any other conservative that they think will help them remain in office.

Democrat National Committee Hitwoman Candid About Influence Peddling

by Aaron Klein

Hilary Rosen, a former lobbyist under fire for her remarks about Ann Romney, once spoke candidly about her influence-peddling lobby efforts, saying when she raised money for politicians, “You bet I expected their vote.”

Rosen worked with the lobby Recording Industry Association of America from 1987 to 2003, serving in different positions including as president and then chairman and chief executive.

In an interview for the May 2010 issue of Freeman magazine, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, Rosen told writer Jim Powell that as an entertainment lobbyist she expected favors for her fundraising.

WND SPECIAL OFFER: “Capitol Punishment” exposes the hard truth about Washington corruption from America’s most notorious lobbyist

Stated Rosen: “When I gave $1,000 or $2,000 to a lawmaker, I wanted him to listen to my business proposition. And when I helped organize an event that raised $50,000 or $100,000, you bet I expected their vote.”

She continued: “Why else do it? Members of Congress are consumed with raising money for their re-elections (or if they have a safe seat, they raise money to give to colleagues to increase their internal power). Anyone, including lobbyists, who lessens that anxiety, is considered a better friend than those who don’t. No lobbying reforms will change that fact.”

Rosen is now under fire from Republicans after she insulted Ann Romney, the wife of GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

“Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” Rosen said in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper about women’s issues.

Ann Romney took to Twitter to respond: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

Rosen is a partner at SKD Knickerbocker, the public relations and strategy firm of former White House communications director Anita Dunn. SKD handled Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Among those distancing themselves from Rosen is David Axelrod, who tweeted his disapproval: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”

WND has found that since 2009, Rosen has held more than 30 White House meetings, including a March 11, 2009, meeting with adviser Valerie Jarrett and a March 12, 2009, meeting with Axelrod described as a “communications message meeting.”

Rosen’s meeting with Axelrod was reported by the Associated Press and CBS News.com in November 2009.

CBS News noted Axelrod’s White House meeting with Rosen and 18 other strategists demonstrated “the political element of the health care debate.”

Rosen, meanwhile, serves as political director and Washington editor-at-large for the Huffington Post as well as a regular commentator for CNN.

She’s on the board of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The center is deeply involved in helping to influence White House policy under Obama. Its founder, John Podesta, directed Obama’s 2009 transition into the White House.

Time magazine called CAP Obama’s “idea factory,” noting that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”

Time reported it is “difficult to overstate the influence in Obamaland of CAP.”

Rosen serves on the board of the George Soros funded Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the Creative Coalition.

Already, the DNC has commented on Rosen’s remarks, with a DNC official telling Politico, “Hilary Rosen is not an adviser to the DNC. Our contract for media services is exclusively with Anita Dunn.”

Rosen used Twitter to further her remarks, writing, “When I said on [CNN] Ann Romney never worked I meant she never had to care for her kids AND earn a paycheck like MOST American women!”

Rosen later tweeted that Mitt Romney “now makes up false concern for women’s economic struggle” and “he should stop saying that she is his guide to women’s economic problems. She doesn’t have any.”

Rosen seemed to backtrack a bit when she posted an explanation at the Huffington Post.

“I have nothing against Ann Romney,” Rosen wrote. “She seems like a nice lady who has raised nice boys and struggled with illness and handles their long term effects with grace and dignity. … What is more important to me and 57% of current women voters is her husband saying he supports women’s economic issue because they are the only issues that matter to us and then he fails on even those.”

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)
Friday, April 13th at 4:46AM EDT

Hilary Rosen’s specific point was that Ann Romney, not having been in the workforce outside the home, cannot really relate to women in the workforce. I disagree. Here’s why.

In my experience, with both a stay at home mom raising me, my wife a stay at home mom, and many of my friends married to stay at home moms, the stay at home mother typically raises the kids, cooks the meals, cleans the house, oversees homework, and on top of that the stay at home mom pays the bills, buys the groceries, handles the insurance hassles, knows the co-pay, haggles with the bank, etc. etc. etc.

The stay at home mom deals with many of the same issues the working woman deals with in addition to a host of other matters. It is not that the working woman has it more or less difficult. It is that working women and stay at home moms have it differently difficult in different areas with some days better and some days worse. And single parents, mothers and fathers, have it most difficult. But none are homogenous automatons of one singular thought or view on all topics.

Move past Hilary Rosen’s remarks if you can. The amazing speed at which Democrats sought to distance themselves from her remarks suggests they know that in all the talk about Romney’s problem with women, they have their own.

After Hilary Rosen’s remarks, a number of leftwing pundits came out seemingly upset that Hilary did not go as far as they would have wanted her to. In so doing, these pundits, activists, and politicos have raised up the raw stench of elitism. Luckily, few smelled it because it was drifting in from MSNBC.

Nonetheless, there were people like Joan Walsh of the far left rag Salon. She thought it perfectly okay to pronounce on Hardball yesterday that of course working women have it harder than stay at home moms. Of course they do you women battling breast cancer and suffering from MS while raising five boys without nannies and cooks and maids contrary to what the left has been claiming is, was, and forever more shall be the case with Ann Romney. Never mind that Mitt and Ann Romney gave away their inherited fortune to build their own lives and fortune.

There there is Chris Hayes, also of MSNBC and the even further left than Salon The Nation. He said if Republicans really think that stay at home moms are workers, then they should be paid a wage. Seriously.

It went down hill from there. The most striking thing is the overwhelming presumption from so many on the left who waded into the waters who think only the wealthy can be stay at home moms. As a matter of fact, I know scores of stay at home moms and not a single one’s husband gets them into the 1%, let alone the top 10% for most.

The myopic view of not just stay at home mothers as rich socialites with nannies, but of women in general too, highlights the problem for the Democrats. They talk about the GOP as the party of the rich when they are increasingly a party of the elite. Many of them look on stay at home moms as inferior or second class. Consider Christy Hayes of MSNBC and the Nation who openly wonders if it can really be considered work if they are not getting a salary.

The Democrats seem to believe that all women believe what they believe and are the same. Instead of unique individuals, they are a stereotyped class of women who care only about birth control, abortion, and government benefits. Stay at home moms who fall outside this view are viewed as second class citizens who really can’t be related to and who cannot relate to women in the workforce. Liberal women who prided themselves on feminist advances into society and think of themselves as unique individuals go on twitter and television and radio to proclaim all women same thinking, same liking, same knowing, and . . . well . . . same.

Like black Republicans such as Condelezza Rice, Michael Steel, and Herman Cain who are ridiculed by the left as oreos, Uncle Toms, or worse, women who think differently are treated as second class citizens, inferior, or somehow “other.”

As former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer noted last night, in the 2008 exit polls only 30% of women classified themselves as “working women,” a category of woman the left seems to think is all that matters or counts as legitimate through their rhetoric.

This is precisely why the Democrats have their own problems with women. In thinking women only care about X, Y, or Z, they forget that in 2004 women were mostly concerned with who would keep them safe and this year will be mostly concerned with who will get them, their husbands, their children, their relatives, and their neighbors back into jobs that make ends meet. This is the one area Barack Obama prefers not to talk about.

I compared Rick Santorum a few weeks ago to Dug the dog in the movie Up!. The dog would be engaged in conversation (you have to see the movie to get it) with a person then yell “Squirrel” on the sight of a squirrel, changing his entire focus and attention. Barack Obama now hopes the American voter is like Dug the Dog and can be distracted from an economy that seems more and more like Schrodinger’s cat — alive as long as we pay no attention to it. Dead if we do.

by Joel McDurmon

Beau Biden , Attorney General of Delaware. throws his weight around

Sheriff Jeff Christopher of Sussex County, Delaware, when he was elected to the office in 2010, thought he was handpicked by the people to represent them as the highest-ranking law officer in the county. Instead, he has found himself in the middle of a fight for the future of American law enforcement as a result of a nationwide effort to abolish the sheriff’s office altogether.

It is one more example of federal and state governments ignoring the will of the people as well state laws. In the case of Delaware, the state’s own constitution stipulates that the office of the sheriff is a constitutionally created position just like the secretary of state and the attorney general. Delaware’s Constitution states: “The sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties . . . in which they reside.”

This time it is Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, sending out mandates to commissioners informing them that their sheriffs no longer have arrest powers. In an opinion released Feb. 24, State Solicitor L.W. Lewis said that neither the state nor the common law grants arrest powers to the county sheriffs.

Under President Obama, gas prices have more than doubled — from an average of $1.85 on Inauguration Day 2009 to $3.92 this past week. 

That means the average American family is paying $2,200 more per year in gas today than when Obama came into office. And that is only the increased spending on gas. As gas prices increase, the cost of just about every other product increases as well.

 And Obama is to blame…
 
That’s because instead of taking action to dramatically expand American energy production, Obama has resisted new offshore drilling, rejected the Keystone pipeline that would give America access to Canada’s vast oil reserves, and kept much of our known domestic oil reserves off limits.
 
Obama is so opposed to significant increases in domestic oil production that he goes so far as to claim that “increased [domestic] production doesn’t lower gas prices.” Instead, the President has once again “doubled down” on his so-called Green Energy agenda — an agenda that already is over-funded by our tax dollars with little return in actual energy production.


 
+ + How Obama’s “Green” Agenda Hurts Families
 


The fact is, Obama’s energy policies have damaged our economy by putting a stranglehold on American energy – - driving up gas prices, taking away American jobs and worsening our dependence on foreign oil.

The key to our energy independence is not more wind farms or taxpayer-funded Solyndra boondoggles or crazy EPA “work at home” guidelines. It’s much simpler

– AMERICA MUST PRODUCE MORE OF OUR OWN OIL AND NATURAL GAS!

And the Left’s claim that we lack the natural resources is simply not true. Analysts say Canada and the U.S. together have 400-800 YEARS of recoverable oil resources!

Plus, domestic oil production creates jobs and strengthens our economy.

A former Chief Economist at the U.S. Trade Commission says that doubling our domestic oil production would add 2.5 million jobs and $250 billion to our economy – and cut our dependency on foreign oil and the terrorist-laden oil producing nations in half.
 

In the past week, Obama once again blocked increased domestic production by requiring another “environmental study” that could take 3-5 years. We must break the Obama stranglehold on American oil. Our economy is suffering and our families are paying a high price because Obama and the Left are pushing their radical green agenda over the interests of the American people. 
 


Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation