As you may have heard, earlier this year Obama picked Jeff Zients to lead the OMB. You might not have heard that Zients worked at Bain from 1988-1990. The Zients White House biography did not originally admit that fact.

Now Obama has appointed another former Bain consultant, Boris Bershteyn, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is part of the OMB. Recognizing how awkward this is for Obama’s reelection campaign, Bershteyn’s tenure at Bain has been edited out of his official White House bio. This is an obvious and glaring attempt to hide Obama’s friendly Bain takeover of the OMB.

The audacity of  Obama’s hypocrisy in attempting to hide his Bain takeover of the OMB, while continuing to attack Romneys’s private sector service at Bain and refusing to condemn the despicable ad by an Obama-supporting super PAC that attempts to link Romney to a woman’s death from cancer, knows no bounds.

Even worse, Obama’s Bain takeover of the OMB completely undermines the core of the Obama campaign’s argument about Romney’s private-sector experience. After all, just last month last month Obama said:

“When some people question why I would challenge his Bain record, the point I’ve made there in the past is, if you’re a head of a large private-equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money….That’s part of the American way. That’s part of the system. But that doesn’t necessarily make you qualified to think about the economy as a whole, because as president, my job is to think about the workers. My job is to think about communities, where jobs have been outsourced.”

Obama has obviously changed his mind, and private-sector experience at Bain no longer disqualifies one from public service. The proof is in the pudding, Obama just appointed another Bain man to be head of Regulatory Affairs, arguably one of the administration positions most impactful to Americans’ lives and well-being. The Bain argument has always been a nothing-burger designed to distract the media and voters from the real issues. Obama himself just proved it.

“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not.” — Ben Smith, a Navy SEAL

The Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, argues that high level Obama administration’s leaks are damaging U.S. security. They make their case in a very well done documentary-style video called “Dishonorable Disclosures: How Leaks and Politics Threaten National Security.”

The good folks at Special Operations OPSEC see their mission as stopping President Obama and others, from politically capitalizing on U.S. national security operations and secrets, which allows the special operations and intelligence capabilities to be degraded., and educating the public about the importance and necessity of Operational Security. The video does a good job of doing that.

The Former Special Operations and C.I.A. personnel are upset about the “avalanche” of leaks obviously intended to politically benefit Obama:

• Immediate disclosure of the killing of Osama bin Laden rather than waiting to exploit the information taken by SEAL Team Six.
• Disclosure and special access to Department of Defense and C.I.A details about the Osama bin Laden operation to Hollywood filmmakers.
• Disclosure of the unit, the cover name, The aircraft that were used, the number of raiders, and how the team entered and moved around the grounds.
• Disclosure of details pertaining to the intelligence gathering before the raid, including the identity of the Pakistani doctor who provided information.
• Disclosure of U.S. and Israeli involvement in the computer viruses which targeted Iran’s nuclear program.
• Disclosure of a joint U.S./British/Israeli covert operation that planted a spy in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, whose information stopped a terrorist bomb plot against a U.S.-bound airliner.
• Disclosure of the secret Obama “Kill List.”

OPSEC is not alone in being outraged about the Obama Administration’s national security leaks. Former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey, took Obama to task for his decision to disclose some details of the Osama bin Laden operation:

“By describing certain methods — the name of the unit involved, the kinds of equipment employed, the nature of intelligence collected and techniques of insertion and extraction used in the operation — the President violated a key rule of clandestine work.”

Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has also gone after Obama for controversial leaks of classified information, saying “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.” She was even tougher during an appearance on CNN’s “Situation Room” program:

“What we’re seeing…is an Anschluss, an avalanche of leaks. And it’s very, very disturbing. You know, it’s dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation’s security in jeopardy.”

But nobody summed up as well as former defense secretary, Robert Gates, who blasted the Obama White House’s leaks and told the Obama national security team to  “Shut the f— up.”

Watch the “Dishonorable Disclosures” video.

Watch the new ad, called “Paid In.”:

Here’s the script for “Paid In”:

VOICEOVER: “You paid into Medicare for years…”

VIDEO TEXT: “You Paid”

VOICEOVER: “Every paycheck…”

VOICEOVER: “Now, when you need it…”

VIDEO TEXT: “Now When You Need It”

VOICEOVER: “Obama has cut $716 billion dollars from Medicare.”

VIDEO TEXT: “Obama Cut $716 Billion From Medicare”

VOICEOVER: ‘Why?”

VOICEOVER: “To pay for ObamaCare.”

VIDEO TEXT: “To Pay For ObamaCare”

VOICEOVER: “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed healthcare…”

VIDEO TEXT: “The Money You Paid For Guaranteed Healthcare”

VOICEOVER: “Is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you.’

VIDEO TEXT: “Massive New Government Program That’s Not For You”

VOICEOVER: “The Romney-Ryan plan protects Medicare benefits for today’s seniors and
strengthens the plan for the next generation.”

VIDEO TEXT: “Protects Medicare Benefits”

MITT ROMNEY: “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this message.”

“Paid In” may be the most effective ad of the 2012 presidential campaign.

As we recently reported, according to the most recent estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will reduce Medicare spending by $713 billion between 2013 and 2022, relative to prior law. These cuts directly affect current retirees. By contrast, both the Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans only affect retirees younger than 55.

The latest Rasmussen polling finds that 56% of likely voters still favor repeal of the ever unpopular ObamaCare — 46 percent strongly favor repeal.

Considering all that, it is hard to imagine why Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, Stephanie Cutter, called Obama’s $700 million in Medicare cuts stolen from taxpayers to fund ObamaCare an “achievement.” Maybe it depends on what she means by “achievement.” You can watch Cutter make her absurd claim here.

After four years of a weak economy, soaring deficits and misplaced priorities, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are dedicated to bringing America back.

In a statement, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will bring the kind of leadership and economic reform that this country desperately needs:

“They have the knowledge, expertise and vision we need to get America working again and get our fiscal house in order. Both have proven records of solving tough problems and getting the job done. America’s Comeback Team stands in stark contrast to four years of failed economic policies and misplaced priorities of President Obama and Vice President Biden. Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan is what America needs in these troubled economic times to get our country back on track.”

Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake write that the Romney Campaign has 25 days, until the Democratic National Convention concludes, to define Ryan. Scott Rasmussen gives the Romney campaign even less time saying that the roll-out of Romney’s vice-presidential pick is as important as the choice itself because “most Americans will learn all they know about the new name on the ticket during the week the candidate is introduced.”

Either way, the Ryan roll out has been great, huge crowds, good speeches, the terrific “60 Minutes” interview and the jump in Ryan’s approvals as found by the Washington Post-ABC News poll:

Little known nationally before Saturday’s announcement, favorable impressions of Ryan jumped 15 percentage points among the overall electorate with positive views soaring from 49 to 70 percent among conservative Republicans.

In Wednesday through Friday interviews, fully 45 percent of Americans expressed no opinion of Ryan, dropping to 30 percent on Saturday and Sunday. The increasing familiarity all went to the positive side of the ledger, giving Ryan an initial advantage in the sprint to define his candidacy.

Overall, in interviews after his selection, 38 percent of all Americans express favorable views of Ryan, 33 percent negative ones. (Before the announcement, Ryan was somewhat underwater, scoring 23 percent favorable, 32 percent unfavorable.)

All this in the face of the Obama campaign’s continued gutter politics, trying to smear Ryan using the Democrats’ debunked and discredited MediScare campaign that the left-leaning Politfact called the 2011 “lie of the year.” Even President Obama joined in, first tweeting the big lie and then launching a Medicare attack video against Romney-Ryan.

As soon as Mitt Romney announced Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate the Democrats again started with their debunked and discredited MediScare campaign. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called Ryan “the architect of the Republican plan to kill Medicare” in a fundraising message sent by DCCC Executive Director Robby Mook. A false charge that the left-leaning Politifact called the 2011 “lie of the year.”

As pointed out by The Washington Examiner’s Joel Gehrke, Politifact rebuked Democrats for engaging in such scare tactics:

“A complicated and wonky subject with life-or-death consequences, health care is fertile ground for falsehoods,” the fact checker said. “The Democratic attack about ‘ending Medicare’ was a pervasive line in 2011 that preyed on seniors’ worries about whether they could afford health care.”

The Democrats didn’t stop there. Obama spokesman Jim Messina said Ryan’s plan “would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors.” That is no more true than the DCCC’s MediScare claim. As explained by Avik Roy, the Wyden-Ryan plan would only apply to Americans younger than 55 years of age, and gives those younger individuals the option of remaining in the traditional Medicare program, or choosing a comparable private-sector insurance plan.

On CNN’s “State Of The Union,” Senior Advisor to Obama David Axelrod said the bipartisan plan authored by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan  for reforming Medicare would put Medicare into a death spiral. Here is a transcript of the exchange between Crowley and Axelrod:

CROWLEY: “You describe him as extreme, so I want to take you back to a December 15th, Wall Street Journal op-ed which the Congressman wrote along with Senator Ron Wyden, who is seen as a member of your party, and seen certainly as a moderate to liberal Democrat, and the two of them together came up with a plan to help save Medicare, and they wrote: ‘our plan would strengthen traditional Medicare by permanently maintaining it as a guaranteed and viable option for all of the nation’s retirees.’ So this extreme plan has been signed on to and one of the authors of it is a member of your own party, so why is that extreme?”

AXELROD: “Well, I just disagree with Senator Wyden on this, and Congressman Ryan and so have most of the experts who have looked at this and who’ve said that the way that the thing is constructed, that Medicare would be in a death spiral under this plan, and that ultimately it would raise costs on seniors by thousands of dollars.”

You can watch the exchange here.

Anticipating such bogus claims from the Democrats Romney promised to “preserve and protect Medicare and Social Security” during his speech announcing Ryan as his vice presidential running mate.

Both ObamaCare and Ryan’s plan make changes to Medicare: ObamaCare via of government rationing, and Ryan via direction of privatization. The ObamaCare law creates a new panel, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will be composed of 15 unelected government officials. They will be charged with rationing care to seniors, primarily by underpaying doctors and hospitals.

Obama has cut Medicare more than Romney and Ryan would. According to the most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will reduce Medicare spending by more than $700 billion between 2013 and 2022, relative to prior law. These cuts directly affect current retirees. By contrast, both the Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans only affect retirees younger than 55.

The approach advocated by Ryan and Romney gives seniors more control over their own health dollars, allowing them to choose the plan that provides the best value for their money.

It’s no wonder why the Romney campaign is looking forward to a fact-based debate about reforming Medicare. A campaign spokesman told me:

“The Romney campaign relishes this fight. There is only one person in this race who has already cut Medicare for seniors, and that is President Obama. ObamaCare cut Medicare for America’s seniors by $700 billion. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a bipartisan plan to strengthen Medicare for today and tomorrow’s seniors. Obama’s campaign has accused Mitt Romney of committing crimes and killing people, and now they have turned their smear campaign to Paul Ryan. They have lost all credibility.”

You would think that after the Obamacrats passed the ever unpopular ObamaCare, which robs Medicare of more than $716 billion to fund ObamaCare, they wouldn’t want to focus on the $700 billion Medicare cuts. You would be wrong. On Face the Nation this morning, Stephanie Cutter called Obama’s $700 million in Medicare cuts stolen from taxpayers to fund ObamaCare an “achievement.” You can watch her say it here.

The new video uses a number of quotes from Congressman Paul Ryan’s’ terrific speech during the formal announcement of his selection to be Romney’s running mate:

• “Over the years I have seen and heard from a lot from families, from a lot of those who are running small businesses, and from people who are in need.  But what I have heard lately, that’s what troubles me the most.  There is something different in their voice and in their words. What I hear from them are diminished dreams, lowered expectations, uncertain futures.”
• “I hear some people say that this is just ‘the new normal.’ High unemployment, declining incomes and crushing debt is not a new normal … And next January, our economy will begin a comeback with the Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class that will lead to more jobs and more take-home pay for working Americans.”
• “I’m proud to stand with a man who understands what it takes to foster job creation in our economy, someone who knows from experience, that if you have a small business—you did build that.”
• “Mitt Romney is this kind of leader … And together, we will unite America and get this done.”

Romney’s Ryan roll out got great reviews in the press.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza called it a a decidedly bold stroke:

“The news that Mitt Romney has chosen Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his vice presidential nominee today in Norfolk, Virginia amounts to a decidedly bold stroke … a pick that will almost certainly turn the race into a choice between two competing — and strikingly contrasting — visions for the country.”

Time’s Michael Crowley writes that as a result of Romney choosing Ryan, “the 2012 election is likely to shift from a narrow debate about the state of the economy to a much broader one about the size and role of government in America.”

NBC’s Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro wrote that in picking Ryan signal’s that Romney’s “doubling down on an austerity/deficit-reduction message. Indeed, while the Obama campaign and Democrats could point to visible improvements with the economy over the past three years (a lower unemployment rate, stronger GDP growth), there hasn’t been much progress in reducing the deficit. The deficit was $1.4 trillion in FY ’09; $1.3 trillion in ’10; $1.5 trillion in ’11 (projected); and $1.1 billion in ’12 (projected).”

In the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire, Patrick O’Connor called the Ryan pick a move to energize conservative voters:

“With his proposals to revamp entitlement programs for future retirees and the poor, Mr. Ryan has become a hero to conservatives. Mr. Romney is also sending a signal that the election will be about big ideas and stark differences between the two parties about the size of government, not just a campaign about who’s to blame for the economy.”

We could cite more, but we think you get the idea.

The Romney advance teams have done an awesome job getting the Romney/Ryan supporters out in Manassas, Virginia and High Point, North Carolina.

And the Romney campaign raised $3.5 million online in the 24 hours following the Ryan announcement.

The despicable Democrat demonization machine immediately launched familar false attacks on Paul Ryan’s budget proposals. The Obama campaign led the attack, launching a negative website within minutes of Mitt Romney’s official announcement.

The Democrats’ attack machine will do everything they can to undermine Ryan’s favorability numbers. Before the announcement Rasmussen reported that 39 percent of all voters had a favorable opinion of Ryan, while only 25 percent had a negative review.

According to Scott Rasmussen,  Romney’s roll-out of his vice presidential pick is as important as the choice itself because “most Americans will learn all they know about the new name on the ticket during the week the candidate is introduced. While 69% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Ryan, 42% of voters not affiliated with either major political party have no opinion of him one way or the other at this point.”

Paul Ryan is a very good choice by Mitt Romney. It has energized the Conservative base and the TEA Party wing of the Republican coalition. It will also make it more likely that the campaign will be a debate about the size of government, out of control spending and the Obamacrats incessant demands for more taxes — Romney’s private equity versus Obama’s public equity or “Government-Centered Society.“

Mitt Romney today announced Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate.

As promised the choice was first announced via Romney VP app:

Shortly thereafter the Romney campaign issued a press release for those who aren’t yet that electronically connected.

As Erick posted, a formal announcement will be made at approximately 8:45 a.m. this morning in Norfolk, Virginia at the USS Wisconsin, a decommissioned World War II-era battleship.

From Right Side Politics.

Worse for Obama, only 86 percent of voters who say they voted for Obama in 2008 are backing Obama again this year, while 92 percent of McCain voters are supporting Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

The new Gallup results are not good for Obama. Jim Geraghty crunched the numbers and concluded the result is a very narrow Obama lead:

“If you allocate Obama 86 percent of his 2008 total and 5 percent of McCain’s 2008 total, and allocate Romney 92 percent of McCain’s total and 9 percent of Obama’s 2008 total, you end up with a very, very narrow Obama lead: 47.8 percent to 46.8 percent.”

The Gallup data confirms what I have been experiencing — more and more people telling me that they voted for Obama in 2008 but they are not going to vote for him again. I try to take such anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt, but I’ve heard it so much lately I was thinking there might be something to it, and now Gallup has provided some hard data to back up the anecdotal data. 

Nearly a tenth of Obama’s 2008 electorate is hopping over the fence and switching sides. One must wonder if they’re bailing on the Obama ticket because of his abysmal economic record, his negative campaign of gutter politics, or because they have more confidence in Romney with economic issues, or maybe they just feel let down by Obama’s failure to make things better.

There is now a smoking gun that more than justifies the Romney campaign’s concern about the hundreds of thousands of registration forms the Voter Participation Center mailed to Virginia addresses that were partially filled out or “pre-populated” with names and/or information belonging to the recipients’ dead relatives, minor children, non-citizen relatives, already registered voters, convicted felons, and cats and dogs.

A convicted felon, living in Louisa County, Virginia, used one of the Voter Participation Center’s pre-populated forms to register to vote illegally and then cast a ballot in the 2008 presidential election. In January 2010, the felon pleaded guilty to two counts of election fraud and was sentenced to 10 years in prison with all time suspended.

According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Page Gardner, president and chief executive officer of the Voter Participation Center, discounts any suggestion that voter fraud can occur through the organization’s mailings. Gardner said Voter Participation Center relies on the “diligence of local election officials” to review the submitted applications, as well as on the “individual integrity of the individuals receiving the forms.”

Louisa County’s Attorney Thomas A. Garrett Jr., the guy who prosecuted the felon and is now a state senator, sees the connection, and has tough words for Page Gardner’s comments:

Garrett said Gardner is in denial if she believes that voter fraud can’t occur. “She can say … ‘We don’t know where (the felon) got it’ all she wants to,” he said. “But I do know where she got it from and it was from (Gardner’s) organization, and I got the proof. I produced the original form, which is on file and accessible to the public.” Garrett said he believes Nicholson and another felon he prosecuted for illegally registering to vote were essentially duped into breaking the law.

This is the first case of confirmed voter fraud I’ve heard of that resulted from the five million “pre-populated” voter registration forms the Voter Participation Center mailed across the country targeting Democrat-leaning voting blocs, such as unmarried women, young people and minorities. I’m sure it won’t be the last.

The request was necessary because of the shenanigans of the DC-based Voter Participation Center which has mailed voter-registration forms to deceased relatives, children, and even pets.

According to the Associated Press, the Voter Participation Center has touted the distribution of some five million registration forms in recent weeks, targeting Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as unmarried women, blacks, Latinos and young adults. The mailings appear official, arriving in privacy envelopes with the headline “VOTER REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED.” Some information is already completed on the voter registration papers, and recipients also get an envelope to send completed forms to local elections officials.

PJ Media has already followed up with a great investigative piece – the return address on the VPC’s forms, which are allegedly supposed to be Virginia State Board of Elections, actually sends the forms to a rogue address:

“The evident misdirection of the return address and the permit number registered in Pennsylvania all beg for an answer: Why? These returned registration forms contain real personal information including full legal names, date of birth, and even Social Security numbers. What is the Voter Participation Center really up to, in having forms returned to an address that it says is controlled by a state entity, when that is not the truth? Additionally, where are the completed forms really going”

That is a great question. Virginians (and Americans, because Virginia is an important battleground state and could determine the next President) deserve answers.

This is all too reminiscent of the voter fraud practiced by ACORN in the 2008 presidential campaign in Ohio, Indiana and other states. Hopefully, someday the lefties who say that voter ID laws and other anti-fraud measures are not necessary will be overcome by all the evidence of voter fraud and other instances of ineligible voting.

During the interview we blow up mainstream media’s meme that the presidential race tied. We also take   Obama to task for his $trillion deficits, his 50% increase in the national debt and his incessant Pinocchio campaign falsehoods.

You can listen to the interview here:

As of July 6, 2012, the national debt was $15,879,528,608,975.11 ($15.9 trillion). It was $10,626,877,048,913.08 ($10.6 trillion) when Obama became president. That’s a $5.3 trillion, or 50 percent, increase in less than four years. On July 3, 2008, Presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” President-elect Obama warned us when he predicted “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come.” And President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term not once but at least five times.

Thanks to Wild Bill for having me on the show.

The mainstream media is touting the poll as showing the race is “dead even” — a 47-47 percent Obama-Romney contest among registered voters. Yet the new poll contains many more warning signs for the Obamacrats.

Obama’s overall job rating is 47-49 percent, approve-disapprove (the same as in May). But his approvals are majority negative on:

1. The Economy, 44-54 percent;
2. Health Care, 41-52 percent (a numerical low in approval, with no bump from last month’s Supreme Court ruling); and
3. Immigration, 38-52 percent (also bumpless despite Obama’s halting enforcement against certain illegal aliens, who arrived as minors) via executive fiat.

Sixty-three percent say the country’s headed in the wrong direction. This is hard to dispute in light of the very disappointing May and June unemployment reports and the 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent during the Obama presidency.

Obama’s biggest shortfall is on the deficit where he trails Romney by 25-70 percent. It’s not hard to see why. As of July 6, 2012, the national debt was $15,879,528,608,975.11 ($15.9 trillion). It was $10,626,877,048,913.08 ($10.6 trillion) when Obama became president. That’s a $5.3 trillion, or 50 percent, increase in less than four years. On July 3, 2008, Presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” President-elect Obama warned us when he predicted “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come.” And President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term not once but at least five times.

The new poll also offers additional evidence that Obama’s continuing and misleading attacks against Romney’s private sector experience at Bain Capital has not hurt Romney. The poll found  an even split on whether his Bain Capital background is a major reason to support or oppose him (23-24 percent), with 50 percent saying it makes no difference.

And all these favorable findings for Romney come from another poll skewed toward Democrat results. The new poll used a sample of  33 percent Democrats, 24 percent Republicans and 36 percent Independents. As we have mentioned before, based upon exit polling, the 2008 electorate was 39 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, and 29 percent Independent. In 2010, it was 35 percent Democrat, 35 percent Republican, and 29 percent Independent.

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted  July 5-8, 2012 and has a margin of sampling error of 4 percent for the full sample and registered voters.

According to NBC’s Garrett Haake, together left-wing radical groups including the Democrat supported Occupy movement, Move On, and the Long Island Progressive Coalition only managed to get about 60 protestors to show up. The protestors were greatly outnumbered by 450 invited guests.

The protestors/occupiers caused little trouble except for crashing into a Police boat. In an effort worthy of the Keystone Cops, David Fink and Simon Kinsella attempted to cross the police line on the water, ignored orders to stop, and “struck” a police boat. One of the alleged miscreants attempted to escape by swimming to shore, and was promptly arrested nearby, while the other was arrested on the boat.

The two face charges for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and obstructing government administration.

Other than the boat caper, the protest was pretty tame for anything involving the Occupy movement.  Still, these miscreants get creativity points for using a boat.

Later today, Gov. Romney will be fundraising in the Hamptons. The left is planning a massive protest, busing in the usual left-wing suspects, including the Democrat supported Occupy, Move On, GreenPeace, etc. That these radical groups would choose to protest the presumptive Republican nominee is not surprising.

What is unusual, is the fact that the protest is being led by one of America’s unrepentant terrorists — Andy Stepanian. Stepanian a so-called Liberal/Progressive activist is an admitted convicted terrorist, who boasts about being praised for “succeeding where Karl Marx and the Red Brigades failed.” Sort of reminds one of Bill Ayers and Van Jones who helps astroturf the Occupy Movement and American Autumn

The Terrorist-led protest is especially ironic, considering that David Axelrod has publicly said he condemns heckling Romney’s campaign. Nevertheless, I’m sure the Obama campaign won’t say a peep about a convicted terrorist organizing protests designed to do just that. The mainstream media certainly won’t bring it up either, although you can bet they’ll give coverage to the protests.

Fox News’ John Roberts: “So then is the suggestion that we should just do keep doing the same thing? There’s that old definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “What we should do – well, I’m pretty happy about 28 straight months of job growth in the private sector.”

Roberts: “Are you happy about 80,000 jobs last month, 69,000 the month before that. Are you happy with those numbers?”

Rep. Wasserman Schultz: “Like I’ve said and President Obama has said, we need to continue to improve and we need to do more and we need to work together.”

You can watch Wasserman Schultz’s “happy” comment here.

Wasserman Schultz’s “happy” version of Obama’s “doing fine” comment came just a day after Obama Adviser David Plouffe falsely claimed June’s terrible jobs report is “what everybody expected.”

Both are attempts to resurrect Obama’s failed “doing fine” effort to shrug off the continuing failure to bring unemployment down to the levels used to sell Obama’s failed so-called stimulus.

As you will recall, a month ago Obama had to clarify, but did not repudiate his “the private sector is doing fine” comment, within five hours of saying it.

Obama’s “doing fine” comment created quite a hue and cry. The Romney campaign quickly launched a @ObamaDoingFine parody Twitter site. The RNC put up a YouTube video titled “Doing Fine,” showing headlines highlighting the lousy economy, Obama saying “the private sector is doing fine,” and asking how can President Obama fix our economy if he doesn’t understand what’s broken? And the Romney Campaign released its “Jolt” video using video clips of news broadcasts about the horrific May jobs report, Obama’s “doing fine” comment and asking if there has ever been a president so out of touch with the middle class?

Obama has boxed himself into a corner by admitting we are not better off than we were four years ago and telling NBC, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” He and his Obamacrats will continue to try out outrageous sounding comments about the unemployment numbers until something actually resonates or the numbers finally significantly improve.

In the Crawford interview Romney said there is no way around the Court’s decision:

“I said that I agreed with the dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt it was unconstitutional. But the dissent lost – it’s in the minority.

And so now the Supreme Court has spoken, and while I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There’s no way around that.

You can try and say you wish [the court] had decided a different way, but they didn’t. They concluded it was a tax; that’s what it is. And the American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans, and not only did he raise the $500 billion that was already in the bill, it’s now clear that his mandate, as described by the Supreme Court, is a tax.”

The media and many pundits have really messed up this story. They have presented the voters with a false story that The Romney Campaign and the GOP are at odds over the tax versus unconstitutional commerce clause-based mandate. The real issue is that the Supreme Court left Obama with a choice: his ObamaCare federal individual mandate is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty.

Governor Romney thought it was an unconstitutional penalty, but accepts the Court’s decision. Team Obama has been pressing hard trying to convince voters that, notwithstanding what the Supreme Court said, the ObamaTax is not a tax, but just a penalty:

• Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Obama Campaign Manager: “What John Roberts said, we have the power to impose this penalty on people through the taxation clause, it’s a penalty.”
• David Axelrod, Sr. Obama Campaign Strategist: “Whether you call it a mandate or a tax, what it is is a penalty of the sort I described before.”
• Obama surrogate, Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA): “Don’t believe the hype that the other side is selling. This is a penalty.”
• The so-called Obama Truth Team: “…and the ‘tax’ they are trying to scare everyone about is actually a penalty for the 1% of people who can afford insurance but still choose not to buy it.”
• During the June 30, 2012 press gaggle, Obama’s White House spokesman Jay Carney said: “It’s a penalty because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?
• On Fox News Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew struggled for over five minutes trying to explain why it isn’t a tax.
• On CBS’s Face the Nation, Obama surrogate Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD), wasn’t able to explain why it is not a tax.

Obama should not be allowed, as he has on so many other issues, to get away with having it both ways here. Obama’s federal individual mandate is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty.

Obama’s campaign is obfuscating and claiming it is not a tax despite the Court’s ObamaTax ruling in a desperate attempt to argue the ObamaTax does not prove Obama lied his way into office with his promise he would not raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.  Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (Presidential candidate Obama speaking in Dover, New Hampshire, Sept. 12, 2008 [video link].)

You can watch video of Obama making his firm pledge here.

I could, perhaps should, stop there, but we need to mention the “it’s not a tax” meme ignited by Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.”:

“FEHRNSTROM: The Governor disagreed with the ruling of the court. He agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

CHUCK TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax — that’s what you’re saying?

FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax, but again —

TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you shouldn’t call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his hypocritical and contradictory statements because he has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax, he needs to reconcile those two very different statements.”

The best explanation I’ve seen for Fehrnstrom’s “shouldn’t call the tax penalty a tax” comment is from CNN. According to CNN, this wasn’t another “Etch-A-Sketch” moment. Rather, it was a shrewd move to assuage worried moderates and independents and draw fire away from Romney:

“It’s still kind of ham-handed, but it served a strategic purpose,” said Trevor Parry-Giles, a political communication professor at the University of Maryland. “What (Romney) has to confront is that he did the exact same thing in Massachusetts. And that he’s not as hard-nosed and doctrinaire as he sounds. He’s trapped in this weird realm where he has to appeal to the base but still attract the center.”

In other words, Fehrnstrom took one for Romney. Health care is a particularly thorny issue. Obama wants you to believe that the tax penalty in the ObamaCare law was modeled after the reform plan passed in Massachusetts under then governor Mitt Romney.

Obama can make that point but it would only be fair to note what Romney has been saying about his Massachusetts healthcare mandates. Romney has repeatedly said that his plan was a state-based plan but one he does not think would work on a federal level. Romney has said far more than just that it was “meant for Massachusetts only.” He has in fact based his position on the 10th Amendment, as he explained during the December 11, 2011 ABC News Iowa Republican debate in an exchange with Gov. Perry and former Speaker Gingrich:

MITT ROMNEY: A good deal of what you said was right. Some was wrong. Speaker Gingrich said that he was for a federal individual mandate. That’s something I’ve always opposed. What we did in our state was designed by the people in our state for the needs of our state. You believe in the 10th Amendment. I believe in the 10th Amendment. The people of Massachusetts favor our plan three to one. They don’t like it, they can get rid of it. (COUGH) That’s the great thing about (COUGH) a democracy, where individuals under the 10th Amendment have the power to craft their own solutions.

By the way, the– the problem with President Obama’s plan is it does three things we didn’t in my opinion, among others. I understand we disagree on this. But among others, one, it raises taxes by $500 billion. We (NOISE) didn’t raise taxes. Two, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion. We didn’t do that, either. And three, it doesn’t just deal with the people that don’t have insurance. It’s a 2,000-page bill that takes over health care for all the American people. It is wrong for health care. It’s wrong for the American people. It’s unconstitutional. And I’m absolutely adamantly opposed to ObamaCare.

And if I’m the President of the United States, I will return to the people and the states the power they have under the constitution and they can craft the solutions they think are best for them…

Romney stands firm on the idea of 10th Amendment as allowing a laboratory in which the states to come up with and their own solutions. Romney tried to solve the Massachusetts healthcare problem. But those solutions he does not want the federal government to try it on a national scale.

In longer interview excerpts released by the Romney campaign, Romney again differentiates  between a state mandate and a federal mandate when it comes to taxation.

CRAWFORD: “But does that mean that the mandate in the state of Massachusetts under your health care law also is a tax? I mean, you raised taxes as governor.”

ROMNEY: “Actually, the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the Legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was.”

CRAWFORD: “So at the state level because of … you’re saying the Supreme Court says that’s different, that the federal government — the powers are different between the states and the federal government? Does that make sense to you?”

ROMNEY: “Just take a read of the opinion. The chief justice said that states have what’s known as police power, and states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth under their constitutions, which is what Massachusetts did. But the federal government does not have those powers, and therefore for the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion it did — that the law was constitutional — they had to find it was a tax, and they did. And therefore Obamacare’s a tax. Like it or not, it’s a tax.”

So there we have it. Romney accepts that the Supreme Court has determined that ObamaCare is actually ObamaTax. Obama cannot bring himself to do so.

Along with a scheduled stop for ice cream on Thursday and attending a full fledged ice cream social on Friday, Obama intends to hype his taxpayer-funded so-called investment in manufacturing. Unfortunately, this manufacturing effort may be working as well as Obama’s failed stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent.

The Institute for Supply Management’s factory index has unexpectedly contracted for the first time since July 2009, sliding to 49.7 in June from May’s 53.5. Economists had expected a reading of 52.0.

The 12.3 point drop in the orders index — the largest drop since October 2001 (when, in the wake of 9/11, the index dropped 12.4 points) and the second largest decline since December 1980, has James Pethokoukis wondering whether the U.S. economy fallen back into recession.

Hopefully, during the bus tour voters will get a chance to ask Obama why manufacturing has contracted and jobs have been lost to China. Apparently Obama has anticipated such questions. He is expected to announce that the United States will file a trade complaint against China for new duties it imposed on American-made cars and trucks, including the Ohio-built Jeep Wrangler.

There have been press reports that the list includes:

• Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
• Ohio Senator Rob Portman
• Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan
• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
• New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
• Florida Senator Marco Rubio
• New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte
• Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
• Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell
• South Dakota Senator John Thune
• Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush

And every once in a while there are reports that certain candiates are not being vetted. For example this morning, Jonathan Karl of ABC News reported that Senator Marco Rubio was not being vetted.

