Friday, November 30, 2012

Obama Continues to Fail Leadership Test as Fiscal Proposals are Yet Another Political Stunt

UPDATE: Obama rejects GOP $4.6 trillion deficit reduction package! GOP leaders put forward a plan that would have solved the problem without raising taxes. Since Democrats insist on playing class warfare games and would soak the rich (which wouldn't generate enough money to matter) the issue remains at a stalemate. Democrats insist their plan of massive tax increases is "balanced" but with no evidence of any seriousness for real spending reduction.

Once again, Obama's attitude is do it my way or else!

Someone needs to tell him that the campaign is over. It's time to govern; if he knows how!

Here we go again. Another fiscal crisis which is nothing more than the last fiscal crisis kicked down the road past the election. And once again, as in all the other so-called crises, Obama fails to step up to the challenge of presidential leadership. Instead we are entering another round of mendacious campaign speeches in which he paints GOP principles featuring lower spending and job creation as tax cuts for the rich and accuses them of wanting to poison the air and water and let old people and children die. At the start of his latest round of campaigning Obama said that Republicans want to take away Christmas for the Middle Class. He told one group that if the GOP plan is adopted “That’s sort of like the lump of coal you get for Christmas. That’s a Scrooge Christmas.” Does that sound like the kind of presidential leadership that will bring both sides together for a deal?

In the opening salvo of this latest barrage of Obama's continuing divisive and partisan assault he put forward a plan that is so obviously designed to offend good sense that many believe he wants the talks to fail. Obama's plan is loaded with billions in new spending on Democrat goodies with any talk of cuts put off until next year and no guarantee that any will be made. Obama is also demanding the biggest tax increase in American history. But the most obvious non starter is a demand that Congress relinquish power to control the debt ceiling and hand that over to Obama. It would be like giving the bank robber the combination to the vault! If this is the "balanced" approach Obama's aides keep talking about then they are more incompetent than we thought.

Fortunately for Obama he won't have to explain to Americans how a deal to avert fiscal disaster is instead a vehicle for more of the wasteful spending that got us into the mess in the first place. He can count on an affirmative action news media that will be all too happy to ignore the spending and go after Republicans for playing "Scrooge" at Christmas. And if Republicans walk away Obama knows he can paint them as the problem and get away with it.

At the Wall Street Journal Kimberly Strassel made some good observations:

This Unserious White House
The president makes the GOP a fiscal-cliff offer he knows they will refuse.
By Kimberly Strassel
Wall Street Journal
November 29, 2012

How to put this tax-and-more-spending offer in perspective? It is far in excess of what the Democrats asked for in last year's debt-limit standoff—when the political configuration in Washington was exactly the same. It is far more than the president's own Democratic Senate has ever been able to pass, even with a filibuster-proof majority. It is far more than the president himself campaigned on this year.

But the president's offer is very much in keeping with his history of insisting that every negotiation consist of the other side giving him everything he wants. That approach has given him the reputation as the modern president least able to forge a consensus.

Mr. Obama's tendency to campaign rather than lead, to speechify rather than negotiate, has already defined this lame-duck session. The president has wasted weeks during which a framework for a deal has been in place.

Within two days of the election, Mr. Boehner had offered an enormous compromise, committing the GOP to provide new tax revenue, through limits on deductions for the wealthy. Mr. Obama campaigned on making "the rich" pay more—and that is exactly what Mr. Boehner agreed to give him.

All that was left for the president to do was accept this peace offering, pair it with necessary spending cuts, and take credit for averting a crisis. Mr. Obama has instead spent the past weeks campaigning for tax-rate hikes. He wants the revenue, but collected only the way he chooses. And on the basis of that ideological insistence alone, the nation is much closer to a crisis.

Talks that had been at a standstill may now crumble, thanks to the Geithner-Nabors proposal. The president is boxing in the Republicans—offering them a deal they cannot accept, a deal they can't even be seen to be treating seriously. Mr. Boehner is legitimately interested in a bargain that will set the country on sounder footing. Yet the most immediate outcome of such an open slap from the White House will be to make even those Republicans who were willing to cut a deal harden their positions. Someone get the White House a copy of "Negotiating Tactics for Dummies."
What Strassel and others have figured out is that Obama really doesn't want a deal. He's unable or unwilling to break free from campaign mode and act as an honest negotiator in the national interest. And since we know the affirmative action media will continue to cover up for his failings, there's no reason he should change. Americans will continue to suffer economically as a result!

Democrats were FOR the Filbuster before they were AGAINST it!

Senate Majority Leader seeks to overturn Senate traditions and weaken constitutional checks and balances!

In late 2007 I was invited to a small house party to meet Sen. John McCain a few months prior to his winning the South Carolina presidential primary which set him on the path to become the GOP nominee for President in 2008. In the question and answer session which followed his remarks I asked him about conservative criticism of some of his actions in the U.S. Senate.

One of the points I raised was criticism of McCain’s participation in the Gang of 14 which offered Democrats a deal on President Bush’s judicial nominations and put off any further talk of the so-called “nuclear option” of doing away with the filibuster of Judicial nominees. Democrats had blocked conservative black and Hispanic nominees (but we can’t call them racist?) and the deal cleared the way for some, but not all, to proceed.

McCain defended his position to me by stating that you wouldn’t want Democrats to do the same to us when they control the Senate and have a Democrat in the White House. Now Democrats do have a Democrat in the White House and retained control of the Senate and guess what? Now that their power is secure they are moving forward to limit the minority power to filibuster. Just what McCain said we would fear had Republicans changed the rules in 2005.

Of course it doesn’t matter that Harry Reid, when he was Minority Leader, called Republican plans for filibuster reform “illegal.” Dems have no problem changing the rules and changing their talking points. No doubt none of their supporters, or media acolytes will remember much less care.

