Obama vs Romney: Pres Evades Record & Wants Gun Ban

One pundit said that President Obama was fired up and ready to defend his record.

The fella making the statement was only half right though. Obama was certainly fired up compared to the first debate, but the president had absolutely no intention of talking about or defending his record. 

The president's game plan was to attack his opponent, deny the facts, and of course mock and demean Mitt Romney's plans to help this nation. And yes, Obama seem to employ the words "not true" to rebut Romney claims during the debate at every turn.

It was real evident that he seemed to almost enjoy mocking Romney with sarcasm, short quips, and one liners.

The president did so at one point by mocking Romney’s five-point economic plan saying, “Governor Romney says he’s got a five-point plan. Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector. That’s been his philosophy as a governor. And that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.”

Romney called Obama’s assessment “way off the mark,” but it didn't stop Obama from playing games with the facts. The president's spin seemed to start way before the end of the debate when his surrogates will spin the facts to make his record look better to the American people.

Was it testy at times? Sure it was, with both candidates frequently interrupted each other in what quickly turned out to be a feistier face-off than the first time they met.

The debate did revisit familiar territory as the candidates brought up taxes and the budget, though the exchange this time was a lot more heated.

Romney, as he has before, defended his economic plan saying he wants to lower tax rates across the board but make sure the top 5% don’t pay less than they’re paying now. And of course, as usual Obama attacked the plan. Nothing new there.

Obama, as he has before, claimed Romney is pushing a $5 trillion tax cut that either “blows up” the deficit or leads to a middle-class tax hike in order to work saying “We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that."

Romney countered that “of course” his own numbers add up and claimed Obama’s account is “completely foreign to what my real plan is.”

“When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 Trillion in deficits over the last four years - $5 Trillion,” Romney said, reminding the audience that the federal budget deficit in each of the last four years has exceeded $1 Trillion.

Off the subject of taxes and deficits, when asked how will candidates handle equal pay for women? Obama rose to proclaim himself the champion of women's causes.

Obama's defense of Planned Parenthood and how the federal government subsidizes women like Sandra Fluke (pronounced "Fluck" at Georgetown law) to buy their own condoms and such was his attempt to portray Romney as wanting to end abortion laws and return women to the days when they washed their clothes at the river. Yes, it is that absurd.

Of course Obama failed to mention just how wealthy Planned Parenthood really is. Fact is that even without them being federally subsidized, for a non-profit organization, they do really well. Killing babies is big business for them.

Somehow Obama failed to mention that in August of 2011, it was reported that Planned Parenthood provides over 330,000 abortions every year and brings in about One Billion Dollars annually.

He also failed to mention that even though they make that sort of money, they still fight to protect their federal government subsidies which amount to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars sent to its clinics every year.

It's true that although it has nearly One Billion Dollars in net assets, Planned Parenthood protects its $363 Million Taxpayer dollars it gets in the form of grants.

You would think that their very healthy balance sheet would indicate that Planned Parenthood is fully capable of self-funding if it were to tap its own assets - and that's according to its own annual report.

Besides its own assets, Planned Parenthood's abortions are well funded by Hollywood liberals - so why do they want the millions of dollars that they get from taxpayers when they don't need it.

Could it be a simple case of greed? Probably so. But there is one more aspect of why they need all of the money they can get their greedy little hands on. They need it to buy Democrat politicians and pay their liberal lobbyist.

President Obama conveniently failed to mention how we are in such economic straits that we need to think about curtailing federal support of a private company like Planned Parenthood that has the means to take care of their company without taxpayer funds.

But really, he knows very well that they have the ability to pay their own way. It's all just a way for Obama to say he loves women.

It's sort of sick really. It's as if he's saying, "See, I love you so much that I'll make sure you can kill your baby - but only if you want to." And the sad part is that that's how he will win liberal women over to his side.

However he does it, Obama's reference to Planned Parenthood is one of many of his appeals to female voters over the course of the debate. And it’s no accident, he needs their vote.

It's also no accident that Obama completely failed to bring up another aspect of the question pertaining to equal pay for women.

You see, it was reported as recently as a few months ago that his own White House staff pays the male staffers more than they do women staffers who do the same job. Yes, it's true.

On April 11th, 2012, a report entitled Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts exposed the Obama White House of paying women staffers differently than the male staffers for doing the very same job. 

On April 12th, 2012, the National Review Online published an article entitled Stop Obama’s War on Women Staffers!

The article stated: "Speaking of a War on Women, look who pays his male employees 18 percent more than what he pays his female staffers: President Barack Obama!

Yes, the Great Equalizer of Women and Men, the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of Feminism, turns out to compensate men at the White House almost one-fifth more money than women who work at the Executive Mansion, according to a report by Andrew Stiles in the Washington Free Beacon. Stiles’s article on Wednesday, in turn, was based on an analysis of the “2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff.” This document provides the names, titles, and salaries of 454 of Obama’s workers. While women at the Obama White House earned median annual salaries of $60,000 last year, the equivalent remuneration for their male colleagues was some $71,000 — roughly 18 percent higher.

This gender inequality is slightly worse than the sex-based income gap at Obama’s former Senate outposts on Capitol Hill and in Illinois. Disclosure filings show that men who worked for Obama’s legislative offices earned 17 percent more than women on his staff. If anything, the pay disparity between men and women on Team Obama has widened marginally as his power has grown, along with his pay."

Just this last June, it was reported that Democrat diva Nancy Pelosi’s female staffers are paid less than her male staffers.

But hey, it must have conveniently slipped his mind. Sure it did!

Evading His Record

When asked about what he accomplished while in office, his answer had everything to do with what he "wanted to do" and very little honesty about what really happened.

At one point President Obama said,  "Let's take the money that we've been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges, schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America's future is going to be bright as well."

The problem is that the facts don't agree with what he says.

What Obama fails to mention is that much of the money that has been paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was borrowed. 

In fact, the government borrows nearly 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Thus using money that had been earmarked for wars to build schools and infrastructure would involve even more borrowing, adding to the federal deficit even more.

And as for his accomplishments, one voter asked, "Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive."

That was when Obama went through his make-believe record saying, "I told the American people and I told you I would cut taxes for middle class families. And I did. I told you I'd cut taxes for small businesses, and I have. I said that I'd end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we'd refocus attention on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have gone after Al Qaeda's leadership like never before and Osama bin Laden is dead. I said that we would put in place health care reform to make sure that insurance companies can't jerk you around and if you don't have health insurance, that you'd have a chance to get affordable insurance, and I have. I committed that I would rein in the excesses of Wall Street, and we passed the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930s. We've created five million jobs, and gone from 800 jobs a month being lost, and we are making progress. We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse."

Whew! That was great. Too bad it's no accurate!

It was George W. Bush's troop surge in Iraq - the same one that Obama fought against - that brought an end to that war. It has been the infrastructure that George W. Bush put into place that has made it easier to go after Al Qaeda and protect the nation. And yes, it was George W. Bush who put into action the capabilities to find bin Laden.

As for the Obama myth: "Over the last 30 months, we've seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created."

Well, the facts say different.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that a lot of jobs have been created under Obama's leadership - 4.4 million by the bureau's latest count. 

What Obama does not say, however, was that the nation has lost 4.3 million jobs during his term, and that the net gain since he took the oath of office in January 2009 is just 125,000 jobs.

And guess what, GM did have to restructure. It just used federal funds through a bailout instead of private investment funds as Mitt Romney believed that could have taken place.

What Obama failed to tell the voter was his real record:

• 23 Million Unemployed or Underemployed
• 47 Million on Food Stamps
• 5.5 Million Homes in Crisis/Foreclosure
• $4500 Drop in Household Income
• $5.5 Trillion of New Debt
• $716 Billion in Medicare Cuts
• $2.6 Trillion for ObamaCare
• $1.9 Trillion in New Taxes in Obama’s Budget
• 120% Increase in Gas Prices

And as for his screw up in Libya?

When asked why enhanced security at the consulate in Libya was denied? Obama never did answer the question. He only side-stepped the question. In fact, he side-stepped it so well, it was with an ease that immediately qualified him for Dancing With The Stars.

When Romney pressed the matter, he used an old familiar defense saying that he found that idea of any of his team doing something for political reasons as being "offensive." Imagine that!

When Romney asked why he took so long to say that the terrorist attack was indeed a terrorist attack instead of blaming it on some goofy YouTube video, moderator Candy Crowley came to his rescue.

In one of the most talked about moments in tonight’s debate was when Candy Crowley did an on the air "fact check" of Mitt Romney on Libya.

And let's not fool ourselves here, let's not make a mistake here, this was her attempt to cover for President Obama. She lied to help Obama, and it worked.

It was only after the debate that Crowley started to backtrack and say that Mitt Romney was right about Libya. But by then the cameras are off, and she helped who she wanted to when he needed it - didn't she!

In a statement given in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama emphasized an anti-Islam video, before saying that “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.”

The administration’s narrative on the attack over the next two weeks was confusing at best.

On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice attributed the attack on the U.S. Consulate to violent protests stemming from a “heinous and offensive” anti-Islam YouTube video.

On Sept. 25, the president himself declined to call the attack an act of terrorism during an interview with “The View,” saying that an investigation was still ongoing.

Obama even mentioned the anti-Islam YouTube video six different times during his speech at the United Nations. And let's not forget, the FBI arrested the guy who made the video.

After the debate, "Romney was actually right on Libya" trended on Twitter.

So what did we learn?

Well, both men showed up to get their points out there.

Mitt Romney made his case, it was just that simple. Through the constant attacks and accusations of lying, he kept his cool for the most part and made his case as to why we should fire Barack Obama.

He laid down a laundry list of things Obama promised and failed to do. In many ways doing the night, Romney laid down another list of things that Obama has tried to do to do - but thankfully hasn't accomplished.

It is a fact that the pressure was on President Obama to look better than he did during their first meeting in Denver.

And in many ways, the president didn't disappoint the liberal talking heads out there. He came out of his corner seemingly angry. Feisty maybe, but more arrogant to be sure.

He walked a line at times of being obnoxious. He tended to do what he does best, attacks without listening or discussion. It was all attack. And what's worse, it seemed rehearsed.

Obama's strategy appeared to be simple really, just put his talking points out there and attack anything that Romney came up with. And yes, help from the moderator was his ace in the hole as she cut off Romney and allotted more time to Obama.

The president does not usually talk about his plans for his next term should he win re-election. He avoids talking about any specifics at all pertaining to what he going to do if re-elected.

Maybe that's why it seem more like a slip than anything else tonight when he let a bomb fall during the debate.

The one unexpected bomb tonight, something that I really don't think he wanted to put out there before the election, is really a very big deal.

Gun Control!

There is nothing that rallies Conservatives to the polls faster than the real threat of Gun Control. And last night, President Obama said that he would try to revive the ban on assault weapons.

Friends, that's big!

In the second debate, Obama faced challenges on key issues. He was forced to come up with many plausible reasons why he's done some of the things he's done, and why he really hasn't been able to get our country back on track economically.

Then someone asked about AK-47 assault rifles and the issue of gun control.

Obama immediately attacked Romney over his past support of a gun ban in Massachusetts while he was governor. Romney replied saying he's not in favor of new gun legislation.

Then President Barack Obama opened the door to pushing for a ban on assault weapons saying that if he wins a second term he will seek a new gun ban.

Wow! I couldn't believe he said it. I had to ask my wife if she could rewind the DVR so that I could check if I heard it right, and I did.

Obama did say that he wanted an assault-weapons ban like the one President Bill Clinton signed in 1994 - if he's elected to a second term.

Though the first gun ban expired in 2004 without being renewed by Congress, for good reason Obama has done little to push such a proposal forward during his time in the White House.

In fact when Attorney General Eric Holder mentioned the possibility of reviving the ban in early 2009, the White House immediately played it down and backed away from it.

Many people,including me, really believes that it was Bill Clinton's gun ban that lost the Democrats Congress back in 1994. It was politically stupid.

Last night, President Obama endorsed a push for a gun ban if he is elected to a second term saying, "What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."

Reuters reported this morning that Dan Gross, president of the anti-Gun Group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was encouraged to hear Obama mention the ban.

I bet he was!

So why is this a big deal? Well, in short, it's because since Obama has been in office there has been a great deal of speculation by conservatives throughout the country who believe that Obama would try to install some sort of gun control measure while in office.

We know that the Obama administration backed the United Nations recent attempt to regulate our right to firearms through a Small Arms Treaty. Thankfully that failed.

Now we see Barack Obama for who he really is. For the person, who many have said would indeed try to do just what he said tonight.

He was once an ardent proponent of the assault-weapons ban, and he still is. Because of Barack Obama, gun sales in the United States has never been better.

The huge volume of gun sales is directly connected to the belief that Obama has wanted to ban guns. He is the reason that gun sales around the country have exploded.

And last night, he proved everyone concerned with this issue - absolutely correct.

Story by Tom Correa

Cowboy Style On The Big Screen

by Philip J Reed on behalf of STETSON

Cowboy culture is still at the heart of the American spirit.

You can hear it in common words and phrases. If you've ever called someone a deadbeat, played a hand of poker against a card sharp or heard a computer hacker referred to as a black hat, you're hearing echoes of the Old West in modern language.

Cowboy style has become a part of our way of life, too. While real cowboys weren't trying to “cut a swell”, as they might have called dressing up for an occasion, the cowboys on the silver screen during Hollywood's golden years of great westerns had style enough for everyone.

The style of the Old West went deeper than just wearing the right hat or picking out a fancy belt buckle.

Read on and find out why John Wayne, Charlton Heston and Clint Eastwood always looked like the real deal in the movies even when they were just playing make-believe.

Part of it was costuming, but part of it was attitude.

Cowboy Hats

Aside from his trusty horse, nothing proclaims a cowboy like his hat. Cowboy hats aren't just from the movies; real cowboys wore them on the open plain.

When a cowboy was out on the range, the high crown of his hat kept his head cool while the wide brim chased the sun from his face.

A lot of fashions may change, but the classic silhouette of a cowboy hat looks just about the same now as it did more than a century ago. For movie cowboys, hats were also a great way to say something about the men wearing them.

