Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

What If… The Predictions of a Romney Victory Were Right?

Tuesday, November 13th, 2012

Did Obama Win Honestly?

One of the things that has become apparent in the week following the elections of November 6th is that vote fraud had been rampant.  As has been widely reported, fifty-nine Philadelphia voting precincts had zero votes for Romney.  While I am willing to believe these could have been quite lop-sided, zero?  The same thing is true in Ohio, in the Cleveland area, but the more stunning thing is that in many of these places, voter turn-out was greater than 100% of the registered electorate.  Simply put, that’s a prima facie case that some sort of fraud or malfeasance has occurred, because it should not be possible for more votes to be cast than there are registered voters.  This entire election is rife with such cases, and it’s not going away.  It raises the question: What if pollsters who expected a Romney win were right, but overwhelming vote fraud set aside the natural result?

One poll watcher from Pennsylvania reports seeing voting machines switching voters’ selection from Romney to Obama on multiple occasions.  We’ve all basically assumed that the various GOP pollsters and analysts had been dead wrong, but what if they had been right, and this election has been stolen?  We’re not talking about a few or even a few hundred votes here.  There may have been fraud across the nation, particularly in swing states, and we wouldn’t know how many fraudulent votes may have been cast or counted.  We must get to the bottom of this, with or without Mitt Romney.  He can concede if he likes, but this is our election.  We shouldn’t accept vote fraud anywhere, in any measure.

The case of Colorado is particularly stunning.  They have county after county in which the number of registered voters is greater than the number of residents.  How is that possible?  In Ohio, some witnessed van-loads of Somali immigrants being carted into the polling places, and being coached on how to vote by Democrats.  Ohio’s laws are lax enough that no verification of one’s eligibility to vote is conducted.  In Pennsylvania, despite all sorts of irregularities, officials plan no recount. No one should be surprised given that on election day, court-appointed GOP poll-watchers were forcibly removed from polling places in Philadelphia.

Let’s just be blunt about this:  This election may have been stolen.  Allen West is still fighting the issue in Florida, where vote tallies suggest some of the most ridiculous fraud anywhere.  Col. West appeared on Hannity on Monday evening to explain his situation.  Not only did Democrats want West defeated, but the establishment of the GOP won’t shed a tear if he’s unseated. Here’s the clip from Hannity:

It may be a longshot to think that vote fraud may have been the margin of victory, but examining the results, just a swing of around 400,000 votes in just four states would make the difference between an Obama victory, and a Romney victory.  If vote fraud had been large enough, swinging the results by 1% of the the electorate would provide the margin in many of these swing states.

I also wonder about the willingness of Romney to concede early, and disappear from the radar screens so quickly.  In an article on CanadaFreePress, Erik Rush wonders if the overwhelming vote fraud won’t have the effect of making a civil war inevitable.  One thing is certain: If the system of elections in this country is so thoroughly corrupted, we the people are being cheated, and our rights are being subverted.  It should never be possible that there are more votes than registered voters in a given precinct, district or state.  Such things undermine the credibility of our elections, and we should fight back against this by demanding a clean accounting of the ballots, as well as those who cast them.  We cannot afford to ignore this, and it’s time that we begin to raise Hell about it.  Mitt Romney may well have lost this election, but with this much uncertainty about the validity of the count, we may never know.

Advertisements

Secession? Pharoah, Let My People Go!

Tuesday, November 13th, 2012

In what can only be described as a poke-in-the-eye to President Obama, residents of as many as thirty states have begun to petition the President to let their states peaceably secede from the union.  This movement seems to be gaining momentum, and it’s largely in response to the election results of last week.  Anger over widespread vote fraud is one of the chief complaints I’ve seen cited as the reason for the desire to split, but I think this simply demonstrates how divided this country has become.  Most of the petitions seem to originate from what have been traditionally “red states,” but no state has more petitioners at present than the Lone Star State, Texas, with nearly sixty-thousand signatures already.  No response has been forthcoming from the White House on this matter, but at some point, they will be forced to respond in some way.  I don’t know that this is anything more than symbolic at this point, but the plain fact that so many Americans are openly talking about secession is certainly amazing.  On Foxnews, Monday, the following graphic was run, captured by a Facebook user:

Since this graphic aired on FoxNews, more petitions have been added.  The petitions can be viewed on the White House website, here.  Maybe we can petition him to resign. What are the chances that he’ll respond favorably?  Will he respond like an actual liberal and come down on the side of self-determination?  Will he simply ignore it?  Will his staff laugh it off? Will his response demonstrate his radical Marxist view by being somewhat more dictatorial?

My bet is that the White House tries to ignore it, and if cornered on it, Carney will laugh it off as just the rantings of nuts.

 

Establishment Pundits Miss The Point

Wednesday, November 7th, 2012

There is a simple reason Mitt Romney lost:  Free stuff.  Free phones. Free contraceptives.  Free healthcare.  Free food.  Free housing. Rampant illegitimacy.  There exists a broad segment of Republican establishment punditry today arguing approximately: The Republican party failed to attract Hispanic voters, but while there may be some truth in that, only one party has perfected the act of reaching into one citizen’s pocket to deliver goodies into the hands of those who wish to be kept. That’s it.  The GOP establishment is stating that it’s about Hispanics.  It’s not.  They’re suggesting it’s about amnesty and immigration.  It’s not. It’s more about the fact that too many Americans expect to be provided every necessity of life, and so long as you will sign away your liberties, Barack Obama is only too happy to oblige.  How did we get to this point?  How did we arrive in this bastardized America?  What is the leading demographic change that has affected our fundamental make-up to the extent that Barack Obama’s giveaways are effective?  It’s certainly true that the culture has changed in fundamental ways, lending to the viability of the “free stuff” approach of Obama and Democrats, but it’s much less to do with race or ethnicity than some Republicans would have you believe. My wife called it as we watched the election returns:  It has everything to do with sex.

Once upon a time, a man smarter than me alleged that all human conflicts come down to money, power, and sex. I don’t know if that’s absolutely true, but what I do know is that 60% of children in the country are being born out of wedlock.  We don’t talk about this gloomy statistic much any more, as we’ve so thoroughly normalized the behavior that we don’t utilize the term “illegitimacy” any longer because we dare not offend any who might have contributed to the stats.  Looking at the demographic break-down of the election, what I notice is that married women broke for Romney by almost 20%.  Single women, particularly single mothers, broke for Obama in a big way.  Why?  Because, as my wife observed, he’s daddy.  That’s what it is.  That’s all it is.  For all the hype about feminism, what this election reveals is that a large segment of single women want to be taken care of, but they want the illusion of independence provided by an absence of husbands and a boat-load of freebies from government.  As my wife wryly observed as the election returns came in, many are in search of a sugar daddy to whom their faithfulness is signified only with a vote.

If single mothers/women had broken roughly on par with the general populace for Romney, he’d have won.  They were instead so thoroughly lopsided in Obama’s favor that there was no chance for Romney.  Hispanic votes wouldn’t have mattered.  The whole matter of race would have been moot.  Naturally, the GOP establishment leaps to immigration policy and other pandering measures aimed at Hispanics because amnesty is something they believe they can “give away” like free stuff.  Our problem is much more intractable than this, besides which remains the fact that Obama has beaten them to that punch. Until we come to understand how thoroughly our culture has collapsed, we’re not going to win.  Sure, we are going to win elections here and there, but the trend is wiping us out, but this entire meme about bringing in Hispanics is all about JEB and his electoral aspirations in 2016.  Period.

Our culture has changed, in part by demographic measurements, but in larger measure by the moral bearing that drives the statistics.  Young men don’t want families and responsibilities, and young women don’t want them except for transitory purposes.  Yes, that’s painting with a very broad brush, and I am well aware it’s not universally true, but I am talking about the cultural trends.  My notion here is not to blame women, lest you misunderstand.  My point is that women have become the chief source of the difference between the two sides of the electorate, because we have a welfare state that entices them with all of the benefits of marriage with none of its alleged institutional drawbacks.  There is nothing I know that can reverse this trend, and stalling tactics like giving ground on immigration will only buy a little.  The problem is that in order to fix this, it’s going to need to get ugly.  How ugly?  Pre-industrial ugly.

Conservative talk-show host and Breitbart blogging phenomenon Dana Loesch tweeted this morning, and I responded:

We cannot be Santa Claus.  We cannot be a more thorough sugar daddy than Barack Obama.  We cannot give away the country in order to rescue it.  I think the first thing we need to do is to prepare our people for the worst.  I think we need to ready our families and our neighbors for the inevitable collapse.  The Obama-voting electorate is going to discover all too soon that Santa Claus has delivered them only a lump of coal, and prohibited them from burning it for heat besides.  As I tried to explain to Loesch, it’s more than a tough fight.  It’s nearly impossible, because it’s built upon a base of people that continues to grow, while the pool of those who do the provisioning continues to shrink as a group.  It’s a cultural issue, and like most such problems, no policy can fix it.  It’s gone too far.  What will fix it will be when the inevitable collapse occurs, and the well runs dry, and as I covered when Sarah Palin wrote last year over the debt ceiling debacle, the Sugar Daddy has run out of Sugar.

Unfortunately, thanks to the Republicans led by John Boehner, the truth is that the sugar hadn’t run out.  If the Republicans were to stand a chance of defeating Obama in this election, they should have hardened up and cut off the sugar more than a year ago during that debt ceiling debacle.  Instead, they went wobbly, and as you will remember, it was in part at the insistence of Mitt Romney or his campaign staff. They didn’t want any boat-rocking. One more postponement in order to attempt victory one more time, and once again, we found it was too little, too late.  The Republican establishment set will tell us they need one more chance to try to give something away.  It’s won’t work. We can’t out-giveaway the statists.

The problem we face is one of culture.  Until we grasp the fundamentally corrupting influence of our welfare state, and the fact that our alleged compassion leads only to further depravity and destitution, we will not get the country back on track.  It may take a horrible economic collapse for that spigot to run dry, much worse than anything any of us have known in this country.  When that happens, we’ll be going back.  Way back.  The culture will ultimately correct itself, just as one empire gives way to the next when it falls into moral disrepair.  Frightening?  Yes, of course, and thoroughly so.  I don’t know how we will find any other way to convince the people that their moral choices are killing their country, until it happens. Naturally, by then, it will be far too late.  This is why I don’t want to hear from GOP establishment pundits, because they still believe there is some way to buy our way out of that.  There isn’t. We will either lead and teach, or we will be subsumed into the great cesspool of historic collapses, leaving the teaching to history. We must choose our new course, but we must not permit a lack of clarity.  We must, or we’re finished.

Fighting on the Ice…

Wednesday, November 7th, 2012

Nearly one-hundred-fifty years ago, in central West Virginia, William “Mudwall” Jackson(cousin of famous “Stonewall” Jackson) advanced on the improvised “fort” at Bulltown. He intended to capture it, and during the fight, more than twelve hours, he twice sent surrender demands under a flag of truce to the Union garrison commander, Captain William Mattingly.  Mattingly reportedly replied:

“I will fight until Hell freezes over and then fight on the ice”.

Mattingly and his men escaped and fled, but it was a tough road out of hell.

Barack Obama is having his victory speech, and he’s trying to sound magnanimous.  It’s fake.  He’s fake.  I’m not interested in his notions of unity.  He doesn’t want unity.  He wants to dominate.  I’m not interested in unity at the price of freedom.

That’s my message to Barack Obama, and to all of those who will be gleeful at his re-election.  We’re on the ice now, and with Hell frozen over, there’s nothing better to do, and nothing that needs more doing. I am going to fight you.  My message to conservatives is simple: Don’t yield, don’t surrender, and don’t give any damned ground to these ruthless, cheating Marxists.  Of course, this fight is just beginning, and there’s going to be some fighting in the conservative movement, and that starts now.  Right now.  To every conservative, I urge you to watch closely who you choose for your candidates in the future.  I wasn’t a Romney fan, but I did the only rational thing remaining and voted for him.  I don’t regret that decision, but I have already noticed some glee on the part of some who wouldn’t stand and do the same.  That’s fine, and you’ll have your day in the court of conservative opinion, but let me suggest to my conservative brethren that what you are about to witness is going to shock your senses and drive you to the brink.

We have people in the Republican establishment who have conspired to obtain this result.  They will undoubtedly continue to conspire against us.  First, they shove a moderately palatable candidate down conservatives’ throats.  Next, they hand-cuff us and him with the same old mush that has landed us in this quagmire.  Rather than aggressively campaign, he played it safe. On August 3rd, I wrote, in part:

“Romney is being careful, to the extent that he has begun to run what looks like an NFL “prevent defense,” intended to prevent any game-changing mistakes late in the game, but almost invariably leading to defeat by an accumulation of a series of lesser mistakes, any of which would be insignificant on their own, but that in the aggregate prove lethal.”

Ladies and gentlemen, isn’t this precisely what has happened?  When Chris Christie hugged Barack Obama in the wake of Sandy, wasn’t this an unaccounted circumstance that threw a monkey-wrench in the “prevent defense” plan?  How did Romney react?  He did nothing.  He continued to carefully plod along with no mention of Benghazi, no refutations of Obama’s shrill diatribe, apart from his line about “revenge.”

To be sure, there were several saboteurs, and you can bet that come 2016, we’ll see a couple throw their hats in the ring. The New Jersey Windbag will likely be one of them, or he’ll be somebody’s pick for VP.  Somebody from Florida, I’m betting.  Meanwhile, the best and the brightest conservatives in our party have been mocked and disparaged.  America  is likely to be on its knees before the passage of another four years, and if so, we must admit that a positive conservative message on all fronts must carry the day going forward.  We cannot win with mushy moderates.  Even if at this late hour, or in the days to come, Mitt Romney’s count is somehow found to make him the winner, it will be in court until time stops.  Can you imagine the infamy of it when it turns out that just like the illegitimate Senator from Minnesota, who holds his seat solely on the basis of fraud, Barack Obama turns out to have done the same?

No, our strategy must be a simple one from now until 2016:  We must rebuild conservatism even if it means walking away from the Republican party, and we must fight a stalling delaying action with everything we’ve got.  They own the media, the bureaucracy, the education, the executive branch, the Senate, and the judiciary.  We’ve got John Boehner. Don’t tell me we’re losing the country.  We’ve already lost it.  Now it’s time to take it back, if we can.

There’s nothing worse than knowing what’s coming, except perhaps for the poor fools who will be taken by surprise.  This country will not survive in this form.  This blog certainly won’t.  There may be a day in the not-distant future when I will be forced to suspend this blog for purely economic reasons.  By then, I’ll probably be eating horse, rather than raising them. That’s fine. When that day comes, I’ll do what I must, but every day from now until then, I am going to fight the statists and their miserable claim to the production of others who they would enslave to their service.  I am not interested in getting along. I am not interested in any more moderation. My message for the left? Andrew Breitbart said it best:

A Viral Video Every Voter Should Watch

Monday, November 5th, 2012

There really isn’t much to add to this.  I’d ask all voters to consider the implications of this video appraisal of the Obama presidency thoroughly.  The facts are shocking.  The creator of this video compilation did a fantastic job.  Take a look. This is what I meant by “Becoming the Media:”

 

“It’s 3am”

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Where was Barack Obama?

Living in a Past That Never Was: Obama’s Love Affair With Bill Clinton

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

A Past That Never Was

Every time you turn around, it seems Bill Clinton is hanging out on the campaign trail with Barack Obama.  Clinton is still very popular for some unfathomable reason, and Obama hopes to take advantage of that popularity to get his voters to the polls.  The problem is that Obama’s not only living in the past, but he’s living a lie.  It’s true that many people still like Clinton, but let’s be honest: If Barack Obama had a positive message to offer, he wouldn’t be desperately relying upon the presence of his Secretary of State’s husband to get out the vote.  The truth may simply be that Obama hopes to convince Democrats that he can “bring back the Clinton era,” but the facts don’t lend themselves to that meme.  More, if one were to characterize the 1990s, when Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office(or the small office off of it,) it would be true to say that while America prospered, it was in spite of Clinton and not because of him.  Obama may want to convince voters he’ll bring back those days, but the barest remembrance ought to make clear why that is not only impossible, but also undesirable. The only thing worse than living in the past, after all, is living in a past that never was.

In 1994, when the Republicans took over in both houses of Congress, it put the brakes on Bill Clinton in a way he hadn’t expected.  All of his Utopian plans were put on hold, as was Hillary-Care, and the fact is that he was forced famously to admit in a State of the Union address: “The era of big government is over.”  Naturally, this was anathema to the left, and they quickly began to figure out how they could use regulatory initiatives to unconstitutionally bypass the legislative process, an art-form now perfected under Barack Obama.  Still, Slick decided to let it ride, and his severest fight with the Republicans was the government shutdown fiasco of 1995, when ultimately, Bob Dole in the Senate sold out Newt Gingrich and left the House hanging because he was campaigning for president.

Still, in the arena of foreign affairs, Bill Clinton did very little, and he mostly ignored the mounting terrorist threats arrayed against us.  Al-Qaeda was on the march, and they destroyed two embassies and attacked the USS Cole while Clinton was playing hide the cigar with Monica Lewinsky and lying to grand juries.  People may remember the prosperity of the 1990s, but how much of it was based on a phony bubble born of Clinton’s empowerment of Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac?  The price of energy remained relatively low through much of his presidency precisely because his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, took the requisite actions to secure the oil-fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  Bill Clinton was merely a beneficiary.

In much the same way as Barack Obama continuously blames George Bush for the “economy [he] inherited,” Bush could just as easily have blamed Bill Clinton for the absolute degradation of our military and intelligence infrastructure and forces during he inherited at the outset of his presidency.  Clinton was too busy blowing his saxophone to be commander-in-chief, and much like Obama, he only used the military as a backdrop to his endless photo-ops.  Given the recent events in Benghazi, it’s easy to see why Obama thinks he can be like Bill Clinton.  Being CinC is easy when you avoid the hard decisions.  The problem is that the abrogation of responsibility gets Americans killed.

The simple fact is that if he really wanted to return to the era of Clinton, he need only go out and support Republicans for Senate.  After all, if Harry Reid was diminished to minority leader, it would place Obama in precisely the same position as Clinton.  You see, Obama has had things his way much more than Clinton ever did, and rather than dealing with the tearful John Boehner, Clinton had to contend with Newt Gingrich.  That may have been the real difference.  What reasonable people may conclude from all of this is not that Obama is like Clinton, but that he has been much more like Jimmy Carter.  There’s a reason he doesn’t drag that former president down the campaign trail with him.

As Obama tries to scare up images of the 1990s, and the presidency of Bill Clinton, he runs the risk of reminding people how unsuccessful he’s really been, and how man promises he’s broken.  More, the guy upon whom he’s hanging his hopes isn’t a man noted for his honesty, irrespective of how popular he may be.   That nearly four years into his presidency, he hasn’t established his own credentials and credibility even within his own base of support ought to be a clue as to how desperate his side has become.  That’s why he’s hauled out the old snake-oil salesman from retirement: He can’t stand alone, just as he can’t stand on his own record, and as the miles on the campaign trail begin to run out, he’s in danger of the American people, even faithful Democrats, beginning to figure this out.

Shamed

One wonders if he really wants Americans to remember the real Bill Clinton, or whether it’s just the image of a presidency coinciding with relative prosperity he wants you to remember.  If I were to list the failures of Bill Clinton, the dishonesty, and the eight years of ceaseless lying and posturing, it might place a different spin on this effort.  If his promise is to return you to the days of Bill Clinton, he’s broken that promise, and he’s not likely to keep it, even if he were to spend twenty years in office.  Thankfully, that won’t happen, but we shouldn’t permit him to pretend he can take us back in time to those days.  He’s not Bill Clinton, but even if he had been, Americans are right to question if  that would that constitute a ringing endorsement. Maybe the “good old days” of Bill Clinton really weren’t so good.

Obama to Stand Down On Military Pay and Benefits

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

Forgetting Them Again

My son-in-law is getting set for deployment to Afghanistan. His departure is imminent, and while I am proud of the young man’s continuing service to this country, this being his second deployment, I am startled by the manner in which the current administration treats all our soldiers.  The truth is that the Obama administration doesn’t even like the military, and except for instances in which they can be used as a campaign prop, they haven’t any regard for the men and women who volunteer to serve this nation.  One Obama-friendly group has come out with its proposal for trimming military pay and benefits, and it’s shocking to realize how little regard they have for our service-members based on what they’re advocating.  The Center for American Progress, a completely maniacal left-wing cohort of Obama’s, largely funded by George Soros, has actually suggested that our government should cut the pay and benefits of soldiers dramatically.  It’s disgusting.  It’s despicable.  It’s another example of how the left doesn’t understand or appreciate our military men and women, but if Obama is re-elected, it’s probably the blueprint for what will happen.  It’s time to consider the disastrous consequences of another presidential stand-down.

They’ve actually proposed cutting military retirement, and they’ve also proposed changing the rules for when one can begin drawing a military retirement.  Rather than commencing retirement benefits upon retirement, the madcaps at the Center for American Progress are pushing the notion that benefits shouldn’t commence until 60.  I want those of you who haven’t served in the military to think about this very carefully.  If a young man or woman serves twenty years in the military, on average, it’s not like working in the civilian world for two decades.  The abuses of one’s body, the toll it takes on one’s family, and the miserable conditions under which two decades of life are conducted is something for which there are no direct analogs in the civilian world.  One person I know, a police officer, who works hard and is dedicated to public safety, likened his profession to the military, and I stopped and corrected him.  There is a vast difference, and it comes down to this: Our service-members live under martial authority.  It’s not like being a cop, much as I respect so many in that profession.

Let’s be blunt about it: If you are a police officer, and you arrive at a scene, and your Sergeant or Lieutenant tells you to carry out some ludicrous order that puts you in danger, you can refuse.  The worst thing that can happen to you is that you will be fired.  In garrison, or on the battlefield, a soldier really has no such discretion, because failing to follow orders can get you dead.  You see, in the military, there really isn’t room for such discretion, and those who volunteer to serve have set aside the ordinary right to refuse all of us in the civilian world enjoy, in favor of the mission set forth by their commanders, but since they do not get to pick the term of their enlistments according to who is in command at the time, either nationally or locally, they simply must comply.

