The Desperate Democrat Attempt to Blame GOP Budget Cuts for the Attack in Benghazi

  Bookmark and Share   As President Obama enters the last three weeks of his reelection effort, he finds himself facing a tide that is turning against him.  Between his disastrous debate performance, a still stagnant economy, and continued unbearably high unemployment, polls seem to indicate that President Obama is finally being held accountable for his record.  But another recent event that the President has been trying his best to avoid accountability for is proving particularly hard for him to evade.  It is the tragic terrorist backed assassinations of four Americans within the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

Since the murder of Chris Stevens, our Ambassador to Libya, and the three members of his security detail, the Obama Administration has taken a tragic event and turned it into a scandal by trying to deny and hide the facts leading up to the attack and the facts surrounding the distortions and misleading statements from the Administration after the attacks.   But on Wednesday, as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began hearings in  to the matter, Democrats used the opportunity to help President Obama’s reelection effort.  Instead of seeking a legitimate line of questioning that would have helped to explain exactly what was behind the Administration’s continued misleading statements about the events in Benghazi,  Democrats on the committee did their best to ensure that President Obama was not held accountable for either the  apparent vulnerability of our representatives to the violent acts that took place, or the lack of honesty about the attacks in the days and weeks following it.

Leading this liberal reelection strategy for the President during the hearing was Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings and District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.  The two of them used their opening statements to claim that the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi were due to Republican cuts in the budget… specifically cuts in the levels of funding to embassies and consulates.  it’s a charge that was first made back on October 2, by Nancy “We Don’t Know What’s in The Bill” Pelosi.

On the surface, the argument sounds like a plausible factor in the success of the attack on our Libyan consulate.  However; when one understands the facts ignored within the claim,  they become privy to just how ludicrous the charge is and they also get an insightful look at exactly how hypocritical, deceitful and disingenuous Democrats and their argument are.

Cummings and his fellow liberal liars are referring specifically to the final fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations package that included $2.075 billion for the State Departments embassy and consulate security programs.  It is a figure that is  $567.5 million less than what the Obama administration’s requested.  And while it is true that Republicans proposed the bill that contained these cuts, it is also true that while a total of 147 Republicans supported the bill, 149 Democrats also cast their final vote for the bill and the cuts contained in it.  And Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat member of the House Oversight Committee who is blaming the cuts for the murder of 4 representatives in Benghazi, was one of them.

This raises several major issues.

1.- Were The Cuts Responsible For the Successful Terrorist Attack in Benghazi?

No.

When asked in Wednesday’s hearing if the refusal to provide more security was caused by budget cuts to embassy security, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs replied “No, sir”.   So according to Lamb, a lack of available financial resources was not behind the lack of proper security in Benghazi.

2.- What Was Responsible For the Lack of Proper Security in Benghazi?

According to Eric Nordstrom, the man responsible for security in Libya, told member of the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that the Obama Administration decided to “hope everything would” change for the better rather than provide additional security.

He added;

So when I requested resources, when I requested assets, instead of supporting those assets, I was criticized,”

Nordstrum further stated;

“There was no plan. And it was hoped that everything would get better.”

3.- Why Are Democrats Lying?

Democrats know that the President screwed up here.  But admitting that would be too detrimental to not only the President’s reelection chances, but to the rest of  their ticket in several states where Democrats have tight House and Senate contests that their candidates can’t afford a lack of long presidential coattails in.  So in a desperate attempt to change the negative Benghazi narrative that is adding to the President’s recent downward spiral, they are searching for any excuse that could buy them time between now and Election day.

Given the facts cited above though, while it is clear that budget cuts were not responsible for the lack of security provided at our Libyan consulate,  it is quite clear that the Obama Administration was ignoring the threat to our consulate and the staff operating in it.  There is even evidence that a decision was made within the Administration to deny the construction of a bob wired fence around the consulate because Obama officials did not like the fact that such a measure would look like there was a a problem that required additional security in Benghazi.

All of this is further evidence of a President and Administration that was negligent in the Benghazi terrorist attack and the President, the State Department, and congressional Democrats all know this to be the case.  That is why they have been trying to cover every aspect of this tragedy up since it occurred on 9/11/12.

It all started with their denial to admit that it was an attack by terrorists.  Why? Becuase the Administration did not want to use the word terrorist, especially in relation to the date… 9/11.  The relationship of the word and date makes it hard for the Administration to explain why on the anniversary of the infamous September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our nation, our embassies and consulates did not experience the type of heightened security that they usually do on that?   The need for additional security on that date is something which should not require any increased intelligence from the C.I.A. or F.B.I.  It merely requires average intelligence, something which the Obama Administration obviously lacks.

But it gets worse.

Fearful that they would not be able to defend their decision not to increase security on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 or to follow up on requests for additional security at the consulate during the rest of the year, in their attempt to avoid admitting that the attack was the work of terrorists, the Obama regime tried to claim the assassinations in Benghazi were attributed to a violent protest that was prompted by a video that offended Muslims.  The problem is that both initial assertions were wrong and the Administration knew they were wrong. This means those initial statement that came out after the attack were lies.  Mounting evidence has demonstrated that the Administration knew there was no protest prior to the attack, knew that terrorists were behind the attack, and they knew that the Benghazi consulate was at high risk of a terrorist attack. But the continued attempts by the Administration to mislead us ever since the attack first took place have now snowballed and are quickly turning a disastrous national security policy decision into  a humiliating and possibly criminal coverup scandal.  As a result, the Administration is now not only beginning to be held  accountable for the negligence of their policies that led to the deaths of our Libyan staff, their continued lies are implicating them more and more each day in the apparent attempt to coverup their negligence.

The recent outrageous and hypocritical attempts by Cummings and others on the left to blame the Benghazi attacks on Republicans sponsored budget cuts is just another example of how desperate Democrats are to ignore the facts and rid themselves and their President of the need to be held responsible for their actions that led to the deaths of our Ambassador and his three man security team, and the attempted coverup of the facts after the attack.

Making matters worse is a media that has now become complicit in this recent lie.

Outlets like the always unreliable Huffington Compost have gone out of their way to feature posts which continue to advance the narrative that Republican budget cuts were responsible for the deaths in Benghazi.  If such reporting was intended to be a sincere presentation of facts, how come they refuse to report “all” the facts?  All the facts that demonstrate how utterly false the charge is and all the facts that demonstrate even if the charge was true, Democrats, including those who made the charge, supported the budget cuts in numbers greater than Republicans.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Romney’s to Lose

If you’ve followed recent polls, you might be tempted to buy into the media consensus that the race is over.  However, if you know whose side the media is on, it’s easy to figure out why they have come to this consensus.

Has Romney really lost?  Try this: conduct a poll of your own.  Do you know anyone who voted for McCain in 2008 who is voting for Obama in 2012?

Obama will argue in the debate that the economy is getting better because the stock market is over 13,000.  However, the high mark for the Dow is an expensive mask to cover the ugly economy we live in.  The government has borrowed more than a trillion dollars a year from our grandchildren and the Fed has deflated our future by $2.8 trillion to help get us to that 13,000 figure.

In the meantime, unemployment is over 8% and average wages have dropped.  So Wall Street is richer under Obama and the rest of America is poorer.  Where’s the 99% when you need them?

It has been pointed out that Obama cannot expect to receive the same levels of support among various segments of society that he did in 2008.  He has alienated many black voters with his support of gay marriage and failure to produce results that help them.  He has alienated many Hispanic voters as well by failing to keep promises on immigration reform and by selling weapons to Mexican drug lords.  Obama is not as cool as he was in 2008, which will hurt the youth vote, and many Americans have realized that assuaging their racial guilt is not worth the cost to the American economy.  The National Journal shows Romney with an 8% advantage among independents.  Obama cannot win if independents swing to Romney.

