Tag: Daily Benefactor

Daily Benefactor News – The Washington Post’s Romney Hit Piece Comes Apart




The Washington Post’s Romney Hit Piece Comes Apart – Human Events

The Washington Post was already skating on thin ice with its fantastically convenient hit piece on Mitt Romney, published in perfect synchronization with President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage. Designed to paint Romney as a mean-spirited homophobic bully during his prep school days – which, let us remember, occurred over seventeen thousand days ago – the ridiculously bloated and overly-dramatic 5000-word Post “expose” related the story of how Romney allegedly led a gang of high-school hooligans and forcibly cut the hair of a “presumably gay” fellow student named John Lauber.

The piece does a great deal of mind-reading to insinuate homophobia, and in an amazing set of concluding paragraphs, heavily implies that Romney essentially murdered this poor kid with his scissors – it just took his body four decades to collapse around his broken spirit. John Lauber died of liver cancer in 2004, an even the Post dramatically contrasts with Romney accepting the Distinguished Alumni award from the Cranbrook prep school, concluding with a melancholy salute to Lauber’s hair, which he never stopped bleaching blond.

The Post based this hit on testimony from five men who “mostly lean Democratic,” including one who was a volunteer for the 2008 Obama campaign. No one else seems able remember the incident taking place.

Including, as it turns out, both a friend of Romney’s that the Post openly and fraudulently asserted had “long been bothered” by the haircut hazing… and the “victim’s” own family.


Romney friend Stu White dropped the first bombshell on the Washington Post’s phony story, telling ABC News “he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair, and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.” The assertion that he was “long bothered” by Romney’s alleged display of full-contact barbering was entirely false, and there is no way to claim it was not a deliberately false impression inserted into the Post story, since they knew perfectly well that they are the ones who told White about it, just a few weeks ago.

Much worse for the Post was a statement released by John Lauber’s sister Betsy, which reads, in full: “The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family.”

Wow. Just… wow. The Post apparently didn’t bother clearing their smear job with the victim’s family, even though they interviewed both Christine and Betsy Lauber for the piece. They thought they were contributing to a respectful tribute, not an ugly partisan hit.

Christine Lauber told ABC News that her brother never mentioned the allegedly life-destroying traumatic incident related by the Washington Post, and “probably wouldn’t have said anything” even if something like it did happen, because he presumably was not the fragile character he has been portrayed as. Furthermore, she tearfully insisted that “if he were still alive today, he would be furious” over the Post story.

But wait! This gets worse. Someone at the Post apparently panicked after Stu White spilled the beans to ABC News, because they committed one of the greatest sins in journalism: they quietly edited the Romney hit piece without publishing a retraction, as Breitbart.com requested in writing. The false statement about Stu White has been changed to read as follows:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and said he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post. “But I was not the brunt of any of his pranks.”

This was a colossally stupid move on the Post’s part. How often do people have to be reminded that the Internet never forgets? That caches and screen grabs of dishonestly edited material rest comfortably in the hands of media watchdogs?

ABC mentions that some other, as yet nameless, classmates of Romney are eager to dish dirt on his teenage misbehavior, although no one seems ready to corroborate the Lauber hair hazing incident. That effort will misfire badly, and solidify support for Romney from a public sick unto death of attempts to distract from Barack Obama’s record in office.

They’re almost equally sick of journalistic double standards. They’ve been hearing for years that even the most reasonable inquiry into Obama’s shadowy past – even simple requests for ordinary documentation – are completely out of bounds, and can only be motivated by racial animosity. But now they’re supposed to sit still while a bunch of 60-year-olds are trotted out to reminisce about what a handful Mitt Romney was, during his school days in 1965? All because Obama hatchet man David Axelrod needs to spin a campaign narrative that plugs into the “gay marriage” and “bullying” crusade?

At this point, the most interesting “journalism” remaining to be done on the Teen Mitt haircut incident is determining whether Axelrod was directly involved in crafting the Post story. Does anyone want to leak some internal emails so we can get the ball rolling, and find out if there were direct, documentable ties to the Obama campaign? Or did the Post cook this up on their own, taking the initiative to offer journalistic support after being told the Obama gay marriage flip-flop was coming, with one eye fixed nervously on the President’s cratering poll numbers? This is already the most spectacular case of journalistic malpractice since George Zimmerman became the world’s pre-eminent “white Hispanic.” Let’s take this baby into the stratosphere and leave some chemtrails!

It’s really interesting the way the Washington Post chose to end their article, by noting that Romney received an alumni award just a year after John Lauber’s untimely death. You know what happened a year before Lauber lost his battle against liver cancer? A boat carrying a family of four, two friends, and the family’s dog sprang a leak on Lake Winnipesaukee, dumping them into the dark waters of early evening, and leaving them to howl in terror as other boats zipped around them. Mitt Romney and two of his sons happened to be vacationing in the area. They jumped onto jet skis and raced to the rescue. Governor Romney was pulled off his jet ski at one point. They even saved the dog, a Scottish terrier.

A couple of years before that, Romney performed a similar rescue for a group of kayakers who were shoved onto hard rocks by fierce winds.

In 1996, the fourteen-year-old daughter of a Bain Capital partner was kidnapped. When Mitt Romney learned of this, he shut down the entire multi-million dollar firm and flew the entire staff to New York, so they could help look for the girl. Romney hired private detectives, set up a toll-free tip line, coordinated with the NYPD, papered the streets with fliers, contacted every Bain customer in the city, and personally hit the bricks with the Bain crew to join the search. They found her, just in the nick of time – she was dying from an overdose of drugs in a New Jersey basement. She was only rescued because someone saw news coverage of Romney’s search efforts.

Thirty years earlier, Mitt Romney was a high school student who may, or may not, have been slightly more of a jerk than the average teenage boy. How’s that for an “evolution?” Why on Earth would any reasonable person think his high school misadventures tell us more about his character than his deeds later in life?

UPDATE: After enduring a day of pounding for their stealth edit, the Post added this editor’s note to the bottom of the Romney piece: “An earlier version of this story reported that White ‘has long been bothered’ by the Lauber incident. White later clarified in a subsequent interview that he has been disturbed by the incident since he learned of it several weeks ago from a former classmate, before being contacted by The Washington Post.”

Horsefeathers. White didn’t “clarify” anything in a “subsequent interview.” The Post author invented that false assertion out of thin air.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story



THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!

Daily Benefactor News – Inmate Gets 41 Percent Of West Virginia Vote Against Obama




Inmate Gets 41 Percent Of West Virginia Vote Against Obama – The Record

A man who sits in a federal prison in Texarkana, Texas, was picked by 41 percent of West Virginia Democrats in Tuesday’s presidential primary.

Keith Judd received 72,544 votes compared to President Barack Obama’s 105,854. In 10 of West Virginia’s 55 counties, Judd received more votes than Obama.

Judd, 53, is a perennial candidate. He repeatedly has run for president as well as for mayor of Albuquerque, N.M., and for governor of New Mexico. He filed to run on the ballot for president in 14 states in 2008, but only appeared on the Idaho ballot, according to Wikipedia.

Judd – Inmate No. 11593-051 at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana – was on the West Virginia ballot because he paid his $2,500 filing fee and submitted a form known as a notarized certification of announcement, according to Jake Glance in the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office.

However, Judd won’t have any delegates at the Democratic National Convention. Derek Scarbro, West Virginia Democratic Party executive director, said no one filed to be a delegate for Judd. He also said he didn’t think Judd had filed the proper paperwork.

Judd is in prison after being convicted in 1999 on two counts of “mailing a threatening communication with intent to extort money or something of value” after he made threats at the University of New Mexico. He was sentenced to 210 months in federal prison. He has appealed his conviction dozens of times, but each appeal has been dismissed.

West Virginia Republican Party Chairman Mike Stuart called the results “a remarkable rebuke” to Obama.

“While (U.S. Senator Joe) Manchin and (Gov. Earl Ray) Tomblin waffle to hide their support for the President, nearly 40 percent of West Virginia Democrats said they would prefer a convict in a Texas prison over Barack Obama,” Stuart said. “The real shame is that any legitimate Democrat challenger to President Obama would have won and that is the story across the country.

“The Democrats have given this President and his radical far-left agenda a free ride to the nomination for a second term. Keith Judd’s performance is embarrassing for Obama and our great state.”

Stuart said Obama’s lack of support in West Virginia is a result of his stance on coal.

“The people of West Virginia understand that this President has declared war on West Virginia coal and West Virginia jobs,” Stuart said. “West Virginians understand that this President must be defeated in November and new Republican solutions put in place to create a stronger, better economy.

“How could any responsible leader in West Virginia support the re-election of a President that is intentionally working to destroy the culture and economy of the very state he or she is supposed to represent. The Democrat Party is completely out of touch with the citizens of this great state. The Republican Party in West Virginia is fighting to build a brighter future for the people of West Virginia and we will deliver results in November.”

Meanwhile, Stuart expressed excitement for Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s overwhelming victory in West Virginia.

“The voters of our state are conservative, both fiscally and socially, and they will not support the out of control spending and regulation of the Obama Administration even if the West Virginia Democratic establishment continues to stand with him after tonight’s embarrassment,” Stuart said. “We are looking forward to a huge victory for Mitt Romney in November because West Virginia cannot risk another four years of Barack Obama and his Democratic War on Coal.

“It is still unconscionable to me that the West Virginia Democratic Party, Nick Rahall and Joe Manchin would turn their backs on the people of West Virginia and endorse Barack Obama. The people of our great state deserve better, and we are 100 percent committed to fighting for the conservative values of all of our fellow West Virginians.”

The 10 counties that had more voters picking Judd than Obama are Boone, Clay, Gilmer, Hardy, Lincoln, Logan, Mingo, Tucker, Webster and Wyoming.

On his Project Vote Smart profile, Judd says his favorite president was Richard Nixon. And he cites John F. Kennedy’s “Ask not” as his favorite quote. He lists Gene Hackman as his favorite actor and bowler Gary Skidmore as his favorite athlete. If he could meet anyone dead or alive, he’d pick Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart because “he was cool.”

Under hobbies and special talents, he lists bowling a perfect 300 game as well as ESP and fortune telling.

As for his priority issues, Judd lists the Judicial Accountability Commission and U.S. Department of Justice Accountability Commission as well as the U.S. Treasury Accountability Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank System Accountability Commission. He’d also like to “re-invent the public school system with ties to industries, community job placement and higher education.”

He seeks office “to make the world a better place.”

Other interesting facts from Judd’s profile:

* He lists his mother as actress Lillian Russell, a silent film star who died in 1922;

* He also says his father, Homer. T. Judd, “designed the first atomic bomb and worked for the Atomic Energy Commission 30 years;”

* His religion: “Rastafarian-Christian;”

* He also says he was a member of the Federation of Super Heroes from 1976 to 1982;

* Under education, he said he’s “attended” The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, UCLA, the University of New Mexico and Bethany Nazarene College.

* He wants to eliminate federal taxes and increase spending on defense and domestic welfare. “The Federal Government can merely operate on its own self-produced money rather than pretend to borrow it to pay private banks to store it and regulate interest rates, and then tax it;”

* He doesn’t believe in homosexuality. “Homosexuality does not exist anywhere else in nature. No other creature or animal on earth are homosexuals. I do not condone crimes or attacks on homosexuals, but we do not have to place our seal of approval of same sex marriages.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story



THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!

Daily Benefactor News – U.S. Tries To Buy Peace By Freeing Terrorists




U.S. Tries To Buy Peace By Freeing Terrorists – Sweetness & Light

From the Washington Post (of all places):

Secret U.S. program releases high-level insurgents in exchange for pledges of peace

By Kevin Sieff, Published: May 6

KABUL – The United States has for several years been secretly releasing high-level detainees from a military prison in Afghanistan as part of negotiations with insurgent groups, a bold effort to quell violence but one that U.S. officials acknowledge poses substantial risks.

“Several years” is a little vague, isn’t it? Why do we suspect that this has been going on for about three and a half years?

As the United States has unsuccessfully pursued a peace deal with the Taliban, the “strategic release” program has quietly served as a live diplomatic channel, allowing American officials to use prisoners as bargaining chips in restive provinces where military power has reached its limits.

As far as we know the attempts to negotiate with the Taliban started under Obama. So the wording of this sentence would seem to confirm our suspicions that this also started under Obama.

But the releases are an inherent gamble: The freed detainees are often notorious fighters who would not be released under the traditional legal system for military prisoners in Afghanistan. They must promise to give up violence – and U.S. officials warn them that if they are caught attacking American troops, they will be detained once again.

There are no absolute guarantees, however, and officials would not say whether those who have been released under the program have later returned to attack U.S. and Afghan forces once again…

For the record, the current recidivism rate for released terrorists is only about 28%. Or more than one out of four of these freed terrorists return to the battlefield.

But we are warning them that if they do, we might detain them again!

“Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks,” said one U.S. official who, like others, discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the program.

And the benefits are what again? Last month was the most deadly month for US troops in Afghanistan so far this year, with 33 of our soldiers killed.

The releases have come amid broader efforts to end the decade-long war through negotiation, which is a central feature of the Obama administration’s strategy for leaving Afghanistan. Those efforts, however, have yielded little to no progress in recent years. In part, they have been stymied by the unwillingness of the United States to release five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay – a gesture that insurgent leaders have said they see as a precondition for peace talks…

The only reason these top ranking terrorists haven’t been released is that some Congressional Democrats are afraid it will hurt them in the upcoming elections. After November Mr. Obama ‘will have much more flexibility.’

Unlike at Guantanamo, releasing prisoners from the Parwan detention center, the only American military prison in Afghanistan, does not require congressional approval and can be done clandestinely. And although official negotiations with top insurgent leaders are seen by many as an endgame for the war, which has claimed nearly 2,000 U.S. lives, the strategic release program has a less ambitious goal: to quell violence in concentrated areas where NATO is unable to ensure security, particularly as troops continue to withdraw. The releases are intended to produce tactical gains but are not considered part of a grand bargain with the Taliban.

What kind of tactical gains are these? If we give you what you want, will you promise not to attack us? That is not “tactics.” That is paying tribute.

U.S. officials would not say how many detainees have been released under the program, though they said such cases are relatively rare. The program has existed for several years, but officials would not confirm exactly when it was established…

Uh huh.

The process begins with conversations between U.S. military officials and insurgent commanders or local elders, who promise that violence will decrease in their district – or that militants will cease fighting altogether – if certain insurgents are released from Parwan. The value of the tradeoff and the sincerity of the guarantee are then weighed by senior military officials in Kabul, officials said…

This is simply insane.

The insurgents released through the secret program are the only detainees at Parwan who are able to circumvent the prison’s judicial review board. Their release is instead approved directly by the United States’ top commander and top military lawyer in Afghanistan, U.S. officials said. One official described the process as being “outside of our normal protocol.”…

It is also outside of ‘normal thinking.’

Click HERE For Rest Of Story



THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!

Daily Benefactor News – TransCanada Takes Another Crack At Keystone XL Pipeline With New Route




TransCanada Takes Another Crack At Keystone XL Pipeline With New Route – Financial Post

TransCanada Corp. on Friday reapplied to the U.S. State Department for a presidential permit to build the controversial Keystone XL oilsands pipeline, immediately triggering a new fight with opponents over the scope of a coming environmental impact study into the project.

In an interview with Postmedia News, TransCanada executive Alex Pourbaix said the Calgary-based company expects the Obama administration’s review of Keystone XL to be limited to the new rerouted portion of the pipeline through Nebraska.

“Certainly our expectation is that the only required new review would be on the actual reroute itself… What we are talking, in the scheme of things, (is) a relatively modest reroute,” said Pourbaix, president of TransCanada’s pipeline division.

“As we look at it, we don’t see anything material that was not reviewed in the original application, other than the specific reroute in Nebraska.”

The new application to the U.S. State Department includes new routes through the state of Nebraska, presumably designed to skirt environmentally sensitive areas which helped sink the earlier pipeline application.

TransCanada submitted its new application for a presidential permit just two weeks after it proposed several new routes for Keystone XL that avoid the ecologically fragile Sand Hills region of Nebraska.

President Barack Obama denied TransCanada’s original permit application in January, citing his administration’s concerns about the impact construction would have on the delicate topsoil in the Sand Hills region and the potential for pollution of the vast Ogallala Aquifer that underlies the area.

Normally, a new pipeline permit application would trigger an entirely new federal environmental impact study. But company officials contend that the State Department should using existing research – including some 10,000 pages of study results – and ensure the new application is processed “expeditiously.”

Because the $5.3-billion pipeline’s planned U.S. route remains unchanged through Montana and South Dakota – which already approved Keystone XL – no new environmental study needs to be done there, TransCanada says.

The company has split the original southern portion of the pipeline Рfrom Steele City, Nebraska, to Port Arthur, Texas Рinto a separate project that does not require new approval and already has Obama’s support.


But U.S. green groups are already raising objections to TransCanada’s push for a limited review of the pipeline. They argue that the earlier State Department study was flawed because it was conducted by a third-party contractor who had worked with TransCanada in the past.

“The coming environmental review should not rely on the earlier inadequate environmental impact statement,” Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a conference call Friday with reporters.

“It needs to make a fresh start and consider the full range of impacts this pipeline would have on our water, land, health and climate.”

The Keystone XL pipeline would, if approved, carry 830,000 barrels of oilsands crude per day from northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast of Texas. TransCanada first applied for a permit to build the pipeline across the Canada-U.S. border in 2008.

Russ Girling, the company’s CEO, said the project has already undergone “the most comprehensive” review in history for a cross-border pipeline. TransCanada is hoping for approval from the U.S. government in early 2013 and believes construction can be completed no later than early 2015.

The Keystone Oil Pipeline is pictured under construction in North Dakota in this undated photograph released on January 18, 2012.

TransCanada last month proposed a preferred alternate corridor for Keystone XL that avoids an area officially designated as the Sand Hills region by the Nebraska government.

But environmentalists, and some Nebraska landowners, say the new route still crosses over areas that have similar characteristics to the Sand Hills and will be damaged by construction and a potential pipeline rupture.

“We committed to the state of Nebraska we would reroute to avoid the Sand Hills,” said Pourbaix, noting that the company’s preferred new route adds only 32 kilometres of new pipeline.

“The Nebraska department of environmental quality came out in the fall with their map, which included their definition, not TransCanada’s definition, of the Sand Hills,” he said. “We’ve looked at that map. We are happy to use that map to reroute that pipeline.”

Pourbaix estimated that TransCanada will need to negotiate easement rights with about 200 to 250 new Nebraska landowners as a result of the reroute.

Alex Pourbaix, president of energy and oil pipelines for TransCanada Corp., on rerouting: “The Nebraska department of environmental quality came out in the fall with their map, which included their definition, not TransCanada’s definition, of the Sand Hills. We’ve looked at that map. We are happy to use that map to reroute that pipeline.”

TransCanada says it has “firm, long-term contracts” in place to ship more than 500,000 barrels per day through Keystone XL.

Pourbaix said the company remains confident that industry support will remain despite recent talk that the pipeline is becoming less important as TransCanada’s competitors propose alternative projects to ship oil from Alberta and North Dakota’s Bakken formation.

“With the original delay in Keystone that we experienced in the fall (of 2011), if our producers felt that Keystone was no longer an important part of their strategy for getting to market, they had an opportunity to not stick with us,” he said. “In fact, we have had an absolutely overwhelming response from our contracted shippers. They have all indicated their continuing support. They continue to honour their shipping arrangements. That speaks volumes.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story



THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!

Daily Benefactor News – Obama Has Held More Re-election Fundraisers Than Previous Five Presidents Combined




Obama Has Held More Re-election Fundraisers Than Previous Five Presidents Combined – Daily Mail

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Campaigner in chief? Barack Obama has been assiduously visiting swing states; he is pictured earlier this week speaking in Iowa

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.

Doherty, a political science professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, has also analysed presidential travel to battleground or swing states, which change and fluctuate in number with each election cycle.

In their first years in office, Carter visited eight out of 18 battleground states and Reagan seven out of 17. Bush Snr, Clinton and Bush Jnr all visited around three-quarters of battleground states while Obama went to all 15 within his first 12 months.

Fundraising: The President, pictured in North Carolina, has held an unprecedented number of campaign events

Challenger: Mitt Romney is still running behind in the race to build up an election pot

While the Obama’s campaign activities in office have been largely in line with historical trends, he is especially vulnerable to criticism because in 2008 he promised to change how politics works and to curb links with special interests.

Vowing in 2008 to ‘launch the most sweeping ethics reform in US history’ Obama said that if elected he would ‘make government more open, more accountable and more responsive to the problems of the American people’.

In his State of the Union speech in January, Obama bemoaned the ‘corrosive influence of money in politics’. The following month, he reversed course and announced he was allowing cabinet members and top advisors to speak at big money events for so-called super PACs – unaccountable outside groups raising money for his re-election.

During the 2008 election, Obama abandoned a pledge to opt for public funding of his campaign, instead opting to raise an unlimited amount privately. He then raised and spent approximately $730 million, almost double the campaign funds of Senator John McCain, his Republican opponent.

Up to the end of March, Obama had raised $191.6million for his re-election bid, compared to $86.6million raised by his Republican challenger Mitt Romney. His frenetic fundraising activities are in part because he is lagging behind campaign expectations. Early last year, some advisers spoke privately of raising $1billion.

Predecessor: George W. Bush, pictured at a rally in Milwaukee, was a less active campaigner

In his book, Doherty writes that in his first full month in office Obama visited Indiana, Florida, Colorado, Arizona and North Carolina – all battleground states – in 2012. ‘Clearly, the White House made a point of the president travelling to key electoral states early in his term in office.’

This week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) lodged a formal complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about alleged misuse of taxpayer money by Obama.

The Obama campaign dismissed the complaint as a ‘stunt’ and the White House said that it would follow the same rules as previous administrations and refund the appropriate amounts.

In the complaint, Reince Priebus, RNC chairman, wrote: ‘Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as “official events,” thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his re-election efforts.’

Doherty, however, said that although the tactic of labelling Obama’s activities as fraud was ‘novel’ in reality the opposing party always complained about a president facing re-election dressing up political events as official ones.

‘This is not new. The Republican complaint is more of a situational complaint than a principled complaint because they certainly weren’t complaining when George W. Bush did this eight years ago.’

Contrast: Ronald Reagan apparently did not hold a single re-election fundraising event in the election year of 1984

He added: ‘In 2004, President George W. Bush broke all records for presidential fundraising in terms of time devoted to fundraising and in terms of money raised and at the time Democrats hit him hard for that.

‘Obama has already surpassed Bush [Jnr] in numbers of re-election fundraisers, but not yet in money raised.’

The rising costs of campaigns, lower contribution limits, the breakdown of the public financing system, the 24/7 media environment and the professionalisation of campaigns had all led to successive presidents having to devote more and more time and energy to raising money.

He added that the ‘big picture’ was incumbent presidents fearing defeat. ‘Until 1976 [when Carter beat President Gerald Ford] no sitting president had been defeated for re-election since 1932. It had been 44 years.

‘And then three of the next four presidents who tried [Ford, Carter and Bush Snr] lost. Of all the presidents re-elected since Ford lost to Carter, only Reagan has won in a landslide. George W. Bush’s re-election [in 2004] was close, Clinton got less than 50 percent [in 1996]. There is a very keen sense among presidents that they really might lose.’

Kirsten Kukowski, an RNC spokesperson, said: ‘It’s no surprise that the Campaigner-In-Chief has taken raising money for his re-election to a whole new level. The worst part is the American taxpayer has been footing the bill.’ The Obama campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story



THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!

Daily Benefactor News – Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes




Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes – InfoWars

Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

Comparing climate change skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same treatment.

“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

As we have profusely documented, as polls show that fewer and fewer Americans are convinced by the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, promulgated as it is by control freaks like Zwick who care more about money and power than they do the environment, AGW adherents are becoming increasingly authoritarian in their pronouncements.

Even as the science itself disproves their theories – Arctic ice is thickening, polar bears and penguins are thriving, Himalayan glaciers are growing – climate change alarmists are only becoming more aggressive in their attacks against anyone who dares question the global warming mantra.

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.

But that’s by no means represents the extreme edge of eco-fascist sentiment that has been expressed in recent years.

In 2010, UK government-backed global warming alarmist group 10:10 produced an infomercial in which children who refused to lower their carbon emissions were slaughtered in an orgy of blood and guts. After a massive backlash, the organization was forced to remove the video from their website and issue an apology.

The same year, ‘Gaia hypothesis’ creator James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

In 2006, an environmental magazine to which Al Gore and Bill Moyers had both granted interviews advocated that climate skeptics who are part of the “denial industry” be arrested and made to face Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.

ClimateDepot.com’s Mark Morano is encouraging AGW skeptics to politely inform Steve Zwick (info@ecosystemmarketplace.com) that calling for people who express a difference of opinion to be tracked and have their houses burned down is not a rational argument for the legitimacy of man-made global warming science.

Indeed, it’s the argument of a demented idiot who’s obviously in the throws of a childish tantrum over the fact that Americans are rejecting the global government/carbon tax agenda for which man-made global warming is a front in greater numbers than ever before.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story



THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!

Daily Benefactor News – Parasitic, Leftist Teacher Removes References To God From ‘We Are The World’




Virginia Schoolteacher Removes References To God From ‘We Are The World’ – The Blaze

Another day, another song getting references to God cut from it. But not to worry – lest you think it’s only songs conservatives love that get butchered – this story shows that even liberal anthems about saving the world can get the ax if they suggest the presence of the almighty.


The scene is Virginia’s Broadus Wood Elementary School in Albemarle County. The song is the infamously saccharine “We Are the World.” And the teacher is one Jean Flaherty. The occasion is an upcoming 4th and 5th grade performance of said song, being organized by Ms. Flaherty. Only Flaherty wasn’t satisfied with the lyrical content of the already vapid, innocuous song, so she decided to do a little alteration.

You see, the original song contains two references to God. In these verses:

We can’t go on pretending day by day
That someone, somewhere will soon make a change
We are all a part of God’s great big family
And the truth, you know, Love is all we need[…]

Send them your heart so they’ll know that someone cares
And their lives will be stronger and free
As God has shown us by turning stones to bread
So we all must lend a helping hand

Ms. Flaherty took the liberty of changing these lyrics to something a little bit more secular:

We can’t go on pretending day by day
That someone, somewhere will soon make a change
We are all a part of one great big family
And the truth, you know, Love is all we need[…]

Send them your heart so they’ll know that someone cares
So their cries for help will not be in vain
We can’t let them suffer; no we cannot turn away
Right now, they need a helping hand

The second verse isn’t Ms. Flaherty’s original invention. It comes from a more recent version of “We Are the World” recorded to help the people of Haiti. Even so, the substitution has some parents upset, and Flaherty has offered an interesting defense:

While instructor Flaherty reportedly has told concerned, inquiring parents that their kids are allowed to sing “God” in the modified verse if they so choose, the official lyric sheet does not reflect such an option. And, due to social/peer pressures extant in modern-day government schools, few children are likely to deviate from the rehearsed and distributed lyric in order to vocalize “God” over the suggested “one.”

Ironically, this is the same defense (that kids “don’t have to say it”) that atheists explicitly rejected and fought against when it was applied to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story



THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!