I get more sickened by the day. This is nothing short of treason!

The American Spectator

Benghazigate: Chapter Two

By Jed Babbin on 10.29.12 @ 6:10AM

Treachery and betrayal were the Administration's response, as the media gives Obama cover.

What more does anyone need to know than that Americans are under attack before ordering a military response to suppress the attack and possibly rescue our people?

Even if the initial response isn't exactly what you'd want it to be, even if you don't have every asset available that you might in a perfect world, isn't it your duty -- whether you're a lowly second lieutenant or the Secretary of Defense -- to do everything you can as quickly as you can?

Of course it is, at least unless you're President Obama and his minions. His two principal flunkies -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta -- had a lot of options on September 11 during the seven-hour attack on our Benghazi consulate and the CIA house about a mile away. According to a Fox News report based on several sources, the people under attack pled with the CIA for help three times during the attack and all three pleas were refused. Team Obama did nothing to save their lives.

The accuracy of the Fox report is easily derived from other facts. One element of proof that the requests were made -- by people under fire -- comes from Panetta's whining. According to a Reuters report, Panetta said there wasn't enough information to responsibly deploy forces to Libya during the attack. "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place."

Really, Mr. Secretary? Let's set aside the fact that one or more drones were over the consulate during the attack, sending back the information Panetta says he needed. But the drone issue begs the question: Panetta cannot really believe that sending armed aircraft from our base at Sigonella, Italy -- about 350 air miles away -- wouldn't have given him both the capability of suppressing the attack and whatever other information he thinks he needed. Panetta's whine is as evasive as his actions were treacherous.

President Obama was apparently so fearful of offending some Islamic mob that he preferred to let our people be killed than send a couple of F-18s from Sigonella to Benghazi. Flight time -- for fully armed aircraft at about 0.7 or 0.8 Mach -- is less than an hour. The attack went on for seven hours. If the fly-guys busted Mach, they could have been there in about a half hour. Plenty of time to pop a sonic boom over the consulate which -- as we've seen in Afghanistan many times -- is enough to send the terrorists running. And -- if there wasn't time for the first flight to be armed -- it would have been able to recon the situation and give the time for fully-armed aircraft to arrive about fifteen or twenty minutes later.

Obama's fingerprints are all over this refusal to come to the aid of our people when they were under attack. The CIA -- implicitly confirming the pleas for help -- denies that anyone in its chain of command rejected any such request. The specificity of the CIA denial gives us another proof that the requests were made, but it carries a second aspect of responsibility for the failure to send help. CIA Director David Petraeus must have passed the requests up the chain of command and someone higher than him -- the president is the only one higher than a cabinet member -- denied the requests.

Clinton has to have known what Charlene Lamb -- her head of embassy security -- knew during the attack. (Lamb testified at a 10 October congressional hearing that she was in real-time contact with the consulate during the attack.) So must have Petraeus, because his CIA operators -- former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty among them -- were making the pleas for assistance and asking permission to rush to the consulate's defense. Woods and Doherty were told to "stand down." As Fox reports, the two apparently ignored the orders and rushed to the consulate to help. Unable to find the ambassador, they withdrew to their CIA outpost, which then came under attack. Both were killed there.

President Obama is still fumbling and lying about the whole incident including the refusal of the pleas for help. In a Denver TV interview on Friday, Obama ducked questions about the Benghazi incident twice. He's also saying that he ordered support for the consulate personnel as soon as he heard about the attacks.

Why, then, weren't the available forces deployed immediately to save American lives? If no one in the CIA chain of command refused aid, the failure has to be Obama's. No one else could have denied the real-time requests.

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, said that those who denied the requests for help murdered his son. Woods's anguish is understandable. His son was a hero, and paid with his life for Obama's failure to send military force to attack the enemy that was attacking him.
Naturally, Obama and his minions aren't owning up to their treachery and the media -- except for Fox News -- are burying the story.

The Washington Post and the New York Times -- both of which have endorsed Obama -- aren't reporting
the story on the rejected pleas for help. ABC, CBS and NBC aren't either.

To its credit, CBS did break the story last week on the State Department emails that show Obama's administration knew that the Benghazi attack was made by terrorists, not some mob distracted from a protest against an anti-Islamic video. The other big liberal media -- i.e., most of the major media -- gave little or no coverage to the CBS scoop.

As huge a scandal as the Benghazi incident is, it's not possible for it to become an issue in the election unless Mitt Romney makes it one. So far, he hasn't and he isn't likely to in the final week of the campaign.

Don't expect to hear much about Obama's conduct of the Benghazi incident before the election or after, if he is reelected. The effect of Obama's refusal to come to the aid of people under attack is best understood by the terrorists still walking the streets of Benghazi, and their allies around the world.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/29/benghazigate-chapter-two

Benghazi as we know it NOW! Either "O" loses Nov 6 or is impeached thereafter.

Gutless Call: Far Worse Than We Thought

By E Pluribus Unum on October 31, 2012 1:50 am

The stories, both official and unofficial, from sources inside and outside the administration, continue to evolve. The facts, even as we know them today, are incomplete and contradictory. But wind the clock back, if you will, to the first several days after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the murders of 4 American citizens, including Ambassador Stevens. From the very beginning there was the stench of incompetence at the top, of being lied to, and worst of all, of a creepy sense that there was no real concern for the lives lost, no righteous anger, and no sense of retribution.

In the immediate aftermath we heard the administration line that it was a spontaneous mob gone wild, and we knew instinctively that was too pat, and contradicted facts which were already becoming known. The whereabouts of the ambassador were unknown for several hours, and the battle was known to have gone on for hours at at least two sites. We watched Obama’s pitifully inadequate statement just before he jaunted off to Vegas for scheduled campaign activities.

We saw several embassies attacked in the following days, and the black Al Qaeda flag raised over at least two portions of sovereign American soil, while no saber-rattling proceeded from an administration that seemed bent on excusing the terrorists. We saw our UN Ambassador and our President peddle known lies to the UN, blaming an obscure video for inciting the Muslim mobs. We got word of a multi-million dollar ad that supposedly ran in Pakistan in which both the President and Secretary of state denounced the video.
Americans were bitterly angry at such cowtowing, lying, and blame-shifting. Obama’s poll numbers in the upcoming election immediately began to crumble.

Boy, weren’t those the good old days for the Obamanistas. It’s a ton worse now.

Fast forward to now. We are in possession of very damning facts that we did not know originally. Further, we can connect the dots into some areas, and every pathway through the matrix speaks of even worse facts.

• FACT – in months leading up to the terrorist strike, the ambassador and military and CIA assets on the ground had described a dangerous and deteriorating security environment in Libya and Benghazi.
• FACT – Ambassador Stevens made repeated requests to the top of the State Department for additional security, and was repeatedly and emphatically denied. In fact, security units rotated out of Libya and were not replaced.
• FACT – numerous entities had live video feed from on-site cameras of the events unfolding at the consulate – among them CIA headquarters in Langley; Africa Command (AFRICOM) HQ in Germany; the Situation Room in the White House; and the State Department.
• FACT – along with video feeds, there exists a protocol of alerts (think of email or IM, except with very large red print and loud sirens that go off) such that when an emergency takes place anywhere in the world, a communication from an on-site person gets the immediate attention of numerous entities, including all those listed above.
• STRONG EVIDENCE – implied in statements by SecDef Panetta are that the WH Situation Room [or alternatively the Pentagon, with Panetta himself aware of unfolding events] was indeed monitoring the situation in real time.
• FACT – Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, who has some responsibilities in the area of diplomatic security, says that she received such an alert within 20 minutes of the first attack on the Consulate, and that she followed the events in real time.
• SPECULATION – surely, surely, Charlene Lamb brought events to the attention of SecState Clinton very early in the attack.
• STRONG EVIDENCE – standing protocol indicates that an event such as that in Benghazi with an ongoing attack and a missing US Ambassador would cause instant notification of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President’s Chief of Staff. High-ranking people have indicated that AFRICOM was in the loop.
• FACT – there was no mob. The video contains no evidence whatsoever of a mob, and numerous eyewitnesses have confirmed that in the days since.
• STRONG EVIDENCE – it stretches the imagination to suppose that Obama and Clinton did not know that the “mob angry over the video” story was false. But I suppose at this point it’s not proven. If they did not know it was a lie, then very high-ranking people lied to them both, knowing they would act and make public statements blaming mob violence, and knowing the truth was unlikely to be suppressed for long. Also, Obama has a notable penchant for blaming others when caught in the squeeze. Panetta would not have lied on this. Obama or his advisors concocted the story, and pinned the blame on the video.
• FACT – for all of the latter portion of the fight, America had drones overhead making real-time video to go along with that of on-site cameras.
• FACT – the fight went for 7 hours at 3 facilities. During all of that time the whereabouts of the ambassador were unknown. It was by every definition a major emergency.
• STRONG EVIDENCE – One of the CIA operatives “painted” an enemy mortar position with a laser. That is done ONLY when supporting forces (air assets) are in the area and able to strike. It is not done in the hopes that assets 2 hours away might come. This means that there were assets in the area. Either there was a C-130 Spectre gunship (very unlikely, because it would have been supported by jet fighters, and nobody anywhere is saying that happened), or an armed Predator drone (highly likely).
• FACT – AFRICOM had at its disposal numerous assets that could have been brought into play within 1, 2, or 4 hours. Among them: fighter jets; C-130 Spectre gunships; weaponized Predator drones; teams of Special Forces;
• STRONG EVIDENCE – a unit located at a CIA compound a mile way from the consulate made repeated requests to CIA to allow them to engage the enemy at the consulate. They were refused, and ultimately they defied orders and went to the aid of Americans. Two of those men died very late in the fight after heroic efforts that saved numerous lives.
• STRONG EVIDENCE – protocol is such that immediate and decisive military support from AFRICOM would have been the default action and need not have required OK higher up the chain.
• WELL-INFORMED SPECULATION – the United States military forces, particularly those in-theater and battle-experienced, have a culture and a history of not leaving men stranded. Call it machismo, call it heroic; either way, it’s there and it’s strong. General Carter Ham, the CINC of AFRICOM, is hardly a desktop warrior, having commanded forces on the ground in Mosul, Iraq, and commanded the (illegal, undeclared) war on Libya in 2011. It is highly doubtful that General Ham would have been originator of “stand down” orders.
• FACT – SecDef Panetta claims that no action was taken because we didn’t have a firm grasp on exactly what was happening on the ground.
• FACT – he lies when he says we did not have good on-site intel. It is known that the Americans were feeding constant information up the chain. In addition, two drones (Predators I believe) were above, feeding real-time video up the chain. They had better real-time on-site intel than most combats missions do.
• FACT – Panetta is admitting that the decision not to send support during the ongoing attack was at his level or higher. Only Obama is higher.
• FACT – Obama has claimed in the last couple of days that as soon as he was informed of events in progress, he immediately issued orders “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do.”
• FACT – that directly contradicts the statement of SecDef Panetta. Panetta says we didn’t secure our forces because we didn’t have enough on-site information. If Obama actually ordered action, then Panetta countermanded it. And if that happened, Obama would have acted against Panetta (blamed him, fired him, something of that sort). Failure to do take any action is implausible.
• LOGICAL CONCLUSION – Obama is lying. Panetta is lying about a lack of information, but telling the truth when he says the “no action” orders came from SecDef or President. And if those two were in conversations during the events, which they surely were, then the decision to leave our people in Benghazi to die was made by Obama. Or more likely, he dithered, left orders to wait for further instructions, then went to bed.
• INFORMED SPECULATION – Furthermore, it is very possible that people at AFRICOM could have acted in the absence of orders, or in defiance of orders, and did not. Time will tell us more of what happened at that site. Needless to say, nobody there is talking right now.

We are faced with a reality that the president knew in real time what was going on, and due to decisions by him, American personnel were needlessly left stranded. Americans on the ground (and probably others, as the future may bear out) acted heroically, and two of them died directly due to inaction from above. In full possession of the facts, the next day he made public statements blaming a video and spontaneous mob violence, then he flew off to Vegas for campaign events. I don’t care if it’s incompetence or indecisiveness, or if he just doesn’t care about American lives and American interests. In the end, the costs were steep.
Nice gutless call, Not-My-President. Have fun next Tuesday, while your own assets fail to come to your aid when you need it most.

Please read and send link to anyone you know voting for Obama

This article is the most comprehensive narrative on the Libyan debacle I've yet come across.  The Americn people need to know what is transpiring under their noses.  They don't.  Why?  Because the press is NOT covering it since they know full well it would further impede an Obama victory. Better to impede now than impeach later one would think.  What a terrible cost for re-election of such a despot as Obama.  Four brave Americans. Two who sacrificed their own lives in the hopes of saving others, and in so doing, disobeying orders from either a cowardly President or the cowardly Secretary of Defense Panetta. 

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com          

The Wages of Libya

We have had ambassadors murdered abroad before, but we have never seen anything quite like the tragic fate of Chris Stevens. Amid all the controversy over Libya, we have lost sight of the human — and often horrific — story of Benghazi: a U.S. ambassador attacked, cut off and killed alone, after being abused by frenzied terrorists, and a second member of the embassy staff murdered, as two American private citizens rushed to the rescue, heroically warding off Islamist hit teams, until they were overwhelmed and also killed.

Seven weeks after the tragedy in Benghazi, new government narratives just keep appearing, as various branches of government point the finger at one another. Now the president insists that “the minute” he “found out what was going on” he gave “very clear directives” to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” The secretary of defense argues that he knew too little to send in military forces to save the post. Meanwhile, we are hearing from other sources that the beleaguered compound in extremis was denied help on three separate occasions, and there are still more contradictory accounts.

When the government systematically misleads and cannot establish a believable narrative, almost everyone involved is eventually tarred. The final chart of those officials in the Nixon White House who were devoured by Watergate was vast — and so it is becoming with the disaster in Libya. If we have learned anything from Watergate and Iran-Contra, it is that the longer officials deceive and obfuscate, the greater the number of wrecked careers and reputations.

Most likely, the political wing of the White House almost immediately made a decision that the attack on our Benghazi consulate should not endanger the conventional narrative of a successful commander-in-chief — ahead in the polls in part because he had highlighted a supposedly successful foreign policy. Key to that story was the notion that the hit on bin Laden and the drone attacks on other Islamists had rendered al-Qaeda all but impotent. In addition, the administration’s supposed lead-from-behind strategy in Libya had served as a model for energizing a democratic Arab Spring. Commander-in-Chief Obama was intent on reminding the country of his competence and toughness as an international leader, and especially of his wise reluctance to rush into areas of instability.

In such a landscape, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were brutally murdered. And almost immediately it was clear that the ambassador had earlier warned that Libya was descending into chaos and that Americans were not safe there — only to have his requests for further protection rejected.

During the actual assault on the consulate, a real-time video, streams of e-mail exchanges, and surveys of Islamist websites confirmed that al-Qaedists were carrying out a preplanned assassination — and over the next seven or eight hours it became clear that our staff was in dire need of military assistance that was somehow never sent. Then for nearly two weeks, the president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Press Secretary Jay Carney, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice advanced a counter-narrative that simply could not have been true: A spontaneous demonstration over a two-month-old video — just happening to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11 — got out of hand as some disruptive protesters showed up with machines gun, mortars, and RPGs and began killing Americans. Since it was an American religious bigot who had prompted such terrible but “natural” riots with his video that ridiculed and injured Islam, we should apologize for the uncouth among us in the strongest terms.

Obama, Clinton, Clapper, Rice, and Carney strove to outdo each other in damning the obscure video maker — to such an extent that he was summarily arrested on a supposedly outstanding probation charge. The message? Ambassadors die and careful U.S. foreign policy is undermined when right-wing bigots abuse their free-speech rights.

Yet almost all of that story is untrue, and it will come back to haunt all those who either by intent or through ignorance engaged in the cover-up. Review the following spinners.

President Obama still does not grasp the significance of Libya. When he calls the attacks there and in Egypt “bumps in the road” or “not optimal,” and asserts that they will not play much of a role in the final weeks of the campaign, he sounds either callous or naïve or both. Collate the administration’s statements over the two weeks following the attacks, and they simply cannot be true. The months-old video proved just too much of a temptation for the president to resonate the themes of his Cairo speech in damning uncouth Americans for offending Muslims. When the president claims that he ordered everything to be done to save the compound, he must be aware that subordinates who did not in turn give orders that relief be sent will eventually come forward to either affirm or deny his statement. His further problem is that lax security, administration misdirection, and hesitancy to aid the beleaguered all feed into the earlier attitudes framed by “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence,” promises to try KSM in a civilian court, the al-Arabiya interview, the Cairo speech, and other efforts to contextualize and airbrush radical Islam’s terrorist assault on the West. In other words, fairly or not, we can discern a logic to why the president would not be candid and accurate about Benghazi.

Secretary Clinton will have to explain why the State Department did not heed requests for greater security, both before and during the attack. And she is beginning to grasp — and so especially is her husband — that the administration is hanging the disaster around her neck. She crudely blamed the attacks on our embassies in the Middle East on the video (with caskets of our dead as backdrop), reminding us that a few months earlier she had crudely giggled about the murder of Qaddafi (“We came, we saw, Qaddafi died”). All in all, her performance during this disaster has been disappointing, and more so with each new disclosure.

Then we come to Ambassador Rice, who apparently was being groomed to succeed Secretary of State Clinton. As part of that trajectory, she was to be point woman for the administration’s spontaneous-mob narrative. That meant that on at least five different occasions Rice hit the Sunday talk shows, apparently to showcase her rhetorical skills, insisting that the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi were ad hoc assaults that had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy, anti-American animosity, or mistakes in American security preparation. Whether through ignorance or by design, Ambassador Rice repeatedly told an untruth, and did so with energy and dogmatic insistence. Her problem, then, is not just that what she insisted was true was clearly not, but also the unambiguous and forceful manner in which she wove her story. That she suddenly appeared from obscurity to play the sophist, and then retreated back into anonymity, suggests that her diplomatic career will be soon coming to an end.

Next is the matter of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. His insistence that a mob had caused the mayhem is one untruth or mischaracterization too many — and a wrong assessment that trumps even his earlier absurdities, such as that the Muslim Brotherhood is largely a secular organization or that Qaddafi would not fall from power. Politicians and bureaucrats err all the time; but when intelligence officers do not appear to have intelligence, then they too usually quietly disappear into comfortable retirement.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey at some point supposedly received information about the attack in real time. Why — given the supposed directive of the president to do “whatever we need to” to save our people — he did not order military assistance will have to be explained. Uncertain conditions will not do, because that is what militaries do: go into uncertain conditions to save lives and defeat the enemy. Armchair tacticians will argue that planes and teams could have been sent and then called off near arrival time if that was what circumstances seemed to warrant; that option would have been wiser than sending no one and thereby ensuring that the compound and annex would be overrun. And because General Dempsey has not been shy in weighing in on matters political by warning retired servicemen not to comment on contemporary politics (General Wesley Clark apparently excepted), and because he has phoned a Florida pastor to tell him to tone down his anti-Islamic rhetoric, the public will all the more expect an explanation. If the chairman can lecture both civilians and retired officers on proper behavior, then he should be able as well to explain why he did not heed the president’s order to do “whatever we need to do.”

CIA Director David Petraeus is now by implication being faulted. A brief communiqué that the CIA did not refuse pleas for assistance was prompted by anonymous administration officials’ allegations that it was our intelligence agencies, not the State Department or White House officials, that prevented assistance to our diplomatic mission. At some point Petraeus will probably have to use all his influence and power to correct the administration’s narrative, which is apparently intended to shift culpability to him and his agency. General Petraeus, by his singular record, probably should have been made either chairman of the Joint Chiefs or NATO supreme commander; he apparently received neither offer. After pulling off the surge in Iraq, he was redeployed into Afghanistan under far different — and more difficult — circumstances that limited his range of options, and he had to give up his nominally superior billet as CENTCOM commander. When he took on the CIA job, he apparently was asked to retire from the military. There is a pattern here: selfless service to the United States, but recently in the context of a politicized administration that has used the enormous prestige of Petraeus in ways that have reduced his influence. Directing responsibility away from the administration to the CIA is more of the same, and it puts a historic figure like Petraeus in an unfair predicament.

Benghazi was a disaster, whose graphic details most Americans do not fully know and, in some sense understandably, do not wish to relive. Still, we await two simple clarifications: an administration timeline of exactly who was notified, in what manner, and when on the night of the attack, and a full release of all information detailing the administration reaction to the murders, from the hours in which the attack occurred to the present day.

Without that honesty, those responsible will only continue to weave their tangled Libyan web.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.

Part of Obama's Master Plan

If you think that these failed companies bankrolled by Obama (actually us), are failures, think again.  This is all part of the plan to bankrupt our economy while making us more dependent on oil from the Middle East.  Another cool benefit for Obama that results from these "bad" investments - he managed to pay back big supporters of his campaign.  Its been proven that many of the beneficiaries of these investment monies are Obama campaign contributors. The big question is - why are we so impotent that we cannot do something about this?  This is what I truly do not understand about the system. Has Obama secured such a fortress around him that he is now untouchable no matter how outragreous and obvious his corruption? 

