JG55

I'd PAY TO SEE THAT !! READ TO FAST JUST SAW WITH AR LOL

Take a moment and listen to this interview with Zuhdi Jasser

Here is what President Obama said Friday night at the White House iftar dinner in front of a room full of Muslims regarding the Ground Zero Megamosque (GZM): Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure. Obama carefully read his speech, including this statement. When he got to this passage, he spoke slowly, with some vehemence and condescension. Regarding these remarks, as the late, great William Buckley used to say, a few observations. 1. Obama's tone was not one calculated to persuade. He both hectored and belittled those who oppose the GZM. If you respectfully beg to differ with Obama, it is hard to like the persona Obama had on display Friday night. 2. Obama supported the GZM in his usual style, in which his position is juxtaposed with a straw man of his choosing. It is an unappealing rhetorical habit that is made even more unappealing when applied to an issue on which people of good faith obviously differ with him. 3. Obama's statement begs the question posed by the GZM. No one has questioned the right of Muslims to practice their religion the same as anyone else in this country. Rather, those opposed to the GZM have asked the proponents, among other things, to recognize and give way to the feelings of ordinary Americans that a mosque does not belong at Ground Zero. 4. Obama's remarks alluded to the right of private property involved in the construction of the proposed GZM. We haven't previously heard much about the right of private property from Obama. 5. Obama's remarks emphasized the First Amendment rights of Muslims in America. Gone was the living Constitution and the vaunted "empathy" that may impel right (left) thinking judges to depart from a fixed reading of constitutional rights. Whatever empathy Obama expressed for the opponents of the GZM, it was an empathy that had to give way in recognition of the First Amendment right of free exercise. Now if Obama would just take the same approach to the First Amendment right of free speech at issue in Citizens United, for example, he might want to issue an apology to the Supreme Court. 6. It's good for Muslims to build the GZM in New York, but not for Jews to build apartments in Jerusalem. Go figure. 7. In the remarks prefacing his formal speech, Obama recognized Rep. Andre Carson in the audience, who (along with Rep. Keith Ellison, whom he also called out) is one of the two Muslims in Congress. We are still awaiting the the enterprising journalist who can ferret out the branch of Islam that comports with the tenets of the Democratic Party on the equality of women, abortion, gay rights and all the rest. 8. By Saturday, in the face of the response his remarks engendered, Obama was backing off from his support for the GZM. He availed himself of the option of emphasizing the straw man he had addressed. We were to believe that he was only addressing the issue in the abstract. Both Friday's statement and Saturday's backtracking were remarkably unpersuasive. 9. Obama could have played a constructive role in resolving the deeply divisive issues raised by the GZM. Instead he chose to put on display his belief in his superior nature. 10. With great reliability Obama stands athwart the feelings of ordinary Americans. Indeed, he is a much more ardent defender of the faith of Musims than he is of the United States, of its history or of its people. Although Obama framed his GZM remarks as a citizen and President of the United States, he seems to think of himself less as a citizen of the United States than as a citizen of the world and less as president than as philosopher king. In the 2008 campaign Obama presented himself as a healing if not a redemptive figure. For reasons that are almost completely understandable, many voters chose to believe in Obama's self-presentation. Belief in Obama's persona conflicted with voluminous evidence to the contrary that was there for anyone with eyes to see. These voters who bought Obama nevertheless quickly saw through Obama's persona after the election. They now believe they were sold a bill of goods, and they are of course right. Obama's Iftar remarks suggest that Obama has no hesitation at all in reminding voters how he pulled one over on them.

Sunday, August 15, 2010 "Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project." Said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. Click here to take apoll about this statement: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-to-be-clear-president-is-not.html What's the worst thing about Burton's statement? It disrespects Ground Zero to characterize it as just another "local project." The President really did change his position, and it's a lie to deny that. The President dips into local matters when he wants to, such as Skip Gates and the Cambridge cop. It's legalistic hair-splitting again instead of saying something clear that people can understand. ADDED: I almost feel sorry for Obama and the Democrats for their misfortune that this is the issue that has come to the fore at this time. At least one Republican, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seized on the confusion. “Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade,” Palin wrote on Facebook .... Democratic aides say that, at the very least, the president has again knocked his party's candidates off local messages and forced them to talk about a national issue that doesn't appear likely to play well with important swing voters. These officials planned to spend this weekend talking about Social Security’s 75th anniversary.... "The main reaction is 'Why? Why now?’" said one House Democratic leadership aide. "It's just another day off message. There have been a lot of days off message. The chief of staff to one politically vulnerable House Democrat said it "probably alienates a lot of independent voters" and "it's not a good issue to be talking about right now." He said he suspects "there are a lot of (Democrats) who are spooked in tough districts today" and "a lot of Republicans licking their chops right now." Almost. The Democrats would love to do the same thing to the Republicans. They wouldn't hesitate to exploit something that captures the public's attention and provides leverage for the political arguments they like to make. Remember the Mark Foley incident in 2006. Posted by Ann Althouse at 11:43 AM Tags: 9/11, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Islam, NYC, Obama stumbles

here's a link to see exactly where and why the Mosque is called ground zero mosque. Take a look.. http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16201&posts=1

The establishment of a mosque at ground zero has nothing at all to do with the free expression of religion. That is a canard being used by the Iman and others. People like Obama, Bloomberg and Phil Valentine are way off on this. This mosque is solely a Statue to the Muslim Jihadist who killed 3000 people and brought the towers down. Does anyone really believe that they could not find a a location that would not be so insensitive to Americans and still be central to there worshipers. ( if you don't I have some property in the everglades I would like to sell you). Obama and others are setting up a false bogeyman that Americans are trying to keep Muslims from free access to worship, Not true. At some point we as a people have to stop this madness of PC and Tolerance. Not everything is right. This a insult to Americans and the people who died on 9/11 and a Heroic Statue to the Muslim Jihadist. It says see the struggle continues and there are other ways to strike Jihad at the Americans, we may not be able to beat the Americans on the battle field but we can use their own laws and profit motives to defeat them in their country.

Barack Obama, defender of the faith Share Post Print August 14, 2010 Posted by Scott at 6:31 It's good to have President Obama on record on the proposed mosque at Ground Zero. To no one's surprise, I'm sure, he supports it, and he does so in his usual style: <a href='http://agahe.net/~openx/openx/www/delivery/ck.php?n=ac276629&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://agahe.net/~openx/openx/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=2&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=ac276629' border='0' alt='' /></a> Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure. Obama's statement begs the question posed by the mosque (or whatever it is) at Ground Zero. No one has questioned the right of Muslims to practice their religion the same as anyone else in this country. Rather, those opposed to the mosque have asked the proponents to recognize and give way to the feelings of ordinary Americans that a mosque does not belong at Ground Zero. If it is another mosque that is wanted, as Obama suggests, ordinary Americans desire only that it be built somewhere else in New York. Obama's invocation of the First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion is not on point. In the good old USA, citizens have a right to do many wrongs. One such wrong would be the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero. Obama simply does not engage the point. He does not argue that the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero would be right. He says that we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities involved with the development of lower Manhattan, but then again, apparently we need not. His acknowledgment of the need to recognize and respect the sensitivities involved is meaningless ornamentation. Obama does not recognize the deep offense that would be given by the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero. On this point he has precisely nothing to say. He does not make a case why the feelings of ordinary Americans should give way. With great reliability Obama stands athwart the feelings of ordinary Americans. Indeed, he is a much more ardent defender of the faith of Musims than he is of the United States, of its history or of its people. Obama's defense of the mosque at Ground Zero highlights his adversarial stance and is thus a particularly valuable addition to the record. UPDATE: Debra Burlingame responds to Obama's statement

The Obsolescence of Barack Obama by Fouad Ajami (Senior Fellow and Chair, Working Group on Islamism and the International Order) The Wall Street Journal OPINION AUGUST 11, 2010 The Obsolescence of Barack Obama The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it. By FOUAD AJAMI Not long ago Barack Obama, for those who were spellbound by him, had the stylishness of JFK and the historic mission of FDR riding to the nation's rescue. Now it is to Lyndon B. Johnson's unhappy presidency that Democratic strategist Robert Shrum compares the stewardship of Mr. Obama. Johnson, wrote Mr. Shrum in the Week magazine last month, never "sustained an emotional link with the American people" and chose to escalate a war that "forced his abdication as president." A broken link with the public, and a war in Afghanistan he neither embraces and sells to his party nor abandons—this is a time of puzzlement for President Obama. His fall from political grace has been as swift as his rise a handful of years ago. He had been hot political property in 2006 and, of course, in 2008. But now he will campaign for his party's 2010 candidates from afar, holding fund raisers but not hitting the campaign trail in most of the contested races. Those mass rallies of Obama frenzy are surely of the past. The vaunted Obama economic stimulus, at $862 billion, has failed. The "progressives" want to double down, and were they to have their way, would have pushed for a bigger stimulus still. But the American people are in open rebellion against an economic strategy of public debt, higher taxes and unending deficits. We're not all Keynesians, it turns out. The panic that propelled Mr. Obama to the presidency has waned. There is deep concern, to be sure. But the Obama strategy has lost the consent of the governed. Mr. Obama could protest that his swift and sudden fall from grace is no fault of his. He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government. He pronounced on the American condition with stark, unalloyed confidence. He had little if any regard for precedents. He could be forgiven the thought that America's faith in economic freedom had given way and that he had the popular writ to move the nation toward a super-regulated command economy. An "economic emergency" was upon us, and this would be the New New Deal. There was no hesitation in the monumental changes Mr. Obama had in mind. The logic was Jacobin, the authority deriving from a perceived mandate to recast time-honored practices. It was veritably rule by emergency decrees. If public opinion displayed no enthusiasm for the overhaul of the nation's health-care system, the administration would push on. The public would adjust in due time. The nation may be ill at ease with an immigration reform bill that would provide some 12 million illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship, but the administration would still insist on the primacy of its own judgment. It would take Arizona to court, even though the public let it be known that it understood Arizona's immigration law as an expression of that state's frustration with the federal government's abdication of its responsibility over border security. It was clear as daylight that there was a built-in contradiction between opening the citizenship rolls to a vast flood of new petitioners and a political economy of redistribution favored by the Obama administration. The choice was stark: You could either "spread the wealth around" or open the gates for legalizing millions of immigrants of lower skills. You could not do both. It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences. Yet there was, in 1980, after another landmark election, a leader who had stepped forth in a time of "malaise" at home and weakness abroad: Ronald Reagan. His program was different from Mr. Obama's. His faith in the country was boundless. What he sought was to restore the nation's faith in itself, in its political and economic vitality. Big as Reagan's mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his county. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation's treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences. To be sure, Reagan faltered midway through his second term—the arms-for-hostages trade, the Iran-Contra affair, nearly wrecked his presidency. But he recovered, the nation rallied around him and carried him across the finish line, his bond with the electorate deep and true. He had two years left of his stewardship, and his political recovery was so miraculous that he, and his first mate, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, would seal the nation's victory in the Cold War. There is little evidence that the Obama presidency could yet find new vindication, another lease on life. Mr. Obama will mark time, but henceforth he will not define the national agenda. He will not be the repository of its hopes and sentiments. The ambition that his would be a "transformational" presidency—he rightly described Reagan's stewardship in these terms—is for naught. There remains the fact of his biography, a man's journey. Personality is doubtless an obstacle to his recovery. The detachment of Mr. Obama need not be dwelled upon at great length, so obvious it is now even to the pundits who had a "tingling sensation" when they beheld him during his astonishing run for office. Nor does Mr. Obama have the suppleness of Bill Clinton, who rose out of the debris of his first two years in the presidency, dusted himself off, walked away from his spouse's radical attempt to remake the country's health-delivery system, and moved to the political center. It is in the nature of charisma that it rises out of thin air, out of need and distress, and then dissipates when the magic fails. The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation. Mr. Ajami is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Michelle Obama Asks Me to Sign President Obama’s Birthday Card Jim Lindgren • July 27, 2010 10:38 pm I received the following email from First Lady Michelle Obama: SUBJECT: Will you sign Barack’s birthday card, James? James – Every year, our family tries to come up with a fun way to wish Barack a happy birthday. And this August 4th, when he turns 49, I have something new in mind. This has been a big — and hectic — year for him. After signing the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform into law — and completing his first year as president — I think it’s safe to say we will remember it for a long time. And I know full well how much he credits this movement, and the work of supporters like you, for the change that we’ve accomplished. So I’m putting together a birthday card that I would like you to sign. Together with other Organizing for America supporters — and me, Malia, Sasha, and Bo — we’ll wish him a happy birthday and let him know that we’re ready to take on the year ahead alongside him. Will you wish Barack a happy birthday with me ? This year also brought a lot of surprises — some good and some bad. Supporters like you have helped him make the best of it — by contacting Congress to help push stalled legislation forward, by re-engaging supporters in the political process, by giving back with service projects across the country, and so much more. And while we can’t know what the coming year will bring, all of us, working together, will continue pushing forward for change. Will you help make this a memorable birthday for Barack and wish him a happy 49th? Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Happy Birthday President Obama Thanks so much, Michelle Obama I find it hard to say precisely why I find this email a bit creepy. At one level this seems innocuous enough–and it is definitely not a big thing. At another level, asking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader’s birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president’s birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear. No, I am not saying we are in a dictatorship; I am saying that because we are not, we should not be emulating the trappings characteristic of that fundamentally different sort of regime. Nor do I think this is particularly ominous, just a very small step in the wrong direction. Last, it seems strange for Michelle Obama to be trying to get us to sign Barack’s birthday card when she is scheduled to be in Spain with [at least one of] her daughters during the President’s birthday. I guess when you believfe you have the number one brand you can send out stupid email requests..

Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment Be sure to the read this.

washingtonpost.com The above link is to the story at the Washington Post Cut and Pasted it below Republican lawmakers gird for rowdy tea party #ArticleCommentsWrapper {display:block}; Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. By Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 18, 2010 So who wants to join Rand Paul's "tea-party" caucus? "I don't know about that," Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) replied with a nervous laugh. "I'm not sure I should be participating in this story." Republican lawmakers see plenty of good in the tea party, but they also see reasons to worry. The movement, which has ignited passion among conservative voters and pushed big government to the forefront of the 2010 election debate, has also stirred quite a bit of controversy. Voters who don't want to privatize Social Security or withdraw from the United Nations could begin to see the tea party and the Republican Party as one and the same. Paul, the GOP Senate nominee in Kentucky, floated the idea of forming an official caucus for tea-party-minded senators in an interview in the National Review as one way he would shake up Washington. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), one of the movement's favorite incumbents, filed paperwork on Thursday to register a similar group in the House "to promote Americans' call for fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government." In six states -- Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, Utah, Colorado and Minnesota -- tea-party-backed Republican Senate candidates have won nomination or are favored in upcoming primaries. They are attracting outsize attention not only from Democrats and the media, but from conservative leaders such as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Fox News host Glenn Beck. Republicans such as Paul and Sharron Angle in Nevada may hold provocative views, but "they're our nominees and I think we ought to get behind them 100 percent," said Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.). "The candidates are not ours to choose," said Cornyn, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. "They're the choice of the primary voters in the states, and I think we should respect their choices." <a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/39db/3/0/%2a/t%3B226452430%3B0-0%3B0%3B20580498%3B4307-300/250%3B37420426/37438303/1%3Bu%3Do_2a_5bCS_5dv1_7c25CBCF1A0515AEC4_2d600001744033A6E8_5bCE_5d%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bad%3Dbb%3Bsz%3D300x250%3Bpos%3Dinline_bb%3Bpoe%3Dno%3Borbit%3Dy%3Bdel%3Diframe%3Bqcseg%3DD%3Bqcseg%3DT%3Bfromrss%3Dn%3Brss%3Dn%3B%7Eaopt%3D6/1/ff/1%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/NYC/go/184816757/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/6231840" target="_blank"><img src="http://view.atdmt.com/NYC/view/184816757/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/6231840"/></a><noscript><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/39db/3/0/%2a/t%3B226452430%3B0-0%3B0%3B20580498%3B4307-300/250%3B37420426/37438303/1%3Bu%3Do_2a_5bCS_5dv1_7c25CBCF1A0515AEC4_2d600001744033A6E8_5bCE_5d%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bad%3Dbb%3Bsz%3D300x250%3Bpos%3Dinline_bb%3Bpoe%3Dno%3Borbit%3Dy%3Bdel%3Diframe%3Bqcseg%3DD%3Bqcseg%3DT%3Bfromrss%3Dn%3Brss%3Dn%3B%7Eaopt%3D6/1/ff/1%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/NYC/go/184816757/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/6231840" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://view.atdmt.com/NYC/view/184816757/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/6231840" /></a></noscript> Yet some Republicans worry that tea-party candidates are settling too comfortably into their roles as unruly insurgents and could prove hard to manage if they get elected. Paul, who beat GOP establishment favorite Trey Grayson in Kentucky's primary, told the National Review that he would seek to join forces with GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.), "who are unafraid to stand up" and who have blocked numerous bills advanced by both parties deemed by the pair as expanding government. "If we get another loud voice in there, like Mike Lee from Utah or Sharron Angle from Nevada, there will be a new nucleus" to advocate causes such as term limits, a balanced-budget amendment and "having bills point to where they are enumerated in the Constitution," Paul said in the interview. Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said in an interview. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them." But Lott said he's not expecting a tea-party sweep. "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people," he said. Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), who failed to survive his party's nominating process after running afoul of local tea-party activists, told a local Associated Press reporter last week that the GOP had jeopardized its chance to win Senate seats in Republican-leaning states such as Nevada and Kentucky and potentially in Colorado, where tea-party favorite Ken Buck has surged ahead of Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in their primary battle Page 2 of 2 < BackBack Republican lawmakers gird for rowdy tea party Network News X Profile View More Activity TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! Buzz Reprints #ArticleCommentsWrapper {display:block}; COMMENT 214 Comments | View All » POST A COMMENT You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register Why Do I Have to Log In Again? Log In Again? CLOSE We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience. Discussion Policy Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. Discussion Policy CLOSE Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging » Links to this article Bennett warned that such candidates are stealing attention from top GOP recruits such as Mike Castle in Delaware and John Hoeven in North Dakota, both of whom are favored to win seats held by Democrats. Nor are they helping the Republican Party to resolve its deeper identity problems, he said. "That's my concern, that at the moment there is not a cohesive Republican strategy of this is what we're going to do," Bennett told the AP. "And certainly among the tea-party types there's clearly no strategy of this is what we're going to do." Democrats are hopeful that voters will focus on the potential consequences of tea-party proposals as they decide whether to hand over control of Congress to Republicans. Democratic Party officials said their easiest target, given the recent economic meltdown, is the push to privatize Social Security. A recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that 48 percent of voters were "very uncomfortable" with the idea of private retirement accounts, while another 18 percent had reservations. In Nevada, when state Sen. Joe Heck told a local reporter that he was open to a limited and voluntary version of Social Security privatization, his Democratic opponent, Rep. Dina Titus, declared he had endorsed "Sharron Angle and her radical agenda." The Senate candidate has said she wants to phase out Social Security and Medicare as government programs. Democrats also are trying to tarnish Ron Johnson, a DeMint-endorsed businessman who is backed by tea-party groups and establishment Republicans in his bid take on Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). When Paul raised his caucus idea, Democrats put the question to Johnson. "The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is asking Tea Partier Ron Johnson to tell Wisconsin voters if he would join Rand Paul's 'tea party caucus,' " read a DSCC statement released Thursday. Johnson's campaign did not respond to The Post's request for comment. The Democratic National Committee seized immediately this week on a billboard sponsored by a local tea-party group in Mason City, Iowa, depicting President Obama next to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. "Republicans keep saying that they aren't extremists -- but they keep doing things like this," wrote DNC Executive Director Jennifer O'Malley Dillon in a fundraising letter. The billboard also forced Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who faces a tough challenge from Democrat Roxanne Conlin, to issue a careful rebuke. "I believe that you should always leave personalities out of it and talk policy," he said in an interview. But Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) said he's still not sure of the tea party's broader political impact. "I don't know whether it causes a fracture in the Republican Party or provides more energy," Cardin said. "But there are a lot of Republicans who are uncomfortable, and my gut is, at least in the short term, that will cause some problems."

be sure to0 report about the build quality and how you like it..

He’s not confident; he’s scared. He knows he blew it by voting for the bill, he doesn’t understand the bill he voted for, and when the approved talking points don’t work on constituents like they work on the captive press, he doesn’t know what to say. And as we lawyers know, when you’ve got nothing else, you pound on the table, as Rodriguez proceeds to do. UPDATE: A reader emails: “I watched the video 2x and I can tell you that as a woman who used to be married to a physical abuser, I can detect a woman-abuser a mile away. I flinched for the woman that he approached with that paper in his hand – I thought he was going to smack her with the paper. And when he smacked the table, I had no doubt that he truly wanted to hit her.” Well, I don’t possess such intuitive powers, but he certainly looks like a jerk.

Mike Flynn at Big Government boils it down to its essence: Rep. Rodriguez is an elected official with a duty to represent his constituents in Congress, no matter their political persuasion, and, he volunteered and asked for this job. He wasn’t ordered into this position by some judge, as some kind of sentence. He wants this job. It is a bit stunning that, at the first sign of criticism, he loses his temper so quickly. A confident politician would have been able to field this question. When called out on it, ought to have been able to field the questions in a manner that didn’t resort to threats and a violent outburst. That he couldn’t tells you all you need to know about the political landscape today. Basically that was the way he decided to control the room. It is a version of a control technique used by public speakers when they have someone asking to many questions or being disruptive. It was most likely pre-planned..

+1

HEHE +1

You're right, I'm sure if that had been your wife or daughter all you would of done is Laugh.

Reallyyyyyyyyyyy, a standing man steps forward towards a sitting woman, takes an aggressive stance towards her, raises his voice, slaps a paper hard against a table close to her and you don't see the implied threat. (He might as well said shut-up, Bitch) OKAYYYYY!!!! So much for Southerner Chivalry !!!

Whether he is lying or not doesn't matter he has no right to threaten the woman. That was uncalled for.