Watch Gary Cooper in "High Noon," and you'll see how he makes that hat talk even when he doesn't say a word. His hat may have been black in the movie, but later, directors used hat colors as a shorthand way of telling the good guys from the bad guys.

Tom Mix's and the Lone Ranger's white hats showed they were the stars, and a white hat is still a nickname for a movie hero.

Boots

Only cowboy hats were more of a uniform for movie cowboys than their boots.

Rugged and practical, cowboy boots are meant for long rides. Their pointed toes slide into the stirrups easily, and their heels are made to hook just right to keep him in the saddle even when breaking a wild horse. Spurs kept a horse in line and added a little style.

Real cowboys wore boots, but movie cowboys usually wore them just for a few long shots and scenes of spurs flashing in the sun.

If you're a movie director, you're going to keep the cameras on John Wayne's craggy face, not his feet! If you want to borrow big-screen cowboy style, boots are part of the picture, but they get less screen time than hats.

Watch James Stewart in "The Naked Spur" for a closer look at one of a cowboy's most important accessories. Here's some advice: Go for traditional styles and trusted names, not fancy dress boots.

Jeans

Jeans have been around since the 1850s, and they were always a working man's uniform. From prospectors to cowboys, jeans were part of the fabric of the Old West.

They're tough enough to take anything a cowboy can dish out and still provide protection from saddle sores.

Movie cowboys, though, didn't always wear jeans, at least not in the early westerns. Jeans looked a little too much like what any working guy wore, and that meant that movies had to change things around to make their heroes look more heroic.

This is one place that you should probably go with real western style over movie make-believe.

Manners

He may have been far out on the frontier, but the American cowboy wasn't a wild man. He tipped his hat to say hello, spit his tobacco in the spittoon and never swore in the presence of ladies.

City folks from back East might have confused plain, honest talk with coarseness, but cowboys weren't uncultured men. They didn't have a lot of formal education, but they valued the practical knowledge and common courtesy that made living in a harsh world easier.

Writers and directors probably made cowboys on the silver screen look a little smoother around the edges than real cowboys, though. Like putting the hero in a white hat, having him treat a lady well or be kind to a kid was a useful movie shorthand to set him apart from the rough-talking tobacco-spitting villain.

The Strong, Silent Type

Movie cowboys know all about the strong, silent hero.

Gary Cooper, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood were just the later players in a long tradition of quiet men whose emotions ran deep. This image of the cowboy is where reality and Hollywood met, in fact.

When the first silent films came out in the early 1900s, cowboys who no longer had a place on the big cattle drives had to go somewhere to earn a living.

Some of them went farther west to California, picking up jobs in Wild West shows. The best of them were so good that directors put them on camera. Tom Mix, Jack Hoxie and Hoot Gibson were the real deal before they became stars in westerns.

Cowboy style goes bone-deep, and it isn't just about the clothes or the shoes or even the broad-brimmed cowboy hats. It comes from respecting honest work over fancy clothes and plain speech over Hollywood lines.

Movie cowboys looked great, but the real Old West transcended the images on the silver screen.

STETSON

RANDOMS SHOT - Romney Angry At High Gas Prices; Homeland Security Turns Into Big Brother; Romney Crowds; and More!,

FIRST SHOT!

Romney Angry At High Gas Prices

He's making domestic energy a key issue. And thankfully he is, because President Obama could care less!

As of yesterday, AAA was reporting that the average price of a gallon of gas across the nation was $3.80 for Regular, $4.20 for Premium, and $4.15 for Diesel.

At the same time that the average across the nation for Regular is $3.80, California statewide average price of Regular is at $4.65, Premium is at $4.82, and Diesel is at $4.52  - but that's just an average.

On the way home from the Bay Area last night, I paid $4.76 for Regular! Ouch!

And please, please don't tell me that the price of gas has gone down a 4 pennies since last Thursday.

All that means is that I paid $47.60 instead of $48 for 10 gallons of gas!

I mean really, unless the price of a gallon of gas drops at least a quarter, .25 cents, at the pump, I can't see the difference in the screwing we're getting!

And yes, we are getting screwed!

Here in California, we are paying through the nose. And mostly it's because of greed, over-regulation, and a complete failure on Obama's part to do anything about rising prices.

Greed? Yes, but not in the way that the liberal media has been trying to paint it. It has nothing to do with oil company profits. It does have everything to do with who is making the lion's share at the pump.

Granted that the cost of crude oil takes up most of what we pay at the pump. Fact is that 76%, or roughly $2.66, out of a $3.50 gallon of gasoline goes to paying the crude.

Refining and transporting it represents about 6% of a gallon, another 6% goes to the oil company and station owner.

The greed that I'm talking about is in the greed of the Federal and State governments. The truth is that governments rake in a larger profit at the pump than anyone. They take the lion's share!

And yes, with gas taxes on the rise in many parts of the country, there's no relief in sight.

The remaining 12%, goes directly to Federal, State and Local governments in a bunch of different sales and excise taxes. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents on every gallon of gasoline sold in America. Every gallon!

State gas-tax rates vary from a low of eight cents per gallon in Alaska to a jarring 49 cents per gallon in New York. Other states where it's steep to fill up include California and Connecticut — each with 48.6-cent-per-gallon gas taxes. Hawaii is at 47.1 cents per gallon.

Some local governments have gotten in on the act, too. In California, local sales and excise taxes on gasoline average 3.1%, according to the Los Angeles Times. That works out to about 15 cents in local taxes for each gallon of gas, based on the state's current average of $4.80 per gallon.

Put this all together, and government makes far more from gas sales than all of the oil companies put together. Exxon, for example, made only seven cents per gallon of gasoline in 2011. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly 60 cents per gallon that Federal, State and Local governments rake in on an average gallon of gas at the pumps.

Especially here in California, most people have to drive. For some families struggling to make ends meet, paying 60 cents per gallon in taxes may be the difference between driving to work and putting dinner on the table.

Next time you hear someone blame oil companies, speculators, or service stations for high gas prices, remember that no one get richer off of a gallon of gasoline than our government does. In fact, maybe it’s time for the government to lower its taxation and stop its greed?

As for over-regulation, a short example is the new regulations setup by the EPA and the Energy Department on the construction of a new refinery - or the repairs of a refinery like the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, California which experienced a fire on August 6th this year.

Right now, that refinery in Richmond is considering scraping the idea of replacing what was destroyed in the fire of a few months ago. The reason is that regulations make the process of replacing the destroyed equipment too costly.

And as for new refineries, the EPA is against it. And since the EPA is in the pocket of Environmentalists - who are in turn some of Obama's biggest campaign donors - I don't see a new refinery being built in the United States for at least 4 years if Obama wins re-election.

As for President Obama, his attitude is do nothing to upset his big campaign donors like George Soros, Environmentalist extremist groups, Hollywood left-wingers, and Foreign Oil who depend on his stopping drilling here.

And that's a key point in this issue, Obama hasn't done a thing about gas prices. Nothing. Not a thing.

