NBC – Zero Black support for Romney, Black Conservatives respond

Editor’s Note – When does a media outlet approach a zero rating itself? NBC sure comes close, especially when their poll shows that Romney has ZERO support from the black community. Makes one wonder how not even one black American supports Romney according to NBC, truly mystifying.

What is more believable is that not one NBC employee likes Romney, or any conservative!

Well black conservatives are speaking out! Grab a camera and a recorder NBC – these are black people too!

From the Blaze:

A whopping 0 percent of black voters support Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, if you trust the accuracy of a new NBC/WSJ poll.

While it isn’t surprising that President Obama leads Romney among black and other minority voters, the assertion that the GOP candidate has no support in the black community is hard to swallow.

NBC News breaks down the numbers from the poll:

Obama continues to lead Romney among key parts of his political base, including African Americans (94 percent to 0 percent), Latinos (by a 2-to-1 margin), voters under 35-years-old (52 percent to 41 percent) and women (51 percent to 41 percent).

Romney is ahead with whites (53 percent to 40 percent), rural voters (47 percent to 38 percent) and seniors (49 percent to 41 percent).

And the two presidential candidates are essentially even when it comes to the swing groups of suburban voters, Midwest residents and political independents.

Read the rest here.

Black Conservatives Speak Out After NBC/WSJ Poll Shows Black Support For Romney At ZERO

By “The Rat” at Mikes Right Blog

Remember the last presidential election in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? It was a nail-biter: Saddam won: 100% – 0%. As unbelievable as that seems, it’s happened again – right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Yep, according to a poll conducted for NBC/WSJ, zero percent of blacks in America support Mitt Romney. Not 5% – or even 1%. 0%. Zilch. Zip. Squat. Amazing, huh?

These people are a figment of your imagination

So, the question arises: In order for 100% of the findings of this poll to be correct, 100% of the polling data needs to be correct, right? (Even if we assume Romney is supported by less than .005 blacks and the number was rounded down.) Therefore, we shouldn’t be able to find any black supporters of Mitt, right?

Being the superb investigative conservative political blogger that I am, guess what? I found some. After the poll’s findings were released, Twitter and Facebook were abuzz with comments from – wait for it – black conservatives! A sampling:

I hesitate to bust out the “R” word – given that we’re accused of it from the Left on a daily basis, (just yesterday for me, in fact), but is it not racism to virtually ignore the existence of a group of blacks – simply because they’re conservative? Is it not racist to relegate them to zero in a nationally-conducted poll? Doesn’t it say, “You don’t exist, and even if you do, you don’t matter – you’re zero.”? This non-existent black conservative said it best:

Listen, I’m not suggesting that Mitt Romney will get anywhere near 10% of the black vote; as I’ve said before, O could declare himself a communist, paint the White House black and set George Bush on fire, and his support among blacks would “plummet” to 85%. What I am saying is this: For generations, blacks have sought an “equal voice” – an opportunity to  ”just be heard.” Apparently this only applies to liberal blacks. After all, if you’re black and conservative in liberal America – you’re zero.

Come to think of it, if you’re black and conservative in liberal America, you’re worse than zero; you’re a traitor.

Rhetoric, context, meaning – where's the truth?

Campaign Contexts: The Kitchen Table Issues

By  – American Spectator

We know the mess Obama has made of them. But what about Romney’s understanding?

We’ve heard a lot about “context” lately. It’s the first refuge of a scoundrel: what I said doesn’t mean what you think I said if you take it in context with everything else I said, whenever I said it.

But there’s a second part of the “context” issue, and it’s more important than the first. The second part is the context placing what politicians say into the issues that are in voters’ minds. How far apart is the rhetoric from what people really care about?

No longer does anyone claim the “context defense” for Joe Biden. When Mr. Biden he speaks, there is either no context at all, or there are so many unrelated concepts strung together that no one can keep track of them. Biden plays with words like a musician who changes the key he’s playing in three times in the course of one song.

Case in point: last week, Joe started with an accusation that Romney and Ryan would “unchain Wall Street” and ended the same phrase (sentence? paragraph? Who knows?) by telling an audience (about of which half were black), “…they’ll put y’all back in chains.” Only Joe would string together an accusation the first half of which is class warfare and the second half is the threat of a return of slavery. Rudy Giuliani had it about right in saying Biden evidently lacks the mental capacity to serve as vice president or president.

The context defense is the media’s favorite to explain away Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment, which is the sum total of his total faith in government and his rejection of free market capitalism. For the record, here’s the entire quote:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The full quote doesn’t change the meaning of the excerpt. Obama clearly said that government, not smart, hard-working business people, is responsible for the success of businesses large and small. This is a kitchen table issue. Small business owners, such as Mr. Chris McMurray of the “Crumb and Get It” bakery in Radford, Virginia, understand that. Mr. McMurray declined a visit by Mr. Biden and his entourage because of Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark, noting that his wife had just worked twenty-four hours straight.

Mr. McMurray understands that people expect that America’s economy is supposed to reward hard work and initiative. It’s an issue that is worrying a lot of Americans this year and not only because of Obama’s remark. Our economic system has been fundamentally changed in the past three and a half years by Obama’s spending, by the enactment of Obamacare (which gave the government control of about 16% of our economy) and by the over-regulation of our economy by Obama’s federal agencies.

Kitchen table issues such as that are the real context of the presidential race. And neither candidate has boiled his messages down to explain how they will solve these issues.

It’s not simply “the economy.” The economy is an amorphous concept that people think about only in terms that affect themselves. To boil it down the candidates have to reduce it to those terms: how to bring unemployment down, how to revive the housing market, how to make gasoline and other forms of energy cheaper and how to make Social Security and Medicare solvent.

And the kitchen table issues go beyond the economy. They are about how to preserve personal freedom that is under attack by the government everywhere from the entry gates at airports to the ability of businesses, both small and large, to function in the overburdening regulatory environment. They’re about how all Americans will be able to afford and obtain the best medical care. They’re about how sequestration may cost one million defense industry jobs and why Obama’s Justice Department is suing Ohio to block early voting for military members. And it’s about voters’ growing distrust of the gatekeeper media who are spending each day proselytizing for Obama.

Romney says the answer to unemployment is to spur economic growth by relieving the regulatory burden and reducing tax rates for business and individuals. But he hasn’t explained how that will work, or explained the many economic studies supporting his idea. Obama attacks Romney’s plan, but hasn’t presented any new ideas. He’s still insisting on more spending, more debt, and that tax hikes are the answer.

We know — from the Social Security and Medicare Trustee’s report — that Medicare Part A is bankrupt now and Part B will be bankrupt as early as next year. Social Security will be bankrupt about ten years later. Both Obama and Romney are now arguing about whether senior citizens will be hurt by Romney’s plan, which is written to prevent anyone over 55 from suffering any reduction in benefits. No one — except Paul Ryan — is talking about how to make Social Security and Medicare solvent.

Romney spent most of last week trying to differentiate his economic plans from Paul Ryan’s specifics. Going into the Republican Convention next week, he needs to be able to explain a unified, simple plan that he and Ryan can run on. He needs to say, specifically, how he will balance the budget by the end of his second term. Both men need to stay on the attack against Obama’s commitment to government solutions to every problem we have.

In an August 12 editorial the New York Times wrote of Paul Ryan’s budget, “By cutting $6 trillion from federal spending over the next 10 years, he would eliminate or slash so many programs that the federal government would be unrecognizable.” But isn’t that the point of this campaign? We’d love it if the government as it now stands were cut back to the point that the liberals didn’t recognize it.

That’s a promise to make, and to keep.

Heritage Conference – “Sequestration” hurts more than Military: Civil Defense

Editor’s Note – People dont think that sequestration will have an affect on them, just the military, but not only does it hit jobs at the government contractor level in key states, it will affect our own civil defense. Disaster response may suffer greatly. It appears little will be done about it in the coming months either:

Members of Congress are more interested in winning re-election in November than in removing before then the budget “sequestration” knife that threatens to lop 10 percent off 2,500 defense programs starting Jan. 2.

Sequestration Hits Close to Home: Defense Support to Civil Authorities in Danger

By Noelle Doundoulakis – Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation hosted its Homeland Security 2012 Conference on Wednesday. Several distinguished speakers warned that defense disaster response support to civil authorities is threatened by sequestration.

The conference contributors included the Honorable Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; Vice Admiral Harvey E. Johnson, USCG (Ret.), and Heritage’s James Carafano, Ph.D.

The importance of the Department of Defense (DOD) in disaster response was a recurring theme in their remarks. This led to an important point of agreement: The looming defense sequestration undoubtedly puts effective disaster response at risk.

Stockton stated that the DOD is working to be better positioned to support civil authorities and strengthen preparedness. He emphasized building resilience in order to be prepared for a critical infrastructure such as an electromagnetic pulse attack or cyber occurrence. It is absolutely imperative, he said, that the DOD have the ability to exercise core missions in any and all situations.

Building on these points, Vice Admiral Johnson spoke about domestic disasters that have occurred in the past years and how the Coast Guard, National Guard, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been essential in both rescue and recovery. He also expressed concern about what kind of effect sequestration may have on themodernization of the Coast Guard and other branches of the military and the military’s ability to sustain critical operations.

With an already under-resourced military, defense cuts will undeniably hamper the collaboration between the DOD and DHS and curtail these organizations’ capacity to protect America’s interests.

Carafano echoed these observations and stressed the strain that sequestration would cause homeland security and military readiness. The National Guard and Coast Guard have been critical during national disasters, but sequestration will largely hollow out these components of the nation’s security.

There is no doubt that the DOD is essential to the nation’s homeland security and will continue to be a crucial part of disaster response. However, depending on how sequestration plays out, the U.S. may lose this vital branch of homeland security.

America should ensure that it can respond to a crisis at home before victory can be claimed abroad. Drastic cuts to defense will unquestionably harm the efforts of civil authorities during a crisis and will cause irreparable damage to the strength of this country.

Noelle Doundoulakis is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm.

OPSEC Video: “Dishonorable Disclosures”

New Campaign launched by former CIA, Special Operations Members to combat leaks and politicization of National Security Info

Kicks Off Nationwide With Release Of Documentary Short Film Titled “Dishonorable Disclosures”

OPSEC Website: http://www.opsecteam.org/

Former CIA and Special Operations members are announcing the creation of OPSEC, a new nationwide public campaign to combat the spike in leaks and politicization of Intelligence and Special Operations missions that threaten their effectiveness and the safety of Americans who conduct them.  OPSEC – short for Operational Security, meaning to eliminate or reduce the exploitation of critical information — will begin with the release of “Dishonorable Disclosures,” a new documentary short film highlighting the problem from the perspective of those who have served in these critical positions. The film will also serve as the basis for a TV and online advertising effort.

“Intelligence and Special Operations members are angry and frustrated at how our work has been used for political advantage by officials across government, including President Obama himself who bears special responsibility as Commander in Chief,” said Scott Taylor, chairman of OPSEC and a former Navy SEAL.  “We want the American people to understand the cost of these leaks and politicization both on those who serve and on our national security and to hold those in positions of leadership accountable if it doesn’t stop.”

OPSEC is made up of individuals who served their country in the CIA, and Special Operations Forces (SOF) consisting of Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations.  It is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonpartisan public education campaign and is independent of any political party or campaign organization.

The campaign will begin with the release of “Dishonorable Disclosures,” a documentary short film that views the impact of the increasing number of leaks on Intelligence and Special Operations missions, tradecraft, tactics and capabilities from the perspective of those who have relied on these tools to carryout similar missions and protect themselves and those they served alongside.  The film will be shown at events in key states across the country over the next several months, including Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada.  “Dishonorable Disclosures” can be seen here.

“Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk,” said Fred Rustmann, an OPSEC member and 24-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency.  “OPSEC will carry a strong message across the country that it’s time for President Obama and other administration officials to stop jeopardizing national security operations for political gain.”

More information about OPSEC and news about the release of “Dishonorable Disclosures” can be found at http://www.opsecteam.org/.

_________________________

 

Utter hypocrisy – 'fair and balanced' abets misleading America

Editor’s Note – This election season is being called the most hate filled, divisive, and negative campaign – EVER! We still have almost 90 more days to go and the trend seems primed for even worse tactics and discourse – if you can call it that. Two things emerge above all the foam on the surface of this septic tank of rancor – “they all do it”, and “hypocrisy”.

The left accuse the right, and the right accuses the left – but on close inspection, “they all do it” fails under close scrutiny of scope, depth, and quantity, or as puts it, “Fair and Balanced” reporting. If you watch any segment on the so-called fair and balanced network, where someone from each camp emerges with their talking points – its unfair, and totally disingehuous to say they do things “equally.”

Segment after segment, the commentator treats both equally – as to say they’re arguments are equally valid – utterly straining credulity. Just once, it would be nice for someone like John Scott to say: “sir or madam, that is totally untrue, and you know it.” Then to allow the constant changing of the subject and/or bringing in some ancillary issue must stop, or they are guilty of aiding and abetting the propaganda and intentionally mis-leading the public. We dare anyone to prove that wrong – and guess which side we refer to?

Victor Davis Hanson once again nails part of the other cesspool denizen – hypocrisy:

Who gets a pass?

By Victor Davis Hanson – Town Hall

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently said of the Chick-fil-A fast-food franchise that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values.” Why? Because Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy is on record as being opposed to gay marriage — as is close to half the U.S. population, according to polls. The mayors of Boston and San Francisco also suggested that the company isn’t welcome in their cities.

Oddly, none of these public officials have lectured President Obama to keep clear of their cities. Yet until recently, Obama was likewise on record as opposing gay marriage. Why the exemption?

Nor have the mayors in question disinvited any black churches from their cities. Yet some pastors in churches with black congregations have been quite loud in their denunciations of gay marriage. Fundamentalist Islamic mosques routinely disparage homosexuals, often publicly so in their literature. Is there something about white Christian males that makes their opposition to gay marriage different from that of their black or Muslim counterparts?

Louis Farrakhan speaks in Chicago - he is welcome with his vile rhetoric yet Rahm Emmanuel does not thing Dan Cathy represents Chicago values.

Even as Emanuel warned Cathy that his company did not reflect “Chicago values,” his own city remains among the most murderous in the world. This year, Chicago youth have killed more Americans than have the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unable to stop the carnage, a desperate Emanuel welcomed in Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan to help quell the mostly black-on-black violence, even though the latter has a long record of racist and anti-Semitic tirades. Is the Chick-fil-A CEO a greater danger to Chicago than gun-toting gangs, or more illiberal than the racist Farrakhan?

Politics — not just race or religion — is also a key to the paradoxical double standard. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just slandered Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Bill Magwood, an African-American, as “one of the most unethical, prevaricating, incompetent people I’ve dealt with.” Reid, furious with Magwood because of his support for the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Reid’s state, also called Magwood a “treacherous, miserable liar,” “a first-class rat” and a “sh-t stirrer.”

In 2008, Reid condescendingly attributed presidential candidate Barack Obama’s success to the fact that he was “light-skinned” and spoke “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

More recently, the crude Reid, in McCarthyesque fashion, claimed that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had not paid income taxes for 10 years — based on a rumor that an anonymous source supposedly had passed on to him. “His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said of the late George Romney, Mitt’s father.

Reid has demonstrated that he is both vulgar and illiberal, but there are no calls for him to vacate his post. That exemption was not extended to an earlier counterpart, Sen. Trent Lott (D-Miss.). Lott, in similarly illiberal and crass fashion, said at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party in 2002 that America would have avoided “all these problems over all these years” if Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Lott was pressured by both the Republican Party and the media to step down, and he did so in shame.

There is a common theme here. Our self-appointed priests of fairness from time to time freely commit sins of intolerance. But don’t dare hold them to the same sort of accountability to which they hold other, less progressive Americans, whose similarly dumb remarks are not gaffes but rather windows into their prejudicial souls.

We must make allowances for the supposed Biblical conservatism of some black pastors in a way we cannot for the white, Christian CEO of Chick-fil-A. Farrakhan’s hatred cannot possibly earn him ostracism. We cannot extend the anger at evangelical Christians for their incorrect attitudes toward feminism and homosexuality to the Muslims who often share similar views.

Such selectivity is untenable. Classical Western liberalism was predicated on judging people as individuals — and on their merit and performance — rather than collectively as identity groups identified by gender, race and religion. Using illiberal means to advance supposedly liberal ends results not just in hypocrisy and cynicism, but in the current disaster of “Chicago values.”

Politically correct exemption is doomed, because who can sort out the conflicting agendas of various identity groups? Who certifies who’s really black, brown or white in a multiracial, intermarried America — Barack Obama or Elizabeth Warren? Who deserves how much compensation for which particular past oppression?

Can black pastors who oppose gay marriage be judged prejudicial? Is the Asian-American who opposes illegal immigration subject to the same charge of nativism leveled at so-called whites? Can Harry Reid be judged a bigot and McCarthyite if he claims he’s liberal?

A simple antidote to multiculturalism and political correctness is to evaluate all Americans on their actual behavior, regardless of their politics, race, gender or religion — in other words, a return to the ancient liberal idea that one common culture treats all sorts of different people absolutely the same.