An energized and enthusiastic Republican Party turned out to cast their votes in the first in the South Primary in South Carolina.  A record 601,166 voted Saturday, far exceeding the 2008 primary of 445,499- And when all the votes were counted, South Carolina overwhelmingly choose Newt Gingrich as their choice to face Barack  Obama in the general election having garnered nearly 41% of the vote.

Newt Gingrich’s win comes on the heels of his debate performances in South Carolina where he was able to best articulate conservative principles and policies in a way that was clear and resonated with the voter.  Exit polling showed that Newt Gingrich overwhelmingly won the conservative vote, the women’s vote, the evangelical Christians, and the vote of blue collar workers- this should give pause to the Obama Administration.

Many, including myself, thought that Gingrich past infidelities would not play well with the evangelical right- Political pundits and I were wrong.  Clearly, the Christian right have forgiven Gingrich and believe in his redemption.  Conservatives have made it clear that a candidates private life should not disqualify him or her for office.  In 1992, Democrats came to that conclusion when they nominate Bill Clinton.

Whether Gingrich goes on to win the Republican nomination is still to be determined, but regardless the outcome, Gingrich is a powerful voice and someone who is most capable of articulating conservatism.  Bill Clinton once quipped that Newt was the only person who could out politic him.  It’s understandable why the Democrats woke up today and little more worried.

Courtesy:  John Paulus

____________

In the news…

-  Those Democrat connections with Enron run deep.  Do you recall when Enron collapsed and the Democrats with the help of the liberal media tried to connect CEO Kenneth Lay with George Bush because they once met despite the fact that Enron had deep ties to the Clinton Administration which included his Energy Secretary Bill Richardson?  Well, Michelle Obama will be attending a private fundraiser with former Enron executive John Arnold at his home.  Democrats just can’t seem to stay away from those they demonize publicly, but privately party and plot.

- Those lovely Occupy Wall Street protestors who are demanding the rich give more seem to be a bit parsimonious themselves.  Volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday — because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters. For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.  They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.  Maybe now they have a little taste of how the rich feel.

- And speaking of the Occupy Wall Street, as the press grows more concern over their violent behavior  the White House press secretary Jay Carney reacts to what he also calls violence at several “Occupy” protests across the country.  “As to the violence, we obviously believe and insist that everyone behave in a lawful manner. Even as they’re expressing, justifiably, their frustrations,” he said.

-  Another reason to eliminate union pensions. Eleven people, including two doctors and a former union president, were charged on Thursday in a “massive fraud scheme” in which hundreds of Long Island Rail Road (L.I.R.R.) workers made false disability pension claims that could have cost a federal pension agency about $1 billion, according to court papers and the New York Times.  Seven former railroad employees, the former union president, a former federal railroad pension agency employee, and one of the doctors (all accused of being co-conspirators) were arrested Thursday morning by F.B.I. agents and New York state investigators.

Courtesy:  John Paulus

________

In previous blogs I made note of how liberals fear Black Republicans.  Blacks moving to the Republican Party would destroy a base of support that liberals need to further push through their socialized programs. Too many Black Republicans winning national elections would expose the myth liberals have been so successful in propagandizing, that Republicans are anti-black.

In order to keep that myth alive, liberals will do everything in their power to destroy and marginalize Black Republicans.  They will use liberal Blacks in Congress and at various organizations to attack these black Republicans. They will create controversy and scandal where there was none- Judge Clarence Thomas nomination ring a bell.  Liberals fear what Black Republicans stand for- self-reliance, self-determination, and independence.

In previous months Herman Cain was not a threat to liberals, but as more and more polls confirm that he is now a top tier candidate with a high probability of being the Republican nominee, liberals have redirected their attention and attacks.

During the 1992 campaign, Democrats argued that Bill Clinton’s lack of military service should not prevent him from becoming the next Commander-in-Chief.  Even after it was revealed that Clinton dodged the Vietnam with the help of family and friends with political influence, Democrats insisted that military service should not be a prerequisite to be President.  Knowing this, one would find it odd that Herman Cain would be attacked by liberals who are offended that he did not serve in Vietnam.  In fact, Herman Cain made himself available for the draft and was serving his country working for the Department of the Navy in a critical role called exterior ballistic analysis.  Now some of you may be wondering how Herman Cain can be attacked by liberals for not serving in military uniform while the currently we have a liberal President who served as a community agitator organizer.  Look no further than Herman Cain’s political affiliation.  To liberals, he is the wrong type of black.

Liberals are attacking Herman Cain claiming he lacks experience.  That might sound rather amusing when you consider that the current liberal President’s resume includes 3 years as a community agitator organizer, time as “a civil rights attorney” and “professor”, an Illinois State Senator where he was known for voting present, and 4 years as a Senator- 2 of which he ran for President.  Juxtapose that “experience” to Herman Cain who worked at Department of the Navy as an analyst,  at Coca-Cola Company  as a computer systems analyst. for Pillsbury sd the director of analysis, managed 400 Burger King stores in the Philadelphia area where his region went in three years from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Purchase Godfather’s Pizza with a group of investors, became CEO of the National Restaurant Association, became a member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992 and then its chairman, and sat on the board of directors for Nabisco, Whirlpool, Reader’s Digest, and AGCO, Inc. In an economy struggling, one wonders how liberals could ignore Cain’s business acumen and experience.  Wonder no more- Herman Cain is a Black Republican.

So how else could liberals attack Herman Cain?  Well, attack him for what they feel is his lack of involvement during the civil rights movement.  After all, what makes an experience President is one who served as a community organizer and “civil rights” attorney.

As Herman Cain continues to earn success within the Republican Party, expect the attacks on his character and even on the color of his skin to intensify- and if you’re wondering why liberals can call anyone who attacks Obama on the issues a racist, while they themselves can attack Herman Cain on a personal level just remember that Herman Cain isn’t the right type of Black guy.

I encourage you to watch MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell interview of Herman Cain- the hypocrisy and fear of the liberal media is apparent. VIDEO LINK

Courtesy:  John Paulus

___________

Some interesting items in the news today so let’s start with the positive.  During Obama’s 2008 campaign Obama promised that sea levels would drop and he’s kept his promised.  The European Space Agency’s Envisat monitoring, global sea level revealed a “two year long decline [in sea level] was continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.” In August 2011, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was “a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.” See: NASA: ‘Global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer’.  The global drop in sea level followed NASA’s announcement that sea level around the U.S. was declining in February 2011.  And imagine, this all happened without the passage of the Kyoto Accord.

It’s another day and another scandal with ties to Obama. A Chicago nurse was indicted and accused of diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds for her personal use has turned a spotlight on an Illinois state agency that awarded her money while it was headed by one of President Barack Obama’s closest friends, Dr. Eric E. Whitaker, records show.  Under Whitaker, the Illinois Department of Public Health awarded Margaret A. Davis — the former program director of the Chicago Chapter of the National Black Nurses Association — a no-bid contract and seven AIDS- and cancer-related grants that became part of her $500,000 cash-siphoning scheme, prosecutors say.

Former President Bill Clinton says “no” to new taxes in an interview to Newsmax.  Clinton warns that its the wrong thing to do in this economy.

It’s Chicago politics in a city that claims it has to raise taxes to pay teachers and police, but all it took to give nearly two dozen labor leaders from Chicago a windfall worth millions was a few tweaks to a handful of sentences in the state’s lengthy pension code.  Not surprisingly, the changes became law with no public debate among state legislators and, more importantly, no cost analysis. Twenty years later, 23 retired union officials from Chicago stand to collect about $56 million from two ailing city pension funds thanks to the changes, a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation found.  Because the law bases the city pensions on the labor leaders’ union salaries, they are reaping retirement benefits that far outstrip the modest salaries they made as city employees. On average, their pensions are nearly three times higher than what the typical retired city worker receives.  And we wonder why cities under Democrat leadership and control are going broke?  Let’s face it, unions are the special interest and the cause of our fledgling cities.

So there you have it, a quick wrap up of what’s in the news.

Courtesy:  John Paulus

____________

Democrats doubt Barack Obama’s reelection chances:

President Barack Obama is facing mounting doubts within his own party about his re-election prospects, with fellow Democrats beginning to ask if Hillary Clinton would have made a better president.

Mr Obama’s capitulation to Republicans in the recent tussle over deficit reduction is being seen as the lowest point of his presidency and the latest in a series of blows to the liberal agenda.

Oprah Winfrey‘s daytime talk show is over, but her adulation for President Obama is far from it.

Winfrey is “happy to be of service” for Obama’s reelection campaign, she said in a statement Wednesday. “I supported Barack Obama in 2008 because I believed then as I do now that he is the right man for the job,” she said.

Back in ‘08, Winfrey’s backing of Obama helped him bring down the most well-known well-oiled campaign machine: Bill and Hillary Clinton. When she first interviewed Obama in a 2004 issue of her magazine “O,” the queen of daytime said, “[W]hen I decided to talk with you (Obama), people around me were like, ‘What’s happened to you?’ I said, ‘I think this is beyond and above politics.’ It feels like something new.”

This time, Winfrey will have to acknowledge more than “something new;” she‘ll have to talk about Obama’s record. And with unemployment teetering around 9 percent and the president’s approval rating hitting new lows, energizing voters (white working-class women in particular) will likely be a bigger struggle than it was in ‘08.

Courtesy: The Blaze

___________

The political left is pressing the White House and Congress to inflict a wave of Pentagon budget cuts not seen since the post-Cold War 1990s.

Liberals are citing the debt crisis and troop drawdowns from Iraq and Afghanistan to argue that now is the time for the Defense Department to shed people, missions and weapons after a decade of doubling arms spending after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The proposals, including one from the Center for America Progress, go well beyond President Obama’s call in April for $400 billion in defense cuts over 12 years. The center — run by John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to President Clinton — wants that much in reductions over the next three years and $1 trillion from what had been projected increases over the next decade.

Some House Democrats, led by Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, also have called for $1 trillion in cuts.

“I think this is the time because of a combination of the deficit and the changing way in which we’re going to deal with threats from groups like al Qaeda,” said American Progress’ Lawrence Korb, a longtime defense analyst in Washington.

Mr. Korb said the Obama administration has dumped President George W. Bush’s overall war strategy of preemptive attacks against terrorist states, and he cited just-retired Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ warning against any future land wars in the Middle East.

The bottom line is that the center wants projected increases ended and the overall arms budget reduced to $500 billion by 2016, which would be $111 billion below the Pentagon’s already pared-down projection.

“Gates said we don’t have to go back to Cold War levels,” Mr. Korb said. “Well, we’re above Cold War levels. And that’s part of the problem.”

Gordon Adams, a defense budget official in the Clinton White House, told the House Budget Committee this month that Mr. Obama’s $400 billion number “is a very small step.” He endorsed more than doubling that figure.

The Pentagon has not heard such rhetoric since the Berlin Wall fell and Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush squeezed as much as 35 percent out of intelligence and defense spending.

After al Qaeda’s attack on the United States, defense proponents said such a deep downturn had been a mistake, leaving intelligence agencies and some aspects of the military not ready to fight a global war against terrorists. Now, they say, America is about to repeat the mistake, as China and Iran flex their muscles and radical Islam remains a global threat.

Daniel Goure, an analyst at the pro-business Lexington Institute, said the left has it all wrong. The Pentagon needs more money, unless it abandons or curtails its presence in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, he said.

“You’d better change our military approach to the world,” said Mr. Goure. “If you do what we did the last time — which is essentially salami slice, take bits and pieces from everything and everybody — then you are essentially going to back where you were after Vietnam and at the end of the Cold War drawdown. Too many missions. Too many deployments. Not enough stuff. Not enough people.”

The Center for American Progress also proposes a list of weapons terminations and troop cutbacks.

The number of V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft would be stopped at about 150. The next-generation workhorse jet fighter, the F-35 — which is mired in big cost overruns — would be bought only for the Air Force, not the Navy or Marine Corps.

The Navy’s 11 carriers — a key way America projects immediate air power overseas — would be trimmed to nine, and with it other surface ships. A full third of 150,000 troops in Europe and Asia would be ordered home.

“You may not be able to keep as many carriers forward-deployed,” said Mr. Korb. “You would have to surge them, but I don’t see any missions you could not do.”

However, reducing the number of active carriers to nine means only three typically would be deployed at one time, possibly leaving the Pacific without a surface ship strike force.

“If the Chinese are going to threaten Taiwan, they’re going to do it with short-legged stuff, short-range ballistic missiles, right from shore,” Mr. Korb said. “We can’t do it that way. If the threat were Mexico, not to worry. We build diesel submarines and short-range fighters, and we’d call it a day.”

Such drastic cuts would face strong Republican opposition.

A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the GOP would never approve cuts of $1 trillion.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, released a detailed budget plan that calls for modest defense drawdowns over five years. He argued that the Defense Department’s total budget share already has decreased from 25 percent to 20 percent.

A smattering of conservatives are advocating more shrinkage. Some Republicans on Mr. Obama’s deficit commission supported cuts above $400 million.

With all troops due to be pulled out of Iraq this year and Afghanistan by 2014, the Pentagon could save $100 billion annually on those two accounts alone. Mr. Gates instituted more than $100 billion in savings, although some of that money was redirected into other arms programs.

The next phase is likely to be revealed in Mr. Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget in February or in some grand deficit-reduction agreement between him and Congress.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this year: “We can’t hold ourselves exempt from the belt-tightening. Neither can we allow ourselves to contribute to the very debt that puts our long-term security at risk.”

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, who proved a hawkish director of the CIA, vowed to Congress that he would not let the military go hollow as it did in the late 1970s.

On July 8, he urged the White House and Congress to base cuts on a strategy. He expressed his concern about negotiators who would just “just pick a number and throw it at the Defense Department without really looking at policy, without looking at what makes sense.”

Courtesy: Washington Times

_________

A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year’s healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges in Atlanta, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional.

In an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government’s power to force someone to buy a product.

Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was tapped by Republican President George H.W. Bush, struck early by asking the government’s attorney “if we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congressional power?” Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, who were tapped by Democratic President Bill Clinton, echoed his concerns later in the hearing.

Judge Stanley Marcus echoed Dubina. “I can’t find any case” in the past where the courts upheld “telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?”

Judge Frank Hull, the third member of the panel, repeatedly asked the lawyers about the possible effect of the court striking down the mandate, while upholding the rest of the law.

The Atlanta court is reviewing a decision of Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Fla. In January, he struck down the entire 2,700-page law as unconstitutional.

Dubina, from Alabama, was first appointed to the bench by President Reagan and was elevated to the appeals court by President George H.W. Bush. Hull, from Georgia, was appointed by President Clinton. The third member of the panel, Marcus, from Florida, was first appointed as a district judge by Reagan, but Clinton appointed him to the appeals court.

Already, appeals courts in Richmond, Va., and Cincinnati have heard legal challenges to the healthcare law, and a fourth hearing is set for September in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

____________

You can always count on a liberal to obfuscate, use circumlocution, or just plain lie.  We have Bill Clinton with “it depends on what the definition of “is” is” and John Edwards with,  ”it depends on how one defines “gift”". And now, Democrat Anthony Weiner who say is might be is weiner.

Yes, you read that right, Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner now claims that the picture may in fact be his “weiner”, however, he claims he didn’t send it.

The Democrat Congressman and rumored candidate for New York mayor told NBC today, “I was the victim of a prank,’’ adding that he can’t say “with certitude’’ whether the photo shows his body.  The truth is finally rearing its ugly head… no pun intended.

This begs more questions than it actually answers.  Why would the married Congressman have pictures of his erect member on his computer and stored on the site, “yFrog”? Why would the Democrat Congressman take a picture of his “manhood” using what is obviously a webcam if he didn’t intend to send it to someone other than his wife?  What were his intentions? Has he ever sent it these pictures to anyone else since he’s been married and if so to whom and why? Can he say with certitude that these pictures have not found their way to the inbox of some underage teen?  And speaking of which, why did he follow a number of young teenage girls on Twitter.

Update:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: “Have you ever taken a picture like this of yourself?”

REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D-NY): “I can tell you this, that there are — I have photographs. I don’t know what photographs are out there in the world of me. I don’t know what have been manipulated and doctored and we’re going to try to find out what happened. But the most important reason I want to find out what happened is to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. Obviously somebody got access to my account. That’s bad. They sent a picture that makes fun of the name weiner. i get it. Touche.”

The Congressman may have been caught with his pants down.

____________

The pictures above; innocent children killed by Gaddafi?  Civilian hangings in Libya?  No, they are massacred children at the hands of Saddam Hussein. And the hanging- they are happening in Iran.

Obama told the American people tonight that America had to react because it could no longer stand by as innocent people were massacred and hung.  This reasoning alone justifies are going to war in Iraq.

Now, while I applaud the President for finally recognizing the unique role America must play in the world, I was embarrassed by the length he went to try to explain how his reasons for intervening were different from Bush’s actions.  In fact, the more he tried to explain the more pronounced the similarities.  But, hey, he needed to placate his liberal friends by giving them something they could parrot.

One of the most amusing parts of the President’s speech was the comparison between the length of the operation in Libya and that of Iraq.  Obama left out the part that Iraq was a militaristic country with the 5th largest Army in the world with the 3rd most powerful air defenses… Nearly as humorous was the comparison between how long it took to get a resolution for the bombings in Bosnia as compared to Libya.  The President must not be versed in history. First, Russian ground troops occupied many parts of what was then Yugoslavia. Which brings up the second point… Bosnia had not been recognized as a sovereign nation. I hope Obama wasn’t suggesting that we bomb Bosnia without first allowing the Russians to withdraw its troops.  I was imagining how Bill Clinton felt when he heard that part of the speech.

By the way, were any of you confused by Obama’s speech?  In one breath the President says that our mission there isn’t regime change, but two paragraphs later he wants Gaddafi out. Some other contradictions; the United States and the world can’t stand by while innocent lives are slaughter, but Syria and Iran… well, those innocent lives aren’t as important.

I, for one, am happy that Obama found time between golfing and partying to tell the American people why we are involved in Libya.  I just wonder if he could justify his reasons without making comparison to Iraq.  Perhaps his argument for going to war was weak.  And, I’m glad that he informed the Congressional leadership, but as a Constitutional lawyer you would think that he would know that he must get approval from the entire Congress for military action.

Finally, as Commander in Chief, you would think Obama would know that we do have ground forces in Libya.  Perhaps he does know and he was being purposely dishonest when he said we don’t.  Facts are that laser guided precision bombs do not work unless there are ground troops “lazing” targets in order to guide those bombs.

______________