Why? Well, I suspect he doesn't want to upset his money people. I mean, come on folks, Barack Obama has raised almost $985 Million in campaign donations - a great deal from unnamed foreign donors which is illegal. So why should he do anything to upset them.

And please don't tell me that the President can't do anything about the price of gas when it has been proven that he really can!

The prime example of doing what's right for Americans:

In July 2008, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $4 or over nationwide. That was the way it was for 9 straight weeks that year.

Six months later, in January 2009, the price of a gallon of regular was $1.83 on the average nationwide.

President George W. Bush brought the price down through action that the president can do if he wants to act. He did it by opening up Federal lands to more drilling and exploration permits - and the oil speculators saw this as a step in the right direction and lowered prices. It was just that quick!

So now, Mitt Romney is seizing on record-high gas prices in California to spotlight what he considers President Obama’s failed energy policies that have led to prices at the pump doubling over the past four years.

Romney has throughout his campaign promised voters an energy policy drastically different from Obama’s that would focus on the production on domestic energy to help the U.S. ends its dependency on foreign oil.

He continued with the message this weekend, repeating at a rally Saturday in Ohio that energy production tops his often-touted five-point, economic-recovery plan.

At a rally in Virginia a day earlier, Romney said, “Gas is at twice the price as when (Obama) came in. He cut in half permits for drilling. He said no to the Keystone Pipeline.”

Gas prices reached a record high last week in parts of California – as much as $4.671 a gallon.

The recent surge has been blamed on supply disruptions at refineries throughout the state.

But gas prices are an ongoing concern. And the Romney campaign is circulating a three-page memo detailing the candidate’s plan to boost domestic oil production in large part by approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run from Canada to U.S. refineries in Texas, and opening up more areas for offshore oil drilling -- including the mid-Atlantic where it is now banned.

The president has yet to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and has conveniently rejected the concept that it would lower gas prices.

And no, I'm not going to quote what Obama says defending his position because it's just more lame excuses to do nothing while we all suffer.

I'm tired of hearing his stinking excuses for doing nothing. And yes, that goes for his surrogate talking heads as well. I don't care what they have to say about how they can't do anything, or that they are doing everything they can, or that Romney is blah, blah, blah!

The Obama administration has had years to address an issue that it took President George W. Bush months to fix. Obama has done nothing but play golf and go on television, instead of doing his job, controlling the EPA overstepping their authority, and helping Americans. .

Mitt Romney policy director Lanhee Chen also argues the administration - through the EPA and at least a dozen other agencies - Obama has stepped in to regulated states’ efforts to mine petroleum and natural gas through the process known as hydraulic fracking.

“Gas prices will be lower under President Romney than they will under a second term of President Obama,” Chen writes. “For middle-class families struggling to fill up the car and for small businesses struggling to meet payroll every month, the choice is clear.”

SECOND SHOT!

Homeland Security Turns Into Big Brother! 

Intelligence effort names American citizens but No terrorists as it becomes a tool for Big Brother.

A story by Matt Apuzzo and Eileen Sullivan on October 3rd, 2012, talked a multi-billion dollar information-sharing program created in the aftermath of 9/11 which has improperly collected information about innocent Americans and produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism.

That was the conclusion of a Senate report which portrays an effort to collect information as ballooning far beyond anyone's ability to control.

What began as an attempt to put local, state and federal officials in the same room analyzing the same intelligence has instead cost huge amounts of money for data-mining software, flat screen televisions and, in Arizona, two fully equipped Chevrolet Tahoes that are used for commuting, investigators found.

The lengthy, bipartisan report is an evaluation that trashes what the Department of Homeland Security has held up as a crown jewel of its security efforts.

The report underscores a reality of post-9/11 Washington: National security programs tend to grow, never shrink, even when their money and manpower far surpass the actual subject of terrorism. Much of this money went for ordinary local crime-fighting.

Because of a convoluted grants process set up by Congress, Homeland Security officials don't know how much they have spent in their decade-long effort to set up so-called fusion centers in every state.

The Federal government estimates range from less than $300 million to $1.4 billion in federal money, plus much more invested by state and local governments. Federal funding is pegged at about 20 percent to 30 percent.

Despite that, believe it or not, our Congress is unlikely to pull the plug on the program. That's because, whether or not it stops terrorists, the program means politically important money for state and local governments.

That's right, POLITICAL MONEY!

A Senate Homeland Security subcommittee reviewed more than 600 unclassified reports over a one-year
period and concluded that most had nothing to do with terrorism.

The panel's chairman is Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

"The subcommittee investigation could identify no reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot," the report said.

In other words, it produced NOTHING! And that nothing, well it cost taxpayers big dollars!

When fusion centers did address terrorism, they sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties. The centers have made headlines for circulating information about Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters and advocates of gun rights.

One fusion center cited in the Senate investigation wrote a report about a Muslim community group's list of book recommendations. Others discussed American citizens speaking at mosques or talking to Muslim groups about parenting.

No evidence of criminal activity was contained in those reports. The government did not circulate them, but it kept them on government computers.

But hey, someone should do something about this because the federal government is prohibited from storing information about First Amendment activities not related to crimes.

In setting up the department, lawmakers wanted their states to decide what to spend the money on. Time and again, that setup has meant the federal government has no way to know how its security money is being spent.

Inside Homeland Security, officials have long known there were problems with the reports coming out of fusion centers, the report shows.

"You would have some guys, the information you'd see from them, you'd scratch your head and say, 'What planet are you from?'" an unidentified Homeland Security official told Congress.

Until this year, the federal reports officers received five days of training and were never tested or graded afterward, the report said.

States have had criminal analysis centers for years. But the story of fusion centers began in the frenzied aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The 9/11 Commission urged better collaboration among government agencies. As officials realized that a terrorism tip was as likely to come from a local police officer as the CIA, fusion centers became a hot topic.

But putting people together to share intelligence proved complicated. Special phone and computer lines had to be installed. The people reading the reports needed background checks. Some information could only be read in secure areas, which meant construction projects.

All of that cost money.

Meanwhile, federal intelligence agencies were under orders from Congress to hire more analysts. That meant state and local agencies had to compete for smart counter terrorism thinkers. And federal training for local analysts wasn't an early priority.

Though fusion centers receive money from the federal government, they are operated independently.
Counter terrorism money started flowing to states in 2003. But it wasn't until late 2007 that the Bush administration told states how to run the centers.

State officials soon realized there simply wasn't that much local terrorism-related intelligence. Terrorist attacks didn't happen often, but police faced drugs, guns and violent crime every day. Normal criminal information started moving through fusion centers.

Under federal law, that was fine. When lawmakers enacted recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in 2007, they allowed fusion centers to study "criminal or terrorist activity." The law was co-sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman, the driving forces behind the creation of Homeland Security.

Can you say Big Brother?

Five years later, Senate investigators found, terrorism is often a secondary focus.

When Janet Napolitano became Homeland Security secretary in 2009, the former Arizona governor embraced the idea that fusion centers should look beyond terrorism.

Testifying before Congress that year, she distinguished fusion centers from the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces that are the leading investigative and analytical arms of the domestic counter terrorism effort.

Congress, including the committee that authored the report, supports that notion. And though the report recommends the Senate reconsider the amount of money it spends on fusion centers, that seems unlikely.