Don’t read too much into it, but after all the speculation surrounding the ABC news “scoop” about the campaign’s VP vetting process and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney told Sean Hannity that only he and Beth Myers know who is being vetted. Here’s an excerpt of this evening’s Mitt Romney interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News:

Hannity: “What did you make of the ABC News report this morning that said Marco Rubio was not being vetted but Governor Tim Pawlenty was being vetted? Any comment on that story?”

Mitt Romney: “I get a kick out of some of the speculation that goes on. I’m not going to comment on the process of course. But I can tell you this: only Beth Myers and I know who is being vetted.”

Hannity: “Does that mean Ann Romney doesn’t know?”

Romney: “Even Ann doesn’t know. We talk about the possible people that I might select. But in terms of actually who is being vetted, that is something only two people know. And Beth Myers doesn’t talk.”

Hannity:“Is there a shortlist?”

Romney: “There are a number of people who are being vetted and that is obviously the group we are considering most seriously.”
(Fox News’ “Hannity,” 6/19/12)

Perhaps all the speculation is the result of the fact that picking a running mate is often described as a nominee’s first presidential act, a window into his mind and personality. Whatever the reasons, take heed, only two people know who is on the list.

UPDATE: Mitt Romney made it very clear:

“There are only two people in this country who know who are being vetted and who are not, and that’s Beth Myers and myself, ” he told reporters, referring to the close aide in charge of his vice presidential search. “I know Beth well. She doesn’t talk to anybody. The story was entirely false. Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process.”

You can watch a video of Romney’s clarification here.

Mitt Romney has outfoxed the Obama Campaign and its main stream media allies.

As explained by Breitbart’s John Nolte, Obama’s extralegal scheme to grant amnesty/immunity to certain “younger” illegal aliens was a clever attempt set to trap Romney in a treacherous catch-22 position:

This was the plan:

1. Obama releases the news on Friday in order to affect the Sunday talk shows. (Team Obama also knew Romney would be on “Face the Nation” with their water-carrier Bob Schieffer).

2. As they always do, the Sunday talk shows comply with White House strategy by making Obama’s compassion and political brilliance The Big Story. This is also a move to set up the narrative for the coming week regardless of  how Romney answers the repeal question.

3. Regardless of how he answers the question, Romney enters a world of media-created hurt for the following week.

Obama’s media allies did their part:

• On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Bob Schieffer asked Romney over and over and over again whether he would repeal Obama’s extralegal amnesty/immunity scheme.

• CNN’s Jack Cafferty asked, “Why is Mitt Romney refusing to answer questions on Pres. Obama’s new immigration policy?”

• On MSNBC’s Martin Bashir show, The Guardian’s Ana Marie Cox, Democratic strategist Julian Epstein and The Hill’s Karen Finney went on and on about “Romney’s non-answer.”

We could list many more, but I think you get the idea.

Of course Romney did in fact have a response to Obama’s scheme. On Friday, Romney said the problem of young illegal immigrants requires a long term solution and Obama’s scheme will make a long term solution more difficult to achieve.

“I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long term basis so they know what their future would be in this country. I think the action the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution because an executive order is of course just a short term matter. It can be reversed by subsequent presidents.”

Romney also explained on “Face the Nation” that Obama’s extralegal scheme is a stopgap measure for a long-term problem driven in “large part” by politics:

First of all, we have to secure the border. We need to have an employment verification system to make sure that those that are working here in this country are here legally and then with regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is. This is something Congress has been working on, and I thought we are about to see some proposals brought forward by Senator Marco Rubio and by Democrat senators, but the President jumped in and said I’m going to take this action. He called it a stopgap measure.

[. . .]

He was President for the last three and a half years, did nothing on immigration. Two years, he had a Democrats’ House in Senate, did nothing of permanent or– or long-term basis.

As for the oft repeated repeal question, Romney addressed that as well:

Well, it would be overtaken by events, if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals, such that they know what their status is going to be.

In other words, Romney proposes to do the truly right thing — get Congress to pass legislation to legally address the problem of youngsters made illegal aliens by their parents.

This is a good time to remember that Obama announced his new amnesty/immunity scheme in a desperate attempt to change the subject from his “doing fine” reelection message, to gain favor with the Latino electorate unhappy with Obama’s ongoing backdoor amnesty program, and to stop the growing popularity Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida’s DREAM Act light.

Contrary to White House senior adviser David Plouffe’s claim that Obama’s amnesty/immunity scheme was not political, there is no doubt that it was indeed political. After all, there is even video of Obama saying, less than six months ago, that he has no authority to enact such a change in immigration law. You can watch the video here.

Unfortunately, Romney was proved correct about Obama making a long term solution more difficult. Rubio has announced he has abandoned his DREAM Act light legislation, at least until after the election, because it would be hard to argue with fellow lawmakers when they say, “Why are we going to need to do anything on this now? It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election.”