So, here’s a little reminder of what Dems thought of the filibuster reform when they were in the minority. It starts with then Senator Obama talking about how such a plan would only make the partisan bickering in Washington worse. I guess that’s no longer a concern…

I'm tempted to write Senator McCain a letter and remind him of our exchange in 2007 and wonder whether he might wish to revise his earlier remarks in light of what is happening.

Also, for those who suggest that this move is a good thing because the GOP would retain the filibuster ban once we retake the Majority don't fool yourselves. The minute the GOP retakes control of the Senate we can expect a media drumbeat demanding a return to the "fair and democratic" traditions of the Senate. And I'll bet our side falls for it!

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Benghazi Cover Up Continues

UN Ambassador Susan Rice's emergence from the shadows does not quell the mystery of who did what, when, why and how!

Readers will recall that the Obama Administration put UN Ambassador Susan Rice forward as the Administration spokesperson on all five Sunday news programs in the wake of the September 11th attacks that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Libya. Her selection was a curious choice given that Obama later claimed Ms. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Still, out Rice went and repeated the now debunked fiction that the attack in Libya was a direct result of a protest gone bad and that any claim it was a terrorist act on 9/11 was unfounded.

In the wake of that whooper the Administration has fallen all over itself to either change the story or attack those who dare to ask questions. Particularly obnoxious was the charge by elected Democrats that criticism of Rice was sexist and racist. Funny, but I bet they didn't say the same thing when their side was attacking Condi Rice throughout the Bush Administration.

Ambassador Rice went to Capitol Hill to meet with senior Republicans who would be called on to review her qualifications if Obama nominates her to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The meetings did not go well. Since any comment from white males would be sexist and racist, I point readers only to the comments of Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Sen. Collins said she was "“troubled [Rice] decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of a contentious presidential election campaign."

Both Collins and Ayotte said that many unanswered questions remained about the Administration's handling of this issue. Sen. Ayotte summed what what many GOP leaders, not just white males, believe is the problem when she said "We are disturbed by the Administration's continued inability to answer even the most basic questions about the Benghazi attack and the Administration's response."

But apparently the White House, still in campaign mode, does not share those concerns. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was "not particularly concerned" if Rice's original presentation was misleading. Carney went on to say that "there are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice's appearances on Sunday shows, and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community, those questions have been answered."


And Obama has stated that  "We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information."

Yet with all that information the White House claims to have provided, we still do not know why Ambassador's Chris Stevens' requests for more security were ignored. We don't know whether Obama actually ordered any relief to the besieged consulate as he claimed. And we don't know who changed the intelligence assessment that Susan Rice used for talking points in spreading the myth to the American people that an Internet video was to blame for all this.

That last bit is becoming the biggest farce of all. Fingers keep getting pointed in all directions with the story changing hourly. First it's the CIA's fault. Then the FBI. Then some vague interagency process. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News, in a story that like the rest of the Benghazi cover up won't see much, if any, airtime, describes the sad farce in detail.

Will we ever know the truth about what happened and why in this sad episode? That's unlikely as long as the news media blackout which protects Obama remains in place. It's also a shame that Mitt Romney let the matter drop during the campaign. But then, had he continued to raise the issue he would have been accused of being a racist and a sexist.

 What we do know with absolute certainty is that four Americans, including our Ambassador, are dead and that the Obama Administration is either incompetent, corrupt or both!

Monday, November 26, 2012

Egypt's Morsi Grants Himself Dictatorial Power

Another nail in the coffin as Egypt takes a giant step towards becoming another Iran!

The Obama Administration was so eager to get rid of longtime Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak. As the Arab Spring came to Egypt two years ago hardly a day went by when Obama didn't head to the microphones and demand Mubarak's ouster. When he finally got his wish, he hailed it as a new era of freedom, democracy and peace in the Middle East.

Many warned that the Muslim Brotherhood was waiting in the wings to take over from the democracy activists who gullible journalists presented as the face of a new Egypt. We were told that the Brotherhood were not so bad and that fears of an Islamic dictatorship in the world's largest Arab country were unfounded.

But as the Muslim Brotherhood pushed aside secular democracy activists we've seen one act after another which indicates the true intentions that many warned about all along. Last week, the latest, and perhaps the biggest shoe to drop came when President Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, declared that his decisions were no longer subject to legal challenge. This is a power that Hosni Mubarak could only have dreamed of possessing. Morsi also declared that there could be no challenge to the decisions of a committee drawing up a new constitution.

With no ability to challenge the new constitution, Morsi's power grab lays the foundation for an Islamist dictatorship in Egypt very similar to Iran.

Morsi claims that these powers will be "temporary," but history shows that once a leader grabs absolute power he cannot give it up without also surrendering his life. At least when Hitler declared himself "Fuhrer" in Germany, he didn't  lie about the measure being temporary.

Less than four years after Obama took office we find the Middle East on fire and in political disarray with all indicators pointing to a future that is not in the interests of the United States and peace. Obama's failure of leadership is much to blame. God forbid the damage that he will do in the next four years. Oh well, when that dark future arrives don't say we didn't warn you!

UPDATE: Con Coughlin at the Daily Telegraph (UK) examines the parallels between Morsi's radicalization of Egypt and that of Iran's path to extremism. Only one thing Couglin missed. The parallels between a naïve, weak president named Jimmy Carter and the same in Barack Obama.failed  U.S. policy aided both Iran and Egypt's turn to radicalism.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Study Reveals Massive Favorable Media Coverage for Obama in Last Week Before Election

This won't come as any surprise!

So, Obama's out there making gaffe after gaffe on his post-election tour of Southeast Asia. Did you hear about any of that on the nightly news? No, but you recall that when Mitt Romney made his overseas visit last summer, every misstep was highlighted and amplified.

In the last week of the campaign, this trend continued:
Now for something that will surprise not one bit of the mass of mainstream media critics out there. A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism has found that President Obama enjoyed a “surge” in positive coverage over the last week of his campaign against Mitt Romney.

From the study:
During this final week, from October 29 to November 5, positive stories about Obama (29%) outnumbered negative ones (19%) by 10 points. A week earlier, negative coverage of Obama had exceeded positive by 13 points. The final week of the campaign marked only the second time in which positive stories about Obama outnumbered negative dating back to late August.
So how did Romney fare during this period? Negative stories drubbed positive ones, according to the researchers, by a margin of 33 percent to 16 percent.

Not only did Obama edge Romney on the positive-negative front, he was also beating him on volume, kind of like a Multimedia Costco. During that final week, the president tallied an 80 percent mark of news articles in which he had a “significant presence,” according to the study; Romney reached that level in just 62 percent of articles.

The same media blacked out ANY coverage of the Benghazi attack in the final week of the campaign and has been reluctant to cover it since.

We have an affirmative action media that protects Obama and Democrats and trumpets the deficiencies of Republicans. If the playing field of news reporting and cultural transmission were truly equal, there's no question that Republicans would win every time. No wonder Democrats spend so much time attacking Fox News and Talk Radio!

UPDATE: NBC Anchor: "Safe" to talk about jobs now that Obama won.

Want an example of how the news media covers up for Obama? Here's a good one:
Two days after the national election on November 6, Brian Williams — anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News -— made a peculiar comment during that Thursday's edition of Rock Center, the network's prime time news program.

“With the election now over, it is once again safe to talk abut the economy and jobs. Now that it is not a campaign issue, it's back to reality,”
he stated despite the fact that he had regularly discussed the topic during the campaign in a manner that always favored President Obama.
Back to reality? Quite an admission!

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Petraeus Gives Clearer Evidence of White House Coverup on Benghazi

The American people were lied to and intelligence was altered for political motives!

In the wake of the fatal attack on our Ambassador in Libya and three other Americans the Administration put forward the following line in a coordinated effort to blunt criticism in the weeks leading up to the election. Pete Wehner summarizes the Administration message:
Five days after the Benghazi massacre, Ambassador Rice went on five Sunday talk shows insisting that (a) we had “substantial security presence” at the consulate before the attack; (b) the attacks were spontaneous, not a pre-planned terrorist attack, and the result of “a small handful of heavily armed mobsters;” and (c) “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated.” On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rice said, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
Just one problem. Not one word of Rice's claims, echoed by every Administration mouthpiece, was right. Defending Ambassador Rice Obama on Thursday said she: "had nothing to do with Benghazi." Why then was she front and center as the Administration spokesperson?

On Friday, General David Petraeus, conveniently taken out of the picture at the Central Intelligence Agency with a sex scandal first uncovered by a woman with links to the Obama White House, testified before Congress that the initial intelligence summary provided to the Administration for talking points DID contain direct references to terrorism and Al Queda involvement in the attacks.

Neither Petraeus, nor anyone else who testified seems to know how the talking points became so distorted in a way that coincidently was less damaging politically to Obama. For instance, who was it that changed the emphasis to the internet video as the source of the attack?

Meanwhile, sources reveal that intelligence briefings for President Obama after the attack made clear references to Al Queda involvement. Yet Obama continued to downplay the terrorist angle, highlight the film and campaign with the slogan "Al Queda is on the run."

The White House coverup of this matter is classic. If they have nothing to hide then why not tell us who it was that briefed Susan Rice, Obama and other Administration officials and gave them this false information? No need to hide behind the fig leaf of an ongoing investigation if you have nothing to hide.

Altering intelligence for political purposes is a serious issue. If a Republican Administration were accused of a similar act in the wake of a terrorist attack Democrats would already be calling for a Special Prosecutor and planning his impeachment. Not so with the affirmative action President.

The sad truth of all the events before, during and after this attack will one day come out. It's just a crime that American voters were not given the full facts before the election when they might have held the Obama Administration accountable for their lies, incompetence and indifference to the growing Al Queda threat!

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Kirsten Powers Exposes Obama's Sexist Coverup of Benghazi Disaster

Obama admits UN Ambassador Rice spoke for Administration but uses feigned macho outrage to continue dodging questions of what she was told to say and why!

I'm not a big fan of Kirsten Powers, the Democrat/journalist, but since she is one of the few of her profession who actually takes the Benghazi mess seriously, she's worth listening to.

Wednesday, President Obama bizarrely cast the U.N. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, as some delicate flower the boys should stop picking on for her dissembling claims on five Sunday talk shows following the killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi. But, there is no damsel in distress and Obama's paternalistic bravado in defense of a top administration official is going to come back to haunt him.

"If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me," Obama intoned to the stenographers worshipping at his feet. The media had gathered for a rare "press conference" where Fox News' Ed Henry and ABC's Jake Tapper are usually the only ones who ever seem to ask a question that elicits anything other than filibustering presidential pabulum. (One "journalist" actually congratulated the president on his win and gushed about how she has never seen him lose an election.) Group hug!

Obviously caught up in his own silly yarn about meanie Senators and helpless U.N. Ambassadors, the President complained, "When they go after the U.N. ambassador apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me."

Imagine George Bush saying that people criticized John Bolton because he was an "easy target." He wouldn't.

It's absurd and chauvinistic for Obama to talk about the woman he thinks should be Secretary of State of the United States as if she needs the big strong man to come to her defense because a couple of Senators are criticizing her.
But it gets much worse.

As the president expressed outrage over the atrocity of members of Congress holding administration officials accountable, he said, "I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador? Who had nothing to do with Benghazi?"

Feast on those words for a second: The U.N. Ambassador had "nothing to do with Benghazi." At this point, the White House press corps should have flown into a frenzy, demanding to know why a person who had nothing to do with Benghazi was put on five Sunday talk shows as...the face of Benghazi!

This was an issue that had people scratching their heads the day of the Rice interviews, and plenty of questions were asked as to where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was, and why Rice was put out instead. The administration at the time acted as though there was nothing remarkable about it, even though there clearly was.

But now we know -- straight from the lips of the president of the United States -- that they sent out a person who knew "nothing" about Benghazi to explain an atrocious attack against the United States that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans serving their country abroad.

No temper tantrum from the White House on the insult of being questioned about a terror attack against the U.S. abroad would be complete without their perennial favorite: the straw man.

The conceit of Obama's argument is that people are picking on a helpless girl -- a lowly U.N. ambassador -- because they are afraid of the big bad president.

Oh, please.

President Obama, incredibly, claimed that he was "happy to have the discussion" about Benghazi.


Because every time anyone asks the president about Benghazi he claims he can't say anything because there is an investigation going on. The State Department actually said at one point that they would no longer take questions on the issue from reporters.

Senator Graham's response to the president's revelations and accusations at the press conference was exactly right: He said, "Mr. President, don't think for one minute I don't hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi."

The president says he is ready to talk about this? Great. We are all ears.
Don't expect any answers from Obama on Benghazi. Easier to play silly games knowing that your equally corrupt allies in what is called the "news" media will continue to cover up for you.

It's only Republican presidents who are held accountable for their mistakes. An affirmative action media will refuse to apply the same standard to Obama. Perhaps because they know he's half the man George Bush was!

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Petraeus Scandal: Obama's Get Out of Libya Free Card. Convenient and NO Coincidence

We know more about who said what in the Petraeus sex scandal than we do about the attack that killed our Ambassador and three Americans in Libya!

What's more important? A sex scandal involving a senior military figure or a foreign policy mess that was so bad that four Americans are dead as a result? It appears that to left wing journalists (are there any other kind?) the Petraeus sex scandal is a bigger threat to national security.

Senator John McCain held a press conference Wednesday in which he and other senators called for a special committee to investigate the mess in Libya. A reporter asked McCain if he didn't think that Petraeus sex scandal was more important than getting to the bottom of what happened in Libya. McCain responded: "that’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard."

PhotobucketBut this kind of willful blindness is typical of a "news" media that refuses to see the incompetence and indifference of the Obama Administration in the Libya story even as it is glaringly obvious to Americans who have been paying attention (granted, a woefully small number).

The Petraeus scandal comes made to order for a corrupt and incompetent Commander in Chief who finds it all too easy to deflect the few questions asked about Libya with this shiny new toy for the media to play with.

A perfect example of that came in Wednesday's press conference with Obama. More mentions of the Petraeus scandal than the attack in Libya. Not that it would matter. Obama avoided answering any of the very few serious questions with his usual campaign canned phrases.

The question arises whether the Petraeus scandal, and particularly the timing of it were not deliberate in a Chicago style brass knuckles attempt to silence or discredit General Petraeus. This wouldn't be the first time this bunch of Chicago thugs has used such tactics.

The corruption surrounding this Administration is as overwhelming as it was in the Watergate scandal in which no one died. The only difference is that during Watergate, the President was a Republican and the "news" media made it their mission to get the truth out. Not so with this affirmative action media protecting Obama!

Monday, November 12, 2012

59 Philadelphia Precincts and ZERO votes for Romney

Imagine the howls of "racism" if there were precincts in which Obama did not get a single vote!

The Philadelphia Inquirer has the story. It's like the stories of some third world tin pot dictatorship where the dictator always wins by a huge margin. In 59 precincts not one single vote for Romney? And you wonder why Democrats continue to oppose voter ID laws?

Maybe it was fraud. Maybe it was all those free Obama Phones that helped to buy off the black vote?

There's also the fact that GOP poll watchers were expelled from various Philly polling places. And in at least one school, an Obama mural with his campaign logo was painted on the wall of the polling place. And of course the Black Panthers were on patrol outside at least one polling place. At least this time they weren't threatening to "kill cracker babies."

Funny how Obama's Department of Justice, so concerned with suppression of the black vote, doesn't seem to bat an eye. Imagine what they would do if the Ku Klux Klan ran a polling place in Alabama!

This is fascism, Obama style. Welcome to the Thugocracy!


The turnout in those Philly precincts which voted 99% for Obama was 90%. That's 30% higher than the statewide average.

And in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland) similar 99% precinct results for Obama. And in one county, 8% more votes were cast than voter's registered. Oh well!

In both states voter id laws are either non existent or not enforced. Is it any wonder Democrats oppose such laws?

The bottom line: 400,000 votes are all that separated Mitt Romney from victory in key states. Clearly, fraud was a factor in Obama's re-election!

Hypocrisy: 2012 Obama Gets Mandate After Narrow Win. 2004: No Mandate for Bush After Narrow Win

Plus, when Dems lost in 2004 did they abandon their liberal policies? No, they doubled down. The lesson for the GOP moving forward!

It's become a cliché to state that Democrats will say anything and that truth to them is relative to who it is being spoken about. Here's yet another example"

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal found an interesting flip flop on the part of liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne last week. In a column titled "Obama’s victory should settle a bitter argument," Dionne takes the position that Obama won a mandate to do things his way and Republicans will be forced to compromise.

But eight years earlier, when Bush won re-election with a 3 point margin, this same liberal columnist declared that Bush had no mandate and that the close election meant Bush would have to compromise with Democrats.

The only thing consistent about Dionne's position is that no matter what, Republicans should compromise with Democrats. If Republicans win, they must compromise with Democrats. If Republicans lose, they must compromise with Democrats. And never, never, ever, does the same apply to Democrats. How predictable.   It's like global warming. Whether it's hot or cold it's because of global warming and the only answer is to raise taxes!

After 2004 Loss Dems Doubled Down on Liberalism

The usual left leaning handwringers in the punditocracy have been busy for a week telling Republicans they must become more like Democrats if they expect to win another national election. Many in the GOP establishment are falling for this clap trap. But many others understand that some offering this advice don't want Republicans to win and that by becoming Democrat-lite the GOP would simply become a minority party in perpetuity.

Since the 2004 election was brought up by the flip flop of E.J. Dionne, it's interesting to reflect on what Democrats thought and said when John Kerry lost that narrow election. Jonathon Last writing at the Weekly Standard has some perspective:
A week after the election, a group of African-American journalists gathered at Harvard to discuss the implications of Kerry’s loss. Summing up the meeting, the Detroit Free Press’s Rochelle Riley concluded that “it could be the end of civilization as we know it” because “Bush’s next term is not four years. It is 30 years, based on its impact.” In the Baltimore Sun, USC professor Diane Winston worried that Democrats were “ill-prepared for this new, faith-based world.” A Seattle Times columnist wrote, “after three decades of cultural and religious struggle—including a fair amount of concerted, premeditated political exploitation—the religious right is more mainstream in America than once-mainline denominations. This election confirms the influence and clout of those described by scholars as the socially conservative, theologically evangelical. They are our friends and neighbors, and unlike 18-to-29-year-olds, they vote in big numbers.” All of which led columnist Leonard Pitts to wonder, “Maybe this is where America ends. .  .  . Small wonder that everywhere I go, people are talking about moving to Canada. That’s the kind of joke you make when you no longer recognize your country.”

At the New York Times the hysteria was even more pronounced. Garry Wills called Kerry’s defeat “the day the Enlightenment went out.” Democratic operative Andrei Cherny wrote, “On Wednesday morning, Democrats across the country awoke to a situation they have not experienced since before the New Deal: We are now, without a doubt, America’s minority party.” Thomas Frank identified the Democrats’ problem as being one of perpetual weakness on the “values” subject:
Democrats still have no coherent framework for confronting this chronic complaint, much less understanding it. Instead, they “triangulate,” they accommodate, they declare themselves converts to the Republican religion of the market, they sign off on NAFTA and welfare reform, they try to be more hawkish than the Republican militarists. And they lose. And they lose again. Meanwhile, out in Red America, the right-wing populist revolt continues apace, its fury at the “liberal elite” undiminished by the Democrats’ conciliatory gestures or the passage of time.

Thomas Friedman swallowed hard and croaked that “what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don’t just favor different policies than I do—they favor a whole different kind of America. We don’t just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.”
Two years later Democrats took control of the U.S. House of Representatives and in 2008 nominated the most liberal Democrat ever as their presidential candidate and won. They didn't win because they became Republican-lite. Just the opposite.

The lesson the Democrats learned from the 2004 election is that you win by staying true to your values (such as they are). Those suggesting Republicans do the opposite are either misguided or hoping we lose again in 2014 and 2016!

Friday, November 09, 2012

Obama's Re-Election Brings Massive New Layoffs

With re-election behind him, Obama's war on business can continue unabated !

With no end in sight to Obama's business punishing policies companies are preparing to cut their losses and their jobs!

A compilation of layoff notices in the wake of Obma's re-election spells more hardship for America's workers. The list doesn't even begin to count the tens of thousands of jobs that will be lost in defense industries. Boeing is the first to announce thousands of new layoffs.

The last four years were hard enough for Americans out of work. The next four may be worse. Thanks to Obama!

UPDATE: From the Washington Post: "After Obama reelection, Murray Energy CEO reads prayer, announces layoffs:"

For the chairman and chief executive of Murray Energy, an Ohio-based coal company, the reelection of President Obama was no cause for celebration. It was a time for prayer — and layoffs.

Robert E. Murray read a prayer to a group of company staff members on the day after the election, lamenting the direction of the country and asking: “Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build.”

On Wednesday, Murray also laid off 54 people at American Coal, one of his subsidiary companies, and 102 at Utah American Energy, blaming a “war on coal” by the Obama administration.
More victims of Obama's corrupt and incompetent energy policy and his war on coal!

UPDATE 2: Restaurants to cut back worker hours to avoid ObamaCare and charge customers more to pay ObamaCare tax. Presumably many of those workers voted for Obama. Too late they will learn that bad choices have consequences!

Thursday, November 08, 2012

3rd Party Siphoned Enough Votes to Defeat Mia Love in Close Utah Election

Another vote for Obama in the U.S. House thanks to Libertarians!

Next time you hear some third party/ Libertarian type complain about the mess in Washington, remind him or her that they are partly to blame. Here's a good example. Mia Love, a bright new star who had the potential to be the first black female GOP member of Congress was defeated in a close election because a Libertarian siphoned off just enough votes for the Democrat to win.

From the L.A. Times:
With 100% of precincts reporting, 49.3% of the vote went to Matheson and 48.1% went to Love. Libertarian candidate Jim L. Vein took 2.6% of the vote, possibly contributing to Love's loss.
Libertarians have just as much an ego problem as Todd Akin, the hopelessly flawed GOP Senate candidate in Missouri who stayed in the race after making idiotic comments about rape and giving the Democrats a big win in the Senate.

Soviet Leader Josef Stalin called people like Libertarians "useful idiots." They gave the appearance of a democratic process in Soviet Russia. I prefer to call them Third Party fools. They stand on principle only to see everything they believe in overturned by Democrats!

The First Priority for Democrats in New Senate: Clamp Down on Minority Opposition

And they say Republicans would lead us to a one party fascist state?

What is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT-NV)'s fist priority in the new U.S. Senate? Make it harder for the minority to filibuster. That priority is placed above jobs bills or even a budget (the Senate hasn't passed one for more than three years).

Reid doesn't care if he overturns decades of Senate tradition. He just wants the Senate to be a partisan rubberstamp of Obama's failed policies.

Imagine for a moment if a Republican Senate majority tried to pull the same routine. Every major news organization would put critical stories denouncing the move up front. You can even expect that should the GOP retake the Senate there will be calls for the new majority to demonstrate their willingness to be fair and restore the old rules.

But since this is the Obama thugocracy, don't expect to hear much criticism of Senate Democrats.

Welcome to fascism Democrat-style!

The Long National Nightmare Continues

Obama's re-election means that the long slow decline of American greatness and the approach of national socialism continues!

NOTE: I outlined a number of points on election night and then decided to sit on them and reflect 36 hours later. Basically, the points are unchanged.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." That's a famous quote from Abraham Lincoln and it fits here. Obama proved on Tuesday night that he can continue to fool enough people to have them overlook his failures in office.
No Mandate

But by the narrow margin of his victory, he's left with a country deeply divided by his negative campaign, the worst in modern history. [Can we now dispense with the conventional wisdom that negative campaigns don't work or does that still apply to Republicans?] Every modern President who has won re-election has increased his margin of victory. Not so with Obama. More objective pundits than myself readily acknowledge that this leaves Obama with no mandate to continue with his failed experiment in social justice but nearly everyone expects that he will continue to go down this failed path no matter what.

Democrats are calling on Republicans to compromise. But to them, compromise is a one way street. Even after the "shellacking" Democrats got in 2010 they doubled down on failure and gridlock and refused to compromise. Considering the negativity of the race in which Republicans were painted as heartless and wanting to poison the air and water (this from Obama himself) it seems unlikely that Obama or the Democrats will now pivot towards a new policy of listening and cooperation to the other party. Remember also, that Democrat's like Senate Majority Leader, who now calls on Republicans to compromise said that if Romney were elected he would refuse to work with him. As always, Democrats define bipartisanship and compromise as doing it their way. No thanks!

New Leadership from Obama? Not Likely!

It also seems unlikely that Obama, tagged as the Campaigner in Chief will all of  a sudden drop that mode of operation and begin providing the presidential leadership that has been so lacking the last four years. As Bob Woodward writes in his new book, "The Price of Politics", this failure of leadership is a personal character flaw of Obama and one not likely to be overcome.

Corrupt News Media

It's hard to believe that so many of the voters were duped again by the charlatan from Chicago but we have to keep in mind that many millions of voters are willfully ignorant. They turn away from informing themselves on politics and national issues preferring to spend their time in mind dulling idle entertainment or sports programming on television.

What little news these willfully ignorant voters receive is likely to come from elite liberal news media which still has great power to determine which stories are covered and which are not. It's no secret that most of the media hyped every gaffe or stumble by Romney and ignored those by Obama. The best example of this was the Benghazi story. Media stories critical of Mitt Romney's statement in the immediate aftermath of the attacks were widespread. Those seeking answers to why the attacks happened and questions about the White House response were largely muted. Which was more important, a statement by presidential candidate or the failure of an Administration to protect our Ambassador and then lie about the story? Considering the media suppression of this story it's no surprise that many Obama voters never even heard of the Benghazi story.

Perhaps more than any other factor, the corrupt news media that failed to apply the same standard to a sitting President that they did to a presidential candidate is one of the biggest scandals in modern times. It's as if the liberal elites in the news media look on Obama as the affirmative action president and refuse to apply the same rules to him they would to a white candidate.

Some speculate that now that Obama has won a second term that the news media that covered up for him will suddenly change their tune and begin demanding more from him. I doubt it. Obama may not be able to blame George W. Bush for the "mess" he inherits in his second term, but there's every indication that he will continue to scapegoat the GOP congress. It's most likely he will continue to reject their ideas then damn them if they fail to endorse all of his. The lap dog media that has failed to point out the fact that Senate Democrats haven't passed a budget in years will continue to blame Republicans for any gridlock.

Mitt Romney: Good Man, Average Campaign

Mitt Romney is a good man who would have been a great President. The media and establishment elites assured us that he was the man to reach middle or moderate voters. So why didn't he win? First, he failed to effectively counter the negative impression in many voter's minds from the barrage of poisonous ads the Obama campaign launched against him in late summer. The debates cleared away much of that but then Hurricane Sandy blew Romney off the radar at a key moment when his momentum was building towards election day. Obama skillfully took advantage of that crisis to appear presidential and hasn't been heard from since in the disaster stricken parts of New Jersey which he used as  a campaign prop.

On the whole Mitt's campaign was well run. But when Mitt felt he was winning he pulled back in the final debate when he could have elevated the Libya issue which exposed Obama's incompetence in foreign policy and indifference to the safety of our Ambassador and personnel. That was a mistake.

But more than any of these issues the failure of Romney and the Republicans to mount an effective ground game and turn out the GOP base. Republicans saw how effective the Democrat machine was in 2008 and had four years to prepare to counter it in 2012.  Since 2008 I have warned repeatedly about this. More on this in a later post.

Bottom Line: Regroup and Defiance

It's a cliché to say that people get the government they deserve. Over the next four years voters who can break through the media haze praising Obama will learn what a mistake they made.

Republicans can and will regroup and find new leaders to carry on. There is every indication that a new crop of younger leaders will have the seasoning and experience it takes to mount a winning fight in the congressional midterm elections of 2014 and the presidential election in 2016. But that is a long way off.

Until then, I look to examples of forebearance from history. Winston Churchill comes to mind. He endured a decade in the political wilderness. Out of power and regarded as irrelevant he never stopped warning of the danger coming from Nazi Germany. When the danger broke Britain turned to him in the critical hour.

As Britain stood on the knife's edge between defeat and a long slog to victory Prime Minister Churchill visited his old school, Harrow. He told the boys: "Never give in. Never, never, never." If there is one message to my conservative friends it would be this:

A second quote from Churchill also fits: "In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill." Our liberal friends have already demonstrated a complete lack of magnanimity and goodwill. We must remain resolute and defiant. Better days are not far off and another liberal shellacking is on the horizon. That meal of liberal crow will be served soon enough!

Monday, November 05, 2012

Win This One for the Gipper

What would Ronald Reagan do? Urge you to vote for Romney/Ryan!

Photo by Mike's America as President Reagan speaks aboard the "Ferdinand Magellan" in Perrysburg, Ohio in 1984. See more Mike's America Reagan photos and recollections here.

The morning after the 1988 presidential election I stood in the White House Rose Garden as President Reagan thanked the staff who had worked so hard to help George H.W. Bush win a resounding victory over Democrat Michael Dukakis.

I remembered on the campaign trail how President Reagan had invoked the dying wish of George Gipp the Notre Dame football player whom Reagan memorialized in the film "Knute Rockne All American." As the President finished speaking and turned to go back into the Oval Office I shouted out, ala ABC’s Sam Donaldson, “That was one for the Gipper.” The President returned to the podium and proceeded to regale us with another of his famous George Gipp stories.

24 years later I’m thinking of that moment and of Reagan’s conservative legacy of smaller taxes and less government that is at the heart of the nationwide movement to restore this country starting November 6th. Romney and Ryan's plan is the natural follow on to Reagan's proven legacy.

If Reagan could be with us now he might say something like this:

"Ask them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper.
 don't know where I'll be then, but I'll know about it and I'll be happy."
It's up to you now. Make sure you vote. Make sure your friends, family and associates vote. Vote for love of country. Vote for love of great patriots like Reagan. Vote for a better America and a brighter future.


Mega Crowd In PA Turns Out on Frigid Night to Rally for Romney

You can't fake this kind of enthusiasm!

America: Help is on the way!

A local newspaper tells the story of "a bundled-up crowd of about 25,000 who had waited hours in the breezy cold," at a rally in Pennsylvania Sunday to show their support for Mitt Romney. Such growing enthusiasm suggests Romney has a shot at upsetting the conventional wisdom and taking Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes. This comes the day after the Pittsburgh Tribune poll showing Romney and Obama tied in Pennsylvania.

Like Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and a number of these other battleground states in which the race is too close to call it all comes down to turnout. And the nearest measure we have to predict turnout is the enthusiasm demonstrated by these huge crowds for Romney. Obama is having trouble matching that enthusiasm with crowds at his events.


Sunday, November 04, 2012

A Moment of Silence for Romney's Closing Argument

Contrast the silent desperation of American families over the past four years with Obama's threats for revenge and supporters threats of violence (1,2,3, 4) if Romney wins!

As Obama jets from one celebrity studded event to the next this is the reality known by the millions of Americans as his plane flies overhead!

It's time to send a message to the Americans in need of some real hope that help is on the way. It's time to tell the liberal fascists who threaten our democracy that their brand of hate and fear is a loser!


With Election Too Close to Call Obama Has Edge in Polls, Romney has Undeniable Edge in Enthusisam, Key to Turnout

And it's turnout, like the mega-crowds greeting Romney, that will decide the race!
The rubber meets the road on Tuesday!
In my Electoral College map from October 25 I gave Obama the edge with a big but about Ohio. Since that time, Hurricane Sandy blew Romney off the front page for three days and Obama recovered somewhat giving him a further slight advantage in the Real Clear Politics averages and electoral map.

But here comes that "but" again! It's a clear fact that Romney is drawing huge crowds; much larger than Obama. Over the weekend Romney kicked off his final push with a huge rally with 30,000 supporters in West Chester Ohio. Compare that to an Obama event in Columbus which drew 4,000. Obama drew crowds of 80,000 in Cleveland in the last days of the 2008 campaign. His crowds now are below those of John McCain

All along the polls have measured a substantial advantage in enthusiasm for Romney and a decline in support for Obama among the Independents and other voting blocs that were key to his victory in 2008. Any poll which shows Obama getting more votes in Ohio, or any other state, than he did in 2008 is flat out WRONG! These trends are especially clear in the Great Lakes states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan where the "shellacking" of 2010 was most pronounced. Obama may continue to have an advantage in the overall Real Clear averages for these states but it's likely that the outcome in a number of them will disappoint his supporters.

I am not prepared to go as far out on a limb as analyst Michael Barone. However, his experience and knowledge is formidable and his views are worth considering. In a Friday article titled "Romney beats Obama, handily," Barone gives Romney the edge in Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. More than enough to win with 315 electoral votes to Obama's 223. Stronger Republican turnout and Obama's failure to hold enough of his 2008 voters is the key.

Karl Rove agrees and cites significant shifts in early voting in Ohio favoring Republicans.

The bottom line: This is NOT a rerun of 2008 when an inexperienced huckster stole the show with a teleprompter and a promise. Many Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 have had four years of economic hardship in which to contemplate their mistake. And nearly all conservatives dispirited in 2008 by the lackluster of John McCain's campaign have seen what can happen to the country when they sit on the sidelines.


Saturday, November 03, 2012

Blackout on Benghazi Continues

Obama and the major news media put political concerns ahead of national security and accountability!

UPDATE: Mother of Sean Smith (one of the four slain in Benghazi): “I believe that Obama murdered my son,” she said Thursday from the living room of her Clairemont home. “I firmly believe this.” Will she be granted the same "absolute moral authority" that the press gave to Cindy Sheehan?

The sad truth about the tragic debacle in Benghazi where our Ambassador and three other Americans were killed continues to come out. ABC News reporter Jake Tapper described the process a "drip, drip, drip" revelation in a report which was only released on the Internet. The report was not carried on the network evening newscast. Same for reports at CBS and NBC. Total silence.

The few times that network newscasts mentioned the Libya story at all, it was early on and critical of Mitt Romney for releasing his statement on the attacks. Either that, or they simply repeated the Administrations now debunked claim that an Internet video was the cause.