To get capable, smart, qualified people to do the jobs we ask our service-members to do in peacetime at their miserable rate of pay is hard enough, but multiplied and magnified by the rigors of war-fighting, and a simple existence under martial authority, we need to offer an enticement.  That’s why we offer at least somewhat enticing retirement benefits, but this is also why the left, despite all their previous anti-draft protesting, is very much pro-conscription:  They wish to be able to force people to serve in these conditions.  Imposing the pay and benefits cuts that CAP proposes would assure that the United States would either impose a draft to fulfill its defense needs, or simply cease to defend the nation.  Either is acceptable to leftists, but in truth, they’d like to have both.

Remember, if a young person 17-21 volunteers for military service, assuming they carry out a twenty year career, that means they will return to the civilian world in their late thirties or early forties, and despite the propaganda to the contrary, most will be effectively starting over.  You see, very few specialties in the military actually translate directly to civilian uses.  Working on artillery pieces doesn’t really translate to working on Fords.  Some of the underlying skill-sets may, but the truth is that it’s not a simple transition in most cases.  There aren’t really many positions for infantrymen in the civilian world.  Therefore, you have a group of people transitioning into a civilian workforce who may well have delayed their higher education, and otherwise set aside those developments in order to protect us.  Then, having completed two decades, they exit the military into a civilian workforce where they may be at significant disadvantage.  There is discrimination against veterans in many cases, and they step into this world precisely in what ought to have been their peak earning years.   The Center for American Progress thinks we should delay their retirement benefits until they’re sixty.  The truth is, we should pay them upon retirement because it’s the ethical thing to do in helping them catch up, and in order to thank them for their honorable service.

I’m not going to touch the part about active military pay, lest I launch into a stream of profanities over CAP’s proposals, but I think it’s time we understand, all of us, that when we ask young men and women to serve, we’re asking that they do so in our stead.  How much is that worth?  As my son-in-law prepares to fly to a distant and God-forsaken land, to help a people who may not want it, and to defend them against their own, knowing that most deaths in that country are the result of our alleged allies turning on our people, I can’t help but reflect on my own military service, and all the things I saw.  I wonder if the day will ever come when the American people will universally understand what it is we ask of these young people, and whether there will ever be a time when the left is willing to pay the costs of maintaining the defenses of the liberties they so blissfully enjoy in brutally indifferent ignorance.  If Barack Obama is re-elected, the undue suffering of our men and women in uniform will increase dramatically.  As I prepare to see my son-in-law depart on another deployment, we must take care of affairs here at home.  We must prevent this.

When All Else Fails, Lie

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

Dishonesty You Can Count On

Conservatives and Republicans along with Romney-supporting independents should steel themselves for the media barrage now in motion.   If you’re like me, you’ll have noticed that not only are they spiking the story on Benghazi, but they’re also running away from the fact that FEMA relief efforts in the Northeast aren’t going so well as the coward-in-chief had promised.  In the run-up to the election, the American people are beginning to notice that the facts don’t match the media meme, and the media is becoming increasingly desperate in their relating(not reporting) of positive spin for Obama. As election day approaches, the biased mainstream media is pulling out all the stops for their candidate. Americans mustn’t permit their campaign of lies to succeed.

Now, having had Obama make a remark on the campaign trail stating that “voting is the best revenge,” one mainstream media outlet has turned to outright lying in order to try to sabotage Romney.  Reuters actually ran the following headline on Saturday:

As Campaign Roars to Close, Romney and Obama Talk “Revenge”

This is pretty desperate, and it’s not merely a matter of biased headline writing.  It’s a lie.  The only context in which Romney was discussing “revenge” was to quote Obama’s remark and comment on it.  This fact is buried in the story, but the headline is constructed to leave you with the impression that Romney brought it up, and that both candidates are moral equals in the matter.  There’s really no other explanation for the name order in the headline.  “Obama” is alphabetically ahead of “Romney,” and chronologically, Obama brought it up.

Of course, it’s going to get much worse as the campaign draws to a close. The mission of the mainstream media is to cover up all negative news about Obama, pounce on Romney for anything they can paint as a misstep, and outright lie about the state of the campaigns.  All of this has one basic purpose: Swing the election for Obama.  There are two things they hope to do, and these are to depress Romney supporters in order to get them to stand down, and to bolster Obama supporters by getting them to show up.  Don’t fall for it.  No matter what the mainstream media says on the Sunday shows, and no matter how many fake polls they thrust in your face, the truth is that you control the outcome of this election.

All day tomorrow, and all day Monday, they will be searching for some salable meme with which to slap Mitt Romney or prop up Barack Obama.  It’s close, but it’s not as close as they need in order to have cover.  You see, for weeks, they’ve been telling you it’s neck-and-neck or Obama up by two or three.  None of it matters, because it’s all nonsense.  What matters is their blessed “reputation,” or “credibility,” either of which they have little to note.

Let’s put this another way: If you swell to the polls in support of Mitt Romney as I suspect will be the case, the mainstream media is going to be tarnished in a big way. They’re going to look like idiots.  They’re going to be revealed as liars and con-artists, and they will immediately turn to the task of resurrecting their supposed “credibility” by coming up with explanations for how they “missed it.”  Of course, if they can turn you off, and get you to stand down, they won’t need to do so even if Romney wins in a squeaker, because they will be calling this a dead heat from here to the end.  Naturally, if Romney wins by larger margins, “Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.” They just as soon avoid that debacle, so at this point, they are willing to lie in order to trim that margin a little if they can.

Don’t fall for it.  On Tuesday, you go out and do as you were going to do, and take your friends and neighbors along.  Make an event of it.  These lying, miserable bastards need to be taken down a peg, and this is your chance to do it.

Even if Mitt Romney isn’t the candidate you would have picked, I suspect that like me, you want to see the mainstream media eat crow. That will be our best revenge. Well, that and watching Mooch cart her bags to the waiting limo. Don’t worry Michelle, it’s just like going on vacation… only better.

I’ll never have been prouder of my country. Lately.

 

I’ve Made Up My Mind

Friday, November 2nd, 2012

Where it all counts...

I don’t like Mitt Romney very much, as I don’t think he’s at all conservative in the full sense of the word.  I find myself fully agreeing with him only around one-third of the time.  Naturally, as I’ve explained all along, this is why we conservatives were prohibited from selecting an actual conservative candidate, or one with at least reasonably solid conservative views.  The pages of this blog are replete with my criticisms of Romney, both on specific issues and in particular contexts, as well as in a general philosophical sense.  If you have any confusion, feel free to do a category search on the menu at right and select the category “Mitt Romney.” With that in mind, I would like to talk to you a bit about another character whose category is at least as extensive, and who is infinitely worse:  Barack Hussein Obama.  There is no doubt that while I have some trepidation about Romney’s willingness to fight for constitutional principles, Obama will demolish, shred, and burn it.  I do not claim this as some exercise in epic hyperbole, and my long-time readers will know it is absolutely true:  If Obama wins on Tuesday, by any means, our nation is finished.  If you believe too easily that you’re willing to undergo all that such a calamity entails, read no further and exit this blog, because you’re either a terminal patient or somebody with no respect for the reality of such an event.

First, I want you to know that when I went into the polling place, I skipped the Presidential question.  I ticked right through the remainder of the ballot, knowing that I wanted Ted Cruz to prevail, and knowing the other offices on the ballot, who it is that I would support in those offices of local concern.  After completing the whole ballot, I went back to the Presidential position, being the only one remaining to consider.  I stood there for what seemed like an eternity.  I looked at the names on the ballot, and I thought about what would happen if I stood firmly in my intention to let Mitt Romney rise or fall without my help.  I knew that being in Texas, even without my vote, Mitt Romney was likely to win.  I knew that my vote would be of little consequence, thus affording me the escape clause if I decided to leave the Presidential section unmarked.  The problem is that I have readers in every place in this wondrous country, and while as a practical matter, it mattered little whether I would make a selection, my readers would want to know.

I leaned a bit against the writing surface of the voting booth.  I rubbed my brow as I realized the full measure of what is at stake in this election.  Sure, we’ve discussed it at length, but this was the first time I had really personalized it.  Romney?  Obama? Other? None?  On this basis, I immediately ignored Obama and the other “third party” entries.  Whatever my final choice, I knew that I would never vote for Obama, and that the non-Romney alternatives were merely a protest that equated to voting for none of them.  No, the question was really Romney, or none.   As I stood there pondering my choice, I began to turn our country’s recent past over in my mind, and I began to think about this from a highly personal point of view.

If I were not to make any selection, what would it mean?  No, it was more important to place the appropriate pressure on my decision, and since I came of age in Ohio, much of my family still residing there, it was proper to think of this as though I were in that context.  After all, for many of my readers, that is the choice, whether they’re in Ohio or other states where this contest will be decided, they haven’t the luxury of knowing that either their state is so thoroughly blue or red as to make their one abstention irrelevant.  I began to think about the matter as if the whole question rested on my shoulders, and when I did, something odd happened.  I realized that somebody would win.  Withholding my vote from Mitt Romney would not make some other imagined candidate appear on the ballot.  More, knowing the intentions of Barack Obama as I do, I began to think what would happen if he wins.

My farm would be a goner.  It will be difficult for our farm to survive as an entity for another year in this economy.  When we bought horses and began to breed and raise them, we had no idea that the bottom would drop out of that industry within two years’ time, and that other economic forces, namely the prices of petroleum, and feeds and hay would escalate to heights previously unknown.  We are bleeding money, and with no change, no chance exists that does not end with horses going to slaughter buyers at a government-coerced auction.  My daughter, now nearly twenty-three, along with her husband, have decided to forgo children indefinitely, being unwilling to bring children into the world with which we are now confronted.  They would rather be childless than to raise a kid into serfdom, and they refuse to be sucked into the welfare mentality that permits so many to procreate without pausing to consider those facts.  If Barack Obama is re-elected, the country will die, my farm among its many victims, and the possibility of grandchildren with it.

Every day brings more bad news on the economic front, though the media would have us believe otherwise in their pursuit of a second Obama term.  There will never be any chance of justice on the matter of Benghazi, and there will be no chance that we will know liberty again.  Ronald Reagan was right about many things, and one of them was this:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

At least I will be free from telling my child’s children, since there won’t be any, but as I stood there pondering my choice, it seemed at last like slim consolation.  I thought about a lifetime of hard, dedicated work, but not only mine.  My wife’s, my brothers, and all our forebears who had made the glorious expanse of my life possible.  I thought about the slow, skulking death of a nation, culminating in a rapid dissolution into anarchy and tyranny.  I wondered how long I would hold out.  I wondered how much stamina those like me would have, and whether it would be enough.  I wondered at the thought of my wife and I, no longer in the condition of our youth, trying to stave off all that such a scenario would imply.  I thought about the wisdom of my position to date, and my resolution not to vote for Mitt Romney.

