From the AP:

President Barack Obama may have been in Puerto Rico for only four hours, but his brief fundraising visit has unleashed a growing political furor in this U.S. Caribbean territory.

Legislators of Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood ruling party say they are resentful that he swooped in to raise about $1 million and did not offer any help or solutions as the island battles a soaring crime rate and higher unemployment compared with any U.S. state.

One legislator threatened to derail one objective of the president’s June 14 visit: to woo Hispanic voters on the mainland in his quest for re-election.

Local Sen. Melinda Romero, a delegate of the island’s chapter of the Democratic Party, said she has demanded an apology from Obama and will travel to the U.S. next week to meet with Puerto Rican leaders in key states including Florida and New York…

Talk about the gang that couldn’t shoot straight! You go to one of the poorest areas of the United States, raise a million dollars and then take off without offering anything…and all of it done as a cynical ploy to woo mainland hispanic voters for 2012! This guy Obama is a roving political disaster just waiting to happen.

The more I look at 2012 the more I see it as liberalism’s last stand – all the pandering, race-baiting, deal making, gamesmanship…it is all at long last wearing thin. The people see the naked emperor and are not inclined to play along anymore.

From Rasmussen:

…A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 77% of Likely Republican Primary Voters think that every one of the party’s presidential candidates would do a better job than the current occupant of the White House…

…Eighty-three percent (83%) of primary voters say they will vote for the Republican candidate even if their favorite does not capture the party’s presidential nomination. Seven percent (7%) will vote for Obama if that happens, while five percent (5%) will go for a third-party candidate.

Perhaps surprisingly, Tea Party members are more committed to supporting the GOP candidate than other Republicans. Among GOP primary voters who are Tea Party members, 92% will vote for the Republican candidate even if their favorite falls short of the nomination. Among non-Tea Party members, only 78% are that committed to the Republican candidate…

This is interesting for a couple reasons. First off, it shows that any of the current or prospective GOP field can win and unify the party behind him- or herself. Secondly, it shows that the people most likely to bolt the party if they don’t get their way are the more RINOish elements. That moderate GOPer who would like us all to unify behind that sorta-pro-life, kinda-fiscally-conservative candidate…he’ll take off if his man doesn’t get the nod. Meanwhile, the TEA Party fanatic will swallow pride and do what is right for America…getting the liberal out, no matter what.

To me, this is an overall healthy development for the GOP. It shows a growing sophistication on the right – a willingness, as long as core principals aren’t violated, to do what is necessary to win. I mean, there is a “RINO-too-far” possible – such as what happened in Delaware last year when TEA Party people backed the loser because the winner would have been so awful. But aside from really blatant examples of RINOism like that, TEA Party people have a realistic approach to politics. Additionally, as the GOP gains new adherents we are seeing the old RINOs fade from the party. They are probably leaving us – and soon will be gone. The last of the go-along-to-get-along GOP is either dying out or moving to the Democrats. We won’t long be troubled by them.

The GOP needs to be a firmly conservative/libertarian party in order to defeat liberalism. Only those who are willing to fight on principle can really help us to victory. It is an odd coalition – normally, libertarians and conservatives cannot work in harness – but it is the necessary coalition for the vital goal: getting liberalism out of power permanently. I think this is what we’re seeing in this poll – the development of that coalition. And I think it will win in 2012 and beyond, until liberalism really is destroyed.

After that, of course, it will promptly fall apart and libertarians and conservatives argue about various issues…but that is ok; if our two major parties are a Conservative and a Libertarian party, then America benefits.

For some odd reason, however, the KKK has not been invited – it must be an oversight:

Saturday, June 25th is heating up as Blacks nationally and worldwide are organizing rallies, boycotts, marches, teach-ins, free food and clothing drives and other strong actions in over 50 cities. This mobilization is being spearheaded by a national and international coalition of organizations and activists in conjunction with the New Black Panther Party…

…The “Day of Action and Unity II” promises to be exciting as these grassroots activist have selected such controversial locations such as the Weinberg Jewish Center, located at 5700 Park Heights Blvd. and also Platinum Jewelry in Harlem, New York, located at 326 W. 125th street, where the organizers plan to reach their goal of “boycotting all non-Black Businesses”…

Boycotts of non-black businesses? I’m sure I’ve heard of something similar before…let me think, I’m sure it will come to me…oh, yeah. Now I remember:

But, hey, what is a bit of racism and anti-Semitism? I mean, what harm can it do? We all know that the real problem is in those mean, old, bitter-clingers…nothing to see here, just Move On…

From David Isaac over at Shmuel Katz Blog:

A little over a month after former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s fall, Ayman Anwar Mitri, a Coptic Christian, was beaten by Islamists inside his apartment, which they had torched.

“When they were beating me, they kept saying: ‘We won’t leave any Christians in this country,’” Mr. Mitri recalled to The Wall Street Journal.

Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, recently wrote: “Since [late February], a heightened campaign of violence is being directed against Egypt’s Copts and is presaging a mass exodus from the country…”

All of you out there who support the Palestinian “right of return” – what of the Coptic “right to stay”? The Copts are the original Egyptians – Egypt has been their land since before recorded history began…and yet not a peep out of anyone for the fate of these poor people, now soon to be subjected to an Islamo-fascist, Moslem Brotherhood government. They are being persecuted for no other reason than the fact they are Christian – and far from offering any justification for attacks the Copts have, if anything, been entirely too supine in face of Moslem bigotry. Where are the demands for action?

Ah, but it doesn’t fit the narrative – which is that Moslems are just misunderstood and are, at any rate, far more tolerant than those mean, old Christians ever were. All of that being pure, unadulterated BS…a lie first created centuries ago when the original liberals in the 18th century wanted a handy club to beat Christianity with…and so they made up a story about enlightened, tolerant Islam.

What I really want to know is how long we Christians are supposed to just sit there and take it – how long will my brothers and sisters in Christ have to be sacrificed before we are allowed to stand up and oppose Islamism? What is the number of deaths, rapes and other outrages before we reach a number which justifies us striking back?

Rather disturbing report over at NRO – first off, the Susan B. Anthony List has created a pro-life pledge for potential GOP candidates:

Only nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

Select pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Department of Justice;

Advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

Advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

And then NRO notes Romney has refused it – and given the following explanation as to why:

“Governor Romney pledged in the last campaign that he would be a pro-life president and of course he pledges it today,” Romney spokesman Andrea Saul told National Review Online in a statement. “However, this well intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it. Gov. Romney has been a strong supporter of the SBA List in the past and he looks forward to continue working with them to promote a culture of life.”…

…Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul e-mails NRO the details about the unintended consequences Romney is concerned about: “This pledge would require cutting off funding to thousands of healthcare facilities, including VA hospitals, that currently receive funding . It would also place severe restrictions on federal appointments to a broad variety of agencies.”

First off, if you are performing abortions you are not a “health care facility” – and if a determination to butcher children is so ingrained in an organization, then taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going there, no matter what else they do. Secondly, if you are a pro-life President – as Romney claims he would be – then appointing a pro-abort to a position in which abortion is relevant would be a negation of “pro-life President”. I hate to say it, but it appears that all Romney wants to do is gain pro-life support without having to do all that tiresome, pro-life policy which would only crimp his style…after all, there might be some pro-abortion fanatic that Romney owes a favor to and what better way to reward such a person than to make them, say, head of the National Institutes of Health?

You either are or your are not pro-life – if you are pro-life, then the thought that an action of yours might in any way, shape or form advance the cause of abortion is a horror. Any pro-life person would eagerly sign such a pledge as this – and no one is forcing Romney to do so, but if you want to be pro-life it requires more than just a bit of lip service. Hopefully Romney will re-consider and do the right thing.

You just gotta love this guy:

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1

I do have my doubts that Christie has the understanding of the need for revolutionary change in the United States. That our problem is not just mis-management (though that is a huge problem) but the very system, itself. The combine of Big Government and Big Corporation all dominated by a liberal Ruling Class and entirely devoted to self-perpetuation – that is our problem. We have to dismantle it – break it down and allow the American people to live free. But, my goodness, Christie does have guts – I don’t know of any politician, even Ronald Reagan, who ever had so much willingness to completely speak his mind…and tell the truth, even when it can come across as brutal (it isn’t, really: it is actually quite nice…it is just that we are so used to going along with lies that truth seems out of place).

If he wants to get in for 2012, now is the time…

From CNBC:

When it comes to measuring the combination of unemployment and inflation, it doesn’t get much more miserable than this…

…The (misery) index, first compiled during the soaring inflation days of the 1970s by economist Arthur Okun, is registering a nausea-inducing 12.7—9.1 percent for unemployment and 3.6 percent for annualized inflation—a number not seen since 1983. The index has been above 10 since November 2009 and had been under double-digits from June 1993 through May 2008…

Clearly the MSM is still following the Obama line – thus it is still a “recovery”, even though none of us can see such a thing. Also, the report still goes on to say that things are sure to improve over the next year even though all signs are pointing to at least a serious slow down if not a full blown recession. The truth does have to come out, but we can rely on the MSM to let it out in as small amount as possible, and always with some bit of positive for Obama to bask in.

But the plain fact of the matter is that things are pretty miserable and are getting more so all the time…we need a complete change. We need an end to the fiat-money, usury-based economy. An economy of hard work, thrift and careful investment is what we need – we’ll never get rich quick, but we’ll be prosperous and secure in our prosperity. And we won’t get anything like that as long as Obama is in charge.

2012 really can’t get here fast enough…

The RightOnline conference, currently going on in Minneapolis, was well worth the price of admission, and then some. Getting to literally rub elbows with such luminaries as Andrew Breitbart, John Fund, James O’Keefe, Ed Morrissey, and others is nothing less than candy for any conservative political junkie worth his or her salt. I have to go now, but I’ll be putting up a post later with more details.

UPDATE

Well, I just got back home (I’ll be going back tomorrow) and what a day it was. The chance to network with the rockstars of conservative thought and activism, as well as so many myriad everyday rank and file conservative activists was a mind-blowing experience. An interesting factor that in the same hotel, at the same time, the Netroots convention (the Soros-sponsored convention) was being held. The two groups didn’t interact much; however, there was one Netroots protester trying to disrupt RightOnline activities who was summarily escorted off the premises.

Aside from networking, I went to two outstanding breakout sessions. The first one was headlined by WSJ’s John Fund (also Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tom Larsen of MediaCom Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Basically, what Net Neutrality amounts to is an attempted takeover by the FCC using the same outdated and antiquated framework that they used during the 1920s and 1930s to parcel out radio broadcast licenses. John Fund stated that he is opposed to corporate welfare of any kind, and that the WSJ (and much of conservative Republican thought) has shifted from pro-business to a more pro- free market orientation, and so much as stated that what is good for corporate America (many corporations support net neutrality) is not necessarily conducive to the free market system. Rep. Marsha Blackburn reiterated that it was the goal of the current House of Representatives to de-fund any effort by the FCC to impose Net Neutrality, as well as to de-fund the implementation of a government-controlled “kills switch. ”

The point was made that net neutrality laws didn’t seem to be on the front-burner of the Obama agenda anymore. To that, Fund and the other panelists warned that far from being relegated to the ash heap of history, where it belongs, much of the now unpopular, unworkable Obama agenda, including net neutrality, is on hiatus and is waiting to be fully implemented pending Obama’s anticipated re-election in 2012.

One aspect in which I was thoroughly disappointed by Fund was when the notion was brought up about giving bloggers equal protection as is given mainstream journalists in terms of protection of sources and overall shielding by the First Amendment. Fund declined to comment on it, saying that it wasn’t ‘(his) area of interest.’ Not that I want to put words in Fund’s mouth, but it would seem that although Fund is decidedly conservative, his hesitance to support equal rights for citizen journalists bespeaks of a high allegiance to the protection of his profession to the exclusion of ‘dabblers’ in the art of journalism.

The second session I attended was by far the most interesting, that being James O’Keefe; the same James O’Keefe who with the promotional assistance of Andrew Breitbart nearly singlehandedly brought down ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and NPR. The session featured videos of his work, as well as a running commentary of mainstream journalists attempts to not only mischaracterize and lie about his efforts, but to also suppress the news. O’Keefe stated that with regard to his teacher’s union expose, he was interviewed seven times by local news media outlets, with only one of those interview’s airing, that being a live interview, in which the news anchor was literally having coniptions, accusing O’Keefe of lying and doctoring the videos, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Through exposing the corruption of the left, O’Keefe has made a lot of enemies, who are constantly trying to take him out via a flood of frivolous lawsuits. O’Keefe stated that this aspect is the most difficult consequence of his work, as he is only funded through small donations, and doesn’t have a conservative version of George Soros funding his cause.

While the breakout sessions were phenomenal, no doubt the highlight of my day was receiving an invitation to the VIP reception following the sessions. In the intimate gathering of around 30 people, I was able to speak casually to luminaries such as Breitbart, Fund, O’Keefe and others. It was truly an honor I shall not soon, if ever, forget.

Well, that’s the news today from the RightOnline conference– I hope to be reporting back tomorrow.

Outrageous bit of news from WSBTV 2:

Mexico and 10 other countries have filed amicus briefs in a lawsuit that asks a judge to declare Georgia’s new immigration law unconstitutional and to block it from being enforced.

The lawsuit was filed two weeks ago by civil liberties groups.

Besides Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru filed amicus briefs on Wednesday in support of the plaintiffs…

Georgia’s law is similar to Arizona’s immigration statute – and thus is pretty much just a re-statement of a nearly 80 year old Federal law regarding the requirement of immigrants to carry documentation on them at all time. This, naturally, has upset the usual liberal suspects in the United States – who are now being joined by foreign nations in attempting to subvert American sovereignty and democracy. I have the cure for this – though we won’t be able to do it until we replace Obama. The solution is to make State and local expenditures on illegal immigrants recoverable at law from the country of origin.

Here’s how it would work. The States and localities have to pay out pretty large sums of money to providing housing, clothing, food, medical care, education, incarceration, etc in support of the population of illegal immigrants. What we do is enact a law inviting the States and localities to sue in federal court for damages. States and localities would have to identify the nationality of the people they are expending funds on and then, once a year, file a claim (as it were) to recover the costs. If a federal court rules that the persons in question are, indeed, illegally in the United States and that the State and local government expended X amount of dollars on them, then the country of origin is assessed the amount expended on average, per person. So, if California has 2 million illegal immigrants from Mexico and they cost, on average, $1,000.00 per person last year, California would be awarded $2,000,000,000.00 payable by Mexico – it would be collected in the form of a tariff on Mexican goods until the balance is paid, unless Mexico just wants to pony up the amount in a lump sum.

This measure doesn’t deport anyone. It doesn’t report any particular individual to law enforcement. It doesn’t stop illegals from obtaining medical care. It doesn’t kick a single illegal out of school. It doesn’t differentiate based upon national origin. It provides a revenue stream for State and local governments so it will not be fought by them (just watch the “sanctuary cities” line up for it). Most importantly, it forces the countries of origin for the illegals to pay the freight for having them in the United States. It is an absolutely fair and easily executable law – and it will rapidly curb illegal immigration in to the United States because the nations currently sending illegals here to work and send money back home will lose their easy money…and have a huge hit on their export trade to the United States.

I’d like to hear of an objection anyone can make to this. To me, it is the most merciful and just way to deal with the thorny issue. Remember what illegal immigration is all about – money. For the poor illegals, themselves, it is to make money…but it is also a big money maker for the hopelessly corrupt nations which provide the bulk of our illegals. This measure would simply take that money back – it’ll eliminate the profitable trade in illegal labor and thus make it something much less likely to happen. The trouble is, of course, that we’ll never get something like this past Obama…but he may be gone on January 20th, 2013.