Friday, October 5, 2012

Judge tells transit agency to post anti-jihad message

Issue was whether 'heckler's veto' would be allowed to shut down ads promoting Israel

WND Exclusive


A judge in Washington, D.C., ruled today that a “heckler’s veto” of pro-Israel ads that already have appeared in San Francisco and New York cannot be used to censor the message in Washington.

The judge granted a request by the American Freedom Law Center for an injunction to halt the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority censorship of a pro-Israel/anti-jihad bus advertisement.

The judge ordered the agency display the ads no later than 5 p.m. on October 8, 2012.

Judge Rosemary M. Collyer granted the request after AFLC co-founder and senior counsel Robert Muise presented a compelling case in which he argued that the WMATA’s refusal to run the advertisement out of a vague and speculative fear of Muslim mob violence violates AFLC’s clients’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Muise of the American Freedom Law Center is representing the ad sponsors, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch who are working together under the banner of the Freedom Defense Initiative.

“Today, Judge Collyer affirmed that our fundamental right to freedom of speech cannot be suppressed by mob rule. This is not only a victory for our clients, but it is a clear victory for all freedom-loving Americans.”

It was back on Sept. 18 when the agency decided to delay running a pro-Israel/anti-jihad advertisement on its metro system until some “future date” due to alleged concerns about “the situations happening around the world,” “world events,” and the “security and safety” of its passengers.

Muise explained the WMATA’s decision was based in response to the ongoing violence in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere in an alleged protest of free speech in the United States that is critical of Islam.

AFLC challenged the censorship.

The victory follows on the heels of a New York federal judge ordering New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority to display the same advertisement after the MTA had initially refused to run it in September 2011, claiming that the advertisement violated the MTA’s policy against displaying “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.”

The ad states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel, Defeat Jihad.”

The ad previously has raised a ruckus on the West Coast, where San Francisco transit officials accompanied it with a disclaimer.

Muise said earlier, “The WMATA does not want to display a message that it deems to be critical of Islam, critical of jihad, or supportive of Israel in light of the current ‘world events.’ However, it is precisely because of the current political situation unfolding in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere that FDI should be permitted to express its message, and any delay amounts to government censorship of speech. Because FDI’s speech is core political speech, it should be accorded the greatest protection under the First Amendment.”

The transit agency already leases space for ads that are commercial, noncommercial, public service, public-issue, political and religious. For example, it has posted the message, “End U.S. military aid to Israel.”

A court hearing was held Thursday.

AFLC co-founder David Yerushalmi said: “Under the First Amendment, speech cannot be punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob. The WMATA’s speech restriction is based on the perceived negative response that FDI’s message might receive from certain viewers based on its content and viewpoint. However, a viewer’s reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. This is known as a ‘heckler’s veto,’ which is impermissible under the First Amendment.”

The organizations just finished a similar fight in New York, where a federal judge ruled free speech requires the transit authority to display the ads, just as it has displayed other ads.

When the ad appeared there, a pro-Islamic activist who has worked for MSNBC was arrested for vandalizing a poster with spray paint.

Mona Eltahawy was charged with criminal mischief after spray painting a defender of freedom who caught her in the act of vandalizing one of the pro-Israel ads.

Click below for the video:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/judge-delays-anti-jihad-free-speech/

Americans' distrust of Obama birth story rises

MIT professor's poll shows 'birthers aren't going anywhere'

121004obama

“The birthers aren’t going anywhere!”
So concludes MIT political science professor Adam J. Berinsky, who published Monday results from a YouGov survey of 1,000 Americans who were asked whether they believed Barack Obama was born in the United States.

According to the scientific poll, 73 percent of self-identified Republicans and 40 percent overall are either don’t believe Obama was born in the U.S. or are not sure.

For both Republicans and Americans overall, belief that Obama is foreign-born was at a high point in September, just 37 days before the Nov. 6 presidential election.
 
As seen in Table 1 for the full sample and in Table 2 for Republicans only, Berinsky’s conclusions were clear: The percentage of people who think Obama was not born in the United States has held steady throughout the year and perhaps even increased slightly.

“Birtherism is especially pronounced among Republicans,” Berinsky wrote. “Indeed, the level of birtherism among Republicans is the highest it has been this year.”


Table 1: Adam Berinsky birther study: full sample


Table 2: Adam Berinsky birther study: Republicans only

Writing in February, Berinsky noted Obama, since assuming the presidency, had been plagued by rumors that he is not a natural-born citizen and, as a result, is not eligible to serve as president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

“These rumors have shown a surprising resilience over the last four years,” Berinsky wrote. “In fact, polls conducted by numerous media organizations repeatedly demonstrated that a significant portion of the American public claimed that Obama was not born in the United States, while many others are not sure if he was.”

Berinsky noted the doubts about where Obama was born have persisted even after the White House released a computer PDF copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011.

“Time and again, the Obama team tried to dispel the “birther” rumor,” he observed.

“During the 2008 presidential contest, Obama released a computer copy of his birth certificate on a campaign website, but it did not quell the controversy. In 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, verified that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen. But still the rumors would not die.”

In July, Berinsky reported 20 percent of independent voters believe Obama is not a native born citizen, allowing him to conclude that birtherism “is not strictly a condition of the Republican Party.”

NY State Senator walks off stage at Muslim Day Parade after Muslim speakers call for free speech restrictions, make antisemitic remarks

From Jihad Watch

New York State Senator Tony Avella discovers Islamic supremacists' sinister agenda, straight from their own mouths. "NY State Sen. Breaks Silence About Why He Walked Off Stage at Muslim Day Parade: ‘Attack on Our Country,’" by Mike Opelka for The Blaze, September 27 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
It has taken four days to get a comment from NY State Senator Tony Avella’s office, but the hard-to-reach elected official has finally responded to TheBlaze regarding why he left the stage during NYC’s Muslim Day Parade. 
Just minutes before 3pm ET, Mr. Avella sent an email to TheBlaze answering most of of our questions. He started by combining the first two questions:
How many of the previous Muslim Day Parades have you attended? (This was the 27th annual parade.)
Have you been a “VIP” or “Honorary Marshall” for this parade in any previous years?
Avella’s reply:
Although I have had contact with Muslim groups throughout New York City as a former member of the New York City Council, prior to being elected to the State Senate in 2010, this was the first Muslim Day Parade that I had been invited to attend.
TheBlaze followed with:
What is your official reaction to the speech that inspired you to get up and leave the stage?
To which, the Senator replied:
I was deeply offended by the various remarks that were made during the on stage presentation and felt they were an attack on our country as well as the State of Israel and were anti-Semitic in nature and as a result I left the stage in protest. In addition, I immediately wrote the Parade Committee the next day on Monday indicating my outrage. 
And the final two questions we posed were also answered by one statement.
There was also a speaker there, an imam from Brooklyn, who demanded a UN law that would criminalize “defaming” Islam or the prophet Muhammed. Where do you stand on this proposal or any proposal that seems to conflict with our First Amendment?
If you support the imam’s idea on the speech limitations, what do you think about the painting known as “Piss Christ” – an “art” exhibit recently mounted at a local gallery?
Mr. Avella’s answer:
I was shocked to hear the Imam’s negative comments about freedom of speech and individual rights.
It should be noted that Avella did not leave during the imam’s comments, only after the woman got up and decried “Zionist Nazis.” To be fair, however, her speech could have been the final straw....

Obama Finally in Real Trouble 

By: Matt Towery  / TownHall Daily

Mitt Romney, as was clear to all who watched the first presidential debate, channeled Ronald Reagan right down to the glistening hair and respectful smiling face that listened as his opponent tap-danced and stutter-stepped his way to a resounding thumping in the contest.

Several post-debate polls for varying news organizations such as CNN and Newsmax showed that the voters who watched the debate viewed President Obama's lackluster performance as a clear victory for Gov. Romney. So clear, in fact, as to outdistance the margin of perceived victory measured in most past presidential debates where same night post-debate surveys were conducted.

Most supporters of Obama will write this off to a one night off performance by their man. But a deeper examination of what took place would suggest that the president has, in many ways, created a deep hole from which he must now climb in the next two contests.

What has not been mentioned enough is the fact that this first debate was actually an introductory event for Mitt Romney. Most Americans did not watch the endless Republican primary debates earlier in the year. As a result, the image they had of Romney had been formed by brief moments from stories from the evening news or from some late night comedian. This was Mitt Romney's opportunity to introduce himself to most voters on his own terms.

And because President Obama has avoided long press conferences or other opportunities to speak extemporaneously, many voters who have seen him on cozy shows such as "The View," or in very structured interviews, such as his recent appearance on "60 Minutes," are having a hard time reconciling the Obama they thought they knew with the one who debated Romney in Denver.

Certainly the president will come out swinging in the next contest, and in coming days many a comparison will be made to Ronald Reagan's weak performance in his first debate against Walter Mondale during his 1984 re-elction bid. Reagan seemed weak and at times confused and came back to clobber Mondale in the next debate. But there is a big difference here.

First, Reagan was already known as the great communicator, and no one had ever suggested that he could only speak without the help of a teleprompter. When Reagan "bounced back" in his second debate, there was a high level of past performance to which he returned. No such record exists for President Obama. He bested John McCain in 2008, but McCain was himself a weak debater who often was lost in the same high weeds of policy and insider type talk that we heard from Obama in the Denver contest.

Reagan had no long term history of stuttering, grasping for words or uttering "uh" or "look" every few sentences while trying to respond to questions or make a point. To be honest, these stylistic problems that Obama highlighted in the first debate have been his hallmark throughout his presidency -- it is simply a matter of no one ever calling him out over them.

But Obama's debate problem runs deeper than a matter of his style and manner of delivering a message. In the first debate, he embraced several terms and pushed several concepts that could become deadly in a final contest where domestic policy can once again dominate the contest.

First, he chose to proudly adopt the term "Obamacare" as one that from now on will be considered a non-confrontational term. If Romney plays it right, Obama's decision might be tantamount to Herbert Hoover having proudly claimed ownership of the oh-so-nasty reference to the shanties and homeless hovels referred to in his days as "Hoovervilles." Obama now owns the term for better or worse.

More importantly, Obama has left open a huge door through which Romney may walk, should he so choose. By making a big issue out of the lack of specificity to Romney's proposals, such as cuts to future budgets, Obama is wide open to a last minute laundry list of specifics from Romney in the final debate. That would leave President Obama grasping at challenges to the proposals and with only days to come back with attacks. A basic rule in debate -- never let your opponent be vague and fill in all of the blanks late in the contest.

Given that President Obama's greatest problems are currently in an area most Americans don't follow, foreign policy, Romney has a sporting chance of taking two debates in a row. If that happens, the emperor may have no clothes, and once the public notices, the polling numbers may start to truly move toward Romney.

Mitt Romney's 10 Best Lines, Quips, And Quotes From The Debate 

By: John Hawkins  / Right Wing News

Mitt Romney's 10 Best Lines, Quips, And Quotes From The Debate
While Barack Obama was playing golf and going on vacation, Mitt Romney was getting an education in the debate school of hard knocks from Professor Newt Gingrich. While Obama was being asked fluff questions by his supporters in the mainstream media, Mitt Romney was facing a hostile media that wanted to rip his head off his shoulders. While Obama was being endlessly complimented for reading stale, barely updated speeches from 2008 off a teleprompter, Mitt was desperately trying to sell himself to audiences that had been told he was a cross between J.R. Ewing and one of the Replicants from Blade Runner. As a result, at their first debate, Mitt Romney was sharp as barbed wire while Barack Obama looked like he just wanted to go home, curl up, and wait for MSNBC to say nice things about him in the morning. That's why, as you're about to see from these quotes, the first meeting between Obama and Romney seemed more like a seal clubbing than a presidential debate.
10) My priority is putting people back to work in America. They’re suffering in this country. And we talk about evidence -- look at the evidence of the last four years. It’s absolutely extraordinary. We’ve got 23 million people out of work or who've stopped looking for work in this country. It’s just when the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps; 47 million on food stamps today. Economic growth this year slower than last year, and last year slower than the year before. Going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the American people who are struggling today.
9) We didn’t raise taxes (in Massachusetts). You’ve raised them by a trillion dollars under “Obamacare.” We didn’t cut Medicare. Of course, we don’t have Medicare, but we didn’t cut Medicare by $716 billion. We didn’t put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they’re going to receive. We didn’t also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put people in a position where they’re going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted. Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as “Obamacare” goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey & Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage. So for those reasons, for the tax, for Medicare, for this board and for people losing their insurance, this is why the American people don’t want “Obamacare.”
8) But you make a very good point, which is that...the place you put your money makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion...into green jobs. And...I’m all in favor of green energy. Ninety billion (dollars) ...that would have hired 2 million teachers. Ninety billion dollars. And these businesses -- many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they’ve gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.
7) I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case. Look, I got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it -- (scattered laughter) -- but that is not the case, all right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.
6) High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They’ll do fine whether you’re president or I am. The people who are having the hard time right now are middle-income Americans. Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed. Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing. The same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president, electric rates are up, food prices are up, health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family.
5) Mr. President, you’re entitled, as the president, to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts -- (laughter) -- all right?
4) I’d just as soon not have the government telling me what kind of health care I get. I’d rather be able to have an insurance company. If I don’t like them, I can get rid of them and find a different insurance company. But people will make their own choice.
3) What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test -- if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. “Obamacare” is on my list.
2) Barack Obama: ...And part of the way to do it is to not give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Right now you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense. And all that raises revenue..... Mitt Romney: The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe I need to get a new accountant.
1) We also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams, and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we’re seeing right now is, in my view is a trickle-down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it’s not working. And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is one out of six people in poverty. The proof of that is we’ve gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work. PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Inaudible) MR. ROMNEY: We know that the path we’re taking is not working. It’s time for a new path.
Swing State Polls Are Rigged
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com



After Wednesday night's smashing debate victory for Romney, we may expect the national and swing state polls to change in the Republican's direction.  But not by as much as they should.  These polls are biased in favor of Obama and here's the data to prove it:

From noted Republican pollster John McLaughlin comes a clear and convincing exposé of the bias of media polls in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

McLaughlin reviewed exit polls in each state for the past four elections.  From this data about who actually voted, he found that the party divisions manifest on election day have little to do with the samples upon which the media is basing its polling.  And, coincidentally, it is always the Republican vote that tends to be undercounted.

In Florida, for example, McLaughlin finds that the average of the last four elections produced a turnout of 37% Democrats and 38% Republicans.  But here is the partisan distribution of the most recent Florida media polls:

9-26:  CBS/NY Times = 36% Dem / 27% Rep

9-23:  Wash Post = 35% Dem / 29% Rep

So the media polls reflect a 9 point and six point Democratic edge even though the actual experience of the past four elections has been a 1 point Republican advantage.

Things are no better in Ohio.  Here, McLaughlin finds a 2 point Democratic edge in the past four elections (38% Dem, 36% Rep).  But the media polls show vastly more Democrats and fewer Republicans in their samples:

9-26:  CBS/NY Times = 35% Dem / 26% Rep

9-23:  Wash Post = 35% Dem / 27% Rep

9-11:  NBC/Wall St Journal = 38% Dem / 28% Rep

Once again, the actual exit poll-measured vote in Ohio shows a 2 point Democratic edge, but the polls reflect Democratic advantages of 9 points, 8 points, and 10 points respectively.

In Virginia, it's the same story.  The last four elections have a combined 1 point Republican edge, 37-36.  But the media polls show a big pro-Democratic bias:

10/2:  Roanoke College = Dem 36% / Rep 27%

9/17:  CBS/NYTimes = Dem 35% / Rep 26%

9/16:  Washington Post = Dem 35% / Rep 24%

9/11:  NBC/Wall St Journal = Dem 31% / Rep 26%

So instead of showing a 1 point Republican edge, these media poll samples show Democratic advantages of 9,9,11, and 5.

The correct conclusion to draw from all these polls is that Romney is comfortably ahead in Virginia and Florida while he holds a slight lead in Ohio.  And, remember these polls are all pre-debate!

Also, bear in mind that the undecided vote in all of these polls usually goes against the incumbent.
Op-ed:
The new jobs numbers are NOT what they seem 
By: Diane Sori

Isn’t it oh so convenient that with just a few weeks before the election the jobs numbers ‘suddenly and miraculously’ go down below 8% for the first time in 43 months...I mean right after Obama is delivered a knock-out punch in the debates...come on, do the powers that be really think ‘We the People’ are that gullible...I mean really.

While non-farm payroll employers added 114,000 jobs in September, showing an unemployment rate falling from 8.1% to 7.8%, this rate was calculated from a totally different survey than the official employment numbers surveys previously used.  The survey used, a so-called household survey, showed an 873,000 increase in people employed and a 456,000 decline in the number of people unemployed.  However, many of those job gains were in part-time and self-employed positions NOT in what’s considered full-time employment.

And it does NOT calculate in the number of people who have left the work force voluntarily or who have just given up looking for work nor does it take into account the first-time jobless benefit claims which went up to 367,000.  

Also, and most importantly, hiring slowed in the service sector which makes up 80% of the economy.  And this 'supposed' drop in number to 7.8% cannot keep up with or reflect the growth in population to remain sustainable.

So when all this is factored in, the actual unemployment number is 11% NOT 7.8%.

And while this lower number will give Obama’s spin meisters much needed fodder for his re-election campaign, Mitt Romney issued this statement, “This is not what a real recovery looks like.  We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office.  If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%.  The results of President Obama's failed policies are staggering – 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families.  The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years.  If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone.”

Now those are real numbers NOT numbers based on a supposed ‘household survey.’  Add into that figure that only 63% of those eligible to work are now in the work force compared to 67% in 2007, and that tells a very simple story as witnessed by this statement by former GE CEO Jack Welch said, “Obama Is manipulating the jobs numbers because his debate performance was awful.”

How right he is.

Going on to say via tweet, “Unbelievable jobs numbers...the Chicago guys will do anything...can’t debate so change numbers.”  Mr. Welch hit the nail on the head as it now becomes clear for all thinking people to see that this skewing of the numbers is dirty politics at it’s very best.

And as jobs numbers can make or break as well as help define a presidential campaign, a sluggish unemployment rate in the 7.5% range doomed Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and George H.W. Bush in 1992.  So no matter how Obama tries to manipulate the numbers using a ‘household survey’ instead of the other types of surveys previously used, the fact is that most voters do NOT base their vote on surveys but on their own personal employment and/or financial situation.

And guess what...most Americans, even wealthy Americans, are still hurting under the failed economic policies of Barack HUSSEIN Obama and that, my friends, is the bottom line.
Romney's Real Debate Victories
By DICK MORRIS / DickMorris.com

Obviously, Romney won last night's debate.  His passion, charisma, energy, eye-contact, personality, force of argument, and earnest compassion showed through and contrasted with a washed out, tired, hesitant Obama.

But seeing the debate from a professional's eye, Romney scored a number of key victories in the turf wars that underlie this campaign.  These victories are likely to last and shape the final month of this race long after the glow from Romney's performance has faded.

1.  Romney got out from under Obama's character assassination negative ads.  By failing to raise the Cayman Islands bank account, the 47% speech, Bain Capital or the tax return issue in the debate, he almost dismissed them from the campaign.  Good-bye two hundred million dollars in advertising.

If Obama really believed that Romney was as callous, heartless, and dishonest as his ads make him out to be, he would have raised the issues in the debate.  It almost belies the statement, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message," that begins or ends every one of his negative ads.  If the candidate doesn't believe in his own negative attacks enough to articulate them in a debate, why should the rest of us base our vote on them?

2.  Romney insulated himself -- with Obama's consent -- from the doubts of the elderly about his policy on their benefits.  After the 47% comments, Romney risked losing the elderly for fear that he meant to curtail their entitlements. But Obama helpfully agreed that his Social Security policy did not differ from Romney's at all and that either way the benefits would be ok.  And he agreed that neither he nor his opponent would cut Medicare for those now over 65 or those closing in on retirement.  So the 47% is now aimed at welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid which is the target Romney originally intended and Obama let him get away with it.

3.  Obama let Romney sell the notion that he was cutting Medicare for current beneficiaries by $716 billion and let Romney repeat that stat without contradiction.  And he let Romney inject the 15 member board -- the rationing board -- into the debate without trying to blunt Romney's accusation that it would decide on who gets what treatment.  Obama could have embarrassed Romney by pointing out that Ryan kept that cut in his budget (since backed away from it) but didn't do so.  Now this campaign will be about two issues, not just one.  Now the economy and Obamacare will be the fulcrums on which this race with hinge.

4.  Romney was able to make the debate, and therefore the race, about big issues like the size of government, the impact of taxes on growth, the need to drill for oil, Obamacare and rationing.  He elevated not just his game but the race to these fundamental questions on all of which Republicans and Romney have an advantage.

5.  He explained well how a tax increase for the "wealthy" was really a tax increase on small businesses that hire half of all American workers.  By explaining that these owners are taxed as individuals not as corporations (Subchapter S) without getting into the weeds, he made us understand that fighting these taxes is not about battling for yachts and private planes but about creating jobs.

Therefore, Romney took away Obama's negative campaign, his class warfare, his entitlement issue, the Medi-scare tactic, and much of the president's case. In subsequent debates, Obama will be bound by what he said last night.  He cannot undo his concessions and without doing so, it will be very hard for him to reconquer the ground he has lost.