Friday, April 13, 2012

The President Obama American Flag Debate – No other President has Face on Standard American Flag – A Brief History of the Obama Flag and Commentary

Modern Image of murderous dictator Stalin, still revered for his "leadership" skills. Other historical figures with their own flag: Adolph Hitler, and of course, the North Korean crew - image from business insider

An Obama supporter from Southern New Jersey has caused a bit of a stir by flying a United States Flag with the image of President Obama replacing the Stars. CBS Local Philadelphia ran the story initially, where one resident of a senior housing development, decided to buy three flags, one for himself and two for his neighbors. The flags caused a bit of consternation among members of the community, specifically veterans of the U.S. Military. This was due to Federal Laws that suggest the flag should not be desecrated by alternation. However, one might also consider that many of these veteran’s have seen, in their lifetimes, other flags with nation’s leaders emblazoned upon them – leaders such as Hitler, and Stalin.

In a search of all possible search engines, (dogpile, scrubtheweb, ask jeeves, mamma, etc.) not one reference to any other United States President with their image incorporated into an American Flag (for sale and for proud demonstration) existed. The South Jersey Obama Flag incident is not the first this election cycle.

In March, the Democrat National Committee Headquarters in Florida caused a controversy in that statewith the same Obama flag, this one flown below the American Flag at the Headquarters. Once again, protests ensued and the Obama flag was summarily removed. This incident, however, got little press, and one wonders why a DNC official office, flying a U.S. Flag with Obama replacing the stars, might not make the nightly news? Perhaps, journalist did not respond, either with outrage or in a straight story, simply because many in the news media are supporters of the President and saw versions of this flag before.

In 2009 - the website “Flags Gone Wild” reported an Obama Flag used in a celebration – this flag(s), with an image - one was a replacement, and one not so much as a replacement for the stars, yet still an American Flag, bearing the image of an ordinary man.
Perhaps the individuals who were carrying these flags, were either buying them or selling them on Ebay! the earliest retail outlet found for the Obama's Face on an American Flag, Flag.

Of course, the design for Obama flag was well under way in 2008 by a design firm specializing in concepts.- This however, did not depict the U.S. Flag, rather an Obama beats McCain flag.

There are stores where one can buy an Obama Flag now:
The stores, has a car flag, but not a whiff of the American Flag – this is similar to flags flow by the Tea Party, and other organizations - for a politician – it helps to raise much needed cash.

Then there’s the 2012 flag stores: Ultimate has two Obama Flags for sale, one is the basic, Obama devotee flag, that does replace the stars with Obama’s image and oddly enough one for the Presidents more southern supporters Obama respectfully posed on the “Rebel Flag”.

The website offers a brief explanation that the Obama flag, is not a U.S. Flag at all, rather just an Obama Flag, and perfectly legal – of course, that may be up for debate by a future justice department.

The problem with glorifying politician’s is that a) the politicians’ get the blame,even if they are aware of or attempt to stop the flag sales (no references found to that order) and b) the Obama adoration society, should the politician appreciate the effort, might eventually turn into something ugly – The latest face to grace a national flag for example is that of Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad , who’s flag has been flying in support of the man who would murder men, women and children to justify his political position.

There are so many ways for political aficionados to support a preferred candidate, mugs, yard signs, tee-shirts, and the like, but to take the American Flag, for the first time, and place a sitting President’s image on the flag, is, indeed troubling, not to the right wing crazies, or old veteran’s but to those who love the nation and the flag that represents the nation. The flag is a symbol of freedom, first sown together by hand, as the rebuttal to the British and a rallying device for those early American’s, and throughout the history of the nation, the flag has adjusted, added stars (not bars representing the original thirteen colonies), for each state brought into the union. Therefore, to the lame-brained, money grubbing, idiots who are attempting to appeal to polecat ideologues with no sense of history or of nation, but devotion in a cult-like manner to one individual (similar to say teen devotion to any boy band), or in the worst case, Jim Jones, perhaps you should find another design, less controversial, more in keeping with the Obama Campaigns blue flag theme.

Otherwise, the more Obama American Flag that are flown from DNC Headquarters, to senior housing projects, to a next door neighbor as the summer moves to fall of 2012, might cause those who value the flag to take offense.