 

Daily Caller News Foundation

As many as fifty Obama-backed green energy companies bankrupt or troubled

Michael Bastasch

3:24 PM 10/30/2012

The October bankruptcy of solar company Satcon Technology Corp. puts the number of bankrupt or troubled green energy companies as high as fifty, according to one estimate.

During the first presidential debate, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said the Obama administration had doled out $90 billion to green energy companies, half of which he said had failed, which sparked a media-wide debate over the accuracy of the claim.

The Romney campaign later clarified that he was talking about the DOE’s 1705 loan program which doled out $16.1 billion to green energy companies, according to the Washington Post. Of the 33 companies that received 1705 loan guarantees, only three have declared bankruptcy.

However, when other subsidies, outside of the 1705 loan guarantees are factored in, the number of government-backed green energy failures is much higher.

The blog Green Corruption’s “Obama green-energy failure” list contains 23 bankrupt and 27 troubled green energy companies which were backed by the federal government. This list uses data compiled by the Heritage Foundation, but also includes some things the conservative think tank doesn’t.

According to the Heritage Foundation, $80 billion was set aside in the 2009 stimulus package for clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, and 10 percent of these funds have gone to companies that have filed for bankruptcy or are in dire straits.

The Green Corruption estimates are on the high end as others have total number of bankrupt and troubled green energy firms much lower.

The Heritage Foundation’s list contains 34 companies that have either filed for bankruptcy or are faltering as of October 18. Of those 34 listed, nineteen have filed for bankruptcy and fifteen are considered faltering.

The Heritage list only contains companies that received federal funds from the Obama administration’s Energy Department and other agencies, and does not include “other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies,” which would raise the amount of taxpayer dollars that was given to these companies.

Another list compiled by the Senate Republican Policy Committee shows a total of 19 government-backed green energy companies that have either gone bankrupt, are in distress, or failing — twelve bankrupt, six in distress, and one failing.

The committee’s list, however, does not include the most recent green energy failure, Satcon Technology Corp., which received a $3 million DOE grant earlier this year and filed for bankruptcy on October 17, making it the second green energy company to file for bankruptcy that week.

Electric car battery manufacturer and recipient of a $249 million loan guarantee, A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy the day before.

“And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world,” Romney said during the first presidential debate. “But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?”

“And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business,” Romney added. “A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.”

Prescient Mr. Romney

RedState

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The 47%

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  October 30th, 2012 at 10:30 AM

One of the most portentous comments ever made by a candidate concerning his own campaign prospects was Romney’s off-the-record remark about Obama having an automatic 47% floor of support.  The media attack dogs lambasted him for his “out of touch” sentiments.  The reality is that Romney hit the nail on the head months before the pollsters would coalesce around that number.

Let’s confront an inconvenient reality: anyone who votes for Obama at this point is either inexorably dependent upon socialism or incorrigibly out of touch with American values.  It’s not just the economy.  Obama’s egregious disregard for the situation in Libya – one that he created in the first place – and the insidious cover-up of the attack that is continuing to this day, should be sufficient reason to dissuade any judicious voter from supporting him.  Yet, despite Romney’s surge and likely win next week, Obama is still garnering exactly ……47% of the vote.

Yesterday’s Pew national poll had Obama at 47%.

Today’s NPR/Democracy Corp. poll (Democrat) has Obama at 47%.

Rasmussen has had Obama at 47% for over a week.

GW/ Battleground is predicting a 52-47% win for Romney.

Even in blue states like Minnesota and Oregon, Obama is now at…. 47%.

It’s becoming clear that any and every American who yearns for freedom is jumping ship from the Obama wreckage.  Even among the polls that are more favorable to Obama, Romney is leading by double-digits with Independents.  George Bush actually lost Independents by 1 point in 2004.  Sadly, there are about 47% who are obdurately stuck on stupid.  That might be insufficient for a permanent Democrat majority at this point, but we must begin weaning people off government dependency beginning in 2013, lest the 47% grow to a permanent and enduring majority.

OMG! How appropriate for a follow-up to my last post

http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/29/obama-stoops-to-kowtow/

RedState

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama Stoops To Kowtow

By: streiff (Diary)  |  October 29th, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Contrary to what you may believe, the picture is not the cast of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, it is the leadership of a vicious Third World kleptocracy that our president has attempted to ingratiate himself with.

According to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, as reported by the Times of Israel, shortly after Barack Obama became president he opened secret talks with Iran which essentially gave them just about everything they have been trying to achieve on the diplomatic front in return for bupkis.

Soon after he took office, President Barack Obama began a process ultimately designed to reestablish full US diplomatic relations with Iran, including a reopening of embassies, an Israeli daily reported Sunday. The initiative, part of a wider shift in America’s diplomatic orientation, aimed at reaching understandings with Tehran over suspending its nuclear program, Maariv claimed, citing “two Western diplomats very close to the administration.”

The initiative led to at least two US-Iran meetings, the report said. Israel was made aware of the contacts, and opposed them.

But Iran rebuffed the “diplomatic hand” offered by the White House, Maariv reported. The Islamist regime “opposed any sign of normalization with the US, and refused to grant a ‘prize’ to the Americans,” according to an anonymous Israeli source quoted by the paper.

Apparently the Iranians have attended the Palestinian school of diplomacy where “never miss a chance to miss a chance” is the guiding principle. More than likely they correctly gauged Obama as a weak, ineffectual, vacillating shadow of a man and decided they could ultimately wring a better deal out of him.

According to more recent reports the Obama regime seems to have been trying this again probably with the view of using it as something of an October Surprise hoping that caving in to another dictator would make everyone forget about the slow moving train wreck that has been our foreign policy over the last four years.

The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.
Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

During the last debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Obama gave a nonsensical critique of Romney’s statements on the travesty that is our policy in North Africa and the Middle East. As part of his apologia for overthrowing a toothless despot and turning Libya and its oil income over to al Qaeda which included this point:

“Imagine if we had pulled out at that point? Moammar Gadhafi had more American blood on his hands than any other individual other than Osama bin Laden. So we were going to make sure we finished the job.”

Presumably he meant by this the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 passengers, crew, and bystanders.

While this was not the most disingenuous statement made by Obama it had a certain poignancy. The CIA and DIA are certain that Pan Am 103 was blown up by the Iranian government using Libyan operatives for the purpose. While Obama was sitting there chiding Mitt Romney over how righteous the overthrow of Qaddafi was, he was negotiating a virtual diplomatic surrender with the regime that sacked our Tehran embassy, held 52 Americans hostage or 444 days, and was the force behind the Pan Am 103 bombing.

Arab Spring Breeds Sharia Law in Eygpt - Obama's Failed Foreign Policy (or is it?)

I wanted to show the headline of this story on Eygpt, but its not the story that I consider most illuminating. It was a post a reader submitted that hit me right between the eyes.  Some folks have called my revelations that Hussein Obama is not of Indonesian citizenry and did not get into Columbia because he applied as a foreign student.  But this poster, who saw the movie 2016: Obama's America knows full well what secrets Hussein is hiding from us and what he has planned for his second term - if we give him the chance.  [I have not seen the movie yet.  I will only view it when Obama loses the election.  I am simply too afraid at the anger I will have to repress after learning even more about our Muslim president.]

