(Video) Make Obama Cry

**Posted by Phineas

Make him run on his record.

Via American Power, with hat tips to The First Street Journal and Pirate’s Cove, here’s an ad from the Romney campaign that takes the recent awful jobs report and does the one thing President Obama doesn’t want — hold him accountable:

And if you want a graphical account of just how bad the economy has been under Obama and the Democrats (1), here’s a chart comparing job losses and recovery for every post-WWII recession:

Pathetic, ain't it?

(h/t Via Meadia. Click for a larger version.)

Forget the fake “Republican war on women” and the class warfare and Romney’s dog and all the rest. They’re just distractions. Cries of “Elvis!” Squirrels meant to make us look anywhere but where we as citizens and voters should be focused: on the economy and Obama’s record. (2)

If nothing else moves us –not the cronyism and corruption, not the growing regulatory Leviathan, not the sniveling weakness in foreign affairs, not the contempt for the law and the Constitution– at the very least, and by Obama’s own standard, his performance on the most important issue to most Americans, the economy and jobs, should make us vote to send him into retirement.

Don’t let yourself be distracted. Hold Barack Obama accountable.

Make him cry.

PS: Romney 2012.

(1) Yeah, I know. “He inherited the greatest crisis since the Great Depression from Bush!!” Grow up. The Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress from January, 2007, through January, 2011. They continue to control the Senate, and they’ve had the presidency since January, 2009. They own this so-called “recovery.”
(2) Want more proof that Obama’s term is the second term of Jimmy Carter? The number of people participating in the labor force –that is, actually looking for work– is the lowest since 1981. Thanks to Obama and the Democrats, people are just giving up.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

#Gitmo: Def. attorney for 9/11 terrorist asks women to “cover up” out of “respect”

Via Fox News:

The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more “appropriate” clothing to the proceedings — out of respect for her client’s Muslim beliefs.

Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.”

At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at “all times” when she meets with her client “out of respect” for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, “When you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”

Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore “very short skirts” and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, “somebody” was also dressed “in a way that was not in keeping with my client’s religious beliefs.”

“If because of someone’s religious beliefs, they can’t focus when somebody in the courtroom is dressed in a particular way, I feel it is incumbent upon myself as a counsel to point that out and ask for some consideration from the prosecution,” she said. “Suffice to say it was distracting to members of the accused.”

Oh, bite me, woman. As I said on Twitter earlier, if I could get to these trials I would make it a point to wear the most offensive thing possible in front of the “defendants” – not because I’m the flashy type but because I despise Islam’s oppressive, violent treatment of women and Islam’s deadly disdain for western culture.

Screw them!

WANTED: Your thoughts on NC’s proposed “Amendment One”

Been soliciting for opinions on Twitter this morning regarding the proposed “Amendment One” here in NC, which would effectively ban gay marriage and polygamy as being able to be “legally recognized” by the state. Here’s the text.

Our primary is Tuesday. This proposed amendment will be voted on at that time.

I’m conflicted on the issue, which is why I haven’t written much about it. It’s my understanding that the amendment wording is already pretty much state law but that the amendment would “solidify” it more and make it “harder to challenge” in court (feel free to correct any of that if I’m in error).

As long time readers of this blog know, I am a staunch proponent of traditional one man/one woman marriage over any other type of “alternative forms of marriage” including gay marriage and polygamy, but I have to confess that the vagueness of Amendment One concerns me – not to mention that I worry it would hurt existing domestic partnerships in this state as it relates to health benefits, child support, domestic abuse reporting, etc. This will, after all – if passed, be written into the state constitution. That’s a pretty big deal, and one that I know many of my conservative friends in this state are concerned about as well.

I have resisted buying into the “talking points” given by activists on this issue, but there doesn’t seem to be any clear place to go to get the straight up skinny/non-spin information on what this bill will and won’t do.

Anyone in the same boat I am? If not, please state the reasons you are for or against the amendment.