June 28, 2012The Democratic National Convention in Charlotte is not faring so well. The fundraising has fallen about $25 million short of the goal, which is blamed on any number of factors out of the control of President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party leaders. It appears that the dog may have eaten the fundraising flyer and that has caused all the problems.
As a result of being far below what they had planned to raise, the Democrats have moved opening night from the Charlotte Motor Speedway in Concord to downtown Charlotte. This was said to have been a logistical problem, but logistics can be solved with money, and they don't have money.
It also is beginning to appear like they could have the convention in a smaller venue because so many Democrats are cancelling.
Perhaps the biggest blow to the Obama campaign is that Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill won't be making the trip to Charlotte. This is a surprise because McCaskill has been a huge supporter of Obama. When she was running in the primary in 2008, McCaskill turned her back on Sen. Hillary Clinton, a fellow female senator, and endorsed Obama. It was considered a turning point in the campaign.
Before Obama was president he made three trips to Missouri to help McCaskill get elected, and now she can't be bothered to go to Charlotte to help Obama. It's pretty amazing, but she isn't alone. Some of the other prominent Democrats who have to wash their hair that weekend are West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, Pennsylvania Rep. Mark Critz, New York Rep. Kathy Hochul, Montana Sen. Jon Tester, West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, New York Rep. Bill Owens, and Georgia Rep. John Barrow. Even North Carolina Rep. Mike McIntyre hasn't said if he will attend the convention or if he will support Obama.
, , ,
Small business owners seem to have no faith in Obama or in the current government. What I'm hearing from small business owners is that things are not as bad as they were, but they are paralyzed because they fear their business will fall off a cliff again, so they can't relax, reinvest or rehire.
As long as we have someone in the White House who not only is completely ignorant about how business actually works, but judging by his actions hates the private sector, the attitude of small business owners is not going to change.
However, if Mitt Romney is elected on Nov. 6, things will change on Nov. 7. Certainly small business owners will be worried from November through January, not knowing what Obama might do to cause problems for private enterprise in his last days in office, but the closer the inauguration comes the more things in the business world will loosen up. Business owners will take a chance and hire someone before they are absolutely desperate. They will spend some money to buy equipment when they need to, instead of long after they have gotten by somehow without it. The change will be nearly instantaneous because it will be a change in attitude that will result in businesses spending money, which means businesses will be selling more and making more money.
If Obama wins you will see a lot of small businesses simply close their doors before the end of the year. They will have held on for as long as they could, and with personal capital depleted they will lock up and go home because they know they can't make it four more years with an administration doing its best to put them out of business.
The fate of small businesses is not likely to be a big campaign issue, but electing Romney is crucial for the survival of many small businesses. Obama believes in labor unions and government workers. The head of the AFL-CIO has visited the White House far more often than most of Obama's cabinet members.
The trillion dollar stimulus was set up to make sure that government didn't suffer from the recession, not to help small business. The survival of many small businesses is one of the many factors at stake in this election.
, , ,
Liberals appear to be living in some kind of opinion warp where conservatives are not allowed to enter. The day before the US Supreme Court heard the Obamacare case, The New York Times ran kind of a humorous article about this whacky University of Georgetown law professor who had this crazy idea that Obamacare was unconstitutional, and lo and behold the Supreme Court was actually going to hear the case; imagine that.
The next day, after the solicitor general representing the White House had faced a withering barrage of questions, the article had an entirely different tone. The writer had to admit that a law championed by President Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago (but was never a full professor) could be unconstitutional.
In other words, after a day of the solicitor general being blasted with questions from the court, the mainstream media had figured out that this was not just a go-through-the-motions case. You would think that they would have noticed the Supreme Court had scheduled more time for that case's discussion than on any issue in years.
Now on the eve of the Supreme Court decision, the mainstream media is still trying to convince the American people that there is nothing at all wrong with Obamacare. Liberals are better able to ignore opposing views than conservatives because the media is so liberal that if conservatives read, watch or listen to almost anything they get some of that liberal point of view thrown at them.
But if a liberal avoids exposure to Fox, they don't ever have to recognize that conservatives exist. Rush Limbaugh is treated by many liberals as entertainment even though he knows more and has more influence on politics that all but a couple elected officials.
So liberals can read The New York Times and almost any local daily they want, watch MSNBC or any of the networks other than Fox and they get their ideas reinforced. Ideas like the fact that Obamacare might be unconstitutional are never heard. In fact, Obama continues to say that for his law to be found unconstitutional is unprecedented. If what he means is that it is unprecedented for a black president from Hawaii who graduated from Harvard Law School and has two daughters to have a sweeping health care law that he personally pushed through Congress declared unconstitutional by a Supreme Court made up of six men and three women, then he is absolutely correct. Never before in history has that happened. But the president should be a little more specific about what he means by unprecedented.
, , ,
The number of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan, the war that Obama said was the right war to fight, has passed the 2,000 mark. But the 2,000 milestone went all but unnoticed by the mainstream media. CBS reported the fact, but the other major networks did not. Compare that to the war in Iraq where the 2,000 milestone was passed in 2005 with Republican President George Walker Bush in the White House. Not only did the networks do 14 news stories on the milestone, they attributed the deaths to Bush.
In the brief stories done on the 2,000th death in Afghanistan, Obama is rarely mentioned. Where are the protestors demanding that Obama get out of Afghanistan?
It is incredible, and what is even more incredible is that the liberals complain about Fox like it should be illegal to report the news not from a liberal point of view.
, , ,
Speaking of the liberal media, the coverage by the mainstream media of the confrontation between Congress and the Obama administration in Operation Fast and Furious case, represented by Attorney General Eric Holder, is frightening. Holder may be held in contempt of Congress, and most of the country will have no idea what it is about because the mainstream media simply has not covered the story.
The mainstream media hasn't covered the story because it is almost impossible to put a positive spin on Fast and Furious.
It was an insane program that supplied the Mexican drug cartels with American guns with no oversight and without the knowledge of the Mexican government.
The Obama administration is trying to say this was just the continuation of a program that started under the Bush administration, but that simply is not true. The program under the Bush administration was heavily controlled and done with the knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican authorities. It also ended long before Obama took office.
One huge difference between the two programs is that the guns involved in the Bush program had GPS tracking devices in them and involved far fewer guns. The Bush program makes sense. The idea was to allow a few guns across the border with tracking devices in them and then track the guns down and find the drug kingpins. The Obama program didn't have the GPS tracking devices. The guns were illegally sold and then they disappeared into Mexico only to show up at crime scenes proving that criminals commit crimes, something even the Obama administration officials should have known.
But it's always the cover-up that gets them, and in this case Obama is plowing new ground in the world of executive privilege. Obama is essentially asserting that Congress has no more oversight over the executive branch than he wants Congress to have. In other words Congress will only be allowed to investigate activities that are legal and aboveboard. If Congress tries to investigate something like Fast and Furious where an American Border Patrol agent was killed because of the utter stupidity of the Obama administration, then Obama is not going to allow that investigation to go forward.
Holder sat before the congressional investigating committee and testified under oath that emails that used the phrase "Fast and Furious" were not referring to the program "Fast and Furious" but to another program. The whole thing is awful, and if either Bush or President Ronald Wilson Reagan had been involved in anything this deadly and this stupid, the mainstream media would have screaming headlines day after day. But because it is Obama – who the mainstream media still love and are doing everything in their power to get reelected – the story is being ignored.