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Egyptian Leader Calls For Sharia Law

By: streiff (Diary)  |  October 29th, 2012 at 07:00 PM

In yet another triumph for Obama’s support of the Arab Spring, Saad al-Katatni, the newly elected chairman of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), has called for the institution of Sharia law. The FJP is the majority party in the Egyptian parliament.

[Read the rest of the article here - http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/29/egyptian-leader-calls-for-sharia-law/ ]

POST -

tyman

• 2 hours ago
I watched "2016: Obama's America" last night with my wife and 13 year old daughter. After watching it, I told my wife that it made complete sense why Obama didn't want to attack the Libyans that were terrorizing the compound: as the movie identifies him as an anti-colonialist (based on what Obama wrote in "Dreams From My Father"), he sympathizes with them. In his speech at the University of Cairo, he empowered them. Anyone that didn't see this coming needs to see what Obama is really all about. Let's see...Egypt's new leader is a Muslim and now months later the Muslim Brotherhood calls for Sharia Law.

The Muslims are truly patient people...they will wait and wait to get what they want.

If Obama is re-elected, the drastic cuts in U.S. defense will empower the Muslims even more to commit bolder and bolder acts of terror.

The fact that Egypt and Libya are controlled by Muslims, together with Iran they can control the export of oil. All the while Obama stopped domestic oil production as much as he can.

If this sounds complicated, I believe that it illustrates how dangerous Obama truly is for America. Can I prove it? Probably not, but it certainly looks like the pieces are falling into place.

I believe the green or renewable energy is a disguise for making America even MORE dependent on foreign oil. It seems understandable that Obama wants America less dependent on foreign oil, but in reality won't this make it more expensive by keeping American oil from flooding the market, and allowing the Muslim nations to profit even MORE from their main natural resource?

I guess it comes down to this: there is a simple, very real and very scary explanation why Obama has allowed Egypt and Libya to become Muslim nations. I think he's done the very minimum to help him get re-elected so that he can get the flexibility he told Medvedev to tell Putin about. [Remember when Hussein was caught on mike whispering to Russia's Mevedev to hold out until he is re-elected...then he can negotiate more favorable terms with Putin? You probably don't because the treasonous mainstream media didn't report on it.]

I also predict that Obama will do NOTHING to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. At least until he leaves office in January.

Good news continues...

NewsMax

Rasmussen: Romney Takes Lead in Ohio, 50-48

Monday, 29 Oct 2012 12:37 PM

The race for Ohio’s Electoral College votes remains very close, but now Mitt Romney now has a two-point advantage.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Ohio voters shows Romney with 50 percent support to President Obama’s 48 percent. One percent likes some other candidate, while another one percent remains undecided.

Ohio remains a toss-up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. Based on the current projections, Romney would have to win Wisconsin if he loses Ohio in order to move into the White House.

The candidates have been locked in a very tight battle in Ohio since August. A week ago, Romney and Obama were tied in the Buckeye State with 48 percent support each. This is the first time Romney has taken even a modest lead in the race.

Nearly one-in-three Ohio voters (32 percent) have already cast their ballots. Obama leads 62 percent to 36 percent among these voters. Romney has a large lead among those who still plan to vote. The question of who wins Ohio may come down to whether enough Romney voters get to the polls on Election Day to overcome the president’s lead among early voters.

Among all Ohio voters, Romney now has a 12-point lead over the president in voter trust – 53 percent to 41 percent - when it comes to the economy. Last week, he had just a seven-point advantage among voters in the state when they were asked which candidate they trusted more to deal with the economy.

Romney’s also trusted more by eight points in the areas of job creation and energy policy but leads Obama by just two when it comes to housing issues. National security has been an area where the president has typically had an advantage over Romney this year. But, the Republican challenger now has a 52 percent to 42 percent advantage on the issue.

Obama carried Ohio by a 51 percent to 47 percent margin in 2008, but just 46 percent of the state’s voters now approve of the job he is doing. Fifty-one percent (51 percent) disapprove. This includes Strong Approval from 29 percent and Strong Disapproval from 44 percent, giving the president a slightly worse job approval rating in Ohio than he earns nationally.

Forty-seven percent have a favorable opinion of the president and 52 percent have an unfavorable view. Those figures include 32 percent with a Very Favorable opinion and 42 percent who have a Very Unfavorable view of him.

Romney is viewed favorably by 53 percent and unfavorably by 45 percent, including 40 percent with a very favorable opinion of the former Massachusetts governor and 32 percent with a very unfavorable one.

Romney leads by 14 points among male voters in Ohio but trails by eight among female voters. Voters not affiliated with either of the major parties prefer the president 50 percent to 46 percent.

Fifteen percent of all voters in the state now rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent, while 49 percent view it as poor. But 41 percent consider their own finances good or excellent, compared to 17 percent who regard their finances as poor.

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Rasmussen: Romney Takes Lead in Ohio, 50-48
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

And this from Mother Jones News - breaker of the "47%" audio

October 29, 2012

The Obama ground game myth Posted by Laura Ingraham The Obama team of David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Stephanie Cutter, and all of their minions in the media, have been repeating this trope for weeks: "We have the superior ground game!" "We've knocked on more doors!" "We have an amazing get-out-the-vote operation!" Commentary magazine peels back the onion: "Consider what Kevin Drum, a writer for the left-wing Mother Jones, wrote on Friday, Republicans are operating on a different paradigm: There’s been a disconnect in the ground games of the major parties for some time. Democrats tend to rely on paid, professional operations, while Republicans rely more on volunteer efforts, largely from evangelical churches. This is something that actually works in the Republicans’ favor, since volunteer efforts from friends and neighbors tend to be more effective at switching votes than professional phone banks. (Also cheaper.) The other reason why Republicans are not as obsessed with turnout is that their base tends to be more highly motivated and, as a rule, are already registered rather than having to be schlepped out to the polls with great difficulty. They are instead working on convincing independents to give Romney a second look, an effort that has borne fruits as polls show their candidate gaining ground among centrists. That’s something that gets us to the heart of this conundrum about turnout. As Josh Jordan explains in National Review, both Gallup and Rasmussen agree that the partisan split between Republicans and Democrats has changed markedly since 2008. Whereas four years ago the Democrats had a seven-point advantage, this fall that has become a 1 or 2 point Republican edge." I can't predict what will happen on election day, but everywhere I go the enthusiasm edge goes to Romney. Head-faking your opponent is a classic technique in sports from basketball to boxing. Bluffing makes poker more exciting. This "ground game" myth might be one of the biggest bluffs in politics since when Obama said during the healthcare debate: "if you like your doctors, you'll be able to keep them."

 

Something needs to be done about the liberal media sell-outs

Media Blackout: Aside from FOX, Sunday News Hosts Fail to Raise Benghazi

by Joel B. Pollak 28 Oct 2012

The mainstream media's silence on the Benghazi disaster reached deafening levels on Sunday, as hosts of four out of the five major news shows--with the exception of Fox News Sunday--failed to raise the issue. Only Bob Schieffer of CBS gave it serious consideration, and only after it was raised by Sen. John McCain.

When the Benghazi issue did surface, other than on Fox, it was invariably brought up by Republican guests, and then deflected by the hosts, who largely ignored new stories this week that implicated the White House in the decision not to intervene to save the life of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other American staff.
Here is how the Sunday shows covered the issue:

NBC: Meet the Press with David Gregory

The Benghazi issue was not raised at all, save by panelist Carly Fiorina, who was interrupted by Gregory. He promised, "We'll get to that a little bit later," but did not return to the issue before the show's end. (The show was interrupted in some markets, in the final minute, with breaking news about Hurricane Sandy.)

ABC: This Week with George Stephanopoulos

The Benghazi issue was raised by Newt Gingrich, in response to a question about the Romney campaign's prospects in Ohio. Stephanopoulos failed to ask a follow-up and steered the conversation back to polls.

CNN: State of the Union with Candy Crowley

The Benghazi issue was raised twice, once by Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus in response to a question about U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's views on abortion, and once by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in response to a question about whether Romney would win the state in November. Crowley did not raise the issue independently in a show largely focused on polls and voting.

CBS: Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer

The Benghazi issue was raised in an exchange between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former chief of staff. After McCain brought up the issue, Schieffer asked a follow-up question about whether the administration had engaged in a "deliberate cover-up." McCain said it had either been a cover-up or "the worst kind of incompetence." Schieffer responded with another question about whether drones had produced images of the attacks. Emanuel responded with the Obama campaign's standard talking points, and Schieffer followed up with a question about what he would have done in the White House. Emanuel ducked the question, instead praising Obama's foreign policy record in general.

FOX: Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

The Benghazi issue was first raised by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in describing issues of concern to Wisconsin voters. Wallace replied that he had planned to address the issue later, which he did, addressing questions to Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) about recent revelations. Warner responded by expressing sympathy with the families of the dead and wounded and promised: "We're going to get to the bottom of this. The intelligence is going to hold hearings when we return, right after the election." He added that the situation had "been politicized," criticizing Romney in particular. Wallace countered that the issue was a legitimate topic of political discussion. He followed up with questions about whether drones flying over Benghazi were armed, and Sen. Udall repeatedly refused to answer directly, saying that he could not comment further. Wallace also later made the issue the primary focus of the show's subsequent panel discussion.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/28/Media-Cover-Up-Aside-from-FOX-Sunday-Shows-Fail-to-Raise-Benghazi

Finding articles that favor Romney is getting so much easier...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/28/time-for-dems-to-hit-panic-button

Gathering Storm: Time for Dems to Hit Panic Button

by Mike Flynn 28 Oct 2012

A massive and historic storm is barreling towards the beltway this weekend. The entire DC-NYC axis, headquarters of the left media complex, will suffer the effects of three storm-fronts, converging at the same time. Evacuations may be ordered, but it is likely too late. No, I'm not talking about Hurricane Sandy. The storm I mean is the growing realization that Obama is on the cusp of losing the election. But, with just a little over a week to go, it may be too late to hit the panic button.  

Democrats and the media have labored under several false assumptions the entire campaign. They wove these into a narrative that Obama's reelection was inevitable. It may have helped them sleep at night, but it caused them to miss the tectonic plates shifting beneath the election. This weekend three storm-fronts started converging that will sweep their assumptions away. Let's look at each in turn.

The first storm-front is the expanding campaign battleground. I've long noted that which states become competitive towards the end of the race can tell you a lot about the state of the campaign. In 2008, when "red" states like Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Montana suddenly became competitive, it was a clear sign that Obama had a huge momentum advantage. This year, however, it is "blue" states becoming competitive. In the final week, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota are emerging as new battleground states. If Romney's position is improving in states like these, its a good sign that he slated to win states like Florida, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.

Even if Obama still has the edge in these newly competitive states, the fact that the campaign will have to spend resources to shore them up says a lot about the campaign's weak position.

The second storm-front is the increased convergence of the polls in the direction of Romney. Most national tracking polls show Romney with a lead, with two, Rasmussen and Gallup, showing him over the important 50% threshold. For a week or so, Democrats consoled themselves that Obama led in state-level polling.

Most of those polls were built on samples that assumed Democrats would match or exceed the turnout advantage they enjoyed in 2008. This was always something of a fantasy, but now even this assumption can't prop up Obama. Virtually every state poll over the last week has shown consistent movement towards Romney. Moreover, virtually every state poll shows Obama stuck below the 50% level of support.

For a variety of reasons, it is very difficult for an incumbent to get back above 50% once they have fallen below it for a considerable period of time. North Carolina, Florida, Colorado and Virginia are likely now out of reach for Obama. Ohio is definitely moving towards Romney.

Romney's poll movement isn't just on the overall head-to-head match up, though. In almost every poll he now has a substantial lead on who would better handle the economy. He has a significant lead on who can best tackle federal spending and the deficit. He is also starting to lead on the softer questions like "understands my problems", is a "strong leader" and "can get things done. This suggests a major preference cascade toward the challenger.

Most important, though, is the clear lead Romney has with Independents. In 2008, Obama won independents by 8 points. This year, Romney leads among Independents in virtually every national or state poll, often by double-digits. There is simply no path for Obama to win reelection if he loses Independents by that kind of margin.

The third, most significant storm-front descending on Democrats is the change in the electorate. In 2008, the Democrats rode an historic wave from a near perfect political storm to their largest turnout advantage in decades. In the final vote, Democrats edged Republicans by 7 points, making the election D+7. New research from Rasmussen and Gallup, however, show that, not only is that advantage gone, but Republicans now have the edge. Both surveys report, for the first time in modern history, that more likely voters identify as Republicans than Democrats.

Considering that every poll has found GOP voters more enthusiastic about voting then Democrats, this edge may be decisive. Keep in mind that every poll is built on the assumption that Democrats will have a turnout edge next week. If they don't have the edge or if the GOP has an advantage? Well, this could be a blowout. And, a lot of down-ballot Dems will be swept under as well.

When the history of Obama's failed reelection campaign is written, it will be noted that Obama's campaign made a critical strategic blunder. Their plan was to disqualify Romney at the outset, rather than other up a compelling agenda for a second term. They essentially decided to run a challenger's race, dragging down the opponent in a wave of negative ads. When Romney took the stage at the first debate in Denver, he didn't just defeat Obama, he defeated Obama's entire campaign plan. The Romney on the stage didn't match the caricature painted by Obama and the media. It gave him an opening which he seized.

Obama responded by ratcheting up negative attacks and getting engulfed in small-bore issues issues relevant to mere slivers of the voting base. Big Bird. Binders. Bayonets. In a time of economic uncertainty and looming fiscal crisis, the issues Obama focused on were ridiculous. They were patently unserious. But, these are serious times.

So, going into the final week, Romney looks like a President on the road to reelection, while Obama looks like a challenger who knows he's about to lose. While the "Gang of 500" media mavens hunker down for Hurricane Sandy, left with their own thoughts after the inevitable power outages, and away from cocooning lefty reassurances from people like Nate Silver, they will have this realization too. Campaign 2012 is just about over. And so, too, is Obama.

Finally, a Poll That Makes Sense

The Weekly Standard

New Projection: Romney 52, Obama 47

5:00 AM, Oct 29, 2012 • By FRED BARNES

The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent.  The poll also found that Romney has an even greater advantage among middle class voters, 52 percent to 45 percent.

While Obama can close the gap with a strong voter turnout effort, “reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory,” says pollster Ed Goeas.

Should Romney win by 5 percentage points, it would increase Republican chances of gaining control of the Senate.  His coattails would help elect GOP Senate candidates in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.  “Republicans are now certain to hold the House,” Goeas said, “regardless of how the presidential race turns out.”

The poll’s election model takes into account variables including voter intensity, age, and education, and voters who are certain in their vote.  The race “remains very close in the surface,” Goeas said, “but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney.”  The projected outcome by the Battleground Poll is close to that of the Gallup Poll.  Last week, Gallup said Romney leads Obama 49 percent to 46 percent in its model of the electorate’s composition on November 6.

The Battleground Poll is conducted by Goeas of the Tarrance Group and Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners.  Goeas is a Republican, Lake a Democrat.  The survey is affiliated with Politico and George Washington University.

Taken last week, the poll found that only 37 percent of voters believe the country is headed in the right direction.  For an incumbent president to win reelection, that number normally must exceed 40 percent.

“Everyone but the core Democratic constituencies holds the strongly held feeling that the country is off on the wrong track,” Goeas said.

For the first time this year, Romney has a majority favorable image. His favorability rating is 52 percent, Obama’s is 51 percent.  According to the poll, Romney is viewed favorably by a majority of independents (59 percent), seniors (57), married voters (61), moms (56), college graduates (54), middle class voters (56), and middle class families (61).

Cartoons that make you cry

And here is the most tragic of all injustices...





This is my own personal narrative

Would someone please help me understand?

I have to admit, I’ve expended way too much emotional energy on this campaign. It has angered me, saddened me, bewildered me and has left me with nothing but a feeling of despair for the future of our once great Nation.  I am so worried about the future my children and their children will face.

Now you can disagree with much of what I am going to say, but I am confident I am very close to being right.  And, my opinions are based on a great deal of reading, listening what is said, and now more importantly what is not being said. 

I will start with the contents of a book written by Michelle Malkin called Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Corruption-Cheats-Crooks-Cronies/dp/1596986204).  While the title sounds like the book is a biased, slanted collection of baseless accusations – especially to anyone who still supports this wretched man as a President – but its not.  It is a thoroughly researched chronology of where Obama came from, the Chicago characters with whom he aligned himself, and the lies and deceit he has banked on to help him ultimately reach the highest office in the world. 

Now let me jump to a very recent event that on the surface seems like such a circus act that it doesn’t deserve any attention whatsoever.  I’m talking about Donald Trump’s “October Surprise”.  In case you’ve been living under a rock or in the vacuum so many Obama worshippers live in, let me quickly explain.  Donald offered Obama a check for $5 million dollars, made out to the charity or charities of his choice if would do one simple thing that all people with nothing to hide would jump at – make public his college transcripts and his passport applications.  

Again, purportedly due to Mr. Trump’s past stunts and his penchant for circus antics, Obama nor anyone associated with Obama’s administration – yes, not even the treasonous lackey Jay Carney or the pompous liar Susan Rice made any statements about this offer (even though you may say that the UN Ambassador has no business commenting on such a matter,  well she also had no business being involved in the death of our Libyan Ambassador, but she did – perhaps she simply drew the short straw – anyway, sorry for the digression)…this grandstanding by Mr. Trump has been swept under the carpet.  Now, maybe that’s where it belongs.  Or is that really the reason it was dismissed without any mention?

But, and this is a very important but to consider…here is a chance for Barry Sotoero Hussein Obama to redistribute some of Mr. Trump’s wealth – which is a major component of his grand plan to bring America to its knees – and provide some charity a very considerable chunk of change.  And all he need do is act as he promised us in 2008 he would act – be the most transparent President in history.   So, we have to wonder why Obama has completely ignored Trump’s offer.  The first obvious answer is that it would diminish the office of the President.  But let’s rule that one out immediately.  After all, no president before him has done even a fraction of the damage that he has wrought on this position (and believe me when I say you ain’t seen nothing yet).  So, why stop now? 

The other reason, which will sound so far fetched that no one will even give it a passing thought but I believe it as much as I believe the Sun will rise in the East and set in the West – Barry knows the consequences that would result if he were to release these documents.  Now, while I have always held the belief that Obama is neither a US citizen nor is he a Christian – he is most definitely a Muslim (history will prove me right about this I guarantee it), I really didn’t give much thought to what those transcripts would reveal about this shell of a man. Not until this morning that is. 

While driving around early this morning , I was listening to a gentleman on one of my favorite conservative talk radio programs who claimed to be a classmate of Obama’s at Columbia Law School.

As the gentleman explained however, not until he attended his last class reunion did he even realize that Obama was a classmate.  Apparently the college bragged that it had graduated a US President.  The classmate went on to explain, after discussing Barry at great lengths with other classmates at the reunion, that no one really remembered him.  Sounds very of odd I would think.  Continuing with his story, the man explained that Columbia took only the crème of the crop.  Very high grades, top 1% in classes, validictorians, perfect SATs, student athletes, etc.  You get the picture.  So, the classmates began to wonder how this obscure student managed to transfer to one of the top law schools in the country from a very mediocre Occidental undergraduate college .  

So I won’t make this narrative longer that it should be (however long that is – I am doing this as a cathartic therapy for myself), I’ll just lay out the classmate’s convincing scenario that explains how Obama matriculated to Columbia.  He applied as a foreign student from Indonesia.  And he applied for and apprently received substantial financial aid because of this status. Back then, as the classmate explained, all colleges - particularly liberal Ivy League universities - would kill to have such a diverse student as part of their freshmen class.  And especially such a den of communists that make up Columbia.  Theory?  Of course, since this is the only president who has reached the office while keeping so much of his past a complete mystery.  Plausible?  Very.

Okay.  Now let’s fast forward to the present.  Obama is embroiled in a scandal that eventually will reach epic proportions and will result in criminal charges brought up on a cadre of sleazy staffers and who knows, maybe even Obama and Hillary.  Biden can plead ignorance and I’m sure all will buy it.  I'm talking about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya where four brave American heroes died ndeedlessly.  But then, unless you watch Fox News, you wouldn't have much of a clue about this disgrace.  Main stream media would rather cover Romney/Ryan "missteps" where ever and when ever they occur and no matter how slight.

Without going over the entire litany of lies and deceit laid out by Obama’s cronies and lapdogs, this is now over six weeks since the tragic killings of four brave Americans, and Obama has not even had one press conference.  But, even more astounding (actually its not, but it should be), none of the mainstream media is even calling for one – not ABC, not CBS, not NBC, not The New York Times, not the Washington Post.  Absolutely incredible and sad.  The very institutions that are supposed to provide checks and balances when politicians act badly, are so in bed with the President that it borders – no it crosses the line – of treason. 

Four brave men died.  And no word from the White House except for the empty platitudes of the President as he makes the rounds of hard hitting interviews with Joy Behar, Jay Leno, Pimp with a Limp, MTV, Lettermen (who makes Biden look informed), and The Rolling Stone (where he continued his unpresidential behavior by calling Romney a bullshitter.  Nice Mr. President).  “We will get to the bottom of this and we will make sure those folks [yes, he said folks] are brought to justice.”  How comforting.  Oh, I have to also mention that Obama went to sleep as our embassy burned so he could rise early, give a quick hollow statement and jet off to Vegas for a fund raiser.  You have to understand, nothing - absolutely nothing is more important to Obama than securing a second term, no matter what the cost.  It is required for him to completely implement his manifesto for a broken America.

Meanwhile the father of Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, who is truly a hero for saving so many civilians even though he was told by someone at command headquarters to “stand down” – is expressing such outrage concerning how he and his family were treated on the tarmac when his son’s body was returned.  I won’t go into that narrative  just google it and you’ll read more than you want to know. 

Wait a minute - I lied.  I will go into it.  One incident I do feel compelled to add here is Joe Biden’s outrageously sophomoric, inappropriate comment made to Mr. Woods as he shook his hand – “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”.  I suppose Mr. Biden was trying to complement Mr. Woods on his son’s bravery.  I have to say that I normally look forward to the next Biden gaffe – which have been coming at a healthy pace of late – but when they totally disrespect a family that has made the ultimate sacrifice to our country, something needs to be done about this bozo.  Hopefully that wish will be fulfilled November 6. 

One other incident that occurred on the Tarmac that deserves mention here, because I predict that it may result in serious consequences for the person involved.  When Hillary Clinton paid her respects and condolences to Mr. Woods, her comment was “Don’t worry, we will bring to justice the maker of this horrid film”  (I’m paraphrasing).  Think of the implications here.  We are going to pursue and bring to justice a man who – as disgusting as the film may be to some – was simply exercising his right to free speech.  Has Sharia Law already become the law of our once free land?  I thought that was a second term goal for Barry the Indonesian. 

So, let me summarize what I believe Obama’s grand plan is for our country.  In concert with the philosophies of his favorite professors at Columbia – the communist couple of Cloward and Previn who proposed in place of the welfare system a guaranteed annual salary for each recipient.  Hence, Obama’s Marxist actions.  His plan involves saturating our country with people who require welfare and other entitlements which translate into a voting block that will keep the extreme liberal Democrats in control of this country for ever. Or, until revolution.  The other major component of his plan is to get our country so deep in debt that we become puppets of our creditors (China in paricular).

Now, how far fetched is the possibility of revolution here in our country?  Pretty good I would say, assuming we do not end this tyrant’s rein now.  And, apparently the government is giving pretty good odds that revolution is coming soon to the streets near you.  (See my post - http://stoptheobamanationnow.blogspot.com/2012/10/shades-of-greece-not-too-far-fetched.html ).   Why would the government be purchasing enough hollowed nose bullets to shoot every man woman and child in this country seven times?  Makes you wonder, eh?

Am I simply paranoid?  Well, time will tell that as well.  But if you bet the house on it, make sure you do it before Barry redistributes it to his horde of indigent welfare and other entitlement recipients.

PLEASE make this all go away and help vote Hussein Obama out of office!

VOTE FOR ROMNEY/RYAN!

 

Drip, drip, drip with nine days to go

Gallup: Obama Approval Tanking, Romney Leads by Five

Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com

Oct 28, 2012 09:45 AM EST

 

In the most precipitous decline it has seen in more than a year, President Barack Obama's job approval rating has dropped 7 points in three days, according to Gallup. In the three-day period ending on Oct. 23, says Gallup, 53 percent said they approved of the job Obama was doing and 42 percent said they did not...On Oct. 26, it dropped yet again to 46 percent who said they approved and 49 percent who said they did not.

Bear in mind, this represents Obama's approval level even after Gallup abruptly changed its methodology last month -- a move that appeared to favor Obama.  Despite the new home cooking, Obama is still underwater by three points.  In the head-to-head match up with Mitt Romney, the president trails by five points among likely voters, 51/46.  The good news?  

Historically speaking, both of these stats spell doom for Obama's electoral prospects.  No incumbent president has gotten re-elected with these sorts of numbers. (PPP's latest has Obama's approve/disapprove at a dismal 44/52). The bad news?  Obama could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college.  If Romney's apparent national momentum doesn't bleed into Ohio and/or Wisconsin, the beleaguered president might just get dragged across the 270 finish line.  The Romney campaign has canceled three scheduled rallies in Virginia today, due to the impending hurricane.  In some ways, GOP strategists may see this as a political blessing in disguise because it's freed the nominee up to return to the Buckeye State, where every last vote is critical.  

Romney will join Paul Ryan, who is already in the midst of a bus tour through Ohio.  Barack Obama is clinging to a tiny lead in the state, though some data crunchers believe Obama's support in the polls may be overstated because of early voting complications.  As I reported on Friday, Romney will scoot over to Wisconsin tomorrow to address supporters in a state where the race is statistically deadlocked.  Another extremely competitive Midwestern state is Iowa, where both campaigns are expecting things to come down to the wire.  In a development that could boost the Republican ticket's chances, Iowa's largest newspaper has decided to endorse Romney.  From the Des Moines Register editorial board:

 

American voters are deeply divided about this race. The Register’s editorial board, as it should, had a vigorous debate over this endorsement. Our discussion repeatedly circled back to the nation’s single most important challenge: pulling the economy out of the doldrums, getting more Americans back in the workforce in meaningful jobs with promising futures, and getting the federal government on a track to balance the budget in a bipartisan manner that the country demands. Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate. The former governor and business executive has a strong record of achievement in both the private and the public sectors. He was an accomplished governor in a liberal state. He founded and ran a successful business that turned around failing companies. He successfully managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Romney has made rebuilding the economy his No. 1 campaign priority — and rightly so.

Barack Obama rocketed to the presidency from relative obscurity with a theme of hope and change. A different reality has marked his presidency. His record on the economy the past four years does not suggest he would lead in the direction the nation must go in the next four years. Voters should give Mitt Romney a chance to correct the nation’s fiscal course and to implode the partisan gridlock that has shackled Washington and the rest of America — with the understanding that he would face the same assessment in four years if he does not succeed.

Newspaper endorsements don't pack the same punch that they once did, but this one is striking for two primary reasons: (1) Iowa is nip-and-tuck.  (2) Not only did the DMR endorse Obama in 2008, they haven't backed a Republican for president in 40 years.  Check it:

1972: Richard Nixon (R) - won
1976: Jimmy Carter (D) - won
1980: Jimmy Carter (D) - lost
1984: Walter Mondale (D) - lost
1988: Michael Dukakis (D) - lost
1992: Bill Clinton (D) - won
1996: Bill Clinton (D) - won
2000: Al Gore (D) - lost
2004: John Kerry (D) - lost
2008: Barack Obama (D) - won  

This paper backed Carter in 1980, and later Mondale and Dukakis.  But even they have seen enough of Barack Obama.  One can't help but wonder how much this episode influenced the editors' decision-making process.  My hunch is that they were leaning towards Romney anyway, then Obama's bungled interview sealed the deal.  Might this sway a few handfuls of undecided Hawkeye State voters?
 

UPDATE - Fresh Ohio poll: 49/49, with Romney up by six on the economy.  Rasmussen's swing state tracker has Romney +6, his largest lead of the entire campaign.  Parting quote: "Romney has pretty much nailed down Florida."