Congratulations President Obama. So Now What?

Bookmark and Share  As of 11:45 pm, with Ohio called for the Obama-Biden ticket, while the states of Virginia, and Florida remain too close to call, President Obama has received 290 electoral votes and secured himself a second term in the White House.  For myself, as Editor-in-Chief of White House 2012, I am quite humbled and even embarrassed by the wide disparity in the projections which I presented, and the actual results.  And as an American I am disappointed.  I am disappointed by the fact that our nation will be hindered by a spender-in-chief who has done his best to change the American way instead of doing his best to preserve the American way.

Yet despite the disappointment and even the fear over another four years of Barack Obama, I remain cautiously optimistic that not even Barack Obama can destroy what it means to be an American.  This nation is greater than any one person and it is not defined by any one man.  So while I have lost some faith in the political process, I have not lost any faith in our nation.

Now it is up to President Obama to deal with the divisions in our nation… divisions which I firmly believe he has largely been responsible for.  His divide and conquer strategy of class warfare and his attempts to pit Americans against each other in order to win reelection, now puts him in the unenviable position of having to bridge the existing divide.  His inability to do so will make his victory a hollow one and the mission of his next four years as President impossible.

Not only does Barack Obama become the first President reelected with a smaller Electoral College vote than he was elected with, he also faces an an American electorate and Congress that is probably more divided than it has ever been since the Civil War.  After orchestrating one of the most divisive and empty campaigns in recent history, how he will pivot and try to create goodwill will be interesting.  And even more interesting will be how quickly he can do it because he  must work fast.  With a fiscal cliff only weeks away, true leadership is required.  His lack of leadership has brought us to this cliff and so far there is no indication that it will be able to avoid it.   But hope springs eternal.

So tonight I congratulate our President.  His campaign put together a brilliant ground game.  His Party increased its margins in the U.S. Senate.  And except for a loss of seats in the House of Representatives and possibly even the popular vote, he won and there is no denying it.  But did America win?  And what does his victory mean?  Will it mean more of the same that has gotten us into an economic crisis so severe that it is considered a national security threat?

I don’t know the answers to these questions but I do know that President Obama’s win tonight leaves us with more questions than answers and more uncertainty than certainty.

Bookmark and Share

Change? Obama Worse than Bush

The verdict is in, and Barack Obama did not produce the change he promised.  In fact, as he blames all his ills on the last 8 years, it is interesting to compare the Bush years to the Obama years.  Consider the following:

Average Annual Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush: $543,818        Obama: $1,497,601

Total Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush (8 years): $4,217,261   Obama (4 years): $5,990,407

Average Annual Unemployment (Also see here):

Bush: 5.26%                    Obama: 9.2%

Median Household Incomes:

January, 2009: $55,198       August, 2012: $50,678

The Average Annual Price of Gas (not even including 2012):

Bush: $2.14                     Obama: $2.89

Cost of Higher Education (adj. for inflation, not even including 2012):

Bush 2008: $16,661     Obama 2011: $18,497

But isn’t health insurance cheaper now with Obamacare?  No.  In 2012 the amount a family with employer provided coverage pays in annual premiums has increased to about $16,000.  For families with private individual plans, the amount is up to $5,615.  And before you ask why families don’t all just switch to private individual plans, remember that Obamacare taxes medium-large businesses up to $3,000 per employee that they don’t cover.

But we know Obama has handled the economy terribly.  The other thing people elected Obama for was to end the wars.  Obama promised to close Gitmo, which didn’t happen, and to end the war in Iraq.  He ended the war in Iraq by sticking to Bush’s timeline, but that wasn’t the whole story.  Obama intended to continue the war and leave troops in Iraq, but Biden could not negotiate simple immunity for our troops.  Don’t look now, but the Afghanistan war isn’t ending in 2014.  The administration is already negotiating to keep up to 25,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

Let’s look at war by the numbers.

Involvement in Major Foreign Conflicts:

Bush: 2 countries           Obama: 3 countries

Military Spending as % of GDP:

Bush, 2008: 4.4%          Obama, 2011: 4.7%

Average Annual War Spending:

Bush: $99.3 Billion       Obama: $155.1 Billion

Obama boasts of ending the war in Iraq, but how is the peace President doing in Afghanistan?

Average Annual Troop Deaths:

Bush: 606                        Obama: 445

Iraq:  528                         66

Afghanistan: 78              379

But what about Bush’s handling of Katrina?  Surely Obama has done better than that, right?  Former NYC Mayor Guiliani says no.

What about taxes?  Obama boasts about cutting people’s taxes, but most of the tax hikes he passed don’t go into effect until next year.  Obamacare has 20 different tax hikes in it, and many of those affect the poor and the sick.

But Obama saved the auto industry, right?  Actually, the only Detroit major that survived was Ford.  Ford didn’t take Obama’s bailout.  Chrysler did, and is now owned by an Italian company called Fiat.  GM took Obama’s bailout and is now owned by the taxpayers.  This was after Obama spent billions to bailout the unions before letting the two companies go through bankruptcy.  If that’s Obama saving the auto industry, I hope he doesn’t do me any favors.

Add these factors to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Black Panther polling case, Solyndra, and the other various scandals and overreaches of the Obama administration, and there is no reason to re-elect Obama.  Except of course if you got an Obama phone and are afraid of losing it.

How Obama Could Still Win:

Several states in play are ties or tossups in the latest polls.  In some, Obama is leading by 3-5%, but 3-5% are either undecided or going third party.  Obama can still win, even with his horrible statistics, if people vote third party or stay home.

I know many out there are voting third party or not voting to protest Romney.  I, like you, am a very libertarian leaning constitutionalist.  I’d love to see us out of the Middle East.  I’d love to see government spending cut in half.  I’d love to see us hold to our 10th amendment.  But Mitt Romney is NOT Barack Obama.

If anything, Mitt Romney is far closer to Reagan.  Despite being hailed as a conservative hero, Reagan is not as conservative as I would have preferred.  In fact, many Ron Paul and Gary Johnson voters would probably not vote for Reagan either.  But Mitt Romney is not the candidate you should be protesting.  You should be protesting Barack Obama.

Consider your goals and which candidate will get us there:

Less involvement in the Middle East: Mitt Romney has a comprehensive energy plan that gets America using its own resources to lower our dependence on OPEC.  Obama spent billions of your tax dollars on green energy companies that went bankrupt, and we are no closer to independence from foreign oil.

Simpler, fairer tax system: Romney’s plan reduces rates in order to remove loopholes and deductions based on the government’s definition of what a good citizen looks like without raising taxes.  Obama’s plan is higher taxes, more redistribution and a more complex tax system designed to pick winners and losers.

Foreign wars: Obama has proven himself to be an interventionalist.  He is not the peace President people hoped for.  He hasn’t closed Gitmo.  He only left Iraq because he was too incompetent to negotiate a way to stay there.  But he is already negotiating to keep 25,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Romney’s approach is to show the kind of strength Reagan did.  What major war did we fight when Reagan was President?  The Cold War, where we sat across the ocean from each other and didn’t pull the trigger for eight years.  Finally, the Soviet Union collapsed under their economic system.

More personal freedom and responsibility: Nothing took us backwards further as a nation than Obamacare.  Obamacare mandates that every American buy private health insurance or pay a tax.  Obamacare takes deciding power away from doctors and patients and gives it to the government.  If you protest Romney, Obamacare is here to stay.  If you vote to protest Obama, we have a shot at repealing this monstrous tax on the sick and the poor.

Does My Vote Count?

If you are thinking of voting third party or not voting because Romney is not as conservative as you’d like, you could be part of the margin that gives Obama four more years to take us down the path towards socialism at hyperspeed.  So where does Romney need your vote the most:

Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Arizona.

But believe it or not, he also needs you in Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine. If nothing else, vote to tell the liberals in your state that they do not have a mandate.  The country is changing and is leaning to the right.  You will never get the conservative, limited government you want if you let the country fall off the socialist cliff because the most conservative candidate who can win is not conservative enough for you.

When you walk into the voting booth, consider what you want America to look like in 2016.  Do you want to move forward the way Obama does?  Do you really want four more years of this?

Critical Reminders Before You Vote

In a society that offers a 24/7/365 news cycle, four years is a long time. Indeed, for most of us, Obama’s first term has been an eternity. Before Tuesday’s epic election, all citizens should take some time and consider carefully the vote they will cast. With that in mind, and in hopes of sparking your memory, let’s take a quick trip down memory lane. Here are a few things that happened during Obama’s first term.

Let’s start where Obama started — healthcare. Remember the dirty deeds involved with the passage of Obamacare? It was truly a low in American politics. There was the Corn-husker Kickback. There was liberal demi-god, Dennis Kucinich, basically saying — even though I’m against it, I’m for it. Of course, political favors will change even a demi-god’s mind. The late Arlen Spector claimed he was promised increased political clout for his vote but after providing it, he got shafted. Think about that for a minute. Spector was a Republican that jumped to the Democrats. He was a turncoat. Yet once the liberals got his vote, they slit his throat. That’s how dirty this deal got.

