Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for October, 2012

Monstrous Storm to Monstrous Election Confrontation?

Just when you think you have it right, life steps in and reminds you how shortsighted you can be. The first Lady was right about voting early because toilets may overflow. Mother Nature just caused millions of toilets to back up and many east coast voters may not be able to use polling places and equipment to vote. What are the odds?

I am genuinely apprehensive about next week’s election and the consequences of wide spread power outages up and down the eastern seaboard. For the first time in my life many Americans may not be able to cast a ballot on Election Day. Electronic voting systems may not be able to function as designed and many States simply don’t have the emergency paper ballots or equipment to scan and tabulate those ballots available for next week’s election.

If you thought the 2000 Bush/Gore Florida election was a debacle, wait until this one works itself out. The largest city in the United States is flooded and power may not be restored in suburban New York Areas for over a week. If this election is close or if President Obama is defeated, I suspect that our entire national voting protocols will be dissected and scrutinized like no other time in our nation’s history.

At least half a dozen states have been seriously affected by this storm and while voters work through the devastation Sandy has wrought, my concerns for Election Day continue to grow. I know that many in our country may be reveling in thought that the Democrat dominated East Coast may not be able to vote but what of the integrity of our electoral process? Does Obama really need an excuse to challenge the outcome of this election?

At a time when serious governing decisions need to be made, this extreme weather event will test the foundation of our Democracy. The United States cannot afford to wage an agenda-driven, and what might be an extended, legal battle to determine the outcome of our Presidential Election. Our Federal government has been sitting on their hands and waiting for the outcome of this election before moving on make-or-break legislation our nation needed four years ago. Real catastrophe is on the horizon and the world is watching this election closely.

It is my belief that we are headed for a monstrous confrontation over this election. Add Sandy and it just gets worse. For months small battles have been waged about voter suppression and alleged Civil Rights violations in swing states across America. Trust me when I say there will be no concession speech until all votes are counted and certified in this election.

It will be interesting to see how the media behaves while this election plays out. Now more than ever they have the power to set America on fire with already inflamed racial tensions making many nervous. Not only will the character of our elections be tested, but so will the boundaries of the First Amendment. Politically predisposed news anchors and journalists would do well to show some restraint when choosing to re-light the fuse of racial animosity that has been burning during the campaign.

The damage Sandy wreaked on the East Coast is repairable, but the carnage that could be unleashed if Americans believe an election was stolen is incalculable. In the end, like it or not, we are a nation of differing opinions and explosive passions. If our leaders fail to protect the rule of law in our upcoming election it could spell the beginning of the end for our Republic.


Obama’s Benghazi Bungle? Yea – Americans are Bothered …


Home / 2012 Election /

By / 30 October 2012 / 7 Comments

It appears the Benghazi, Libya cover-up and the mismanagement of Embassy protection and ambassador protection may be the nail in the Obama campaign coffin.  As voters learn more about this fiasco, they are outraged.

Voters are bothered by the fact that the Consulate in Benghazi did not have adequate protection. Voters are bothered that the Ambassador and the consulate personnel did not have a properly functioning security force and safe room. Voters are bothered that the president and his administration did not respond appropriately to the attack and calls for help. Voters are bothered that Obama went to bed on the evening of the attack and got up the next day and conducted business as usual – a short inappropriate speech from the Rose Garden – two days of campaigning in Las Vegas and Colorado – a   fund-raiser in NY City sponsored by Jay-Z and Beyonce – and an appearance on the David Letterman show.  Voters are bothered that the President did not stay at his desk or in the situation room at the White House providing appropriate analysis, leadership and encouragement.

Voters are bothered by the Obama  administration’s attempt to cover-up the Benghazi atrocity and its mismanaged preparation and response. Voters are especially bothered by the arrogance of President Obama during the second debate – looking Governor Romney and the TV cameras in the eye and stating that he was offended by the accusations that he and anyone in his administration were misleading the American people about the cause of the Benghazi attack.

Obama has been accused throughout his administration of Leading from Behind – which is a diplomatic way of saying: he is following. Of course, Obama’s had little choice but to follow – having come into office completely unprepared – with no executive, management or leadership experience. He was and still is totally dependent on appointees – mostly from academia – who are similarly lacking in proven executive, management and leadership experience. Never has Obama’s inadequacies and deceptiveness been more thoroughly exposed than during the past forty days.

Although the electorate is primarily concerned with jobs, wages, their loss of personal wealth, and overall economic growth – they have not lost sight of the importance of foreign-policy and the military incompetence of our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.  And they are made very unhappy by the Benghazi demonstration of Obama’s incompetence – by the facts exposed by the Benghazi cover-up – and most of all, by the President’s inappropriate response to this attack while it was happening – and by his subsequent participation in its cover-up.

Needless to say, the time has come to hire a proven Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.  Romney/Ryan are the best of the best – a perfect team – a proven CEO, a Congressional leader, a financial expert, and a turnaround specialist – precisely what America needs today.

Image: The Keystone Cops; Publicity still: 1914, In the Clutches of the Gang; courtesy of author: Mack Sennett Studios; permission: PD-US.

Could Hurricane Sandy Affect the 2012 Election?

Marion Smith

October 30, 2012 at 11:36 am

The unusual question was asked to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: “Would the President have the power to adjust Election Day?” Within hours, online forums and TV pundits began citing precedent for postponing elections, most notably the New York City mayoral election just after 9/11—a municipal election that, legally, has nothing to do with federal election timetables. Looking at U.S. history, it is clear that there is no precedent for postponing a national presidential election, even in the midst of foreign or domestic wars. Moreover, the President lacks the constitutional authority to alter or postpone a national election; the election timetable is specified by statute of Congress as authorized by the Constitution.

No Precedent in 225 Years

The 1812 presidential election took place as the United States was fighting its fourth foreign war. President James Madison sought re-election several months after declaring war on Great Britain and won by the narrowest margin in U.S. history to date. The election was inconvenient to the prosecution of the war and its outcome uncertain due to a bitterly partisan and nearly even national split, but the election was carried out on schedule. Postponing the national election was not seriously contemplated.

In an even more disruptive state of war in 1864, President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that the scheduled elections “added not a little to the strain” of the ongoing struggle, but postponement was not an option. “We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.” Lincoln further noted that keeping to schedule “demonstrated that a people’s government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility.”

As disruptive as hurricanes are, wars are much more so. Considering that the United States has maintained a regular and uninterrupted national election schedule for more than two centuries, including in times of devastating war, Hurricane Sandy would seem an odd and unlikely reason to postpone the presidential election. Not unlike 1864, it is an opportunity to prove to the world that the American people’s government can sustain a national election even in the aftermath of a terrible hurricane. As such, 2012 is yet another milestone of continuity for America’s experiment in constitutional self-government.

Who Can Modify Scheduled National Elections?

Beyond the absence of precedent, it is worth asking who has the legal authority to alter a nationally scheduled election. Carney’s answer: “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

Yet, clearly, the President does not have such authority. If the November 6 election were to be postponed in all or parts of America, it must be the result of congressional legislation. Congress would have to amend the statute setting the timetable of presidential elections since 1854 (3 U.S.C. § 1) as the “Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” or allow for a vis maior postponement of the elections in the states affected by the hurricane.

Carney should revisit his statement and thereby indicate that the White House understands its constitutional limits and the historical record on this issue. To leave this question open simply gives Americans the worry of wondering whether or not the President understands the limits of his constitutional authority on the matter of national elections.

Trick or Treat



The aftermath of Sandy defies description.

  • Three feet of Snow in West Virginia;
  • Several inches of sand covering everything several miles inland in New Jersey;
  • The front of a building in New York City completely blown off;
  • A wind-blown fire wiping out 80 homes;
  • Millions of people without power, safe drinking water and uncertain sewers;
  • Transportation interrupted, especially flights.

I have prayed, and I hope you have been too, for the victims of this historic storm. Such devastation boggles the mind and the cost of recovery will be staggering, especially because we’re broke as a nation.

However, Americans have always rallied behind our fellow citizens who are suffering and in need. We will respond again. Already all the forces of good and caring are at work meeting needs and bring comfort. No, I am not including the government.

I have no doubt that needs will be met, rebuilding will happen and “normal” will one day be reestablished. However, I am extremely concerned about a disaster no one is talking about, and “normal” may never be realized again has a result of that disaster. I am referring to the Presidential Election coming up next Tuesday. The storm has opened wider that opportunity for Leftist voting shenanigans.

With all the arguments over Voter Registration, Voter I.D. and Voter Fraud, this natural disaster has provided and added opportunity to make the corrupt more powerful. Consider the national debate;

  • The Left opposes Voter I.D. because they curry the favor of people who are here illegally. I.D.s exposes the fraud.
  • In Florida, over 50,000 people that are on the voting registration rolls are deceased. How many do you think will rise from the dead and vote?
  • The introduction of early voting has given the Left more time to encourage fraud by multiple votes from some people.
  • The Left has already manipulated the Military Vote into nonexistence because they know the Military votes predominately Republican.
  • California has already announced they will not be counting the mailed in ballots, as they did in 2008, because they claim it won’t make a difference in the outcome.
  • The U.N. has been invited again to “observe” our voting because the U.N. has been told that Republicans repress the vote in certain areas prohibiting poor and elderly people from voting.
  • With the power off, some areas will have to go to paper ballots opening the doors for screams of voting irregularity should the Left loose. Yes, it has been reported that the lawsuits have already been drawn up and ready for filing should Mitt Romney win. You’ve also heard how the Left has already arranged riots in strategic areas should Mitt Romney win. That will open the door for Marshall Law to be established, and the election deemed null and void.
  • Like in California, the Registrar of Voters has admitted that many citizens are registered in multiple cities and can’t do anything about that person from voting in each location.
  • There is no way to determine the number of illegal votes in the States that have not passed Voter I.D. laws.
  • Like I said, opened doors more even more voting shenanigans, especially should the election be extended because of Sandy’s destruction.

For conservatives in California elections are becoming a farce. For over 50 years the Left files lawsuits if measures don’t go their way. The courts are so corrupt and Left, that most of the time the Left wins. More and more I hear people say, “Why vote when the Democrats go to court and get the election overturned.” And here the Left is the one always screaming about voter repression. California leads the nation in voter repression because the Left always wins in court when we do not vote their way.

For my house and me, we will vote. We refuse to give up. The drums of revolutionary war are getting louder every day. Will we see a revolution in our day? I’m not sure anymore. I am not armed, and that worries me.

Hopefully God is hearing our prayers asking Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. However, our nation has reached levels of inequity that dwarfs Biblical Israel. They were rightly judged for their turn from God. America deserves the same. Is there a remnant of believers big enough for God to withhold His hand? I don’t know. I am praying He heals instead of punishes. What are you praying for?

Why the Left hates voter I.D. laws

Why the Left hates voter I.D. laws

Barack Obama cast his vote for the presidency on Thursday, becoming the first president to exercise his early voting right. This wouldn’t really be newsworthy if it weren’t for this little tidbit of information: in order to cast his vote, president Obama had to provide his photo identification to a voting official.

We live in a world that requires photo I.D. to do practically everything; buying movie tickets, signing up for college classes, getting a job, buying a car, buying a house, and a million other things in between. But the one thing; the one act that is quite possibly the most important civil act one can perform doesn’t necessarily require photo identification. I’m talking about voting. There are voter I.D. laws in thirty states, but the other twenty do not require one to have state issued photo identification in order to vote.

Voter identification seems like a no brainer, right? It is estimated that the United States is home to about 12 million illegal residents. In addition to that, there are certain people that have given up their voting eligibility because of criminal records. These people, because they have committed crimes or they are not legally citizens of the United States, should not be allowed to vote. Again, seems like a simple plot to follow. However, there is a fierce battle being waged all across the country.

For the most part, voter I.D. laws are designed to prevent voter fraud by requiring those at the polls to show a valid, state issued photo I.D.–or other form of identification–in order to cast their vote. That’s where the Left comes in. The Left claims that voter fraud is not an issue; that it happens so infrequently that voter I.D. laws are unnecessary. They also claim that photo I.D. laws suppress voter turnout, specifically among Black and Latino voters, thereby disenfranchising those minority groups.

The concern by Conservatives is that the Left is encouraging voter fraud by railing against these I.D. laws. Here’s why:

1. The fact of the matter is that illegal aliens are far more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican.

2. This is because a large majority of “undocumented residents,”–as they are called by the politically correct press–are receiving government handouts.

3. So, they know that by voting for a Democrat, those handouts will continue (as evidenced by the explosion of food stamp usage under Obama).

4. In addition to that, illegal residents know that Democrats are much more lax on illegal immigration law, and generally endorse amnesty in their platform.

Here are some tidbits:

According to, voter fraud is prevalent. In Bucks County, in 2010, it was reported that 500 ballots were being investigated as potentially fraudulent.

In Florida, it has been discovered that over 52,000 deceased people are still registered to vote.

Again, according to

“In 2002, dozens of Chicago’s senior citizens applied for absentee ballots, only to discover that the man who was helping them to apply had already filled in the ballots. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported, when the seniors asked him what he was doing, he answered: “Don’t worry, you’re voting Democratic.”

There are numerous other examples in regards to voter fraud, but I won’t list them all, because I’m not writing a book. The Left claims that voter fraud is virtually non existent, because they NEED “ghost” voters, and felons, and illegal aliens to vote for them. In a tight election, it is often the only way for them to win. The Democrats are pros when it comes to cheating.

Recently, voter I.D. laws have been struck down in Pennsylvania and several other states, because they have been labeled as suppressive to minority voters, and they have been compared to the poll taxes of yesteryear. This is of course a false, trumped up argument.

In 2008, the Supreme Court said this after upholding a voter I.D. law in Indiana: “Flagrant examples of such fraud … have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,” the court said, “[and] not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

In addition to this, according to Hans A. Von Spakovsky, of,

“An ongoing review of voter registration rolls in Florida has already found almost 100 confirmed non-citizens registered to vote, half of whom voted in at least one previous election; this in a state that decided the 2000 presidential election by slightly more than 500 votes…And the state has thousands more possibly unlawful registrations to investigate.”

So, why does the Left keep harping about “virtually non-existent” voter fraud, when it is clear that voter fraud is quite common? Because in a close election, the Democrats need the votes of those who are dependent on government and therefore far more likely to vote for them. This is why the Left is fighting to get photo I.D. laws struck down in several states. They have even succeeded in Pennsylvania. Requiring identification will lose them elections.

It seems only natural that if you need an I.D. to buy a car or see a movie, you would need one to vote. Photo I.D. is easy to obtain. According to the Heritage Foundation, “U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain.”

So, in the end, it is quite obvious to me that the reason the Democrats are so avidly against voter identification laws is because they need false votes to win elections. They know that as time goes by, they will not be able to win on ideas and policy, but instead with voters who are dependent on government handouts. They need fraudulent votes.

We need voter identification laws.

Petraeus on Benghazi: It Wasn’t Me

Petraeus on Benghazi: It Wasn’t Me

Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus’s denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist “would have been a presidential decision.”

Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were “happening.”

Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex.

Jake Tapper quoted Petraeus this afternoon denying that the CIA was responsible for the refusal: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard notes, that leaves only President Obama himself to blame:

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Earlier today, Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, called the White House’s explanations for events in Benghazi a “pack of lies” and implied that those in the administration who could have helped, but refused, were guilty of “murder.” He added:

My son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero. I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same moral courage that my son displayed with his life.

Also today, the State Department shut down questions from reporters about Libya at a press briefing in Washington. The administration, as a whole, seems to have decided to say nothing further about Benghazi until after election–except for Petraeus, who was directly implicated by charges that the CIA failed to help, and who was thereby compelled to provide a response that points, inexorably, to the man in the Oval Office.


Still Thinking About Voting for Obama?

Still Thinking About Voting for Obama? Still Thinking About Voting for Obama?

CIA Operators Were Denied Request for Help & Ordered to Stand Down During Benghazi Attack CIA Operators Were Denied Request for Help & Ordered to Stand Down During Benghazi Attack Obama Ad: Voting for Obama is Like Losing your Virginity to a Great Guy…Wait, What? Obama Ad: Voting for Obama is Like Losing your Virginity to a Great Guy…Wait, What?
What you might have missed…
Timeline of the Libya Attack & Obama Admin’s Cover-Up Timeline of the Libya Attack & Obama Admin’s Cover-Up Romney Ad: Momentum Romney Ad: Momentum
Beautiful Patriotic Air Show Beautiful Patriotic Air Show How China Will View the US in 2030 How China Will View the US in 2030 is, above all else, a website. We want to be very clear about that. Started in 2012, this website boasts a bevy of features and resources designed specifically to fulfill your every conservative video need and perhaps even a few of your most intimate conservative video desires. Using this state of the art nerd thing called “crowdsourcing,” not only goes out and finds the content you want, but also serves as a platform for you to submit your favorite videos and thereby directly dictate what other viewers should want too. Why do we provide this service? First, because we love you, dear viewer. Second (and much more importantly), because we want to make oodles and oodles of money and eventually take over the world.



Obama Administration Will Pay Companies to Violate the Law

Morning Bell: Obama Administration Will Pay Companies to Violate the Law

Hans von Spakovsky and Amy Payne

October 26, 2012 at 8:08 am

The Obama Administration’s disregard for the law has struck again—and this time, it’s encouraging others to violate the law at taxpayer expense.

That’s worth saying again: The Obama Administration is encouraging people to violate a law, and promising that it will use taxpayer money to cover fines incurred from this action.

The law: The law in question is called the WARN Act, and it requires that federal contractors send employees layoff notices 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff.

The inconvenience: Massive defense spending cuts under sequestration are scheduled to hit on January 2, 2013. Defense contractors affected by the budget cuts would have to issue notice letters to employees by November 2 (four days before the election) to meet the January 2 start date for the spending cuts.

The penalty taxpayers would pay: Employers who violate the WARN Act are liable to their former employees for “back pay for each day of a violation” and “benefits under an employee benefit plan,” as well as a penalty of $500 for each day that notice has not been sent to the local government where the layoffs will occur.

As an example, Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens has said that 123,000 of his employees would receive layoff notices. If companies fail to meet the WARN Act’s deadline, lawsuits from employees could result—but the White House has provided a taxpayer-funded guarantee as a way to counter their fears of enormous litigation costs. This guarantee is not only unprecedented but also potentially unlawful.

This week, President Obama sent mixed signals about the fate of these budget cuts. He suggested at Monday’s debate that sequestration wouldn’t happen, but then days later indicated to an Iowa newspaper that it would.

It remains to be seen whether companies will take the Administration up on its offer. And government contractors who rely on this “guarantee” from the White House do so at their peril: If this Administration or a new Administration changes its mind and withdraws the guarantee, those contractors will have no cause of action against the government for the cost of WARN Act violations.

If this were a joke, the punchline would be that President Obama supported the WARN Act when he was a Senator—and even wanted to require that employers give more notice. In 2007, he argued that contractors should have to give 90 days’ notice.

Then-Senator Obama said:

American workers who have committed themselves to their employers expect in return to be treated with a modicum of respect and fairness. Failing to give workers fair warning…ignores their need to prepare for the transition.…Many of these workers support families that are living from paycheck to paycheck, squeezed by the demands of rising health care costs, the declining value of their homes, and wages that have been stagnant for decades. It adds insult to injury to close a plant without warning employees.

But this is no joke. This is the ultimate abuse of the President’s executive authority: inducing federal contractors to violate a federal law and promising to use taxpayer funds to reimburse them for any resulting liability that they incur for violating that law.

Refusing to follow federal law has become the hallmark of this Administration, but the White House’s latest arrogant, unlawful ploy goes even further and may end up costing the American taxpayer a great deal of money.

Read the full report: Urging Federal Contractors to Violate the WARN Act

Watch our video on the effects of sequestration

Quick Hits:

  • Oshkosh Corp., a truck manufacturer with Pentagon contracts, just announced it will lay off 450 workers in January. The company “blamed the ‘difficult decisions’ on looming cuts to the nation’s defense budget,” reports The Examiner.
  • Pressure is growing on the Obama Administration to reveal details about why non-union autoworkers’ pensions were drastically cut after the auto bailout—when union workers were treated very differently.
  • The Energy Department paid $7.7 million in severance packages to temporary workers hired with stimulus money, reports the Washington Guardian.
  • Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner is featured on a new segment of Glenn Beck’s “American Voices.” Watch him explain why he is conservative.
  • The Heritage Foundation has released trade freedom scores for the forthcoming 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. See where the U.S. stands.

State Department emails from day of Libya attack show Al Qaeda-tied group on radar

State Department emails from day of Libya attack show Al Qaeda-tied group on radar


Published October 24, 2012

A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows that officials reported within hours of last month’s deadly consulate attack in Libya that Al Qaeda-tied group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility.

The emails provide some of the most detailed information yet about what officials knew in the initial hours after the attack. And it again raises questions about why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

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.

The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU, which is shorthand for “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”

“Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli,” the email reads.

Earlier emails did not go into who might have been responsible for the attack.

The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were “in the compound safe haven.” Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack.

The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).”

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack,” the email reads. “Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

“The operations Center will provide updates as available.”

The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line: “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)”

“Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”

The emails on the day of the attack further challenge not only the initial statements made by administration officials like Rice about the strike, but also recent claims that they were only basing those statements on the intelligence they had at the time.

State Department official Patrick Kennedy recently testified to Congress that anyone in Rice’s position would have made the same statements about the attack being spontaneous.

But the newly uncovered emails clearly state the involvement of a militant group whose agenda is to establish an Islamic state in eastern Libya.

Despite this, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney backed up Rice on Sept. 18. He said: “Based on information that we — our initial information … we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video.” Carney went on to say “that is what we know” based on “concrete evidence, not supposition.”

Proof That The State Department and the DOD Knew Immediatly that The Benghazi Emmbasy Attack Was Not A Riot But A Coordinated Terrorist Act: President Obama Misrepresented the Event



Last Updated: 6:30 AM, October 21, 2012

Posted: 12:37 AM, October 21, 2012

The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday. “They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.

One of our Predator Drones provided live video of the attack on our Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Yes, the White House DID know.

The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action. But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said.

The State Department and the DOD watched the attack LIVE on our Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

“They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen,” he fumed.

“There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments.”

The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details.

Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network. When the attack began, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies,” a White House official told the network.

Even as the administration continues to vow that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities. Abu Khattala spoke to a New York Times reporter Thursday from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments. “These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding,” he boasted. “But here I am in the open, sitting in a hotel with you. I’m even going to pick up my sister’s kids from school soon.”

Lax security at the consulate was an open secret.

Stevens wrote a cable in June that there wasn’t enough security at the consulate, and he noted there had been a recent spike in attacks against “international organizations and foreign interests,” ABC News said. The ambassador wrote another cable in August that read, “A series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens said that the incidents were “organized” and that the Libyan security force had “not coalesced into a stabilizing force and [provided] little deterrence.”

Several requests for additional security in Benghazi were made to the State Department prior to the attack. They were all rejected. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to deflect blame from President Obama last week, saying the decision not to beef up guards was her responsibility.

“I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world [at] 275 posts,” she told CNN. “The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, with Mitt Romney saying Obama’s failure to safeguard the consulate highlights his failure in foreign policy.

Romney has also hammered Obama for failing to immediately label it a terror attack and the administration for changing its story about whether the attack was a protest over an anti-Islamic movie or a coordinated strike. The tragedy — and alleged security lapses leading up to the attack — will likely be brought up at tomorrow’s final presidential debate. The 90-minute debate will be moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS News. Schieffer has listed five subject areas, with more time devoted to the Middle East and terrorism than any other topic.

The “tragedy” is to NOW know that Obama was lying, lying, lying, just to win an election. Where is the ‘honor’ of the presidency? He lied about the same thing in both the first and third debates, in addition to many times on the campaign trail. Let’s get rid of this deceiver when we vote in two weeks.

To Saint Obama: Jesus Is Not Your Sock Puppet!

To Saint Obama: Jesus Is Not Your Sock Puppet!

The CNN “Belief” blog has decided to show everyone their theological acumen and Biblical literacy. In their entry, “The Gospel According to Obama” we read,

 ”Historians may remember Obama as the nation’s first black president, but he’s also a religious pioneer. He’s not only changed people’s perception of who can be president, some scholars and pastors say, but he’s also expanding the definition of who can be a Christian by challenging the religious right’s domination of the national stage. When Obama invoked Jesus to support same-sex marriage, framed health care as a moral imperative to care for “the least of these,’’ and once urged people to read their Bible but just not literally, he was invoking another Christian tradition that once dominated American public life so much that it gave the nation its first megachurches, historians say.”

The first “historian” invoked is the authoritative opinion of the notorious “Christian” Leftist and full-time Obama-regime apologist Jim Wallis of the humbly-named “God’s Politics” blog for the Liberal, Statist group Sojourners. He opines, “Barack Obama has referred to his faith more times than most presidents ever have, but for many it’s the wrong kind of faith.”

