Rush Limbaugh: Barack Obama 'Hates This Country'

Here's the audio, via Legal Insurrection:

And here's the transcript: "Barack Obama Hates This Country."

BONUS: At Twitchy, "David Axelrod wants Mitt Romney to denounce Rush Limbaugh."

Mitt Romney Hits Back Against Obama's Shameless Dishonest Attacks

It's a pretty good interview. I especially like Romney's discussion of the demands to release more tax returns. John McCain released just two years of returns in 2008, and Teresa Heinz Kerry --- one of the wealthiest women in America, worth over $1 billion by some estimates --- released absolutely none in 2004:

RELATED: At Huffington Post, "Mitt Romney Ad Taken Down Over Copyright Claim." Apparently YouTube yanked a Romney ad mocking Obama for singing Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." I smell double standards. See more at U.S. News, "BMG Shuts Down Romney Campaign's Singing Obama Ad."

It's going to be like that all year, with the exception of a few media outlets.

Meanwhile, Team Romney is out with a polling memorandum, "After weeks of negativity from the Obama campaign, the ballot is within the margin of error" (via Memeorandum):

President Obama’s campaign will never have a more substantial advertising advantage than it has had over the past few weeks, yet there is no evidence to suggest that the ballot has moved. If throwing the kitchen sink at Gov. Romney while leveraging a two-to-one ad-spending advantage doesn’t move numbers for the President, that’s got to tell you something about the state of the electorate: Voters are frustrated with President Obama’s failure to keep his promises from the 2008 campaign and don’t truly believe the next four years will be any different from the last three and a half. The Obama campaign’s misleading advertising can’t make up for the failed policies of this Administration.

Okay, that's good, so far as it goes. The bigger problem is that, again, Romney is slow to overturn the left's false narratives, and it shows in the polling data. I'm going to agree with Markos "Screw 'em" Moulitsas (who reviews the battleground polls). With Obama's lame job approval, it's surprising that O's campaign is doing as well as it is (or, Romney really should be doing better, considering the Democrat clusterf-k economy).

Daniel Halper has more at Weekly Standard, "Good News, Bad News" (at Memeorandum).

Female Genital Mutilation in Great Britain

See Bare Naked Islam, "GETTING GENITALLY MUTILATED….what thousands of Muslim girls living in the UK do on their summer vacation."

And from the Independent UK last month, "Female Genital Mutilation might be illegal, but it still takes place in the UK":

Two weeks ago, two men were arrested after undercover investigators from the Sunday Times filmed medical professionals in the UK offering to perform female genital mutilation (FGM) on girls as young as ten. They have denied any wrongdoing, but it is estimated that 100,000 women living in the UK have survived FGM, with a further 22,000 girls under 16 at risk. I spoke to Nimco Ali from the Bristol-based organisation Daughters of Eve about her work to eradicate this harmful practice and support survivors of FGM.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is defined by the World Health Organisation as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons”. It is mostly done on girls under the age of 16, by a traditional circumciser who will practice without anaesthetic or proper medical equipment – often leading to horrific complications both at the time and in later life.

Continue reading.

Also, at Daily Mail in April, "'Cheat genital mutilation ban by going abroad': British Muslim leader caught on camera advocating female circumcision," and from Guardian UK in 2010, "British girls undergo horror of genital mutilation despite tough laws."

Facts Don't Support Obama's Charges Against Romney

Well, Democrats certainly aren't ones to let facts get in the way of an epic smear.

But see David Gergen, in any case, at CNN (via Memeorandum):

Has Romney basically lied about when he actually departed Bain?

Has he tried to mislead the public or investors? Here we come to the heart of the recent controversy. I may be wrong but based on what we know so far, I would conclude that we do not have persuasive evidence to show that he has.

Romney has argued for years that after he was called in to rescue the Salt Lake City Olympics in February 1999, he turned his full attentions there and no longer exercised active management at Bain. The story is a complicated one because Bain was a complex partnership and because the company filed various SEC papers after February 1999 still listing Romney in various key roles, including CEO and chairman. But if one takes time to look behind the SEC filings, what emerges is much more supportive of Romney's statements.

When the story first broke Thursday in The Boston Globe suggesting that Romney and Bain had fudged, CNN asked if I would do some reporting. I reached two of the top people whom I know in the company and, on background, they told me the same story that Bain sources told CNN's John King: When the call came from the Olympics that February, Romney met with his partners and said he and wife, Ann, had concluded that they had to do this and as difficult as it would be for the partnership, he had to leave in a matter of several days.

That set off consternation within Bain because the company had exploded in size and Romney was not only CEO (or managing partner) but was also deeply tied into a variety of investments and partnerships. The partners had to turn quickly to reorganizing their teams and the way they ran their business. That was their priority.

Had they known that one day Romney would be running for president, they might have acted with equal haste on cleaning up the many filings and paperwork that bore Romney's name but at the time, they didn't think that was an urgent task. So, as the company slowly unwound its records, some papers from Bain continued to list Romney even though he had left the partnership.

A sloppy mistake? Yes. An attempt to mislead? The evidence so far doesn't show that. Also of note: At the time, it seemed that he might return from the Olympics to active management, but in any event, he did not. Secondly, I do not know of (nor is there any controversy suggesting) his involvement in other companies during that time. As the New York Times reports Monday, there was an expectation at first that Romney might return to active management of Bain so he did not sever his ownership ties right away -- an additional reason why his name was not struck from documents for a while. The Times account goes on to say there is no evidence that during this interim he was actively engaged in managing the firm.

Both partners with whom I spoke firmly and unequivocally said that after he physically left in February 1999, Romney no longer made decisions for Bain regarding investments, hiring, firing or any other management issues. Subsequent to that February, the firm in 2000 offered another round of financing and, according to Bain, the investors well understood that Romney was no longer actively managing the company.

Gergen has a lot more to say, including a call for Romney to release more tax documents and so forth. Be that as it may, I think this phase of the Obama attacks are played out. Romney's Bain record will simply become part of the larger Democrat attacks on the free market, which will play into voters' fears of economic uncertainty. It will also work to deflect attention from the administration's historically abysmal record on the economy. And as Gergen notes, Romney hasn't handled his response very well ---- even coming off unprepared. That means this period of the campaign is a turning point, and the left could actually get the upper hand. Again, not because of the facts. It's pure politics. And you've got to hit back twice as hard when progressives attack, because the only thing that will work is superior firepower.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Doubles Down on 'Felony' Charge Against Romney

From John Nolte, at Big Government, "DNC Chair Doubles Down on 'Felony' Charge Against Romney."

And see Doug Powers, at Michelle's, "Axelrod: We’re not saying Romney is a felon — just that he might be; Update: Debbie Wasserman Schultz agrees."

Plus, from faux-conservative David Frum at CNN, "Mitt Romney's painfully bad week" (via Memeorandum). Actually, it was a bad week for Romney, not on account of anything factual, or course. It's the lackadaisical response that's killing him. It's like Marc Thiessen said, "Take the Mitts Off, Mitt!"

Take the Mitts Off, Mitt!

You can say that again.

From Marc Thiessen, at the Washington Post, "Forget the apologies and take the mitts off, Mitt":

Here is the state of the presidential race in a nutshell: The Obama campaign charges that Mitt Romney might have committed a felony by misrepresenting his position at Bain Capital to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Outraged, Romney fires off this response:

“He sure as heck ought to say he’s sorry.”

Ward Cleaver, call your office.

Not surprisingly, President Obama brushed off Romney’s request and continued to hammer him over the weekend. Obama is playing by the brass-knuckle rules of Chicago politics. Rather than calling for apologies, Romney needs grab a bottle, break it on the bar and start fighting back.

Hey, sounds good to me.

Continue reading.

Western Nevada College Professor Requires Students to Masturbate in Order to Pass 'Human Sexuality' Class

And that's bad enough.

Students also have to reveal their most private sexual fantasies.

See Robert Stacy McCain, "Professor Pervo’s Subsidized Wanking Class and the Higher Education Bubble."

RELATED: At Blazing Cat Fur, "The Latest in Teacher Resource Kits: It's The Ejac-O-Matic!"

That's out of Britain, but the U.S. can't be far behind. I mean, really, it's got artificial semen to make those ejaculating condom demonstrations virtually the real thing!

Yay progressives!

And by the way, everyone's plugging the Higher Education Bubble, and ain't it the truth?!!

Lucky Dog: Toronto Muslim Cabbies Say No Ride for Rover

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Toronto: Muslim Cab Drivers Allowed to Refuse Riders With Dogs."

I'm sure Canada's animal rights lobby will be all over this.

And those Muslim cabbies won't be picking you up from a liquor store either.

Sheesh, if they're going to be like that I'll just wait for the next taxi.

Marriage is Key to Family Wealth, Well-Being, and Stability

Reihan Salam calls this an "extremely important article," so important, in fact, I'm surprised it's even running at the New York Times.

See Jason DeParle, "Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do’":

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Jessica Schairer has so much in common with her boss, Chris Faulkner, that a visitor to the day care center they run might get them confused.

They are both friendly white women from modest Midwestern backgrounds who left for college with conventional hopes of marriage, motherhood and career. They both have children in elementary school. They pass their days in similar ways: juggling toddlers, coaching teachers and swapping small secrets that mark them as friends. They even got tattoos together. Though Ms. Faulkner, as the boss, earns more money, the difference is a gap, not a chasm.

But a friendship that evokes parity by day becomes a study of inequality at night and a testament to the way family structure deepens class divides. Ms. Faulkner is married and living on two paychecks, while Ms. Schairer is raising her children by herself. That gives the Faulkner family a profound advantage in income and nurturing time, and makes their children statistically more likely to finish college, find good jobs and form stable marriages.

Ms. Faulkner goes home to a trim subdivision and weekends crowded with children’s events. Ms. Schairer’s rent consumes more than half her income, and she scrapes by on food stamps.

“I see Chris’s kids — they’re in swimming and karate and baseball and Boy Scouts, and it seems like it’s always her or her husband who’s able to make it there,” Ms. Schairer said. “That’s something I wish I could do for my kids. But number one, that stuff costs a lot of money and, two, I just don’t have the time.”

The economic storms of recent years have raised concerns about growing inequality and questions about a core national faith, that even Americans of humble backgrounds have a good chance of getting ahead. Most of the discussion has focused on labor market forces like falling blue-collar wages and lavish Wall Street pay.

But striking changes in family structure have also broadened income gaps and posed new barriers to upward mobility. College-educated Americans like the Faulkners are increasingly likely to marry one another, compounding their growing advantages in pay. Less-educated women like Ms. Schairer, who left college without finishing her degree, are growing less likely to marry at all, raising children on pinched paychecks that come in ones, not twos.

Estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality. Long a nation of economic extremes, the United States is also becoming a society of family haves and family have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes.

“It is the privileged Americans who are marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.

Right.

Privileged Americans.

I tell you what: the left's expansion of the welfare state, starting especially with the Great Society programs of the 1960s, is the root cause of what sociologists now call a "privileged" institution. Women no longer needed a stable marriage for security. They could go on welfare. And top that off with the feminist revolution that made men the source of evil in the world, and it was pretty much straight downhill from there. But you're not supposed to say that stuff. It's not politically correct and all.

Speaking of politically incorrect, it's not too late to get married when you're on your 15th kid, right? See Robert Stacy McCain, "‘Her Fiancé, Garry Brown Sr., the Man Who Fathered 10 of Her 15 Children …’" Better late than never, I guess.

Oh, and don't forget to finish up the DeParle piece. It's a keeper.

Former Laverne & Shirley Star Michael McKean Attacks Michelle Malkin as 'Dick of the Week'

Same misogyny, different day.

Twitchy reports, including an update that McKean's apologized: "Stay classy: Actor Michael McKean calls Twitchy’s Michelle Malkin ‘dick of the week’; Update: McKean apologizes."

Sincere apologies to the actual @MichelleMalkin; nothing personal, just angry re "back of check" bit. I shall no longer give the award.
— Michael McKean (@MJMcKean) July 16, 2012

As this post gets scheduled for overnight, Michelle has yet to respond on Twitter, but things should be interesting later today. And don't miss the rest of the comments at that Twitchy entry. Man, the left just goes batsh*t with the anti-Malkin hatred.

New York Times Confession: 'No Evidence Has Yet Emerged That Mr. Romney Exercised His Powers at Bain After February 1999...'

When the New York Times has to bury the lede, you know the left's meme's in the crapper. See, "When Did Romney Step Back From Bain? It's Complicated." And the key passages, buried at the end of the article:

Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left, although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period. And financial disclosures filed with the Massachusetts ethics commission show that he drew at least $100,000 in 2001 from Bain Capital Inc. — effectively his own till — as a “former executive” and from other Bain entities as a passive general partner.

An offering memorandum to investors in Bain’s seventh private equity fund that was circulated in June 2000 also suggests that Mr. Romney was no longer actively involved in managing firm investments at the time. The memorandum, first published by Fortune, provides background on the “senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital.” Eighteen managers are listed; Mr. Romney is not among them.

On another filing with Massachusetts officials, Bain Capital listed all of Bain’s directors and officers for 2001. The form lists Michael F. Goss as “president, managing director and chief financial officer,” along with seventeen other managing directors. Mr. Romney is not among them, suggesting that while he still owned Bain’s management company, he was not an officer of the company.

I think that Stephanie Cutter apology is long overdue by now. Maybe today?

Karl Rove: Obama Attacks are 'Gutter Politics of the Worst Chicago Sort'

You know, Stephanie Cutter doubled down, but I'm not going to be surprised if O's campaign backtracks with an apology.

Check The Hill, "Karl Rove: Obama Attacks are 'Gutter Politics of the Worst Chicago Sort'."

Obama Bain Attacks Continue

The Boston Globe, which helped get all of this going last week, reports: "Sparring over Bain details continues." And I missed this clip with Charles Krauthammer earlier, but it's excellent:

And here's this morning's editorial at the New York Times, "Mitt Romney’s Complaints":

On Thursday, a Boston Globe article demonstrated Mr. Romney’s continuing ties to Bain through 2002, and Mr. Obama said it raised questions for his opponent. “I think most Americans figure if you are the chairman, C.E.O. and president of a company,” he said, “you are responsible for what that company does.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign aides did go too far, perhaps, in suggesting Mr. Romney may have legal problems over this issue. But Mr. Obama’s criticism is fair. Mr. Romney has persistently refused to tell voters about his finances. Even now it is not clear how much money he has made from Bain in the 13 (or 10) years since he left the company.

Went a little too far? How about jumped the shark, as Krauthammer suggests?

Whatever Happened to Hope and Change?

At the Des Moines Register, "Romney ad in Iowa questions: ‘Whatever happened to hope and change?’"

Well, some of that hope and change has been offshored, "Busy Month for Obama Campaign with Fundraisers in Switzerland, Sweden, Paris and Communist China."

RELATED: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time." (Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.)

Stephanie Cutter, Obama Deputy Campaign Manager, Doubles Down on Discredited Bain Attacks

She's one hella piece of work. Remember, Cutter's the one who attacked Romney as a "felon."

The Hill reports, "Cutter: Romney is ‘not going to get apology’."

The Obama campaign on Sunday said it would not apologize to Mitt Romney for remarks made suggesting he may have committed a felony.

“He’s not going to get an apology,” said Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter , who made the controversial comments, during an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.

Cutter said Romney should “stop whining” about the attacks from the Obama campaign which have targeted him over his work at private equity firm Bain Capital and his offshore financial holdings.

More video here and here.

I wrote on this yesterday, "Mitt Romney 'Retired Retroactively' From Bain Capital."

But see Joel Pollak, "Obama's Media Allies in Retreat: Unable to Defend Bain Attacks, They Embrace 'Truthiness'":

The New Yorker's Alex Koppelman, for example, takes up the Romney campaign's response to Obama's false claims -- and instead of taking Obama to task, merely asks: "What Is Truth, Anyway?":

Judging by this ad, and the controversy generally, it seems like this election is likely to involve a lot of what we saw this week: two Presidential campaigns constantly swapping accusations of lying back and forth. It makes for good entertainment, but it may not ever get us any closer to the real truth.

No -- there is, in fact, a real and verifiable truth, which even Romney's harshest media critics cannot deny: that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999, and that the Obama administration itself has spent billions of taxpayer dollars outsourcing jobs (while the Obama campaign raises cash overseas as well).

In addition, outsourcing--actually offshoring--is an irreversible part of the global economy. It creates opportunities for both the host and destination countries--lowering prices, increasing profits and creating more jobs overall. The only reason this debate--which defies economic sense--is happening is that the Obama campaign is attempting to use xenophobia to recover some of the support it has lost over the past four years, swapping "divide-and-rule" for "hope and change," and attempting to paint Romney as unpatriotic.

The Obama campaign has lost (for a while, anyway) some of the credibility the mainstream media normally grants it so readily. By any measure--and certainly by the polls--Obama's attacks on Bain capital have not worked. Yet Koppelman tries to spin Obama's desperate tactics as a blow to Romney--when in fact Romney has been handed a bona fide narrative of "Obama as liar" that he can, and likely will, use through the end of the campaign.

Scranton to Pay Government Workers Minimum Wage

This is harsh. And given the over the top corruption and malfeasance at the local level (at least in California), I can't see how the public employees should have this deep a cut. Minimum wage? They say it's a temporary stopgap, but how about the cuts at the top?

At the Los Angeles Times, "Scranton ignores judge's ruling, cuts worker pay to minimum wage."

And at the Fiscal Times, "Scranton's Fiscal Mess May Lead to Bankruptcy":

More at CSM, "Cities going broke: Can Scranton's minimum wage plan work?"

International Committee of the Red Cross: Syria Now a Civil War

This is good, in the short-term.

Long-term we still have to worry about the radical Islamists coming to power in Damascus.

At the Guardian, "Bashar al-Assad could face prosecution as Red Cross rules Syria is in civil war." Also, at Toronto's Globe and Mail, "‘Civil war’ designation opens Assad to possible war crimes charges."

The Islamist Ascendancy

From Charles Krauthammer, at the Washington Post:

Post-revolutionary Libya appears to have elected a relatively moderate pro-Western government. Good news, but tentative because Libya is less a country than an oil well with a long beach and myriad tribes. Popular allegiance to a central national authority is weak. Yet even if the government of Mahmoud Jibril is able to rein in the militias and establish a functioning democracy, it will be the Arab Spring exception. Consider:

Tunisia and Morocco, the most Westernized of all Arab countries, elected Islamist governments. Moderate, to be sure, but Islamist still. Egypt, the largest and most influential, has experienced an Islamist sweep. The Muslim Brotherhood didn’t just win the presidency. It won nearly half the seats in parliament, while more openly radical Islamists won 25 percent. Combined, they command more than 70 percent of parliament — enough to control the writing of a constitution (which is why the generals hastily dissolved parliament).

As for Syria, if and when Bashar al-Assad falls, the Brotherhood will almost certainly inherit power. Jordan could well be next. And the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing (Hamas) already controls Gaza.

What does this mean? That the Arab Spring is a misnomer. This is an Islamist ascendancy, likely to dominate Arab politics for a generation.

Continue reading.

NewsBusted: 'President Obama Makes No Apologies for ObamaCare'

Via Theo Spark:

Hillary Clinton Motorcade Pelted With Tomatoes in Egypt

And shoes.

She was pelted with tomatoes and shoes.

At Agence France Presse, "‘Monica, Monica’ chants taunt Clinton in Egypt" (via Memeorandum). And London's Daily Mail, "Hillary's motorcade pelted with tomatoes and shoes as Egyptian protesters shout 'Monica, Monica'."