After all, as veterans will know, one thing the military teaches you is that if all else fails, you must figure out how to survive, and how to live to fight another day.  Pointless but seemingly heroic acts of single-handedly charging a vastly superior enemy are really acts of suicide, so that unless there is something tangible to be gained for one’s cause, one should never consider it.  In turn, that begged the question behind my furrowed brow:  What is my cause?  Will it be served by the immolation of our country?  That was the proposition before me, and for a long time, I began to argue with myself:

“What’s the matter, Mark?  Chickening out?”

“No, of course not.  I’m doing the harder thing: I’m standing on principle.”

“Principle?  The principles that become meaningless the moment Barack Obama is unleashed and unrestrained in a second term?  Those principles?  Who will honor them?  The souls of the grandchildren your daughter will never bear forth into the wretched world the left is creating?”

“Somebody. Somehow.  Some day.”

Somehow? It’s a sad day that you resort to that plea.”

 “America will rise again.”

Will it?”

As I pondered Ronald Reagan’s words again, it struck me that though I have read them, repeated them, and heard them spoken a thousand times, I had always grasped the first part, but never fully the severity of the second.  Standing there looking down at my ballot, the presidential section unmarked, I wondered about the truth of the matter: How do I restore a country by yielding it completely to those who wish it destroyed?  It is preposterous to suggest otherwise, because in that moment, I saw with clarity that a little chance is better than none.  A small opportunity, and a tiny window are greater than their absence.  I’ve already pledged to you that with your help, I will fight the GOP establishment, come what may, but that is only relevant if we’re not already fighting for our basic survival, and if Barack Obama prevails, that will be our situation.

You are free to call me a “chicken,” or to say that “Mark folded” when the going got tough, but after all, what the in Hell are we fighting for anyway?  A tactical retreat is preferable to a massacre.  With those words in mind, I looked again one long last time at the ballot, and slid it close to me on the writing surface, and marked “Romney.”  I turned away from the booth, depositing the ballot in the slot in the ballot box with a satisfied grimace.  That may not be the ending you had expected.  It wasn’t the ending I expected when I walked into the polling place, until I realized this really could be the end. I apologize to those readers who believe I have abandoned them, and I will not damn any for doing as I have done, but in the end, history may damn all those who don’t.  In the name of all in this world that you may still love, and in the name of all that remains of our potential, go vote, and do what your conscience demands.  I cannot damn my own life, never mind my daughter’s, to the world a second Obama term would usher in.  Damn me if you must.  If Obama is re-elected, Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s misappropriation of scripture is certain to come true.

 

 

One Warm Air Mass Blows Through, Two More Arrive

Thursday, November 1st, 2012

Best Buds

It should come as no surprise to readers of this website that having arrived late in the election season with a chance for Republicans to win the White House, and perhaps strengthen in Congress, with taking the Senate an at least plausible proposition, the turn-coats, the RINOs, the opportunists and the skunks will now come out of the woodwork to sabotage as many Republicans as possible.  Every media venue is beginning to drag them out from behind the curtains, and while a mighty wind struck New Jersey on Monday, an blowhard nearly equal to Hurricane Sandy both in breadth and volume sought on Wednesday to capitalize on the storm’s aftermath, inviting the man from the city that blows hard seemingly in perpetuity to join him on the Jersey shore.  Quite a couple this pair of wind generators made, missing no photo-op to look very gubernatorial and presidential, respectively.  Much like Barack Obama claims it’s wrong to politicize Libya (while politicizing Libya,) Governor Christie took full advantage of the opportunity to improve his own position with New Jersey voters, and yes, maybe even voters nationally, with an eye toward 2016.

Naturally, for that to work out, Romney would need to lose next week, and by playing Oliver Hardy to Obama’s Stanley Laurel, Christie did his best to position himself in all respects.  Of course, this is merely the presidential scene.  Other saboteurs were widely afoot.  Tucker Carlson did his level best to undercut Richard Mourdock in Indiana, suggesting that the Senate candidate cannot win, a fact that the long-time Dick Lugar protoge apparently finds satisfying, so it’s what I suggested long ago: He’s wealthy enough not to be worried about Obama-care.  To quote one-term Texas Governor Maw Richards, “he can’t hepp it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”  Naturally, after his blatant sabotage on FoxNews today, I’d suggest that rather than his foot, it had been Carlson’s  head, though stuck in a different orifice.

I hope my fellow conservatives are working hard to get out the vote for our Senate candidates, because whatever happens at the top of the ticket, we simply must take the Senate. I’m not saying Mitt Romney will lose, as he in fact looks fairly strong at the moment, but let’s be honest about how things will go even if he wins but Harry Reid maintains control of the Senate.  With Boehner in the House, conservative concerns are certain to get rolled at every turn if we don’t re-take the Senate.

I expect that in the days to come, we will begin to see a parade of RINOs stepping out to deal dirt to conservative candidates. The establishment wing of the party doesn’t take defeat easily, and while we conservatives are always expected to rally to their candidates, they never seem to return the favor, instead undercutting conservatives.  Some have speculated the Christie’s actions are part of a ploy to somehow sabotage Obama, but that’s not it at all.  That’s far too complicated a ploy for the simple optics that Christie is gaining from this maneuver.  He’s simply an opportunist, and since his is a deep blue state, this is a way of staying in favor with the people of New Jersey, in part to position himself for his re-election and in part in case he makes a bid for the White House in 2016 in the wake of a Romney loss his actions today were intended to assist.  Quite simply, this kills two birds with one stone, and I knew when he erupted yesterday about not giving “a damn” for the politics, that just like Obama,  a political move on his part was imminent.  If it hadn’t been all about political “optics,” he wouldn’t have spent all his time on photo-ops.  Whatever other “October Surprises” might be in the offing, this one was entirely of Christie’s making.

As this post goes to press, almost as if by way of confirming my thesis, both New York’s Mayor Nanny Doomberg and retired General and affirmative action beneficiary Colin Bowell have shockingly endorsed Barack Obama.  I expect my readers to take it easy after that news as the mainstream media attempts to portray this as a surprise. Meanwhile, back on the East Coast, now that one of the mighty windbags has departed the scene, things aren’t going so well as thousands upon thousands of residents find themselves without shelter or food, and more than three million are still without power.  They’re fighting over fuel at the now sparse gas stations.  They’re siphoning it out of cars for use in generators, showing the utter lack of preparedness of so many governments in the region.  Once again, the coward-in-chief is off in Las Vegas.  I guess when the real hard work needs to be done, Obama can be counted on to arrive in the city he told people they ought not go.

I expect the parade of RINO back-stabbers to continue through the weekend.  It’s what they do.

Becoming the Media

Monday, October 29th, 2012

Time to Change the Game

One of the standard laments of conservatives has been and remains the unconscionable bias of the mainstream media.  The bulk of so-called mainstream media outlets are so thoroughly in the tank for Obama, and indeed any leftist cause, that it has become impossible to discern between them and the party they shamelessly favor in their reporting.  The Benghazi story offers abundant evidence of this trend, but the truth is that the media has been skewed heavily in favor of the left for the whole of my life.  What some will have noted is that the character of the bias has changed, having become more thoroughly unabashed.  I believe this owes to the success of talk radio in the 1990s, led by Rush Limbaugh, but also by “new media” of which I suppose I must now admit I am a part.  The mainstream media is too inflexible to roll with the punches, and instead have become the televised and print versions of a leftist talk radio.  For years, they tried with virtually no success to compete in that format, and having failed, they’ve simply decided to make television and newspapers resemble talk radio.  Expert at manipulating imagery like all true propagandists, they’ve simply turned the nightly news into a thirty minute screed for leftists views.

Naturally, the problem is that they still claim the mantle of “objective journalism,” all while carrying out purely partisan scripting and editing.  Rather than complain about them, however, we have an option.  We can’t expect them to “play fair,” whatever that means, but we have it in us to make them mostly irrelevant.  If we want to defeat the left, we will need to vanquish their media as credible sources of information.  Each of you has it in your power to take part in that effort.

Every one of you is a reporter.  With the advent of social media, like Twitter and Facebook, there isn’t one of you who doesn’t have a story to tell, and there isn’t one of you who doesn’t have something to add to the discussion.  Tell it.  Add it.  Do it relentlessly.  Whether you write a small blog like this one, post a points you’d like to make on Facebook, send out emails, or “tweet” your opinion one-hundred-forty characters at a time, get to it.  The lame-stream media doesn’t want to talk about Benghazi?  Fine.  You talk about Benghazi, but do it frequently and relentlessly.  Throw in remarks where appropriate, and don’t be afraid to share.  You’d be surprised what sort of an effect that will have, not only on the political discourse in the country, but also on a media that wishes to be relevant most of all. They want to shape stories, but more, they try to shape what is the story.  Your staunch refusal to move on to other issues and stories will put an end to their migrations away from topics they’d rather see finished.

You might argue that you’re just one small voice in an endless sea of voices, but believe me, the power of one voice in the right moment and context cannot be overestimated.  Sometimes, it’s just the weight of one more voice pushing against the dam that will make it burst.  Sure, at the moment the media is using the storm on the East coast to drive the discussion away from Benghazi, and any number of issues, including the stunted economic growth numbers, but nothing says you must participate in their cover-ups.  To the contrary, you can have an impact simply by talking about the stories that you see as important, and if enough of you do, the media will rush back to you, because what they dare not permit is that they would become irrelevant in the water-cooler talk of the day.  It’s up to you.  Sure, the media can try to bury stories, but they can only bury them if nobody is talking about them.  You have the power to change that.  You do. If sunshine is the best disinfectant, then what we need is a good deal more of it.

While some might argue that we’d have been better off never knowing the full scale of the depravity of Bill Clinton, what would we remember about him if not for Drudge?  He’s now one of the biggest voices in the sea.  What is the legacy of Andrew Breitbart?  The real message is that you can be “media” too, as the concept of “mainstream media” loses all meaning.  There is no reason Obama should get away with it, whatever is happening with hurricane Sandy.  We can follow more than one story at a time, and we’re able to shape the messaging.  Speaking to the occupant of the oval office, the father of the Benghazi hero Tyrone Woods proclaimed:

“It’s better to die a hero than live a coward.”-Charles Woods

With the loss he’s suffered in mind, having the courage to speak out as he has, what do we have to fear?  Engage.  Get the message out there, whatever your particular message may be, and do so fearlessly. It’s our country, and it’s time we take it back from the media. We decide what will be discussed and when, and we shouldn’t permit the so-called “mainstream media” to tell us otherwise.

Killed By the Coward in the White House

Saturday, October 27th, 2012

Despicable

As more facts are revealed about the events in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that President Obama not only lied to the American people about the role of the now-infamous anti-Islam video, but also systematically covered-up the entire fiasco resulting in the deaths of Americans serving at the President’s direction in Libya.  The President and others in his administration are playing fast and loose with the facts, and sources now say that there were at least three requests for aid that were denied by the chain of command.  This is astonishing news, because what it directly implies is that the President’s statements about his first direction being to secure Americans was a bald-faced lie.  President Obama not only lied to the American people, but he and those acting at his direction abandoned Americans on the field of battle.  He flew off to Las Vegas, precisely to create an alibi.  The problem is, as President of the United States, the White House goes with you wherever you may be.  No, there will be no alibis this time, and this President must face the music, but if he is re-elected, he will not.  Any political black eye will come long after he begins his new term, if it materializes at all.  I can no longer refer to him as “President” Obama.  No American president has ever behaved so cravenly.  Re-elect him if you like, but he will be “the Coward” on the pages of this blog, for leaving Americans to be slaughtered, some who fought valiantly to save others, giving their lives for their countrymen.

One of the lies being pushed around is that he needed to “get to the bottom of this.”  That’s hogwash.  We now know that there were Predator drones in the air over the scene, at least one providing a live video feed of the situation on the ground.  More, we also know that the valiant Tyrone Woods – one of the Navy Seals killed in this action – maintained contact and was actually ordered to stand down in his efforts to save others before he ignored orders and ultimately gave his life in that pursuit.  His father, Charles Woods, has given several interviews, but on Friday night, he gave one to Sean Hannity, and during this interview, we learn a good deal about the character of Tyrone Woods as well as the  Marxist Coward.  You can play the audio of the phone interview below:

Alternative content


 

A number of the people in media are ignoring a central point about all of this, and I think it needs to be understood, because it demonstrates the absurdity of the Marxist Coward’s lies. There can be no way that Barack Obama was out of the loop.  There can be no way he ever believed this was the result of protests against a video.  That entire story was cooked up in the bowels of the Obama campaign.  You might ask how I know this with such certainty.

The reports of Friday morning that urgent requests for assistance were denied offers the first bit of evidence.  The damning bit of evidence came later in the day, when the CIA put out this statement:

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.  Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”(emphasis added)

“No one at any level in the CIA.”  Notice it does not say “No one at any level.”  This qualification is the damning bit.  The CIA does not claim that requests for aids weren’t denied.  The statement merely claims nobody in the CIA denied them.  Once you realize this, it’s now a more important statement, because it doesn’t tell us who did deny such requests, but merely who did not. With that in mind, we must now ask: Who else would have the authority to deny a CIA request?  The State Department doesn’t have that authority, except insofar as the request might have been made of them, but it wasn’t.  They were asking for military support.  That means the Department of Defense.

Those of you who have spent any time around any government operation will know that a situation or request spanning different departments and agencies of this sort will always go all the way up the chain of command, before coming back down.  Unless there had been some sort of standing order to the DoD to provide support, there would have been, of necessity, a request up the chain through the CIA, landing on the desk of whom?  Ultimately, there is only one office that can then take such a request and issue orders to DoD for such support.  Only one.  And that office and its occupant were beating feet for Las Vegas on Air Force One.  Got it?

That’s right, a move like that can only happen with Presidential approval, either explicitly in advance, in the form of some blanket order, or as events unfold, in the certain terms and context of the moment.  Hillary Clinton could not deny such a request.  The Department of Defense couldn’t deny such a request.  Only the President of the United States, in this case, the Cowardly Marxist, could deny such a request, or refuse to act on it.  A President could ignore such a request until the event was over and the request mooted by the outcome, but that sort of request must pass through national command authority.

That’s right people.  You want a smoking gun?  You want proof that the cowardly Marxist-in-chief knew all along, and was hip-deep in this?  There it is.  The CIA says no one at any level in the CIA denied such requests. They did not say that there were no such requests, or if there were, what had been the ultimate disposition of such requests.  What you have here is a CIA statement intended to relieve its director of culpability.  Later, it will not be said that this had been a false statement.  No, the CIA is off the hook.  This statement shields the CIA so long as it’s a true statement, to the degree it says anything of use.  The value in this statement is what it leaves unsaid, and that is a whopper that lands in the lap of the lying Marxist coward who sporadically occupies the White House between fund-raising jaunts and Letterman appearances.

Ladies and gentlemen, the matter is clear, and the answer is simple: Either Barack Hussein Obama denied the request, or he shelved it until moot.  What you have in Obama is a professional liar, and his administration is staffed with people who exist to obfuscate, shade the truth, and outright lie when necessary to fulfill their political agenda.  Americans have died because of this rotten, miserable soul, and there’s a reason Tyrone Woods’ father sensed something akin to a dead fish in Obama’s handshake: Like all miserable cowards, he’s dead inside.  It is time for Barack Obama to go.  He has lost all valid claims to moral authority.  Our country can no longer afford him, and if he remains in office, we will never know the whole truth, and no justice will be had for Tyrone Woods, a young man who acted heroically in the face of his own chain of command’s cowardice.

 

Americans Died, Obama Lied

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Would I Lie to You? Next Question...

On Tuesday evening, Greta Van Susteren reported the astonishing but predictable news: The Obama administration knew within hours or even minutes who had perpetrated the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, ultimately killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  The cover story about an anti-Islamic video was merely a scapegoat of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on our consulate, but the sickening fact is that President Obama’s administration, including the State Department, and high level national security officials were well aware of the truth even as they continued to try to sell its cover story to the American people.  The reason is simple:  The Benghazi attack was the first successful strike on American soil by organized radical Islamic supremacists since September 11th, 2001, on its 11th anniversary.  Fourteen days after this attack, Barack Obama was still telling the American people it was about a video, desperately hoping to disconnect the events from the obvious failures in his leadership and foreign policy.  Barack Obama has deceived the American people.  For seven hours, in full possession of the facts, as the attack raged and Americans were slaughtered, this President and his administration did nothing except to concoct a cover story.

Perhaps the most galling meme put forward by the Obama administration in the wake of this dismal failure was the attempt to accuse Mitt Romney of politicizing the event.  The facts speak for themselves: The Obama administration commenced the politicization of this attack by lying to the American people on the basis of politically motivated calculations about the impact the truth would have on the upcoming election.  Barack Obama and his administration clearly have no shame, but while they have sought to hide the truth, on Tuesday evening, emails were disclosed that should put an end to the obfuscation.  From FoxNews:

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

That Candy Crowley would give Obama cover on the cover-up during the second Presidential debate is bad enough, but to now discover that the whole administration was quite well aware of the source of the attack means that we not only have a President willing to lie to the American people, but that he has surrounded himself with a cadre of bureaucratic henchmen who share his contempt for Americans.  The Obama administration may be amateurish with respect to its handling of foreign policy, but they are first-rate professionals when it comes to lying to the nation.  The mainstream media continues to cover and hide the lengths to which this administration has gone in its disinformation campaign against the American people.

Joe Wilson was right when he yelled at Obama during a State of the Union address: “You lie!” Worse, however, President Obama isn’t a man who once told a lie and got away with it: He is a reprobate.  He is a liar by trade, and nothing he says may be trusted.  Cataloging the lies of his debate appearance on Monday night would take many pages, but suffice it to say that even some in the mainstream media are having a difficult time covering his tracks.

What readers need to know about Barack Obama is this: There is no lie he won’t tell, and no American whose life and memory he will not sacrifice to his political desires.  This President yammers about the politicization of a tragedy as a pre-emptive strike against the shocking truth that political calculations were and remain the motive for the cover-up of the events in Libya.  Obama hopes the American people will be fooled again, and that when he says he has “kept us safe,” they will forget the deadly attack on our consulate, and the Fort Hood shooting, among other acts of terrorism he refuses to acknowledge as such.  That’s all this really is, and all it’s intended to do.  His entire administration is convicted of a lie, and he’s betting the American people will be too.

Terrorism?  What terrorism?

 

Media Malpractice Leaves Obama Unprepared

Thursday, October 4th, 2012

Lost

Anybody who’s ever raised a child knows that for them to get stronger, they must “take their lumps” along the way.  If you shelter children too much, particularly from the consequences of the choices they’ve made, they don’t learn from their worst mistakes, errors, and simple bad judgments.  The mainstream media has been treating Barack Obama as an affirmative action case for more than four years, and on Wednesday night in Denver, they paid a price:  Unprepared on the facts, and unaccustomed to facing pressing, difficult questions, Barack Obama looked stunned at first, and then annoyed, and finally petulant as he was thoroughly drubbed by Mitt Romney in the first Presidential Debate.  Even Jim Lehrer couldn’t prevent it, despite his obvious efforts to coach and guide President Obama. No amount of deck-stacking on the night could save Obama from his own state of unpreparedness.  This stunning defeat was a demonstration of the real world result of affirmative action, and since the media who has sheltered him is composed of leftists who believe in that nonsense, rather than toughen-up Obama, they will seek to shelter him further.

In the 2008 campaign, the media succeeded in sheltering Obama through the election.  They got their man in place because they were able to conceal his many warts, and because McCain was not at all aggressive.  The Republicans ought to be more prepared for any debate, simply because they are almost never coddled by the media.  The real problem began for Obama after his disastrous press conference during which the subject of his former professor and friend Henry Gates arose, and Obama went well off script, telling the press that the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly.”  From that moment on, both his own staff and the press, often in a joint effort, went into full protection mode because they realized Obama wasn’t up to the scrutiny or the tough questions.

Since then, the actual number of press conferences that Obama has conducted has been quite limited, and all of the questions were known in advance.  This permitted Obama to prepare for the soft-ball questions, so that he never fell into any mire quite so sticky as the earlier press conference debacle.  Most other times Obama has appeared in public, it has been to issue prepared remarks, fed to him on a teleprompter.  When everything he’s going to say is scripted for him, he can deliver a speech quite well, irrespective of whether you agree with its content.  In the debate on Wednesday night in Denver, he had no such advantage, the closest thing to shelter available being the coaching given by the moderator Jim Lehrer.  The lack of readiness merely highlights the matter: Obama hasn’t taken many hard questions during his presidency,  but under the harsh lights of the debate stage, that simply won’t help him.  He was neither agile nor strong.  He had no substance, but uncharacteristically, he didn’t seem even to possess style.  On Wednesday night, the media could not conceal it for him.

This doesn’t mean the media will simply give in.  They took a pounding last night, when even Chris Matthews seemed to have lost the tingle in his leg:

“Tonight wasn’t an MSNBC debate, was it? It just wasn’t. It didn’t mention all the key fighting points of this campaign. […] I don’t know what he was doing out there, he had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it.

“Romney on the other hand, came in with a campaign, he had a plan. He was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive. He was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively. He was going to relish the evening, enjoying it. Nothing to do with the words he spoke.”

Extreme leftist Andrew Sullivan was beside himself in the liveblog on the daily beast:

“How is Obama’s closing statement so f*cking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.”

I’d be happy to explain to either man why Obama debated so poorly, but neither would listen:  Their constant coddling, their covering, and their failure to hold Obama’s feet to the fire on any issue over the last four years has led to a debacle for the left in which their guy, the President of the United States, is a bumbling, inept candidate who is arrogantly unaccustomed to being questioned on anything.  They built this candidate, and this candidacy, but also this administration.

Naturally, this is far from over, and you can expect the media will go after Mitt Romney relentlessly over the coming days and weeks.  There will be no cessation in hostilities, because rather than learn from their failures, the media will double-down.  They will criticize Obama a bit in the wake of this debate, as they must, but the media will close ranks around him and continue to shield him.  They will because they cannot conceive of the fact that it is precisely this sheltering, coddling affirmative action that has left their candidate wholly unprepared.  Indeed, that is the story of his entire presidency, and their role in it.  Rather than being hardened by repeated hammering and heat, Barack Obama has been able to maintain his stature by the artifices erected by a sympathetic media.

It is in these moments when a candidate’s character becomes known, and on Wednesday night, what was revealed about Barack Obama is that he had been too small a man for the office to which he had been elected.  He was not able to rise to an occasion for which the media’s lack of testing had not prepared him.  Here was a petulant child, caught with his hand elbow-deep in the cookie jar, and as he stammered through excuse and rationalization, one after the other, the media could no longer hide the fact that he had been unprepared to lead four years ago, and that even given the job by the manipulations of their own affirmative journalism on his behalf, he remains unsuited to the office because after four years, he’s learned nothing, because it was never demanded of him.  The media will double-down on this approach because they’re desperate, and don’t have any other ideas, except to attack Romney, but at this late date, there is nothing they can do to make up for their malpractice.  Obama is who he is, and it’s too late to fix that, but that doesn’t mean the media won’t try.

 

Obama Supporters All About the Freebies

Thursday, September 27th, 2012

Obama Phone?

If you want to know the sort of America President Barack Obama is building, check out this video.  This woman appeared among a number of protesters at a Romney event outside Cleveland, Ohio, on Wednesday.  Ladies and gentlemen, viewing this video, it is hard to understand why Republicans in Congress have refused to put a stop to some of the hand-outs, and what this woman is contending is true: There are government subsidized phones, but in truth, this actually goes all the way back to Bill Clinton, and was continued under George Bush. Still, this woman believes it is an “Obama-phone” and quite obviously, it is one more reason she supports Barack Obama.  I wonder how she would feel if she were informed that this could also be called a “Bush-Phone?”

For Mitt Romney to win the presidency, this is the mindset he will need to defeat, but sadly, it’s growing and spreading like a cancer across this nation.  Can anybody defeat this? Have we passed the tipping point whereby people who share this woman’s mindset will simply vote to install one dictatorial monster after another into the White House?

Time will tell, but if you want to know how the country is being destroyed, start with this video.

Our founding fathers must be turning in their graves.

 

Incompetent or Malevolent?

Sunday, September 16th, 2012

Too wrong to be accidental

As the leftists in the mainstream media continue excuse Barack Obama, I believe the American people are beginning to catch on.  At every turn, President Obama’s policies are failures, viewed from the standpoint of ordinary Americans who value the future of their country.  The problem is that Obama undoubtedly views these as successes, since he is in no way ordinary in his view of America.  Remember, he thinks America is an exceptional nation “in the same way the Greeks believe Greece is an exceptional nation.”  The truth is that Barack Obama views the United States as an exceptionally evil nation that must be crushed, and cut down to size.  He exhibits certain loyalties to other cultures and philosophies that are fundamentally at odds with the uniquely American culture that had given rise to our national prominence and prosperity.  Since his inauguration, virtually every policy he has advanced has furthered his aim of deconstructing America. This growing crisis isn’t a result of simple negligence, but instead the culmination of a drive to make America nearly irrelevant around the globe.  He has overseen a bankrupting of the nation that will effectively force the United States to withdraw from the world, leaving us unable to afford to defend even our own borders.  Some believe he is merely inept, or “in over his head,” but that doesn’t fit the facts.  Obama is achieving the “dreams from his father” to the detriment of every American, as well as the civilized world.

Before you dismiss this out of hand, you ought to consider the laundry list of policies he has undertaken that are by the fact of their aim, obnoxious to American ideals and values.  Providing missile defense secrets to the Russians cannot be in the interests of the people of the United States, yet this he has done without the first explanation of his rationale.  Fortunately, we know his thinking because it shows in every policy he has implemented:  The United States must not be permitted a technological edge against potential enemies.  In his view, it allows the US to have much more influence around the globe than it “deserves.” You dastardly Americans have had your way in the world for far too long, and he’s out to correct that “imbalance.”

He has driven out regimes that were at least malleable in the face of cash throughout the Middle East.  It is true that some of these leaders were monstrous, Gaddafi for instance, but our relationship with Hosni Mubarak was hardly the worst convenient arrangement we’d ever entered in that part of the world.  As he pushed the “Arab Spring” forward, one had to question the wisdom of all of this as we saw radicals making huge advances in many of these formerly cooperative countries.  Turkey is now ruled by a growing Islamic radicalism, and Tunisia is a wreck born of this movement.  Iraq is coming apart at the seams again, and throughout the Gulf states, Islamic radicalism is leaping forward.  One might make a serious error in relation to one country or another, but what Obama has wrought is a region-wide disaster.  What do you suppose will happen when the radicals chase us out of every oil-producing state?  How long do you suppose we will keep the taps flowing?  What will become of us then?  Will you ride a solar bicycle to work?  Will you enjoy twenty dollar gasoline?  Obama’s “green energy” plans are a farce, and always have been, and he knew that too, which is why he invested so much of our money in various boondoggles that were really simple kick-backs to political donors.

He is in the process of making our nation defenseless.  Defense of our nation requires much more than a few bombers, tanks, and the personnel to operate them.  One of the greatest threats to our nation is the fiscal and monetary policy of the US Government.  Our government consumes too much, and the overwhelming bulk of spending is for the entitlement sector.  It is already squeezing out defense expenditures, which is one of the few perfectly legitimate functions of our constitutional form of government.  This was known long before it began to become a reality, and it’s been an object of Obama’s runaway spending all along.  What sort of responsible President would use the troops’ paychecks as a bargaining chip in a budget battle, threatening to cut them off if he didn’t have his way?

Obama has created a growing rift in American society.  This rift has racial elements, but it has created divisions between generations.  He is setting the stage for an environment in which the young will be at war with the old over diminishing federal resources.  His economic policies have created an entire generation of discontent, but because they’ve been largely indoctrinated rather than educated, too few are able to see that the man who poses as their savior is instead acting as the agent of their enslavement and impoverishment.  What else can be the meaning of Occupy Wall Street, a movement planned and coordinated, as well as funded by his radical friends?  To watch some of these poor dumb souls run about mouthing the articles of faith from communism, but unable to even recognize their advocacy as such is a study in irony only to be fully appreciated by the perfectly mad.

On the international stage, the man who promised to make the world love or at least accept America has accomplished the precise opposite.  Contempt for America has grown in all quarters, both because we have become weaker, and because we have abandoned many of our allies.  The snubs of the Brits and the Israelis are among the most telling, because these had been two of our best friends in recent years.  No longer.  The Israelis government must wonder each day if it is to strike Iran in a pre-emptive attack on nuclear facilities whether Obama will use the occasion as an excuse to create an alliance with Iran.  How many times, and in how many ways has he foolishly insulted our British friends, disclaiming anything “special” about our relationship with an ally who we together stood through two World Wars, and many lesser engagements?  To discover that we now have a cool relationship with our historical allies should be an embarrassment to Obama, but it’s not, because while those alliances have made us stronger over time, that is the antithesis of his goal.

Viewed carefully, one can detect even in his domestic policies a certain contempt for the American people.  Obama-care was enacted over the wild objections of the American people, and his policies on illegal immigration, including his de facto amnesty policies are obnoxious to every American who came here by standing in line and observing the legal process.  Examine how he is now using executive orders and policy changes in various federal departments in order to increase the number of gun confiscations.  Look at how his surrogates now agitate against free speech.  Remember when liberals told us that virtually anything goes in the name of free speech?  Look at how they have run away from that as they have shifted the limiting of speech into the service of their political agenda.

He abhors Christianity, at least insofar as it isn’t the product of broken minds like Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s.  Black liberation theology is more of a political philosophy than a religious one.  Meanwhile, Catholics and other Christians who may have serious ethical issues with funding of abortion and contraception through taxpayer dollars are now shocked to see that such policies will be imposed now through regulations on health insurance.  It’s funny that while he has undertaken to make the world safe[r] for Shariah, he has done everything possible to punish Christians of various denominations.

I could go on for many pages, but the fact is that it really isn’t necessary.  My readers will have known by now that this President isn’t making any “mistakes” in his eyes, or in the intentions of the left.  Everything he is doing or has done pursues as its ultimate object the diminution of the United States of America.  Nobody could get this many things wrong by accident.  Sheer chance alone would demand that something come out right once in a while that would be good for the American people, if all this were accidental.  It’s not.  What we are witnessing is the result of a coordinated effort to reduce the United States to irrelevancy, or even vulnerability. It’s being done with a malice aforethought in what can only be termed the premeditated murder of the greatest nation in the history of the world.  It’s time we deny to him the alibi of incompetence for once and for all.  His presidency has been too heinous and too malevolent to have been the result of negligence alone.

The “Religion of Peace” on Global Rampage

Friday, September 14th, 2012

Building up to what?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious issue, and for all of those who say it’s wrong to condemn a whole religion for the actions of a few, I may hear that argument but its weight is diminishing as the entire globe lights with the fires of violent Jihadi protests.  There’s no more disguising it:  The radical global Jihadi front is on the march, and it includes elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it also includes elements of Hamas, al Qaeda, and various other groups around the globe.  In London, our embassy is seeing increasingly violent protests.  In Berlin, the same thing is true.  Let me explain what is happening:  They are using the fraudulent claim of a Youtube video as the grounds for what they’re doing, but that’s not what those driving this have in mind.  They wish to drive the US out of the Middle East, and ultimately, out of Europe, and they’re gambling that weak-kneed Europeans will be glad to comply, since they have a long history of capitulating to the Islamists who have gained increasing influence in their countries due to liberal immigration policies and ridiculous welfare programs.

They have their toe-holds in Europe, and it is now their intention to begin to take it all over.  They’re not quite strong enough to do so, but what they have in mind is to create enough chaos in Europe and the US that we will withdraw entirely from the Middle East.  It’s an attempt to isolate Israel, but also the United States.

Now we have an evacuation at the University of Texas in Austin due to a caller claiming to be a member of al-Qaeda, and word has now arrived that the State University of North Dakota at Fargo is evacuating over similar bomb threats. Also, Valparaiso University is being evacuated for unspecified threats.

This is a day of rampage for the “Religion of Peace.”  This is at least partly the result of a foreign policy directed by an affirmative action Nobel Prize recipient.  America is under attack.  The West is under attack.  It is only a matter of time until Israel comes under ferocious attack.  What is President Obama doing about it?

Nothing.

Barack Obama isn’t merely a failed President.  He’s failed as an American.

 

Mr. L Cuts Through the Nonsense on Islamic Supremacists

Friday, September 14th, 2012

Telling You What the Media Won't

Take a little time and listen to Mr. L’s Tavern from Thursday, the 13th of September.  His commentary is on the money.  It’s disgusting that our lame-stream media won’t offer honest appraisals like this, but it’s the reason they’re slowly losing the last of their readers and viewers. Mr. L takes on the coddling of Islamic supremacists, as performed [again] by Barack Obama and his foreign policy.  It’s a disaster for this country, and whether you believe he is simply naive, or you believe that Barack Obama is actively engaged in undermining this nation, it’s impossible to dismiss what Mr. L explains in this installment of his show:

 

Be sure to check out Mr. L’s Tavern for more great commentaries!

Obama Administration Had 48 Hour Warning – Did Nothing

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Arabs Spring a Trap

The UK Independent is reporting that there had been a high level security leak that provided the militants al-Qaeda the information necessary to carry out the attacks in Benghazi, including timing about Amb. Steven’s visit, and information about the safe-house location that ultimately came under mortar fire.  Worse, the White House knew about the threat but did nothing to pass the information along to personnel on the ground in Libya, waiting until after the disaster to send a special Marine anti-terror team into Libya.  No warnings were issued to personnel that would have permitted them to call off the Benghazi trip or otherwise augment security.  It was a set-up.  It had nothing to do with any film, except perhaps as a cover.  With this new information, it should be clear that Barack Obama is incompetent to lead this nation, and his lack of leadership is now a security threat all its own.

The entire attack was orchestrated, and it is now becoming clear that somebody who had extremely sensitive inside information about the movements of the Ambassador and other Embassy and Consular personnel must have provided that information to the attackers.   Muslim Brotherhood links to the White House must be examined, as must all Libyans, or other personnel working in and around the Department of State both in Washington and on the ground in Libya.   This crisis evinces the most stunning foreign policy and intelligence failures since the “Bay of Pigs” in 1962, and it appears to be worsening.

Given past threats on or around the 9/11 anniversary, one would think there would have been at least general warnings sent out to Embassies and Consulates worldwide, but neither the State Department under the leadership mismanagement of Secretary Hillary Clinton nor anybody in the Executive branch answering to the President seems to have been the least bit concerned.  More, we ought to suspect there are insiders in either the State Department or in the Executive branch feeding information to al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Not only do we have amateurs in the White House and in the State Department, but we must have somebody playing for the other team in close proximity to sensitive information.   Barack Obama has left us financially broken, militarily naked, and isolated from our only reliable ally in the region, Israel.  He has no time for Benjamin Netanyahu, no time for security or intelligence briefings, and no time to lead this nation.  Meanwhile, the lapdog media in the US continues to pretend none of this is happening, while  none of our reporters will even attempt to ask President Obama a question.  We had 48 hours or more of warning, and President Obama didn’t bolster security? Nobody in the lame-stream media is even slightly curious?

This is a dereliction of duty that shouldn’t be forgiven or forgotten.  I don’t want to hear any excuses about him having a blind spot with respect to Islam because of his acculturation.  No way.  This is the President who bowed his way through the Middle East, and apologizes repeatedly to Islam.  This is a wreck, and he made it.

Barack Obama’s Despicable Conduct of US Foreign Policy

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Hoisting al Qaeda's Colors

We’ve known for some time that US foreign policy has become the instrument by which America has been ceding its interests around the globe, but what the response of President Obama and his State Department to attacks on US personnel in Libya reveals is a sickness that pervades this administration from top to bottom.   We have seen administrations in the past that have failed to put America’s interests first in our global relations, but it is clear from the record that Obama’s foreign policy consists of a single maxim: “America Last.”  This nightmarish projection of the dreams of Obama’s father onto American foreign policy is not merely wrong-headed, or ill-conceived, but instead plainly and virulently anti-American.  At every turn, Obama and his minions place the interests, the safety, and the security of the American people dead last, and the media scurries to cover it up.  Examining what’s happened in Libya and around the Middle East, it is impossible to conclude that the results were accidental.  The events we’re witnessing are the direct result of a policy that puts America last, at home, and around the world, and Barack Obama is that policy’s author.

On September 11th, 2012, American consulates and embassies came under attack by radical, militant Islamists.  In Benghazi, our ambassador to the nation of Libya, Chris Stevens was murdered, his life poached by murderous thugs who were bent on attacking Americans on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001.  Outside the consulate, the chant  “Take a picture, Obama, we are all Osama,” could be heard, and while Americans were under attack, the first assumption the State Department made about the motives of the attackers was that it had been a backlash against an anti-Islamic film aimed at exposing the crimes of Islam against the Coptic Christians of Egypt.

This is not merely naive, but foolish.  In what is clearly a coordinated effort to attack US possessions and personnel, our ambassador was beaten and killed, dying of “severe asphyxia.”  Meanwhile, Barack Obama does nothing, but as bad as that is, I am astonished by Hillary Clinton’s naive remarks in a statement released in the aftermath of the attacks:

“How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.”

These are the words of the Secretary of State of the United States of America?   A few things come immediately to mind:  When many responsible Americans, myself among them, warned that the so-called “Arab Spring” was a farce, we were mocked as “reactionary” and “conspiracy theorists.”  When we looked on in horror as Senator McCain(R-AZ) went to Libya, and actively supported the imposition of a no fly zone in Libya, many were horrified because all the signs were present that we had climbed into bed with al Qaeda and affiliate organizations.  Secretary Clinton’s advancement of the “Arab Spring” and “Democracy Movement” notions of the Obama administration are simply deplorable, and this question posed as a rhetorical device by Clinton simply serve to demonstrate the point that she should resign in disgrace.

Naturally, in her long and rambling statement, she expressed appropriate grief at out losses in Libya, but then she began the excuse-making on behalf of Libya:

“But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post.”

This is disgraceful.  It is true that Libyan security teams moved our consular staff, but what Mrs. Clinton doesn’t state here is that it was these very Libyans who told the militants where they had moved our people, essentially giving them up.   Meanwhile, as of this writing, there are al Qaeda flags flying over at least two US facilities in the Middle East, and other facilities are now under attack, including Yemen, and al-Jazeera is propagandizing as flags are burned in Tunisia.  The consulate in Berlin has been evacuated because of a suspicious package.  Iraqi militants are threatening, and new attacks have been launched on US facilities in Cairo, Egypt.  The Examiner is now reporting that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was murdered.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is too busy to attend security and intelligence briefings, since he can’t miss a fund-raiser anywhere.  I find it simply mind-numbing that our consular staff in Libya  is left to issue a statement or that Hillary Clinton is issuing statements, while Barack Obama appears long enough to say a few words, takes no questions, and walks away.  “The buck stops here” apparently doesn’t apply to President Obama, but I have some questions:

  • Why wasn’t a coordinated attack of some sort on the 11th of September anticipated by the Obama administration?
  • Why wasn’t security augmented before the attacks?
  • When Ayman al-Zawahiri issued a statement a urging Muslims to rise up and attack Americans around the world, why didn’t this administration react to the danger?
  • Why hasn’t President Obama attended all the security and intelligence briefings?
  • Why is this President still playing patty-cakes with the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Wing of the White House?

Rather than seeking answers to these questions, the American press has largely gone into a protective mode, giving aid and comfort to President Obama, instead going after Mitt Romney by pretending there had been some gaffe by virtue of his statements on this matter.  The truth of the matter is that these had been some of the finest moments of what has been a mostly lackluster campaign by Team Romney.

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States is once again under attack, and as the acts of war against us accumulate at consulates and embassies around the globe, we need a President who is willing to take on the threats arrayed against us.  Governor Sarah Palin made a strong statement on Wednesday, rebuking the intolerably useless under-reaction of the Obama administration.  It’s clear that Barack Obama isn’t going to stand up for America, her interests, or even her citizens serving abroad.  There’s something fundamentally broken with Barack Obama’s worldview that would permit him to continue on his current course in light of all that has happened.  We have a man in the White House who is seeking to damage the country, and through his inaction in the face of mayhem and murder is abetting the enemies of America.  Barack Obama should heed now his own advice to Hosni Mubarak. Speaking of Egypt, Obama said: “[the transition] must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now.”

Amen.  Go home, Mr. Obama…and take Mrs. Clinton with you.

 

Obama and the Convention of Zero

Saturday, September 8th, 2012

Joining the Collective

In mathematics, it’s known as the empty set.  It’s a grouping with no constituent parts, and if the Democrat National Convention proved anything, it was that this is a party with no heart, no soul, and no intellect.  One of my concerns has long been that the Republicans seem determined to follow in the footsteps of the Democrats, and it is clear that the GOP establishment has its tendencies in the direction of the void, but this week, the whole world was treated to the meaning of what it is to be a Democrat in 2012, and it is horrifying.  One might feel badly having watched the grotesque spectacle of a clear majority of the delegates screaming their contempt for the State of Israel, never mind their dismissal of faith.  Among the sea of screeching voices, there were some who voted for the platform amendments at issue, and it is for them we might have a small measure of pity.  They succeeded strictly because it had been commanded from the top, but you could see it in their faces:  They knew they had lost to at least a simple majority of the delegates.  This is the fruit of three generations of Democrats who have sold their souls to an unerringly anti-American, anti-existence faction that is now an irreducible majority of their party.  Barack Obama stands now as the spokesman for a dead ideology that is both massive and empty at once.

In physics, a singularity is an object of infinite density, exerting a force of gravity from which there can be no escape. One may be pulled into a black hole, one’s very atoms being accreted onto its mass and subsumed into the whole, but one can never escape, and having arrived there, is reduced to approximately nothing.  Nothing escapes.  It is impossible to discern anything about a singularity, because we can’t see them. In this sense, they are nothing.  Not matter, in any form we know. No energy exists there, save for that generated by its gravitational attraction.  No light can escape its grasp, and nothing new is born there.  It is a place to which energy and matter disappear, never to be seen again.  This is the Democrat party, and those faces looking bewildered before the cameras as they realized that despite winning “in the opinion of the chair,” the majority of their party had condemned them to the blackness of their ideological singularity, thus pulling them in.  Those who still wanted Israel’s capital at Jerusalem to be recognized as such were confronted by a mass of people who did not.  Those who still wanted the simple but significant three-letter word “God” to appear in the platform realized they were a minority.  Like the stellar flotsam and jetsam whirling about the event horizon of a singularity, it was too late, and the look on their faces revealed the horror of their situation: The Democrat Party has become a party of death, destruction, and depravity, and drawn in too close, there can be no escape.

Bill Clinton was fetched-in to mount a defense of the indefensible.  As ever, Clinton did what he always does: Lie. Perhaps the more mortifying part of it in this instance is that he too had become part of the flotsam and jetsam, and while he offered one distortion after the next on behalf of a President who he doesn’t like, and who has ravaged the country by design, with malice aforethought, Bill Clinton waggled his finger at the American people just as he did when he said infamously: “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”  As he lied then, so too did Bill Clinton prevaricate with vigor at the convention.  He attempted with the feigned sincerity of  the ages to tell the American people that they are better off today than they had been four years ago.  Ladies and gentlemen, there can be no forgiveness for this.  There can be no rationalizations.  When a former President of the United States tells a whopper of this scale, what can possibly redeem him?  Naturally, the media loved him, but that had been a predictable result based on an ideology they share.  Once subsumed within the singularity, there is no escape.