So how can Romney lose?  Simple: disaffected Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians may stay home or vote third party.  Obama doesn’t need 50% of the country to vote for him.  He just needs his 47% and 7% to stay home or vote third party.  Even with the awful job Obama has done, it is still very possible that 7% will stay home or vote third party.

Many Christians will not vote for a Mormon.  They won’t vote for a Black Liberation theologian either, but Obama didn’t need them in 2008.  Obama knows this and has started push polling Catholics with robo-calls asking if they can vote for a Mormon.  Many Christian Republicans will avoid Romney because he is perceived as more liberal and a Mormon, whereas they might have voted for McCain in 2008 even though he was also perceived as more liberal.

Libertarians will feel free to vote for a third party candidate because they don’t see any difference from their perspective between Romney and Obama.  Many of these are idealists who support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and see Romney as a big government Republican.

Conservatives may stay home if they believe Romney is going to lose.  Conservatives lean more realistic than idealistic, but are more likely to allow their vote to be suppressed by negative news and polls close to the election.

Romney’s key to success will be preaching the American Dream from a small government, individual responsibility perspective.  Believe it or not, his 47% “gaffe” may end up working in his favor.  Americans could use a healthy dose of optimism and a restoration of faith in the American Dream.  Even independents will vote for that.

Still Missing from the Democratic Platform… Hamas and the Right of Return

Under direct orders from the President, on Wednesday, Democrat Party leaders amended their platform to include references to God and to formally acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  As shown here, the amendments were passed, but only after most of the delegates actually opposed adopting those amendments.  But between the initial omissions of those two references and the controversial overriding of the wishes of the delegates to pass the amendments which put those references back in to the platform, two other very sensitive omissions regarding the 2012 Democratic platform and our alliance with Israel have been lost in the mix.  They are the omission of any direct reference to Hamas and acknowledging it as a terrorist organizatio.  And while the language declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel has been restored against the wishes of Democrats delegates, President Obama and his Party’s leaders failed to restore any of the Right of Return language that gives full meaning to recognizing Jerusalem as the Jewish capital.

In 2008, the Democratic Party platform read;

“The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.”

In 2012, the platform reads;

“We will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.”

Gone is any specific reference to Hamas and the requirement to renounce terrorism.  As explained by Daniel Greenfield for Frontpage.com in a piece entitled the “Democratic Party’s New Pro-Hamas Platform”, the use of the phrase “any partner” is quite significant.  According to Greenfield’

“The standard assumption was that the Palestinian Authority under Fatah was the default partner. That’s gone now. The generic “partner” represents an end of exclusivity for the PA and a shift to Hamas. The language is a blank space into which any “partner” can now fit. The old language for Hamas has now become the default language for a Palestinian “partner”, yet to be named, but clearly meant to be Hamas.  The three demands, right to exist, rejection of violence and adherence to existing agreements, sound reasonable, but they’re meaningless. The US decided that Fatah met all three, even though it spent a decade violating all three. “Existing agreements” rather than “Past agreements” is also a significant goal-shift.”

In light of these facts, it would seem that the comedy of errors and controversies surrounding the Jerusalem and God amendments to their platform, may have actually unintentionally created a beneficial distraction for Democrats which has taken our eye off the ball.   After four years of alienating Israel by doing everything from walk out on Netanyahu during a White House meeting and going to eat dinner with his family, to calling upon Israel to return to it’s indefensible 1967 borders, President Obama has proven himself to not be one of Israel’s greatest allies.  In fact he has often gone out of his way to show himself to be more sympathetic for the cause of Israel’s enemies than for Israel.  Now, thanks to the new phrasing of the Democrat platform, President Obama will have greater flexibility to poke his fingers in to the eyes of Israel.   According to Greenfield some of the other most most significant differences in the new Democratic platform come in terms of specific commitments.  Greenfield writes;

The 2008 platform had a number of specific commitments. The most significant ones were “Peace-Supportive Commitments”, assurances from the United States that limit the scope of concessions that Israel will be asked to make.

He adds;

“For example when the 2008 DNC platform said, “l understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. ” This was a way of reassuring Israel that if it continues negotiating, it will not lose its shirt. These commitments were almost meaningless and destructive, because the United States did not actually abide by them. But removing them is a signal that Obama 2.0 will not make any commitments to Israel in return for continued negotiations, besides some of the usual joints arms development and sales that are popular with Congressmen and Senators with defense industries in their districts.”

Essentially it comes down to is this.  While the headlines are bouncing back and forth between Democrats first first not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in their platform then adding back in and then throwing in additional headlines about the controversy regarding whether or not the Democrat delegates actually supported the amendment, most news sources are not discussing the other important issues here.  They are not addressing the fact that the new language in the 2012 platform and the deletion of specific language from the old 2008 platform makes it easier for a second Obama term to pursue a more pro-Hamas agenda and anti-Israel agenda than we saw pursued in the first term of President Obama.

 

 

“We’ve Heard It All Before”

As Democrats kickoff their convention and try to make the case for President Obama’s reelection, Republicans have released a video reminding voters that they’ve heard it all before.

The video offers a compelling comparison of the words used by President Obama in 2008 when trying to explain why he should be elected and the words he is using now, four years later in his attempt to explain why he should be reelected in 2012.  As it turns out, they are the same words.

It helps to emphasize the fact that with the President offering us more of the same rhetoric, is there any reason to believe that his next four years will offer us any results that are different from those which are different from the ones he achieved in the last four years?
Bookmark and Share

Switchers: They Once Supported Barack Obama But Now They’re Romney Voters

   Bookmark and Share   One of the first videos shown at the first full session of the Republican National Convention was called “Switchers”  (see the video below this post). It features the testimony of voters who in 2008 believed in the hope and change promised by Democrats and the Obama-Biden ticket.  Now four years later, these people know that those hopes were false and that the promises offered by President Obama have been broken.   Today, these disappointed Democrats are enthusiastic Republicans who hold out more hope for the promised changes for fiscal responsibility offered by the Romney-Ryan ticket.

The opinions articulated in this video were probably best summed up by South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott who in his speech at the Republican national Convention stated;

“Our only hope is to change the current occupant of the White House”

Scott closed by adding;

“Hit the road Jack and dontcha come back no more….no more …no more”

Bookmark and Share

Paul Ryan Tackles Medicare Reform Head On at The Villages

See Ryan’s Complete Speech at The Villages in the Video Below This Post.

  Bookmark and Share  With no limits to the depths that Democrats will go in an attempt to maintain control of the behemoth federal bureaucracy that they seek to transform our nation with, the left has made the use of scare tactics a signature part of their election efforts.  Liberals have targeted the elderly since the 1980’s when they tried to campaign against Ronald Reagan and Republicans by trying to convince older voters that Reagan and the G.O.P. were going to destroy Social Security .  According to liberal’s the policies of Reagan and his fellow evil Republicans were going to force granny into such economic dire straits that she she would be placed on a steady diet of cat food.  The same attacks were used against George H.W. Bush in 1988 and ’92, Bob Dole in ’96, George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 , and now Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in 2012.

On many occasions Democrats experienced varying degrees of success with that strategy.  In 1982 and agin in 1986, they did exceptionally well among seniors by exploiting the fear of our oldest and most vulnerable goldenagers.  But that success was in part due to the G.O.P.’s poor political responses to those scare tactics.  But in 2012, that doesn’t seem to be the case.  Some thirty years after liberals began warning us that Republicans were going to kill our grandparents, people of my age have seen Grandma and Grandpa survive the Reagan  years and the Administration’s of both Bush presidencies and not once was Fluffy forced to share her can of 9 Lives with them.  That real life experience alone has taken  a bit of the edge off the sword of lies leveled by liberals regarding senior citizens but in 2012, what really hurts the left is the addition of Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket.  With Ryan onboard and upfront,  the G.O.P. and Mitt Romney have a silver bullet that is aimed right at the heart of this now old and tired liberal line of attack.

Ryan’s mastery of economics and matters of budget combined with his Kemp-like passion for conservative economic theory and principles makes him the preeminent voice for fiscal responsibility in the nation.  When discussing his economic beliefs, Paul Ryan demonstrates an innate enthusiasm for his ideas that conveys a wonderful sense of vitality for our nation’s future.  And no one can explain those ideas as well as Paul Ryan can.

Whereas Jack Kemp, the conservative giant who actually sold Reaganomics to Ronald Reagan, often spoke about conservative economic policies in technical terms that seemed to make his audience’s eyes glaze over, Paul Ryan’s approach to explaining economic growth and fiscal responsibility tends to generate the same type of enthusiasm for those ideas that he conveys when discussing them.    This makes it hard for the left to discount Paul Ryan’s strengths on the issue but making it even harder for them this is Paul Ryan’s personality and image.

For Democrats the problem with trying to make senior citizens fear Paul Ryan and the ideas of the Romney-Ryan Team is that when senior citizens look at and listen to Paul Ryan, they have a hard time visualizing Paul Ryan as the demonic figure whose hands are pushing Grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair.  When seniors see and hear Paul Ryan they don’t quite see him as the kid kicking their walker out from under them before running away and laughing.  Instead what they see is a smart, respectful, thoughtful, well spoken, humble, handsome, young man with a beautiful young family, and some pretty good ideas.  What they see in Paul Ryan is their own grandson, or at least what they wished their grandsons was more like.

That unavoidable impression makes it impossible for Democrats to find any success in the application of their now traditional senior citizen scare tactics.  In fact, this time around, their fear mongering will likely backfire.

Today’s senior citizens are not the same ones that Democrats tried to make fearful of Ronald Reagan.  The senior citizens who were voting during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush years, were of a generation that once voted in big numbers for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a political hero of their generation.  But the senior citizens voting in 2012 are of a different generation.  An increasingly large number of today’s seniors are the same people who voted in big numbers for Ronald Reagan, the political hero of their generation.   That also dilutes the left’s attempt to scare today’s senior citizens.

And it is part of the reason why the Romney/Ryan team’s bold decision to make many of the budget problems that lie at the heart of our national economic crisis, a main focus of the presidential campaign  is being well received.  The Republican ticket’s willingness to address the entitlement programs which under their current structures require more to be paid out than the government takes in, strikes at the heart of  the issue that should be in the forefront of this campaign….fiscal responsibility.  And instead of  resorting to fear tactics and the pursuit of a political strategy of distractions and shallow political platitudes,  Romney and Ryan have decided to elevate the campaign and its dialogue to that of a substantive, adult conversion that forces Americans to confronts our problems.   In doing so, this past Saturday, the Republican presidential ticket sent Paul Ryan to discuss the issue of Medicare at The Villages in Florida.

The Villages is an age-restricted, master-planned, retirement community that sprawls across the counties of Sumter , Lake, and Marion in the battleground state of Florida.  The Villages is a retirement community for people 55 years of age or older and according to the 2010 census figures, it boasts a population of 51,442  residents.  Given the demographics of that community, sending the liberal’s poster boy for senior genocide to The Villages to discuss aggressive reforms on Medicare might seem to be more like throwing Daniel in to the lion’s den than a campaign stop, but as seen in the video below, Paul Ryan proved that today’s senior citizens are driven more by a desire for changes that lead to real solutions than they are by some fictitious fear of the solutions that Democrats are hoping for.

In what can only be described as a well received explanation for both the need of Medicare reform and the reforms proposed by the Romney/Ryan ticket, Paul Ryan went to The Villages and offered an inspirational call to arms that demonstrated his generation’s need to preserve Medicare for the generations that precede it and follow it .   His speech also ushered in the end of an era, the end of the era of successful fear mongering of senior citizens by Democrats.  Paul Ryan’s ability to have American’s rationally discuss the issue of entitlements reforms actually takes that particular liberal scare tactic away from Democrats and finally forces them to be held accountability for their unwillingness to deal with such issues effectively.   As a result,  where liberals once may have been successful at scaring old people, with the seniors of today when people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and even President Obama, jump out of the bushes to scream “boo”, all they will succeed at doing is making themselves look foolish.

Bookmark and Share

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius – Revisted

Bookmark and Share If you read my post Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius, composed just a few hours after the supreme court ruling, you’d know that I promoted the idea that, although Roberts didn’t strike down Obama-care, his ruling gave those against Obama-care some tools with which to work. This outlook was in the minority. It was based upon the idea that by ruling the Democrat’s use of the commerce clause was unconstitutional, Roberts took away one of the pillars on which Obama-care was based. He also ruled that the mandate had to be a tax. This was beneficial to the citizens because, as a tax, it could be repealed by vote. Additionally, by ruling the mandate a tax, Roberts forced Democrats to have to defend tax increases in a recession and in an election year. My last point was that by ruling the federal government’s threat to yank funding from states was unconstitutional, Roberts opened the door for states to reject Obama-care without suffering a severe penalty. And if numerous states reject Obama-care the idea of a “national” healthcare system is obviously jeopardized.

And now two weeks after the SCOTUS ruling, with emotions more controlled, let’s take a look at recent events, shall we?

Yesterday, as you may know, the Republican-led House voted again to repeal Obama-care in its entirety. Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Senate is likely to stop the repeal in its tracks. But, this forces Democrats in an election year to justify standing with Obama-care and the associated taxes. They will be pulled from the shadows and subject to the intense glare of the American people. By the way, the Left is going to flood the media with the idea that less Democrats voted to repeal Obama-care this time than in previous votes, implying the outlook toward Obama-care has changed. Don’t be fooled. Since Obama-care was rammed down the people’s throat, there has been a purging of its supporters in Congress. So, were there fewer Democrats supporting this repeal? Yes — because there are fewer Obama-care supporting Democrats in existence. But the job is not done. The Senate will reject the Obama-care repeal. There are still too many liberal-socialist Democrats in the Senate. They must be purged, too. The Senate elections, crusaders, must be a focus.

With their new found freedom based on the ruling, the list of states that have already rejected Obama-care or have announced they are not likely to implement it include: Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, Oklahoma, Virginia and Missouri. From Obama’s perspective, he must be very concerned that 15 of the “57” states are rejecting his signature legislation. After all, it has only been two weeks since the SCOTUS ruling. That’s probably why he hasn’t mentioned a peep about it, that I have heard, since his short, bitter-sweet victory speech the day of the ruling.

As the election year progresses, pressure will increase to reduce budgetary outlays. You can bet Obama-care will be targeted. Because it is such an outrageous monstrosity, you can become a political hero by successfully attacking small pieces of it — trial runs, pilot projects and subsidies come to mind. The administrative and regulatory demands of Obama-care are extremely complex. Limit the flow of cash and the implementation of Obama-care gets hurt badly. As a bonus, you get some votes. It will be interesting to see as the season progresses if any Democrats, feeling they need votes, join Republicans in attacking aspects of Obama-care funding.

The interpretation that Roberts’ ruling possessed a silver-lining has proven to be accurate. Many people will continue to bad mouth him based upon complex interpretations of law, the ‘true’ meaning of words and the implications of precedent. I’m not a judge, nor am I an attorney or law clerk. My expertise in law is limited to the times I’ve been on the wrong side of it. So, to these judicial gripes I can not comment. Others will remain bitter because they feel he should have just struck down the law. Perhaps. But he didn’t. He left it up to the people. He tied Obama-care and the supreme ruler to the same fate and handed that fate to the American people.

If you want to rid yourself and your descendents of the horrors of Obama-care, then you must rid the country of Obama. It is as simple as that.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: