By Candace Salima, US Daily Review, Senior Contributor

A perfect storm of scandals is what Barack Obama faces. Democrats decry the scandals, saying that Republicans are merely politicizing them because Barack Obama is, as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi gushes to the press, “such a good president.” But let’s face facts, unless you are highly delusional, what America is facing now is unprecedented in our nation’s history.

In Barack Obama’s first term he faced a lot of controversy, the biggest of which was the now defunct Fast & Furious gunrunning scam. Obama decided the program that George W. Bush shut down could be run properly under his administration. So he blithely ordered guns to be run into Mexico to the drug cartels, and in his feverish delight, Obama felt they would be able to bring the cartels to their knees. In reality, by the time Fast & Furious had run its course two members of America’s law enforcement community were dead. The Border Patrol’s Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jamie Zapata were both killed by bullets fired from Fast & Furious guns.

Though proven, according to my sources, to go all the way to the Oval Office, those responsible for Fast & Furious have never been brought to justice, and likely never will.

But now Barack Obama faces three massive scandals simultaneously:

Scandal #1: On 11 September of 2012 the U.S. Consulate (now downgraded to a “mission” by the Obama White House) in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Those inside were burned out, Captain Sean Smith (U.S. Air Force, Ret.) was killed in the first wave and U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was kidnapped, brutally tortured and murdered before his body was returned to the embassy.

The 30 plus consulate staff still alive were rescued by retired U.S. Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods and two of his C.I.A. buddies on Wood’s first run. Taking fire the entire time, they raced back to the C.I.A. Annex. By the time Tyrone Woods headed back to the consulate to look for the Ambassador, retired U.S. Navy SEAL Glen Doherty had arrived from Signella Air Force Base in Italy. Woods and Doherty arrived at the consulate to find the battered and bloody body of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Before the night was over, Doherty and Woods would meet their end at the hands of the Benghazi terrorists from the Al Qaeda affiliated Ansar al Sharia. Although Ambassador Stevens had repeatedly asked for additional security for several months leading up to the attack. Although Hillary Clinton actually spoke to Gregory Hicks and was informed it was a terrorist attack; Obama, Clinton and Panetta made an unholy alliance to lie to the American people in order to preserve Obama’s election hopes. The cover up which ensued made Watergate look like child’s play.

Scandal #2: The Internal Revenue Service, run by Barack Obama sycophants, decided they would do their part to ensure an Obama victory on November 6, 2012. After the passage of the first stimulus package, the American people rose up and let their voiced outrage be heard. Some in Congress heard, some did not. But the U.S. Congress was controlled by Democrats then, as was the White House. They rammed it through anyway and then started in on Obamacare aka the Affordable Patient Care Act. The citizens of America organized themselves, created 501c3′s and 501c4′s and filed the proper paperwork with the IRS, and began to fight back within the bounds of the law. That’s when the abuse began.

The IRS began an unprecedented string of abuses, targeting any and all organizations that used the words or phrases “9/12″, “tea party”, “patriot”, “build a stronger America”, “Constitution”, Jewish Conservatives, Hispanic Conservatives, and more. All were specifically and maliciously targeted and put through ridiculous and probing inquiries, including asking for the “prayers” of members, or if any of their members were going to run for office, etc. Many never received the legal status they’d filed for, being bankrupted before the IRS was done playing political partisan games  What is unfolding in the House of Representatives hearings right now is stunning, to say the least.

Scandal #3: The Department of Justice v. Associated Press and other reporters. Eric Holder’s DOJ, long deciding they didn’t have to obey the laws of the land, decided they were within their rights to bug the AP, reporters from other news organizations, and even the cloakroom in the House of Representatives through the bugging of reporters’ phones. In so doing, they clearly violated the 1st Amendment rights of the press. Did they have a subpoena? Yes. Did serve it? No. They decided to simply tap and record the phone lines of hundreds of reporters, violating the 1st Amendment rights of America’s free press.

The three scandals together present a perfect storm, one that could, and should, bring Barack Obama well into impeachment proceedings. But will it? Will Barack Obama escape unscathed again because Congress is unwilling to do it’s job? Well, let me rephrase, the investigations are being done by the individual committees. Twenty-two articles of impeachment sit on Speaker John Boehner’s desk, and he refuses to do anything about it. So Barack Obama may remain as our president despite the fact we have six dead Americans, the constitutional rights of the press violated, and Americans unduly, and criminally, targeted by the Internal Revenue Service.

This is only the beginning as layer after layer of this particularly rotten onion is peeled back. America, what have we wrought?

* * *

Copyright by Candace E. Salima, May 2013. You may follow Candace Salima on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ or Pinterest.

By US Daily Review.

Today, Congressman Scott Tipton (R-CO) issued this statement following reports that the U.S. Department of Justice obtained work and personal phone records of Associated Press (AP) reporters and editors.

“This has been a troubling week for all Americans who value our First Amendment and know the importance of free speech to the health of our republic. In the midst of the ongoing investigation into what happened in Benghazi and the subsequent cover-up, we have news of the I.R.S. targeting nonprofit civic organizations to silence their voices, and now there are reports that the U.S. Justice Department is spying on reporters and infringing on the freedom of the press. It is no wonder that the American people are cynical of government.

“An unsettling pattern is developing within this Administration, and I will not tolerate it. There will be a full investigation into each of these cases, and where laws have been broken or lies have been told, those responsible should face the consequences of their actions.”

This week, Tipton called for a full investigation of the I.R.S. targeting of conservative groups, and expressed concerns that this was occurring more than a year ago.

Tipton has also co-sponsored H.RES. 36 which would establish a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

By The House Oversight Committee, Special to US Daily Reviw.

Recently the House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) released the following statement after hearing the compelling new testimony of three career diplomats about what occurred before, during and after the Benghazi terror attacks of September 11, 2012.

“Today’s hearing offered officials at the State Department the opportunity to be heard. These witnesses revealed new information that undermines the Obama Administration’s assertion that there are no more questions left to answer about Benghazi. Numerous questions are still unanswered, despite months of dogged investigation by the Oversight Committee,” Issa said.

Chairman Issa

Issa continued: “Who denied the U.S. mission in Benghazi the increased security it requested months before the terror attacks? Who gave the order for special operations forces to stand down, preventing them from helping their compatriots under attack?  What was the actual military capability and preparedness to respond to the mission’s requests for help?”

“Today’s testimony also illustrated the serious concerns this Committee has with the ARB report – witnesses testified that the ARB failed to interview relevant witnesses and wrongly let senior officials off the hook. It is unacceptable that Gregory Hicks, the top U.S. Official in Libya after Ambassador Stevens death, has been kept to this day from seeing the classified report.

“Perhaps most troubling is the revelation of retaliation and intimidation tactics against life-long public servants who dared to question top officials on their inaccurate and highly public assertions about the attack. This Committee will stand behind these whistleblowers and will act swiftly if they face further retaliation or intimidation after speaking to us about what they know about Benghazi. The American people deserve the truth, and we are committed in our pursuit of the facts.”

By Tom Thurlow, Contributor, US Daily Review.

Last week President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services reversed the core part of the welfare reform law passed by President Clinton in 1996, the mandate that recipients of welfare show that they have a job or have been trying to get one.  This seems to be a pattern with President Obama, who in the months leading to his re-election contest seems to be doing the opposite moves that President Clinton did before his successful re-election in 1996.  In that sense, President Obama seems to be “the un-Clinton.”

Recall that after President Clinton spent his first two years in office raising taxes and then trying to get universal healthcare passed, the Democrats lost big in the 1994 mid-term elections.

Clinton learned his lesson.  If he were to be re-elected in 1996 he would have to tack to the middle, and fast.  Enter advisor Dick Morris and the Clinton “tri-angulation” strategy that Clinton used in the years 1995 and 1996.  Suddenly Clinton positioned himself as the moderate between the liberals and conservatives in Congress.  Universal healthcare was out, budgetary restraint was in, and President Clinton even admitted to an audience in Houston that in 1993 he had raised taxes too much.

Before long, President Clinton was on a moderate roll:  in September 1996, Clinton signed both the Defense of Marriage Act, recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman, and an immigration law that streamlined deportation proceedings for illegal immigrants.

In July 1996, despite having vetoed similar measures twice before, Clinton signed into law the landmark welfare reform bill, mandating that welfare recipients either work or have an active job search before receiving government welfare.

In all of these issues, President Obama has taken the opposite positions in the run-up to his re-election contest this November.  Universal healthcare, known as “Obamacare”, has just passed constitutional muster thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Annual deficits under President Obama have never been below $1 trillion a year, and are projected to stay at that level.  Instead of discussing tax cuts,  President Obama repeatedly proposes tax hikes,  recently on those families making $250,000 or more a year.

President Obama has gone from signaling that he will not defend Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act to favoring same-sex marriage.  Earlier last month President Obama ordered the halt of deportations of certain illegal immigrants who had been brought to the US as children, by-passing legislation that had been stalled in Congress.

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency passed some coal regulations that will increase electricity prices for everyone and are predicted to shut down up to 30% of the coal-fired power plants in the industry, impacting swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.  The one energy bright spot in America right now is the “fracking” method of getting oil and natural gas out of the ground.  Whole areas of the country, from North Dakota to Ohio to Pennsylvania to New York, have become homes to boom-towns.  This is thanks to the new drillers who employ fracking technology.  The Obama approach to fracking: regulate it, of course!

After having been warned of a conservative-moderate backlash to his policies in the 2010 mid-term elections,  President Obama seems to be ever doubling-down on the same policies that have resulted in his popularity sliding in the first place.  Whereas President Clinton at this time in his election cycle was working to attract moderate and even some conservative voters, President Obama seems determined to strengthen his liberal-progressive credentials, shunning moderate and conservative voters.

At some point, the obvious question has to arise in the mind of those paying attention: assuming the United States still is a center-right country, is  President Obama aware of the fact that he is appealing to a narrower group of voters as the election approaches?  He has to know that these policies are not popular with the general public.

Just what is President Obama up to?  Could it be that there is some sense of a “swan-song” at work here?  In other words, could it be that part of President Obama’s thinking is that he has already accepted defeat, and that he wants to leave office with as little of his liberalism compromised as possible?

Regardless, President Obama is definitely not conforming his policies to the realities of a re-election contest.  I seriously doubt it, but only time will tell if this “un-Clinton” approach will win President Obama another four years.

Tom Thurlow is an attorney who practices law in the San Francisco Bay Area and manages the blog napawhinecountry.com.  He lives inNapaCountywith his wife Martina and daughter Rachel.

By the American Small Business League.

Wednesday President Obama signed four executive orders aimed at helping small businesses. After reviewing the executive actions, American Small Business League (ASBL) President Lloyd Chapman is certain that President Obama is ignoring the number one problem facing small businesses—that large businesses are receiving tens of billions of dollars each year in federal small business contracts.

“President Obama’s latest executive orders are just smoke and mirrors,” said Chapman. “He promised to end this abuse, and the fact that he has done nothing shows that he has a complete lack of integrity.”

This comes one week after the Obama administration quietly announced that it once again missed its federal small business contracting goal, which is set at 23 percent.

Since 2003, a series of federal investigations have uncovered hundreds of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts diverted to large businesses. These include, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, Dell, Raytheon, 3M Company, Northrop Grumman, General Electric, Apple and AT&T and several others. Even more telling are the foreign corporations that have received billions of dollars in federal small business contracts, including British Aerospace Engineering (BAE), Rolls-Royce, Finmeccanica and Russian state-owned defense broker Rosoboronexport.

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to end fraud and abuse in federal small business contracting with the statement, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” After being elected, he removed that statement from his website and never mentioned it again.

President Obama has also refused to back legislation aimed at preventing large foreign and domestic firms from hijacking federal small business contracts. Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) has introduced legislation aimed at closing loopholes and ending fraud and abuse in small business contracting programs. The bill would direct billions of dollars in existing government infrastructure spending to small businesses.

“The Small Business Act defines a small business as one that is independently owned and not a foreign company,” said Chapman. “President Obama could simply issue a one line executive order that says: ‘The federal government will no longer report contracts awarded to publicly traded companies and foreign-owned companies as small business contracts.’”

By Kevin Price, Publisher and Editor in Chief, US Daily Review.

It seems almost daily that prominent members of the Democratic party are deciding not to attend the Democratic National Convention this year.  Talking Point Memo recently did an excellent slide show indicating some of the many leaders in the party that have decided not to attend (quoted extensively in this piece).  As the event gets closer, many more will likely decline the opportunity to be seen on the TV at the DNC.

Many Democrats are Avoiding Obama, Reid and Pelosi

In spite the poor performance by the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the impotence of the GOP in the Senate, Republicans are likely to win both Houses in 2012.  They should add (slightly) to their majority in the House and with 2 out of every 3 incumbents in the Senate up for reelection being Democrat, the GOP should enjoy (at least) a slight majority in the Senate.

Thanks to state Legislature victories in many states of the union, redistricting is heavily favoring Republicans in several areas once dominated by Democrats. Previously strong Democratic seats now have slight GOP majorities, and the changes happened over night.  Democrats are scared and although most of these members have largely provided quick approval for Obama’s policies, they are all distancing themselves from the controversial and polarizing president.

• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) “In years when Claire is on the ballot, she has historically not gone to the convention,” the aide said, “because she believes it’s important to stay in Missouri to talk to voters.”
• “I intend to spend this fall focused on the people of West Virginia,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.VA.), who is facing a tough re-election fight in November. Manchin has refused to say whether he will vote for President Obama, and he has publicly distanced himself from the president more than once.
• Rep. Nick Rahall, also a West Virginia lawmaker, has said on record that he will vote for President Obama in November. His decision to skip the convention, however, didn’t earn him much praise from Republicans.
  “Rahall may have realized his re-election chances are sinking but hiding from Obama’s convention won’t change Rahall’s record of supporting President Obama,” said Nat Sillin, spokesman for the NRCC.
• Rep. Mark Critz (D-PA) faces a tough re-election battle in a newly drawn, six-county congressional district where President Obama is currently trailing Mitt Romney by double digits, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
• Freshman Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY), the first Democrat to win the 26th Congressional District in 40 years, has said she’ll vote for Obama, but cited state obligations as a reason she won’t be attending the convention.
• “I’m not going,” Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) told The Salt Lake Tribune. “This is an active election year in Utah and I want to spend time there.” This isn’t the first time Matheson has skipped the convention, but the lawmaker has said he will support President Obama in November.
• Both Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) (above) and his challenger in November, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), are planning to skip their respective party conventions.
• West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin has made it clear that his decision to skip the Democratic convention was an Obama snub.
  “Gov. Tomblin has made the decision to not attend the Democratic National Convention,” his campaign spokesperson said. “As he has said, he has serious problems with both Gov. Romney and President Obama. The governor feels that his time is best spent working in West Virginia to move our state forward instead of attending a four-day political rally in North Carolina.”
• Rep. Bill Owens, another upstate New York Democrat facing re-election in the fall, is also taking a pass at the convention. Owens narrowly won re-election in 2010, and his campaign spokesman told The Daily that he has “just has a packed schedule back home.”
• Rep. John Barrow (D-GA), dealing with a newly redrawn district that leans Republican, is also taking a pass on the convention. Barrow is “planning a number of events throughout [the] district during that time,” his spokesman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
• “I would anticipate that I will have things to do in the district,” Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) told the National Journal. “There will be a lot of work to do locally. I would be more inclined to be here with my people.”
  “She may think that avoiding the convention will help distract voters from her anti-Ohio votes but her record in Congress proves that she has been a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama,” said NRCC Spokeswoman Katie Prill.
• North Carolina Rep. Mike McIntyre hasn’t stated yet whether he will attend the Democratic convention, but has refused to say if he will be supporting President Obama in November.
  “We’ve always been steadfast in our work for eastern North Carolina and I’m grateful because we’ve had Republican and Democratic friends who have supported us because they know my heart is there and it’s not about a party agenda or any other person’s agenda,” McIntyre told WETC-6, a local news station. “Our focus is on the congressional race in eastern North Carolina.”
• Moderate Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar (D) has no plans to attend the convention, telling Politico he wants to “focus on [his] reelection.”

This list is only expected to grow.  If you know of more, please let us know by mentioning them in the comments below.

By US Daily Review Staff.

“The Bubble,” a new film featuring experts that predicted the last economic crisis, argues America is facing an even worse financial bubble. Business leaders, politicians and financial commentators such as Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Marc Faber, Jim Grant and 10 others examine Washington’s economic policies and its impact on America. The film is co-written by Dr. Tom Woods and inspired by his New York Times best seller “Meltdown.”

“Americans have been fed a cartoon version of what has happened to the economy over the past several years,” said Woods. “They believe the government was merely an innocent bystander, while the real culprits, egged on by so-called deregulation, are to be found in the private sector.”

“In ‘The Bubble,’ we’re going to turn our attention to those neglected voices who actually had an inkling of what was going on, not the Federal Reserve economists who could find no problems with the economy. The White House may not be interested in these neglected voices, but we believe anyone of good sense will be anxious to listen.”

The trailer of the film will be premiered this Friday, July 13th, 2012 at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, NV. Following the trailer, a panel with Peter Schiff, Doug Casey, Gene Epstein and Tom Woods will discuss the film and the future of America’s economy.

The feature length film will have a world premiere this fall in New York City, followed by a nationwide release soon after. Interviews may be arranged with Writer Tom Woods and Director Jimmy Morrison by calling (517) 420-3186. More information about the film, including, the trailer, can be found at http://www.TheBubbleFilm.com

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

By US Daily Review Staff.

A soon-to-be-released, game changing election book will reveal the specific blueprint for a second presidential term of Barack Obama.

Slated for release (WND Books) on August 7, “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed” uncovers the secret template for Obama’s next four years – the actual extensive second term plans created by Obama’s own top advisers and progressive strategists.

The explosive book unveils all the main areas of Obama’s second-term domestic policy onslaught – jobs, wages, health care, immigration “overhaul,” electoral “reform,” national energy policy, Pentagon plans and much more.

“Fool Me Twice” is written by NY Times bestselling author, journalist and radio host Aaron Klein and NY Times bestseller and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

Most conservative books about Obama focus on his alleged radical background and what Obama has done until now. A small number of ambitious projects attempt to show what America may look like after four more years of Obama based on generalities and what the president has already done.

While many are expressing general concerns over Obama’s future ambitions, “Fool Me Twice” lays bare the devastating details and consequences of a second Obama term as president.

The book is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies, as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major “progressive” groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.

Aaron Klein is a New York Times bestselling author, journalist and radio host. He is senior reporter for WND and hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, the nation’s largest talk station. Klein’s program is one of only two weekend shows in the U.S. to make the Talkers Heavy Hundred official list of top American radio shows.

His previous books include Red Army, The Manchurian President, The Late Great State of Israel and Schmoozing with Terrorists.

Brenda J. Elliott is an award-winning historian, researcher and New York Times bestselling author. She is the blogger who created RezkoWatch (RW), TheRealBarackObama (RBO) and RBO2. She has appeared on hundreds of radio shows, contributed to numerous investigative articles and publications and is the co-author of Red Army and The Manchurian President.

By US Daily Review Staff.

A new study by Ernst & Young released this week finds that the President’s plan to raise taxes on small business owners and families earning more than $250,000 will lower the wages of American workers by nearly two percent, shrink the U.S. economy and cost 710,000 jobs.

“In the Obama recovery, the weakest recovery since World War II, small businesses along Main Street are struggling and so are a lot of hardworking taxpayers. This study proves that while the President is shooting at the so-called wealthy, his tax hikes will actually hit hardest our small businesses and middle-class workers who’ll see their paychecks shrink,” said Texas Congressman Kevin Brady, a senior member of the House Ways & Means Committee and the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. “America can’t afford to lose another 700,000 jobs… And workers can’t afford to see their paychecks get even smaller because under President Obama everything from food to gas to college costs more.”

The study “The Macro-Economic Impact of Increasing Tax Rates on High-Income Taxpayers” was conducted by Dr. Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante of Ernst & Young and released by the National Federation of Independent Business. It shows that 900,000 business owners would be hit by the higher tax rates, that the U.S. economy would shrink by 1.3%, and investment in America would fall significantly – 2.4% – as a result of President Obama’s tax hikes.

Brady also announced that House Republicans will take up legislation later this month to stop the Obama $4.3 trillion tax hike, lay out principles for a fairer, simpler tax code and guarantee an up-or-down vote by Congress on tax reform next year. The measure will also prevent the Death Tax from springing back to life and stop the alternative minimum tax from capturing 31 million middle class families.

By US Daily Review Staff.

Mitt Romney maintains his lead over Barack Obama at 45.6% to 41.1% among Likely Voters, according to the most recent American Pulse Survey (July-12, N=3,688). A factor contributing to Romney’s lead appears to be a loss of support among Blacks, Hispanics and Women who voted for Obama in 2008. Gaining support among Black Voters will be an uphill battle for Romney as Obama carried 96% of their vote in 2008. 81.5% of Likely Black Voters, however, currently say that they would cast a ballot for the incumbent if the election were held today.

Of Blacks (Non-Hispanic) who voted for Obama in 2008 and are likely to vote in 2012, 14.7% report they are undecided between the incumbent and the challenger, translating to an estimated 2,416,727 voters. Further, 1.8% (295,904) would cast a vote for Romney, for a combined total of approximately 2.7 million at-risk votes.

It seems as though there is some uncertainty among Obama’s 2008 Hispanic supporters as well. 67% of Hispanics voted for Obama in 2008. When asked who they would vote for today, 60.5% of Likely Hispanic Voters would re-elect the president. Of the Hispanics who voted for Obama in 2008 and are likely to vote in 2012, 8.5% say they are undecided, translating to an estimated 1,252,036 voters. Further, 7.0% (1,033,993) would vote for Romney for a collective 2.3 million votes at risk.

According to the analysis, an estimated 3.7 million voters who supported Obama in 2008 are undecided when you combine Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics. This could signal bad news for the President as historically, the majority of undecided voters tend to swing towards the challenger on Election Day.

ESTIMATED # OF VOTES
2008 Obama Supporters

Blacks (Non-Hispanic)
Undecided: 2,416,727
Vote for Romney: 295,904

Hispanics
Undecided: 1,252,036
Vote for Romney:1,033,993

Whites (Non-Hispanic)
Undecided: 7,192,854
Vote for Romney: 6,139,217

TOTAL
Undecided: 10,861,618
Vote for Romney:7,469,114

Source: American Pulse™ Analytics

When you factor in Non-Hispanic Whites who voted for Obama but are now either undecided or voting for Romney, the total estimated number of at-risk votes for Obama surpasses 18 million. Compared to the total number of votes cast for Obama in 2008, it accounts for 26% of his total ballots now being at-risk.

For full complimentary report that includes how these segments view the Obama Administration’s healthcare plan, click here.

US Daily Review Staff.

It was the kind of bold move that supporters of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) have wanted to see more over.  Instead of being on the constant defense, take the offense, particularly on issues that impact the black population.

Statistically, blacks have suffered more than any other group since Barack Obama has become president.  The number of blacks on welfare and food stamps have increased at exponential rates and unemployment has impacted this group more than any others.

In a less than warmly received speech, Romney boldly told the audience that the President’s policies are not working and that economic freedom, he argued, was best for every economic group. Here is that speech:

Thank you, Bishop Graves, for your generous introduction. Thanks also to President Ben Jealous and Chairman Roslyn Brock for the opportunity to be here this morning, and for your hospitality.  It is an honor to address you.

I appreciate the chance to speak first – even before Vice President Biden gets his turn tomorrow.  I just hope the Obama campaign won’t think you’re playing favorites.

You all know something of my background, and maybe you’ve wondered how any Republican ever becomes governor of Massachusetts in the first place.  Well, in a state with 11 percent Republican registration, you don’t get there by just talking to Republicans.  We have to make our case to every voter.  We don’t count anybody out, and we sure don’t make a habit of presuming anyone’s support.  Support is asked for and earned – and that’s why I’m here today.

Romney Challenges Obama at One of His Key Constituencies

With 90 percent of African-Americans voting for Democrats, some of you may wonder why a Republican would bother to campaign in the African American community, and to address the NAACP.  Of course, one reason is that I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed or sexual orientation, from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between.

But there is another reason: I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African American families, you would vote for me for president.  I want you to know that if I did not believe that my policies and my leadership would help families of color — and families of any color — more than the policies and leadership of President Obama, I would not be running for president.

The opposition charges that I and people in my party are running for office to help the rich.  Nonsense.  The rich will do just fine whether I am elected or not.  The President wants to make this a campaign about blaming the rich.  I want to make this a campaign about helping the middle class.

I am running for president because I know that my policies and vision will help hundreds of millions of middle class Americans of all races, will lift people from poverty, and will help prevent people from becoming poor. My campaign is about helping the people who need help.  The course the President has set has not done that – and will not do that.  My course will.

When President Obama called to congratulate me on becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, he said that he, “looked forward to an important and healthy debate about America’s future.”  To date, I’m afraid that his campaign has taken a different course than that.

But, in campaigns at their best, voters can expect a clear choice, and candidates can expect a fair hearing – only more so from a venerable organization like this one.  So, it is that healthy debate about the course of the nation that I want to discuss with you today.

If someone had told us in the 1950s or 1960s that a black citizen would serve as the forty-fourth president, we would have been proud and many would have been surprised.  Picturing that day, we might have assumed that the American presidency would be the very last door of opportunity to be opened.  Before that came to pass, every other barrier on the path to equal opportunity would surely have come down.

Of course, it hasn’t happened quite that way.  Many barriers remain.  Old inequities persist.  In some ways, the challenges are even more complicated than before.  And across America — and even within your own ranks — there are serious, honest debates about the way forward.

If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, then a chronically bad economy would be equally bad for everyone.  Instead, it’s worse for African Americans in almost every way.  The unemployment rate, the duration of unemployment, average income, and median family wealth are all worse for the black community.  In June, while the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent, the unemployment rate for African Americans actually went up, from 13.6 percent to 14.4 percent.

Americans of every background are asking when this economy will finally recover – and you, in particular, are entitled to an answer.

If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that truly offer the hope of a better life.  Instead, for generations, the African-American community has been waiting and waiting for that promise to be kept.  Today, black children are 17 percent of students nationwide – but they are 42 percent of the students in our worst-performing schools.

Our society sends them into mediocre schools and expects them to perform with excellence, and that is not fair.  Frederick Douglass observed that, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”  Yet, instead of preparing these children for life, too many schools set them up for failure.  Everyone in this room knows that we owe them better than that.

The path of inequality often leads to lost opportunity.  College, graduate school, and first jobs should be milestones marking the passage from childhood to adulthood.  But for too many disadvantaged young people, these goals seem unattainable – and their lives take a tragic turn.

Many live in neighborhoods filled with violence and fear, and empty of opportunity.  Their impatience for real change is understandable.  They are entitled to feel that life in America should be better than this.  They are told even now to wait for improvements in our economy and in our schools, but it seems to me that these Americans have waited long enough.

The point is that when decades of the same promises keep producing the same failures, then it’s reasonable to rethink our approach – and consider a new plan.

I’m hopeful that together we can set a new direction in federal policy, starting where many of our problems do – with the family.  A study from the Brookings Institution has shown that for those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before they marry and then have their first child, the probability of being poor is two percent.  And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76 percent.

Here at the NAACP, you understand the deep and lasting difference the family makes.  Your former executive director, Dr. Benjamin Hooks, had it exactly right.  The family, he said, “remains the bulwark and the mainstay of the black community.  That great truth must not be overlooked.”

Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country, and that must be our goal.  As President, I will promote strong families – and I will defend traditional marriage.

As you may have heard from my opponent, I am also a believer in the free-enterprise system.  I believe it can bring change where so many well-meaning government programs have failed.  I’ve never heard anyone look around an impoverished neighborhood and say, “You know, there’s too much free enterprise around here.  Too many shops, too many jobs, too many people putting money in the bank.”

What you hear, of course, is how do we bring in jobs?  How do we make good, honest employers want to move in and stay?  And with the shape this economy is in, we’re asking that more than ever.

Free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class.  We have seen in recent years what it’s like to have less free enterprise.  As President, I will show the good things that can happen when we have more – more business activity, more jobs, more opportunity, more paychecks, more savings accounts.

On Day One, I will begin turning this economy around with a plan for the middle class.  And I don’t mean just those who are middle class now – I also mean those who have waited so long for their chance to join the middle class.

I know what it will take to put people back to work, to bring more jobs and better wages. My jobs plan is based on 25 years of success in business. It has five key steps.

First, I will take full advantage of our energy resources, and I will approve the Keystone pipeline from Canada. Low cost, plentiful coal, natural gas, oil, and renewables will bring over a million manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

Second, I will open up new markets for American products. We are the most productive major economy in the world, so trade means good jobs for Americans.  But trade must be free and fair, so I’ll clamp down on cheaters like China and make sure that they finally play by the rules.

Third, I will reduce government spending. Our high level of debt slows GDP growth and that means fewer jobs. If our goal is jobs, we must, must stop spending over a trillion dollars more than we earn. To do this, I will eliminate expensive non-essential programs like Obamacare, and I will work to reform and save Medicare and Social Security, in part by means-testing their benefits.

Fourth, I will focus on nurturing and developing the skilled workers our economy so desperately needs and the future demands. This is the human capital with which tomorrow’s bright future will be built. Too many homes and too many schools are failing to provide our children with the skills and education that are essential for anything other than a minimum-wage job.

And finally and perhaps most importantly, I will restore economic freedom. This nation’s economy runs on freedom, on opportunity, on entrepreneurs, on dreamers who innovate and build businesses. These entrepreneurs are being crushed by high taxation, burdensome regulation, hostile regulators, excessive healthcare costs, and destructive labor policies. I will work to make America the best place in the world for innovators and entrepreneurs and businesses small and large.

Do these five things – open up energy, expand trade, cut the growth of government, focus on better educating tomorrow’s workers today, and restore economic freedom – and jobs will come back to America, and wages will rise again. The President will say he will do those things, but he will not, he cannot, and his record of the last four years proves it.

If I am president, job one for me will be creating jobs. I have no hidden agenda. If you want a president who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him.

Finally, I will address the institutionalized inequality in our education system.  And I know something about this from my time as governor.

In the years before I took office our state’s leaders had come together to pass bipartisan measures that were making a difference.  In reading and in math, our students were already among the best in the nation – and during my term, they took over the top spot.

Those results revealed what good teachers can do if the system will only let them.  The problem was, this success wasn’t shared.  A significant achievement gap between students of different races remained.  So we set out to close it.

I urged faster interventions in failing schools, and the funding to go along with it.  I promoted math and science excellence in schools, and proposed paying bonuses to our best teachers.

I refused to weaken testing standards, and instead raised them. To graduate from high school, students had to pass an exam in math and English – I added a science requirement as well.  And I put in place a merit scholarship for those students who excelled: the top 25 percent of students in each high school were awarded a John and Abigail Adams Scholarship – which meant four years tuition-free at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning.

When I was governor, not only did test scores improve – we also narrowed the achievement gap.

The teachers unions were not happy with a number of these reforms. They especially did not like our emphasis on choice through charter schools, particularly for our inner city kids. Accordingly, the legislature passed a moratorium on any new charter schools.

As you know, in Boston, in Harlem, in Los Angeles, and all across the country, charter schools are giving children a chance, children that otherwise could be locked in failing schools. I was inspired just a few weeks ago by the students in one of Kenny Gamble’s charter schools in Philadelphia.  Right here in Houston is another success story:  the Knowledge Is Power Program, which has set the standard, thanks to the groundbreaking work of the late Harriet Ball.

These charter schools are doing a lot more than closing the achievement gap.  They are bringing hope and opportunity to places where for years there has been none.

Charter schools are so successful that almost every politician can find something good to say about them.  But, as we saw in Massachusetts, true reform requires more than talk.  As Governor, I vetoed the bill blocking charter schools.  But our legislature was 87 percent Democrat, and my veto could have been easily over-ridden.  So I joined with the Black Legislative Caucus, and their votes helped preserve my veto, which meant that new charter schools, including some in urban neighborhoods, would be opened.

When it comes to education reform, candidates cannot have it both ways – talking up education reform, while indulging the same groups that are blocking reform.  You can be the voice of disadvantaged public-school students, or you can be the protector of special interests like the teachers unions, but you can’t be both.  I have made my choice: As president, I will be a champion of real education reform in America, and I won’t let any special interest get in the way.

I will give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school.  For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to a student, so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school, or to a private school, where permitted.  And I will make that a true choice by ensuring there are good options available to all.

Should I be elected President, I’ll lead as I did when I was governor.  I am pleased today to be joined today by Reverend Jeffrey Brown, who was a member of my kitchen cabinet in Massachusetts that helped guide my policy and actions that affected the African American community.  I will look for support wherever there is good will and shared conviction.  I will work with you to help our children attend better schools and help our economy create good jobs with better wages.

I can’t promise that you and I will agree on every issue.  But I do promise that your hospitality to me today will be returned.  We will know one another, and work to common purposes.  I will seek your counsel.  And if I am elected president, and you invite me to next year’s convention, I would count it as a privilege, and my answer will be yes.

The Republican Party’s record, by the measures you rightly apply, is not perfect.  Any party that claims a perfect record doesn’t know history the way you know it.

Yet always, in both parties, there have been men and women of integrity, decency, and humility who called injustice by its name.  For every one of us a particular person comes to mind, someone who set a standard of conduct and made us better by their example.  For me, that man is my father, George Romney.

It wasn’t just that my Dad helped write the civil rights provision for the Michigan Constitution, though he did.  It wasn’t just that he helped create Michigan’s first civil rights commission, or that as governor he marched for civil rights in Detroit – though he did those things, too.

More than these public acts, it was the kind of man he was, and the way he dealt with every person, black or white.  He was a man of the fairest instincts, and a man of faith who knew that every person was a child of God.

I’m grateful to him for so many things, and above all for the knowledge of God, whose ways are not always our ways, but whose justice is certain and whose mercy endures forever.

Every good cause on this earth relies in the end on a plan bigger than ours.  “Without dependence on God,” as Dr. King said, “our efforts turn to ashes and our sunrises into darkest night.  Unless his spirit pervades our lives, we find only what G. K. Chesterton called ‘cures that don’t cure, blessings that don’t bless, and solutions that don’t solve.’”

Of all that you bring to the work of today’s civil rights cause, no advantage counts for more than this abiding confidence in the name above every name.   Against cruelty, arrogance, and all the foolishness of man, this spirit has carried the NAACP to many victories.  More still are up ahead, and with each one we will be a better nation.

Thank you, and God bless you all.

Napolitano has Seen Her Power Expand

By US Daily Review Staff.

While most Americans were vacationing on July 6, Barack Obama signed another executive order that is raising eyebrows among his critics and even some in the media.  The Daily Callerstates that this Order (done unilaterally without permission from Congress) grants the Department of Homeland Security “power to takeover commercial, private communications in an emergency.”  It goes on to say “Should disaster strike the U.S., the secretary of Homeland Security will be in charge of re-establishing and prioritizing communications to ensure the continuation of the federal government, according to a new executive order from President Barack Obama. The executive order, signed on Friday, once again expands the powers of the Department of Homeland Security — this time to include the handling of communications during a national security event or natural disaster. The order also allows for DHS to re-establish communications “through the use of commercial, government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate.”

Read for yourself this far reaching order.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- – - – - – -

ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience. The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications policies, programs, and capabilities.

Sec. 2. Executive Office Responsibilities.

Sec. 2.1. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System) (PPD-1).

Sec. 2.2. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) shall: (a) issue an annual memorandum to the NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (established in section 3 of this order) highlighting national priorities for Executive Committee analyses, studies, research, and development regarding NS/EP communications;

(b) advise the President on the prioritization of radio spectrum and wired communications that support NS/EP functions; and

(c) have access to all appropriate information related to the test, exercise, evaluation, and readiness of the capabilities of all existing and planned NS/EP communications systems, networks, and facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP requirements.

Sec. 2.3. The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall make recommendations to the President, informed by the interagency policy process established in PPD-1, with respect to the exercise of authorities assigned to the President under section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 606). The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall also jointly monitor the exercise of these authorities, in the event of any delegation, through the process established in PPD-1 or as the President otherwise may direct.

Sec. 3. The NS/EP Communications Executive Committee.

Sec. 3.1. There is established an NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (Executive Committee) to serve as a forum to address NS/EP communications matters.

Sec. 3.2. The Executive Committee shall be composed of Assistant Secretary-level or equivalent representatives designated by the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the General Services Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission, as well as such additional agencies as the Executive Committee may designate. The designees of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Executive Committee.

Sec. 3.3. The responsibilities of the Executive Committee shall be to: (a) advise and make policy recommendations to the President, through the PPD-1 process, on enhancing the survivability, resilience, and future architecture of NS/EP communications, including what should constitute NS/EP communications requirements;

(b) develop a long-term strategic vision for NS/EP communications and propose funding requirements and plans to the President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through the PPD-1 process, for NS/EP communications initiatives that benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;

(c) coordinate the planning for, and provision of, NS/EP communications for the Federal Government under all hazards;

(d) promote the incorporation of the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications under all circumstances;

(e) recommend to the President, through the PPD-1 process, the regimes to test, exercise, and evaluate the capabilities of existing and planned communications systems, networks, or facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP communications requirements, including any recommended remedial actions;

(f) provide quarterly updates to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP, through the Co-Chairs, on the status of Executive Committee activities and develop an annual NS/EP communications strategic agenda utilizing the PPD-1 process;

(g) enable industry input with respect to the responsibilities established in this section; and

(h) develop, approve, and maintain a charter for the Executive Committee.

