Opinion: Here comes the landslide
By Dick Morris - 10-30-12 06:33 PM ET
Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.
As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.
The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.
His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).
Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.
And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.
In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.
Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?
Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.
The impact on Senate races could be profound. Give the GOP easy pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota. Wisconsin has been a roller coaster. Once an easy win for Republican Tommy Thompson, then a likely loss as Democrat Tammy Baldwin caught up, and now Republican again, it will probably be a third pickup. Romney’s surge in Virginia is propelling George Allen to a good lead for the first time all campaign. In Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg holds and has held for some time a small lead over Democrat incumbent Jon Tester. And, in Pennsylvania, Smith has powered his campaign to a small lead over Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
The GOP now leads in these six takeaways. But it is also within easy striking distance in Ohio and Florida, where incumbents are under 50 percent and Republican challengers Connie Mack (Fla.) and Josh Mandel (Ohio) are only a few points behind. It may even be possible to entertain daydreams of Rhode Island (Barry Hinckley) and New Jersey (Joe Kyrillos) going Republican.
Republican losses? Look for a giveback in Maine and possibly in Indiana and Massachusetts. In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock had established a 5-point lead over Democrat Joe Donnelly. But his comments about rape knocked him back to a tie. With Romney carrying the state by 15 points, however, Mourdock could still make it. In Massachusetts, Brown has been in hand-to-hand combat with Elizabeth Warren. Down by five a few days ago, he’s now tied, but the undecided usually goes against the incumbent.
The most likely outcome? Eight GOP takeaways and two giveaways for a net gain of six. A 53-47 Senate, just like we have now, only opposite.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton's abominable national security record - Washington Times
ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton's abominable national security record - Washington Times
I have extensive experience in national security matters, including years served in the House, the Senate and the White House, where I was detailed as senior FBI special agent liaison and investigator with the Bush and Clinton White House counsel’s office.
There was never a question that national security was a top priority for George H.W. Bush’s executive branch. The security system was ironclad, serious and professional. The rest of the federal agencies followed the lead of the Bush White House.
Our national security group consisted of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Secret Service, all working united in a common mission. I cannot recall a single complaint that the Bush administration ignored warnings or suggestions of those ready to give their all — including their lives — to protect the president and his White House, and our national security. We performed our mission, and it was appreciated by the Bush team.
Read more: ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton's abominable national security record - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/30/hillary-clintons-abominable-national-security-reco/#ixzz2AuLQiwoq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Heroic Tyrone Woods| CNSNews.com
Heroic | CNSNews.com
"Our nation and our future are in the hands of a man who refuses to take the blame for anything. He inherited the bad economy and four years later has only made it worse. He knew nothing about Fast and Furious and issues an executive order to prevent the congress from getting to the bottom of it and now he is completely innocent of not sending help to Americans dying at the hands of Islamic terrorists in a firefight that lasted 7 hours.
Well, if Obama is not responsible, please tell me who is."
Charlie Daniels
Mitt Romney for president - NashuaTelegraph.com
Mitt Romney for president - NashuaTelegraph.com
Four years ago, with little hesitation, we endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama to become the 44th president of the United States, saying it was a time for “new leadership, a new approach to governing, a new way of conducting the people’s business.”
So the basic question facing The Telegraph editorial board when it met last week came down to this: Did the former Illinois senator do enough to live up to those admittedly high expectations to warrant a second term?
After several hours of spirited debate, not unlike conversations taking place in kitchens and living rooms across America, we reached a consensus that he had not. Perhaps more importantly, when we identified the key challenges facing the nation – jobs, the economy and the national debt – we concluded he was not the best candidate to meet them.
That person is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and we hereby endorse him to become the 45th president of the United States.
A Coverup Worse Than Watergate
A Coverup Worse Than Watergate:
The ride on the Obama bus gets bumpier as more bodies are thrown under it.
The latest to go thumpity thump are journalists who trumpeted the administration's excuse that faulty intelligence i...
The ride on the Obama bus gets bumpier as more bodies are thrown under it.
The latest to go thumpity thump are journalists who trumpeted the administration's excuse that faulty intelligence i...
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Conservative Quote Of The Day
Personal responsibility is a real problem for those who want to collectivize society and take away our power to make our own decisions, transferring that power to third parties like themselves, who imagine themselves to be so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
Why affirmative action has failed
Why affirmative action has failed
October 30, 2012, 4:24 AM
By Stuart Taylor and Richard Sander
The pending Supreme Court case that has put affirmative action back in the news — a reverse discrimination lawsuit by a disappointed white applicant against the University of Texas — focuses mainly on the same debate about fairness to various racial groups that has gone on for more than 40 years.
But, meanwhile, the broader public debate is being transformed by previously unheralded evidence that the large racial preferences into which affirmative action has devolved are not working well — and are at war with the egalitarian principles that were once their goal.
This new evidence makes three points: First, racial preferences are exposing many or most of their supposed beneficiaries to a serious risk of academic struggle.
Second, university leaders are systematically misleading these black and Hispanic recruits (and everyone else) about their academic prospects.
Third, most of these preferred students are more affluent than many of the better-qualified Asians and whites who are disfavored on account of race.
Academic struggle results when black and Hispanic students (as well as athletes and children of big donors) who got B’s in high school are put into competition with Asian and white students who got A’s.
The research shows that most of the B students will have trouble keeping up, suffering heavy blows to their self-confidence, and will end up learning less than if they had gone to schools for which they were well-qualified.
We call this the mismatch effect.
Several studies have tracked black and Hispanic students who initially aspired to become scientists or engineers. Soon after arriving at elite colleges where they were academically mismatched, these students felt lost and got bad grades.
Their professors were racing through tough courses at a pace designed to challenge their far better-prepared classmates. These victims were only half as likely to get science degrees as comparably qualified students at less selective schools.
Another study shows that black students who aspire to be professors are far less likely to achieve their goals if they go to selective schools where they are mismatched rather than schools for which they are well-qualified. Other studies show that black law students are much more likely to pass the bar exam if they go to schools for which they are well-qualified.
Little-noticed University of California statistics show that a 1996 ballot initiative outlawing racial preferences was on balance good for black and Hispanic students.
Those who would probably have done badly if admitted through racial preferences to Berkeley and UCLA did better at somewhat less selective campuses, such as Riverside and Santa Cruz.
UC-wide, black and Hispanic grades, science degrees and graduation rates improved markedly. The total number of black and Hispanic students receiving bachelor’s degrees from UC has soared since racial preferences were outlawed.
Some scholars scoff at such evidence by claiming that black and Hispanic students can fully assess which college is in their own best interests.
But by hiding the enormous size of their racial preferences, by assuring marginally qualified students that they will do fine academically and gain ground on their better-prepared classmates and by ostracizing scholars who shine a light on mismatch problems, the universities do their best to deny their “diversity recruits” the opportunity to make informed choices.
Lastly, data showing that most racial-preference recipients are catapulted over working-class and poor Asians and whites who are less affluent and better qualified compels the conclusion that the current regime is perverting a once-egalitarian cause by increasing economic inequality.
Justice Samuel Alito highlighted this problem during the Oct. 10 oral argument in the Texas case, expressing incredulity at the university’s contention that it needs racial preferences to bring in affluent black and Hispanic students because those brought in by a law admitting the top 10% of every high school class were mostly underprivileged: “I thought the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds.”
Not any more, it’s not.
But we hope to see the original ideals of affirmative action revived as word of findings about mismatch, the dishonest practices of universities and the comforting-the-comfortable thrust of the current racial-preference regime filter through the academy.
The Supreme Court could speed that process by requiring that schools using racial preference disclose to applicants and the public their size, operation and effects on academic performance. Transparency is the best route to reform.
Taylor, a journalist and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Sander, a law professor and economist at UCLA, are the authors of “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.”
October 30, 2012, 4:24 AM
By Stuart Taylor and Richard Sander
The pending Supreme Court case that has put affirmative action back in the news — a reverse discrimination lawsuit by a disappointed white applicant against the University of Texas — focuses mainly on the same debate about fairness to various racial groups that has gone on for more than 40 years.
But, meanwhile, the broader public debate is being transformed by previously unheralded evidence that the large racial preferences into which affirmative action has devolved are not working well — and are at war with the egalitarian principles that were once their goal.