Do you recall the stupid sales pitch that Obama-care made fiscal sense? The math wizards used 10 years of revenues versus just six years of expenses for that dandy. How about San Fran Nan’s insightful nugget about how Obama-care had to be passed before the people can see what’s in it? As if it was a present waiting under the tree. Crafty one, she is. Little did we know the pretty paper and ribbon was hiding incomparable tax hikes and bureaucratic death panels. Is it starting to come back you?

The Obamacare circus was an insanely partisan environment. Not one Republican in the Senate voted for it. The House of Representatives has had 33 votes to repeal it. The citizenry was so rip-shit when it passed, that numerous Democrats that supported the bill were voted out during the mid-term elections of 2010. By the way, demi-god Denny got changed out too – he lost his seat at the table earlier this year.

But politicians aren’t the only thing that has changed—so has the price tag. Obamacare was originally said to be a $900 billion pursuit. The last analysis came in at over $2.6 trillion. Ultimately, it is a massively huge tax hike. But we have to have a massively huge tax hike because the $700 billion Obama stole from Medicare just isn’t enough to fund it.

Obamacare is a bad law rammed through by liberal-progressive zealots and it is filled with political poison. Consider that retiring Democrats, as if giving their last confession, have spoken out against it. So bad is Obama-care, unions and businesses that support Democrats demanded exemptions from it. Which, of course, they were given because you can’t jeopardize those campaign contributions, now can you? Obamacare has forced businesses to stop hiring and halt expansion. Numerous states have revolted against it because they are revolted by it. All of this is not anti-Obamacare spin. This is documented reality. In June, Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling basically told us that to rid ourselves of Obamacare, we must rid ourselves of Obama. Well, that time has arrived.

But there are many more sweet memories to cherish from Obama’s first term. It’s well known that Obama has violated the constitution numerous times. Legal scholars have been crying foul almost from his inauguration day. He stands at the podium and talks of love of country but undermines or ignores his constitutional responsibilities. His two-faced behavior was never more evident than when, after blathering on and on about his grave concerns regarding the law, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As a reminder, this law allows the president, on just his say, to target American citizens for detention and hold them indefinitely or to actually have them killed. Incidentally, Obama signed this law under cover of New Year’s eve and a holiday. Political cowardice? You tell me.

This is a president that has made illegal appointments during congressional recess, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants and has directed the DOJ not to enforce laws on the books. If you do your research, you will find that some scholars rate George Bush’s constitutional behavior as quite poor. You will also find that others feel Obama’s record is worse. Combine these two presidential terms and we have twelve years of presidential government that routinely violates the constitution. If nothing else, Obama needs to be fired to send the message to future presidents that this will not stand. Dictators and tyrants be warned. The citizens have had enough of constitutional violations, unresponsive government and political corruption.

And speaking of corruption—we have Solyndra, Energy Conversion Devices, Raser Technologies and numerous other “green” businesses that have put us in the red. Obama gave political friends truck loads of cash that has ended in hundreds of billions in losses to American tax payers. There is also the on-going Delphi Pension scandal where, as part of the auto bailout, non-union workers lost huge chunks of their pensions while the pensions of union workers went untouched. Does Obama plays favorites?

And some of his favorites are dangerous. He grants government access to individuals and organizations that have been determined by a court of law to support terrorism. The propaganda press hides it from us. But it is true. What is also true is that scandals involving money and political favoritism are one thing. Scandals that result in the deaths of Americans are something else.

Operation Fast and Furious cost Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry his life. And the killing of ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata is also suspected to be the result of a Fast and Furious gun. This scandal remains unresolved because the supreme ruler claimed executive privilege to stop the investigation. Could it have reached him? It seems likely. And of course we have the Benghazi consulate attack.

There were four Americans killed in Libya on September 11th when the US consulate was attacked by men armed with guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars. These details were included in the very first news reports. Yet, instead of standing tall and assuming responsibility as a real leader would, Obama shunned accountability. He misled the American people by claiming the assault was the result of disgruntled protestors upset by an insignificant and amateurish anti-Muslim video.

The details continue to trickle in but to date we know the administration knew almost from the start that the attack was preplanned. We know that personnel within the consulate sent numerous requests for additional protection well in advance of the attack. All of these requests were denied. We also know some security personnel, as the attack was unfolding, were inexplicably ordered to stand down. They didn’t. They fought and ultimately gave their lives to protect others. Meanwhile, tucked safely away in Washington, Obama and his administration have displayed shameful behavior. Clearly, if Obama intentionally misled the public he should be fired. And if you negate malicious intent, then the incompetence displayed by Obama to protect Americans are the grounds for his dismissal.

But there are other gems that should be considered before you vote. For instance, the country’s credit rating was down-graded under Obama’s watch. The first and only time this has occurred. Recall the debt ceiling battles when House Speaker John Boehner said an agreement was reached but then fell apart because Obama moved the goal posts. And even after changing the game, it was Obama that walked from the table, like a spoiled child taking his ball and running home.

Obama has proven himself to be among the most, if not the most, anti-business president in the history of the country. Statements like you didn’t build that and the economy is doing fine are more demonstrative of his disdain for business and capitalism than they are verbal miscues.

It is no secret that the supreme ruler has decided that he—not private industry—should determine America’s energy future. He has created a militaristic EPA that takes more pride in shutting down power plants than working to plan out a realistic future for America. Contrary to his debate lies, he has severely restricted oil permits for drilling. He also rejected the Keystone pipeline. His “green” agenda has closed hundreds of coal plants. This has forced t he price of energy up but worse, it has destroyed the lives of thousands of citizens that rely on the coal industry. And as you know, when plants and coal mines close the restaurants, stores and other small businesses supported by them start to suffer. It is a Domino Effect that can destroy towns. West Virginia in particular has been hammered mercilessly. The pain within West Virginia is so acute and the bitterness is so severe they gave almost half of their Democratic primary votes to a convicted criminal rather than Obama. Hopefully, on November 6th, with your help, they will see a light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

But his wrath is not just directed at oil and coal. Any business is fair game. Recall the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) brought suit against Boeing because it wanted to build a “non-union” factory in South Carolina. It is just coincidence that after Boeing gave a machinists union a new four-year contract extension the NLRB dropped the case? Gibson Guitar Corp., a guitar manufacturer owned by a Republican contributor, was targeted, raided and its assets confiscated. After months of legal hearings and business interruption, the case was dropped. Gibson was fined $350,000 big ones and spent some $2 million defending itself. Who knows how much money they lost in sales. Lawsuits against businesses and states are a regular tactic used by Obama to get his way. You can look all this up.

His goal is to grow government, not business. His goal is to expand entitlements, not the American economy. He bad mouths the rich implying they all cheated to make their money. He is a classic tax and spend guy that will fund anything with other people’s money as long as it buys him a vote. His approach to leveling the playing field is not to raise people up. Rather, it is to force people down. Romney promotes the idea that he wants to help make everyone rich. Obama seeks a level playing field where everyone is poor. His spread the wealth philosophy is really spread the pain.

Every budget year credited to Obama has had a $1 trillion deficit. That is a staggering and horrifying situation. Try to name anyone working anywhere in any field that would retain his or her job after spending $1 trillion more than was brought in. Obama has done it year after year after year. Obama submitted a 2012 budget and it was rejected 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate. In April, a proposal based upon an Obama 2013 budget plan lost in the House 414-0. His spending is out of control. Just for kicks, inform the government you can’t pay your taxes because you over-spent last year and see how it responds. And adding $6 trillion to the federal deficit in just one presidential term is an insult to each and every American citizen that will have to pay it back. And their kids. And their grandkids. And their great-grandkids.

But he cares not. American citizens are not his priority. But because we can stop him from meeting his priorities, he hides his socialist agenda as best he can. He spins stories and tells partial truths because if most of America knew what he was really up to, he would be out of a job faster than a West Virginia coal worker. And don’t think he doesn’t have an agenda. Remember, he got caught with an open-mic promising Russia “more flexibility” after he wins re-election. Ask yourself — if you have the courage — what else might he do after re-election? Another open mic incident let us know he true feelings toward Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course, we really didn’t need this dose of reality as he has stuck it to Israel regularly during his first term. But it’s nice to have it on record.

Let’s see, what else is there? Obama allowed Seal Team Six operational details to be leaked to try to glorify himself. Perhaps worse, he gave information to a movie crew about the bin-Laden operation so his hero narrative could be captured on film. Think of it, Obama’s daring and personal courage captured on celluloid. No doubt, because Hollywood worships him, it will be an Academy Award winner. But unearned admiration is nothing new for the anointed one. After being elected he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for — well, just because. Obama’s ego and pursuit of celebrity has few limits. His remembrance tribute at the passing of a real American hero, Neal Armstrong, included a picture of himself, not Armstrong.