When to worry: When one sees Obama on the U.S. flag, proudly flying from the White House, or behind Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s next press conference as she blasts Stay and Home Mom’s.

The later is more likely.

Image of the Obama Flag not shown out of respect for the Flag of the United State of America

Thursday, April 12, 2012

DNC on Ann Romney – Mother of Five – “Never Worked A Day In Her Life” – War on Women from the Left

Ann Romney - Good Grief She's a Mother! - image Politico from Article: "Ann Romney is the Romney Democrats Fear Most- Explains a lot!

From ABC News: Hilary Rosen, a Democrat Strategist (meaning politic pundit whose sole purpose is to further the DNC’s goal of maintaining and imaginary edge in the 2012 election cycle (could also apply to RNC’s depending on which side of the fence one sits) knocked one out of the park yesterday, suggesting that Ann Romney, wife of GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, had never worked having raised five children.

Whether one is rich, poor, or in what’s left of the middle, and has had the opportunity to raise one, let alone five children, that individual understands that “motherhood” is a position in itself, and at times a thankless, unpaid position that requires a skill set which would be the envy of most CEO’s. Frankly, the comment insults all women who have made the “choice” to raise a family. The feminist rants of the 1960’s are echoed in these tired claims by the left that mothers are in the role of Betty Crocker, and that all women want is access to free abortions and contraceptives – apparently to avoid becoming like Ann Romney – or any woman who has or is intending to raise a child. The vestiges of the radical feminist, who are all of an age that would send most to the shuffleboard court, continue to haggle on and have become the “face” of the DNC in its quest to appeal to women voters. Those women who are in need of nothing more than freedom from motherhood, and a access to unlimited “choice” at the taxpayers, or the Catholic Church’s expense.

When one is a “wife and mother”, who has an education that is equal to, or in some cases greater than her husband’s (another choice that is not preferred to women under the mantle of “choice”), and actively decides to stay home and care for her child (or children), that women is often referred to as someone “shackled” with a loss of “freedom”, as she is perceived as being “tied down to children and under the direction of a husband” (except in the preferred DNC case where one is on welfare and under direction of the “State”), the reality being that the woman who stays at home, is more of top of her “job” (for that is what it is), and responsible for running the home and “helping” (i.e. caring for) her husband. A woman at home, if one were truly a committed progressive, and or socialist such as the majority of the DNC are, would be well aware that in true socialist nations, these women who stay at home and raise children are paid by the state (See Austria). It is encouraged, as the children fare better than they would normally in an institutional (day-care) center, it saves the family money, and these women are often paid for that particular job title.

Of course, feminists never would stoop to being a “kept” woman, who works tirelessly for the “cause” and demeans men and children – except of course if one is the leader of a movement – say Gloria Steinem.

The Republican War on Women is a myth that should be debunked – it is nothing more than a political ploy, one designed to persuade the “silly sheep” that women are – or “the masses” from an elite point of view (either way) that a political body wants to control them – by turning them into mere servants!

How? By taking away their contraceptive.

Fact: Candidate Rick Santorum in defending the Catholic Church, and all religious institutions who employ U.S. citizens, through their myriad charitable organizations, due to President Obama’s mandate that all those must supply contraception and abortions through their health insurance programs, which is contrary to most established religion’s tenants, was the root of this little tirade from the left. Santorum was defending the first amendment right of freedom of religion, and as he was a Republican who personally, as a Catholic, did not practice ‘birth control” in his family (see multitude of children), it was an immediate MSNBC moment whereby women under Santorum would be forced to marry and produce children left and right! The horror!

Now that Santorum has exited the race, this imagined war on women must continue, so they (Democrat strategists) have found a new target - Ann Romney – her crime – being a mother. In doing so, they have insulted, to the very core, any woman who has raised children, is raising children, or plans to raise a child or two or ten - by suggesting that the task is somehow easy, one just sits and eats bon-bon’s all day.

Here are but a sample of the many facts about the real war on women – The Pocketbook

From Free “Obama White House pays women less than men, records show”

Price of food continues to bow to inflation – paying more getting less at the grocery store (This affects both women who choose to stay at home (moms); mom’s in the workforce, mom’s who have incomes, and mom’s who rely on the government for food.)

What women really want: security, financial, national, and frankly, from political organizations who feel they have a right to co-opt and lead those of such light political and mental acumen to vote one way or the other.

Conservative Feminists are branded as out of touch – specifically because they would prefer to have a child than abort a child – other than that – they look for equal pay, for opportunities (both in the workforce and education), and are no different than their more Progressive counterparts, with two exceptions: abortion and the ability to forget one is a feminist, if the woman running for office is highly qualified (Hillary Clinton), and the man is a bigger fan of abortion (See NARAL and Obama’s star rating). It is that one issue, that issue that is lucrative (financially) to both insurance carriers, as well as clinics who perform abortion, paid by either insurance or the taxpayer, to the tune of billions of dollars when one calculates the cost per abortion and the numbers being performed. Contraception is not the real issue – it’s the stepping stone to the abortion issue.

What drives these committed ideologues over the ledge? (Including the Obama campaign)?

Ann Romney.

And the millions of ordinary women, of all race and ethnic origins, regardless of political affiliation, who have children, and would prefer that one start talking about more important issues: the economy, and the deplorable state of education in the nation that once led the war (pre-1970’s and pre-teachers unions).

Hysterical: The left is now complaining that the “war on women” came from the Republican’s – it’s all about politics – however, review above on Rick Santorum, a Republican candidate, good Santorum and War and Women, and try and find a reference to a Republican citing the phrase “war on women” – unless of course it was in response to some Democrat “strategist” (MSNBC’s crew) flipping out on this new “war on women”. (*See video below where that assertion is made – along with comments on Ann Romney)

The Obama Campaign and War on Women

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Santorum Suspends Bid for GOP Nomination – Romney Takes the Helm – The Misconception that Conservatives Won’t Support Romney - Analysis

See Clinton-Obama 2008 and the Obama Brand 2012

Romney - Obama - Game Set! image:

CBS News: Rick Santorum officially suspended his campaign yesterday, with a speech that ended with an opening salvo that he would continue to fight to secure the Presidency for the GOP nominee: “"I walked out after the Iowa caucus victory and said game on," Santorum said in leaving the campaign trial Tuesday. "I know a lot of folks are going to write, maybe those even at the White House, game over. But this game is a long long long way from over. We are going to continue to go out there and fight to make sure that we defeat President Barack Obama."

The first hints that the Santorum campaign might be coming to a halt came from a Bloomberg News report early morning on April 10th, noting that Romney had pulled his anti-Santorum ads in Pennsylvania, instead replacing the attack ads with a pro-Romney piece. Although the article noted that Romney’s campaign was doing this out of support for Santorum’s family’s struggles with their daughter, Bella’s, hospitalization, one can bet the house that the Romney campaign was not about to spend $2 million on advertising that did not benefit the campaign.

One news report that was linked on the Drudge Report, suggested that Santorum had “snubbed” Romney by “failing to mention him” in his outgoing speech – which is a moot point – as the article fails to mention that Santorum had spoken to Romney prior to speaking to supporters . Romney has since reached out to both Santorum and his supporters noting that Santorum is an “important voice in the GOP(CBS News)

Romney is now at the helm of the GOP contest, with Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul barely making a dent as far as real numbers from the primary contests held to date, and the polls for upcoming contests. That Romney will clinch the nomination within the next two months (given the primary schedule) is certain, and the Obama campaign, along with the Press, are already working angles from Romney’s religion being a stumbling block with Evangelicals to the theory posed by the Washington Post that the topical NBC Programming of “Saturday Night Live” had the potential to hurt the Romney campaign. Somehow, the aforementioned seems a wish list rather than grounded in any reality.

During the very heated 2008 Democrat race for the nomination, which, one should be reminded, lasted through June of the year – the Nomination of Obama through the use of Super-Delegates rather than the popular vote that Clinton had locked-up. This caused a mid-summer rift in the Democrat Party, of which some vestiges are still lingering. Yet the nations distaste for George W. Bush, had grown to such proportions that it did not matter which candidate the Democrats had put up against a very weak John McCain, that candidate would win, and with wide support from Democrats, including those who, at the mid-summer mark, detested Obama.

Therefore, even though a Virginia University Poll has Romney a full 6 points ahead of Obama in an early test of a match-up there is still the “but” in the headline – this one referring to Romney’s “enthusiasm gap” The article ends (NPR) with a promise to delve into the religious aspect of the campaign, with more from the Universities poll.

The enthusiasm GAP does exist and it exists in all campaigns where the press and the national GOP had consistently insisted that Romney was the nominee, even when it appeared that Santorum might just pull it out. Alternately, the fact that individuals are not engaged in the primary process, rather the majority cannot recall who is even running; they are waiting for the “Big Show”, or the general election, to make a choice. Who’s’ watching now are the independents, those who are self-indentified as one party or another, will vote no matter who is in the driver’s seat, that is almost a given. The fact that Obama owns the national debt, the rising cost of fuel and the unemployment rate is what counts in this race, regardless of the blame game played consistently by the administration- that wearies those independents who sent Obama to the White House in 2008.

In looking at broad approval numbers by state, via Gallup, for 2010 and 2011, (both released in January of each year) one finds the President with a 50 point plus approval rating in only 10 states, when translated into a real vote, and understanding this is hypothetical statistics, one finds that an unnamed Republican going head to head with Obama will pull 337 of the electoral college votes, to Obama’s 191 these numbers were adjusted to reflect the changing electoral map, due to the 2010 census, and was generous towards the incumbent. In other words, the fact that this general will come down to two or three points, might be a stretch, 5 points is probable, in favor of the former “unnamed” Republican, now Mitt Romney.

Therefore, expect a good deal of reports on Romney’s faith – in the same manner that the press demonized Rick Santorum for being, of all things, a “Catholic”. Does that matter when the right and left of this nation are so tied to their respective parties? Not particularly, since it is the middle minded independents who will cast a vote. Unless of course, the miraculous happens and the President can pull a rabbit out of a hat, reducing the cost of a gallon of gas to $2.50 (using the Gingrich model, it should be less given our natural resources), pulling the unemployment rate down to a respectable Bush level 4 to 5%, while creating enough jobs to cover those not on the official unemployment rolls – in less than eight months, it is an insurmountable task, even if one employs, smoke, mirrors and an all too willing press, it will be pooh-poohed by those living in the reality.
Romney, going forward, needs to stay in that limelight, as if one recalls, McCain received a small percentage of press once he became the nominee, while the news reports, from local, to national, were primarily the Barack Obama show. Romney is no McCain, and he is also not about to let go of any limelight that might come his way – In addition, his wife, Ann, is more than capable on the campaign, and one would suggest, in the White House.

Upcoming in the news:

A. The picking of the running mate (not normally announced until the nomination is clinched, but oh the speculation!
B. The excuses for the current administration, both in the press and from the press secretary.
And finally,
C. A battle tested team of former competitors standing firmly behind the GOP nominee, with a host of conservatives, some of them holding their noses, as they head into the ballot box, leading Mitt Romney to victory in 2012. Fear of a second Obama Presidency, rampant among Conservatives, will ultimately, when added to the independent voters, more than make up for the previous “enthusiasm gap” Romney suffered lo these very few primaries.

Note on Santorum: The all American story of a man who’s humble beginnings, and his quest for the Congress, the Senate and then the Presidency will be told, he is, as noted by so many of his peer, a most able competitor, and the support shown to Santorum by this Massachusetts Moderate Feminist, was due to his record, rather than any “news stories”, (stories the operative word). Therefore, holding nose, this blogger will vote for Mitt Romney, having lives through the second coming of Jimmy Carter, there simply is no choice.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Scott Brown (R-MA) Attacked over Irish Visa Bill – Elizabeth Warren (D), 2012 MA Senate Candidate on the Supreme Court

Brown (the Independent Republican) vs. Warren (In Obama's Pocket Democrat)- the MA Senate Race 2012 - image talkingpointsmemo

It’s an election year in Massachusetts, and the key Republican in the Commonwealth, one Scott Brown, is being attacked for being – Scott Brown. Brown an independent voice, more than a partisan voice, has gone to Washington and, unlike some of his longer-tenured peers in the Senate, has actually written bills and pushed through legislation – he did so by reaching across the aisle - this from an interview conducted by CNN’s Pierce Morgan. Brown by the polls, has been up and down, depending on the college that is polling – however, one can look towards the independents, who make up over half of the state’s electorate to find the key to Brown’s continued success in the Bay State – simply put – out of 14 polls taken since Warren announced her candidacy – the average continues to show Brown with a lead, while Warren has bested Brown in four of the polls taken. The most reasonably close to the actual electorate poll, was thus far, by Suffolk University which gives Brown a 9 point advantage – the majority of the support coming from the 52% of the Independents polled.

Brown bested Democrat Martha Coakley in a special 2009 election, where the dead voted, by 5 points. One has to ask, with Martha having had more experience than Warren; will the vote fall along partisan lines as usual? If that is the case, one can anticipate Warren receiving the 35%of Democrat Votes, while Brown will take the Republican vote (11 to 12%) and the Independent Vote should break 50/40 for Brown given the same manner in which it broke in 2009.

Is Warren different than Coakley? Surely more organized and better funded – Warren recently reported she had out-raised Scott Brown in fundraising, but will money, in Massachusetts, buy her the race? Perhaps within her own academic circle – however, the general populace has yet to hear of Elizabeth Warren, and when they do find that she lays claim to starting the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and most recently, came out against the Supreme Court, siding with the Obama administration, that news might sway Massachusetts voters - Warren , of course, sides with the Obama Administration over the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn his Health Care Mandate – as those rascally Supreme’s, just might be legislating from the bench. Over in Massachusetts, legislating from the bench and special interest groups connected to the Democrat Party have, at times, given the voting public heartburn. It sets up a situation where Warren wants the Courts to rule in favor of Progressive Ideals rather than by the Constitution (either State or Federal). This one might be fodder for Brown’s campaign to run negative advertising, but that has not been his style. The camping may point out where they differ from Ms. Warren, and one can bet the house, she will go negative. (See Martha Coakley).

What else can one do to defeat a popular incumbent?

Get the press involved.

Brown has most recently been criticized by special interest immigration groups for sponsoring legislation that would allow 10,000 plus Irish Immigrants work visas. The unmitigated gall of the man for wanting to bring in a specific group who would actually work! The Enterprise, reporting on the criticized Senator Brown, suggest that his detractors are concerned that he did not support the dream act, or support other groups for work visas. Further, his detractors have criticized Brown for pandering to the electorate of Massachusetts, which, as everyone knows, Irish. That may be news to the rest of the Residents, who are from all ethnic backgrounds, but the Irish, especially in Massachusetts, and in New York or any original point of call, were historically – persecuted.

One might watch the “Gangs of New York” for a refresher, or just talk to someone over the age of 50 to get an idea of what life was like for the Irish who had emigrated from the 1800’s forward – not exactly rosy. Again, the emphasis is on work visas, not a free ride.

Similar legislation was also, according to the article, proposed by Chuck Schumer of NY, who has not been criticized roundly in the press for leaving out Asians and others, as well as Schumer pandering to a huge Irish electorate in New York – of course Schumer is a Democrat, therefore, in his case it may be herald as a fabulous bill, while his Republican Counterpart in Massachusetts is given the short shrift by the press.

Scott Brown is an equal opportunity aggravator. He aggravates the left, he aggravates the right, he really tees off the Tea Party, and other groups who took credit for his election, and he does so by virtue of the bills he sponsors, by the votes he casts – all with an eye towards what’s best for the State. In other words, he’s doing his job. One might want to find another Congressional representative that, in the partisan world of Washington, is doing the same. Good Luck.

All Massachusetts voters need to know, outside of the R or D next to the name, is this: Brown will vote for what he feels is in the best interest of the people, either with the Republican’s or the Democrats, as long as it works for Massachusetts – and he’ll take the flack – on the other hand, Warren will be a rubber stamp for the Obama Administration (should the Obama Administration be given a second shot at the nation). Do we really need more partisanship in Government, no matter how endearingly loopy the woman is?

Occasionally, and very occasionally, Massachusetts gets it right, in the case of Scott Brown that was one of those times.

Note: The author of this blog supported and actively campaigned for Brown’s election in 2009, and since that time, some of the Senator’s actions have made this blogger somewhat agitated, however, as an Independent, it is precisely this type of politician one rarely finds, so once again, Senator Scott Brown will had my support. For the record, I’m not of Irish decent. Also, as a feminist, it is not that all women who run for office deserve a vote by virtue of their gender, but by virtue of their experience and the actions taken or not taken that might make the difference and improve the lives of the citizens of that State or Country. One woman overall, (who was, in this opinion robbed) and who fits that bill is one Hillary Clinton. Support was not based on gender, although that would have been a bonus, but on her record in the Senate.

Monday, April 09, 2012

The Rising Price of Gas - $4 and Climbing in MA to $7 in CA – Watch all Retail, Including Food Prices, Also Rise – the Solution see 2008

Gas Prices 2008 - commentary from Wake UpAmericans

The price of a gallon of gasoline is on the rise from a high of $4.17 in Boston, MA ( to a high of $7.03 for unleaded in Catalina, CA.(CBS Local) Diesel Fuel is also on the rise affecting the cost to deliver goods to markets, affecting retail items, including food.

The rising price of gas will take a chunk out of a paycheck, at $3.25 a gallon, a vehicle with a 13 gallon tank would cost the consumer - $42.25, at $4.18 that increases to $55.25 - and so on. However, in September of 2008, the price of a gallon of gas of gas, which was at a high point began to drop to $3.72 a gallon from a high in July of $4.11 per gallon (Consumer Reports) - what caused this trend?

A band of House Republicans watched in frustration as the summer recess was upon the Congress, and the rise of fuel was responsible for the closings of businesses, and a downturn in tourism. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the Speaker of the House, and refused to discuss the possibility of offshore drilling - instead opting out of a discussion in favor of shutting down Congress and taking a vacation. The House Republican’s revolted, Nancy Pelosi had the cameras (CPAN) removed, the lights shut down - however, several Congressional Representatives, stood their ground, and stayed in session, using cell-phones to upload the proceedings, inviting people into the gallery to listen to arguments, (and buying pizza) – this went on for weeks until Pelosi gave in, brought the House back into session and allowed a vote on offshore drilling. As soon as that occurred, the price per barrel of oil, and subsequently, the price for fuel, dropped.

It was not so much that the drilling ever took place (as soon as President Obama took office, there was a drive towards Green Industries, away from fossil fuels), it was that the speculators who bet on the price of gasoline, much like betting on a horse, were convinced it would continue to climb, as soon as the vote was cast, the speculators backed off, and the price dropped like a stone.

Now we’re looking at the same factor, and solutions have been offered, however, none of them include a serious threat to open up the immense U.S. oil and natural gas industry. If there was, for example, if the President would get behind the completion of the pipeline (natural gas) from Canada it would not only bring more fuel into the country, but much needed jobs. but that is not the case - he did suggest they complete “half” of the project known as the Keystone Pipeline. Half of the pipeline, or a pipeline to nowhere – which if one were a fuel speculator, one would bet against the price of fuel dropping anytime soon.

With a great deal of clamoring from the General Public and those pesky House Republican’s, Obama has given the Department of Interior permission to “expedite the review of drilling permits” on private land in North Dakota. That said reviewing drilling permits is not the same as issuing permits, which shows those speculators a half-hearted attempt of satisfying the populaiton as something appears to be happening, however the Administrations continued love affair with green industries, is transparently trumping pain the consumers are facing at the pump.

With the House in Republican control, and the President on the Campaign Trail, a campaign from either or to not only expedite the process of reviewing the request for drilling permits, but an outright push to fast track permits, would end the high price of gasoline – first by squelching the dreams of the speculators, which would trickle down to the pumps, and as a result, would make many middle to low income families quite happy.

The question remains, when will it become politically expedient for the President to make such a move? That’s hard to tell, but until then the country that has more natural resources than Saudi Arabia, must import the majority of its oil, and watch the prices at the pump rise. History is what happened yesterday, and since this not so distant brouhaha with the former Speaker and the loan band of rebel Republican’s took place in 2008, one would think that memory would serve and somehow the President would connect the dots. Policies should be put aside at this point and time for the poor (which will now include the middle class).

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address