Sec. 4. Executive Committee Joint Program Office.

Sec. 4.1. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an Executive Committee Joint Program Office (JPO) to provide full-time, expert, and administrative support for the Executive Committee’s performance of its responsibilities under section 3.3 of this order. Staff of the JPO shall include detailees, as needed and appropriate, from agencies represented on the Executive Committee. The Department of Homeland Security shall provide resources to support the JPO. The JPO shall be responsive to the guidance of the Executive Committee.

Sec. 4.2. The responsibilities of the JPO shall include: coordination of programs that support NS/EP missions, priorities, goals, and policy; and, when directed by the Executive Committee, the convening of governmental and nongovernmental groups (consistent with the Federal Advisory Committees Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.)), coordination of activities, and development of policies for senior official review and approval.

Sec. 5. Specific Department and Agency Responsibilities.

Sec. 5.1. The Secretary of Defense shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications that are directly responsive to the national security needs of the President, Vice President, and senior national leadership, including: communications with or among the President, Vice President, White House staff, heads of state and government, and Nuclear Command and Control leadership; Continuity of Government communications; and communications among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to support Enduring Constitutional Government;

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.1(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications; and

(d) provide, operate, and maintain communication services and facilities adequate to execute responsibilities consistent with Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981, as amended.

Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration;

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.2(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications;

(d) receive, integrate, and disseminate NS/EP communications information to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as appropriate, to establish situational awareness, priority setting recommendations, and a common operating picture for NS/EP communications information;

(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;

(f) maintain a joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration, and reconstitution of NS/EP communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis, or emergency;

(g) serve as the Federal lead for the prioritized restoration of communications infrastructure and coordinate the prioritization and restoration of communications, including resolution of any conflicts in or among priorities, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense when activities referenced in section 5.1(a) of this order are impacted, consistent with the National Response Framework. If conflicts in or among priorities cannot be resolved between the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, they shall be referred for resolution in accordance with section 2.1 of this order; and

(h) within 60 days of the date of this order, in consultation with the Executive Committee where appropriate, develop and submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a detailed plan that describes the Department of Homeland

Security’s organization and management structure for its NS/EP communications functions, including the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service, Wireless Priority Service, Telecommunications Service Priority program, Next Generation Network Priority program, the Executive Committee JPO, and relevant supporting entities.

Sec. 5.3. The Secretary of Commerce shall: (a) provide advice and guidance to the Executive Committee on the use of technical standards and metrics to support execution of NS/EP communications;

(b) identify for the Executive Committee requirements for additional technical standards and metrics to enhance NS/EP communications;

(c) engage with relevant standards development organizations to develop appropriate technical standards and metrics to enhance NS/EP communications;

(d) develop plans and procedures concerning radio spectrum allocations, assignments, and priorities for use by agencies and executive offices;

(e) develop, maintain, and publish policies, plans, and procedures for the management and use of radio frequency assignments, including the authority to amend, modify, or revoke such assignments, in those parts of the electromagnetic spectrum assigned to the Federal Government; and

(f) administer a system of radio spectrum priorities for those spectrum-dependent telecommunications resources belonging to and operated by the Federal Government and certify or approve such radio spectrum priorities, including the resolution of conflicts in or among such radio spectrum priorities during a crisis or emergency.

Sec. 5.4. The Administrator of General Services shall provide and maintain a common Federal acquisition approach that allows for the efficient centralized purchasing of equipment and services that meet NS/EP communications requirements. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the procurement authorities granted by law to an agency or the head thereof.

Sec. 5.5. With respect to the Intelligence Community, the DNI, after consultation with the heads of affected agencies, may issue such policy directives and guidance as the DNI deems necessary to implement this order. Procedures or other guidance issued by the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community shall be in accordance with such policy directives or guidelines issued by the DNI.

Sec. 5.6. The Federal Communications Commission performs such functions as are required by law, including: (a) with respect to all entities licensed or regulated by the Federal Communications Commission: the extension, discontinuance, or reduction of common carrier facilities or services; the control of common carrier rates, charges, practices, and classifications; the construction, authorization, activation, deactivation, or closing of radio stations, services, and facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies to Federal Communications Commission licensees; the investigation of violations of pertinent law; and the assessment of communications service provider emergency needs and resources; and

(b) supporting the continuous operation and restoration of critical communications systems and services by assisting the Secretary of Homeland Security with infrastructure damage assessment and restoration, and by providing the Secretary of Homeland Security with information collected by the Federal Communications Commission on communications infrastructure, service outages, and restoration, as appropriate.

Sec. 6. General Agency Responsibilities. All agencies, to the extent consistent with law, shall: (a) determine the scope of their NS/EP communications requirements, and provide information regarding such requirements to the Executive Committee;

(b) prepare policies, plans, and procedures concerning communications facilities, services, or equipment under their management or operational control to maximize their capability to respond to the NS/EP needs of the Federal Government;

(c) propose initiatives, where possible, that may benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;

(d) administer programs that support broad NS/EP communications goals and policies;

(e) submit reports annually, or as otherwise requested, to the Executive Committee, regarding agency NS/EP communications activities;

(f) devise internal acquisition strategies in support of the centralized acquisition approach provided by the General Services Administration pursuant to section 5.4 of this order; and

(g) provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with timely reporting on NS/EP communications status to inform the common operating picture required under 6 U.S.C. 321(d).

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For the purposes of this order, the word “agency” shall have the meaning set forth in section 6.1(b) of Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009.

(b) Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended, is hereby revoked.

(c) Executive Order 12382 of September 13, 1982, as amended, is further amended by striking the following language from section 2(e): “in his capacity as Executive Agent for the National Communications System”.

(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(e) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

By Darcy Kahrloff, Special for US Daily Review.

The leadership in the Republican Party is playing a very dangerous game.  Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Speaker John Boehner, and Senator Mitch McConnell are each singing the same tune regarding ObamaCare – Repeal and Replace!  The American people don’t like the Affordable Care Act, and want it repealed.  However, talking about replacing ObamaCare is disconcerting for a number of reasons.

Romney Needs to Make His Message Simple and Clear

The GOP believes they are reaching out to the moderates and independents when they say they plan to replace ObamaCare.  That is probably true.  Unfortunately it leaves Mitt Romney open for some huge attacks from the Obama campaign.  RomneyCare is as unpopular as ObamaCare, and President Obama could easily use the law against Romney during debates.  The Republicans have not stated what they want to replace the Affordable Care Act with, and need to come up with some talking points quickly.

Another problem with saying “Repeal and Replace” is it could delay the repeal process, while politicians work on replacement legislation.  Some will say that we must replace ObamaCare with something because there is this healthcare crisis in America.  The healthcare crisis was manufactured by the Obama administration, and our conservative legislators should not fall for these talking points.  Although there are definite problems with our healthcare system, including rising costs and and a lack of portability, ObamaCare creates many more problems and needs to be repealed immediately.

Finally, what will the new replacement legislation be?  American citizens should be wary of any new laws that come from either side of the aisle.  If they replace the Affordable Care Act with ObamaCare-lite, only getting rid of the mandate (tax) while leaving in government panels and not increasing competition, then Americans have been misled once again!  The Republicans need to articulate their plan, putting out a point by point declaration.

The GOP need to stop talking about replacing the Affordable Care Act, and stick to promising to repeal it.  While ObamaCare has some popular aspects, the law is moving our country closer to socialism every day.  Americans don’t want the government telling them what treatments are best for them, or whether they are too old to have surgery.  Americans want more choices, increased competition, and the freedom to decide what is best for them.

Darcy Kahrloff is a Tea Party leader.  She has been intensely involved with the Tea Party movement and local area politics since 2009.  She is focused at taking back our country one small victory at a time.  She is involved because she cares about her three children, and their future.  Kahrloff is involved because she is worried and scared that our country is going in the wrong direction.  She is involved because she could no longer sit still, yelling at the politicians on television making all the wrong decisions.

by Candace Salima, Senior Contributor, US Daily Review.

We’re in the heat of the battle for America; will we end up as Obama’s Socialist Democracy, or continue with our freedoms and liberties intact with Mitt Romney’s America, staying true to the republic we’ve always been. Fortunately, unlike nations trapped in medieval times, we don’t have to pick up weapons and start shooting our way to freedom. The Founding Fathers gave us a path, if we’ll use it, to restore reason in America, and it’s a solid path.

It’s a little thing called the U.S. Constitution. I know, I’m asking Americans to read it, and it’s just so long! But let’s just focus on Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. There’s your path, and I’m convinced there’s not a single liberal who has ever read the 4,400 words of the U.S. Constitution.

And that brings us to the Democrats; for good or bad, the Democrat Party has thrown its lot in with the far left liberals of their party, and abandoned the Democrat values of old. But let’s get back to Obama.

Barack Obama’s efforts with the economy have been dismal at best, criminal at worst. But his signature legislation, the thing he’s the most proud of, is the Affordable Patient Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare. He’s really hoping we’ll focus on that and not talk about it’s effect on the economy and our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. He’s really hoping we won’t check government statistics, reports, and legislation being passed. He most definitely, does not want us to read the entire decision SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States) handed down, and he especially doesn’t want us looking at the dissenting decision.

And although one of the three branches of government specifically stated that Obamacare is a tax, Barack Obama and the Democrats, ad nauseum, are saying; “It’s a penalty, not a tax.” Penalty or tax…the end result is the same for the American people, a crushing tax burden guaranteed to cripple generations to come.

But let’s look at what Barack Obama definitely won’t talk about over the next four months.

He won’t talk about the $500 billion tax burden Obamacare hits us with; five of the 21 additional taxes in Obamacare go into effect on 1 January 2013; and the rest will hit the American taxpayer on 1 January 2014. Then the other $900 billion will hit us at one point or another, this I guarantee.

But Barack Obama won’t talk about the $16 trillion national debt; and he most definitely will never mention:

• The 8.2% unemployment number. And that’s only if you don’t drill down to minority and student unemployment numbers, where we actually hit double digits. AND, if we don’t include those who’ve fallen off the unemployment rolls, still looking or who have just given up. So we’re really looking at an average of 17% unemployment in America.
• The nearly 50 million Americans on welfare.
• The businesses of America, especially small business, who are suffering greatly under the additional burdens of Obamacare. Thousands of small business doors have closed, permanently, in Obama’s America.
• The escalating energy costs, and the corresponding escalating cost of living.
• The record number of bankruptcies.
• The attacks on our constitutional rights.
• The ever encroaching federal government, and shrinking rights of We the People.

Yeah, that’s going to be a winning strategy…for the uninformed. That’s what you get when you vote for a community organizer who’s immersed himself in a Marxist philosophy and atmosphere.

But, if you vote for Mitt Romney, you get a man who has been:

• Successful in business,
• Successful in turning the Salt Lake City Olympics around and making them profitable.
• Successful in paying down MA $2 billion debt, and leaving them with $1 billion rainy-day fund.
• Successful in keeping the promises he’s made to the people, and has a
• Strong understanding of economic matters,
• Strong understanding of national defense needs,
• Strong understanding of our energy crisis,
• Strong understanding of the Jobs situation, and a solid plan to turn that around, and
• Strong understanding of America and the great promise she holds for those willing to take up the challenge.

It is a stark difference between the two Americas.

There is Barack Obama’s America steeped in debt and despair. And then there’s Mitt Romney’s America, steeped in the American Dream, with the promise of a brighter future and prosperity.

The choice is clear: Barack Obama’s nation riddled in debt and ever dwindling freedoms; or Mitt Romney’s nation breaking free of the economic chains, and rising to be Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” once again.

 —

Candace Salima is a radio talk show host, author, columnist, and makes her home in the Rocky Mountains. Learn more about her at www.CandaceSalima.com. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

The Patriot Update Reports:

The White House recently released their annual salaries report to Congress. As is usually the case, they did so late on a Friday evening (4:39 p.m. to be exact).

The 2012 White House payroll for 468 employees amounts to $37.8 million.

There were over 100 various-titled assistant positions and two employees who are working for free: Sr. Policy Advisor David Kaden and Special Assistant Andrew Parker. I’m not sure why.

A few other interesting stats:

Lowest pay: $41,000 (for assistants, associates, analysts, researchers)

Highest pay: $172,200 (salary for 20 WH employees such as Valarie Jarrett and Christina Tchen, Chief of Staff to the First Lady)

Greatest gig: 2 Calligraphers with salaries of $85,953 and $96,725

Most made-up job: $140,000 for the Deputy Assistant for Energy and Climate Change

Most useless jobs: 2 Ethics Advisors with salaries of $140,259 and $136,134

13 “Information Services Operators” with salaries ranging from $42,000 to $68,230

People who need raises: Presidential Speechwriters with salaries ranging between $60,000 to $100,000

13-Records Management Analysts: It apparently takes a large staff to “manage” so many records in this White House… Salaries range from $42,000 to $73,917

10-Special Assistant and Associate Counsels to the President: 9 collect $130,500 annually and 1 with $114,000

5-Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel, each paid $113,000 per year. They must be very special indeed.

Bottom line, it’s a very good time to be employed by the Obama administration—not so great to live in America under his reign.

November just can’t get here fast enough.

By US Daily Review Staff.

Generation Opportunity President Paul T. Conway, former Chief of Staff for the United States Department of Labor, which houses the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and former Chief of Staff for the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), responds to the June 2012 jobs numbers:

“For young Americans, through no fault of their own, their story is one of few opportunities, delayed dreams, and stalled careers. Today’s unemployment numbers tell the story of millions of young Americans who are paying the price for the failed policies coming out of Washington that have inhibited economic opportunity and job creation.

“Despite the challenges they face, this generation is not asking what their country can do for them. Instead, they stand ready to do more for their county, to continue their service beyond the contributions they have already made as brave defenders of freedom across the globe, as selfless rebuilders of disaster-torn communities here at home, and as confident advocates for greater opportunity for all Americans.

“While leaders in Washington travel to communities to make campaign promises and seek to place blame for the results of their failed policies, young Americans are looking for more than rhetoric.

“In 2012, their message to candidates is clear – we want to build our careers, get on with our lives, and fulfill our dreams. If the only solutions you offer mean less jobs and more debt for the country, the stakes are too high to risk our vote on a bad bet.”

By US Daily Review Staff.

Newtek Business Services, self described as “The Small Business Authority,” with a portfolio of “over 100,000 business accounts,” announced the findings of its SB Authority Market Sentiment Survey, a monthly window into the concerns of independent business owners. Based on a poll of over 600 respondents, one of the key findings from the June survey is 39% of business owners did not want the Patient Protection Affordable Healthcare Act (PPAHCA) to be ruled constitutional at all and 37% of business owners did not want the Act to be ruled constitutional in part. Only 25% of business owners surveyed wanted the PPAHCA to be enacted. After the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the right to legislate the PPAHCA, 35% of business owners now want the Act to be repealed and 38% want the Act to be modified.

The full June 2012 results showed the following:

Poll Question	Poll Answer	Percentage
If the Supreme Court ruled on the Patient Protection Affordable Health Care Act  (Commonly known as Obamacare) today do you wish:	It is ruled 100% unconstitutional	39%
	Part is ruled unconstitutional	37%
	It is fully enacted into law and is ruled constitutional	25%
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress had the right to legislate the Patient Protection Affordable Health Care Act, “Obama’s Healthcare Law”, as constitutional, would you like it:	Repealed 100%	35%
	Modified Somewhat	38%
	Left alone as the law stands without any change	27%

Barry Sloane, Chairman, President and CEO of The Small Business Authority, commented, “We have seen a slight shift towards the bill being more favorable now that the Supreme Court has ruled, but it is still viewed as an unfavorable position by small business owners.  We believe that there will continue to be controversy over this bill well past the November elections.”

About Newtek Business Services, Inc.

Newtek Business Services, The Small Business Authority, provides the following products and services:

• Electronic Payment Processing: eCommerce, electronic solutions to accept non-cash payments, including credit and debit cards, check conversion, remote deposit capture, ACH processing, and electronic gift and loyalty card programs.
• Managed Technology Solutions (Cloud Computing): Full-service web host, which offers eCommerce solutions, shared and dedicated web hosting and related services including domain registration and online shopping cart tools.
• eCommerce:  A suite of services that enable small businesses to get up and running on-line quickly and cost effectively, with integrated web design, payment processing and shopping cart services.
• Business Lending: Broad array of lending products including SBA 7(a) and SBA 504 loans through our lending subsidiary, Newtek Small Business Finance, Inc.
• Insurance Services: Commercial and personal lines of insurance, including health and employee benefits in all 50 states, working with over 40 insurance carriers.
• Web Services: Customized web design and development services.
• Data Backup, Storage and Retrieval: Fast, secure, off-site data backup, storage and retrieval designed to meet the specific regulatory and compliance needs of any business.
• Accounts Receivable Financing: Receivable purchasing and financing services.
• Payroll: Complete payroll management and processing services.

Newtek Business Services, Inc., The Small Business Authority, is a direct distributor of a wide range of business services and financial products to the small- and medium-sized business market under the Newtek™ brand. Since 1999, Newtek has helped small- and medium-sized business owners realize their potential by providing them with the essential tools needed to manage and grow their businesses and to compete effectively in today’s marketplace. Newtek provides its services to over 100,000 business accounts and has positioned the Newtek™ brand as a one-stop-shop provider of such business services. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, there are over 27.5 million small businesses in the United States, which in total represent 99.7% of all employer firms.

By Candace Salima, US Daily Review Contributor

I had an epiphany today. I will admit, I’ve been so confused by the desire of some Americans to set Barack Obama up as a king or dictator. I’ve even gone as far as to be horrified at the thought that any American would ever entertain such heresy.

However, I was reading an old book the other day, published in 1830, and came upon the story of a group of people called the kingmen, and suddenly understood. These people demanded a king to rule over them, and they were adamant they had no desire to be otherwise ruled. And it hit me, there are always have been, and always will be, people such as these. These are  people utterly terrified of being responsible for themselves, and they desire to have someone tell them everything they must do, and cannot do.

For them, the thought of striking out on their own, in business or anything else, literally cripples them with fear. When life gets difficult, all they can think is “who will bail me out?” The thought of rolling up their sleeves, picking up a metaphorical shovel, and digging themselves out of their current troubles causes them to tremble. And this is such a foreign concept to most Americans, for we are a people who carved a nation out of this unforgiving land. Through good times and bad, Americans have risen to the occasion and powered through.

The Founding Fathers gave us a republic for the express reason it was the only form of government that could survive longer than a couple of centuries. And it has, the U.S. Constitution written for 13 colonies still works for 50 states. What was created to be the rule of law for 3 million, works just as well for 350 million, with very few amendments to it, relatively speaking.

Last week I read another book, Chris Stewart’s Seven Miracles That Saved America, and it became so clear to me the fabric that comprises the American patriot. I came to understand the true measure of American exceptionalism and the purposes of this great nation. I believe with everything in me that America was created for the single purpose of being that shining city on a hill to the world. For there is no other nation such as America to be found anywhere on earth.

Chris Stewart, a congressional candidate in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District, wrote:

“…America still represents something important to Him [God]. Because there is still so much good around us. Because there are still enough patriotic citizens seeking for the good of, praying for the blessings of, and sacrificing for the benefit of this nation, as to ensure our continued existence as the “shining city on the hill. This is God’s chosen nation. His magnificent cause.” Seven Miracles That Saved America, p.14

If a king, queen, dictator or despot is what you crave, there is one in every other nation in the world. If you want to be free, there is only one country where that is possible, and that’s America.

America is no place for the faint of heart. We are a nation founded on the blood, courage, and loyalty of patriots dedicated to the cause of freedom and liberty. As Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “we shall either nobly save, or meanly lose, the last great hope of mankind.” We cannot, nay, we will not succumb to the cowardly. Nor will we lose what great men died to protect. America is the land of the free, and home of the brave, and ever will be.

———————

Candace Salima is a radio talk show host, author, columnist, and makes her home in the Rocky Mountains. Learn more about her at www.CandaceSalima.com. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

By Candace Salima, US Daily Review Contributor

Although I still consider myself relatively young, I do believe I’ve possibly seen everything now. A sitting president of the United States of America a.k.a. Barack Obama, with absolutely no shame, has asked couples getting married to donate all their gift money to him instead. Never mind about getting a start on life, or people thoughtfully considering what they’d like to give you to help you start a home of your own, Barack Obama wants you to begin married life with nothing. And in case you were thinking that was all, he wants your birthdays and anniversaries too. You think I’m kidding…I’m not.

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are outraising the Democrats, and Barack Obama at every turn.  And it’s not just money. Obama is running scared. He’s got a metaphorical campaign scattergun and he’s stuffing the barrel with anything he can think of…let me count the ways. Going back just a few months:

One: First, the Obama Administration decided churches would have to violate their morals and principles and do what he told them to, excuse me, what Obamacare legislated they had to do. That didn’t work well, the Catholic Church fired back with both barrels, and then fired again, Obama lost.

Two: Moving on with no trepidation, they declared the GOP was waging a war on women. But that didn’t work either, because their poster girl turned out to have her facts all messed up, spent a vacation in Ireland with her boyfriend, and was a blooming idiot, not to put too fine a point on it. Plus, since it was all over contraception, Obama apparently forgot that Planned Parenthood hands out contraception like its candy. Obama lost, again.

Three: Then the liberal media, egged on by the Obama Campaign, decided to attack Ann Romney, a lady of great class and grace. Wow, did that one backfire!  In about every way it could. Obama lost, in colossal fashion.

Four: Then Obama started giving speeches where he made it clear that none of the bad things happening in America, or the economy were his fault. He proceeded to blame the tsunami in Japan, the economic collapse in Europe, George W. Bush, the Republicans, the rich, Wall Street … oh, who have I forgotten? Well, you get the idea. Personally, I think the man never emotionally made it out kindergarten, because there is an eerie familiarity in his behavior.

Five: Let us not forget immigration. Barack Obama overreached his constitutional authority, dipped his toe into the congressional pool, and granted temporary amnesty to a segment of the illegal alien population. And yes,the firestorm ensued. Again.

But that’s not all. Let’s move on to Six. Oh yeah, Fast and Furious, one of this administration’s greatest shames. Attorney General Eric Holder, who lied while testifying to Congress, was finally backed into a corner, called up his buddy in the Oval Office and asked for Executive Privilege to be exercised, which Obama promptly did. He must have been startled to find out he wasn’t king after all, because he got blasted all over the place for that one. And rightly so, the lives of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jamie Zapata should not be dismissed.

And now the pièce de résistance, Barack Obama found out that Mitt Romney, the GOP, and the Conservative Super PACs have outraised him at every turn. And this is when he and his campaign introduced The Obama Event Registry.

Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?

Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy—so get started today.     Source

 Oh yeah, you saw right. Obama doesn’t care about you getting any advantage in beginning your life together, he wants you to promptly hand over the cash to him right away. Oh, and don’t forget that birthday or anniversary, hand your cash over to the self-proclaimed king. Because … he deserves it, right?

It’s official, Barack Obama has lost his mind. Time to trade him in on a new model, at last. November 6th can’t come too soon.

———————

Candace Salima is a radio talk show host, author, columnist, and makes her home in the Rocky Mountains. Learn more about her at www.CandaceSalima.com. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

By US Daily Review Staff.

President Barack Obama has been involved in some controversial decisions lately — exercising executive privilege in documents pertaining to Fast and Furious and in unilaterally creating his own “DREAM Act” for immigrants without Congressional approval.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the important House Oversight Committee, has decided to educate President Obama with a simple lesson in civics.

Issa made the following statement regarding President Barrack Obama’s June 15 decision to essentially offer amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants:

“This Administration continues to act as though there is only one branch of government. The President doesn’t get to choose which laws he wants to enforce and which he wants to ignore.   This is the latest in a string of occurrences where President Obama has thumbed his nose at the law making process to benefit his own re-election campaign and personal agenda. President Obama’s action contradicts present law and violates the Constitutional principle of a separation of powers which grants primary law making authority to the Congress.  Selective enforcement is the measure of tin-pot dictators and despots, not constitutional democracies.

“We do need immigration reform, but Mr. Obama’s rash actions make it difficult to gauge the true impacts of his policy.  There are too many unanswered questions to allow this to go unchallenged.  President Obama should suspend this order and make his case with lawmakers and the American people.“

Regarding Fast and Furious, Issa wrote the following letter to Obama:

“On June 19, 2012, shortly after leaving a meeting in the U.S. Capitol, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to request that you assert executive privilege with respect to Operation Fast & Furious documents he is withholding from this Committee. The next Day, Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified me in a letter that you had invoked executive privilege. The Committee received both letters minutes before the scheduled start of a vote to recommend that the full House hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with its subpoena.

Courts have consistently held that the assertion of the constitutionally-based executive privilege – the only privilege that ever can justify the withholding of documents from a congressional committee by the Executive Branch – is only applicable with respect to documents and communications that implicate the confidentiality of the President’s decision-making process, defined as those documents and communications to and from the President and his most senior advisors. Even then, it is a qualified privilege that is overcome by a showing of the committee’s need for the documents. The letters from Messrs. Holder and Cole cited no case law to the contrary.

Accordingly, your privilege assertion means one of two things. Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee, or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation. To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the Department with respect to the congressional investigation. The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that still is the case.” Read the Full Letter

The president may not be getting the message, but Issa could not be clear.  The President will continue to face increasing resistance for failing to recognize the checks and balances that the founders of the country had in mind.

By US Daily Review Staff.

Recently, Kevin Price, Publisher and Editor of US Daily Review interviewed Edward Klein, author of the NY Times bestseller, “The Amateur” on his show, The Price of Business.

Check out this informative interview with Edward Klein, author of  ”The Amateur”

Learn more about Klein’s book:

US Daily Review has been sent an advance review copy of the politically charged “The Amateur“, by Edward Klein. It is THE book of discussion in conservative political circles and the one you better not mention in Barack Obama’s camp.  We have been given excerpts from the book that we are sharing here:

Rev: Jeremiah Wright: “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an email offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election…It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”

“Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at the Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an email offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”

“Who sent the email?” I asked Wright.

“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”…

“What did Obama do?”

“He sent me a text wishing me happy Easter, which fell that year on March 23 — ten days after the ABC News broadcast. And he sent Joshua Dubois, the director of his religious outreach program, to see me.  And when Dubois came to Chicago, he didn’t know Adam’s house cat from Ockham’s razor. He spent all day with me trying to figure out what we were going to do next.”

“Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”

“Yes,” Wright said. “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said, ‘You’re use to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue, right off 95th Street, just Barack and me…”

Harry C. Alford, President, National Black Chamber of Commerce: “We didn’t really care about [Obama's] position or views on anything.  We just wanted a black president no matter what. We should have been more careful as his views on business, especially black business, are counter to ours.”

If relations between Obama and black politicians were touchy, they were downright contentious with black businessmen. I spoke with Harry C. Allford, the President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, which represents the nearly two million black businesses in the United States.

“When Obama became president, we were all happy about the symbolism — America’s first black president,” Alford told me. “We didn’t really care about his position or views on anything. We just wanted a black president no matter what. We should have been more careful, as his views on business, especially black business, are counter to ours…here we were with the first black president who deliberately discriminates against small business, women, and minorities. How ironic!”

Caroline Kennedy: “I can’t stand to hear [Obama's] voice any more. He’s a liar and worse.”

“…Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn’t give a damn about her or her support. FOr instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president’s forty-ninth birthday celebration in Chicago.

“It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle and Jackie.  Caroline had a word for such comparisons: she called them ‘odious.” She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn.  Now she says things about Obama like, “I can’t stand to hear his voice any more. He’s a liar and worse.”

Former State Department Official: “While I was in the room, [Obama would] get phone calls from heads of state, and more than once I heard him say, ” I can’t believe I’ve got to meet with all these Congressmen from Podunk city to get my bills passed.”

The New York Times’ Peter Baker puts it this way: Obama is “someone who finds extended contact with groups of people outside his immediate circle to be draining.  He can rouse a stadium of 80,000 people, but that audience is an impersonal monolith; smaller group settings can be harder for him… While [Bill] Clinton made late-night phone calls around Washington to vent or seek advice, Obama rarely reaches outside the tight groups of advisers.”

“I’ve been in a lot of meetings with him on foreign policy,’ a former State department official told me.  ”while I was in the room, he’d get phone calls from heads of state, and more than once  heard him say,  ”I can’t believe I’ve got to meet with all these Congressmen from Podunk city to get my bills passed.”  And when the meeting with was over, it was over — no lingering, no schmoozing on the way out. There was no clinging to personal relationship like with Bill Clinton.”

By Jeremy Morris, Associate Editor, US Daily Review.

Connecture, Inc., which is in sales automation technology for the health insurance industry, shared the results of a survey conducted on the exhibit hall floor of AHIP’s Institute 2012 conference.  The survey results offer an insightful look into the personal opinions of industry leaders charting the future of health insurance in the United States, and include their views on reform, the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the reasons for increasing healthcare costs and politics.

Connecture makes the Web-based marketplaces and exchanges that more than half of the 20 largest health insurance carriers use to sell, administer and manage their products; as well as exchanges now being created by many states throughout the nation.  Today, more than 25 million Americans purchase their health insurance through systems created by Connecture.

Some of the most interesting findings in the survey include:

• More than half (56 percent) of insurance executives believe that most health insurance will be sold through exchanges within five years.  Nearly a third believe they will be government-run exchanges.
• Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) believe that, five years from now, the majority of small businesses will not offer health insurance to their employees.
• Among respondents, 28 percent say they would most trust private-sector stalwarts like Walmart to drive down the cost of healthcare (as opposed to the government or the health insurance industry itself).
• More than half (61 percent) believe President Barack Obama will benefit more from the upcoming Supreme Court ruling than presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
• Only four percent of health insurance executives say they believe the country is on the right track when it comes to health insurance. More than 40 percent say something has to “fundamentally change” and 40 percent say the current course “isn’t sustainable over the long term.”
• Nearly half (49 percent) of respondents believe that unhealthy living habits are most responsible for the increase in healthcare costs, while more than 20 percent believe healthcare providers are most responsible. Sixteen percent cite government regulations as being most responsible.

“It’s no secret that we’re at an inflection point that will determine how we as a nation will address the social and business questions inherent in healthcare and healthcare reform,” said Doug Schneider, CEO of Connecture. “The one thing that is abundantly clear to everyone, regardless of political ideology or role in the industry, is that we need to be smarter about leveraging technology to create efficiencies and help ensure that healthcare and health insurance are affordable and accessible for all.”

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review.

By CCRKBA, Special for US Daily Review.

President Obama’s claim of executive privilege to prevent Congressional access to documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious smacks of monumental hypocrisy and looks like an attempt to cover blood on the administration’s hands, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

It did not prevent the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform from voting 23-17 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

“In a March 2007 interview with Larry King on CNN, then-Senator Barack Obama complained about a ‘tendency’ on the part of the Bush administration to ‘hide behind executive privilege,’” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb recalled. “Now we must find out what is in those documents that the White House wants to hide from the American public.”

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has been investigating Fast and Furious since March 2011. Guns linked to the operation are also linked to the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, and untold numbers of Mexican citizens.

“Today’s action by the White House creates the strong suspicion that the Obama administration is trying to hide from the fact that they have blood on their hands,” Gottlieb observed. “That’s not rhetoric; we’re talking about the deaths of countless Mexican citizens and especially a dead federal officer. Fast and Furious has given us a verifiable body count.

“There is evidence that those involved in Fast and Furious thought it could bolster calls for additional gun control,” Gottlieb said. “If that’s accurate, it demonstrates a callousness that goes beyond the limits of human decency. It is imperative that that the American public knows all the facts of this case prior to the election.The people responsible for this disaster must be held accountable, and that will not happen so long as the administration continues to stonewall, and hiding behind executive privilege suggests that Holder and the president have no intention of coming clean.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

By US Daily Review Staff.

During a national online news conference, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) Chief Economist Anirban Basu stated the nation’s construction industry may not recover next year.

“I’m not buying in to the proposition that the nation’s construction industry will recover in 2013,” said Basu. “What we have right now is an utter lack of confidence in the economy, and confidence represents a centrally important requirement for construction spending growth.

“We have capital and profitability in the broader economy, and there is money sitting in the banks,” Basu said. “But many decision-makers have adopted a wait-and-see attitude until the sea of uncertainty that faces us recedes. This uncertainty includes confusion regarding the future path of federal spending, tax rates, the financial chaos in Europe and our own 2012 elections.

“No sector of the economy during the recession has lost more jobs than the construction industry, with nearly five million jobs lost since December 2007,” said Basu. “And what we now see is that job growth is decelerating. The trend is not positive for construction employment in the months ahead.

“However, it’s not all bad news,” Basu said. “Certain construction segments likely will experience growth in the coming months, including healthcare and power generation.”  These are largely due to government spending.

Basu was joined by National Association of Home Builders’ Chief Economist David Crowe and American Institute of Architects’ Chief Economist Kermit Baker.

According to a statement, “Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) is a national association with 74 chapters representing 22,000 merit shop construction and construction-related firms.”

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review.

By NASE, Special for US Daily Review.

With gas and energy prices hitting highs in the past few months, the self-employed are cutting back their business activity, according to the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE). Results from a survey of more than 500 NASE members reveal that fifty-three percent said the rise in prices has moderately or significantly hurt their business.

“High gas prices are still hurting the self-employed, many of whom depend on their vehicles to conduct the day-to-day work of their businesses,” said NASE President Kristie L. Arslan. “What the self-employed and micro-businesses (10 or fewer employees) truly need is a retroactive update to the Internal Revenue Service’s 2012 mileage deduction. This action would better reflect the high cost of gasoline in the beginning of 2012.”

Three-quarters of the self-employed use their vehicle both for business and personal use. In fact, almost half of respondents said they spent over $250 on gasoline for their vehicles in a month, the largest answer possible to choose in the survey. Nearly 70% said that the cost of gas changes their driving behavior.

“When business and personal finances are so closely tied, as they often are for the self-employed and micro-businesses, any rise in cost can be significantly damaging to the health of a company,” Arslan said. “Almost three-quarters of our business owners have seen energy costs for their homes rise, as well, which impacts their home offices.”

The following responses are from open-ended questions in the member survey that allowed respondents to voice their concerns:

• “The prices mean I have less to spend on other items for business.”
• “I opened another office in a town 40 minutes north to serve my patients in that area who were restricted in their travel by high gas costs.”
• “I increased prices, reduced my workforce, and implemented new policies on energy use.”
• “I reduced events attended for business training, professional associations, and contact meetings.”
• “I try to consolidate business travel to save gas. Unfortunately, I can’t pass on the price of gas to my clients.”

See the full survey in the NASE Survey Results section.

Methodology:

The survey was available for NASE members to take in May. Five hundred fifty-nine small business owners opted-in to the online survey and respondents were prohibited from taking it more than once.

About the NASE

The National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE) is the nation’s leading resource for the self-employed and micro-businesses, bringing a broad range of benefits to help entrepreneurs succeed and to drive the continued growth of this vital segment of the American economy.  The NASE is a 501(c) (6) non-profit organization and provides big-business advantages to hundreds of thousands of micro-businesses across the United States.  For more information, visit the association’s web site at www.NASE.org.

By Sheryl Devereaux, Contributor for US Daily Review.

“I’M SICK OF THIS!” I said in a facebook post, and then related some of the comments below. Not too my surprise, several liberal friends appeared to render to Mr. Obama’s defense, by suggesting that the President’s contemptuous bark back was justified and even defended him through past presidents such as Lincoln. To wit:

The President’s job is specifically to EXECUTE the LAW; Not make it. See Art. II, Sec 3, “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and Art. I, Sec 1. “ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” (Emphasis added.)

How is it that the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama’s attack in response to a citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen—albeit a reporter, saying he had no right to question his policy, and then said he created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress’ job to legislate this and all other issues effecting and affecting law. If Mr. Obama doesn’t like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.

Obama tries to draw on Lincoln to make his case.

Taking legislation into his own hands (AGAIN) is a gross violation of his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!

NEVER.

To his speech then, which consequently included a response to the reporter (my point stands above). Policy or no policy—the President of the United States has NO authority to legislate. Ends do NOT justify the means—ever. This country was founded upon playing by the rules–unlike ANY other country. Mr. Obama is not willing to oblige and by his own admission is deliberately turning this country into anything but the Constitutional America that was founded.

That leads to your reference to the Emancipation Proclamation: A couple or more historical facts: The Proclamation stands as an example of executing the law, (not making it). In this case the Constitution itself, as the Supreme Law of the Land (Art. VI), was the law Lincoln was obligated in good faith to execute. One of the great divides between the states at the time of the creation of the Constitution was slavery. A compromise was designed where, by 1808, the slave trade would be abolished. The date was intended to provide enough time—a full generation (from 1789 to 1808)—for Slave States to adjust their lifestyle and economy to phase out the practice.

In 1805 Congress began preparing for this phase out with negotiations on an Act to eliminate the slave trade by the 1808 deadline. To be clear, no actual legislation dictating the abolishment needed to be made. By admission in the Constitution, it was law. But legislation spelling out how and what penalties should incur would certainly be necessary and useful. The act abolishing slavery with the intent to be enforced in 1808 was signed into law in 1807.

Unfortunately, abolishing the slave trade did not result in a willingness to phase out slavery as intended. Instead, the South ignored the injunction and intention of 1789 contract by perpetuation of massive slave growth internally; And it was not until Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation that something was done; More than 3 million slaves were freed upon the declaration, despite that the Civil War had already ensued nearly two years earlier. An important note: By the time Lincoln had to deal with this issue it had become not just a massive philosophical and cultural divide between quibbling sides of the country, but a logistical problem with laws of one state encroaching upon the laws of another. War was imminent—indeed had broken out, irrespective of Lincoln’s further catapult with the Emancipation.

That fact is, in executing the Proclamation Lincoln was merely administering what was supposed to have already happened, an end to slavery. (Despite his own public indifference to either side’s position, by the time he made the Proclamation it was as much about settling a deadly case of sibling squabbles that was sure to end in a massive conflagration or the breakup of the most powerful and FREE country the world had ever seen, as obliging the Constitution. But a gentle balance between the intentions of the Founders in the original bargain and the sovereignty of states caused a major quandary—the largest of its kind in conflicting checks and balanced to that date. Consequently, More than 50 years past the date assigned in the Constitution created a festering canker because the intent of the Constitution was being sidelined.

There is a popular attitude of late to villainize Lincoln as the instigator of the Civil War. This is wholesale cherry-picking of history. The fact is, had the states with slavery obliged their end of the bargain on principle rather than claiming states’ rights (which could have been an issue, except the states AGREED to the compromise, and it was then not a matter of state sovereignty but honoring contracts), as a rouse to abuse of human beings for the sake of wealth and empire, there would have been no uproar, no civil war, and no need for the Emancipation Proclamation. But that is not how governing goes. Mistakes and their subsequent adjustments occur constantly in the affairs of the public. As soon as we have a perfect citizenry, we might have a perfect policy.

That does not, however, justify deliberate breach of contract. Mr. Obama has breached his oath of office so many times, to such a blatant degree, and in such a method and manner as to smack the American public in the face—it is a wonder we haven’t see him lifting his middle finger to us, like his Liberal colleague, Harry Reid so famously has. His actions, none-the-less, indicate his attitude toward America. This latest Executive Order is just another offense to the Constitution that forbids the President from legislating.

Sheryl Devereaux is a prolific writer and researcher, speaker, and radio commentator on the Constitution and public policy. You can listen to her show, Foundation of a Nation onallfiredupradio.net or find her on facebook, and on twitter @sheryldevereaux.

By US Daily Review Staff.

A hearing will be held this Monday, June 18, 2012, at 9 a.m. in the courtroom of Judge Terry Lewis, the judge whose decisions helped decide the 2000 presidential elections. The subject of the hearing is a lawsuit filed by Michael Voeltz, a registered Democrat who is challenging, as he has a right to do under Florida law, the eligibility of Barack Obama to be on the Florida presidential ballot in 2012.

The issues in the case at this stage include but are not limited to: 1.) the duty of Florida’s Secretary of State to confirm eligibility before the name of a candidate such as Barack Obama are placed on the ballot, 2.) the definition of the term “natural born citizen,” which is a constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility and 3.) whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen born in the United States or its territories to two American citizen parents.

In a prior hearing, Judge Lewis stressed that Mr. Voeltz’s attorney, Larry Klayman, had cited Supreme Court authority that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two American citizen parents, but the Barack Obama’s attorneys had cited no authority to the contrary.  Judge Lewis called for Obama’s attorneys to submit briefing on the issue prior to the hearing, and for Mr. Klayman to submit affidavits attesting to issues of fact in dispute as to where Obama was born. Among several affidavits, Klayman submitted the sworn testimony of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, whose “Cold Case Posse” has been investigating Obama’s eligibility on behalf of Arizona and found that his alleged birth certificate is likely forged.

This case is monumental particularly since Florida is once again at the center of an election dispute that could have a major impact on American history. Larry Klayman observed: “Most of the Washington, D.C. and media establishment have never wanted to confront the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be president, as this is not considered ‘politically correct.’ But the framers did confront it and this is why they required a higher threshold to be president that goes beyond just being a citizen. They understood, particularly given the times they lived in, where British Tories and spies sought to undermine the new Republic, that they could not permit someone with divided loyalties to occupy the highest office in the land.”

The case is titled Voeltz v. Obama, No. 2012 CA 00467 in Leon County Circuit Court. The hearing is open to the public and the media. Klayman’s work is supported by the non-profit ConstitutionActionFund.org.  The hearing is being broadcast “live streamed” on the internet by www.wnd.com.

By US Daily Review Staff.

A rancorous political environment is primarily responsible for driving a “national civility disorder” and most Americans say politics is increasingly uncivil, complicating resolution of major issues and deterring qualified people from entering public service, according to a new public opinion poll. Reinforcing these perceptions, nearly seven in 10 Americans (67 percent) expect the upcoming November election process to be uncivil.

Weber Shandwick and Powell Tate partnered with KRC Research to conduct its third annual poll on Civility in America: A Nationwide Survey and found that two-thirds (63 percent) of the American people believe incivility remains a “major problem.” The survey also found that nearly three-quarters (71 percent) believe civility has declined in recent years and 55 percent expect the decline to continue with politicians, political campaigns and government being most responsible for the problem.

Approximately eight in 10 Americans say political campaigns are uncivil and politics is becoming more uncivil. Substantial majorities think the tone of our public discourse is harming America’s future; deterring qualified people from entering public service; and preventing Washington from getting things done. Sixty-nine percent believe last year’s budget talks broke down because of uncivil behavior by the negotiators.

“The increasingly uncivil tone of our public dialogue is hurting our ability to deal with issues and discouraging people from participating in the discussion and entering public life. We are suffering from a national civility disorder that is leading us down an unhelpful and unhealthy political path,” said Pam Jenkins, President of Powell Tate.

The tone and behavior of President Obama and Governor Romney during the presidential campaign will be an important factor in how Americans cast their votes in November. While the public generally views politicians and political campaigns as uncivil, both President Obama and presumed Republican presidential candidate Governor Romney are rated higher on civility than incivility. By a 59 to 33 percent margin, Americans consider President Obama more civil than uncivil; Governor Romney’s corresponding figures are 48 to 39 percent.

Since the poll found that a candidate’s behavior towards people they disagree with (84 percent) and level of civility (83 percent) rank behind only their positions on the issues (86 percent) as important factors in determining peoples’ votes, the civility rankings would appear to provide President Obama with a distinct advantage in the 2012 presidential race.

But Bradley Honan, CEO of KRC Research, said there are two reasons to be cautious about such claims. “Governor Romney has just emerged from a bruising Republican primary season, which could have weighed his ‘civility’ rating down, and President Obama’s ‘incivility’ rating has risen from 25 to 33 percent since 2011 and so the bruising presidential election ahead could negatively impact his margin.”

Incivility is causing many Americans to tune out of the political process and media. Two-thirds say they are tuning out political advertising, politics in general (58 percent), government (55 percent) and election coverage (54 percent). The public is also disenchanted with the media, with 62 percent finding its general tone uncivil and 82 percent believing the media is more interested in controversy than facts.

Although the public deplores both the incivility and its consequences, the poll found a significant jump – from 33 percent in 2011 to 40 percent this year – in the percentage of Americans who are now prepared to believe that incivility is just a routine part of the political process. Jenkins pointed out that “the acceptance of incivility in politics is fast-becoming The New Normal.”

While their attitudes toward incivility in politics remain decidedly negative, Americans’ personal experiences with incivility trended in a more positive direction this year with one notable and important exception.

While only 17 percent of the public reported being untouched by incivility, fewer Americans this year reported personal experiences with incivility on the road (60 percent in 2012 vs. 72 percent in 2011); while shopping (49 vs. 65 percent); at work (34 vs. 43 percent); and in their neighborhoods (28 vs. 35 percent).

Only on the subject of online incivility and cyberbullying was there a marked increase in uncivil behavior, with experiences doubling from 9 percent in 2011 to 18 percent this year. And, as in 2011, more than half of America’s parents, 51 percent, reported that their children experienced incivility at school.

Most notably, it appeared that Americans decided not to take it anymore when confronted with uncivil behavior: 44 percent reported ending a friendship or other relationship; 39 percent said they defriended or blocked someone online; 23 percent said they quit their job; and 13 percent said they moved their residence because of uncivil behavior.

Please click here for the executive summary and other Civility in America resources.

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review.

By Candace Salima, Contributor, US Daily Review.

My husband and I don’t have children. But we’ve had no shortage of young people living in our home over the years. We live within 5 to 10 minutes driving distance of two major universities, so we’ve had numerous nephews, nieces, and cousins living with us over the years. The latest two are getting back on their feet. One I’ve had long talks with over the state of our nation and where we’re headed. It’s been intriguing, to say the least.

For instance, we’ve discussed the communist commune Barack Obama grew up in once he lived with his grandparents. Oddly, by virtue of the fact the people lived there willingly, it wasn’t communist at all. It was just a commune of like minded folks. But I digress, my nephew proceeded to tell me the bulk of his family in Hawaii believe it is time for America to have a dictator. The shock which reverberated through me at that statement left me speechless. The fact that they even entertain those thoughts show me they have no idea what a dictator is, nor do they understand the complete cessation of freedom. But let’s take a stroll through history and learn a little more about dictators.

First, and foremost, let’s remember that dictators control everything, including every aspect of your life. And I do mean every aspect.

Let’s begin with the recently departed Kim Jong Il of North Korea. He dined on lobster while his people starved. It is reported 43% of the children under five in North Korea are malnourished. Thousands languish in prisons solely because they disagreed with the North Korean government. Everything is dictated by the government, all communication monitored and the internet is only accessed by the favored.

Who could forget Pol Pot, a communist who rose to power as the prime minister of Cambodia in 1975. Taking advantage of the revolutionary war he was leading, he transformed Cambodia into a socialist nation. One of the world’s most vicious dictators, he forced people living in the cities to move to the country and working on communal farms and labor projects. He had a “death list” and executed it, using “class warfare” as the reason he was cleansing the Cambodian government of all with Thai descent. Throughout his rule, it is estimated 1.8 million people lost their lives to the Pol Pot government.

Yet another communist who spent time in prison, just like Pol Pot, before rising to power, is Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Chavez loudly proclaims his communist proclivities, aligning himself with every communist nation in the world. Like Barack Obama, Chavez identified himself as a communist by the time he was in his early twenties.  A revolutionary for years, after becoming president, Chavez set about nationalizing Venezuelan industry. He jailed opponents, squelched freedom of the press, and the judiciary is now under his control.  Although people have died at his command, he does not equal the numbers of Pol Pot. Actually, not many can.

Those are the just three such dictators. I don’t have the space for Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad, Myanmar’s U Thein San, Cuba’s Fidel and Raul Castro, the USSR’s Joseph Stalin, and so many more. None of them, not one single dictator in history, has ever spawned happiness in the nation they controlled. Only despair, poverty and death reigned supreme in the nations they ruled.

And these Americans are calling for Barack Obama to suspend the U.S. Constitution and take over, establishing himself as the dictator. It’s difficult to say which is more moronic and self-destructive, their call for a dictator or Barack Obama believing he could accomplish it.

The Founding Fathers, knowing of the despotic history of the nations of the world, carefully crafted the U.S. Constitution to protect us from such horrors. So to those asking for a dictator? Hush up, you know not of what you ask.

———————

Candace Salima is a radio talk show host, author, columnist, and makes her home in the Rocky Mountains. Learn more about her at www.CandaceSalima.com. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

Why the Democratic Party is Losing the Election for Obama.

By Jordan Chariton, Special for US Daily Review. 

January 20^th, 2009-Barack Obama inaugurated as 44^th President of the U.S.

January 20^th, 2009-A group of Republican lawmaker’s meet for dinner in Washington, D.C. Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Republican Pollster Frank Luntz are notable members of the group of 15. A plan to take down President Obama’s presidency is born with opposing his economic policies and political appointees as the centerpiece.  Author Robert Draper report’s Newt Gingrich’s parting words as:

“You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.”

January 28^th, 2009-Eight days after the birth of the anti-Obama agenda, every House Republican votes no on President Obama’s $825 billion stimulus proposal.

February 6^th, 2009-With the new president in office less than a month, January’s jobs report shows a loss of 598,000 jobs, the worst month of job losses in 35 years, capping off a total of 1.8 million jobs lost in last three months.

February 17^th, 2009-President Obama signs the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  One Third of the stimulus is tax cuts ($288 billion), with the rest going to infrastructure and state aid to prevent more layoffs.

December 4^th, 2009-November Jobs report shows 11,000 jobs lost, the fewest jobs lost since the start of the recession in 2007.

April 2^nd, 2010- March jobs report adds 162,000 jobs, the biggest gains in three years.

January 2011-Present Day

The Republicans take over as the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives, thanks to a bounce back mid-term election victory.  What ensues over the next year and a half is a transformational journey taking sensible Americans to a confusing, dumbfounding, head scratching political twilight zone.

Your excitement and curiosity getting the best of you?

Here’s a quick one-time free pass into this new beltway universe.

Welcome to a land where a slow economy featuring inconsistent monthly job GROWTH is much worse than hundreds of thousands of job LOSSES per month.

Soak in the new reality, one where following the worst recession in U.S. history, 4.3 million private sector jobs being ADDED over 27 months is nothing to brag about.  Actually it’s a complete and utter sign of failure for a President who’s “a nice guy who’s just in over his head.”

Enjoy your pit stop at the capitol of this alternate universe, Wisconsin.  There you’ll shake hands with a Governor, whose impressive accomplishment of leading his state to last place in the countries job standings while also conjuring up a non-existent budget surplus leads him to a seven point VICTORY in his recall election (the 30 million from his friends didn’t hurt).

This is the political twilight zone, born on the night of President Obama’s inauguration, by the new 21^st century Republican Party, one where Ronald Reagan would be considered a tax and spend liberal.

And although the elephant started the war, the donkey is on the verge of losing it.

If President Obama loses to the weakest Republican presidential nominee since Barry Goldwater, the Democratic Party has only themselves to blame.

Never has the party so favored by the facts, with a President whose actions prevented the nation from falling off the fiscal cliff, allowed the opposition responsible for placing us there come out looking like sultans of sense.

Never has one political party allowed the opposition to spin the facts into fiction, allowed the enemy to re-write economic history, and failed to take advantage of the one thing more important than all the Super Pac money in the world.

The truth.

Republicans can make Obama their socialist Kenyan born enemy of the capitalistic state boogieman until their red in the face.

From this point forward, Democratic lawmakers, surrogates, and advisors have the choice, and the responsibility, to start fighting harder and smarter in support of a second Obama term.

There can be no more Mayor Booker’s linking vomit with Obama campaign strategies.

Democrats must stop being afraid of mentioning the word BUSH just because Republicans cry excuse. As a matter of fact, they should have W in every sentence.

Ignore the Republican echo chamber deflecting their destruction of the economy onto President Obama, and make sure that on the fence voters remember who left us with a bleeding economy, and how the President who picked up the bag never promised change over night.

Start getting LOUDER AND PROUDER that the stimulus worked, that President Obama saved the auto industry, and oversaw the passing of historic health care legislation that has already helped millions of Americans.

Most of all don’t let Mitt Romney and co. hoodwink America.  No more interviews allowing Republican to scream about big bad “Obama debt” while advocating their usual debt doozies of tax cuts and bloated defense budgets in the same breath.

Enough about Mitt Romney’s “sterling” business record.  The guy made a lot of money, so kudos to him and his car elevator.

No one faults him or Bain Capital for doing what venture capitalists do-make profit for investors and themselves.  The fault comes from painting that as your key to the White House, when making millions in profit has nothing to do with creating millions of jobs.

Speaking of those Romney created jobs, when are the Democrats going to raise the roof DEMANDING documentation for the 10,000…no wait 100,000…oops one million jobs Mitt Romney says he created as a businessman.  I can see the Democratic campaign ad now, with a shout out to Speaker Boehner for the inspiration.

“Governor Romney, where are the jobs?”

And if nothing else, if the Democrats do one thing right, stop this lie dead in its track.

Don’t allow any Republican the right to keep a straight face when calling this President, who took out Osama Bin Laden and most of his army, ended the war in Iraq responsibly and as promised, and has taken away the GOP’s card as the party of foreign policy, weak on foreign policy.

In fairness, there are some Democrats out there doing and saying the right things, like Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed on June 3^rd’s “Meet the Press.”

“These folks have amnesia.  When you talk about Barack Obama’s economic record, he created 4.2 million jobs, 27 straight months of growth.  Folks don’t have any conversation at all in this debate about the two wars President Bush funded and put on the credit card.  They’re not talking about the expansion of health care.  There not talking about the fact that we lost 8 million jobs going into this President’s leadership, and to have an entire conversation without putting those facts on the table is really stunning to me.”

Reed was so clear and unwavering in his support for the President, he did what so few Democrats have done this campaign season.

Spoke facts to power.

Reed iced the sound bite cake with this:

“And then not to add, Mitt Romney’s own record, going from 36^th to 47^th in job creation.  Everything he said about what a wonderful job he would do because of his experience as an executive, he said in Massachusetts, and the fact of the matter is, it didn’t happen in Massachusetts.”

Is President Obama perfect?

No.

Has he made mistakes?

Can I get a Sarah Palin  “You Betcha!”?

Have his policies helped prevent a depression and achieve modest job growth with one hand tied behind his back by Republican’s?

Yes.

This isn’t about being a Democrat versus a Republican.  Neither party is completely right, and President Clinton proved that sometimes the best leaders are somewhere in the middle.

What this is about is the facts.  The numbers.  The indisputable record of progress we are making under President Obama.  Is it good enough?

No.

Will it get better under a second Obama term?

With a comeback of compromise, a lowering of the temperature, and a focus on the country over party:

There can be more change than hope.

Will there be a second term?

There’s one wild card.

It’s the Democrats, Stupid!

Jordan Chariton is a politics, media and culture writer.  He has previously produced and booked at Fox News, Fox Business Network and MSNBC, for both television and web platforms. 

According to Breitbart.com:

In the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama’s involvement with Chicago’s extremist “New Party,” online literature from the Party likely reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to commit financially to membership.

This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing for the affirmative, Kurtzdemonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.

First, there’s a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz originally raised the question of Obama’s involvement with the New Party back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved and referred to the allegation as a “crackpot smear.” Ben Smith, then at Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party because the New Party didn’t have members.

On Thursday, Kurtz announced the discovery of new documents that supported his original claim. In particular, he found minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting which read:

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.

Friday, Ben Smith conceded that this proves the White House was wrong when it claimed in 2008 that Obama had never sought an endorsement. However, Joel Rogers is sticking to his claim that the New Party never had members, telling Ben Smith, “‘I have no idea what the Chicago people were saying about him being a member,’ he said. ‘We didn’t have membership, it wasn’t a membership organization.’”

The problem with this is that the New Party website–earlier drafts of which still exist in the internet archive–mention membership repeatedly and, as we’ll see, even define what membership meant. Here’s the 1999 version…(read more)

By Richard Telofski , Contributor, US Daily Review

Remember back to high school.

Yes, I know for some readers high school is not the most pleasant of memories. But just for the sake of this discussion, please take yourself back there. If it helps any, specifically I’d like you to think about the campaigns for class president.

Who usually won?

Was it the guy or gal at the top of the class, who had the most knowledge about the problems facing the class, who had the most common sense, or perhaps who had the most experience actually running something?

Of course it wasn’t. That would make too much sense, something of which teenagers are often short. No, the most qualified guy or gal usually didn’t win the high school class presidency. Often, the winner was the “coolest” person.

That’s right. The “cool” guy syndrome was usually what moved the ballot box.

That “cool” guy or gal victory was usually captured right after they promised things like:

• Free ice cream at lunch.
• A shortening of the school day from six hours to forty-five minutes.
• A requirement that the “smart” kids give their “fair share” of  homework to the “less motivated.” (The “less motivated” were usually in the majority. Thus, the effectiveness of this tactic.)
• Free juke boxes in the school buses.
• And more goodies which made no practical sense, but drove the voter to cast a ballot for the “cool” guy or gal promoting the goodies.

Promises like this captured the presidency.

But did these promises ever materialize. Did the “cool” guy class president produce anything worth remembering? Go ahead. Try to remember.

You can’t remember? That’s most likely because they never met their promises. That was often the cool guy’s problem. Lack of achievement. Up until he captured the presidency, he had never accomplished much, never ran a club, never ran an event.

But while your cool class president wasn’t doing much (at which they had had a lot of practice), they were cool, right? That made you feel okay. And I’d bet that in many cases that same cool guy or gal was re-elected the following year.

Freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior year. Rarely, if ever, did the cool guy deliver on the promises made in order to get elected. Rarely did they accomplish anything of substance as your class president.

Why?

Because cool people usually know only one thing. And that’s how to be cool. When cool is your ethos, when cool is rewarded by society, there is little motivation to do anything else.

Okay. Now snap out of the high school flashback. I hinted at the beginning of this article that these memories might not be so pleasant. So leave the cool guy syndrome behind. Sing hallelujah, come on get happy. Come back to 2012. You don’t need to worry about cool guy syndrome anymore. Or do you? Doesn’t this cool guy syndrome sound a little familiar?

A cool guy, who riffs Al Green classics, plays basketball, perambulates smoothly, is handsome and has a trim figure, separates people into cliques (class warfare?), is fawned over by the media as if he was a football team captain, is popular with young people, talks about the successful sharing more of their labors with the “less motivated,” promises “ice cream” and other goodies at every turn, is self-centered, uses the word “I” a lot, and who doesn’t take criticism well is running for president. (OMG, can’t you see that he’s cool; how could you criticize him?)

But this time, it’s not the presidency of your class that’s at stake.

It’s the presidency of your nation that is at stake.

I said snap out of the high school flashback. But apparently we can’t. We can’t snap out of the flashback. We live in one because we’re addicted to coolness. The president hasn’t done anything, which should not be surprising because he hadn’t had much practice at doing anything before he captured the cool vote.

Yet he has been cool for the past 3 1/2 years. He’s probably been the most cool president ever. But just like your high school class, a cool president doesn’t really solve any problems.

So now I want you to remember back to November 2008.

Yes, I know for some readers November 2008 is not the most pleasant of memories. But just for the sake of wrapping up this discussion, please take yourself back there. If it helps any, specifically I’d like you to think about the campaign for president.

Who won?

Was it the guy or gal who had the most knowledge about the problems facing the country, who had the most common sense, or perhaps who had the most experience?

Nope. It was the cool guy.

Sorry, but Obama’s just the “cool” guy from high school.

And how does that help us?

_____

Richard Telofski is a competitive strategy and intelligence analyst. Formerly the president of one of the first competitive intelligence consultancies, Richard currently practices at The Kahuna Institute where he studies the effects upon business of non-traditional competitors. He blogs about “The War on Capitalism” at www.Telofski.com.

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

By US Daily Review Staff.

Despite considerable efforts made from both Democrat and Republican parties to improve the housing market, the price of homes has faced a consistent decline during President Obama’s term. However, many states are experiencing improvement in home sales which could majorly affect the results of the upcoming 2012 election. As a leader in Texas real estate,Jim Nyquist weighs in on how these market shifts could determine who our next president will be.

A recent article from Reuters published by The Chicago Tribune indicates a growing opportunity for home owners to sale property for reasonable prices. Many homeowners are already taking advantage of this drastic shift in the housing market and making new purchases as well. In the case of the northern Virginia market, buyers and sellers are experiencing a 5.9 percent increase in home prices when compared to those of the previous year. For real estate expert, Jim Nyquist, these types of signs are encouraging to realtors, seller and buyers alike, but what is more interesting to him is the affect it will have on the upcoming presidential race.

Despite several initiatives under Obama’s presidency, the housing market has seen major declines. This trend has taxpayers concerned about the effectiveness of such programs, and many have criticized the government for failing to deliver positive results. However, the story notes market changes in key states may have some voters reconsidering the impact Obama’s plans has made.

The article claims that purchasing a home is one of the most major decisions that impact American lives. Such matters of importance are at the top of voters’ concerns, and the continuing improvements in key states, known as “battleground states,” may be the deciding factor in election results. Battleground states include Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and most notably, Florida.

The report goes on to cite recent foreclosure increases as a deterrent to this overall economic recovery. Housing expert, Jim Nyquist specializes in foreclosure ventures and adds, “These things do take time, and while foreclosures are still a serious problem for many Americans. It is important for people to realize that the government is taking additional steps to investigate the market, and those efforts will most likely encourage drops in foreclosures nationwide.”

Whatever the case may be for the future, the release cites housing market improvements as a reason for increases in approval for Obama. Using Virginia as an example, the Public Polling Policy found that Obama is up eight percentage points over his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney. These results are significant since the state has historically supported Republican candidates prior to Obama’s presidency.

However, the article also reports that Ohio residents are attributing the economic recovery to local politicians, rather than the President. Although he is not a realtor in one of these battleground states, Jim Nyquist adds, “Many people may take their housing successes or failures too personal and will shift blame on the highest authority they can think of. However, it shouldn’t be the only reason for their voting decision; the real estate market is determined by so many more factors than the government.”