I haven’t counted myself but would not be surprised at all if Obama has mentioned his faith more than any other. The reason is obvious: Every time some Republican president mentions God they are attacked by the secular media culture, which then gets cheers and rationalizations from the likes of Wallis and his crew of court prophets. The media loves to see Jesus publicly neutered so that he is used as Obama’s sock puppet.

It must be a real rush for the powerful: Even though Jesus isn’t here (yet!) they can publicly humiliate him and crucify him all over again, strapping him up as their figurehead while they steer the ship of state according to their own autonomous agenda.

I’m not going to waste your time reviewing what the Bible says about homosexual marriage and infanticide. Anyone who can read, including honest atheists like Camille Paglia and Penn Jillette, knows that Obama is the wrong kind of Christian to people like Jesus or Paul.

Look what idiocy passes as sophistication: The fact that there are “weird” (to modern readers) dietary laws in Leviticus doesn’t interest Obama or Wallis at all. They aren’t a bit curious about what might be significant about such issues in religious text that Jesus took seriously. They don’t care why they are in there. Rather than being interesting, the obscure laws are simply treated as license to move on with a Leftist agenda built on Leftist principles. We wave our hands at a prohibition on shellfish in Leviticus and declare the Biblical sexual ethic from Genesis 1 through Romans 1 to Revelation 21.9 to be outdated.

Putting “social issues” like homosexuality and infanticide aside, I can’t let stand Obama’s odious accusation that his so-called “faith” is “is not the faith of the religious right. It’s about things that they don’t talk about. It’s about how the Bible is full of God’s clear instruction to care for the poor.” Right. Because putting America on food stamps is exactly what God means by that. Obama might as well boast about putting Native American’s in reservations or “taking care of” minorities in prisons.

Obama talks as if the coming debt doomsday that he has brought so much closer won’t especially hurt the poor. Go look at the riots in Greece and tell me how the poor are benefitting from all that “care.”

Obama and the rest of the Religious Left prove a Biblical proverb: “The compassion of the wicked is cruel.”

Attack, Attack, Atack + Small Ball = Romney Win

At times tonight I wondered if President Obama was trying to put a hoax on Governor Romney by the was he starred at him. My first thought ended up to last through the debate that President Obama, in an effort to be tougher as his spokes people said he would be, actually came out phoney, pathetic and small minded. Here are some other observations;

  • It dawned on me when President Obama continuously repeating how he would get a consensus of “his” world partners and then act. This fits with his Collectivism/Socialism ideology. He believes that the World problems can be solved by “committee”. Any casual look at Congress will tell you that philosophy is not correct. Committees can come up with some suggested solutions, but it takes a LEADER to actually solve the problem.
  • I agree with Charles Krauthammer that Governor Romney was correct in not “pounding” President Obama about Benghazi, Lydia. In fact, I believe he won the entire debate when he pointed out that the greatest threat to our National Security is our debt. The President really had no answer for that.
  • The “small ball”, smug, demeaning attack on Mitt Romney in response to Mitt Romney giving the stats about the Navy, was as UN-Presidential as you can get. His, “the military doesn’t use horses or bayonets anymore” revealed is total disdain for the Governor. “By the way Mr. President, as a Marine, we still use bayonets.”
  • I was angered with how the Governor was constantly interrupted by both the President and the moderator Bob  Schieffer. In recent months I have heard a multitude of other people say the same thing. That is another reason the President lost tonight.
  • There was nothing new with President Obama. All his words and phrases are from his stump speeches. Nothing new, no matter how convincing he said them. Several times he really didn’t answer the question. He went on and on about his “talking points”.
  • Mitt Romney was articulate, to the point, and relaxed. He did not fall into any trap intended to get him into an argument or confrontation. The two times he refused to allow Bob  Schieffer to shut him up was great and maintained his composure.

For the most part I agree with other observers that this debate was boring. I’m glade they are over.


Unrefuted Report

Although the following has been open to public scrutiny for some time now…it seems that FactCheck, Snopes, TruthorFiction…(PBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.) have yet to dispute…refute…or even address this synopsis.

I wonder why? Could it be that the synopsis is irrefutable?

So! I’m still asking. Who is Barry Soetoro?


by Don Fredrick, ©2012, blogging at The Obama Timeline, (Oct. 1, 2012)

As I noted in the introduction to my book, The Obama Timeline, a jury at a murder trial will often find the accumulated circumstantial evidence so overwhelming that a guilty verdict is obvious—even though there may be no witness to the crime. “The jurors in the Scott Peterson trial believed the collection of evidence more than they believed Scott Peterson. Among other things, the jury thought that being arrested with $15,000 in cash, recently-dyed hair, a newly-grown goatee, four cell phones, camping equipment, a map to a new girlfriend’s house, a gun, and his brother’s driver’s license certainly did not paint a picture of a grieving husband who had nothing to do with his pregnant wife’s disappearance and murder.”

In the four years I have been gathering information about—and evidence against—Barack Hussein Obama, I have encountered hundreds of coincidences that strike me as amazing. None of those coincidences, by themselves, may mean much. But taken as a whole it is almost impossible to believe they were all the result of chance. Consider the Obama-related coincidences:

Obama just happened to know 60s far-left radical revolutionary William Ayers, whose father just happened to be Thomas Ayers, who just happened to be a close friend of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who just happened to work at the communist-sympathizing Chicago Defender with Vernon Jarrett, who just happened to later become the father-in-law of Iranian-born leftist Valerie Jarrett, who Obama just happened to choose as his closest White House advisor, and who just happened to have been CEO of Habitat Company, which just happened to manage public housing in Chicago, which just happened to get millions of dollars from the Illinois state legislature, and which just happened not to properly maintain the housing—which eventually just happened to require demolition.

Valerie Jarrett also just happened to work for the city of Chicago, and just happened to hire Michelle LaVaughan Robinson (later Obama), who just happened to have worked at the Sidley Austin law firm, where former fugitive from the FBI Bernardine Dohrn also just happened to work, and where Barack Obama just happened to get a summer job.

Bernardine Dohrn just happened to be married to William Ayers, with whom she just happened to have hidden from the FBI at a San Francisco marina, along with Donald Warden, who just happened to change his name to Khalid al-Mansour, and Warden/al-Mansour just happened to be a mentor of Black Panther Party founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale and a close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and al-Mansour just happened to be financial adviser to a Saudi Prince, who just happened to donate cash to Harvard, for which Obama just happened to get a critical letter of recommendation from Percy Sutton, who just happened to have been the attorney for Malcolm X, who just happened to know Kenyan politician Tom Mboya, who just happened to be a close friend of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who just happened to meet Malcolm X when he traveled to Kenya.

Obama, Sr. just happened to have his education at the University of Hawaii paid for by the Laubach Literacy Institute, which just happened to have been supported by Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, who just happened to be a friend of Malcolm X, who just happened to have been associated with the Nation of Islam, which was later headed by Louis Farrakhan, who just happens to live very close to Obama’s Chicago mansion, which also just happens to be located very close to the residence of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who just happen to have been occasional baby-sitters for Malia and Natasha Obama, whose parents just happen not to mind exposing their daughters to bomb-making communists.

After attending Occidental College and Columbia University, where he just happened to have foreign Muslim roommates, Obama moved to Chicago to work for the Industrial Areas Foundation, an organization that just happened to have been founded by Marxist and radical agitator Saul “the Red” Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who just happened to be the topic of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s thesis at Wellesley College, and Obama’s $25,000 salary at IAF just happened to be funded by a grant from the Woods Fund, which was founded by the Woods family, whose Sahara Coal company just happened to provide coal to Commonwealth Edison, whose CEO just happened to be Thomas Ayers, whose son William Ayers just happened to serve on the board of the Woods Fund, along with Obama.

Obama also worked on voter registration drives in Chicago in the 1980s and just happened to work with leftist political groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Socialist International (SI), through which Obama met Carl Davidson, who just happened to travel to Cuba during the Vietnam War to sabotage the U.S. war effort, and who just happened to be a former member of the SDS and a member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, which just happened to sponsor a 2002 anti-war rally at which Obama spoke, and which just happened to have been organized by Marilyn Katz, a former SDS activist and later public relations consultant who just happened to be a long-time friend of Obama’s political hatchet man, David Axelrod.

Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), whose pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a fiery orator who just happened to preach Marxism and Black Liberation Theology and who delivered anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-American sermons, which Obama just happened never to hear because he just happened to miss church only on the days when Wright was at his “most enthusiastic,” and Obama just happened never to notice that Oprah Winfrey left the church because it was too radical, and just happened never to notice that the church gave the vile anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award.

Although no one had ever heard of him at the time, Obama just happened to receive an impossible-to-believe $125,000 advance to write a book about race relations, which he just happened to fail to write while using the cash to vacation in Bali with his wife Michelle, and despite his record of non-writing he just happened to receive a second advance, for $40,000, from another publisher, and he eventually completed a manuscript called Dreams From My Father, which just happened to strongly reflect the writing style of William Ayers, who just happened to trample on an American flag for the cover photograph of the popular Chicago magazine, which Obama just happened never to see even though it appeared on newsstands throughout the city.

Obama was hired by the law firm Miner, Banhill and Galland, which just happened to specialize in negotiating state government contracts to develop low-income housing, and which just happened to deal with now-imprisoned Tony Rezko and his firm Rezar, and with slumlord Valerie Jarrett, and the law firm’s Judson Miner just happened to have been a classmate of Bernardine Dohrn, wife of William Ayers.

In 1994 Obama represented ACORN and another plaintiff in a lawsuit against Citibank for denying mortgages to blacks (Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank), and the lawsuit just happened to result in banks being blackmailed into approving subprime loans for poor credit risks, a trend which just happened to spread nationwide, and which just happened to lead to the collapse of the housing bubble, which just happened to help Obama defeat John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

In 1996 Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate and joined the “New Party,” which just happened to promote Marxism, and Obama was supported by Dr. Quentin Yong, a socialist who just happened to support a government takeover of the health care system.

In late 1999 Obama purportedly engaged in homosexual activities and cocaine-snorting in the back of a limousine with a man named Larry Sinclair, who claims he was contacted in late 2007 by Donald Young, who just happened to be the gay choir director of Obama’s Chicago church and who shared information with Sinclair about Obama, and Young just happened to be murdered on December 23, 2007, just weeks after Larry Bland, another gay member of the church, just happened to be murdered, and both murders just happened to have never been solved. In 2008 Sinclair held a press conference to discuss his claims, and just happened to be arrested immediately after the event, based on a warrant issued by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who just happens to be the son of Joe Biden.

In 2003 Obama and his wife attended a dinner in honor of Rashid Khalidi, who just happened to be a former PLO operative, harsh critic of Israel, and advocate of Palestinian rights, and who Obama claims he does not know, even though the Obamas just happened to have dined more than once at the home of Khalidi and his wife, Mona, and just happened to have used them as occasional baby-sitters. Obama reportedly praised Khalidi at the decidedly anti-Semitic event, which William Ayers just happened to also attend, and the event Obama pretends he never attended was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network, to which Obama just happened to have funneled cash while serving on the board of the Woods Fund with William Ayers, and one speaker at the dinner remarked that if Palestinians cannot secure a return of their land, Israel “will never see a day of peace,” and entertainment at the dinner included a Muslim children’s dance whose performances just happened to include simulated beheadings with fake swords, and stomping on American, Israeli, and British flags, and Obama allegedly told the audience that “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” and there has been “genocide against the Palestinian people by (the) Israelis,” and the Los Angeles Times has a videotape of the event but just happens to refuse to make it public.

In the 2004 Illinois Democrat primary race for the U.S. Senate, front-runner Blair Hull just happened to be forced out of the race after David Axelrod just happened to manage to get Hull’s sealed divorce records unsealed, which just happened to enable Obama to win the primary, so he could face popular Republican Jack Ryan, whose sealed child custody records from his divorce just happened to become unsealed, forcing Ryan to withdraw from the race, which just happened to enable the unqualified Obama to waltz into the U.S. Senate, where, after a mere 143 days of work, he just happened to decide he was qualified to run for President of the United States.

Obama just happened to save $300,000 on the purchase of a $1.65 million Chicago mansion for which he deposited only $1,000 in earnest money, while the seller’s adjacent empty lot which was appraised at no more than $500,000 just happened to be sold at the inflated price of $625,000 to Rita Rezko, who just happened to earn only $37,000 per year working for Cook County government, and who just happened to be married to Tony Rezko, who just happened to be Obama’s main money man for his political campaigns, and who only days before the Obama mansion purchase just happened to obtain a $3.5 million loan from wealthy Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi, who just happened to have been kicked out of Iraq, and who just happened to have been convicted of corruption charges in France, and who just happened to ask Rezko to ask then-U.S. Senator Obama to help him obtain a visa to travel to the United States.