Obama ignores the few shouted questions from reporters. Yet, the one time he was forced into giving an answer he raised more questions than he answered. In an interview with a local television reporter (KUSA) he was pressed on the issue of whether requests to provide help during the attack were denied. Among the wiffling and waffling Obama said this: "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to."

So, if Obama "gave three very clear directives," what were they and to whom? No help was sent to the scene even though we had plenty of military options standing by. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote a letter to Obama asking a series of detailed questions:
  • To whom did you issue this first directive and how was this directive communicated to the military and other agencies – verbally or in writing?
  • At any time on September 11, 2012, did you specifically direct the military to move available assets into Libya to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel in Benghazi? If so, which assets did you order to Libya?
  • At any time on September 11, 2012, other than ISR assets, did you provide the authority for the military to take any and all necessary measures to secure U.S. personnel, including specifically the authority to enter Libyan airspace?
  • Did you have any communication with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any Commanders of regional Combatant Commands regarding military support to U.S. personnel in Benghazi on September 11th? If so, could you please describe any recommendations provided to you regarding available military support and any orders you gave to them?
There has been no response to these and earlier questions as to why growing security concerns at the consulate in Benghazi were ignored.

Despite the shameful television blackout of this story major newspapers are beginning to catch on. Lead editorials in both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. The Journal summed up the Obama Administration response as “evasive, inconsistent and conflicting accounts about one of the most serious American overseas defeats in recent years.” The Post said that "sooner or later the administration must answer questions." Instead of doing their job to inform the American people, the Post, along with most other major media seems content to sweep the story under the rug and not press for those answers until after the election.

The Las Vegas Review Journal editorial hit Obama on both foreign policy and the economy calling him "an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy." They concluded by saying that Obama was "unworthy [as] Commander in Chief:"
These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.
No Answers for Grieving Families


While the American people have every right to know what happened in Libya and why BEFORE the election, families of those killed have an unquestioned moral right to know why pleas for help were not answered. The contrast with the media focus on Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq and who made it her full time job to protest President Bush is startling. Ms. Sheehan was imbued by the media with an "absolute moral authority" and reporters followed her everywhere.

Likewise during the Valerie Plame scandal. Hundreds of stories drumming up outrage against the Bush Administration. Yet, Ms. Plame was no longer a covert CIA agent, but a desk jockey, and the law governing non-disclosure of her status did not apply. In short, no one died.

Then there is Charles Woods whose son Tyrone disobeyed orders not to offer assistance to the consulate in Benghazi on the night of the attacks and was killed. In an interview he described how he feels about what his family has been told:

KELLY: Charlie, do you feel like you are getting straight answers from the administration on this?

WOODS: This is all a pack of lies. That is one thing as the father whose son who was killed, I do not appreciate lies. I do not appreciate cowardice, and I do not appreciate lies. I’m a loving person. I love my son and I want to honor him, and I hope I’m not speaking too strongly, but I am very glad the facts are coming out right now. The reason I am even speaking up, our family had made the decision not to say anything, but after the facts came out that in real-time, the White House, minutes after the first bullet was fired, they watched my son, they denied his pleas for help. 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 leadership in the White House had that same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed with his life.

The UT San Diego Editorial Board headlined their editorial with this stark charge against Obama: "YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF AN AMERICAN HERO ON YOUR HANDS." What a shame that newspaper readership in this country is so small and few will see this or any of the other critical editorials prior to casting their ballots on election day. As the Las Vegas Review Journal said Obama is "unworthy" to continue as Commander in Chief. You would think that was news every American should consider!

Friday, November 02, 2012

Joe Biden: Never Proud to be Obama's Vice President

Millions of Americans agree!

If you had any doubt that the Obama Administration was the most incompetent, corrupt and STUPID of any in recent history this latest in a LONG LINE of Joe Biden gaffes should convince you:

BIDEN: "There's never been a day in the last four years when
I've been proud to be his vice president. Not one single day."

Question to every left winger who dumped on Dick Cheney during the Bush years. Are YOU proud of this clown?

Thursday, November 01, 2012

Democrats Politicize Hurricane Disaster to Advance Global Warming Agenda

It doesn't matter that hurricanes have not become more frequent or stronger as global warming zealots predicted!

Even before the winds from Sandy died down Democrats leapt towards the nearest microphone to take political advantage of the disaster and attempt to promote their left wing environmental agenda. First up with the phony global warming to blame message was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has presidential ambitions in 2016. He was followed by former President Bill Clinton who criticized Romney for opposing Obama's wasteful and corrupt green energy program (none of which did or could do one thing to lessen the severity of this or any other storm).

And of course former Vice President Al Gore, who has gotten rich promoting the empty promise of green energy, wouldn't miss the opportunity to earn millions more by insisting that "As the oceans and atmosphere continue to warm, storms are becoming more energetic and powerful." Gore added: "Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. "

Just one problem for Gore, Clinton, Cuomo and the other green zealots: Hurricane Sandy was the exception to a seven year trend that shows hurricane strength, number and energy at historic lows. Gore and the Greenies attempted to use the year 2005 which saw Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastate the Gulf States as the new normal. But like so many of their dire predictions, the opposite happened.

Climate Depot has the latest commentary and analysis from scientists debunking this latest attempt to politicize a weather event. My favorite: "The gubermint tells us that Irene, Isaac and Sandy are the worst storms ever. The 2012 drought was the worst ever. 2012 is the hottest year ever.These claims are all completely true, assuming that time began two years ago and you have the IQ of a turnip."

Meanwhile Democrats have the nerve to criticize Mitt Romney's efforts to raise money and supplies for hurricane victims in the place of campaign rallies earlier this week. They have no shame!

Halloween Offers Teachable Moment for Children About Socialism

Redistributing candy to those with less is NOT fair to kids who "worked hard" to get it!

What a good way to teach kids about socialism!

"Not cool dude. I worked hard for that candy!"
I loved the line "you didn't build that costume!"
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator