'This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." That's what President Obama was overheard telling then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in March on an open microphone when he thought he was speaking privately. The exchange is worth recalling with the weekend story that the White House has agreed "in principle" to a bilateral meeting with Iran on its nuclear weapons program—after the election.
A White House spokesman immediately denied the New York Times report "that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections." But he added that "we continue to work" with other nations "on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally."
We'll go with the New York Times on this one. Someone senior clearly was bragging about the one-on-one deal, and probably because the source or sources thought it would help Mr. Obama. The timing also is suspicious coming before Monday's foreign-policy debate, and while the White House is on defense about its security failures in Benghazi. The Times's dispatch treated the news as a diplomatic breakthrough that could make Mr. Obama look like a peacemaker and put Mitt Romney on the spot. The safe bet is that something is going on that the President hopes to unveil formally after the election.
As with so much else about Mr. Obama's second-term agenda, the question is why he won't elaborate before November 6. On taxes and spending, Mr. Obama doesn't want to say because he knows more of the same economic policies aren't popular...
Seven out of the 10 presidential toss-up states have lost jobs since President Obama took office, and the unemployment rate is higher today in six of those states than in January 2009, according to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.RTWT.
What's more, six of those states listed as toss-ups by Real Clear Politics have seen their labor force shrink since January 2009, which masks the true size of their unemployment problem.
The state data underscore the fact that, despite the recent drop in the national unemployment rate to 7.8%, the nation's jobs picture remains bleak, particularly in states that Obama and Mitt Romney are fighting over.
The BLS report notes that in September, 41 states saw unemployment drop compared with August, and 35 states gained payroll jobs.
But the data also show that, since Obama took office, fully 32 states have seen a net decline in the number of jobs, and the unemployment rate is still higher in 27 states than it was in January 2009.
In addition, 24 states saw their labor force shrink since Obama took office. That can make the unemployment rate appear lower in those states, since people who've left the labor force don't count as unemployed.
And several swing states have seen significant declines in their labor force under Obama, which means their employment picture is far worse than advertised.
Ohio's True Picture
Ohio's official unemployment rate for example, is 7%, down from 8.6% when Obama took office. But that decline was entirely due to 193,362 people dropping out of the labor force under Obama — either they quit looking or moved to another state.
Had that drop not occurred, Ohio's unemployment rate would be a staggering 10%. Michigan has suffered the same fate. Its official unemployment rate is down to 9.3% from 11.3% when Obama took office. But the state's jobless rate would be 13.8% if the state's labor force hadn't shrunk by almost a quarter million since January 2009.
A late surge in support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has put him in a dead heat with President Barack Obama with just over two weeks to go before the election, according to a new nationwide Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday.More at NBC News and Memeorandum.
Among likely voters, the candidates are now tied, 47% to 47%, in a race that appears on track to be one of the closest in U.S. history.
Mr. Romney has pulled abreast of the president for the first time all year in the Journal poll, erasing a three-point lead among likely voters that Mr. Obama had in late September and a five-point lead earlier that month. Mr. Romney's surge followed his strong debate performance in Denver early this month and a contentious second debate with Mr. Obama last week.
With the contest deadlocked and just 5% of voters undecided, the campaigns will now turn heavily to state-by-state efforts to rouse their base and get out the vote.
The poll found Mr. Romney with a wide lead among men, 53% to 43%, while Mr. Obama continues to maintain an advantage among women, 51% to 43%. Mr. Romney's edge among men has grown over the past month, while Mr. Obama's lead among women has slightly diminished.
The poll of 816 likely voters was taken Oct. 17-20, after last week's presidential debate in New York. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.43 percentage points for likely voters.
President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney both took a break from the campaign trail this weekend to prepare for tomorrow's third and final presidential debate, their last chance to directly confront each other before millions of TV viewers with polls showing the race deadlocked.More at the link.
The 90-minute debate in Boca Raton, Florida, focusing on foreign policy comes just 15 days before the November 6 election.
Its moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has listed five subject areas, with more time devoted to the Middle East and terrorism than any other topic.
While the economy has been the dominant theme of the election, foreign policy has attracted renewed media attention in the aftermath of last month's attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Mr Obama had ranked well with the public on his handling of international issues and in fighting terrorism, especially following the death of Osama bin Laden.
But the administration's response to the Libya attack and questions over levels of security at the consulate have given Mr Romney and his Republican allies an issue with which to raise doubts about Mr Obama's foreign policy leadership.
Mr Romney's team has focused on Libya, following reports that Obama's administration could have known early on that militants, not protesters angry over a film produced in the US that ridiculed Islam, launched the attack that killed the US ambassador there.
If the Obama White House has engaged in a coverup in the Benghazi case, the ostensible motivation would bear some similarity to that of all the president's men in Watergate. Mr. Obama faces a rendezvous with the voters on Nov. 6, and in a race much tighter than the Nixon-McGovern contest of 1972. In such a circumstance, certain kinds of disclosure are always unwelcome.RTWT.
As with the Watergate conspirators, who were eager to conceal earlier actions that related to the Vietnam War, the Obama team is determined to portray its pre-9/11 conduct, and particularly its dovish Mideast policies, in the most favorable light. After all, no one wants to have on his hands—even if resulting from sins of omission and not commission—the deaths of four American patriots. Or as Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart on Comedy Central this week, the deaths were "not optimal."
Ms. Lamb, in her congressional testimony, said that from her command center in Washington she was able to track the lethal events of Benghazi in something akin to real time. She was in constant communication with the agent on the consulate grounds who first notified Washington that an assault—"attack, attack," the agent said—was under way. Ms. Lamb also said that the State Department was receiving a steady stream of data on the afternoon of Sept. 11 indicating that terrorism was afoot. Such admissions are what have given rise to charges of a coverup.
"Everyone had the same intelligence," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Fox News last week. But that also appears untrue. How information immediately made known to an assistant secretary of state could somehow be withheld for eight days from the secretary of state herself—and from our U.N. ambassador, from the director of national intelligence, from the analytic corps at the Central Intelligence Agency, from the president's chief spokesman, and from the president himself—now forms the central question in the Benghazi affair.
In Tuesday night's debate with Mitt Romney, President Obama claimed to have "told" the American people that Benghazi was a terror attack the very next day, Sept. 12, when speaking from the Rose Garden. The assertion was untrue, despite moderator Candy Crowley's ruling to the contrary. The president had only spoken generally of terror attacks, and Benghazi would have been understood to fall under that umbrella only if it had been acknowledged as a terror attack.
On Sept. 12, that was not the administration's line. Not until his afternoon appearance on "The View" on Sept. 25—the "two weeks" of delay that Mr. Romney alluded to in the debate—did the president offer Americans an explanation of Benghazi that made no reference to a protest over a video. The YouTube connection had figured prominently in his Benghazi pronouncements as late as Mr. Obama's Sept. 20 appearance on Univision, and even in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on the morning of Sept. 25.
"The business of intelligence has become politicized," says an intelligence source with knowledge of the Benghazi episode, "regardless of which party is in charge." This is an enduring legacy of Vietnam and Watergate. Now, as then, American voters horrified by loss of life in a time of war will cast ballots without having all the facts that might inform their choice.
Yes, calling someone names and questioning their mental status is a logical way to critique the statistical, rational thought of a purely mathematical ideology. Since it works so well, I'll try it. DOnald, you are a tool. How do you like that douche bag?There's more like that at the post. Those progs sure don't like it when you mock their heroes.
11:04 - Breathe by Pink FloydAnd see, "Lou Gramm Foreigner legendary vocalist embraces a second chance at life":
11:07 - All You Need Is Love by Beatles
11:10 - Feels Like The First Time by Foreigner
11:14 - Don't Bring Me Down by E.l.o.
11:18 - Breakdown by Tom Petty
11:21 - De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da by Police
11:32 - Stealin' by Uriah Heep
11:37 - What's Your Name by Lynyrd Skynyrd
11:40 - Pride (in The Name Of Love) by U2
11:44 - You're All I've Got Tonight by Cars
Lou Gramm will forever be recognized as the golden voice of Foreigner. Not for the current imitation band led by its only original member Mick Jones, but recognized for fronting Foreigner, one of the most popular and successful rock ‘n’ roll bands in history.Interesting.
Unfortunately, the music industry decided long ago that it was acceptable to market an existing trademark without its key players involved as long as someone in the band controlled the rights to the name. Believe it or not people still show up to watch a mock group playing all the bands greatest hits, and it’s really no different than watching a bar band playing a bunch of cover tunes. Co-founder and guitarist Mick Jones fell ill in 2011 missing several gigs while on tour. Jones assigned a replacement guitarist while he recuperated leaving the touring band without a single original member. The band of musicians calling themselves Foreigner is actually making more money per concert than the real band. If the key players are no longer in the band … change the name, then the rest of us won’t feel like we are being musically violated.
A perfect example of a band “doing the right thing” is Jefferson Starship.
With that said, Foreigner the band’s debut album in 1977 sold more than four million copies, and since its inception the group remains a mainstay on classic rock radio stations around the world...
NOW SHOWING: The Haunting of Ryan Clayton - In the parking lot, no one can hear you scream RATED R #RyanClaytonGoesToTheMovies
— D.W.Robinson (@_DWRobinson) October 20, 2012
The dhimmis at France 24 actually reported that one of their female reporters was "savagely attacked."Also at Instapundit, "EGYPTIAN MOB VIOLENCE":
Where are the methodist women, and the liberal rabbis, and the interfaith coalitions lambasting France 24 and the female journalist for her lack of tolerance?
Yet another Western woman—Sonia Dridi, a journalist for France 24 TV—was seized and assaulted by a mob in Cairo. Fortunately she wasn’t harmed as badly as Lara Logan was last year. She credits someone named Ashraf Khalil, whom I presume is her fixer, for getting her out of there.Well, it's springtime in Egypt!
As she posed for the cameras it was clear the 26-year-old had gone without a bra, with the see-through top showing off the results of her E-cup breast enlargement.FLASHBACK: "Heidi Montag's Plastic Surgery," and "Heidi Montag Bikini Pics!"
UPDATE: Reader Ed Holston emails: “Sure looks like the CIA documents that supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks were revised from and at odds with the CIA’s own sources who were reporting from on the ground in Libya to Langley.” He sends this: CIA report at time of Benghazi attack placed blame on militants, sources say: CIA station chief in Libya reported within 24 hours that there was evidence US consulate attack was not carried "CIA report at time of Benghazi attack placed blame on militants, sources say":Right.
CIA station chief in Libya reported within 24 hours that there was evidence US consulate attack was not carried out by a mob.That's an AP report that also appeared at yesterday's USA Today, "Day after Libya attack, CIA found militant links."
The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi that there was evidence it had been carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, US officials have said.
It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was carried out by a mob similar to those that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the US.
Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned state department officials for hours about what Republican lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militancy in North Africa.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the IDF on Saturday for its takeover of a Gaza-bound ship carrying pro-Palestinian activists. He said the Estelle ship’s passengers aimed only to provoke, and to slander Israel.Video c/o Blazing Cat Fur, "Confirmed: Gaza Boat Seized By Israel."
The IDF found no humanitarian equipment onboard, despite activists’ claims that they were delivering needed materials to the Strip.
In a televised statement, the prime minister hailed the military’s “efforts in safeguarding the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip in accordance with international law.”
Netanyahu said that the people on the ship, among them three Israelis along with activists from the US, Sweden and Norway, “know that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and their only goal is to create a provocation and to slander Israel’s name.”
Re "Prop. 32's real purpose," Column, Oct. 18Get that? A "dedicated Democrat" and his union-member wife don't like big labor stealing their hard-earned dollars. Because that's what it is. If you have no choice about the matter, the unions are taking your money against your will. See also the recent editorial at the Orange County Register, "Editorial: Yes on Prop. 32 (unions)":
George Skelton calls Proposition 32, which would prohibit unions from making payroll deductions to raise money for political spending, a "self-serving sham." So should we continue to allow teachers unions to force their members to donate to their leaders' favorite political causes?
Why must my wife, a first-grade teacher, contribute to political causes she doesn't like? How would Skelton feel if The Times effectively forced him to support Mitt Romney via a paycheck deduction?
If unions want their members to give to certain causes, let them persuade the workers to do it. Forcing people to give to political causes they don't believe in runs contrary to the basic rules of a democracy.
I believe Proposition 32 would reduce the power of special interests and let candidates work for all Californians and not just for their donors. And I'm a dedicated Democrat.
Vince Scully
Long Beach
Anyone familiar with California politics knows that the most powerful forces, by far, in the state Capitol are the public-employee unions. Their clout was demonstrated this year when the California Teachers Association, the most powerful of them all, killed Senate Bill 1530, which would have made it easier to fire bad teachers for actions "that involve certain sex offenses, controlled-substance offenses or child abuse offenses."That is so nausea-induceing it's literally perverse. But that's what you get when you have the hard-left, socialist-backed teachers' unions as the most powerful political force in California. These thugs are literally bringing the state down low, morally, politically, and economically. This is how nations self-destruct. You get the image of the end of the republic right here in the once-great "Golden State."
SB1530 was not concocted by a conservative Republican, but by state Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles, a liberal Democrat. The bill advanced after several cases of teacher abuse against children came to light, especially a disgusting scenario allegedly involving Los Angeles Unified School District teacher Mark Berndt. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the state Senate, 33-4. Then the CTA killed it in the Assembly Education Committee.
The episode illustrates what has happened since California public-employee unions were given collective bargaining rights in the 1970s by Gov. Jerry Brown. This occurred even though such stalwart liberal private-sector union partisans as President Franklin Roosevelt had warned that public-sector unionization would lead to too much union power and the loss of public trust in the government.
VIENNA – Naked men of all sizes and shapes are appearing on Vienna kiosks as a prestigious museum kicks off an exhibit of male nudity."No complaints."
But outside the exhibition, organizers are being forced into cover-up mode after a storm of complaints that the ad posters are offensive.
In a show titled "Nude Men from 1800 to Today," the Leopold Museum opened its doors Friday to examine how artists have dealt with the theme of male nudity over the centuries.
"Mr. Big" — a four-meter (more than 12-foot) high full-frontal photo mounted on plywood and depicting a naked young man in an indolent sprawl — is set up near the show's entrance, lest there be any doubt what visitors are about to see.
Inside, around 300 art works are on display — including the controversial photograph that is raising the ire of Viennese. Created by French artists Pierre & Gilles, "Vive La France" shows three young, athletic men of different races wearing nothing but blue, white and red socks and soccer shoes. No visitors were complaining Friday as they filed past that photo and even more graphic examples of male nudity, including some depicted in sex acts.