"Congress and two administrations have urged DHS to continue or even expand its support of fusion centers, without providing sufficient oversight to ensure the intelligence from fusion centers is commensurate with the level of federal investment," the report said.

And following the release of the report, Homeland Security officials indicated their continued strong support for the program even though terrorism is a secondary focus.

Not surprising, huh?

THIRD SHOT!

Al-Qaida gaining strength in Yemen

In Yemen, a drive-by shooting Thursday that killed a top Yemeni security official who worked at the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa has raised concern that al-Qaida militants there are bouncing back and getting bolder after suffering defeats this year in a U.S.-Yemeni military offensive.

Al-Qaida in Yemen has carried out a string of assassinations of top security and military officials and deadly suicide bombings in recent months.

Security officials said they believe it has a hit list to kill more in an attempt to paralyze Yemen's new leadership installed this year and throw the anti-al-Qaida assaults into turmoil.

The new killing also raises the possibility the group could turn its assassination campaign against American interests as well.

The group has sought to ride the recent wave of anger against the U.S. over an anti-Islam film by calling for attacks on American and other foreign diplomatic missions.

So much for Obama's Foreign Policy! Its down the tubes!

FOURTH SHOT!

No Surprise - Columbia University scorns Tea Party while favoring Occupy Movement 

Harry Stein, an author and contributing editor to City Journal, said a recent panel at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism on the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements was a one-sided affair.

This sort of thing is no real surprise. Universities are not objective. They are full of passion - sort of like stupid ass cult followers.

A panel at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism comparing the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements was stacked with liberal journalists who offered one-sided conclusions, according to one alumnus who attended the event.

Panelists at the event, which was held on Oct. 1 in the prestigious school’s Pulitzer Hall, made “little attempt to hide their sympathies” to the Occupy movement, author Harry Stein wrote in City Journal, a quarterly magazine published by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Really, none of that is a surprise. We see it everyday. Just turn on MSNBC and listen to the subjective imbeciles who couldn't be objective and impartial if their lives depended on it.

FIFTH SHOT!
Two Law Professors say Obama violating the Constitution

According to them, Obama's refusal to deport illegal aliens is unconstitutional.

The two law professors have published a paper charging that President Obama violated the Constitution with his directive to law enforcement not to deport illegal aliens.

In the paper entitled, “The Obama Administration, the Dream Act and the Take Care Clause,” authors Robert Delahunty of the University of St. Thomas [Minnesota] and John Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley and former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, blast Obama's moratorium on deporting certain illegal immigrants.

The professors dismissed the idea that the decision on whether to deport illegal immigrants who are arrested for minor infractions is a matter of prosecutorial discretion.

"It’s the duties of the president. He must always uphold the law."
- John Yoo, Berkeley law professor and former State Department attorney

"If there’s one case and it’s left to the prosecutor well that’s fine, but what Obama did was take a million cases and leave it up to prosecutorial discretion," John Yoo said to Fox News.

“The only reason it’s under [Department of Homeland Security Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s discretion is because Obama had made his decision. If she’s doing it under her own, she would have to be fired.”

An abstract for the paper debunks the claim that the president has the Constitutional right not enforce civil laws crafted and passed by Congress.

“It’s the duty of the president. He must always uphold the law,” Yoo said, adding that the only exceptions in doing so are if laws are unconstitutional or if prosecuting them can be reasonably deemed not viable.

Officials from the White House declined to comment on the paper, referring FoxNews.com to DHS.

“The authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise prosecutorial discretion, including by granting deferred action, has long been established and has been recognized by the Supreme Court," said DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard. "This authority was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court just this year [Arizona v. United States (2012)].”

“That said, DHS’s deferred action for childhood arrivals process is only a temporary measure that does not provide a path to citizenship; Congress must still act to provide a permanent solution to fix the broken immigration system. Until Congress acts, DHS is dedicated to implementing smart, effective reforms to the immigration system that allow it to focus its resources on common sense enforcement priorities, including criminals and other public safety threats."

In June, President Obama announced that the deporting of young, undocumented immigrants who match criteria from already-proposed DREAM Act legalisation would end under his administration’s watch.

The effect was to put in place most of the measures in the act, but by administrative order, not through the legislative process. In August, a group of federal agents filed a lawsuit against DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, claiming that the new directive forces them to break the law.

Under the DREAM Act, illegal aliens who are eligible beneficiaries would not have faced deportation as long as they meet the following criteria:

• Proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16.
• Proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their arrival date.
• Register with the Selective Service if they are male.
• Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time that the bill was enacted.
• Obtained a high school diploma of GED, or admitted to an institution of higher education.
• Be of good moral character.

Opponents of the DREAM Act, which still has not been passed in Congress, say that it - as well as Obama's order, encourages illegal immigration while adding economic and social burdens to the United States.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was a key backer of the DREAM Act, blasted the president's preemption of the in June, when DHS announced policies on immigration enforcement that.

“There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.”

“…by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”

  

LAST SHOT!

Romney Crowds Growing Larger As Election Nears

Look to dusty Iowa cornfields, rain-soaked Virginia parks, the muddy fields of the Shelby County Fairgrounds, where a crowd of 9,500 - almost half of this western Ohio town - gathered among the barns and stables on a frigid October evening this week to glimpse the Republican presidential contender.

"Where else would we want to be?" said one of the shivering faithful, Judy Cartwright, a 71-year-old nurse from Sidney. "I want to see the next president of the United States."

Romney's debate performance against President Barack Obama last week - and his energetic appearances following it up - have fueled a rise in enthusiasm on the campaign trail.

Does it mean votes? Well, polls suggest Republicans are fired up. And yes, it's a welcome development for the Republican businessman, who is hardly a natural politician and has long struggled to match Obama's ability to inspire excitement.

In Virginia, Republican leaning counties appear to be getting the fastest start on absentee voting ahead of Election Day. State Board of Elections data analyzed by the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonprofit and nonpartisan tracker of money in state politics, shows that of the 25 localities where absentee voting is busiest, 21 voted Republican in the 2008 presidential race. And of the 25 localities where absentee balloting is the slowest so far, 16 supported Obama.

Romney seems to be feeding off the energy pumping through his now-sprawling crowds, even as aides downplay the newfound momentum among the Republican base.

"I'm overwhelmed by the number of people here," he said while scanning the sea of supporters packed beyond the fairgrounds fences here. "There are even people out there - that's another county over there."

Romney's growing crowds come as new polls suggest he has erased Obama's advantage in voter support nationally. Races have tightened in a handful of battleground states, too.

The level of enthusiasm matters as each side tries to get as many of its supporters to the polls as possible. A big Republican enthusiasm advantage two years ago helped the Republicans capture control of the U.S. House of Representatives in addition to making huge gains in statehouses across the nation.

For much of this year, Romney, the sometimes-stiff former businessman, has had a hard time generating the same electricity as Obama.

Indeed, most of the Republican's most passionate voters did not back Romney during the extended Republican primary season.

His campaign typically favors made-for-TV invitation-only events where the emphasis is imagery - Navy ships, manufacturing plants, farm equipment - rather than crowd size. Audiences did increase as Romney began campaigning alongside running mate Paul Ryan, a favorite of the Tea Party, but he has generally struggled to get people excited on his own.

That is until this week when he gave Obama what Harry Truman would have called hell on national television.

"People wonder why it is I'm so confident we're going to win. I'm confident because I see you here on a day like this. This is unbelievable," Romney said, his wet hair stuck to the side of his face.

Soaked supporters standing in muddy puddles cheered as he delivered an abridged version of his standard campaign speech. Some wore ponchos, while many others stood shivering and drenched, hands in pockets.

At the Shelby County Fairgrounds, Judy Cartwright was wearing four layers to try to keep warm as the cold wind pushed temperatures into the 30s Wednesday night. It was Shelby's first glimpse of a presidential candidate since she met Harry Truman as an elementary school student more than six decades ago.

"At least it's not snowing," she said with a smile. "This is a chance of a lifetime."

 As for Paul Ryan, well as we all know, he did very well in his debate with the clown we know as Joe Biden.   

I still don't know what Biden found so funny. No matter what issue was being discussed, Joe Biden found everything a laughing matter.   

And honestly, like most folks out there, I just don't think there's a lot to laugh about these days.  

 

Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Paul Ryan versus Joe Biden, Another Solyndra, Gay Boy Boy Scouts, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Paul Ryan versus Joe Biden: Ryan was friendly while Biden played the clown.

The Vice Presidential Debate was a weird sort of show. As I watched it, I couldn't help but wonder what the hell Joe Biden found so freaking funny?

Does he think the unemployment or Gross National Product numbers are funny? Maybe it was the latest poll numbers? Maybe it's the fact that more people are on Food Stamps now than had been just 4 years ago? Maybe it was the fact that he is 27 years older than Paul Ryan - and Ryan has his stuff together? Maybe Joe had been drinking? 

Besides being disrespectful, it seemed phony!

While Paul Ryan came off as businesses-like yet personable and friendly, Joe Biden came off as animated as never before. It was as if Biden were boozing it up before the debate. He acted like a clown -  the smirks, the constant smiling, and giggling and laughing so much you'd think he was loaded. 

Talk about a jerkweed, besides his laughing and giggling and crazy animated smile, Joe Biden interrupted Paul Ryan 82 times during their 90-minute debate.

It was as if he didn't want Ryan to speak. Everytime Ryan tried to make a point, Biden would jump in and interrupt him.

Sure Biden was rude, but it also seemed more than just being a dumbass jerkweed . It was almost as if Biden were listening for ques to something that might be said, and had rrehearsed what to say. And yes, when he wasn't interrupting, Biden was just obnoxious as he could be heard laughing and carrying on.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus told CNN, “I was embarrassed for the vice president, I mean the laughs… I don’t know who his debate partner was, maybe it was Ed Schultz from MSNBC,” he said referring to the liberal television network’s combative host.

Priebus said it was clear that Biden had lost the debate despite having “boatloads of experience.”

“He didn’t use the experience that he had to be respectful and clear and state your point and wait for your opponent” said Priebus, who said it was a “great night” for Republicans.

“The fact of the matter is that when it came to substance he didn’t win and when it came to style Biden completely failed. The momentum stayed on our side tonight and that’s what we wanted out of tonight, but they also got to see what Joe Biden and Barack Obama are all about, and people didn’t like what they saw.”

ABC News moderator Martha Raddatz really should be put on the carpet for a few things. First, she seem to quiz Ryan while giving Biden a pass on issue after issue. And second, she lost control of the situation and really should have stopped vice president Biden from interrupting Paul Ryan so much during their debate.

Basically she didn’t do what she was there to do and remind Biden that his constant interruptions were not supposed to be a part of the debate. Each guy got two minutes. Biden should have been respectful enough to give Ryan his two minutes, then answer.

The moderator Raddatz should have allowed Ryan his time, but didn't by allowing Biden to always interrupt. She was a good example of the bias that the liberal media is known for by allowing Biden to act so much like a jerk.

I would think that the constant interruptions didn't help Americans who are still undecided, because they only served to stop the American people from hearing what Ryan had to say. Biden acted more as a distraction.

I agree with Herman Cain who afterwards said that the meeting "was not a debate, it was a distraction. Vice President Biden went in to this debate with the intention of interruption and confusion."

“He used those two tactics, of interruption and confusion, to suppress the content and the explanation that Rep. Ryan would have delivered. Even though I was pulling for Rep. Ryan, this was not a win for either one.”

Cain said Ryan made the stronger argument about how he and presidential candidate Mitt Romney would improve the economy – despite Biden’s distractions.

“Ryan won the discussion about jobs and the economy because, even though he wasn’t given an opportunity to speak without interruption, he explained why and how we have to cut taxes to increase the base and get this economy growing. That’s what we need to do.

“Vice President Biden didn’t say anything about how they were going to create jobs other than to attack Romney, to attack Ryan, and to attack the expiring tax cuts,” Cain added. “Joe Biden did not achieve what he tried to achieve, which has been the class warfare line that they’ve been using for months."

Cain went on to say, “Ryan very calmly explained, ‘This is our plan and this is why it will work.’”

The Wisconsin congressman far excelled Biden on foreign policy, too.

“He was much more articulate and clearer than Vice President Biden in explaining the situation in the Middle East and the situation with Syria and Iran,” Cain said. “The situation – in terms of how the sanctions have worked, bringing up the fact that if it wasn’t for the insistence of the U.S. Congress, these sanctions would not have passed. He excelled when he talked about foreign policy.”

On the debate overall, Cain said, “Vice President Biden took advantage of the fact that he was the vice president, and Paul Ryan was very careful not to come across as disrespectful.”

Dick Morris, a former political advisor to President Bill Clinton, said that Joe Biden lacked “dignity” in his many verbal and non-verbal attacks on Paul Ryan.

“I think that the dominant impression that comes across is that he should not be a heartbeat away from the presidency — a combination of just totally inappropriate smiling while Ryan was talking — and interrupting, the almost heckling that went on in the debate,” admonished Morris in an exclusive interview moments after the event.

Morris said that he came away thinking “how incredibly horrible” it would be if Joe Biden were to somehow become president. And yes, that is a scary thought indeed!

“I thought Ryan was a little too timid in the sense that he let Biden run over him to much,” Morris said. “And I think that he didn’t want to get into the mud pit with Biden but he ended up I think sometimes not defending his views articulately and as well as he could.”

Ryan did catch Biden in a straight out and out lie though. It happened when Biden talked about the security for the consulate and the Obama administration's refusal to send Marines in to re-enforce the compound.

A decision on Obama's part that got 4 Americans killed.

Another Solyndra Bankrupt Solar Firm Got $400 Million Taxpayer Dollars

So is this "Solyndra: The Sequel"?

House Republicans are pressing the Obama administration for more information about a solar-panel company that received a $400 Million from taxpayers as a loan guarantee - then went bankrupt and is now the focus of a criminal investigation.

The committee pursuing documents on Colorado-based Abound Solar is the same that investigated the half-billion taxpayer loan to Solyndra, whose bankruptcy rocked the Obama administration.