Michelle Obama told us she loves her husband.  Forgive me, but I think she lied.  I think Mrs. Obama loves the idea of her husband, but what love is expressed in such a manner?  The entire focus of this speech was to answer Ann Romney, but if she held that as her goal, she failed.  She concocted stories of the early poverty of the couple, but those tales of woe do not match the record.  To say Mrs. Obama had fibbed to the convention, and to the American people would be a gross injustice.  She lied, and under the harsh lights of the convention stage, she did so with practiced, perfected gusto.Again, the media extolled her virtues, couching much of their praise in terms of the quality of her delivery, but seldom noticing the first thing about the shoddy set of alleged facts she presented.  We knew this would happen too, because once inside, there is no return path.

Not to be outdone, President Obama spoke about the things in which Democrats believe.  He lauded Bill Clinton, but he did not mention that Clinton had been on a path to a disaster similar to his own until the Gingrich revolution of 1994. He did not explain how more of the same would save the nation.  He did not offer an excuse so much as he begged for more time.  He appeared like the man whose car is being repossessed, begging the repo crew for more time, for one more extension, and for one last chance to make it right.  He might plead with the lenders, but they are tired of his excuses and want no more of them.  They simply wish to be made whole, or to minimize their losses.  They are not in the mood to offer more time, believing it has expired, and they have begun to suspect that to extend more patience will be rewarded only with more broken promises and a longer list of unrealized deliverables.

The President made more promises, vows about continuing a change begun with his election, but nevertheless being a change that has been disastrous for the country. The truth of Barack Obama’s “change” is akin to the spaghettification one would undergo on the way into a black hole: It might be change, but it won’t be pleasant, and it’s not what had been imagined. The “hope” also abounds, but it is baseless: There can be no escape and no coming back from this singularity.  These last four years, we have been fortunate in one respect, and one respect only: We have defied physics because we have been able to catch a glimpse what lies beyond the event horizon, and the American people, driven by self-preservation, simply do not wish to go there, knowing now in full what it will mean.

Clint Eastwood’s empty chair is an apt symbol of the emptiness of the President Obama, but it is also an expression of the fundamental problem of the ideology of the left.  The only source of their power is the gravity of their aggregated mass, but they have no energy, they create nothing new, and they offer nothing but death as an answer to all problems.  Consider the litany of issues in which Democrats and their cohorts offer solutions, and it is always in the direction of the zero.  Unwanted pregnancies?  Abortions. (Kill them!)  Profits?  Taxes. (Kill them!)  Increased longevity?  Death Panels. (Kill them!)  Civilization? Environmental regulations. (Kill it!)  Population growth?  Contraception. (Prevent them from living!)  Everything about the root ideology of the left is leveraged in favor of death, destruction, and depravity.  This is the hallmark of their message, but whether they succeed or fail is entirely your choice.  You have now been dragged to the edge of their event horizon, but unlike so many of their past victims, you know what lies beyond it.  You know that it’s a gargantuan, relentless, and crushing emptiness.  This election may very well be your last chance at escape.

Six billion subsumed voices await you inside.  After all, misery loves company.

Michelle Obama’s Nutritional Finger-Waggling

Wednesday, August 15th, 2012

Setting Her Back?

On Monday night’s renewal of the Jay Leno show, Michelle Obama appeared along with Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas, and as the discussion went on, Douglas mentioned eating a celebratory Egg McMuffin from McDonalds.  Self-appointed National Nutrition Czar Michelle Obama, who enjoys telling everybody on the planet what to eat, chided Douglas over the choice. I realize this was said mainly in jest, but frankly, Michelle Obama needs to shut the hell up.  Gabby Douglas needs Michelle Obama as a nutrition adviser like I need her husband as an automobile consultant.  “No, I don’t want an exploding electric car, Mr. President.” There’s something wrong with the Obamas, and it comes down to their desire to run the lives of others, but more than this, there is something unseemly about a woman who has no accomplishments of note(beyond marrying a guy who was elected President,) counseling or even jokingly chiding an Olympian about her choices of foods.

Really, what the hell has Michelle Obama ever accomplished?  She was an attorney for a while, and she served in some positions in Chicago that appeared to have been little more than political favors to her husband.  Apart from that, and apart from spending millions of taxpayer dollars on her seemingly endless string of vacations, I can’t imagine what has qualified the lady to give any sort of nutritional advice to anyone, never mind an Olympian who has managed to train her whole life long and win Olympic glory all without the help of Michelle Obama.  There were no quotas, no set-asides, and no special favors for Gabby Douglas, her only way forward and up to the top available having been to achieve it by her own efforts.  She didn’t obtain  Olympic fame and fortune by marrying a gymnastics judge.

I have no problem with first spouses who are accomplished in their own right.  I think it’s terrific to see First Ladies becoming involved in various causes, but they shouldn’t have any official power, and in truth, they shouldn’t have any role in governance because we don’t elect them.  Until Hillary Clinton, most first ladies tended to restrain themselves to charitable activities and voluntary efforts, more or less, but something was wrong with Hillary Clinton becoming involved in health-care plans, just as  there’s something wrong with Michelle Obama nattering-on about nutrition.  Hillary Clinton is not a medical professional, an insurance professional, and at the time, she hadn’t been elected to anything.  Similarly, Michelle Obama is not a nutritionist, knows damnably little about food beyond consuming it, but certainly little about its production, and yet here she chastises the Olympian?    Of course, she also toured Army posts earlier this year examining their dining facilities, and what nutrition is available to our soldiers, as if the Army needs her advice or direction.

I’m tired of this nonsense.  I’m tired of her fake wisdom and her husband’s fake Presidency.  For the better part of four years, we have had to listen to these two self-aggrandized nit-wits chiding the nation over this or that, but frankly, it’s time for them to shut the hell up.  At every turn, here they are to remind us of a ruling family in some tin-pot dictatorship, like Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos of the Philippines, and while we can guess than Michelle doesn’t have 2700 pair of shoes, she does seem to have a thing for belts.  I don’t believe the American people hired Barack Obama to provide a nutrition consultant in the form of his wife, and I don’t think the American people need any more lectures on the evils of oil.  It’s long past time for these two to leave the White House, and be stricken from the American memory in the same way we have tried to forget James and Rosalyn Carter.

The next time I see Michelle Obama doing anything athletically, gracefully, and with extraordinary discipline, it will be the first, but until then, she should leave the nutritional concerns of our Olympians, our soldiers, and indeed our entire nation to qualified parties.  When I notice how emaciated Barack appears, I wonder how well she’s looking after her own family’s nutrition. In stark contrast, like the champion she is, Gabby Douglas handled the situation with good humor, and her gracious approach sits well with her Olympic achievement.  It’s too bad we don’t have a First Lady with similar grace and class.

 

 

 

 

Poor Paul Ryan…

Saturday, August 11th, 2012

Mitt Keeps Tight Grip

Mitt Romney has announced his running mate, selecting seven-term Congressman Paul Ryan(R-WI) to fill the post. While I like Paul Ryan, I don’t think this choice will change the trajectory of this campaign, and like Sarah Palin in 2008, he may be the campaign’s biggest individual victim. Ryan has been inside Washington DC for nearly two decades now, a creature of the establishment who has worked for various well-known figures including Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Sam Brownback and others before kicking off his Congressional career.  Ryan is a technocrat in some respects, and while he is modestly conservative, his conservatism seems focused in the fiscal arena.  He’s been depicted by Democrats in television ads as the guy who pushed Grandma (in a wheelchair, no less) over a cliff.  What does he bring to the ticket?  Is Paul Ryan enough to save Romney from himself and a heretofore inept campaign?  Paul Ryan may be a nice guy, but is that enough in the face of a relentless attack the likes of which the Obama campaign is launching as I write?  I have my doubts, because running mates can’t overcome the inherent shortcomings of the top of the ticket, as the selection of Palin in 2008 proved, since even her talent wasn’t enough to overcome terrible advisers.  Can Ryan avoid the same fate?

Some might argue that what Ryan brings to the ticket is youth but also reliability.  After all, the seven-term Congressman has been toiling on budgetary matters for most of his career, and in the last number of years, he’s been focused on entitlements as the single largest factor in our continued deficits, and the consequent explosion in our national debt.  He was a fierce critic of Obama-care, laying out all of the ways in which it would explode our deficit, costing far more than promised by President Obama.  His willingness to tackle the entitlements issue when others ran for the tall grass earns him a gold star, and everybody should see this video of Ryan facing off with the President, explaining that hiding costs doesn’t reduce spending:

Romney is looking for a safe pick.  He wants a running mate who won’t embarrass him, but of course, Gov. Romney does enough of that on his own.  While in Norfolk,VA to officially launch his campaign, introducing Paul Ryan, Romney introduced Ryan as the “Next President of the United States…”  (We should be so lucky.)

Romney wanted a safe pick, and he got one.  Ryan is safe in every way an establishment Republican thinks is safe, but he isn’t a particularly charismatic or inspiring fellow.  He certainly seems like a nice enough fellow, but historical Republican losing tickets are littered with nice guys as running mates.  Dan Quayle is a nice guy.  Jack Kemp was a really nice guy.  What Romney’s ticket had needed was a bit more than a nice guy, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Paul Ryan except that he will not provide the boost Romney’s campaign needs.

Naturally, the Democrats were right out of the box with attacks on Ryan’s foreign policy experience, and true to form, Romney’s team countered with perhaps the most pathetic response ever:

“The ticket is no different than Obama and Biden.”

In the end, this may be why I agree with Mr. L on the 2012 election:

If the Romney campaign is going to defend Ryan’s lack of military and foreign policy experience on this basis, they’re going to lose. Who is running the Romney campaign?  To me, it looks like a re-run of 2008, with the weakest possible nominee, and a rising conservative lion in the role of sacrificial lamb.

I like Paul Ryan, and in fact, I like him too well to see him sacrificed on the altar of another losing campaign.  Just as Sarah Palin was sliced and diced by a dishonest press working on behalf of a desperate Obama campaign in 2008, I think we’re going to see the same thing in 2012 with Paul Ryan, although I doubt they could match their venom of 2008.  Why is it that for the second presidential campaign in succession, I have the distinct feeling that the Republican ticket should be flipped?

Of course, there’s one inescapable conclusion to be drawn from all of this, and it references those who Gov. Palin might consider part of the “permanent political class” of Washington DC, who move from campaign to campaign, party to party, back and forth and around again: It seems the same bunch is running the show in 2012 for the Republicans.  I noticed Elliot Abrams, who wrote a disgusting anti-Gingrich screed earlier this year was briefing Paul Ryan on foreign policy.  I noticed Andrea Saul, who worked for McCain in 2008, is doing Romney no favors in 2012.  It seems like the Romney campaign has hired many of the same faces who have remained behind the scenes, infecting Washington DC for a generation, and they all have something in common:  They know how to fight against conservatives, but they seem less than sincere in their fight against leftists.  One can only imagine why.

 Note to regular readers: Thank you for your prayers and get-well wishes as I’ve been recovering from an eye injury.  It’s still pretty sore, but on the mend. Thank you!