But no matter how handsome the smile, or how “cool” the persona, it is a facade. Barack Obama is about himself, not the country. His first term and his re-election campaign have demonstrated that he is a small, petty and selfish man. It is now openly discussed within political circles that Obama is a square. He rarely meets with members in his own party and virtually never meets with Republicans. Even now, Democratic politicians across the country are livid because he refuses to support down-ballot campaigns. We know his jobs council hasn’t met since January 17th and that he skips out on his Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB). In September, Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post wrote, “Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent.” Imagine going to your job, if you’re lucky enough to have one, and blowing off more than half your meetings. How long would you last? This man didn’t even take the time to prepare for his first debate. Is this the type of guy you want running the country?

What we need to remember about Obama before we vote is what we have learned about Obama during his first term. He is a skilled orator, a mediocre politician and a poor leader. He is a political provocateur, not a statesman. Please, do yourself, your loved ones, your neighbors and your country a favor, vote for Mitt Romney so we can toss the Obama administration on the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net 

Obama’s Desperate Closing Argument: Vote For Revenge, Not For America

   Bookmark and Share   That’s the message failed President Barack Obama is sending supporters.  It is part of his class warfare election strategy that is designed to motivate his base and it is the focus of one of Mitt Romney’s latest ads.  (See the ad below)

For the last month, the closer we get to Election Day, the more desperate President Obama has gotten. In addition to the President’s noticeable lack of any references to his record and his total unwillingness to address any real issues, the President’s campaign has been interjecting nothing but meaningless juvenile jabs at Mitt Romney. From a focus on playing word games with Romney’s name, to his continued attempts to divide Americans along lines of class by trying to pit the poor against the rich, President Obama continues to look less and less presidential with the passage of each day.

His latest attempt to suggest that voters use their most basic civic responsibility to vote as a means for exacting revenge is just the latest, best example of how unpresidential Barack Obama has become. Revenge may appeal to the President’s greedy liberal base who can’t get their hands on enough taxpayer funded government handouts, but the majority of voters not in the President’s base are not seeking to use their vote as a tool for t Obama revenge. Most Americans are using their vote to preserve the principles that made our nation the greatest in the world and as a way to make it an even greater, more prosperous nation.

In the closing days of the campaign, Barack Obama’s attempt to make this election all about revenge proves that he has lost, not just the election but also the promise of hope that he rode to victory four years ago but four years later turned into hopelessness.

Bookmark and Share

Unemployment Up and as Obama Walks On Water, Millions of Americans Remain Under Water

Bookmark and Share The last jobs report to come out before the election shows that after a too small for comfort drop in the unemployment rate last month, this month it is back up. to 7.9% and the real unemployment rate is at 14.6%.  This officially makes this the slowest recovery from any recession in our nation’s history.

No matter how one looks at it, the Obama economic policies are not working.  The President has tried to claim that we are moving in the right direction, but this latest report makes that claim as ludicrous as his claim that he knew nothing about what was going on in Benghazi.

Beyond President Obama’s policies though are the reality we are facing.

These latest jobs reports do not reflect the loss of jobs and wages that have taken place since the beginning of the week when Hurricane Sandy decimated many parts of the North East.  Admittedly President Obama had nothing to do with the still unfolding economic effects of Hurricane Sandy, but when that natural disaster is combined with the cumulative effects of the disastrous Obama economic policies, we find ourselves facing depressing conditions for millions of Americans who are finding things in America getting worse, not better.

For liberals, Barack Obama was once hailed as a messianic political figure who practically walked on water.  Four years later, our nation remains under water.  Recently he visited storm ravaged New Jersey in an attempt to “act” presidential and show us that he was here for us.  As a New Jersey resident, I am still trying to figure out what good that PR stunt did for my fellow suffering New Jerseyans.  And as we try to figure that one out, we get these latest jobless figures and are left wondering what possible good this President has done for our nation and its economy during the last four years.

America has not reelected a President who commanded over unemployment as high as the ones we currently have since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression.   History could of course repeat itself on November 6th, but given the dismal record of this President, Americans must ask themselves this.  Is there any reason to prolong the depressing economic condition that President Obama is putting us through with his big government, tax and spend, deficit busting policies?

The answer is no.  After four years it is clear that not only does President Obama not walk on water, the liberal emperor that he is, has no clothes and under his economic policies, Americans can’t afford to buy their own clothes.  Like Hurricane Sandy, President obama needs to go…. quickly

Bookmark and Share

Is It Over for President Obama?

   Bookmark and Share  My years of awareness in regards to presidential politics goes back to Nixon when as I was all of 8 years old and remember Richard Nixon leaving the White House in disgrace.  From there I remember how Gerald Ford fought but failed to win his own full term in office as President.  And then came 1980 when Ronald Reagan sparked my political interest in a way that led to my own dedication to public policy and politics.  Since then I have seen President’s rise and plummet in the polls.  I remember seeing George H.W. Bush go from a popularity rating in the upper eighties in 1991, to losing the election in the Electoral College in a landslide in 1992.  I have witnessed Bill Clinton fall from grace and rise back to iconoclastic popularity.  But never before have I seen a presidential election where a supposedly very popular President saw his reelection unravel quite as quickly as Barack Obama’s has been seeing in the last month.

Evidence of this became overwhelmingly obvious as over the past few days we have seen polls show a decided shift to Mitt Romney among voters nationally.  Since the beginning of the month we have found that among military voters, Romney has a 2 to 1 margin over the President.  We also understand that the Jewish vote which traditionally supports Democrats is being won by Mitt Romney over the President.  New polls also show that Barack Obama’s once 18 point lead over Romneyamong womern has evaporated and today we learn that Mitt Romney has a 19% lead over Barack Obama among independents, the swing voters whose decisions usually determine the winner in any given election.

But in addition to signs of a tide against Barack Obama turning in to a tidal wave that threatens to drown any chance of his getting reelected, we are seeing a President who acts more and more desperate as we approach Election Day.

Instead of demonstrating how presidential he is, Barack Obama is doing an endless tour of late night talk shows from Jon Stewart to Jay Leno as  our President avoids any hard news outlets in favor of low brow, pop culture entertainment programs.   Then when he is not sitting aside TV personalities discussing his favorite color, he is on the campaign trail discussing little things such as Mitt Romney’s unwillingness to provide Big Bird with a taxpayer funded government handout.  And as we listen to his references to binders and Big Bird and hear about our President claiming to reporters that even six year old children can see Mitt Romney is a “bullshitter”, Americans can’t help but be struck by how truly unpresidential our President has become.

Meanwhile, as the pressure of the election continues to get to the President and reveal the flaws in this once messianic figure of the liberal lore, we are not hearing anything about the 24 million Americans out of work and how he will get them back to work.  We are not hearing anything about the national debt that is now so burdensome it is considered a national security risk.  And speaking of national security we are also not hearing anything about the national security scandal and coverup surrounding the tragic events in Benghazi, Libya.  No, the President refuses to honestly tell us what he knew or when knew it.  He refuses to explain to us why he tried to deny the events in Benghazi were terrorist attacks, even though the evidence shows he did know it was.  Our President refuses to even explain how he never knew that al Qaeda, the terrorist group the President has admitted is our greatest threat in thew world, was establishing itself in Libya after our Ambassador to Libya made the white House aware of that fact in messages sent for as long as two months.

Then this morning I heard from someone who is not running for President.  A man whose only real political activity consists of fulfilling his civic responsibility of making an educated vote.  His name is Charles Woods and he is the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack. New evidence revealed that Tyrone Woods and the others in the consulate who were killed during the attack, had been pleading for help and the requests were denied.  To this issue Tyrone’s father spoke out.  Charles Woods wants answers.  The revelation did nothing to console the broken hear of father who lost his son. Instead it merely served as a more heartbreak as we are all left wondering who decided to not send in the troops who could have helped save his son and the three other assassinated Americans.  Instead Charles Woods son was left to defend our Ambassador and two other Americans on his own while fighting for his life.

Nothing else matters more than the answers to that right now.  Yet our President is now finishing up a an appearance on MTV after a 48 hour campaign tour that can only be described as a denial tour… denial of the failing economy, denial of no plan to create jobs or cutting our deficit.  Denial of all accountability for every aspect of the failed Obama record, including denials about the facts involving Benghazi.  It is time for our President to take a deep breath and get control of himself.  As our current Commander-In-Chief we need Benghazi explained and the mistakes that allowed Benghazi to come to fruition corrected so that it does not happen again.  We cannot go another day wondering if the pleas for help of another American serving their nation are falling on the deaf ears of a White House and President concerned more with getting virgins to vote for the President than he is with saving the lives of Americans.

So far our President is doing what he does best… avoiding the issue.  Our President refuses to explain any of this.  Instead we are being offered reasons to vote for him based upon sex, false accusations, and promises to deliver in the next four years what he couldn’t deliver in the past four.

While it is premature to suggest the election is over, based upon the more than obvious unravelling of the Obama presidency it is not premature to predict that President Obama is currently on a trajectory that is plummeting to ground faster than a rain drops pouring from the clouds.  And it is not too early to suspect that we are witnessing the makings of the most surprising landslide victory of any challenger to an incumbent President since Reagan overwhelmed Carter.  But more than four years ago, I did predict that Barack Obama was going to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter.  Unfortunately I was wrong.  While Carter’s was a failed presidency, he was not the evil, conniving, liar-in-chief that Barack Obama clearly is.

Bookmark and Share

New Emails Reveal That The White House Knew Far More About Benghazi Than They Admit

   Bookmark and Share  Within at least two and a half hours  of the attack that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House was told that Ansar al-Shariat, an Al Qaeda linked group of militants were taking credit for the attack.

No more than 2 and half hours after the attack, an email  identifying the group claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack was sent to  several locations, including The White House Situation Room, where President Obama was being made aware of the details as the tragedy unfolded.

According to Reuters news agency, the emails specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had taken responsibility for the attacks. In addition to these emails being dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center the White House Situation Room, they also went to offices in the Pentagon, within the intelligence community, and the FBI,.  All on the afternoon of September 11.

Below you will find copies of the actual missives. The names of the individual recipients of the emails are redacted.

The first email, contains the  subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,”.  It was sent at 4:05 PM, approximately 25 minutes after the attack began.  It describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.

Click on the image for a larger version

The second email was sent at 4:54 PM and it states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared.  It further states that a response team was “onsite attempting to locate COM personnel.”

Click on the image for a larger version

The third email, was sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time and had the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

Click on the image for a larger version

These documents were released from government sources who are reportedly not connected to any U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity.  So as is the case with most everything we have been learning about the events leading up to and following the attacks in Benghazi, the facts contained in these documents were not released by the White House.  Nevertheless, these facts do contradict just about everything the White House has been saying about what they knew and when they knew it.  And it especially points to attempts by the White House to cover-up the fact that this was terrorist attack, a description which both the Obama White House and Obama reelection team refused to admit to out of fear that it would be get in the way of the President’s reelection chances.

These emails now cast more doubt on the Administration then ever before.  They reveal that the White House knew that a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack even though they spent more than two weeks claiming that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video that was placed online back in July.  This now makes it hard for anyone not to be suspicious of what else the White House and the President knew.  So far, both the President and Vice President claimed to have not known of two months worth of warnings from Ambassador Chris Stevens about al Qaeda gaining strength in Eastern Libya and of his requests for additional security.  If true there is scandal in just the fact that this information never made its way to the Commander-in-Chief.  If it is not true, and he did know of those developments, than our Commander-In-Chief is absolutely incompetent and directly responsibly for allowing the events that killed Ambassador Stevens and three others to have gotten as far as they did.  But no matter how you look at it, right now there is either one scandal or two.  Are we left with a scandal dealing with an intolerable level of incompetence that killed our Americans in Benghazi, or are we left with one scandal regarding incompetence and another scandal regarding an attempt to cover-up the first scandal?

Bookmark and Share

Is Barack Obama Really a Good Friend to Israel? See the Video

   Bookmark and Share   While Mitt Romney did a good job in the last presidential debate, there was one thing I really think he was remiss in not pointing out.  When the topic of Israel came up, the Governor should have mentioned the unprecedented proposal that President Obama made in 2011 when he told Israel to adopt its 1967 borders. (See the video at the bottom of this post)

With all the attempts by President Obama to claim that he has established the strongest relationship with Israel of any previous President, there are many facts which contradict that claim. Between his refusal to ever visit Israel during his entire term in office, his recent refusal to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while Bebe was visiting the U.S. last month, and a history of Obama snubbing the Prime Minister on many occasions prior to that, it is clear that the American relationship with Israel is not as warm and close as it has been under previous presidents. But one of the most egregious acts against Israel committed by President Obama was his attempt to have Israel return to its indefensible 1967 borders.   It is a point which has not gotten the attention that it should in this election but for good reason, it must.

By trying to have Israel return it’s pre-1967 borders, President Obama was providing Arab states and the Palestinians with the ability to launch ground and missile attacks on the Jewish state with ease.  As explained in this video, a return to those borders would make it impossible for Israel to effectively defend itself against the enemies who surround them and have a great capacity to exploit added opportunities to launch ground and missile attacks.  Yet this is the position that Barack Obama proposed one of closest allies in the world to put themselves in.

During the last presidential debate, Mitt Romney had multiple chances to remind voters of this major Obama foreign policy initiative. And he should have.  At one point Romney reminded voters about Obama’s the apology tour to the Middle East he went on when first coming to office.  Governor Romney reminded us that while the President took the opportunity to fly to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq, he skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region.  It was around then that Romney should have at some point pivoted to President Obama’s 1967 border proposal by adding that while he has apologized to audiences that consisted of our enemies, he has also asked our friends to make fatal concessions to our enemies.  In this case it was a concession that would have moved Israel closer to extinction.

Obama’s attempt to have Israel adopt indefensible borders is a major issue.  It is another sign of his bass ackwards policies.  Policies which seek to placate our enemies and offend our allies.  A policy that is more in the best interests of enemies than our own nation.

When it comes to the Middle East, Israel is the only nation in the region that the United States need not fear a terrorist attack from.  If it is not our only real friend in the Middle East, it is certainly our best.  For that reason alone, it should not have a so-called friend who makes it easier for Israel’s enemies to destroy them.  Yet that is a part of the Obama foreign policy which was not mentioned in any of the debates.  So I have prepared the following video to make the point that Mitt failed to and that others have forget to.

Bookmark and Share

Ronald Reagan vs George W. Bush

Obama screwed up.  Instead of portraying Romney as George W. Bush, which has been a major campaign goal of the left, he instead tied Romney to Ronald Reagan.  Oh, Obama was so clever.  “The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back”.  The modified version of the old high school punchline is backfiring.

The problem with tying Romney to 1980s foreign policy is that we didn’t fight any major wars during Reagan’s Presidency.  Instead, our greatest enemy sat across the ocean with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us, not daring to attack out of fear of mutual destruction, until eventually they just collapsed under the weight of their own oppressive economic system.  That’s a foreign policy I could live with.

Biden Smiling

The real reason we are out of Iraq

Contrast that with Obama, who defended the Bush doctrine with his surge in Afghanistan and his own foreign policy which came across as a comedy of errors.  Obama praised himself for getting us out of Iraq.  The truth is, he barely managed to keep to Bush’s timeline.  Then Obama tried to negotiate to keep some of our intelligence troops in Iraq, but he sent “Chuckles” Biden to secure the terms and we ended up getting kicked out of the country.  After all the work, and blood, we have little influence over the direction of Iraq and we share their friendship with Iran.  Great job, Mr. President.

Romney was no cowboy in the debate.  He was calm, collected, and unfortunately even pulled his punches.  But I would feel much more comfortable with Romney sitting across the table from our foreign leaders than Obama.  Obama’s cowboyish attacks and disrespect showed the greatest evidence for why his foreign policy is a trail of failure and disaster.  We can only pray that his meetings with foreign leaders didn’t follow the same tone.

And of course we saw arrogant Obama in the debate last night too.  When he talked about killingsmiling obama Bin Laden and having Bin Laden in his sites, I had to laugh.  I’m picturing Obama with a sniper rifle.  I wonder if it was just a Freudian slip when Bob Scheiffer accidentally said “Obama’s Bin Laden”.

Commentators can say what they want about Obama’s new found aggressiveness and ability to attack Romney with zingers, truth be damned.  But I think most American families watched last night and saw a clear choice between which candidate they would like to see sitting down with Assad’s replacement to discuss the future relationship between our country and Syria, or which candidate they would like to see negotiating how we end our involvement in Afghanistan.  Or perhaps which candidate they would like to see negotiating trade with China.  I think we would prefer Reagan-esque Romney to arrogant Obama and “Chuckles” Biden.  The 21st century called, and we could use a little 80s foreign policy.

The High Stake Strategies in Tonight’s Final Presidential Debate?

   Bookmark and Share   Tonight’s debate may be President Obama’s last chance to put a stop to the momentum behind Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.  Putting more pressure on the President is the reality that the President must not only stop Romney’s forward momentum, he must reverse it.  That need has been made quite evident since the first presidential debate when Mitt Romney mopped the floor with President Obama and a seemingly large number of Americans got what was essentially their first real impression of Romney… an impression that swayed undecided, independent, and women  voters Romney’s way and has apparently become a lasting impression.

Given those circumstances, it is hard to say exactly what we can expect from Mitt Romney tonight.  Romney could easily use this opportunity to try knock-out the President with a series of shots dealing with Benghazi.  Romney could try to go for broke on Benghazi by pressing the President on what seems to be a cover-up of the facts with weeks of contradictory and misleading answers to legitimate questions and also on what is an obvious intelligence failure of catastrophic proportions which allowed the President to know nothing about the fact that al Qaeda was establishing itself in Eastern Libya.  But if Romney takes this route, he must be extraordinarily careful.  If he is too aggressive, it will backfire.  An over aggressive approach to this will turn off many of the voters Romney needs to win in key battleground states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire, which are too close for comfort.

Beating the President over the head with Benghazi will also risk the creation of a new narrative that will suggest that Romney took legitimate questions about the events surrounding Benghazi and exploited them by over-politicizing them in a desperate attempt to win the presidential election.  Such a narrative just two weeks before Election Day would produce irreversibly damaging results for the Romney-Ryan ticket and future headlines in the biased liberal media will deal more with their accusing Romney of attempting to exploit Benghazi than the facts that make Mitt Romney right to make Benghazi an issue.

So while the temptation to confront President Obama with the evidence and questions surrounding the obvious foreign policy and national security blunders behind Benghazi, Romney would probably be best advised to allude to these legitimate concerns in broader terms.

In the days to come, Romney surrogates will surely continue to raise the tough questions that the President continues to avoid giving accurate answers to.  And that is how it should be given the fact that much of this election is still being decided on the economy and the President’s failed record on the economy.

If Romney wants to ask President Obama one tough question on Benghazi though, it should be this.

“Mr. President, of all the questions that you must answer to regarding Benghazi, I have one which does not require any major and in-depth investigations, or congressional hearings.  It is this.  Aside from the questions as to why you did not know anything about Ambassador Steven’s warnings of a growing presence of al Qaeda, as far back as two months prior to his assassination, what I can’t help but wonder is why you, not anyone else…just you..  Why you could not figure out that September 11th followed September 10th?  You did not need the NSA, FBI, CIA, or DHS to tell you on September 10th that the following day would be September 11th and that September 11th is a tragic date that for the past 11 years has warranted heightened security at our consulates and embassies.  It seems to me that that is a basic fact that no President should have to be schooled on.  So aside from all the other questions, I think that the answer to that most basic question about that most basic fact provides the backdrop for a level of incompetence that stops nowhere else other than smack-dab in the middle of your desk.”

The President may or may not have a fairly reasonable response, but either way, by asking that question, Romney will have raised doubt about the President’s national security, intelligence, and foreign policies.

Another point that Romney must make clear is that if the President had not avoided approximately 62% of his daily intelligence meetings since the beginning of 2012, the security issues in Libya and the broader national security concern about a resurgence of al Qaeda in Libya, may have been raised or at the very least, the in depth discussions conducted in those meetings might have at least triggered in President Obama, a concern that could have helped him eventually learn about the facts in Libya that he and the Vice President claim they knew nothing about.

Aside from those questionable approaches for Romney on Benghazi, Mitt Romney should focus on using this foreign policy debate to subtly appeal to voting blocs that could help him win key battleground states.

To win favor with the swing voters in Ohio, Romney must nail the President on the issue of Chinese trade.  Our trade troubles with China may not seem like a major issue in this election but Romney’s campaign has polling that shows the issue of trade with China is of great importance to struggling Ohioans who feel President Obama has not done enough to even the playing field between China and the U.S. China.  They believe it is an imbalance that continues to prevent them from getting necessary job opportunities in the manufacturing industry.

Then there is Florida.

In Florida, while Romney currently holds a lead that is too close for comfort.  One way to expand that lead is by appealing to the Sunshine State’s larger than average Jewish vote.

The Jewish vote is traditionally a strong part of the Democrat’s base but in 2012 there is ample evidence that President Obama is getting a smaller share of Jewish support than he has in the past.  To take advantage of this trend, Mitt Romney needs to create doubt about the President’s handling of Iran regarding their attempts to enrich uranium, and also on the President’s shaky relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A succesful but subtle exploitation by Romney of Israel and China during tonight’s debate can achieve two critical keys to Romney’s victory on Election Day.  It can give him the edge he needs in Ohio and Florida, two states which together, can be the difference between winning and losing in the Electoral College.

As for President Obama, tonight he needs convince voters that while he is ending the wars we are in, Mitt Romney will get us into new wars.

President Obama must try to derail Romney by making voters believe Romney is too out os step with the desires of Americans.  He must paint Romney as a dangerously inexperienced neo-con who wants to re-wage the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and wants to take us to war in Iran.

If Mitt Romney can’t offer his own legitimate approach to how he intends to handle these nations as well as others such as Libya and Syria, Obama will have the ability to leave lasting marks on Romney among the undecided voters that both men need to swing in their direction on Election Day.  But that will be a tall order for President Obama.  Not only has Romney shown himself quite adept at turning around such charges, thanks to recent events, when it comes to foreign policy, it President Obama who now finds himself on the defense, not Mitt Romney.Bookmark and Share

“Death And Deceit In Benghazi”: The Timeline Behind the Obama Coverup (Full Video)

  Bookmark and Share   While most journalists continue to fail to ask the President and his Administration the hard questions about the circumstances leading up to and following the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Bret Baier of Fox News has put together an excellent report that proves the  President and his Administration have a lot to explain to the American people (see the special report in the video below).

The timeline established in this report raises several questions including some which deal with  the broader concerns of national security within an Administration that apparently went without ever knowing or acknowledging the fact that al Qaeda was establishing itself in Eastern, Libya, even though the Administration was being warned about it for more than two months.

The final presidential debate will be devoted to foreign policy, an issue which until recently has largely taken a backseat to the economic crisis that is confronting our nation.  But over the course of the past six weeks, events beyond our borders have reminded many Americans that what happens abroad creates ripples that eventually and inevitably impact on our own shores and citizens.  Pleas from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to intervene in  Iran’s march towards nuclear capability have reached a fevered pitch.  Continued fallout from the lead-from-behind Obama strategy in regards to the so-called Arab Spring has turned into an Arab Winter that has led to an ongoing civil war in Syria that continues to destabilize an already unstable region of the world and threatens to turn in to a war between Syria and Turkey.   And in Libya the promise once seen in the final fall and demise of Moammar  Gaddafi  has turned in to an opportunity for al Qaeda related cells to kill our Ambassador and three members of his security detail and in to an opportunity for al Qaeda to establish another beachhead to launch future terrorist attacks from.

The ramifications of the events leading up to, and following the terrorist attack in Benghazi are turning in to two scandals.  The fist being the scandal of the obvious intelligence failures which made it possible for the killing of our 4 Americans in Libya on September 11, 2012.  How could the President never have been told about the activity level of al Qaeda in Libya that Ambassador Chris Stevens warned us about in cables to the Administration which he told us about two months prior to the attack that took his life?  Or is this something that President Obama might have known had he not avoided approximately 62% of his daily intelligence briefings since the beginning of the year?

Brett Baier’s timeline also raises questions about the Administration’s reaction to the terrorist attack… a reaction that is turning into the second scandal.

Given the clear contradictions between the facts outlined in this report and the statements made by the President and the Administration, this timeline shows evidence of  an Administration that is at best less than forthcoming with the truth and at its worst, trying to cover-up both the fact that there was such an extraordinarily severe intelligence failure and the reasons for that intelligence failure.

Could it be that President Obama knew nothing about Benghazi because since just the beginning of 2012 alone, he skipped out on  approximately 62% of his daily intelligence briefings?  While this is not a question asked in Brett Baier’s reports, it is a logical question when one consider all the facts and adds them in to the timeline laid out in this special report.

Whether or not Mitt Romney has the opportunity or desire to make these points in tonight’s presidential debate on foreign policy is anyone’s guess.  But what there is no need to second guess is the fact that since the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the president and his Administration have acted in ways that are raising more questions than answers.  In fact while they have not provided any answers , all their actions have raised nothing but questions.  If you take the time to watch this special report by Brett Baier entitled “Death and Deceit in Libya”, you too will begin to understand the true meaning of the phrase… “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”.

Bookmark and Share

“The Hope and the Change”. See It Here

Bookmark and Share The Hope & The Change interviews 40 Democrats and Independents who were onetime supporters and voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but due to runaway spending, unemployment, debt, and deficits, can no longer continue their support of President Obama in 2012.  If you haven’t seen it yet, take the time to see it now and do your best to get any undecided voters and reluctant Obama supporters to see it too.  It will go a long way in making them understand their doubts about the President are far more valid than they may have thought and that their reluctance to support Barack Obama in a bid for a second term has a great deal of merit.

To see the movie, you may first have to register and log in to Hulu, but fear not.  If you don’t yet have an account with Hulu, registering one is free, quick, and easy.

Bookmark and Share

“The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya” and the Unravelling of the Obama Presidency

    Bookmark and Share   The initial crime that was Watergate might never have brought down Richard Nixon.  Were it not for the conspiracy to cover up Watergate that Nixon was proven to have orchestrated, he might have completed his second term and gone down as of one the best contemporary presidents in history.  In the case of Barack Obama while impeachment is not a consideration, at least not yet, evidence that his Administration is covering up the events leading up to, and following the tragic events in Benghazi, Libya, may now prove to be the tipping point that prevents President Barack Obama from ever getting a second presidential term.

Such is the result of 166 pages of declassified internal State Department documents that were released today by Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government  Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz.  The information in these documents reveal that the Obama Administration received multiple cables from Ambassador Chris Stevens which warned of security threats in Libya.   On the very day that Stevens was killed in the September 11, 2012 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, he signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces who  Ambassador Stevens characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.” 

While the warning in that cable could easily be seen as coming too late to act upon in the relatively short time available between the time it was received and the time of the attack which occurred hours later, the declassified documents released today show a history of  warnings about the deteriorating security condition in Libya that went as far back as 44 days prior to those pleas for security that were expressed in that September 12th cable.   According to these documents, Ambassador  Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly warned their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya.

The documents even  reveal that Stevens went so far as to let is superiors in Washington know that in meetings with local militia commanders,  the militia commanders bragged to him about their exercising  “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and even threatened that if the U.S.-backed  candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political  jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”  

A  month prior to that, Stevens signed a two-page cable that he entitled, “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” 

That document noted that in just a few months’ time,  “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent  incidents has dominated the political landscape.” Steven then went even further and wrote, “The individual  incidents have been organized,” and are a function of “the security vacuum that a  diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.” 

He added

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative  impunity” .

Stevens continued;

 “What we have seen are not random crimes of  opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.”

His final comment on  that two-page document was;

“Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until  authorities are at least as capable.”

In other cables from Stevens notified the  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies  about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against  western interests.”  He even went so far as to write;

“Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively  deal with these key issues,” and added “the violence is likely  to continue and worsen.”

All of this is contradicting a narrative about Benghazi that the President and his Administration has been offering since the terrorist attack took place more than a month ago.

Just last night, on a comedy show hosted by Jon Stewart, President Obama told listeners that “every piece of information that we get, as we got it, we laid it out to the American people. The picture eventually gets fully filled in.”

However in the context of the newly released documents, that statement does not ring true and between that statement by the President and the evidence showing that were at least two months worth of warnings about an organized terrorist attack on American interests in Libya, there is a growing gap of doubt about exactly what went wrong and exactly how honest the President and the Administration are being with the American people about this tragedy.

According to both the President and the Vice President, neither of them knew about the need for added security in Libya.  That may very well be true.  But if it is, mounting evidence clearly shows that they most certainly should have known.  So assuming they didn’t know, what we have here is a major national security problem.  A problem that shows an inexcusable level of incompetence within the Obama Administration.  A level of incompetence which opens up an entirely devastating line of legitimate attacks on the President.  For instance, it is well known that President has consistently avoided attending his daily intelligence briefings.  The President claims that he always reviewed the multi-paged summaries that were used as the structural foundation for the agenda in those daily briefings.  But he has never quite addressed the fact that by not actually attending those briefings, he was never afforded the opportunity to ask security and intelligence experts normally in attendance,  questions and obtain detailed answers and information that might have helped the President to conclude that measures he had not before thought about, might required.

This legitimate concern points to a level of irresponsibility on the part of the President that is inexcusable and it lies at the heart of the angle to the Benghazi tragedy that could be the nail the Obama-Biden reelection coffin.   It is the motive behind what is increasingly looking like a cover-up.

To avoid being exposed to the his irresponsible practices and policies, we are seeing evidence that the President should have known about the deteriorating situation in Libya.  A situation that was pointing to not only the increasing dangers to our representatives in in Benghazi but an even more dire circumstances involving wider national security concerns … a resurgence of al Qaeda in Libya.

In an attempt to avoid undermining one of the few but still arguable strong points of the Obama Administration, the President wanted to avoid there being any impression other the one that after killing Osama bin Laden, President Obama also successfully decimated al Qaeda.  But that is a false impression and if it was revealed that al Qaeda connected elements killed our Ambassador, the President’s inflated high marks regarding the broader war on terror would have been undermined.    This is why the President and his Administration spent more than a month trying to deny the tragedy in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

In the final analysis, Benghazi is becoming Barack Obama’s Watergate.  Not simply because there is an obvious scandal behind the incompetence  behind the lack of proper coordination of intelligence, but mainly because there is an obvious coverup here involving who knew what and when. And it also involves  questions about how big a part the President’s reelection strategy has played and continues to play in preventing  the truth surrounding Benghazi from coming out.

It’s time for the President to have a prerss conference on Benghazi and it is time for him to come clean.  Continued attempts to be less than forthcoming will only result in a continued drop of his support in the polls.  Unless of course the President knows that the facts that are being hidden are even more damning than his apparent attempts to coverup those facts up.  Either way though, the President is in trouble.

Bookmark and Share

Time for Eva Longoria to Resign from the Obama Campaign of Hatred and Hypocrisy

The intolerant liberal base of the Democrat Party has consistently demonstrated that they have an uncanny propensity for hypocrisy.  They historically preach the virtues of tolerance yet they remain the individuals who happen to be the least tolerant of any differences of opinion.  It is the type of hypocrisy and political insincerity which leads the left to claim that Republicans are waging a war on women because they refuse to allow the government to fund infanticide.   But the latest example of liberal hypocrisy has reared its ugly head in of all places, the leadership team of the Obama campaign, where Obama campaign co-chair Eva Longoria has demonstrated a level of intolerance and disrespect that any responsible political campaign can not and should not be able to ignore.

Earlier today, Longoria issued the following tweet on Twitter;

The comment was actually a retweet… a reposting of someone else’s tweet.

After news of Longoria’s message broke, she tried to wiggle her way out of  her vulgar, bigoted message by tweeting the following;

“Is anyone else’s twitter bugging out? There are things in my timeline I didn’t  retweet today. Hmmm? Standby trying to fix!”.

So this sick and stupid, lying liberal Obama campaign chairperson actually panicked after revealing her true beliefs and attempted to pull an Anthony Weiner by suggesting someone hacked into her account and posted the offensive message instead of her.

Realizing that was not really a plausible excuse, Longoria then went on to try to claim that she does not hold the opinion expressed by her retweet.  She tried to claim that she never calls conservative women  names and that she retweeted the offensive message because she believes that everyone has a right to have their opinions expressed on her Twitter account.  Unfortunately that excuse doesn’t wash.  If Longoria did not believe the sentiments expressed in that twitter message, than she should not have promoted it.  Period.

But since Longoria took that approach,  I took the opportunity to promptly tweet my opinion on Longoria’s Twitter account.

It read as follows;

Now you might take offense to my reply to Longoria and you can question its appropriateness but if you do than you better be demanding that Eva Longoria either be fired from her position as a co-chair of the President’s campaign or that she immediately resign from the position.  If you think my response to Longoria was inappropriate, than you must feel the same way about Longoria’s initial comment.  But the biggest difference here is that I am not representing anyone other than myself.  In the case of Longoria she is representing the President.  As such, her claim that women and minorities who have a political opinion that is different from her own are stupid, is a sentiment that the President and his campaign must promptly disavow.

That is especially the case since this is not the first time, Longoria crossed the line.

During the vice presidential debate, Longoria posted the following tweet;

So here you have a representative of the Obama campaign calling Paul Ryan  Joe Biden’s “bitch”.  And what was the reaction to it?  A silence so deafening that it is unclear which was more offensive, the original statement or the unwillingness of the President’s campaign to disavow themselves from the message or the person who sent the message.

This latest episode comes at a time when it is becoming alarmingly clear to most people that the troubled Obama-Biden campaign is doubling down on their attempts to win the election by motivating minorities through a campaign of divisiveness that is driven by inciting racist sentiments among blacks and Hispanics.  As pointed out in the post and video seen here, Democrats are increasingly trying to play the race card in the presidential election.  It is a desperate last ditch attempt by the left to make sure that blacks and other minorities show up to the polls on Election Day 2012 and vote for President Obama in the same record numbers that they did in 2008.   And that was the only reason why Eva Longoria, a Hispanic actress with a degree in Latin studies and kinesiology, was chosen for the political role she is now playing the President’s reelection effort.  But now Longoria has gone too far.  She has exhibited a level of unacceptable and intolerable political bigotry that has essentially written off the value of any woman and minority who does not hold the same opinions as her own.

The Obama campaign tried to chastise Mitt Romney for once stating that he can’t care about the 47% who will not vote for him.  Of course Romney said that in the context of a strategic political reality which meant that he will not be able to persuade the approximate 47% of voters who are committed to supporting President Obama.   But liberals intentionally took the words out of context and tried to claim that if elected President, Romney won’t care about nearly half of the American population.  Well now the question the Obama Administration must deal with is whether or not they actually want the record to show that they think women and minorities are stupid unless they support four more years of Barack Obama’s failed policies.

Until they denounce Longoria and her remarks and dump her from their campaign, the record will show that the Obama-Biden campaign does indeed agree with Longoria’s remarks.

Meanwhile, this whole incident is a distraction from the real issues but it is a distraction which is the result of the Obama strategy to distract and divide Americans.  The Obama campaign and it’s surrogates are hell-bent on distracting us from the Obama record and dividing us by race and ethnicity.  It is strategy that is apparently beginning to backfire on Obama but it is all the President has left in his arsenal.

Bookmark and Share

With Obama Dropping Like a Stone, Liberals Are Replaying the Race Card in a Big Way

   Bookmark and Share As liberals begin to fear that Mitt Romney is proving to be a better leader and candidate than they once expected he could be, they have begun to make a noticeable shift back to their traditional tactics of divide and conquer by returning to an emphasis on playing the race card.  This disturbing reemergence of their ugly, disingenuous, racially divisive tactics is beginning to rear its ugly head again in every liberal narrative being offered in regards to the presidential election.   Evidence of this can best be found on cable television where two obscure media outlets occupy channels that have become  headquarters of liberal propaganda.  They are none other than the low rated MSNBC and Al Gore’s barely watched, ludicrous little cable venture, Current TV.

Current is a bastion of  liberal lunacy that promotes its propaganda with the help of third, fourth, and even fifth rate, failed, Democrat politicians like disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and the mindnumbingly dense and over-dramatic, inept, former Governor of Michigan,  Jennifer Granholm, who both host hour long shows on Current.  The station also has another level of talentless liberal, wannabe politicians who have hosting responsibilities.  Like Cenk Uygur, an ignorant ass who thinks he’s funny and witty but consistently comes off as dumb and obnoxious.  Current recently expanded their vast wealth of political experience with the addition of political sage Joy Behar, a ditzy dunce whose fat rump  is usually spread out on the couch of  “The View” and whose claim to fame is a heavy a Brooklyn based, Jewish accent that supposedly lends itself to some kind of comedic genius that she is suppose to have but which most people just don’t see as particularly creative or funny.  Now in her sixth week at Current, Behar has hit her stride and offers an endless but consistent array of attacks, swipes, barbs, and downright dumb shots at Mitt Romney.  And in between spewing her own ignorant interpretations of political reality, Behar seeks guests who will offer their own interpretation of the opinions they share with Behar.

Over the past few days, as the stupidity that is this new Joy Behar show played itself out, Behar conducted two separate interviews, one the day before the second presidential debate and one the day after the debate.   Both of these interviews were truly disgusting.  (See video of the two interviews below)

They were reprehensible examples of the most despicable and disingenuous tactics that anyone could dare to employ in politics.  The first disgrace came in a one-on-one with actress Kathleen Turner.  In that interview, the manly voiced Turner states that she is tired of being told what to do by “rich white men”.

The comment was an upalling and totally uncalled for interjection of  racism, sexism, and class warfare that reeked of Hollywood hypocrisy and insincerity.  First of all, if that is how Turner really feels, how come she never told that to any of the “rich, white men”, she listened to do when they directed her in movies that packed her purse and pockets full of dough?  Secondly,  Mitt Romney never told her or any of her friends what to do.  He has however proposed a bunch of things that he will not have the government do if he is elected.  But here we have a case of the very limited mind of another liberal trapped in a world of politic al bigotry who finds herself with only one way to try and win people over to Barack Obama…. by playing the race card, along with the class warfare angle too.

The following day, Behar had another expert who offered up their opinion of Romney.  This time it was actor/comedian D.L. Hughley, a foul mouthed ignoramus who has more ill will and contempt for Caucasians than he has talent.  Like Turner the day before, Hughley also played the race card with Romney.  In this case he claimed that during the debate, Mitt Romney spoke to the President as if he was his servant.

Now I am not sure what debate D. L. Hughley was watching, but I am certain that I did not hear the disrespectful request by Mitt Romney for the President to shine his shoes or carry his bags that Hughley would have us think he heard. Nonetheless, Joy Behar responded to Hughley’s highly charged statement with glowing approval as her agreement with Hufghley gushed endlessly while claiming that she has been saying what Hughley said, on every show she’s on.  Unfortunately for Hughley and Behar though, their claim was not supported by any examples and why not?  Because they were lying.  Throughout both debates,  Mitt Romney treated Barack Obama with a great deal of respect.   What he didn’t do was ignore all that he disagreed with the President on.  But in Hughley and Behar’s parallel universe in liberal la-la land, any lack of support the president or disagreement with this President is an act of racism.

The sad truth though is that the remarks offered by Hughley, Behar, Turner and an increasing number of liberaltards, such as Chris Matthews, (see Mathew’s recent racist rant here) and the entire cast of clowns at MSNBC, are designed to do what Barack Obama has failed to do.  They are designed to motivate the black vote to turn out for the President in the same historic numbers that they did back in 2008.  It is becoming a critical element of the President’s increasingly desperate attempt to ge reelected.  As seen here, with his “they’re gonna put Y’all back in chains” remark, it is a strategy that Vice President Biden has been trying to employ for quite some time now Biden’s

No matter what, this election continues to be close but ever since the first presidential debate back on October 3rd, polls are signaling a decisive shift towards Mitt Romney.  It is so decisive that if it continues to build at the same rates we are currently seeing, by Election Day, Barack Obama will be looking at a defeat almost as resounding and embarrassing in the Electoral College as the one President George H. W. Bush  experienced in 1992.  While such a lopsided victory for Romney is not the most likely result, it is not out of question, especially if the President is unable to begin to first put a stop to Romney’s forward momentum and then begin to reverse it.

The problem is that with less than three weeks to go in the campaign liberals and the Obama-Biden campaign may not have enough left in their arsenal to overcome the rising Romney tide that is seeing the Romney-Ryan ticket’s numbers pick up across the board.  So far this tide has raised Romney’s numbers among practically every critical demographic  and every crucial swing state.  Be it women, Hispanics, independents, or undecided voters, Mitt Romney has gotten through to the very voters  that strategists once said he could not win the election without making significant inroads among.  At the same time, so far the Obama-Biden ticket has spent more than $234 million on attack ads that have tried to define Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as evil robber barons who are waging a war against women, children, the environment, education, puppies, and fluffy little kittens.  On the flip side,  Mitt Romney has spent a mere $91 million on ads to help define himself and the President.  Given that Barack Obama has spent nearly two and half times the amount of money that Romney has on such ads, it would seem that the President’s strategy is not working and his ads are not doing the job they were supposed to.  After throwing everything from Sandra Fluke and the kitchen sink at Romney, the Romney-Ryan ticket continues to gain on the Obama-Biden ticket among every demographic that the President can not afford to lose to Romney.

I suggest that they might have been working until the first presidential debate when after most Americans really got a chance to take a good look at Mitt Romney for the first time, and realized that he is not as extreme, heartless, irrational, and irresponsible as President Obama made him out to be.  It is the same effect we saw in 1980 when the liberal narrative was that Ronald Reagan was a radical, war mongering, madman whose finger we could not allow anywhere near the nuclear button.  But after the nation’s first real introduction to Reagan in the one and only debate between him and Jimmy Carter, American’s came to see that he was not the evil, unreasonable, extreme person they were led to believe he was.  The same thing happened after the first presidential debate between President Obama and Governor Romney.

Liberals understand this and so now they are beginning to act on their fears instead of their hopes.  Now they have stopped trying to paint the President’s pathetic polices and revolting record as promising prospects for our future.  Instead they have begun to cut to the chase and target the one voting bloc that Romney can’t seem to make significant inroads into… African-Americans.   In the case of black voters, Barack Obama is not at risk of losing of his overwhelming support from them to Mitt Romney.  He is however at risk of not seeing blacks turnout to support him in the same historically large numbers that he saw in 2008. And without that same extraordinarily large turnout, Barack Obama is not likely to be able to win enough votes to win a second term from among the increasingly smaller share of votes that he getting from women, Hispanics, and independents.

The irony of it all though is that no one is willing to call a spade a spade here.

While the left is trying to fan racial tensions as a way to ensure that blacks come out to vote for President Obama, no one is calling them out for  their disgraceful and blatant attempts to incite racial tension.  And while the liberal liars who are trying to interject race in to the election are not being held responsible for their reprehensible words and conduct, no one is willing to admit that the most racist individuals of all here are the 90 to 95% of all African-American voters who are supporting President Obama.  Any other group of Americans who offer such near unanimous support would labeled a bunch of racists.  But because the people voting based on color here at African-Americans, the fact is ignored.