Rita Rezko just happened to borrow the money for the $625,000 empty lot from the Mutual Bank of Harvey, which just happened to be run by Tony Rezko’s pal Amrish Mahajan, whose wife Anita just happened to have been charged with fraudulently receiving $2 million in Illinois taxpayer dollars for drug tests never performed by her company, K. K. Bio-Science, which just happened to have a no-bid contract with the state, and whose computers just happened to disappear right before investigators arrived to take them away for evidence.

Obama just happened to obtain a $1.32 million mortgage for his mansion even though the payments of $8,000 per month (plus at least $1,500 per month in property taxes) exceeded 50 percent of his $162,100 U.S Senate salary income, and even though Michelle Obama was claiming that she and her husband were still paying off substantial student loans and were struggling to pay for piano lessons for their daughters, one of whom just happens to look remarkably like one of the daughters of Malcolm X.

Obama just happened to obtain his mansion mortgage from Northern Trust Bank, whose Board of Directors just happened to include Susan Crown, who just happened to be part of the wealthy Crown family, which just happened to donate to Obama’s campaigns, and which just happened to have ownership in defense contractor General Dynamics Corporation, and the Crown family just happened to sit on the board of energy company Exelon, formerly known as Commonwealth Edison, which just happened to have had Thomas Ayers as its CEO, and the Crown family also owned the Maytag appliance company, which just happened to move its operations to Mexico, after its employees just happened to donate to Obama’s campaign, after he just happened to pledge that he would keep their jobs in Galesburg, Illinois.

In June 2005, just months after Obama became a U.S. Senator, Michelle Obama just happened to be named a “non-executive director” of the board of TreeHouse Foods, a supplier of Wal-Mart, for a salary of $51,200 in 2005 and $101,083 in 2006, and she just happened to be given 7,500 TreeHouse stock options, worth approximately $72,375, even though she just happened to know nothing about the private sector or running a business.

In 2006 Obama pushed for a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago, and his wife Michelle just happened to be promoted to Vice-President of Community and External Affairs for the hospitals with a salary increase from $121,900 to $316,962, and she just happened to receive public relations help from Obama’s political strategist David Axelrod, whose mother just happened to write for a communist newspaper.

In 2006 Sarah P. Herlihy, an associate of the Chicago law firm of Kirkland and Ellis, whose employees later contributed $87,722 to Obama’s presidential campaign, and whose partner Bruce I. Ettleson just happened to be a member of Obama’s campaign finance committee, just happened to write a paper calling for the elimination of the “natural born citizen” requirement in the U.S. Constitution.

Obama just happened to visit Kenya in 2006 to support his cousin, Raila Odinga, a Muslim socialist candidate for president, who just happened to have ties to both al-Qaeda and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, and who just happened to have been educated in communist East Germany, and who just happened to name his son Fidel, and who just happened to plan on establishing Shari’ah Muslim law in Kenya, and whose activities prompted the Kenyan government to lodge an official protest of Obama’s passport abuse and misconduct, and Obama’s actions just happened to have been denounced by the U.S. State Department as being in direct opposition to U.S. National Security, and after Odinga, for whom Obama just happened to have raised $950,000, lost the election, his Muslim followers just happened to burn Christian women and children alive in a church where they had sought refuge.

In 2006 Obama endorsed Alexi Giannoulias in his race for Illinois State Treasurer and stated that he is “…one of the most outstanding young men I could ever hope to meet”—even though Giannoulias just happened to be only 29 years old and even though his family’s Broadway Bank just happened to finance Chicago crime figures like Michael “Jaws” Giorango, a Chicago thug with convictions for bookmaking and promoting prostitution, and even though virtually all of Chicago’s Democrat politicians were keeping their distance from Giannoulias, whose reputation was so questionable he even failed to get the endorsement of the Chicago Democrat Party—which just happens to almost never be concerned about questionable reputations.

Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, once worked for the Ford Foundation’s Asia program, which just happened to be run by Peter Geithner, who just happened to be the father of Timothy Geithner, who just happened to neglect to pay Social Security taxes on much of his income, which just happened to somehow qualify him to be Obama’s Treasury Secretary.

During the 2008 campaign Obama’s passport records just happened to have been illegally searched by an employee of a firm headed by John O. Brennan, and Lt. Quarles Harris, Jr., who was cooperating with federal investigators in connection with the incident, just happened to be found with a bullet in his head, and the murder just happened never to be solved, and Obama later just happened to make Brennan his terrorism and intelligence advisor.

On election night in 2008 in Chicago’s Grant Park, Obama just happened to wear a black suit and a red tie, and his older daughter just happened to wear a red dress, and his younger daughter just happened to wear a stark black dress, and his wife Michelle just happened to wear an arguably unattractive black dress that appeared to have a giant red X design, which just happened to prompt some to wonder if their clothing just happened to denote black power, communism, and Malcolm X, and at the very least prompted others to wonder why anyone would have his daughter wear a jet-black dress for a celebratory occasion—or where one could even just happen to find a store that sells black dresses for little girls.

From election night forward there are hundreds of other “just happeneds,” not the least of which is the long-form birth certificate released by Obama in April 2011 which just happened to consist of multiple image layers, including various objects which can be separated and rotated with computer software—which just happens to be impossible if a birth certificate is merely scanned and not computer-constructed by a forger.

I could go on… but you get the idea.

P.S. If Obama just happens to win reelection on November 6, remember that hyperinflation just happens to be the inescapable consequence of printing trillions of dollars to cover massive government deficits.


Help Me Understand

I am having a hard time understanding any person who cannot admit, “I am wrong.” Evidently, Fonzie is not the only one who cannot articulate those humbling words. Part of the human experience is learning from our mistakes, failures and ineptness. No one can expect to grow as a human being without acknowledging that what they did, how they did it and the thought processes that produced the action where wrong. You end up with that old proverb, “Doing the same thing over and over without getting the desired results is insanity.”

President Obama stepped in it when during the debate making a big deal about when he admitted it was terrorism that struck the Benghazi, Libya embassy this last September 11. The only explanation any honest observer could give in his remark to check the manuscript is that he was hoping enough people would see his perspective about his last comments saying that no act of terror would go unanswered. And yes, there have been a few, like Katie Couric. For the rest of us “non Kool-Aid drinking” Americans saw the obvious the first time, especially after two weeks of dodging the question, and send out his propaganda chorus to say it was a spontaneous attack from a demonstration fueled by an internet video.

Is it a psychological problem when people can’t simple say, I was wrong”? Is it a vanity thing to not owned up to the truth? Is it failing of an individual’s character, or value system, that prevents them from humbling themselves like regular humans and just say, “I did that wrong”? I know I am not smart enough to speculate about the answer.

Something else I heard during the debate and have heard others  say something similar. It has been obvious to several observers that President Obama has conducted the Office of the President under a set of Collectivist/Socialist theories. Although these theories have proven failures for over 200 years, still there are those that think they can get it right. They are not evil people (I believe that President Obama has been demonized which is wrong to do. No one deserves that).

President Obama several times, “I feel that….”, “I believe that……” as well as other like phrasing. That indicates to me a man with well-meaning motivations TRYING philosophies that are counter to the Founders of our country, and the Representative Republic they designed for us. I do not know the man’s heart, and unlike God, I cannot see his spirit or know his intentions. I know God has commanded that we do not judge one another. Unfortunately, those of us on the Right have stooped to that level, and we have been, and are, wrong. I have repented, and I hope we all do the same.

According to all the reports I have heard today many people who supported President Obama in 2008 have already switched their support. You know that has become serious when the New York Times prints articles pointing out your flaws, thinking, and conduct. Even one of the most liberal of all Senators, Diane Feinstein has come out criticizing the President and the Whitehouse.

If in fact that is the case and President Obama has tried to perfect the philosophies, ideologies and theories of Collectivism/Socialism, than that helps me understand why he is so reluctant to own up to being wrong. I know that I will continue to pray for President Obama as I have for all Presidents I have lived under. I pray you are all doing the same.


Finally the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, the Washington Post and Newsweek have a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print
the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.

I Too Have Become Disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson (columnist – Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

School Bus Driver Tells 12 Yr Old Boy His Mother Should Have Aborted Him

School Bus Driver Tells 12 Yr Old Boy His Mother Should Have Aborted Him

The public school system throughout the United States has become a nest for liberals.  Educators have been sucked into the liberal mindset that it is their job to form and mold kids into what progressive politics wants them to become instead of what their parents want them to be.  The NEA is the largest teachers union in the nation and it is married to the liberal progressive Democratic Party.  Hence, a large majority of public school employees, not just teachers are Democrats out of mandate.

Recently, we’ve seen incidents where teachers have bullied and abused students for either being a Christian or having different political views than their own.  In the latest incident, a 12 year old boy, Joey Hartlaub, was verbally bullied and abused by his 81 year old school bus driver.

Joey attends school in New Berlin, Wisconsin.  His parents had a Romney – Ryan in their front yard and the school bus driver started harassing Joey about the sign.  A couple of weeks later, Joey and some friends were in the back of the bus chanting ‘Romney, Romney’ when the driver yelled at him to come to the front of the bus.  When the bus driver began to verbally assault Joey, he told her that Obama was pro-abortion.  The driver responded by telling Joey:

“Well, then maybe your mother should have chosen abortion for you.”

Joey said the bus driver’s comment made him mad and sad at the same time.  When he got home and told his mom what happened, mom was livid and immediately reported the incident to the Durham School Services, the company that operates the school busses.  Spokesman for the bus service company released a statement saying:

“Durham immediately removed the driver from service pending an investigation, which resulted in the termination of the driver. Prior to this incident, the driver had an incident-free record while serving the community as a Durham school bus driver for more than 20 years. Notwithstanding, the driver’s remark was insensitive and inappropriate.”

What I want to know is, where is the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State in these instances.  Churches and pastors are constantly being harassed by these organizations for supposedly violating their non-profit tax status if they speak out in favor a political candidate.  They are quickly rushed into court and threatened to have their non-profit status revoked for violation the Johnson Amendment that restricts political activities.

Yet it seems that all of these liberal legal groups forget that public schools operate under the same non-profit tax status that churches do.  That means that if a pastor or church employee can’t endorse a political candidate, then neither can any school employee.  Yet, they seem to be doing it on a fairly regular basis and no one says anything.  So once again we see the double standards of the liberal community.  It’s okay for liberals to violate the tax code but not for conservatives.  It’s okay for Democrats but not for Republicans.  It’s okay for atheists, but not for Christians.

Tonights Presidential Debate

ROMNEY WON!!!!!!!!!

True to all the pre debate hype the President was more aggressive. However, his method of aggression brought memories of Al Gore and George Bush. More than once he got inserted himself into Mitt Romney’s space, including getting close to going toe to toe.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: He was more engaged, more animated, yet all he said was what he has said all along. Nothing new, and in fact, at times he spoke so fast that it made it obvious he was quoting from rote. He introduced nothing new. The Fact-Checkers are going to have a field day with his accusations of Mitt Romney, as well as his explanations of the Libya debacle. Chris Wallace of FOX News Sunday has already identified one major lie about what he said about the Benghazi murders. NO HE DID NOT SAY THEY WERE TERRORIST RELATED. He said, at the conclusion of his speech, that acts of terror will not stand. That is NOT identifying the attack as terrorist related.

President Obama was his typical charming self at times. However, his rhetoric seemed to fall on deaf ears as you watched the body language of the audience.

MITT ROMNEY: The same “Chairman of the Board” presence and stance. Related very well with the audience, especially the people asking the questions. Did you notice the first young man? The question was supposed to be for Mitt, but the young man never took his eyes off President Obama. What does that say?

Mr. Romney was confident, and introduced more details the Left has been battering him about. He kept his cool even when President Obama got in his face.

I was very disappointed with whoever directed the broadcast. We were told in the beginning that the cameras would not show the other man when one of them was answering the question. That was destroyed immediately. We were told there would be a running total of the amount of Tweets where going on about the debate. That only flashed once.

Then there was the moderator. Her facial expressions and body language made it abundantly clear she did not like Mitt Romney and said so with those expressions and body language. According to those that keep such records, President Obama had several minutes more to speak than Mitt Romney. Oh well.

On to the last debate.

“Details?!?! I Don’t Have to Give You Any Stinkin’ Details!”

Anyone else out there as tired as I am about the Left moaning over the Romney Campaign’s lack of details in their proposed plans. STOP ALREADY!!!!

I am waiting for someone in the media, especially FOX, to ask one of these whiners to give us all the details CANDIDATE OBAMA gave in 2008;

  • How many details were given in HOPE and CHANGE? That was cleverly designed to have each person listening to him, form his or her own definitions of what hope and change meant.
  • He gave some details to his proposal on Health Care, however, every one of those details became the takeover of the health industry, put people like me out of health insurance sales, and turn out an oppressive piece of legislature that no one can really explain. Look how the details are still leaking out about this monstrosity.
  • How many details were given about his proposal to reduce the debt, and get spending in control?
  • How many details did you hear about becoming energy independent?
  • How about Iraq? How many details were expected of him on how he was going to end the war and bring the military home?
  • Etc., etc., etc..

I would like to see Mitt Romney bring this up and then say, “Anyone going into this office with details is a dictator, not a negotiator. The details develop in the discussions, research and negotiations finding common ground to solve problems. As an experienced manager of people Mitt Romney knows that dictators don’t get as much done as leaders.

President Obama has proven NOT to be such a leader. Instead, he has bypassed Congress multiple times by issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders. That is the action of a DICTATOR.

Peace and prosperity has always followed genuine leaders whose drive is the betterment of those he or she is responsible to lead. Markets grow under such leaders because they have the confidence that their investments have greater protection and opportunity to succeed. Strength is grown because the economy thrives under a leader who gets out-of-the-way and lets market forces do what they do best. Respect is elevated in the eyes of other World Leaders because they recognize uncompromised values that puts the needs of the people first, their own personal recognition last and the honor of their nation foremost in every decision. World leaders also fear such leaders because they have no doubt about the resolve to protect the entirety of the people, commerce, military and the rights of the citizens.

I believe Mitt Romney is such a leader. While I have many disagreements with him, I still see an accomplished manager of people, designer of successful plans to recover, heal and grow our economy, and a leader that the rest of the world can respect.

Benghazi, Libya Debacle

It has been clear for several days that the Obama administration had plans to throw Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton under the bus. Much to my surprise is the breaking story that she took the responsibility for the murder.

I want to be very fair here. I spent over 40 years in the corporate world and I witnessed many bad to disastrous events happen. While the tendency is to blame the head of the department or company, the reality is that those managers to know every detail of every employee at every moment. That is what reports and meetings are designed to accomplish. At Ms. Clinton’s level, the amount of security personnel is relegated to a department. If during a briefing of that subject Ms. Clinton wants those numbers adjusted, then action is taken.

I believe that if the White House had owned up to the situation, announced an investigation; the American people would have been satisfied momentarily. For the White House to blatantly lie about the situation, form a story about riots and a bad video, is without excuse. Add to that the ongoing lie upon lie about the situation, only for it to come out in the hearing that the State Department knew all along that it was a deliberate, well-planned, military style attack on the Embassy, made their surreptitious decisions even worse. Then to attack the Romney Campaign for their comments makes a mockery of the Office of the President.

I agree with Laura Ingraham when she said on FOC News Sunday that if this had been a Republican President, the MSM (Main Stream Media) would be all over the story and camped out at every site to get answers. Where are they now?

I admire Secretary of State Clinton taking responsibility. At least someone in the Obama administration has the courage of her convictions.

Ohio Coal Miners Condemn Obama: ‘Absolute Lies’

Ohio Coal Miners Condemn Obama: ‘Absolute Lies’

The coal miners of Ohio, unlike some workers who are intimidated by their unions, are unafraid of standing tall and confronting the Obama Administration head-on. Last Wednesday, more than 500 coal miners who work at the Beallsville, Ohio Century Mine, operated by Murray Energy, held a rally to condemn the Obama Administration’s despicable ad claiming the miners were coerced into attending a rally for Mitt Romney on August 14.  They also charged Obama with waging a war on coal.

The Obama campaign had seized on rumors started by a local shock jock, David Bloomquist, who claimed the miners had been forced to attend the Romney rally. Mitch Miracle, speaking for the miners, read aloud the two letters they had written and signed.

The letter to Obama read like this:

Dear President Obama:.

We are writing as the employees of American Energy Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio. You have approved in a running television campaign ads about the Mitt Romney event that was held at our Century coal mine.  These ads state that we were forced to attend this rally and that is blatantly false. There are numerous false statements and absolute lies concerning our participation in this event, we, the employees, mostly started by a local shock jock host. Since your approval is attached to these ads, you may not wish to support these mistruths. Why would you lie about the 500 working miners who have signed this letter? We, the employees of Century Mine, would request you immediately stop these false ads. Thank you. Century Mine employees.

The letter to Bloomquist read:

Mr. Bloomquist;

We are writing to you regarding the Governor Mitt Romney event held on August 14, 2012 at the American Energy Corporation Century mine, and additionally what it meant to the hourly employees to host a presidential candidate that we believe in and endorse. We voluntarily and enthusiastically attended the event and take great offense to the disingenuous reporting of the event by you and other media outlets.

There are 5 points in particular that I want to make here: the following are a list of facts about the hourly employees’ involvement at that event and the corrections to the media’s inaccurate reporting:

One: we want to make it very clear that no employee was forced to attend the event. Secondly, there were no attendance records taken for hourly employees. Number three, there are absolutely no penalties or reprimands to those who did not attend- we voluntarily attended. Number 4, due to security reasons, the only list involved whatsoever was for transportation purposes, and this was thoroughly explained to us; this had to be done by the advance team of Mr. Romney. They had to have records of who was coming on the property. Number 5; it was an honor to host this important event for Governor Romney.

Your so-called sources have made accusations against our company yet remain unnamed. We have proudly signed our names to this statement. These so-called sources are likely discharged or disgruntled former employees. This was a great day, for the employees of American energy, and your negative one-sided reporting has created a disservice to our company and to us, the employees.

You see, Mr. Bloomquist, there is a war on coal and we do want to protect our jobs. Mining jobs are being eliminated and coal fired power plants are being shut down from the President Obama’s actions and policies. We, the undersigned, support Governor Romney and reject President Obama and those like Sherrod Brown who are job killers. In summary, we, the employees of AEC, these great men behind me, our spouses, our children, our parents and our grandparents thoroughly enjoyed this event, a once in a lifetime event, right here, in the Ohio Valley. This is our statement, our choices, and our signatures. Mr. Bloomquist, your shock-jock tactics offend the undersigned, and I have attached our employees and our signatures.

Miracle eloquently concluded:

In closing, standing behind me are proud Americans, proud coal miners proud citizens of this great country, proud members of the Ohio Valley, where we live in and I am damn proud of them. Proud Ohio Valley workers. As you all know the economy has been tough for all of us; this is a great profession, these are great workers and we are proud to be a part of it, part of Murray Energy and we support our owner 100 percent. We ask that the media, let’s embrace coal, embrace what it does for all of us. Let’s be together in what we do.

You don’t have to be a coal miner to stand up and cheer for these men fighting for the truth. You just have to be a real American.

Obama Administration: First to Fund Organization Tied to Cop-Killing Terrorist Group

Obama Administration: First to Fund Organization Tied to Cop-Killing Terrorist Group

obama-bill-ayersWe’re continuing a list of Obama’s “firsts” as President. There will be one more, since this takes up so much time and effort especially when time and effort is now needed to show how Obama covered up the September 11, 2012 terrorists attack upon United States Citizens and which shows that Al Qaeda is now growing, not running scared as Obama would like for us to believe, the more one knows about Obama, the more he displays his Marxist/Communist upbringing!

Obama is the first President to have his administration fund an organization tied to the cop-killing terrorist group, the Weather Underground.

Now just how could this happen? Consider the fact that Bill Ayers had a fund raising party at his house for his neighbor and dear friend, Obama! Just how many other Presidents could be found that have done such an outrageous and very close to treasonous act? We will not write a huge explanation why this should never happen mainly due to the fact that we wish to cover the remaining 32 Firsts by Obama or any other President in the history of our great nation, sorry, but Obama does not think our nation should be that “great’ so let us now look at the rest of his demeaning and sometimes scary Firsts!

Obama is the first President to publicly announce an enemies list (consisting of his opponents campaign contributors; and to use the instrumentalities of government to punish those on the list).

I guess if I keep writing about all the bad stuff this Liar, Coward, and heaven knows what else, will place my name on his list and if he wins in November, I may get picked up and sent to one of his camps to re-educate me into the Socialists ideology!

Obama is the first President to attempt to block legally-required 60-day layoff notices by government contractors due to his own cuts to defense spending, because the notices would occur before the election.

We have seen a bit of this on the news lately where Obama told the companies to ignore, let me repeat that, ignore the law and not hand out any layoff slips and the Government, meaning the taxpayers, will pick up any law suits filed against the company for not abiding with the LAW! Now just how many former Presidents, from any party has ever told anyone to ignore the Law as it is written? And now he wants another term, I would think he would not even tell the companies that if he were re-elected since he would then claim himself as dictator and no laws would be in affect!

Obama is the first President to intentionally disable credit card security measures (in order to allow over-the-limit donations, foreign contributions and other illegal fundraising measures)

Let me see here, to “allow over the limit and foreign and other illegal fundraising measures”? What is going on here? Why are Congress and the rest of Washington just allowing Obama to do, as he wants? He is not a dictator, yet.

Obama is the first President to send 80 percent of a $16 billion program (green energy) to his campaign bundlers and contributors, leaving only 20% to those who did not contribute.

Is it a big surprise to learn that nearly everyone of these companies have either failed or they are in the process of failing? How could anyone do this to our nation unless they had intended to destroy our nation to give rise to a more Marxist ideology, remember that it was Obama whom while at Occidental in California did in fact say he wanted a revolution so he could “change” the United States. Now why would an elected President even consider changing the United States?

Obama is the first President to propose an executive order demanding companies disclose their political contributions to bid on government contracts.

Now just why was this done? Could it be that if these companies did not contribute to the Obama camp, then they would not be chosen or maybe even allowed to bid on Government Contracts? Does this sound like a proper and “open” administration to anyone? It is like Obama does not want anyone to openly bid on any contract that did not contribute to his campaign! Just how does a President get the power to decide this? Where is the separation of Powers here?

Obama is the first President to issue an executive order implementing a “racial justice system”, a system that tries to achieve “racially equivalent outcomes” for crimes.

Just how is this done? Do they determine if maybe a Hispanic did a crime due to his lack of education? Or maybe it is a black that had education but found it more profitable to deal drugs? Just what does the term, “racially equivalent outcomes” really mean? Once again, so many questions so few answers! But once again, why does this President find it better to use or rather Abuse his power to create new laws? Is this really what he wants to do, circumvent Congress and create his own laws, which by the way can be ignored according to the very Constitution he is Circumventing!

Obama is the first President to send millions in taxpayer dollars to his wife’s former employer.

Just what did her “former” employer do? Maybe he “contributed” thousands to his campaign. Why is he even allowed to do this at all, is this not a form of corruption? This lends itself to more questions than answers.

Obama is the first President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United States government. (Source: Reuters)

Now this is something that should rattle everyone as it has an affect upon anyone whom tries to borrow money since this was the First time our triple A credit rating was downgraded! If this happened to us as individuals, it would mean that we could NOT borrow anything until the rating was brought down yet this President, ignores this as if it were a mere bother!

Obama is the first President to bypass Congress and implement the DREAM Act through executive fiat. (Source: Christian Science Monitor)

Wait, does the Constitution mention that Congress has the power to make and enforce laws? Is this an indication of what Obama is planning? Is he really just bypassing Congress and the Constitution because as he says, “This thing called the Constitution keeps getting in my way of doing things.”? President Barack Obama. How many other Presidents even tried to do this as openly as Obama is? Obama took an Oath to uphold the Constitution and yet if Congress says no to him, Obama goes out and makes the very thing Congress said NO to a law by way of a pen! Sounds like a want to be Dictator to many!

Obama is the first President to move America past the dependency tipping point, in which 51% of households now pay no income taxes.

Now if 51% pay no income taxes, just how will the Government run without any revenue coming in from 51% of those working? How can any nation sustain itself when it does not have enough money coming in to cover the expenses? I am very sure that if individuals did this, they would lose everything and maybe be sent to jail for some sort of fraud!! But Obama does not care, all he does is call up Geithner and tell him to print more money that goes down in value each time he does that! What a way to run a nation!

Obama is the first President to increase food stamp spending by more than 100% in less than four years.

We are going to just say what? It just does not make any sort of sense unless, unless one is planning to ruin the nation so he can take over as dictator!

Obama is the first President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs — and later admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs. (Source: President Obama during an early meeting of his ‘Jobs Council‘)

Now this may have been the golden moment when Obama actually admitted he made a mistake, one that cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion!

Obama is the first President to threaten insurance companies after they publicly spoke out on how Obamacare helped cause their rate increases. (Source: The Hill)

Of course Obama does not want the public to know that HIS plan for health care is going to run Doctors, hospitals, and nurses out of the nation in addition to costing much more than if he had just left it alone! But this was not his plan; actually it was one doctor’s idea from when Obama ran for Senator!

Obama is the first President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

Can you say General Motors? It should really be called Government Motors since it is the first company to be nearly bought out by the federal government. Why even do this? Our laws are very specific and should have been followed. If GM was going to fail due to bad practices, they could have just claimed Title 7 and cleaned up their act, but no, Obama wanted to help his Socialist friends in the Unions, especially Trumka who sat with the Communist Party! Is it strange that a lot of Obama’s friends somehow are all linked by either the Communist or Socialists? Maybe they just sat at the wrong table for a few moments…. like the entire night!

Obama is the first President to propose budgets so unreasonable that not a single representative from either party would cast a vote in favor. (Sources: The Hill, Open Market)

Now this is really strange, all of Obama’s budget proposals were voted down by a vast amount of both parties. Wait, the Socialist Democrat Party voted for them, all 74 of them!

Obama is the first President whose economic policies have the number of Americans on disability exceed the population of New York. (Source: CNS News)

Obama had just recently brought the ceiling for getting welfare down to new LOW levels, all one has to do now to say they need welfare is to say they read a book about employment! Now that is a great first! According to Obama, if you sneeze and hurt your back, you should be on disability! That may not be far off the mark by the way! People should be happy with what we have here because if all of these handicapped individuals were in any other part of the world, they would have to fend for themselves because the United States is the only place that takes care of the handicapped, as of now, but maybe Obama plans to do away with that also since he likes the Europe model that does not have handicapped!

Obama is the first President to sign a law requiring all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

Obamacare became the first law that mandated that every person in the United States have healthcare insurance. If one didn’t purchase healthcare insurance, then one would be taxed due to not purchasing the product.

There will be a final article demonstrating the rest of “firsts” by Barack Obama. It’s quite amazing to see how in just one term he could have been first at some of these things and yet, he still remains in office.

This is the third article in a series. Read Part One. Read Part Two.

Libya Fallout Gives Rise to Obama-Clinton Feud

Libya Fallout Gives Rise to Obama-Clinton Feud

by Tony Lee 13 Oct 2012, 1:33 AM PDT 624 post a comment

A nasty rift has opened up between President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the fallout from the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens. This feud may undermine and threaten Obama’s reelection chances.

Obama and Clinton both do not want to be held responsible for the negligence before and the cover-up after the Libya attacks. Clinton biographer Ed Klein on Friday reported that Bill Clinton, sensing Obama’s political team wants to pin legal and political blame on the State Department and Hillary Clinton, has been working on doomsday and contingency scenarios “to avoid having Benghazi become a stain on her political fortunes should she decide to run for president in 2016.”

“If relations between Obama’s White House and Hillary’s State Department rupture publicly over the growing Benghazi scandal, that could damage the Democratic ticket and dim Obama’s chances for re-election,” Klein writes.

According to Klein’s sources, Bill Clinton has assembled an informal legal team in case there are cables or other evidence that would legally implicate Hillary. Klein also told The Daily Caller that Bill has even considered advising Hillary to resign if the Obama administration tries to make her the “scapegoat.”

On Friday, there were signs the White House was preparing to do to throw Hillary Clinton and the State Department under the bus.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, when asked if Obama and Biden had “never been briefed” about the fact that more security was needed in Libya, essentially blamed the State Department, saying, “matters of security personnel are appropriately discussed and decided upon at the State Department by those responsible for it.”

Carney repeated a variation of this line throughout the press briefing.

Carney’s comments came a day after Vice President Joe Biden not only contradicted State Department officials but himself threw the intelligence community under the bus when he said the Obama administration did not know U.S. interests in Libya needed more security before the attacks and that the intelligence community changed its story after.

Hillary Clinton went to a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conference on the Middle East and North Africa Friday and tried to deflect blame from herself and the State Department — some damage control of her own.

She insisted the United States cannot guarantee “perfect security” for its diplomats overseas, though Stevens is the first ambassador to have been murdered overseas since 1979 under the Carter administration.

“We will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism, or achieve perfect security,” Clinton said. “Our people cannot live in bunkers and do their jobs.”

Clinton then claimed the reaction of the Middle East street “supports rather than discredits the promise of the Arab Spring.” Americans, she asserted, needed to look at the “full picture” and not just the “violent acts of a small number of extremists against the aspirations and actions of the region’s people and governments” that are in the headlines.

Clinton said Americans “cannot sacrifice accuracy to speed” in finding out the facts that led to the Libya attacks, and the Middle East cannot “return to the false choice between freedom and stability.”

Klein writes that the long-simmering feud between Obama and the Clintons has only gotten worse after the Democratic National Convention. The bad blood between Obama and the Clinton family dates back to the 2008 Democratic primary, and Obama’s advisers had to convince Obama to give Clinton a prominent role at the convention.

Klein writes “the latest quarrel began when Clinton heard that Obama was behaving so cocky about his first debate against Mitt Romney that he wasn’t taking his debate prep seriously.”

Clinton offered to give Obama some advice, and Obama brushed him off.

Klein writes “the former president was dumbfounded that Obama had ignored his offer, and his hurt feelings quickly boiled over into anger.”

“Bill thought that he and Obama were on friendly terms after the convention,” a source told Klein. “He couldn’t believe that the White House didn’t even extend him the courtesy of a return phone call. He concluded that Obama’s arrogance knows no bounds.”

There is no love lost between Obama and the Clintons, and they could mutually destroy their political futures in the days ahead. Team Obama could destroy Hillary Clinton’s 2016 prospects by scapegoating her for the Libya attacks. But Hillary Clinton, by potentially resigning or pointing to evidence that implicates Obama and Biden, can just as easily torpedo Obama’s chances at getting reelected.

Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Biden






Home / Doug’s Columns /

Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Biden

By / 15 October 2012 / 2 Comments


“When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.” —Proverbs 29:9
I was going to title this column, “How Not to Be a Smarmy, Bellicose, Horse-Toothed Dork Like Biden.” However, upon deeper contemplation I thought I’d direct it toward parents as an attempt to save the next generation from the insufferable effects of the boorish Biden bug.

To call Biden an ass-clown after last Thursday’s debate with Rep. Paul Ryan is to insult bottoms, donkeys and Bozos far and wide. I’m surprised Joe didn’t fart loudly and then say, “What can you and Romney do about that?!”

Aside from Biden’s steady stream of steamy scat (which was debunked nanoseconds after it tumbled off his forked tongue) his disrespectful antics on deadly serious subjects during the debate made him eclipse Al Gore as the all-time winner of the Ignoble Douche Prize. I bet if Joe could’ve licked himself like a dog he would have done it last Thursday night. Twice.

Oh well, what can you expect from someone who says the passing of Obamacare is “a big effing deal,” or who canoodles with biker chicks on the campaign trail, or who blurts out when he’s drunk that SEAL Team 6 killed Osama, breaching security and leading to fatwas being put out on their heads (and those of their families)?

Not only have Obama and Biden wrecked our economy, but they have also morphed our highest office in the land into an unfunny SNL skit. Hopefully, they’re destined to only “one season.”

Now, to make certain parents don’t yield up blights like Biden, make sure, mom and dad, that etiquette—even in debate—is part and parcel of your kids’ hard drive. You’re the only one who can make this happen, so pay attention to the bullet points below to guarantee your kids don’t follow our vapid Veep’s conduct.

  • Never exaggerate.
  • Never point at another.
  • Never betray a confidence.
  • Never laugh at the misfortunes of others.
  • Never give a promise that you do not fulfill.
  • Never speak much of your own performances.
  • Never make yourself the hero of your own story.
  • Never fail to give a polite answer to a civil question.
  • Never call a new acquaintance by their first name unless requested.
  • Never attempt to draw the attention of the company constantly upon yourself.
  • Never exhibit too great a familiarity with a new acquaintance, as you may give offense.
  • Never fail to tell the truth. If truthful, you get your reward. You will get your punishment if you deceive.
  • Never fail to speak kindly. If in any position where you exercise authority, you show yourself to be a gentleman by your pleasant mode of address.
  • Never attempt to convey the impression that you are a genius.

And for those who think my disdain for Joe’s juvenile behavior is rank partisan perturbation, his own party’s cheerleaders derided him for his derisive behavior. Check it out:

NBC News’ David Gregory: “Biden’s smile is out of control.” (David Gregory, Twitter Feed, 10/11/12)

NBC News’ Mike O’Brien: “Biden really has to rein in his mannerisms.” (Mike O’Brien, Twitter Feed, 10/11/12)

CNN’s Piers Morgan: “Joe, seriously, STOP SMIRKING. This is serious stuff. Be Vice-Presidential.” (Piers Morgan, Twitter Feed, 10/11/12)

CNN’s Gloria Borger: “It was condescending at times, to Paul Ryan and I think I could’ve done with a lot less eye rolling and chuckling on the part of Joe Biden.” (CNN’s “Inside The Spin Room,” 10/11/12)

Bloomberg’s Josh Barro: “Biden smirk is … not good.” (Josh Barro, Twitter Feed, 10/11/12)

NBC News’ Betsy Fischer Martin: “Biden constant smiling is reminding me of Gore constant sighing in 2000.” (Betsy Fischer Martin, Twitter Feed, 10/11/12)

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Ok. I have decided. I find the Biden smile slightly unsettling.” (Chris Cillizza, Twitter Feed, 10/11/12)

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake: “Biden making lots of noise/motion while Ryan is talking.” (Aaron Blake, Twitter Feed, 10/11/12)

WPHT Philadelphia’s Chris Stigall: “Biden laughs like this is a game. Disgraceful.” (Chris Stigall, Twitter Feed, 10/11/12)

Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be Biden.

For an arsenal on raising classic kids, check out

Also, check out our latest video: Clash on The Campus: Inside The Mind of Young Voters (Yikes!)

Vice Presidential Debate

This was the most outrageous political performances I’ve ever saw. Vice President Bidden not only showed total disrespect to Paul Ryan, but he also showed utter disdain for the American people watching this spectacle. His mocking smiling, mugging for the camera and demeaning laughter at what Mr. Ryan was saying, demeaned the office of Vice President, and produced shame on President Obama. His conduct was that of a schoolyard bully, or a self-righteous debater who has no real substance to argue, thus uses these tactics to shame his opponent.

I’ve had the displeasure of interacting with several of these type people in my life. Although they seem to be fun-loving people, in reality they are despicable. Unfortunately, too many of these type of people permeate the Congress, dismissed Representative Anthony Wiener comes to mind. Self centered, full of themselves, they go about “glade handing” people and applying their charm.

Prior to this debate I heard nothing but glowing testimonies of Joe Bidden the man. I have not heard a single bad word about him. Last night’s performance seems to show the opposite. This morning the President said he was proud of Vice President Bidden’s performance. That tells us more about President Obama and the entire Whitehouse.

I agree with Charles Kruathamme3r’s assessment of the evening. If you where listening to the debate on radio, your conclusion would be that Vice President Bidden was the victor. If you were reading the transcript, you would say it was a tie. Watching this “train-wreck” of a debate, Mr. Ryan was the winner. Now I understand the polls this morning having it 50/50.

My hopes are that Mitt Romney comes out even stronger next Tuesday. I hope he maintains his Corporate Charmian of the Board persona and refuses to let President Obama dictate the conversation. He needs to stick to the facts, deliver the detail necessary to shut up the Left, and do more to relate to all Americans. If so, these debates will have more to do with winning the election than anytime in history.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Unless you live under a rock, you have heard the accusations of the Left saying Mitt Romney lied at the last debate and that is why he won the debate. Although the President had every opportunity to point out any lies, he chose to be “polite”.  Did you notice how Mitt Romney pointed out the Presidents misrepresentations of Mitt’s plan, but with all proper respect due the office of the President? Until today, no one on the Left could articulate what Mitt Romney lied about.

Now, one of the Presidents spokespersons is proclaiming Mitt Romney lied about his 5 Trillion Dollar tax cut. This same women said after she first heard Mitt Romney’s explanation about the tax cut that it was conceivable. Today she claims she never said that, even when presented with video evidence. According to her, the Romney/Ryan team is not honest, and of course, they use the word LIAR very liberally.

Let us put this to rest. Nonpartisan economic analyst has said, the Romney Plan is plausible as represented. Enough said.

Now, on another, yet connect, subject, the Congressional hearings on the Benghazi Embassy attack was heard yesterday. I took the time to watch it on C-Span. On the witness panel were several “Whistle Blowers” detailing the facts that what the White House ordered to be told the public through U.N. Ambassador Wright was in fact, deliberate lies (there is that word again). For a week they covered up what they knew from the very moment of the attack was a lie, because the woman responsible for declining the requests for more security people watched the entire attack in real-time via video from Benghazi. THEY KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT IT WAS A PLANNED, MILITARY STYLE, COORDINATED DELIBERATE ATTACK, and had nothing to do with a demonstration or a video.

It was noteworthy that more than half the committee members were missing. Also noteworthy is that while the Republicans asked the correct probing questions, the Democrat representatives (only three or four) made statements referring to President Regan’s time and all the foreign attacks we suffered under his presidency. They referred to other bad behavior to cover over the Benghazi attack.

Additionally noteworthy was an exchange between a Republican and Democrat colleagues. The Republican representative accused Ambassador Wright of deliberately lying to the American people in her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows. Immediately the Democrat representative got highly indignant and exclaimed how improper it was to call the ambassador a liar. Really. It did happen. No, I didn’t hear any snickering, but the expressions on everyone’s face said it all.

Typical of the Left. They find it acceptable to demonize their opponents and call them liars, yet it is unacceptable for the Right to do the same. They continue to prove that not anything they say can be trusted. The so-called “Tolerant” Party is in fact very INTOLERANT of anyone who opposes them. Their self-righteous dogma continues to lower their Moral Standards Bar. Any further drop and the bar will become a threshold.

Got Racism?

Ann Coulter Letter

Got racism?

Got racism?

Actress Stacey Dash

By: Ann Coulter
10/10/2012 06:04 PM

Liberal racism sightings have become like a lunatic’s version of “Where’s Waldo?” Kevin Baker of Harper’s magazine says Romney’s referring to his “five boys” in last week’s debate was how he “slyly found a way” to call Obama a “boy.” Says Baker: “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that!”MSNBC’s Chris Matthews says the word “apartment” is racist because black people live in apartments. He also says the word “Chicago” is racist because — despite its well-known reputation as the home of Al Capone and the Daley machine — a lot of black people live there, too. (And don’t get him started on “Chicago apartments”!)As we go to press, Matthews is working on an exciting new hypothesis that peanut butter is racist.Meanwhile, my new favorite actress, Stacey Dash, sends an inoffensive little tweet supporting Mitt Romney and is buried in tweets calling her “an indoor slave” and a “jiggaboo,” who was “slutting (herself) to the white man.” (And those were just the tweets from the Obama 2012 Re-election Campaign!)

Could we get an expert opinion from Chris Matthews or Kevin Baker about whether any of that is racist?

It’s a strange thing with liberals. They spend so much time fawning over black nonentities — like Maya Angelou, Eugene Robinson, Barack and Michelle Obama, and Rachel Maddow’s very, very, very special black guest Melissa Harris-Perry — that, every once in awhile, they seem to erupt in racist bile to restore their mental equilibrium.

After President George W. Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, she was maligned in racist cartoons portraying her as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches.

Kevin Baker didn’t notice any of that because he was working on his theory that referring to your sons is racist.

When Michael Steele ran for senator from Maryland, he was depicted in blackface and with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Sen. Charles Schumer’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of Steele’s credit report — something done to no other Republican candidate.

Is that more or less racist than Romney mentioning his sons? More or less racist than the word “apartment”?

Mia Love, a black Republican running for Congress in Utah had her Wikipedia page hacked with racist bile, heavy on the N-word. Her campaign headquarters has been bombarded with racist graffiti and slimy mailings with pictures of Klansman next to photos of her family.

Some would say that’s even more racist than Romney talking about his sons.

On less evidence than the birthers have, liberals slandered both Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain with the racist stereotype of black men as sexual predators.

As the preceding short list suggests, liberals usually limit their racist slime to conservative blacks. But not always.

In 2008, Bill Clinton said of Obama “a few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Democratic Sen. Harry Reid praised Obama for not speaking in a “Negro dialect.” Joe Biden complimented Obama for being “clean” and “articulate.”

Did I mention that Kevin Baker thinks that Romney referring to his “five boys” is racist?

Two years ago, liberal newsman Dan Rather said the criticism of Obama was that he “couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” (I immediately called for Rather’s firing for that, and then remembered that he didn’t have a job.)

Last week, Rather won the 2012 Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement from Washington State University. That’s not a joke — or at least not my joke.

Meanwhile, evidence of alleged Republican racism invariably consists of tenuous connections and apocryphal signals normally associated with schizophrenics and sufferers of “Thrilled Leg Syndrome.”

Since February 2008, the primary evidence of racism has been failure to fully support Obama’s election, policies or re-election. As Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg put it during the last presidential campaign, only if Obama were elected president would children in America be able to “grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives.”

I wish I had a nickel for every kid who’s come up to me in an airport and said, “What I wouldn’t give to be able to think of prejudice as a non-factor in my life …”

Curiously, liberals weren’t concerned about what children in America would think if Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination had been defeated. No, only electing the most liberal person ever to seek the presidency on a major party ticket would prove that the country could “put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.”

The left’s racial demagoguery worked: In 2008, Obama received a larger proportion of the white vote than any Democrat running for president in nearly 40 years. (Though he tied Clinton’s 1996 white vote record.)

And look how well that turned out! We haven’t heard another peep about racism since then.

To read more about what a smashing success the left’s utterly self-serving racial bullying has been, read my new book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.”

The Militant Party

I heard someone refer to the Political Left as “The Militant Party”. At first I thought that was unfair, however, after giving it much thought I have come to agree. The synonyms for Militant are;

  • Confrontational
  • Aggressive
  • Radical
  • Revolutionary
  • Combative
  • Rebellious
  • Belligerent
  • Bellicose: ready or inclined to quarrel, fight, or go to war.

Let’s review the recent past of the Democrat Party and the actions of their members;

  • Today it was revealed that a young black actress Tweeted that she wanted people to vote for Mitt Romney. The Left pounced on her calling names like “Turn-coat”. Several Tweets came back to her threatening her life. Here is another example of the Left wanting Free Speech ONLY if it agrees with THEIR speech.
  • Mitt Romney is declared the winner of the last debate, even by the Main Stream Media machine. Instead of admitting the President may have had a bad night, they sent out their “Talking-Head-Chorus” proclaiming Mitt Romney a liar. However, not one of them can articulate what he lied about.
  • Contrast the difference between the Occupied Movement and the Tea Party. Can anyone point to a time when the Tea Party ever;
    • Burned a Police Car?
    • Set fire to anything?
    • Broke any windows?
    • Defecated on a Police Car or urinated in public?
    • Set up tents on private property?
    • Took over an area and demanded that local people feed them?
    • Raped anyone?
    • Assaulted anyone?
    • Trashed any area?
    • Leave an area they demonstrated in cleaner than they found it?
    • Throw rocks at Police and cause a total disruption of local business, community travel, or normal conducting of activity?
  • The rhetoric coming from the White House and the Democrat Party for years has been;
    • Social warfare
    • Racial warfare
    • Economic warfare
    • Religious warfare
      • Their “Talking-Head-Chorus” has been so good at keeping the racial strife pot stirring over the years with no determination to put out the fire and encourage healing. All they do is stir the pot higher and higher. I believe they want the pot to boil over producing violence and a race, social, economic and religious war in America.
  • Any disagreement with what they say, or opinions they hold dear or policy difference is met with character assassinations. Can anyone remember back a few years ago with it was Senator Clinton screaming into a microphone her displeasure with the inference that she and her colleagues were accused of being unpatriotic because they didn’t agree with the Bush Administration’s policies?
  • Notice the times when they are questioned about their decision process over events like “Fast and Furious”, “Libyan Embassy Attack” or details about President Obama’s past you are called a racist, hater and any other demonizing label they come with?
  • Listen to the rhetoric of the Professional Pot Stirrers associated with the Left. All of their words are filled with anger, rage, malice and hatred. Only one conclusion can be made; they want to stir up anger, rage, malice and hatred. That produces more separation of the American people and cause groups pitting them against each other, instead of producing harmony, acceptance and true tolerance.
  • They claim to be the “Tolerant” party, unless you disagree with them in any way. Violent intolerance is the reality of the party.

What would happen if they succeeded in their efforts to cause a race, economic, class war to break out? Do you think they would admit any connection to it or would they sell their followers that Republicans/Conservatives caused the war? Do you think President Obama would declare Marshall Law and name himself as the Ultimate Leader of the New Social American Nation?

Possible? Probable?

Vendetta: Obama’s War on the Bible

Vendetta: Obama’s War on the Bible

Could you vote for someone, if you knew that they were hostile to your worldview? What if that candidate went beyond passive hostility to act upon their enmity? In just 4 short years, President Obama has demonstrated his hostility against biblical principles and the people who live by them. This short film is an attempt to catalog some of his most egregious attacks on the Bible and its adherents.



Pelosi: Benghazi is the fault of the Republicans


posted on October 4, 2012 by Filed Under Islam, News, Politics

Pelosi: Benghazi is the fault of the Republicans

When Mitt Romney pointed out how the killing of our Libyan Ambassador and other diplomats in Benghazi showed that Obama’s Middle East strategy (if he has one) is not working, the media acted like he had committed an unforgiveable rudeness. Making statements about American policy in the Middle East, after we saw that policy fail, was treated some kind of unethical behavior.

Now it looks like the White House and State Department were actually warned of a terrorist threat to Americans in Libya, and the consulate actually requested increased security.

Despite two explosions and dozens of other security threats, U.S. officials in Washington turned down repeated pleas from American diplomats in Libya to increase security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi where the U.S. ambassador was killed…

The mainstream media is treating this like a Republican strategy rather than a real news story. But even CNN has published reports that support the credibility of the claims, such as a story published on September 17:

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi took it a step farther on CNN. When talking to Wolf Blitzer, she said killings were the fault of House Republicans: “It’s also important to note that the Republican appropriation Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for the State Department, including funding for security.”

This insane accusation cannot stand any kind of objective scrutiny. Administrations routinely “high-ball” their requests so that Congress can come in lower and still given them money. There is no evidence that Pelosi’s alleged missing millions prevented security from being beefed up—nor has anyone ventured such an accusation until Pelosi made it up on CNN. Security was not increased because someone decided not to increase it.

In fact, according to, the White House had suggested cutting $129 million of the present budget from “embassy security, construction, and maintenance.”

So where is the media outrage at Pelosi’s transparent ploy to deflect attention away from the president’s policies in an election year, using the death of our diplomats to do it? Not only did she make such an outrageous suggestion, but she did so in a face to face interview with a mainstream TV interviewer. That tells us she had perfect confidence that, whether or not she was able to convince anyone, she would suffer no consequences.

Only Romney gets punished for speaking; Pelosi gets a free ride.

Who Showed Up Last Night?

It did not take long to notice who showed up for the debate last night. President Obama revealed more about his real self;

  • Uneasy without the Teleprompter
  • Uneasy when the discussion is not scripted.
  • Embarrassed about his record. I believe that is why he couldn’t look at Mitt Romney while Romney was talking.
  • His body language screamed he was not comfortable, not happy to be there and appeared to act like a child being scolded.
  • His presentation was nothing new, and repeated the spin of his campaign. When Romney called him on it, he had no satisfactory response.

The “Chairman of the Board” Romney showed up and ready to take charge of the situation. He was confident, unswerving and well prepared for the meeting;

  • He clearly pointed out all of Candidate Obama’s promises that have gone unrealized as if he were holding a Senior Manager for not achieving what was committed.
  • He clearly provided enough details that any candidate could make explaining that he knows he cannot get cooperation when he presents a plan of action under the attitude of, “My way or the highway”.
  • With all the grace due to President and his office, Mitt Romney corrected the misrepresented claims of the Left about who and what Mitt Romney stands for and wants to do.
  • He would not let the moderator create a unleveled playing field toward the President. He demanded what was right and succeeded.
  • He held the President’s feet to the fire about misrepresentations on Obama Care, budgets and taxes.

We saw two very different men with two very different backgrounds and experience;

  • America found out what happened when you elect a person to office who has absolutely no experience to qualify them to run that office.
  • Mitt Romney stands for what has always made America strong and prosperous; a Free Market unencumbered by Federal interference with over regulations and hampering taxes.
  • President Obama believes in Collective Socialism. Every country that has tried this has failed, or is failing at this point.
  • Mitt Romney stands for personal freedom and personal accountability. Left to themselves, free people can produce more, invent more and as a result, pay more taxes from their efforts.
  • Because President Obama is deeply entrenched in the ideology of the Democrat Party’s main mantra, “The Democratic Party is Dependent on the American People Being Dependent”, he stands for massive government “Nanny State” making everyone’s decisions about what the government thinks is best for you. When he talks about education and jobs smacks of Communists determining what you are best suited for and train you to do that job/career only.

This morning, highlights of President Obama speaking at a rally were business as usual. His “put-down” of Mitt Romney was consistent with his total disrespect of anyone else’s opinion. I believe that part of President Obama was unmasked last night and I hope the unmasking continues. Even some of the MSM (Main Stream Media) acknowledged that the clear winner was Mitt Romney. Chris Matthews was beside himself that President Obama’s performance was so bad and pointed out the failings that all the honest observers expressed.

10 Questions for the First Presidential Debate

Morning Bell: 10 Questions for the First Presidential Debate

Amy Payne

October 3, 2012 at 9:05 am

Tonight’s debate between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney is supposed to focus on domestic policy, with a major concentration on the economy. Health care, the role of government, and philosophy of governing are also on the agenda. The Heritage Foundation’s policy experts have submitted 10 questions they would like to see asked in the debate.

1. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said, “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” In reality, President Obama’s signature health care law contains 18 new or increased taxes and penalties that will cost taxpayers $836.3 billion over the next 10 years, many of which fall heavily on the middle class. In fact, almost 70 percent of those responsible for paying the fiercely debated individual mandate are below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Should these tax increases be stopped to protect middle-class Americans from their damage? If yes, where would the money needed to help pay for Obamacare come from?

2. Millions of baby boomers are starting to retire, and spending on Social Security and Medicare as these programs are currently structured is simply unsustainable. What is your plan to solve the looming entitlement program spending crisis?

3. Medicare as we know it today is facing severe financing problems that are unsustainable and putting future generations’ Medicare benefits in jeopardy. Over the long term, Medicare has made $37 trillion worth of promises to seniors that it cannot keep and the hospital insurance trust fund will be empty by 2024. Worse, the President’s health care law will cut Medicare by $716 billion over the next 10 years to pay for new spending in Obamacare. As Medicare’s solvency hangs in the balance, what structural reforms, if any, are you willing to make to preserve Medicare for future generations?

4. Everyone talks about shoring up our battered American Dream. How would you define the American Dream and what do you think are the most serious threats to it?

5. The Health and Human Services Department recently rewrote the law governing welfare to weaken its work requirements. Meanwhile, the number of people relying on food stamps has doubled under the current Administration. Should all able-bodied recipients be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid in public housing, food stamps, and cash assistance?

6. The federal government is currently spending much more than it has, and annual budget deficits over $1 trillion have become the norm. What is your plan to stem the tide of deficits and rising debt?

7. One of the few bright spots in America’s economy has been energy production, particularly on state and private lands.  According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), energy production decreased 13 percent on federal lands in fiscal year (FY) 2011 when compared to FY 2010.  What would you do to reverse course on energy production on federal lands?

8. Congress—most notably the Senate, which hasn’t produced a budget in over three years—is sorely lacking in its basic responsibility of budgeting. What would you do to ensure the fundamental process of budgeting is restored?

9. President Obama has previously stated that, in the most important 5 percent of cases before the courts, it matters more what is in a judge’s heart (what has come to be known as his empathy standard) than what the rule of law requires. Is this the correct standard by which to evaluate judicial nominees? If not, what standard would you apply?

10. Former Attorney General of Mexico Victor Humberto Benítez Treviño estimated that approximately 300 Mexican citizens have been killed using Fast and Furious weapons in addition to U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Should Eric Holder resign as Attorney General because of his failures related to Operation Fast and Furious, including his failure to properly supervise the operation? If not, why not?

Column: Christian companies can’t bow to sinful mandate

By David Green

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn’t much bigger than most people’s living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God’s word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation’s largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business must provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions. Which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million per day in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right.

I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief. So, Hobby Lobby — and my family — are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that’s a choice no American — and no American business — should have to make.

David Green is the CEO and founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Arab Spring

While listening to the news today, I heard the phrase, “Arab Spring” and realized I did not know what that was or could give an explanation of why “Arab Spring” is so important. I may be the last person on earth to gain this understanding, but just in case I am not the only one ignorant of the meaning of the phrase, here is some quick reference information from Wikipedia (;

Arab Spring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arab Spring
Collage for MENA protests
Clockwise from top left: Protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo; Demonstrators marching through Habib Bourguiba Avenue in Tunis; Political dissidents in Sana’a; Protesters gathering in Pearl Roundabout in Manama; Mass demonstration in Douma; Demonstrators in Bayda.
Date 18 December 2010 – present
(1 year, 9 months, 2 weeks and 1 day)
Location Arab world (see list of countries)
Status Ongoing

  • Tunisian President Ben Ali ousted, and government overthrown.
  • Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak ousted, and government overthrown.
  • Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi killed after a civil war with foreign military intervention, and government overthrown.
  • Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh ousted, and hands power to a national unity government.
  • Syria experiences a full-scale civil war between the government and opposition forces.
  • Civil uprising against the government of Bahrain, despite government changes.
  • Kuwait, Lebanon and Oman implementing government changes in response to protests.
  • Morocco, Jordan implementing constitutional reforms in response to protests.
  • Ongoing protests in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mauritania and some other countries.
Death(s) 50,000–60,000 (International estimate; see table below)

The Arab Spring, also known as the Arab Revolution[1] (Arabic: الثورات العربية‎, al-Thawrāt al-ʻArabiyyah), is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests occurring in the Arab world that began on 18 December 2010.

To date, rulers have been forced from power in Tunisia,[2] Egypt,[3] Libya,[4] and Yemen;[5] civil uprisings have erupted in Bahrain[6] and Syria;[7] major protests have broken out in Algeria,[8] Iraq,[9] Jordan,[10] Kuwait,[11] Morocco,[12] and Sudan;[13] and minor protests have occurred in Lebanon,[14] Mauritania,[15] Oman,[16] Saudi Arabia,[17] Djibouti,[18] and Western Sahara.[19] Clashes at the borders of Israel in May 2011,[20] and the protests by the Arab minority in Iranian Khuzestan erupted in 2011 as well.[21] Weapons and Tuareg fighters returning from the Libyan civil war stoked a simmering rebellion in Mali, and the consequent Malian coup d’état has been described as “fallout” from the Arab Spring in North Africa.[22] The sectarian clashes in Lebanon were described as a spillover violence of the Syrian uprising and hence the regional Arab Spring.[23] Most recently, in September 2012 a wave of social protests swept Palestinian Authority, demanding lower consumer prices and resignation of the Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad.

The protests have shared techniques of mostly civil resistance in sustained campaigns involving strikes, demonstrations, marches, and rallies, as well as the effective use of social media[24][25] to organize, communicate, and raise awareness in the face of state attempts at repression and Internet censorship.[26][27]

Many Arab Spring demonstrations have met violent responses from authorities,[28][29][30] as well as from pro-government militias and counter-demonstrators. These attacks have been answered with violence from protestors in some cases.[31][32][33] A major slogan of the demonstrators in the Arab world has been Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ an-niẓām (“the people want to bring down the regime”).[34]

Some observers have drawn comparisons between the Arab Spring movements and the pro-democratic, anti-Communist Revolutions of 1989 (also known as the Autumn of Nations) that swept through Eastern Europe and the Communist world, in terms of their scale and significance.[35][36][37] Others, however, have pointed out that there are several key differences between the movements, such as the desired outcomes and the organizational role of (internet) technology in the Arab revolutions.[38][39][40]



Numerous factors have led to the protests, including issues such as dictatorship or absolute monarchy, human rights violations, government corruption (demonstrated by Wikileaks diplomatic cables),[41] economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and a number of demographic structural factors,[42] such as a large percentage of educated but dissatisfied youth within the population.[43] Also, some, like Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek attribute the 2009 Iranian protests as one of the reasons behind the Arab Spring.[44] The 2010 Kyrgyzstani revolution might also have been one of the factors, which influenced the beginning of the Arab Spring.[citation needed] The catalysts for the revolts in all Northern African and Persian Gulf countries have been the concentration of wealth in the hands of autocrats in power for decades, insufficient transparency of its redistribution, corruption, and especially the refusal of the youth to accept the status quo.[45] Increasing food prices and global famine rates have also been a significant factor,[46][47] as they involve threats to food security worldwide and prices that approach levels of the 2007–2008 world food price crisis.[48] Amnesty International singled out Wikileaks‘ release of US diplomatic cables as a catalyst for the revolts.[49]

In recent decades rising living standards and literacy rates, as well as the increased availability of higher education, have resulted in an improved human development index in the affected countries. The tension between rising aspirations and a lack of government reform may have been a contributing factor in all of the protests.[45][50][51] Many of the Internet-savvy youth of these countries have, increasingly over the years, been viewing autocrats and absolute monarchies as anachronisms. A university professor of Oman, Al-Najma Zidjaly referred to this upheaval as youthquake.[45]

Tunisia and Egypt, the first to witness major uprisings, differ from other North African and Middle Eastern nations such as Algeria and Libya in that they lack significant oil revenue, and were thus unable to make concessions to calm the masses.[45]

The relative success of the democratic Republic of Turkey, with its substantially free and vigorously contested but peaceful elections, fast-growing but liberal economy, secular constitution but Islamist government, created a model (the Turkish model) if not a motivation for protestors in neighbouring states.[52]


Yes, I believe that these riots and demonstrations will show up here in America. Yes, I believe that it will be American Islam radicals doing the demonstrating. Already we’ve seen many efforts to get Sharia Law adopted into our courts, and as more and more Muslims make demands on American business and facilities, riots and demonstrations are not far behind.

It is all the more important that we elect leaders that will stand up to them and deny them their special privileges. Encourage everyone you know to vote prayerfully, being well-informed on the issues and void of the hype. 2012 elections are indeed the most important of all elections in our history. Truly, may God Save the United States of America.

Preparing to Vote 8; The Wisdom of Thomas Sowell

































































































Obama USDA met 30 times with Mexican gov’t to promote food-stamp use among Mexican immigrants

Published: 2:15 AM 10/01/2012
By Caroline May

NEW YORK – FEBRUARY 10: Kethia Dorelus a social worker with the Cooperative Feeding Program displays a Federal food stamps card that is used to purchase food on February 10, 2011 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Department of Agriculture personnel in the Obama administration have met with Mexican Government officials dozens of times since the president took office to promote nutrition assistance programs — notably food stamps — among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.

Writing in response to Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions’ July request for information about the USDA’s little known partnership with the Mexican government to educate citizen and noncitizen immigrants from Mexico about the availability of food stamps and other nutrition assistance programs, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the partnership as a way to curb hunger in America — and the continuation of a program formed under the Bush administration in 2004.

“The Mexico-U.S. Partnership for Nutrition Assistance Initiative is just one of a wide range of USDA partnership activities intended to promote awareness of nutrition assistance among those who need benefits and meet all program requirements under current law.” Vilsack wrote to Sessions in a letter obtained by The Daily Caller. (RELATED: USDA uses Spanish soap operas to push food stamps among non-citizens, citizens)

Since the partnership began, Vilsack wrote, USDA personnel have met at least 151 times with officials from the Mexican government “to discuss nutrition assistance programs as well as to provide program updates.” Those instances included 91 meetings with embassy and consulate staff in 25 U.S. cities; 29 health fairs in 19 U.S. cities; and 31 roundtable discussions, conferences and forums in 20 U.S. cities.

Roughly 30 of these meetings and activities occurred under the Obama administration, Vilsack’s letter revealed.

The agriculture secretary added that the list might not be exhaustive as some of the meetings may not have been recorded.

Sessions has been the lead lawmaker pushing back against the partnership. According to the Alabama senator, the program appears to be in “plain conflict with the sound principles of federal immigration law.”

“The premise of American immigration is that those entering our country should have to work and to contribute to the financial health of the United States,” Sessions told TheDC Sunday evening. “Not only does the administration violate this principle through the partnership, but it does harm by gradually displacing the role of family and community with continual government aid. Welfare reform is guided by the moral principle that good policy helps more people live better lives.”

In his letter, Vilsack asserted that USDA does not pressure people to enroll in the program or is attempting to boost its rolls. President Obama, too, has said that “people do not come here looking for handouts.”

“We do not pressure any eligible person to accept benefits, nor is our goal to simply increase the number of program participants, but we are determined to help people in need make informed decisions about whether or not to seek assistance for which they may be eligible,” Vilsack claimed.

The mission USDA articulates on its website is to “increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” — food stamps. The agency has been engaged in aggressive advertising campaigns and issuing guidance to state and local offices about how to enroll more beneficiaries.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: