delta22

September 6, 2012

September 5, 2012

Dr. Ron Paul and I have prepared an urgent video update for you regarding Audit the Fed.

As you know, Audit the Fed overwhelmingly passed the House right before the August recess.

And now it's crucial the bill pass the Senate, too.

Campaign for Liberty is in the middle of developing a massive grassroots tidal wave of action to advance Audit the Fed in the Senate.

Will you be a part of it?

With your help, we can launch the biggest assault on the Federal Reserve in our nation's history.

I don't know about you, but the thought of generating that much public outrage over such a secretive federal institution is exhilarating.

So please watch this urgent video update to learn all the details and find out how you can help.

In Liberty,

Matt Hawes

Vice President

P.S. As you know, Audit the Fed overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House in July.

Now, to shine the maximum possible spotlight on the Federal Reserve, the bill must pass the U.S. Senate.

With your help, we can launch the biggest assault on the Federal Reserve in our nation's history.

So please watch the urgent video update Dr. Paul and I have prepared for you to learn all the details and find out how you can help.

September 5, 2012

Dear fellow Patriot,

Dudley has prepared an urgent video message regarding Hillarious's UN Gun Ban.

As you know, the wannabe dictators at the UN are plotting RIGHT NOW to gut the Second Amendment.

And we only have until this Friday, September 7th to prepare for battle.

Please click here to see Dudley's urgent message on the UN Gun Ban.

Hillarious Clinton is doing everything in her power to force through the UN Gun Ban while the rest of the country is distracted with the Democrat convention.

Don't be fooled, she is working tirelessly to get her gun ban before election day.

After you listen, be sure to sign the survey putting yourself squarely on record AGAINST this radical gun ban.

Thank you,

Christine H

National Association for Gun Rights

September 5, 2012

Oh s hit Brother some phantom negger zapped you and I wanted to bring you back and my fat finger negged you again sorry I will plus you twice elsewhere Sorry.

September 5, 2012

As the Democratic National Convention swings into high gear, Michael Reagan tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is fumbling to find an easier litmus test than the one his father posed in his successful race against then incumbent Jimmy Carter.

“Forget are you better off today than you were four years ago? How about 'are you better off today than you were yesterday?' ” declared Reagan, the son of America’s 40th president in an exclusive interview on Tuesday.

Inspired by Ronald Reagan's winning 1980 election pitch, Republicans have urged voters to ask themselves "are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

Urgent: Does Paul Ryan Really Help Defeat Obama? Vote in Exclusive Poll

Uncomfortably for Democratic supporters, the question has elicited a dizzying array of responses from President Barack Obama's allies, first "no" then "sort of" and finally "absolutely."

Republicans salivated at such rare campaign vacillation — no doubt sensing a much-needed advantage as polls continue to show a tight race ahead of November's election.

"Apparently, for the 23 million Americans struggling for work, things have improved greatly in the last 24 hours," crowed Republican operative Joe Pounder.

The younger Reagan also took aim at reports that Democrats have abandoned the words “God” and “Jerusalem” from the party’s official platform, which was adopted at the outset of the Democratic gathering in Charlotte.

“I’m not surprised at all,” he said. “I mean I don’t know why people would be surprised that the Democrat Party removed Jerusalem and God from the platform.”

Reagan added, “I think every year they get more Godless anyway.”

Reagan said he “certainly” hopes that Republicans never do the same in the spirit of political correctness.

“If the Republicans ever remove God, as my father once said, ‘When we forget that we’re one nation under God, we’ll be a nation gone under.’ And Democrats have proved that they’re under.”

The Democrats may have good reason to alter Reagan’s famous litmus test with unemployment at 8.3 percent today as compared to 7.8 percent when Obama took office. Moreover, one in every 686 homes in the United States was in the process of being repossessed in July, according to RealtyTrac, a data provider.

Forty-three percent of Americans say economic conditions are "poor," according to Gallup. Almost two in three think things are getting worse, while 49 percent of adult Americans describe themselves as middle class, down from 53 percent in 2008, according to the Pew Research Center.

Urgent: Does Paul Ryan Really Help Defeat Obama? Vote in Exclusive Poll

Reagan joked that there may be a reason why Obama chose former President Bill Clinton to introduce him at the DNC other than Clinton’s popularity.

“The only reason I think Bill Clinton is introducing him is nobody else wanted to,” Reagan quipped. “I mean the fact of the matter is Clint Eastwood had the first empty chair. Now you’re going to see many more.”

AFP contributed to this article.

September 5, 2012

The Democratic National Committee has removed the term “God-given” from its platform.

This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform, the Christian Broadcasting Network reports:

“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

The paragraph now says this:

“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

Delegates will vote on the party platform Tuesday at the convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Calls to the DNC seeking comment were not returned, according to the Christian website, which criticized the DNC:

“Some critics will suggest that when you have planks in your platform that support abortion rights and *** marriage then it's no wonder that God's name would be dropped as well."

Only one section of the platform deals with “faith," CBN said. Here is that paragraph:

“Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”

September 5, 2012

Plus 1 Brother I know the feeling well. Just didn't know we had a word for it ! :lol: I come here to learn !

September 5, 2012

A record number of Muslim delegates are attending this year’s Democratic National Convention, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

An estimated 100 Muslim delegates from 20 different states are in Charlotte, the group said in a press release, which pointed out that only a “handful” of delegates attended the Republican National Convention last week in Tampa, “during which the RNC adopted a platform plank targeting the religious practices of Muslims,” the group’s press release said.

There were 43 Muslim and Arab-American delegates at the DNC in 2008 and 25 in 2004, according to CAIR.

"The more than doubling of Muslim delegates at this year's Democratic National Convention is a direct result of their hard work and grassroots organizing within the Democratic Party," CAIR Government Affairs Coordinator Robert McCaw said in the press release. "It is also a sign of the American Muslim community's growing civic engagement and acceptance in the Democratic Party."

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.

September 5, 2012

I speak read and write 5 languages fluently and am conversational in 2 more. I still think the joke is funny and on another level, knowing Europe and Germans very well he would have asked in English,since no one in Europe has a problem identifying Americans. Sad fact !

September 5, 2012

A German, looking for directions in Paris, pulls up to a bus stop where two Americans are waiting.

“Entschuldigung, sprechen Sie Deutsch?” he asks. The two Americans just stare at him.

“Parlez-vous français?” he says.

The two continue to stare, so the German tries again “Parlate italiano?”

No response. “¿Hablan ustedes español?” Still nothing. Frustrated, the German guy drives off.

The first American says, “You know, we should learn a foreign language.”

“Why?” asks the other. “He knew four languages, and it didn’t do him any good.”

September 5, 2012

A new advertisement created by U.S. military veterans, working under the auspices of the Special Ops Opsec Education Fund, are blasting the leak of classified information, possibly from the White House itself.

“We are here to speak out against the release of national security secrets,” says Scott Taylor, a retired Navy SEAL.

Adds Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, United States Marine Corps: “Mr. President, to you and those close to you who hold some of the nation’s highest secrets. Please be quiet about it.”

The organization says its goal is to stop politicians, President Obama and others “from politically capitalizing on U.S. national security operations and secrets.”

Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., in an editorial published by USA Today, said leaks about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden revealed “sensitive operational details.”

King said the leaks imperil future missions.

Then, this spring, there were more leaks about intelligence penetration of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, drone strikes and cyber ops against Iran’s nuclear program, King said.

“Ongoing FBI investigations have failed to deter further leaks. This is because White House staff is not currently subject to the same scrutiny that intelligence professionals are, such as polygraphs and monitoring of access to classified information,” he wrote.

“Also, the president can retroactively claim to have declassified information leaked by his staff,” he noted.

King said the White House points to other possible leakers, “but the leaks clearly come from the Oval Office and Situation Room.”

“Their obvious intent is to aid the president’s re-election,” the congressman said. “As Sen. Feinstein said, ‘The White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.’”

Cowan said that the Obama administration, “in my judgment, unfortunately, put out a lot of the information that we’re going to suffer repercussions for.”

Retired CIA operative Fred Rustmann said, “I don’t see why anybody … would purposely put lives in jeopardy.”

The Obama administration has claimed it is unconnected to the release of any sensitive information.

Using a column from CNN’s Peter Bergen, the “truth team” at BarackObama.com defended the president.

Bergen’s column said the claims that the White House orchestrated leaks “bear some resemblance to the ‘Swift Boat’ tactics used against Sen. John Kerry in the tight 2004 presidential election against President George W. Bush.”

He described the allegations against the president as: announcing the bin Laden raid before intelligence from that operation could be exploited fully, publicizing the use of a secret “stealth” helicopter, revealing that SEAL Team Six was involved and revealing the name of a Pakistani doctor recruited to help locate bin Laden.

Said Bergen: “I have written a book about the hunt for bin Laden during the course of which I was the only journalist granted access by the Pakistanis inside the compound in Abbottabad where bin Laden was killed. I also spoke on the record about the hunt for bin Laden with a variety of current White House, Pentagon and intelligence officials, as well as former Defense Department and CIA officials familiar with aspects of the story.

“None of them divulged classified information about the bin Laden operation. Indeed, they went to great pains to avoid doing so,” he said.

Bergen blamed Pakistani officials – as well as the crash of a helicopter – for pushing up the release of information about the raid.

He continued: “It is just plain wrong that anyone in the U.S. government leaked the name of the CIA asset in Pakistan, Dr Shakil Afridi, who was recruited by the agency in its quest to find bin Laden. This information first surfaced in a story in the Guardian newspaper in July 2011 after Afridi was arrested by the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI. It is obvious that this information was leaked not by the Americans but the Pakistanis who have done their own investigation of the bin Laden raid, which embarrassed them considerably.”

U.S. News reported a senior Obama aide demanded that anyone at the White House with knowledge of the leaks to step forward.

The challenge came from John Brennan, a counter-terrorism official.

He said should any leakers be identified, “The president has made clear that leaks should be prosecuted.”

But the ad presents a collage of TV news reports of claims that the information was being released by the White House for political gain.

“Stop the leaks,” the ad pleads.

September 5, 2012

A campaign launched by a California civil and religious rights organization shockingly reveals that when Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama decided the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, many Department of Justice attorneys began working against their own clients, the citizens of the United States.

That’s according to the Pacific Justice Institute, which today announced a campaign to collect signatures of citizens willing to be part of state bar association complaints against DOJ attorneys.

“Government lawyers are essentially rising from the table for counsel for the defendant, walking across the courtroom and sitting down at the plaintiff’s table,” said PJI chief counsel Kevin Snider. “These attorneys are now seeking to have judgment taken against the party that they represent – the United States.

Snider said what the DOJ has done would be “unthinkable for any other lawyers.”

Their actions raise “serious concerns that professional rules and ethics are being violated,” he said.

PJI plans to file complaints with various licensing agencies against the attorneys, whose names are listed online.

WND reached out to several of the attorneys cited and never was allowed beyond the office staff to even leave a message.

DOMA has become part of the collateral damage of Obama’s campaign to promote homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality and other sexual lifestyles.

The law defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman for federal purposes.

However, in February 2011, Holder sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner saying the DOJ, under Obama, would not defend DOMA any longer.

“There are times when a lawyer gets out of a case,” PJI reported. “When that is done, the attorney withdraws and another firm is substituted in as counsel. Initially, to his credit, the attorney general gave Congress the opportunity to intervene in the DOMA cases to defend the law.

“Acting through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), that is what occurred. BLAG hired a private law firm which has been defending the law in the courts, and even has filed papers with the U.S. Supreme Court to bring final resolution to this issue,” the institute said.

“That should have ended the DOJ’s involvement in the litigation. Shockingly, lawyers for the government stayed in the cases and began filing papers with the courts arguing against DOMA. In all but one of the cases, the department has filed papers stating that DOMA is unconstitutional.”

The implications are staggering, said Snider. Not only is it a case of a defense attorney getting up, moving across the room and sitting down at the table for counsel for those suing the citizens of the U.S., but it creates the opportunity – if allowed to stand – for a president to veto any law he or she doesn’t like.

“This would give the executive branch a constructive veto over any law,” he explained.

Whatever already is on the books as a law of the United States of America, when challenged, simply could be allowed to fall, he said.

Snider warned of the “enormous power” such a precedent would grant presidents.

For example, he agreed, a president who objects to the income tax could order the IRS to stand down and not defend any tax laws. Default judgments would follow, and the tax laws would be struck.

When an administration previously determined a law to be unconstitutional, a procedure was set up for an intervenor to challenge it, and then a court would make the determination, he said.

In this case, complaints are being developed against more than 30 U.S. and Department of Justice attorneys who worked on 18 different cases.

“Government lawyers initially filed briefs defending DOMA, then abandoned that defense altogether and began filing papers in support of the plaintiffs in those cases,” PJI reported. They are being prepared for filing in 10 jurisdictions, including California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oklahoma and the District of Columbia.

Those who are interested, or are willing to participate at no cost, need to visit NoWayDOJ.com to review the requirements.

“When the United States and its agencies are sued over the Defense of Marriage Act, the clients are not the president or the attorney general – the clients are the people of the United States,” noted Brad Dacus, president of PJI. “It is bad enough for the Department of Justice to abandon its clients, but it is unethical and sanctionable for those attorneys to switch sides and ask for judgment leading to damages and attorneys’ fees against their own clients. We are calling on state bar authorities to simply undertake the same investigations and disciplinary actions they would take against any other lawyers who flagrantly violate their duties of client loyalty.”

Snider said DOJ attorneys have filed pages and pages of legal arguments while “defending” DOMA that explain why the federal attorneys think the judge should rule against the law. Sometimes the attorneys representing the U.S. have asked the judge for a summary judgment – a decision without a trial – against their own clients.

Members of Congress recently went before the U.S. Supreme Court to ask for a review of a decision from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals that declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

The request cites the “previously unknown standard of equal protection review” applied by the court and questions whether there is any conflict with the “equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

A friend-of-the-court brief has been filed by attorneys representing a long list of interested parties that suggests the Supreme Court justices should return to the Constitution, read it and apply it to the case.

Those represented in the brief say they are confident if that happens, DOMA will be affirmed as constitutional.

The petition urges the court “to grant the petition to review whether its various balancing tests, including strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis, are wholly unsuitable to the task of objective judicial review, as demonstrated by an illustrative review of this court’s decisions and the decision of the court below.”

“Unmoored from the constitutional text, this court’s tests have been, and if not abandoned will continue to be, used inconsistently by unelected judges in the unchecked exercise of raw legislative power.”

In that case, the Boston-based 1st Circuit ruled DOMA unconstitutional. The law denies same-sex duos federal benefits enjoyed by married couples, such as the ability to file joint federal tax returns and survivor benefits, as Congress intended.

“Congress, of course, did not invent the meanings of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ in 1996. Rather, DOMA merely reaffirmed and codified the traditional definition of marriage, i.e., what Congress itself has always meant – and what the courts and the executive branch have always understood it to mean – in using those words: a traditional male-female couple.”

Now attorneys Herbert W. Titus, and others from the William J. Olson law firm, as well as Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation have submitted a brief on behalf of the Capitol Hill Prayer Alert Foundation, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Young America’s Foundation, Public Associate of the U.S., Institute on the Constitution, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Gun Owners Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. **** Black, Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Protect Marriage Maryland and Declaration Alliance.

September 5, 2012

I don’t how Democrats will lie and misrepresent their own history and the history of their political opponents this week in North Carolina.

But you can be sure it will be a major part of the Democratic convention.

I got to thinking about this after listening to Vice President Joe Biden insinuate to a mostly black audience last month that Republicans sought to enslave them, again.

Specifically, Biden said Mitt Romney is “going to let the big banks once again write their own rules – unchain Wall Street!” Looking around the room, Biden said in his best attempt at a Delaware drawl: “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

Biden is hardly alone. Democrats have been lying about themselves and their opponents for so long, few Americans understand the deep history of racism in the party. Even fewer comprehend that Republicans were the liberators of the slaves and the party that fought segregation.

I didn’t know this when I had my first opportunity to vote in 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern. I didn’t know this the second time I voted for president in 1976. I voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter. I still didn’t know the truth the third time I voted for president in 1980. I voted, again, for Carter and against the man who would later become my hero, Ronald Reagan.

That’s my political history in brief.

But let me give you a brief history of the Democratic Party, not according to me, but according to one of the most distinguished liberal American historians, Eric Foner, author of “A Short History of Reconstruction.”

I encourage you to read the whole book as you listen this week to the smug and self-righteous speeches in Charlotte. This is the history they don’t want you to know.

KKK’s first targets were Republicans – read how Democrats started the group in “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White”

Take note of this summation of Foner’s book: “In effect, the [Ku Klux] Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to destroy the Republican Party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, re-establish control of the black labor force and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern Life.”

What occurs to me as I read these stunning words is how successful the Democratic Party has actually been in achieving those goals over the last 130 years. Today, it not only has “control of the black labor force,” it has control over the black vote – the very vote it sought to deny for most of those 130 years after the War Between the States.

This is why the late Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. He understood the history. He recognized who represented political allies and political foes.

Here’s some more from Foner, who tells the story most Americans have never heard – that the Klan’s war was not just against blacks, it was against Republicans:

“Violence was typically directed at Reconstruction’s local leaders. As Emmanuel Fortune, driven from Jackson, County, Florida, by the Klan, explained: ‘The object of it is to kill out the leading men of the Republican Party … men who have taken a prominent stand.’”
“Jack Dupree, victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi – assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins – was ‘president of a Republican club’ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”
“On occasion, violence escalated from the victimization of individuals to wholesale assaults on the Republican Party and its leadership. In October 1870, after Republicans carried Laurens County, in South Carolina’s Piedmont belt, a racial altercation at Laurensville degenerated into a ‘***** chase’ in which bands of whites drove 150 freedmen from their homes and committed 13 murders. The victims included the newly elected white probate judge, a black legislator and others ‘known and prominent as connected with politics.’”
“Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror’ against Republican leaders black and white. Those assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who had served in constitutional conventions. In Louisiana, even moderate ex-Governor Hahn by October complained that ‘murder and intimidation are the order of the day in this state.’ White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up Republican meetings. In St. Landry Parrish, a mob invaded the plantations, killing as many as 200 blacks. Commanding Gen. Lovell Rousseau, a friend and supporter of the president, refused to take action, urging blacks to stay away from the polls for self-protection and exulting that the ‘ascendance of the ***** in this state is approaching its end.’”

I could go on and on with this well-documented history.

Not only are today’s Democrats lying about themselves and their opponents. They are telling a story that is the polar opposite of the truth.

How do they get away with it?

Who do you suppose really wants to keep blacks in chains?

In fact, look around – who has actually kept them on their plantation

September 5, 2012

Just as Democrats are gaveling in their convention Tuesday, the federal government likely will announce another dubious milestone — $16 trillion in total federal debt.

In an election already focused on domestic issues of jobs, spending and deficits, the $16 trillion number is likely to underscore just how much is at stake in November for both parties, which are offering dramatically different ways to begin to eat away at the deep hole.

Gross federal debt has been flirting with $16 trillion for the past two weeks, and the government ended Thursday $15.991 trillion in debt.

Editor's Note: Will Obama Be Defeated? Vote Here!

With several debt auctions scheduled for the end of last week, budget analysts think the government probably broached the $16 trillion number on Friday, and it will be reported to the public Tuesday, which, thanks to the Labor Day holiday, is the next business day.

While $16 trillion isn’t a tipping point, it is a stark number that Republicans said will reflect poorly on Mr. Obama, who has overseen the biggest debt explosion in the country’s history.

“This is a grim landmark for the United States,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. “Yet the president seems strangely unconcerned.”

The Obama campaign didn’t respond to a message seeking comment on the milestone, but, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,”David Axelrod, a top adviser to Mr. Obama, said the president has a “plausible plan” to stabilize the debt, but acknowledged the plan doesn’t actually begin to reduce it.

“You can’t balance the budget in the short term because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy,” he said.

That underscores both sides’ dilemma: Republicans object to tax increases, saying they will stunt a recovery, while Democrats say reducing spending would likewise hurt.

The Congressional Budget Office last month said raising taxes or cutting spending, or both, might indeed send the economy into a recession, though the alternative — putting off fiscal tightening — means things are worse in the long term.

Republicans believe the debt can be used against Mr. Obama. At their convention last week in Tampa, Fla., they posted a giant electronic board that steadily ticked off the debt they said accumulated every moment from the time they gaveled into session Monday afternoon until they ended the convention late Thursday.

But debt jumps — and occasionally falls — in much more sporadic fashion, as bonds are regularly being auctioned off and sold back.

The biggest one-day boost in history came on Aug. 2, 2011, just after Congress and the president agreed to raise the debt limit, unleashing months of pent-up borrowing.

Editor's Note: Will Obama Be Defeated? Vote Here!

Democrats argue that neither side has clean hands — though debt grew less under President Clinton than either Mr. Obama or President George W. Bush.

Gross debt stood at $4.188 trillion when Mr. Clinton took office in 1993 and grew to $5.728 trillion when he turned the White House over to Mr. Bush, who added $4.899 trillion in his eight years in office, to reach $10.627 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009, when Mr. Obama took over. The country has already notched another $5.364 trillion during his term.

September 5, 2012

It's a question that aides to any president seeking re-election should be ready to handle: Are Americans better off now than before he took office?

This seemingly simple query, however, flummoxed President Barack Obama's team over the Labor Day weekend, throwing the campaign on the defensive just as the Democrats are about to open their national convention.

Republican Mitt Romney's campaign pounced. Running mate Paul Ryan, speaking Monday in another North Carolina town, amped-up his party's long-running efforts to persuade Americans, once and for all, that Obama's economic record disqualifies him for a second term.

Democrats acknowledged that Obama's team must get a better handle on the question, an updated version of the Ronald Reagan line that helped sink President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

The Obama aides' halting responses reflected the dilemma the president faces. If he emphasizes the economic crisis he inherited from President George W. Bush, then Obama looks as though he's shirking responsibility for current problems.

But if Obama claims positives flowing from his policies' effectiveness — even with endorsements from independent economists — he risks appearing tone-deaf and insensitive to millions of voters' fears in a climate of 8.3 percent unemployment, sharply lower home values and uncertain futures.

"You can understand the Obama campaign's ambiguity," said Ferrel Guillory, an expert on Southern politics at the University of North Carolina. Obama's stimulus and intervention policies clearly averted bigger problems in banking, auto-making and other sectors, he said, but harping on it "doesn't satisfy the concerns of people who don't feel better off."

Others are less sympathetic.

"The Obama team made a significant tactical error on Sunday with their stumble over the 'better off' question," said Republican pollster Steve Lombardo. "It is stunning that they were not prepared for this question."

Even Lombardo, however, conceded "the president is in a box."

Obama's top advisers struggled with the question, repeatedly posed on Sunday talk shows.

David Axelrod said: "I think the average American recognizes that it took years to create the crisis that erupted in 2008 and peaked in January of 2009. And it's going to take some time to work through it."

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley was blunter when CBS's Bob Schieffer asked if he could "honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?"

"No," O'Malley said. "But that's not the question of this election. Without a doubt, we are not as well off as we were before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recessions, the Bush deficits."

With Republicans attacking from all sides, the campaign dispatched spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter early Monday with a new message. Americans are "absolutely" better off, she told NBC, highlighting the problems Obama inherited in January 2009.

"In the six months before the president was elected," Cutter said, "we lost 3.5 million jobs, wages had been going down for a decade," and the auto industry was "on the brink of failure."

Republicans vowed not to let Obama off the hook.

"People are not better off than they were four years ago," Ryan told a crowd in Greenville, N.C., 220 miles east of the convention site. "After another four years of this, who knows what it'll look like?"

What frustrates Democrats is that, in many ways, the nation's economy was in distress four years ago. The collapse of Lehman Brothers and other financial giants sent markets into swoons and created a sense of political and economic crisis.

On Sept. 29, 2008, when the U.S. House voted down Bush's proposed $700 billion financial bailout, the Dow Jones industrial average plunged 778 points, its largest one-day point drop ever. Congress later reversed course on that measure, but the near-meltdown was doing deep and continuing damage to Americans' savings, retirement funds and confidence.

One problem for Obama is that unemployment — the economic statistic that affects the average American most profoundly — is a "lagging indicator," taking several months to reflect a crisis' full impact.

U.S. unemployment stood at 6.1 percent four years ago, 6.8 percent when Obama was elected, 7.8 percent when he took office and 10 percent nine months later.

It never dropped below 9.4 percent in 2010, when Republicans won sweeping victories in midterm elections.

Economists say even more jobs would have vanished if Obama had not pushed the automobile bailout, a separate economic stimulus plan, a banking industry bailout and other measures.

Campaign strategists in both parties, however, say few voters will credit a president for what did NOT happen. Equally troubling for Obama, people's anxieties can determine their votes just as readily as economic figures, if not more so.

"Most people know President Obama inherited a mess from Bush, but at this stage of the game they're looking for answers, not excuses," said Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway.

He contended that more people would be jobless without the administration's actions, but he added, "You don't want to overstate the successes and come across as tone deaf."

Vice President Joe Biden tried to shore up the Democrats' position Monday, linking one of his favorite phrases to the suddenly urgent debate.

"You want to know whether we're better off?" he asked a crowd in Detroit. "I got a little bumper sticker for you: 'Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.'"

National Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus accused the Democrats of "desperate damage control." He said they cannot win an argument over "the facts."

But the rest of his comments to reporters in Charlotte focused on voters' perceptions and emotions.

"I can guarantee you that families back home, especially in places like my hometown of Kenosha, Wis., don't feel like things are better today after four years of Barack Obama," Priebus said.

That's the challenge facing Democrats when they kick off their three-day convention here Tuesday.

Obama can point to economists' analyses that he kept conditions from getting worse. But Americans vote on political convictions, gut feelings, kitchen-table concerns and hopes and fears for their children's future.

If Romney can convince a majority that things just don't feel right with Obama, he may get his chance to tackle the U.S. economy starting in January.

September 5, 2012

Republicans on Tuesday were quick to jump on the Democrats’ 2012 platform for dropping calls for the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and for putting more emphasis on climate change than the economy.

Backing for *** marriage, abortion rights, and the closure of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay were also seen as easy targets for the GOP, which believes the platform could rebound on President Barack Obama at the ballot box.

George W. Bush’s White House press secretary Ari Fleischer made it clear he could not understand the Democrats’ decision to abandon the commitment to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. “Given O’s troubles w Israel and Jewish vote, why on earth did Ds drop Jerusalem as capital from their platform?” he tweeted.

The Republican Jewish Coalition went further, calling the platform “the most radically unsupportive statement of policy on Israel by a major U.S, party since [its] founding,” in a tweet.

In 2008, the Democratic platform included the words “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel,” saying “It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths,” but the city does not even rate a mention this time around. The platform merely says that the Democrats have “an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security” and will do everything it can to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Conservative commentator Jennifer Rubin, writing in her Washington Post column said there is even more missing this year. “In 2008, Obama committed 'to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.' That language is gone in the 2012 platform,” she wrote.

The Republican National Committee pointed out the differences between the tone of the Democratic platform and its own. “'Obama' is mentioned once in the Republican platform, ‘but ‘Romney’ is mentioned 22 times in the Democrat platform,” it tweeted.

The RNC also drew attention to the fact that the platform makes no mention of health care premiums, nor does it make reference to balancing the budget.

“Democrat Party Platform mentions ‘climate change’ 18 times. Deficit (only) 9 times” the RNC also tweeted.

The Democrats start their national convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Tuesday and are expected to vote to adopt the platform on the first day. As expected it calls for higher taxes for the wealthy as well as backing Obama’s call for the legalization of same-sex marriage and support for abortion rights.

“Today our economy is growing again, al-Qaida is weaker than at any point since 9/11, and our manufacturing section is growing for the first time in more than a decade,” it states.

“But there is more we need to do, and so we come together again to continue what we started.”

It also makes clear the difference between the path Obama and the Democrats would take the country and the one that Mitt Romney and Republicans would choose.

“This election is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two fundamentally different paths for our country and our families,” it states.

The Democratic platform also includes:

Equal treatment for same-sex couples. “We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference;”
Comprehensive immigration reform, bringing “undocumented immigrants out of the shadows,” and requiring illegal immigrants “to get right with the law, learn English and pay taxes;”
Extending middle-class tax cuts “while asking the wealthiest and corporations to pay their fair share;”
“Unequivocal” support for keeping the Roe vs. Wade ruling on abortion rights. “Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way;”
Improving and extending Obamacare. “No law is perfect and Democrats stand willing to work with anyone to improve the law where necessary, but we are committed to moving forward;”
Repeating the 2008 pledge to close the prison camp at Guantanamo. “We are substantially reducing the population at Guantanamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.” However the platform omits the 2008 pledge to give terrorist suspects the right to challenge their detention;
Working to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, even going as far as proposing a constitutional amendment. It calls for “immediate action to curb the influence of lobbyists and special interests on our political institutions;”
Claiming Obamacare will strengthen Medicare. “Democrats adamantly oppose any efforts to privatize or voucherize Medicare;”
Committing the party to defense cutbacks as part of the agreement made last year after debt reduction talks broke down;
Backing further reductions in nuclear weapons in talks with Russia.

September 5, 2012