Lawmakers are now questioning whether the administration might have known about serious problems with the company's solar panels before it was guaranteed the loan in December 2010 under the stimulus program.

"Abound is the third company that has received a DOE loan to go bankrupt," the House Committee on Energy and Commerce told Energy Secretary Steven Chu in a letter Wednesday. "The committee seeks to better understand what DOE knew about problems with Abound's solar panels prior to finalizing its $400 million loan guarantee."

The Energy Department halted the funding just nine months after approving the loan guarantee, but not before the company had pocketed $70 million in funds.

Abound filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, claiming Chinese competition put them out of business. And yes, if that is in fact true, then they can thank the Obama White House for making it easier for China to undercut American companies.

Two more Department of Energy-backed "green" companies have since filed for bankruptcy, with Abound Solar being the latest.

The two other DOE-backed companies that went bankrupt were Beacon Power, an energy storage company, and the California-based Solyndra solar panel company. The latter company continues to wend its way through bankruptcy proceedings.

In the latest development, the IRS reportedly objected to the company's recently filed bankruptcy plan, claiming its objective is "tax avoidance."

Philadelphia girl whose "Romney/Ryan" shirt was compared to Klu Klux Klan sheets is not returning to that school.

On October 4th, a black teacher attacked student Samantha Pawlucy who was wearing a Romney for president t-shirt - comparing it to something worn by the KKK.

Samantha Pawlucy, a 16-year-old high school student at Charles Carroll High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said she was attacked for wearing a Romney t-shirt that her teacher compared to the Klu Klux Klan, NBC Philadelphia reported.

According to the high school sophomore, no one made an issue of the shirt until she got to her geometry class.

"The teacher told me to get out of the classroom," she said. "I said no," she added.

"She told me to take off my shirt and said that she has another one if I need one. And then the teacher asked me… 'are your parents Republican?' I said, 'I don't know.' She said that's like her wearing a KKK shirt," Pawlucy explained.

According to Philly.com, Pawlucy said the teacher went "into the hallway to urge other teachers and students to mock her."

“I was really embarrassed and shocked. I didn’t think she’d go in the hallway and scream to everyone,” she said. “It wasn’t scary, but it felt weird.”

Pawlucy said that she decided to wear the shirt supporting the Republican candidate after researching both candidates, and her father, Richard Pawlucy, said she was "especially interested in Romney’s opposition to partial-birth abortion."

Mr. Pawlucy told radio station WWIQ that the teacher allegedly wanted to know why Samantha was wearing a “Republican shirt” when “this is a democratic school,” the New York Daily News reported.

The teacher reportedly apologized to the parents and claimed she was only joking when the incident took place last Friday.

“If it was a joke between two adults, I can take a joke like that,” said Mr. Pawlucy. “But [Samantha] didn’t know how to take it, she doesn’t understand. She actually thinks she did something wrong.”

Worse yet, the young student feels shunned because she has endured all sorts of harassment from her classmates over the incident.

“I have some friends that won’t talk to me anymore because of it,” she claimed. “Because I told the principal what happened…they’re mad at me.”

According to the Philadelphia school district, the unidentified teacher has been moved to another classroom and the incident is under investigation. Philly.com said a spokesman for the local teacher's union "declined to comment."

Yesterday, October 10th,  Mr. Pawlucy says his children will not be going back to that school.

Samantha Pawlucy briefly returned to Charles Carroll High School in the city's Port Richmond section Tuesday where she was greeted by some 40 flag-waving veterans who said they supported her.

But that's after she says she was mocked last week by her teacher for wearing the shirt supporting the Republican presidential candidate.

The teacher, Lynette Gaymon, was asked by the district and her union to apologize, but she did not show up for work on Tuesday.

Gaymon has apologized in a letter read to students by the school principal on Tuesday, saying she meant her remarks to be "light and humorous" and they "never meant to belittle" the student or cause any harm.

The Pawlucy family said Gaymon's letter was inadequate.

Richard Pawlucy, Samantha's father, told The Philadelphia Inquirer that his daughter never actually made it to class on Tuesday because she became uncomfortable after going to the school's administrative offices following the rally held by her supporters.

Mr. Pawlucy said Samantha and two other high-school age children in his home will be transferring to another school, possibly a charter school.

Superintendent William Hite Jr. has called the ordeal a "teachable moment" and said he will work with the mayor and the teachers union to move "towards a conversation that brings together diverse beliefs, inspires understanding, and heals."

Heals who? The damage is done. A young girl was picked on and belittled because she did not conform to the liberal Democrats running that school.

For superintendent Hite to call it a "teachable moment" is really making light of a serious ordeal that that young girl had to endure. The loss of friends and now changing school should not be made light of.

These teachers, who are supposedly understanding and educated, treated her no different than if she were a young black student in the South in the 1950s. She was treated badly because she was not what the school thought she should be, not by color but by political belief.

She faced a sort of hatred and intolerance that accompanies racism from those with segregationist attitudes, not because of her color but because she chose to support a candidate that they did not like nor support.

She did not do something illegal or threatening, unless of course you are threatened by opposing views. The people running that "democratic school" have no tolerance for opposing views.

All she did was pick a candidate to get behind, and that has changed her life. If she picked Obama, she wouldn't have had a problem. But since she chose Romney, she was treated like some sort of criminal.

If that is a "teaching moment," it might be a lesson that the School District looks into. And if it is prevalent there, then they need to address their exclusivity and system of intolerance because I can't help but wonder how many other kids feel the same way as Samantha Pawlucy - but keep quiet out of fear of being treated with such hatred and disdain?

The Boy Scouts versus Gay Boy Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts of America reaffirmed its policy to exclude gays from joining or being leaders months before a teenager says he was denied Eagle Scout because he is gay.

It's not like gay teenager Ryan Andresen didn't know their policy, but that hasn't stopped his whinning.

A teenage Boy Scout from Moraga, California, says he was denied Eagle Scout rank because he's gay. And yes, now he is appearing on syndicated talk shows to tell the nation about his story.

The story that I read said that gay teenager Ryan Andresen is getting more than fifteen minutes of fame.

The Bay Area teen has been in the spotlight ever since his mother Karen posted a petition on a liberal website, saying Ryan was denied an Eagle Scout Award because he is openly gay.

The petition has received more than 400,000 signatures. Yes, there are a lot of gay people out there.

The teen appeared on the Ellen Degeneres show in Los Angeles and is scheduled for more national talk shows in New York City through the week.

Andresen is challenging the Boy Scouts of America over their ban on gays. Ryan, his father Eric, mother Karen and two sisters went to Los Angeles to tape the Ellen Degeneres show on Wednesday.

The family appeared on the show with him as he told openly gay Ellen Degeneres about how his final project to qualify him for the Boy Scouts highest rank was denied.

The Troop 212 scout leader Rain Del Valle refused to sign off on the project. Ryan said Del Valle was aware of his sexual orientation for a year and a half and "supposedly" encouraged him to complete the requirements.

Ryan's father, a former Assistant Scout Master for the troop, said the issue surfaced when a parent questioned Del Valle about approving the gay teen's rank in violation of the Boy Scouts policy.

On Thursday, Degeneres said she could not give him an Eagle Scout award, but instead pulled out a $20,000 college scholarship check from Shutterfly.com to present to the teen.

Ryan turned 18 years of age on Monday, so really this is all a mute point. His turning 18 years of age means he has passed the deadline for becoming an Eagle Scout. The Andresen family has appealed to the Boy Scouts, asking the Boy Scouts to change their policy.

Here's my take on this, and yes I expect letter that will no doubt call me a homophobe!

Oh well, it seems like disagreeing with Obama policy gets me called a racist - disagreeing with the homosexual community gets me called a homophobe. Those who call me such things are all full of shit. They use such terms because the just don't like it when someone disagrees with what they're doing.

So OK, why don't gay Boy Scouts create the Gay Boy Boy Scouts. There are already all sorts of parallel organizations that have straight and gay counterparts.

Take for example the PRCA, Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association. I'm sure they might have gay cowboys in the PRCA but they also have the IGRA, the International Gay Rodeo Association, for openly gay people who want to flaunt their alternative lifestyle and behavior.

There are all sorts of gay organizations that a gay person can belong to where their behavior fits rights in.

For example: There is the GLMA ( Gay and Lesbian Medical Association), the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, and even a gay version of the AARP called GLARP (Gay and Lesbian Association of Retiring Persons).

There are gay fireman's associations, gay organizations for gay police and gay medical profeessional, there are all sorts of organizations for gay people including the Society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists.

There is The Gay Business Association, the IGLTA (International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association) that specializes in gay travel. And yes, there is even gay publishing associations like The Publishing Triangle in New York.

Each of the organizations have one thing in common besides being gay, they all restrict membership on some sort of basis. Whether it credentials or education or location or behavior, they all have that in common.

So really, why can't this poor 18 year old gay guy leave the Boy Scouts alone and create a Gay Boys Boy Scouts and require all their gay boys to be gay boys?.

Why is it that the Boy Scouts have to be made to admit someone into their organization who does not meet their requirements? Why force an organization to take you just so you can change that organization so that they will approve of your lifestyle or choice of behavior?

I'm not very sorry if I offend some homosexual over this one. I just feel that organizations should have their rights to ban certain behaviors. And please don't give me that crap about banning gays is equivilemt to banning blacks, that's just bullshit because black is a skin color and not a deviant behavior like say an arsonist or phedophile.

While the description as a deviant behavior raises a flag for some, it is simply not considered normal behavior to many cultures and societies throughout the world. And though the gay agenda is trying to make being appear as a normal behavior, it is still considered an alternative lifestyle to the norm. That's just the way it is.
So why not afford the Boy Scouts the same rights that society gives almost every bar in the country? What do I mean? Simple. Almost every bar in America has a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." And yes, unacceptable behavior is the reason that they won't serve you - and have the right to refuse service to you and ask you to leave.

Why allow someone who is a staunch anti-Second Amendment protester to become a policy maker for a Gun Rights group? It's just asinine in the same way the society would not even think of allowing a known pedophile to join a children's group. It is about unacceptable behavior for a group that simply doesn't want that sort of influence and risk.

Certain lifestyles and behaviors should not be permitted in certain situations, and I feel that organizations have a right to say what kind of behaviors they don't want their membership exposed to. 

In the case of the Boy Scouts, on July 17th, 2012, The Boy Scouts of America reaffirmed its policy to exclude gays from joining or being leaders.

A special committee of Scout executives and adult volunteers formed in 2010 concluded unanimously that the anti-gay policy was the "absolute best" for the 112-year-old organization, national spokesman Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.

He said it represented "a diversity of perspectives and opinions," but did not name the members of that committee. The Scouts is one of the largest youth organizations in the country with 2.7 million members and more than 1 million adult volunteers.

The Scouts' chief executive, Bob Mazzuca, told the AP that both leaders and Scouts overwhelmingly support the policy.

"The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting," Mazzuca said. "We fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society."

Just this week AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, an executive board member of the Boy Scouts of America, said he was committed to ending the ban. He takes over as president in 2014.
The exclusion policy was challenged in 2000, but the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Boy Scouts of America, ruling 5-4 that the organization was exempt from state laws that bar anti-gay discrimination.

The court overturned a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court to require a troop to readmit a longtime gay scoutmaster who had been dismissed.

To me, if the gay groups out there are so ardent about being Scouts - go form your own group! No one is stopping them from doing that. Why force change onto an organization that doesn't want it?

And honestly, if they did change the group to allow gay boys then it simply would not be the group they have been trying to change.

Republicans accuse Obama supporters of indoctrinating High School students

Florida Democrats are hard at work trying to indoctrinate as many children as possible.

Florida Republicans are outraged over reports that Obama campaign volunteers have been allowed to register hundreds of high school students during school hours - and in at least one case told teenage girls that Gov. Mitt Romney would take away their birth control pills.

Carol Lee Schmidt, a parent who has a child at Gulf High School in New Port Richey, told Fox News she is still upset that volunteers for Organizing For America were allowed to not only register students, but also talk with them.

“I don’t think politics belongs in the school,” she said. “They should not be pressured into voting for somebody.”

Schmidt said her son was sitting near a group of teenage girls in the lunch room when the Obama supporters told the girls that if Romney was elected they would not be able to get birth control pills -- and they would not be able to get abortions.

“This is ridiculous,” she said. “I had three girls - and if they were in school - I would be furious.”

The Pasco County School system did not return calls seeking comment.

Earlier this week, a spokesman for the school district confirmed that they were investigating other allegations - including students being registered by Obama volunteers.

Lenny Curry, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, was outraged by the latest accusations.

“If true, parents are right to be disgusted and offended that Barack Obama’s campaign would target their high school daughters under false pretenses and use the issue of birth control to entice them to vote for Obama and Democrat candidates,” Curry said in a statement to Fox News.

There have been reports across the state of school districts opening their doors to Obama supporters -- and denying access to Romney supporters.

Students in Orange County were encouraged to become members of the “Obama Organizing Fellowship." Obama volunteers were dispatched to classrooms where they told students to tell their parents to vote for Obama.

A principal in Tampa was caught inviting students to volunteer for the campaign over the public address system.

But the most egregious accusations have come from Pasco County where Obama volunteers were granted access to as many as a half dozen high schools.

And according to emails obtained by Fox News, at least three Obama volunteers misrepresented themselves as employees of the local election office to gain access.

“It’s absolutely frightening that in some cases they appear to be lying to get into our schools,” Curry said.

“While in other cases they are being actively invited in by liberal school officials who want to ram their political views down the throats of our kids.”

Bill Bunting, a state committeeman, is furious.

“They were telling these young ladies -- 18-years-old that if you don’t sign up and you get into trouble and get pregnant, you won’t be able to get an abortion if Romney is president,” he said.

Bunting said he is concerned about what the Obama campaign is trying to do in the local school system.

“These kids are being influenced,” he said. “They’re very impressionable at this age - and they’re trying to bypass the parents.”

This is Priceless!

Since Muslims in the Middle-east are rioting and burning American flags, I thought I'd share this with you. It is priceless!

Story by Tom Correa