If America really wants to deal with the issue of racism, it can no longer ignore racism where it exists.  That means we should not be letting off the hook liberals like Chris Matthews, D.L. Hughley, Joy Behar, Kathleen Turner, or all of the others who are using race against Mitt Romney.  We cannot tolerate their attempts to cry wolf in regards to racism or their irresponsible attempts to incite racial tensions.   And it also means we should not be ignoring the fact that African-Americans are the people who are actually the ones basing this election on race and ignoring the issues that should lie at the heart of their decision of whom to vote for.  Instead of holding President Obama accountable to his dismal record, an overwhelming number of African-Americans have chosen to endorse Barack Obama simply because he is half black.  In doing so they are ignoring the basic facts which are that under this President, regardless of his color, African-Americans are suffering more than any other voting bloc in the nation.  African-Americans are now forced to rely on food stamps and government assistance for survival more than any time in US history.  As both a percentage and gross total, more blacks are now incarcerated than they were at  any previous point  in US history, and African-Americans are now also the most unemployed ethnic group in the nation and are the ethnic group that leads all others when it comes to the number of foreclosed homes being taken away from them.

Normally, such a record would result in a hemorrhaging of support for the person under whom a particular group of people  endured so much suffering.  Up to now, that has not been the case with African-Americans.  So far they remain blinded by color and loyal to the half of President which is black.  However; the Obama record is so undeniably bad that while liberals and the President are not necessarily worried about blacks actually voting for Mitt Romney, they are quite fearful that disappointment with President Obama will force far too many blacks to stay home and just not vote.  That is a harsh reality which has already cost the President the state of North Carolina.

In 2008, thanks to a relatively large African-American turnout for the President, he won that state, which is traditionally a large electoral rich state that Republicans can rely upon.   President Obama had hoped to again deny the G.O.P. North Carolina’s electoral votes in 2012.  They even held their national convention there in an attempt to keep the state blue in 2012.  But as polls have shown North Carolina is now solidly for Mitt Romney and the reason for this is simple.  Blacks in North Carolina arer not suddenly voting for Mitt Romney but they are not going to vote for Barack Obama in the same numbers they previously did, and without that support, the President is losing his edge and the election.

So get ready everyone, the left is about to start bluffing to a degree we have never seen before.  They will try to lead us to believe that they have a full house in their hand and that Mitt Romney is going down.  But as we are increasingly seeing, the only card Democrats have left which they can try do anything with is the race card.  And they are going to try to do everything they can with it.  Just ask D.L. Hughley and friends.

Bookmark and Share

Candy Crowley Screwed Up. We Told Her To Keep Her Mouth Shut.

Bookmark and Share  One of the most tense moments during last night’s debate came when the issue of the terrorist attack in Benghazi came up.  At one point President Obama tried to claim that he publicly recognized the tragic event as a terrorist attack the morning after it occurred, during a speech given in the  Rose Garden.  Upon hearing that, Governor Romney entered in to the following exchange with the President;

ROMNEY: I think (it’s) interesting the president just said something which —  which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said  that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act  of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re  saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed Governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the  president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

Then as Romney turned to the moderator, Candy Crowley took it upon herself to interject herself in to the debate by agreeing with the President by stating;

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir … call it an act of  terror.”

Her comment was then followed by applause.  The moment lended a total lack of credibility to notion that the questioners in the audience of this town hall and its moderator were impartial or undecided participants.  Nothing says undecided and impartial like the moderator making one side’s argument and the crowd cheering.  But this is exactly why in a pre-debate post , I specifically stated that Candy Crowley needed to keep her mouth shut during the debate.

As it turned out, within an hour of the debate, Crowley popped up on CNN admitting that she was wrong.  The President never actually called the violence that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi a terrorist attack as he and Crowley claimed he did from the Rose Garden on September 12th.

On that occasion the President avoided describing the assassination of our staff in Libya as a terrorist attack.  He did however say the following about the tragedy in general;

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that  character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said.  “Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United  States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is  done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we  also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of  their attackers.”

Then for 14 days following that statement, the President and his Administration still refused to call the tragedy in Benghazi a terrorist attack and tried to claim that it was the result of a spontaneous riot inspired by a video.

So Candy Crowley was wrong.  She was wrong about her conclusion and in  her to attempt disagree with Mitt Romney over the stated facts.   And  she was wrong for refusing to leave the debate up to the debaters.  Instead she interjected her own biased conclusions into the debate.  This is something she was urged to avoid when I wrote the following about Crowley in White House 2012…

“You’re not on the ballot, so we don’t care what you know, what you think you know, or what your alleged unbiased opinion is!”

But Candy couldn’t help herself.  When she saw her prefered choice for President needing a lifeline she pretended to be the host of “Who Wants To Be  A Millionaire” and gave President Obama a chance to call on a friend for the answer.  That friend being herself.

If only she listened and kept her mouth shut.  Instead she confirmed that her next job should not be moderating a presidential debate or reporting the news, it should be as the White House Press Secretary in the next term of whatever Democrat wins the presidency after Mitt Romney’s two terms in the Oval Office.

Oh yeah, let us not forget the other thing confirmed during all this… our President was again caught lying in an attempt to save his presidency and get reelected.

Bookmark and Share

Obama Administration Leaks News of a Retaliatory Attack But Doesn’t Know on Who or Where?

  Bookmark and Share  Obama Administration officials have stated that the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa in advance of  a an attempt to strike back at the al-Qaeda connected terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three Americans assigned to his detail in Benghazi, Libya last month.   Strangely, reports indicate that Administration officials stipulate that the retaliatory attack will occur only if US investigators can find the al-Qaeda-linked group responsible for the Benghazi terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate.

The odd stipulation seems to indicate that the Obama Administration is acting more on the intelligence coming from the Obama reelection campaign than it is on any actionable intelligence from Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI or NSA.

Under normal circumstances, no responsible Administration would warn their military target that they are about to be blown up by drones or slaughtered by members of the Special Forces by transmitting to the public that such attacks are be prepared for.  Furthermore; no responsible Administration would see any logic in claiming they were about to launch an attack and then essentially state but they don’t who the attack is against or will it take place.  But such is what the Obama Administration communicated to the world when  they admitted that US investigators have not yet found out who our target is or where they are.

This advanced warning from the Administration about the use of military muscle regarding the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya is nothing more than an attempt by the Obama reelection campaign to change the current narrative surrounding the Benghazi attacks.  That narrative is one which continues to point to an Administration which was incompetent and irresponsible in the days leading up to the Benghazi terrorist attack and in the days following the attack.

Since the attacks took place on September 11, 2012, the Administration has been offering what are at best misleading statements surrounding the attacks and in  the days after the attack, the Administration has acted in a way which has signaled an attempted coverup of the facts.  Some of the biggest questions still going unanswered includes, why the Administration failed to heighten security at our consulate on September 11th, a day which traditionally does bring the need for additional security?  Another question is why pleas for additional security from Ambassador Chris Stevens were not fulfilled?

Now as this tragic incident slowly boils up in to a political scandal, the Administration suddenly makes it clear that they are preparing for a retaliatory attack on  the people behind the act of terrorism on Americans in Libya but at the same time admit they have no knowledge of who they retaliate against.

Furthermore; according to the Associated Press officials say the Administration also is weighing whether the short-term payoff of being able to claim retribution against al-Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes would be ineffective and rile up other governments in the region.

So the question becomes why did members of the Obama Administration leak this information about a pending retaliatory attack?  If there is no target and no action for it, obviously it is not about to happen?

The conclusion is this.  The Obama Administration which is trying to deny it had intelligence information regarding the threats on our consulate or regarding what was behind the attack, is now allowing the the Obama campaign to drive their foreign policy and national security agenda.  Only this time, the Administration is openly admitting that they have no intelligence regarding the actions they are saying they are preparing for.  Makes sense right?  Not really.

This recent leak was a clear political campaign decision to look tough in the face of a successful terrorist attack that the Administration ignored the potential for.  It is also evidence of just closely the President’s political campaign staff is tied to his administrative staff that is responsible for carrying national policy decisions.  The two by law are suppose to be detached, but as indicated by this leak, in the case of Barack Obama they are one in the same.  Stephanie Cutter and David Axelrod are as much in control of what we do in Benghazi as Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta.  And that is dangerous.  But it is why last year the Administration leaked sensitive national security information which seemingly helped the President’s image in early polls.  It is why the Administration gave sensitive information regarding the mission that killed Osama bin Laden to Hollywood so that they could make a movie that would also put the President in a positive light right before the election.

For President Obama, this is all a game.  Unfortunately though, the game is over for four Americans who were serving our nation in Benghazi last month.  Hopefully the game will be over for President Obama when voters show up at the polls on November 6th and say enough is enough and give him the boot.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: