2012 Election

[Ryan Ruck]

SEALs Slam Obama For Using Them As 'Ammunition' In Bid To Take Credit For Bin Laden Killing During Election Campaign

April 30, 2012

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.

Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.

‘I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it.’

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

Mr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.

She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It's one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room... all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’

Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.

Mr Kyle added: ‘He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.’

A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.

‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’

Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.

‘Obama inherited a very robust package with regards to special ops and the intelligence community. But Obama deserves credit because he got bin Laden – you can’t take that away from him.

‘My friends that work in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) that have been on video teleconferences with Obama on these kill or capture situations say that Obama has no issue whatsoever with making decisions and typically it's kill. He’s hitting the kill button every time. I have a lot of respect for him for that.’

But he said that many SEALs were dismayed about the amount of publicity the Obama administration had generated about SEAL Team Six, the very existence of which is highly classified.

‘The majority of the SEALs I know are really proud of the operation but it does become “OK, enough is enough – we’re ready to get back to work and step out of the limelight.” They don’t want to be continuously paraded around a global audience like a show dog.

‘Obama has a very good relationship with the Special Operations community at large, especially the SEALs, and it’s nice to see. We had the same relationship with George W. Bush when he was president.’

It was ‘stretching a little much’ for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ‘I personally I don't think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional.

‘He may not have charisma but he clearly has leadership skills. I don’t think he'd have any problem taking that decision.’

Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ‘We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.

‘It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.

‘Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.’

[vector7]

May 29, 2012 1:40pm 818 Comments
Attorney General Eric Holder to brief black pastors on Obama 2012 Campaign

byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer

Share on email Share on print

Follow on Twitter:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Attorney General Eric Holder, the IRS, and the liberal lawyers at the ACLU will brief several hundred pastors in the African American community on how to participate in the presidential election -- which the Congressional Black Caucus chair expects will help President Obama's campaign.

"We will have representatives from nine denominations who actually pastor somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 million people, and we're going to first of all equip them with the information they need to know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would violate their 501c3 status with the IRS," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told MSNBC today.

"In fact, we're going to have the IRS administrator there, we're going to have the Attorney General Eric Holder there, we're going to have the lawyers' organization from around the country, the ACLU -- all giving ministers guidance about what they can and cannot do," he noted.

Cleaver said they would not tell pastors which candidate to support.

They will let them know who to regard as the bad guys, though (hint: not Democrats). "We're going to talk about some of the draconian laws that have cropped up around the country as a result of the 17 percent increase in African American votes," Cleaver said, describing voter ID laws as a form of Jim Crow-style "poll tax" on seniors and black voters.

The CBC chairman is confident that "President Obama is going to get 95 percent of the [African American] vote," and wants to keep that turnout high. "We want to let them know that there is a theological responsibility to participate in the political process, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition," he said.

Eric Holder and IRS Administrators Due to Advise Hundreds of African-American Pastors on How to Best Participate in 2012 Election

• Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:03pm by Erica Ritz
• Print »
• Email »
• Comments (46)

(Photo: Wiley Price via baptist.org)

Representative Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri revealed on MSNBC Tuesday that lawyers from the ACLU, IRS administrators, and even Attorney General Eric Holder will soon be speaking with hundreds of pastors in the African-American community on how they can best comport themselves throughout the 2012 election.

(Related: Obama Does Damage Control Among Christian Pastors Following Gay Marriage Endorsement)

“We will have representatives from nine denominations who actually pastor somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 million people,” he said, “and we’re going to first of all equip them with the information they need to know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would violate their 501c3 status with the IRS.”
[Emphasis added]

While they won’t specifically tell people whom to vote for, the respected speakers will discuss “draconian” (hint) voter identification laws, and the Congressional Black Caucus expects the move will only help the Obama’s campaign.

Watch the clip, below:

Attorney General Eric Holder has been under fire almost since the first day of his term, for holding biases in such a high office. He largely ignored voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers because it “demeans [his] people,” despite the crime that was committed. And while apparently the taxpayer-funded IRS and Justice Department are fine subtly contributing to Obama’s re-election campaign, they have been known to disproportionately audit Tea Parties and other conservative gatherings.

Reports have noted that Obama alienated members of the African American community after endorsing gay marriage and overseeing an increase of the African American unemployment rate to roughly 14% (nearly 35% for teenagers). Perhaps this is damage control?

“We want to let [the pastors] know that there is a theological responsibility to participate in the political process,” Cleaver summarized.

[Ryan Ruck]

Word is Mr. Vanilla, Rob Portman from my state is likely to be Romney's VP pick. Just heard on Mark Levin's show.

[American Patriot]

WHAT!? He didn't pick me? Or Biden?

[Ryan Ruck]

Conservatives Score Victories In Texas GOP Primary

May 30, 2012

The Texas primaries brought little change to the state's political makeup, with incumbents overwhelmingly fending off internal challenges ahead of November's general election.

National conservative groups won a major victory by forcing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst into a runoff for the U.S. Senate with Ted Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general running for his first elected office. The anti-tax group Club for Growth and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund spent millions backing Cruz and opposing Dewhurst.

Cruz declared his second-place finish proof that he was the true conservative in the race. Cruz was a virtual unknown at the beginning of the year and has managed to earn a two-way race with Dewhurst, who has been in statewide office since 1998 and spent $15 million of his own money on his race to replace U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. The two men will now engage in what will certainly be a fierce, and expensive runoff on July 31.

Gov. Rick Perry, who had endorsed Dewhurst, doubled-down on his support for his long-time colleague, even though many of the people who supported his bid for the GOP presidential nomination backed Cruz.

"Now, more than ever, we must work to send a proven conservative leader like David Dewhurst to Washington," Perry said.

Perry has been less supportive of his Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, with whom he's had an often frosty relationship. Perry has frequently tried to assert his power over the Texas House with mixed results and political activists close to Perry targeted Straus and many of his allies with primary challenges.

The biggest changes will be in the Legislature, where conservatives were able to make some inroads. The turnover in the Texas Legislature in 2013 was already going to be quite high, with 31 out of 150 lawmakers moving on, including eight committee chairmen. But conservatives running in the primary defeated another three committee chairs who were key Straus allies and critical for him to maintain discipline over the Republican caucus.

Now the Texas GOP appears to be dividing up for next year's legislative session with a Straus camp of pragmatic veterans on one side and a group of Perry-endorsed conservative insurgents on the other. One of Perry's favorite conservative activist groups, Empower Texans, had targeted Straus and his allies for defeat and scored significant victories.

A key sticking point between Perry and some Republican lawmakers is the governor's new Texas Budget Compact. Perry has called on all Texas GOP members to sign the pledge not to increase state taxes or spending, even if the state has increased revenues. Straus has not signed Perry's compact and has said he won't make any pledges ahead of the legislative session, preferring that lawmakers keep their options open.

Many suburban Republicans returned home last year to parents angered by more than $4 billion in cuts to public education spending. Schools have laid off teachers, increased class sizes and cut extra programs to make ends meet, a move that angered many Republican voters.

Perry, though, is looking to maintain his conservative credentials as he considers running for re-election in 2014 or running for president again in 2016.

Incumbents not caught up in that power struggle, though, had little trouble winning their party's nominations, despite a federal court delaying the primaries 90 days from their original date of March 6. Only seven out of 39 incumbent lawmakers who faced challengers lost their races, while four will face runoffs.

A lawsuit challenging the Republican-controlled Legislature's new political maps left voters confused over when to vote and what districts they lived in. Despite the problems, voter turnout was consistent with past primary elections, with about 10 percent of registered voters casting ballots. About 1.4 million Republicans voted and nearly 700,000.

The only congressional incumbent to lose a race was U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, who lost to Beto O'Rourke largely over local issues.

[vector7]

Man Allegedly Beaten After Removing Democrat Political Signs Placed in His Yard Without Permission

• Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:37pm by Erica Ritz
• Comments (149)

(Photo: Vote4Cruz.com)

Police in Taos, New Mexico have spent close to a month investigating a case where a man was allegedly beaten after removing political signs placed on his property without his permission.

Across the road, a candidate for District Court Judge Ernestina Cruz was holding an event, and supporters seemingly placed signs on the man’s lawn to direct attendees where to go.

“I told them I thought it was very distasteful to put these signs in front of my property,” Roy Cunnyngham said, so he packed them in the car to return to their rightful owners.

At that point, a man allegedly crossed the street and told Cunnyngham to put the signs back where they were. When Cunnyngham refused, he says, the man “pounded [him] in the chest.”

Sgt. John Wentz’s report elaborates: “All of the sudden two more men showed up and started to hit and shove Mr. Cunnyngham.”

Cunnyngham’s wife Joni also told police that she got out of the car to help, but someone held her from behind and kept her in place while the men beat her husband. The couple’s son was also shoved aside, and prevented from helping .

“They just attacked him, all three of them,” Joni recalled.

A doctor treated Cunnyngham for cuts and bruises, injuries to his mouth and a concussion, but his main concern is that a month later, the perpetrators still have not been brought to justice.

While the candidate Cruz denies any knowledge of the beating, Cunnyngham said critically: “This lady wants to be a judge, but her supporters appear not to have an interest in justice…It seems like if people can get away with this, where’s it going to stop?”

A conservative website called Gateway Pundit coined a sarcastic new slogan for Cruz’s campaign: “Support Democrat Ernestina Cruz. Or get a concussion. Your choice.”

(H/T: Gateway Pundit)

[American Patriot]

Oh, he should have just set them on fire, that's what they have been doing to the Republican signs.....

[vector7]

Holder Declares War On State’s Rights

June 5, 2012 By Kevin "Coach" Collins




The Department of Justice thinks it can “order” Florida to stop removing illegal non-citizens from her voter registration rolls. The Sunshine State announced it will ignore the “order.” Let’s see Barack Obama and Eric Holder back it up.

The fight over States’ rights versus the strength of an all powerful central government has been set in motion; the fuse is lit.
Since Barack Obama and his Chicago thugs forced, bribed, and tricked Obamacare into “law”, real America has been on a collision course with him. This latest attack on our freedoms will likely only be settled by a courtroom showdown centering on whether the 10th Amendment to our Constitution has any meaning.

This powerful, 28-word Amendment is the enduring gift James Madison left us to balance the voracious appetite for power he recognized central governments always have. It says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It is a clear and potent weapon for justice against Obama’s fraudulent charge.
By bringing its attack on Florida, the Department of Justice (DoJ) is virtually acknowledging the Democrat Party’s reliance on voter fraud to win close elections. DoJ statements on the matter acknowledge it centers on noncitizen “voting rights.”
So far, Florida has removed 2,700 noncitizens from her voter rolls and reportedly has another 182,000 on her “must purge” list.

The Obama Administration is using a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (1965 VRA) to single out five counties in Florida for scrutiny over their voter registration procedures. DoJ wants to scare unenthusiastic minorities into voting by erecting a straw man for their hero Barack Obama to “defeat.”
Given the era in which the 1965VRA was passed, it unsurprisingly went into law without a 10th Amendment challenge, but one will be coming shortly.

The 10th Amendment makes it clear that since maintenance of accurate voter registration rolls is a state matter, the DoJ in any court action will have to argue A) it has the power to maintain these rolls; B) the manner in which Florida is conducting her purge of noncitizens voters violates these noncitizens’ rights to vote because almost all are black, hispanic, and Democrats; or the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution is unconstitutional.

Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made America sick. The 10th Amendment is powerful medicine that can quickly cure our nation. Let’s see if Holder wants to argue the Constitutionality of the 10th Amendment.

[Ryan Ruck]

Scott Walker wins the recall election by (possibly) double digits!

Including Milwaukee County!

All the Republicans up for state Senate have won with the nearest margin (last I heard) at 19%.

[American Patriot]

Wow... who KNEW?

LOL

[American Patriot]

McCain: Classified Leaks Done to Boost Obama

Jun 06, 2012
Associated Press| by Donna Cassata
Add a Comment

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's 2008 Republican rival on Tuesday accused senior administration officials of leaking classified information to news organizations to boost the Democrat's national security reputation and re-election chances.


In a speech on the Senate floor and a separate interview with reporters, Sen. John McCain of Arizona criticized the administration for the disclosure of once-secret information, arguing that the publication of such information undermines national security.


"They're intentionally leaking information to enhance President Obama's image as a tough guy for the elections," McCain told reporters. "That is unconscionable."
The White House had no immediate reaction to McCain's criticism.


McCain singled out the recent report in The New York Times, based on anonymous sources, that said Obama secretly had ordered the use of a sophisticated cyberweapon, known as Stuxnet, to attack the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities. The senator also cited published reports about the drone campaign against terrorists.


He called on the administration to appoint a special counsel to investigate.
"With the leaks that these articles were based on, our enemies now know much more than they even did the day before they came out about important aspects of the nation's unconventional offensive capability and how we use them. Such disclosures can only undermine similar ongoing or future operations and, in this sense, compromise national security," McCain said on the Senate floor. "For this reason, regardless of how politically useful these leaks may be to the president, they have to stop."


McCain suggested that a "flurry of anonymous boasting" over the operation that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden led to the identification of Dr. Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani physician who helped the United States track down bin Laden. Afridi was recently convicted of high treason and sentenced to 33 years in prison.

[American Patriot]

Walker to mend political divide with brats, beer
By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press – 12 minutes ago
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Gov. Scott Walker, fresh from becoming the nation's first governor to survive a recall election, wants to go about mending Wisconsin's political divide in an egalitarian way: over brats and beer.
Walker defeated Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett on Tuesday for the second time in year and a half, turning back a recall effort that began with the collection of more than 900,000 signatures seeking his ouster. It was only the third gubernatorial recall in U.S. history.
Now the rising Republican star is focusing his message on what lies ahead. His term runs through 2014 in a state that is still bitterly divided over his move to end collective bargaining rights for most public employees.
"It's time to put our differences aside and find ways to work together to move Wisconsin forward," Walker said in an interview minutes after his victory. "I think it's important to fix things, but it's also important to make sure we talk about it and involve people in the process."
Walker planned to invite all members of the Legislature to meet as soon as next week over burgers, brats and "maybe a little bit of good Wisconsin beer."
"The first step is just bringing people together and figuring out some way if we can thaw the ice," he said.
Democrats, including Barrett, pledged to work together too. But the wounds are deep following the rancor of the recall, which was spurred by Walker's surprise proposal to go after public employee unions.
"It is up to all of us, their side and our side, to listen. To listen to each other," Barrett said.
State Rep. Peter Barca, Democratic minority leader in the Assembly, said healing Wisconsin won't be easy.
"I hope Gov. Walker understands and stays true to his pledge to build consensus and be more inclusive going forward," Barca said.
With nearly all precincts reporting, Walker had 53 percent of the vote, compared with 46 percent for Barrett. The margin of victory was wider than many expected and slightly better than Walker's 5.8 percentage-point victory over Barrett in the 2010 race. Some 2.5 million voters cast their ballots.
Democrats and organized labor spent millions to remove Walker, but found themselves hopelessly outspent by Republicans from across the country who donated record-setting sums to the governor's campaign.
Walker's win sets the stage for what is expected to be a hard-fought presidential battle.
Both sides in the presidential contest warned against reading too much into Tuesday's results, but Walker's solid victory is a warning for President Barack Obama in a state he comfortably carried in 2008 and that Democrats have won in six straight presidential elections. Romney has reason to be optimistic, given Walker's own vigorous ground game, the framework of which he will inherit.
Still, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate showed no remorse for pursuing the recall, which was pushed by powerful union leaders and citizens with little or no political experience.
"This is a fight worth having," Tate said. "Some things are worth losing over."
Walker entered the national spotlight last year when he unveiled plans to plug a $3.6 billion budget shortfall in part by taking away the union rights of most public workers and requiring them to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits. It was one of his first moves in office, and it was explosive.
Democrats and labor leaders saw it as a political tactic designed to gut the power of his opposition. State Senate Democrats left Wisconsin for three weeks to avoid a vote on the measure, as tens of thousands of teachers, state workers and others rallied at the Capitol in protest.
But the tea-party-supported fiscal conservative remained steadfast. Walker believed his plan would help him control the state budget, and his opponents could not stop Republicans who control the state Legislature from approving his plans.
Walker went on to sign into law several other measures that fueled the recall; he repealed a law giving discrimination victims more ways to sue for damages, made deep cuts to public schools and higher education, and required voters to show photo identification at the polls.
Both sides mobilized thousands of people and millions of dollars to influence voters, whom polls showed were more divided than ever. Signs calling for Walker's removal and those supporting the 44-year-old son of a minister dotted the state's landscape all spring at a time normally devoid of political contests.
More than $66 million was spent on the race as of May 21, making it easily the most expensive in Wisconsin history. That money was spent on an all-out barrage of television ads, direct mail, automated calls and other advertising that permeated the state for months.
Also Tuesday, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and at least three Republicans in state Senate races survived recalls. Unofficial results showed the Democrat ahead in the other Senate race, the outcome of which will determine which party controls the Senate at least through the end of the year.
Walker avoided gloating in his speech and offered his adversaries a fresh start.
"Now it is time to move on and move forward in Wisconsin," Walker said in his speech. "Tomorrow is the day after the election, and tomorrow we are no longer opponents."

[American Patriot]

McCain: Classified Leaks Done to Boost Obama

Jun 06, 2012
Associated Press| by Donna Cassata
Add a Comment

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's 2008 Republican rival on Tuesday accused senior administration officials of leaking classified information to news organizations to boost the Democrat's national security reputation and re-election chances.


In a speech on the Senate floor and a separate interview with reporters, Sen. John McCain of Arizona criticized the administration for the disclosure of once-secret information, arguing that the publication of such information undermines national security.


"They're intentionally leaking information to enhance President Obama's image as a tough guy for the elections," McCain told reporters. "That is unconscionable."
The White House had no immediate reaction to McCain's criticism.


McCain singled out the recent report in The New York Times, based on anonymous sources, that said Obama secretly had ordered the use of a sophisticated cyberweapon, known as Stuxnet, to attack the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities. The senator also cited published reports about the drone campaign against terrorists.


He called on the administration to appoint a special counsel to investigate.
"With the leaks that these articles were based on, our enemies now know much more than they even did the day before they came out about important aspects of the nation's unconventional offensive capability and how we use them. Such disclosures can only undermine similar ongoing or future operations and, in this sense, compromise national security," McCain said on the Senate floor. "For this reason, regardless of how politically useful these leaks may be to the president, they have to stop."


McCain suggested that a "flurry of anonymous boasting" over the operation that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden led to the identification of Dr. Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani physician who helped the United States track down bin Laden. Afridi was recently convicted of high treason and sentenced to 33 years in prison.

White House: McCain leak claim 'irresponsible'

The Associated Press


Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - 3:02 pm

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — The White House is denying claims from Republican Sen. John McCain that it orchestrated leaks of classified information to news organizations to boost President Barack Obama's national security reputation and re-election chances.


White House press secretary Jay Carney says any claim of leaks for political gain is "grossly irresponsible."


Referring to McCain by name, Carney says the Obama administration always takes proper precautions to prevent leaks of information that could harm ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operations. He spoke to reports traveling with Obama to the West Coast on Wednesday.


A day earlier, McCain had accused the Obama administration of selectively leaking classified data on a computer virus attack on Iran and CIA drone strikes.


Obama defeated McCain to win the presidency in 2008.

[American Patriot]

Man, these guys just keep lying and lying, and still continue doing crap they shouldn't be doing and we keep letting them.

It's everyone's responsibility to be aware - but it's up to Congress to do something about the liars I think.

Jun 03, 2012 Axelrod denies attending national security meetings





By David Jackson, USA TODAY
Updated 3d 3h ago





CAPTION

By Steven Senne, AP

Senior Obama political aide David Axelrod said little today about a past fight with Attorney General Eric Holder, but flatly denied reports that he attended high-level national security meetings.

"I know there were weekly meetings dealing with terrorist threats and planning around it, but I did not attend those meetings," Axelrod said on CBS' Face the Nation.


As for a new book's report of a 2009 confrontation with Holder over the attorney general's concerns about White House political interference in legal matters, Axelrod said:

"First of all, let me say, Eric Holder is a great friend of mine. We actually went to the same high school. So we may have gone chest to chest back in the day. But we have a strong relationship. And I'm not going to get into the details of that, other than to say I respect him."

Axelrod, a former administration aide who now works with Obama's re-election campaign, also told CBS: "I obviously never tried to interfere in anything that he (Holder) did, never talked to him about a governmental matter or a Justice Department matter in all of the years I was in the White House."


The Axelrod-Holder battle is described by author Daniel Klaidman in the forthcoming Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency. It hits bookstores Tuesday.


Klaidman does not write that Axlerod attended national security meetings. He does report on administration infighting over counterterrorism and other issues.



CAPTION

By Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images

That includes a dust-up between Axelrod and Holder following a 2009 Cabinet meeting, as reported by Klaidman:

"After the session ended, Axelrod made a beeline for the attorney general. Obama's senior adviser was incensed. It had gotten back to him that Holder and his aides were spreading the word that he was trying to improperly influence the Justice Department.
Axelrod, who knew all too well that even the hint of White House meddling with Justice Department investigations could detonate a full-blown scandal, had been careful not to come close to that line. 'Don't ever, ever accuse me of trying to interfere with the operations of the Justice Department,' he warned Holder after confronting him in the hallway. 'I'm not Karl Rove,' he added, referring to George Bush's political consigliere, who had been accused of pressuring Justice to fire politically unpopular U.S. attorneys.


Holder did not appreciate being publicly dressed down by the president's most senior political adviser. Determined to stand his ground against Tammany Hall, the A.G. ripped into him in full view of other White House staffers. 'That's bull----,' he replied vehemently.


The two men stood chest to chest. It was like a school yard fight back at their shared alma mater, Stuyvesant, the elite public high school for striving kids from New York City. White House staffers caught in the crossfire averted their eyes. Jarrett, whose office was nearby, materialized as things got hot. Petite and perfectly put together as always, she pushed her way between the two men, her sense of decorum disturbed, ordering them to 'take it out of the hallway.'"

[American Patriot]

Jun 08, 2012 Rick Santorum forms new group to rally conservatives





By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY
Updated 1h 9m ago





CAPTION

By Jeff Swensen, Getty Images

Rick Santorum announced today he's formed Patriot Voices, a new political organization that will mobilize conservatives around key issues.

"It's about the issues that will connect with ordinaryAmericans that feel left out of the process," the former GOP presidential candidate said in an appearance on Fox News.


He says the immediate priority of Patriot Voices will be to defeat President Obama in November "and those who support his policies."


Santorum, who suspended his White House bid in April, vowed on Fox News that his new advocacy organization will help elect Mitt Romney as president, hold candidates accountable and be active beyond this year's elections.


"Patriot Voices is committed to promoting faith, family, freedom and opportunity," Santorum said in a news release that accompanied his announcement. "We believe that we're one nation under God and all we do must be consistent with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. We support candidates who share our convictions and hold those accountable that serve us in elected office."


Patriot Voices will focus on issues such as improving the economy and strengthening families, ensuring religious freedom and repealing "government dependency programs" such as the national health care plan -- all issues Santorum discussed on the campaign trail.


The goal is to recruit 1 million members for a grassroots- and online-oriented organization. It will work closely with the Red, White and Blue Fund, the super PAC that supported the former Pennsylvania senator during the GOP presidential primaries.


See photos of: Rick Santorum

[American Patriot]

Cracking Down on Leaks, Feinstein Finds Herself at Odds with the White House

Reuters



John Hudson 9:43 AM ET
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's reputation for toughness when it comes to cracking down on national security leaks is bringing her dangerously close to butting heads with the White House. As Reuters' Mark Hosenball and Susan Cornwell report, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman is considering joining Republican calls for an outside investigation of U.S. national security leaks, but according to a transcript from the White House's Thursday press briefing, President Obama is adamantly opposed to such an investigation.



On Thursday, Feinstein joined the House intelligence committee's Republican chairman Mike Rogers and Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger for a rare Capitol Hill press conference to lament a series of leaks regarding President Obama's classified "kill list" and CIA cyber attacks to The New York Times. Feinstein said she's still pondering the idea of a "special counsel" but finds the leaks damaging to national security. "I am deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media, most recently regarding alleged cyber efforts targeting Iran’s nuclear program," she said. The White House, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with an outside investigation of the leaks, as Thursday's press gaggle with Jay Carney revealed:

Q There have been calls from Congress for an independent counsel to investigate that. Is that something the President would agree to?
MR. CARNEY: No. As I said, the President takes this very seriously. I refer you to agencies that are tasked with investigating these kinds of matter. And, again, this is something that the President insists that his administration take all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk our counterterrorism operations.

It's not hard to imagine why the White House might not be thrilled about an investigation into whether it leaked classified information to the press in order to bolster President Obama's national security bona fides. As Reuters' Hosenball and Cornwell note, "Historically, some special counsels, such as the prosecutor who conducted a lengthy leak-related investigation that led to the conviction of a top aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney on obstruction and perjury charges, have been accused of pursuing witch-hunts." It's hard to imagine any administration welcoming a witch hunt given the potential for embarrassment.


However, it appears the White House and Obama's re-election campaign still need to get on the same page on this issue. In an interview on CNN yesterday, Wolf Blizer asked Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod about his feelings on "this notion that John McCain wants a special counsel like Ken Starr to come in and start [an] investigation." In response, Axelrod said "We would welcome anybody to look at anything." Something tells us that was a bit of an exaggeration.


Regardless, Feinstein will have to decide in the next few days how far she's willing to go to put pressure on the White House in her campaign against the leaks. Already she's said she's looking at legislation to give inspectors general more leeway to investigate leaks. Here's Axelrod's somewhat off-message CNN interview:


Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at jhudson@theatlantic.com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
John Hudson

[American Patriot]

President Obama’s Third Party Ties

Posted by Arnold Ahlert Bio ↓ on Jun 8th, 2012 Comments ↓
Tweet 5

Print This Post

A A A

National Review Online writer Stanely Kurtz has been tireless in his efforts to vet Barack Obama. His work in exposing the president’s associations with radical leftists, despite solid evidence, has been dismissed as the efforts of a “right-wing hatchet man” or ignored altogether by a willfully oblivious mainstream media.


In 2008, Kurtz was hammered as someone “pushing a new crackpot smear” by Obama campaign website, Fight the Smears, for a column revealing that Mr. Obama “had been a member of, and endorsed by the hard-left New Party.” He further noted that the New Left “functioned as the electoral arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).” In a piece published yesterday, Kurtz produced the proverbial smoking gun tying the president to the New Party.


“Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party,” Kurtz writes. “He also signed a ‘contract’ promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.”



Kurtz then produced minutes of a meeting held on January 11, 1996 by the New Party’s Chicago chapter:

“Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party ‘Candidate Contract’ and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.”

When the original story broke in 2008, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt denied the president had ever been a member of the organization. Fight the Smears echoed that contention, declaring that:

“the truth is Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”

Politico blogger Ben Smith piled on as well. “Popping up in my inbox lately, and on some conservative blogs, is the allegation that Barack Obama was once a member of the Communist/Socialist/secretive/evil New Party, which is based (reasonably) on a New Party publication describing him in passing as a member,” wrote Smith. Smith then called up New Party founder Joel Rogers, a University of Wisconsin professor, “who objected both to the characterization of the party and Obama’s relationship to it.”



Rogers debunked the idea that Barack Obama was a member, contending that the new Party “didn’t really have members.” That contention was “updated” in a subsequent email, when Rogers explained that the New Party had “no formal membership structure in the usual party sense of members, with people registering with election boards for primary and other restrictive elections…We did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly…Anyway, [Obama] certainly wasn’t either. He was just a good candidate whom we endorsed.”


Smith noted that La Bolt also denied Mr. Obama was a member of the organization. Thus, his entire “investigation” consisted of taking two Obama supporters at their word, something that was apparently sufficient evidence for a mainstream media that never pursued the issue any further.


Yet Kurtz completely debunks Rogers’ contention that the New Party had no members with the group’s own documents. First, he reveals a memo written by Rogers on January 29, 1996 in his capacity as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council. In it Rogers addresses “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.”


Kurtz further notes that internal New Party documents reveal an organization “practically obsessed with signing up new members,” both nationally and in Chicago. Kurtz then writes about another New Party memo revealing an internal dispute between two factions in the Chicago branch “in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships.”


Thus, Kurtz concludes, “the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.”



Kurtz then refutes the fallback assertion by Rogers that the New Party “was never about” socialism, a claim buttressed at the time by left-wing blogger Ann Althouse, who sarcastically contended that the organization “presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive. I realize that for right wingers that counts as ‘socialist,’ but let’s not be inflammatory.”
Kurtz opts for accuracy:

“The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.”

“The party’s official ‘statement of principles,’ which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a ‘peaceful revolution’ and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.”


At the end of his piece, Kurtz issues a challenge to the same “press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008,” wondering if it “will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.” Regardless, Kurtz promises further revelations of his own in the upcoming issue of National Review, further illuminating “the New Party’s ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president’s campaign for reelection.”


It was apparently easy for a media still enchanted with hope and change to ignore Kurtz’s 2010 political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, a bookexposing much of the president’s radical leftist past.Tellingly, it was released one month before the 2010 election, in which a large majority of Americans refuted much of Barack Obama’s hyper-partisan agenda. A mainstream media effort to ignore documented evidence–for the second time–may be impossible for one over-riding reason: Mitt Romney is not John McCain, and isn’t going to be cowed into “dignified” silence by leftist threats of racism aimed at anyone bringing up the president’s past associations.


Neither will Stanley Kurtz, who’s doing exactly what any investigative journalist ought to be doing. For that he is to be congratulated.


Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

[Ryan Ruck]

Holder Declares War On State’s Rights

With regards to this, Gov. Scott tells the FedGov to piss off!

Gov. Rick Scott Refuses Federal Demand To Stop Hunting For Potential Noncitizen Voters

June 7, 2012

Gov. Rick Scott's elections chief on Wednesday defiantly refused a federal demand to stop purging noncitizens from Florida's voter rolls, intensifying an election-year confrontation with President Barack Obama's administration as each side accuses the other of breaking federal law.

In a sharply worded letter, Scott's administration claimed the Department of Justice doesn't understand two federal voting laws at the heart of the dispute and was protecting potentially illegal voters more than legal ones.

Florida also accused another federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security, of violating the law by denying Florida access to a federal citizenship database.

"This hardly seems like an approach earnestly designed to protect the integrity of elections and to ensure that eligible voters have their votes counted," said the letter, written by Scott's hand-picked secretary of state, Ken Detzner, a fellow Republican.

Detzner also submitted a list of four questions that he wants the Justice Department to answer.

In tone and substance, the letter all but dares the Justice Department to sue Florida for allegedly violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), nicknamed "motor voter."

Last week, after the Justice Department letter came out, county election supervisors suspended the purge. Several said a list of nearly 2,700 potential noncitizen voters — overwhelmingly minorities — was unreliable and included hundreds of actual citizens who are lawful voters.

The state's latest action promises to escalate the debate over hunting down suspected illegal voters in the nation's largest battleground state. Liberal groups, which requested Justice Department involvement, condemned the Scott administration; conservatives praised it, slamming the Justice Department for its interference.

Meantime, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to rule out suing Homeland Security to gain access to its database for voter-registration checking. From voting to health care to immigration, Scott and Bondi, both Republicans, have shown few reservations in challenging the Obama administration.

The Justice Department's top voting rights lawyer, T. Christian Herren, said last week that Florida's voter-purge effort violated "motor voter" because it fell within 90 days of a federal election.

Detzner argues Herren misread the law, which only applies to purges of once-eligible citizens who become ineligible through criminal conviction, death or mental incompetence. The 90-day purge-ban, which has barely been litigated, largely applies to efforts to remove voters who have moved — not voters who were ineligible in the first place, Detzner said.

If the state followed the federal demand, Detzner wrote, then it would help unlawful voters cast ballots. And that could cancel out the ballots cast by lawful voters and would therefore violate the U.S. Constitution, Detzner said.

"If the effect of the NVRA is to force a state to allow never-eligible non-citizens the opportunity to vote," he wrote, "then the statute might violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees that the right to vote cannot be denied by a dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote."

And if that happens, Detzner said, citizen groups would sue.

As for the Voting Rights Act claim, Detzner wrote, Florida already received federal permission to remove noncitizens, which is clearly spelled out in Florida law.

What's more, the Voting Rights Act applies to only five Florida counties — Monroe, Hillsborough, Collier, Hardee and Hendry — and not the other 62, including Miami-Dade, where about 1,600 of the 2,700 potential noncitizens were initially identified by the state in a database created by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

It's unclear if the Voting Rights Act requires the state to receive federal permission to identify noncitizens by checking voter rolls with a motor-vehicle database that doesn't have up-to-date citizenship information.

Detzner's reasoning closely tracks an analysis by a former Justice Department official, Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation, who arrived at the same conclusions.

Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel, who has been critical of the state's handling of the database, said the federal government needs to explain why the Homeland Security database can't be used to verify the status of voters. "That's a real question that needs to be answered," Ertel said.

Homeland Security won't comment.

Detzner wants the Justice Department to say by Monday whether Homeland Security must give access to its citizenship database, which the state requested in October. Detzner also asked the department to say whether NVRA allows the state to remove — or even check the potential citizenship status of — noncitizen voters until Election Day. And he wants the Justice Department to say what steps "Florida may take to identify and remove noncitizens."

Detzner emphasized that no person has or will be removed from the voter rolls without the fundamentals of due process, but liberal groups assailed the state's decision. Said Mark Ferrulo of Progress Florida: "Rick Scott will stop at nothing to continue the GOP's disgraceful legacy of disenfranchising voters in Florida."

Liberals have described the purge as an attempted act of "voter suppression," in part because so many of the targeted potential noncitizens — 87 percent — are minorities. Whites and Republicans are the least likely to face removal.

"Not a single eligible voter as far, as I know, has been removed from the voter rolls," Scott said Wednesday on WNDB radio in Daytona Beach, according to a News Service of Florida transcript. "Not one. And we're working to keep it that way."

"Their vote should not be diluted by people who don't have the right to vote," Scott said.

[vector7]

Obama’s Nuclear Election Option


by John Galt
June 11, 2012 23:30 ET

There is this early optimism among the Republicans of this Republic along with the utter disdain and disgust from independents that President Barrack Obama will be departing the White House after the upcoming election. The problem with this line of thinking is that this is no ordinary administration. Obama’s regime was not designed by the typical Democratic Party operatives nor the usual liberal suspects. America was under assault back in the 1980′s the minute Ronald Reagan won the presidency and unfortunately, President Obama is simply the result of the revenge the Marxist extremists had been planning for during the last thirty plus years.

The question then becomes quite simple:

What if Mitt Romney wins the election but loses a nation?

How could such a tragedy occur? To start one simply has to review the psyche and composition of those individuals that Obama represented not as an elected official, but as a representative of the extremists of his collegiate era. The “fundamental transformation” of the United States is what this campaign was always about and to his credit and our nation’s detriment, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dream. But the question begs itself as Barrack Obama apparently grew up with the behavior that most people would associate with that of a sore loser. Thus if he were to be defeated in the November election, a various number of options are available to him as President which could sabotage at least the first two years of a Romney administration, if not the nation permanently.

Obama has a variety of what I call “nuclear options” to inflict upon his successor, all of which have drastic impacts on our nation which I have summed up in these three horrific possibilities:

1. If Iran fails to cooperate with the United States and Western powers as will be determined in all likelihood by the end of this summer, then the decision to either turn a blind eye while Israel eradicates the Iranian nuclear program threat falls to the White House. Of course, if the polls indicate a massive election defeat, it is not beyond the ethics of this administration to launch either a pre-election strike with or without Israel or worse, a post election attack on the Iranian sites. The pre-election strike option would be rightfully perceived as an attempt to bolster Obama’s sagging poll numbers in a desperate attempt to win the election. The post election attack while more logical would have dire implications for the incoming Romney administration.

If and when any attack occurs, the economic fallout would be immediate, sharp, and destructive to Western economies almost immediately. The rise in oil prices would cripple the American economy within weeks. The threat of terrorists conducting vengeance operations inside Europe and the U.S. will certainly add to the uncertainty in the economy and cause a rapid decline in retail sales; right as the Christmas shopping season begins. President Romney would walk into office with an immediate recession and potential of inheriting a near if not total police state depending on the efficiency of the terrorists and their activities domestically.

2. The early prognosticators are warning that the Taxmaggedon which is approaching at the end of 2012 could well be punted with the lame duck session of Congress passing a stop gap measure to push the decision on the Bush tax cuts and other tax issues into the spring. This might work considering the cowardly leadership on both sides of the aisle but the missing part of the formula is sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Consider the strong possibility that the Obamacare decision is against the administration and President Obama is sitting in the White House with nothing to lose in late December. Add in the factor that his keynote “historic” footprint he had counted on was now voided and the Republicans will be the focus of his wrath. A simple veto on any measure taken to address this issue dumps the problem squarely on President Romney and with a less than 2/3 majority in the Senate, legislative paralysis would ensue.

As would a major recession as American business comes to a screeching halt due to the massive tax increases imposed on investment and income.

3. The power of the pen has long been recognized by most progressive Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt, but Obama’s model was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That would seem to cheer most average citizens as FDR has been portrayed as a hero, saving America from the Great Depression and Nazi Germany. The truth is far more chilling once one peels the liberal propaganda off the veneer and that alone should alert any sane person as to the potential of an Obama signing spree in late December of this year while American citizens celebrate the holidays.

Consider the information that nationally syndicated talk show hosts like Glenn Beck have revealed with their research on the Tides Foundation, George Soros, and other extremist organizations that have helped draft the new regulatory and legislative programs initiated by the Obama administration. Despite some reports on the internet, Obama has been selective with his issuing of Executive Orders but the types of orders he has signed into law have impaired economic and constitutional freedoms in several cases. With the Republican lead House of Representatives acting like a bunch of scared school girls, unwilling to cut funding or confront the regime on these excessive abuses of power, it has only emboldened the administration to act even more boldly, yet what happens when he has nothing to lose?

It is my contention that there are a set of “nuclear option” Executive Orders being developed if not already on file to be signed into law if he loses. Thus far he has only signed 127 since coming into office (Source: National Archives). What would stop him from issuing 100 in 10 days? Nothing. And the actions taken by his cabinet and regulatory structure with tens of thousands of predetermined regulations designed by Cass Sunstein could paralyze the economy and tie the Romney regime up for months if not years reversing his actions.

Lastly, the power of the pen he could exercise with pardons for his leftist friends and convicted terrorists of the ilk like the Black Panthers and Bill Ayers type would trigger a shudder of fear throughout the sane souls of the nation as these animals are released on an unsuspecting public.

Before anyone dismisses this as the rantings of a “vast right wing conspiracy blogger” one must remember I am neither huge into conspiracies nor one who associates strongly with the Republican Party elites. I prefer to analyze things from a historical perspective and considering the track record of Barrack Obama and some of his vices such as vanity and arrogance, it is only logical that the extreme left would engage in a scorched earth policy if they lose the election. Regardless of what occurs in the months ahead regarding domestic or foreign policy and the elections in November, the biggest losers will not be a future President Romney but the American people.

[Ryan Ruck]

Romney Campaign Bus Taunts Obama Supporters

June 14, 2012



Republican nominee Mitt Romney's guerrilla tactics continued Thursday, as the campaign bus circled the venue where President Barack Obama will be speaking this afternoon.

As it passed the assembled throngs of supporters awaiting entry to the event at Cuyahoga Community College, the bus honked its horn dozens of times, before circling around to do it again. Obama supporters jeered and booed each time the bus passed the line outside of the security screening area.

The Romney campaign has routinely deployed aides to infiltrate events featuring Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who wait online like regular supporters, but once inside spin the media live.

Romney traveling press secretary continued the taunting on Twitter:

Zeke Miller @ZekeJMiller

The Romney bus is now circling the event space and honking. Obama supporters in line jeer.

Rick Gorka @Rick_Gorka
@ZekeJMiller Maybe Anna Wintour will design a scarf to muffle the sound.

An Obama campaign aide responded to the Romney effort saying "that's not our style," adding "campaigns are a reflection of the candidate."

A source sends along this report, that the Democratic National Committee will deploy truth teams to cities along the Romney bus tour this weekend:

Nicole Busch @NicoleBuschFN
As reported on Fox: sources say DNC will deploy "truth telling teams" to events in each city Romney will visit on his bus tour

Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith called the Romney tactics "juvenile":

Lis Smith @Lis_Smith
More juvenile tactics frm Romney RT @pemalevy Romney camp making sure all Obama speech attendees 2day vote 4 Obama: bit.ly/MD6o6c

LOL @ the Dems trying to take the "high ground".