This new evidence makes three points: First, racial preferences are exposing many or most of their supposed beneficiaries to a serious risk of academic struggle.
Second, university leaders are systematically misleading these black and Hispanic recruits (and everyone else) about their academic prospects.
Third, most of these preferred students are more affluent than many of the better-qualified Asians and whites who are disfavored on account of race.
Academic struggle results when black and Hispanic students (as well as athletes and children of big donors) who got B’s in high school are put into competition with Asian and white students who got A’s.
The research shows that most of the B students will have trouble keeping up, suffering heavy blows to their self-confidence, and will end up learning less than if they had gone to schools for which they were well-qualified.
We call this the mismatch effect.
Several studies have tracked black and Hispanic students who initially aspired to become scientists or engineers. Soon after arriving at elite colleges where they were academically mismatched, these students felt lost and got bad grades.
Their professors were racing through tough courses at a pace designed to challenge their far better-prepared classmates. These victims were only half as likely to get science degrees as comparably qualified students at less selective schools.
Another study shows that black students who aspire to be professors are far less likely to achieve their goals if they go to selective schools where they are mismatched rather than schools for which they are well-qualified. Other studies show that black law students are much more likely to pass the bar exam if they go to schools for which they are well-qualified.
Little-noticed University of California statistics show that a 1996 ballot initiative outlawing racial preferences was on balance good for black and Hispanic students.
Those who would probably have done badly if admitted through racial preferences to Berkeley and UCLA did better at somewhat less selective campuses, such as Riverside and Santa Cruz.
UC-wide, black and Hispanic grades, science degrees and graduation rates improved markedly. The total number of black and Hispanic students receiving bachelor’s degrees from UC has soared since racial preferences were outlawed.
Some scholars scoff at such evidence by claiming that black and Hispanic students can fully assess which college is in their own best interests.
But by hiding the enormous size of their racial preferences, by assuring marginally qualified students that they will do fine academically and gain ground on their better-prepared classmates and by ostracizing scholars who shine a light on mismatch problems, the universities do their best to deny their “diversity recruits” the opportunity to make informed choices.
Lastly, data showing that most racial-preference recipients are catapulted over working-class and poor Asians and whites who are less affluent and better qualified compels the conclusion that the current regime is perverting a once-egalitarian cause by increasing economic inequality.
Justice Samuel Alito highlighted this problem during the Oct. 10 oral argument in the Texas case, expressing incredulity at the university’s contention that it needs racial preferences to bring in affluent black and Hispanic students because those brought in by a law admitting the top 10% of every high school class were mostly underprivileged: “I thought the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds.”
Not any more, it’s not.
But we hope to see the original ideals of affirmative action revived as word of findings about mismatch, the dishonest practices of universities and the comforting-the-comfortable thrust of the current racial-preference regime filter through the academy.
The Supreme Court could speed that process by requiring that schools using racial preference disclose to applicants and the public their size, operation and effects on academic performance. Transparency is the best route to reform.
Taylor, a journalist and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Sander, a law professor and economist at UCLA, are the authors of “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.”
EDITORIAL: Obama's last time - Washington Times
EDITORIAL: Obama's last time - Washington Times
In case it wasn’t clear enough that Barack Obama doesn’t take women seriously, an ad his campaign released Thursday should lay to rest all doubts. In a minute-long monologue that plays on a tacky double entendre, HBO actress Lena Dunham tells young women that their “first time” (voting) should “be with a really great guy.” Beneath the breezy talking points about birth control, the war in Iraq and homosexual “marriage” lies a presupposition that should give every intelligent 21st-century woman pause. Apparently, in Mr. Obama’s worldview, a woman never could be president.
The ad’s wording overlooks the possibility that a woman could be on the ballot when young women go to cast their first vote. You would think the party that champions feminist causes would be careful to use inclusive language. Why not say, “Your first time voting should be for a really great person”? Nor, for that matter, does the ad encourage women to develop any presidential ambitions for themselves. Instead, the ad makes a cynical play for college-age women’s votes with a “hip” young woman gushing about Mr. Obama’s accomplishments and her own first vote. Born in 1986, Miss Dunham actually was old enough to vote in the 2004 election. Apparently she just “wasn’t ready” to cast her first vote for John F. Kerry.
Read more: EDITORIAL: Obama's last time - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/30/obamas-last-time/#ixzz2Apb9hgQe
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Founding Father Quote
"A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the Legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute."
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
Obama Met With Panetta, Biden on 9/11/12 55 Minutes After State Notified WH of Benghazi Attack | CNSNews.com
Obama Met With Panetta, Biden on 9/11/12 55 Minutes After State Notified WH of Benghazi Attack | CNSNews.com
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM—just 55 minutes after a State Department email notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack.
The meeting between Obama, Panetta and Biden had been scheduled before the attack took place, and the Department Defense is not commenting now on whether the three men were aware when they met that day of the ongoing Benghazi attack or whether Obama used that meeting to discuss with his defense secretary what should be done to defend the U.S. personnel in Benghazi.
“Secretary Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates,” Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. “However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”
Christmas Lights
I love Christmas lights! They remind me of.....
"the people who voted for Obama......."
They all hang together; half of them don't work,
and the ones that do, aren't all that bright!
"the people who voted for Obama......."
They all hang together; half of them don't work,
and the ones that do, aren't all that bright!
Polls show tight Obama-Romney race just getting closer - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Polls show tight Obama-Romney race just getting closer - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Polls show the already tight presidential race is getting even closer just a week before Election Day.
A handful of polls released Tuesday show President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney either tied or within 1 percentage point of each other. None of the polls show either candidate hitting the 50 percent mark.
A survey from Pew Research showed the candidates locked at 47 percent, a Washington Post poll showed them tied at 49 percent, and a survey from NPR shows Romney ahead of Obama by 49 to 48 percent.
Polls show the already tight presidential race is getting even closer just a week before Election Day.
A handful of polls released Tuesday show President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney either tied or within 1 percentage point of each other. None of the polls show either candidate hitting the 50 percent mark.
A survey from Pew Research showed the candidates locked at 47 percent, a Washington Post poll showed them tied at 49 percent, and a survey from NPR shows Romney ahead of Obama by 49 to 48 percent.
Quote Of The Day
"It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it."
-- A. A. Hodge
-- A. A. Hodge
Monday, October 29, 2012
Founding Father Quote
Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, and measure in which the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn are intimately interested, are now before us. We are in the very midst of a revolution the most complete, unexpected and remarkable of any in the history of nations.
John Adams, 1776
John Adams, 1776
Ed Rogers: Read all about it: Obama to create a ‘Department of Business’
Ed Rogers: Read all about it: Obama to create a ‘Department of Business’
Ed Rogers
4:11 PM
Isn’t this rich? Saturday Night Live couldn’t have thought of anything better. When I read this headline, I had to make sure it wasn’t coming from The Onion. President Obama actually said that in his second term, there could be a “Secretary of Business.“ That's right, he knows he has a problem with American business and naturally, he thinks there is a government solution. This shows how tone-deaf he is, how ignorant he must be of how business works in America and what American businesses want from Washington.
Anyway, if Obama is reelected, support for private business from the government is on the way. What could go wrong? Obama is going to use his own business savvy to redraw parts of the government organization chart to make a new Department of Business. The new department could be staffed with the community organizers, labor leaders and Occupy rejects who are currently doing field work for his campaign, along with assorted philosophy and political science majors from the president’s favorite universities, and a retired professor or two. The new Department of Business could have things like a “Bureau of Business Assistance” that reviews business plans to make sure they comply with the Obama worldview. Ha! Or maybe “The Office of Fair Hiring and Fair Pay Encouragement” will be knocking on your door. What business owner wouldn’t appreciate this ”help”?
Obama’s business liaison has been viewed as a joke and as an enemy of American business. He has had to hide from the honorable private sector leaders he appointed to his defunct jobs council. His previous Commerce Secretary was sent to China and no one noticed. His current Commerce Secretary couldn’t be picked out of a lineup with the Spice Girls. Mitt Romney could have some fun with this.
Ed Rogers
4:11 PM
Isn’t this rich? Saturday Night Live couldn’t have thought of anything better. When I read this headline, I had to make sure it wasn’t coming from The Onion. President Obama actually said that in his second term, there could be a “Secretary of Business.“ That's right, he knows he has a problem with American business and naturally, he thinks there is a government solution. This shows how tone-deaf he is, how ignorant he must be of how business works in America and what American businesses want from Washington.
Anyway, if Obama is reelected, support for private business from the government is on the way. What could go wrong? Obama is going to use his own business savvy to redraw parts of the government organization chart to make a new Department of Business. The new department could be staffed with the community organizers, labor leaders and Occupy rejects who are currently doing field work for his campaign, along with assorted philosophy and political science majors from the president’s favorite universities, and a retired professor or two. The new Department of Business could have things like a “Bureau of Business Assistance” that reviews business plans to make sure they comply with the Obama worldview. Ha! Or maybe “The Office of Fair Hiring and Fair Pay Encouragement” will be knocking on your door. What business owner wouldn’t appreciate this ”help”?
Obama’s business liaison has been viewed as a joke and as an enemy of American business. He has had to hide from the honorable private sector leaders he appointed to his defunct jobs council. His previous Commerce Secretary was sent to China and no one noticed. His current Commerce Secretary couldn’t be picked out of a lineup with the Spice Girls. Mitt Romney could have some fun with this.
New Projection of Election Results: Romney 52, Obama 47
New Projection of Election Results: Romney 52, Obama 47
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.
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.
WALKER: Romney -- an Independent choice for president - Washington Times
WALKER: Romney -- an Independent choice for president - Washington Times
America is at a critical crossroads. We have strayed from the principles and values on which our nation was founded. We also face a range of challenges that threaten our collective future, chief among these being how to grow the economy, generate jobs and put our nation’s deteriorating finances in order.
Over the past seven years I have traveled to 49 states addressing the public on our huge fiscal challenges and how to address them, including a recent 34-day, 27-state and 9,500-plus mile national fiscal responsibility bus tour. During this trip, I solicited voters’ views on ways to restore fiscal sanity.
I learned that an overwhelming majority of voters feel that putting our nation’s finances in order should be a top priority for the Congress and the president. Yet very few believe that the current Washington line-up is likely to make real progress in 2013. A super-majority also support putting everything on the table to achieve a fiscal grand bargain, including a combination of spending reductions and additional tax revenue. Americans all over the country expressed disgust with hyper-partisanship, huge ideological divides and lack of progress on a range of key challenges facing our nation. An overwhelming percentage of Americans also agreed with my assessment that America’s greatest deficit is a leadership deficit.
Time and time again I have been asked, “who should I vote for?” or “who do you plan to vote for?” These questions have become more frequent and urgent with the approach of the elections.
As a political independent for the past 15 years, a former U.S. Comptroller General and a national leader on fiscal responsibility and government transformation issues, I make decisions regarding who to vote for on a case by case basis according to a set of clearly defined and consistently applied criteria that ignore party affiliation. After all, no political party has a monopoly on the best people and best ideas.
From a fiscal perspective, I am convinced that both major presidential candidates want to achieve a “grand bargain,” although they clearly differ on how to get there. Unfortunately, while I would prefer to make a decision based on a candidate’s reform plans, neither of the major presidential candidates has outlined a comprehensive and specific fiscal reform plan that meets the six reform criteria that I have advocated.
This plan must be pro-growth, socially equitable, culturally acceptable, mathematically accurate, politically feasible, and have meaningful bipartisan support. Therefore, I am basing my decision on who to support as president and other federal offices on the following criteria:
The person’s breadth and depth of experience.
The person’s demonstrated leadership ability.
The person’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and real transformation of government.
The person’s commitment to working on a bipartisan basis to achieve real results.
Applying these criteria has led me to decide to vote for both Republicans and Democrats in the upcoming federal election races in my home state of Connecticut. Clearly the most important decision is my vote for president, our nation’s CEO.
Based on the above principles, I believe that Gov. Mitt Romney is the clear choice for president. He has proven leadership ability in all sectors of our economy. He has demonstrated an ability to achieve real results even with a legislative body that is controlled by the opposition party. He has stated a commitment to fiscal responsibility and true government transformation. I was personally reassured by a meeting with him covering his commitment and approach to tax, defense and several other key fiscal issues. Finally, Mr. Romney has experience in transforming and turning around entities in all three sectors of the economy.
Read more: WALKER: Romney -- an Independent choice for president - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/walker-romney-independent-choice-president/#ixzz2AhZJT2dF
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Ten Questions for the White House About Benghazi
Ten Questions for the White House
1.) To whom did the president give the first of his "three very clear directives"—that is, "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?"
2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?
3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?
4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?
5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?
6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?
7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?
8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?
9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?
10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a AC-130 or MC-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?
Desperation Driving Obama Campaign
Desperation Driving Obama Campaign:
Ten days out, it's anybody's guess who will win the presidential election. But the tone of the two campaigns offers an insight into the confidence level of the two candidates.
Republican Mitt...
Desperation Driving Obama Campaign
Desperation Driving Obama Campaign:
Ten days out, it's anybody's guess who will win the presidential election. But the tone of the two campaigns offers an insight into the confidence level of the two candidates.
Republican Mitt...
Obama: Second term would be 'mandate' for cuts, tax increases - Washington Times
Obama: Second term would be 'mandate' for cuts, tax increases - Washington Times
President Obama said in an interview aired Monday that his first priority if re-elected would be to push for passage of a debt-reduction plan to cut spending and raise taxes on the nation's highest earners.
Appearing in a taped interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Mr. Obama predicted that Congress can approve a plan to reduce the country's debt and deficit as soon as during a lame-duck session later this year, or in the early months of next year.
"If we won, then I believe that's a mandate for doing it in a balanced way," he said in the interview, which was taped Saturday at a campaign stop in Nashua, N.H. "We can do some more cuts, we could look at how we deal with the health care costs in particular under Medicaid and Medicare in a serious way, but we are also going to need some revenue."
Read more: Obama: Second term would be 'mandate' for cuts, tax increases - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/oct/29/obama-second-term-would-be-mandate-cuts-tax-increa/#ixzz2AhMNOLzy
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Something You Will Never Hear Obama Say
"People in the media say they must look at the president with a microscope. Now, I don't mind a microscope, but boy, when they use a proctoscope, that's going too far."
-Richard M. Nixon
-Richard M. Nixon
Obama's No Growth Economy
Obama’s weak economic performance
By Jennifer Rubin
Mitt Romney uses “growth” a lot in his speeches and interviews. He talks about “growing the economy” and “private-sector growth.” He talks about “job growth” and “growth in take-home pay.” By contrast, the president rarely does. He talks about raising taxes and “investment” (i.e. government spending). But for all the lip service to the private sector, he seems not to be bothered about the conditions that are necessary to promote growth.
It’s not surprising, then, that we get such paltry economic results under this president, who deems the absence of a downward spiral to be “heading in the right direction.” Less than 2 percent growth so far for this year (1.7 percent to be exact) is simply awful, no matter how President Obama may try to spin it.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board makes some interesting observations:
That’s slower than last year (1.8%), which was slower than the year before (2.4%). The current recovery has had only two quarters, but not a single year, with growth above 3%. . . . Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee report that the typical growth rate at this stage of the previous nine recoveries (13 quarters) averaged 16.8%, and 19.6% in the Reagan expansion. The figure for this recovery is a meager 7.2%. That’s about $1.2 trillion in foregone output. The budget deficit would be half as large today if this were a normal expansion.
But Obama’s “solution” to a dragging economy is — that’s right — more borrowing and more spending. (“Keep borrowing more than $1 trillion a year and keep the Fed printing money at historic levels, in return for mediocre growth and stagnant incomes.”) This has never worked as a recovery strategy, especially when you add in tax hikes and a raft of excessive regulations, all of which have raised the cost of doing business and made labor more expensive. (Better to have your existing workforce put in overtime than hire people.)
One is sometimes tempted to ask Obama if we can lower unemployment without private-sector growth. That seems to be what he’s trying to accomplish. He doesn’t seem to understand the connection between economic expansion and job creation; or alternatively, he seems to be convinced that government can pile a nearly unlimited load of regulations and taxes on the backs of American businesses without adversely affecting investment and hiring decisions.
In point of fact, without robust economic growth and without an administration that seeks to accelerate growth rather than weigh down the private sector, we won’t have strong job creation. Put differently, without a president who understands the connection between government policy growth and job creation we’re never going to get out of the Obama slump.
The Bitch from Bayonne
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Madonna drew boos and triggered a walkout by several concertgoers after she touted President Barack Obama on her "MDNA Tour" in New Orleans.
The Material Girl asked during Saturday night's performance: "Who's registered to vote?" She added: "I don't care who you vote for as long as you vote for Obama." Drawing boos in touting Obama over Republican Mitt Romney, Madonna followed: "Seriously, I don't care who you vote for ... Do not take this privilege for granted. Go vote."
ALLARD: Obama knew about the attack, ignored three requests for help - Washington Times
ALLARD: Obama knew about the attack, ignored three requests for help - Washington Times
The Benghazi debacle may yet make Mitt Romney president.
Barely 10 days before the election, the persistent whiff of scandal surrounding Barack Obama exploded into the banner headlines of a cover-up – at least among certain press outlets. Everything changed Friday afternoon with the stunning revelations by Fox News that CIA operatives defending the embattled consulate in Benghazi, Libya, called three times for emergency assistance while the attack was in progress. Each time, they were shamefully turned down. One of those defenders, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, was apparently able to use a laser designator to pin-point the location of the mortar that eventually killed him. It would have been an easy shot for American pilots had any been ordered to respond. Another new and critical detail: An American drone was overhead transmitting live video of the battle scene below.
Only days before, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton airily dismissed new revelations of incriminating emails, also uncovered by Fox. Yet those messages provided startling proof of how Washington decision-makers – from the Pentagon to the White House Situation Room – must have known within minutes or hours that the incident in Benghazi was 9/11.2, the second successful al Qaeda attack on American soil. They also would have known that this well-coordinated assault killed the American ambassador to Libya, as well as three other Americans who fought valiantly to save him.
Read more: ALLARD: Obama knew about the attack, ignored three requests for help - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/27/obama-knew-about-attack-ignored-three-requests-hel/#ixzz2AccHywLr
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Welcome to Californication!
From the Los Angeles Times Newspaper
1. 40%of all workers in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County has 10.2
million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they
are predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card.
2. 95%of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75%of people on the most-wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on
Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35%of all inmates in Californiadetention centers are Mexican nationals
here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliensin Los AngelesCounty are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely
illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60%of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish speaking.
10. In Los Angeles County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak
Spanish.
1. 40%of all workers in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County has 10.2
million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they
are predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card.
2. 95%of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75%of people on the most-wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on
Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35%of all inmates in Californiadetention centers are Mexican nationals
here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliensin Los AngelesCounty are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely
illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60%of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish speaking.
10. In Los Angeles County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak
Spanish.
Obama Insults Women With Big Government Paternalism | RealClearPolitics
Obama Insults Women With Big Government Paternalism | RealClearPolitics
Amidst this campaign’s bickering about which candidate is women’s friend or foe, the Obama camp targets young women in an eye-catching web ad intended as feminist but, in fact, profoundly insulting. Its main effect is to show that, while the Republicans have serious “woman problems” of their own making, the Democrats often peddle a pseudo-feminist paternalism that reeks of condescension.
Amidst this campaign’s bickering about which candidate is women’s friend or foe, the Obama camp targets young women in an eye-catching web ad intended as feminist but, in fact, profoundly insulting. Its main effect is to show that, while the Republicans have serious “woman problems” of their own making, the Democrats often peddle a pseudo-feminist paternalism that reeks of condescension.
The one-minute Obama for America spot features Lena Dunham, 26-year-old creator and star of the HBO show Girls, addressing a college-age female audience. “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy,” Dunham says. “Someone who really cares about and understands women. It should be with a guy who cares whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control.” At the end of the video, Dunham reminisces in hushed giddy tones, “My first-time voting was amazing… Before, I was a girl; now, I was a woman.” Then, with a coy suggestive grin, she discloses that she voted for (who else?) Barack Obama.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
"Andrew Carnegie Dictum"
The "Andrew Carnegie Dictum" illustrates Carnegie's generous nature:
To spend the first third of one's life getting all the education one can.
To spend the next third making all the money one can.
To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.
To spend the first third of one's life getting all the education one can.
To spend the next third making all the money one can.
To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.
EDITORIAL: Worst economic recovery, ever - Washington Times
EDITORIAL: Worst economic recovery, ever - Washington Times
The Obama administration is hailing the latest economic growth figures as evidence things are getting better. They’re not. As with recent unemployment data, these numbers don’t pass the smell test. In your guts you know they’re nuts.
The Commerce Department said Friday the economy grew at a sluggish 2 percent rate in the third quarter. This may be higher than the anemic 1.3 percent in the previous quarter, but that doesn’t constitute evidence of a booming economy. In 1992, the economy grew at 2.7 percent in the third quarter, and the Bill Clinton campaign denounced that meager performance as one of the weakest economic recoveries since World War II. By the same measure, our current 2 percent recovery must take the title of the worst ever.
The Obama campaign insists the gross domestic product (GDP) data are “more evidence that our economy continues to come back from the worst recession since the Great Depression under President Obama’s leadership.” That’s interesting, considering growth is far below what the White House promised. In his first budget submission, Mr. Obama projected we’d be expanding at a 6.3 percent rate by now. The number the administration sees as evidence of success actually confirms its failure. A third of the GDP growth, and all of the difference from last quarter, came through increased government spending.
Read more: EDITORIAL: Worst economic recovery, ever - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/26/worst-economic-recovery-ever/#ixzz2AWHyUQOw
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
The Incredible Shrinking President - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
The Incredible Shrinking President - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,” said Hillary Clinton. No, not the person who made the video saying that voting for Barack Obama is like losing your virginity to a really cool guy. I’ll get to that in a moment. But Secretary Clinton was talking about the fellow who made the supposedly Islamophobic video that supposedly set off the sacking of the Benghazi consulate. And, indeed, she did “have that person arrested.” By happy coincidence, his bail hearing has been set for three days after the election, by which time he will have served his purpose. These two videos — the Islamophobic one and the Obamosexual one — bookend the remarkable but wholly deserved collapse of the president’s reelection campaign.
You’ll recall that a near-month-long attempt to blame an obscure YouTube video for the murder of four Americans and the destruction of U.S. sovereign territory climaxed in the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden’s bald assertion that the administration had been going on the best intelligence it had at the time. By then, it had been confirmed that there never had been any protest against the video, and that the Obama line that Benghazi had been a spontaneous movie review that just got a little out of hand was utterly false. The only remaining question was whether the administration had knowingly lied or was merely innocently stupid. The innocent-stupidity line became harder to maintain this week after Fox News obtained State Department e-mails revealing that shortly after 4 p.m. Eastern, less than a half hour after the assault in Benghazi began, the White House situation room knew the exact nature of it.
Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus | The Weekly Standard
Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus | The Weekly Standard
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
Review & Outlook: Chronic Fatigue Economy - WSJ.com
Review & Outlook: Chronic Fatigue Economy - WSJ.com
The economy plowed ahead at a 2% growth rate in the third quarter, which thrilled more than a few of our liberal friends who think it's enough to re-elect President Obama. We'll soon find out if they're right, but there's no doubt their prosperity standards are slipping. In the third quarter of 1992, growth came in at 4.2% (3.4% for the year) and Democrats called it a catastrophe.
The third-quarter figure means that growth for the first nine months of 2012 has been a paltry 1.7%. That's slower than last year (1.8%), which was slower than the year before (2.4%). The current recovery has had only two quarters, but not a single year, with growth above 3%.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Paul Ryan On Poverty
Paul Ryan has earned a reputation for making Americans confront fiscal deficits many would prefer to ignore. Yesterday in Cleveland, the chairman of the House Budget Committee was at it again, forcing liberals and conservatives alike to look at their respective antipoverty deficits.
Ryan exposed the moral and fiscal bankruptcy of the liberal welfare state, driving dependency on more than 80 federal means-tested programs to the tune of $1 trillion annually. The Wisconsin Republican also owned up to conservatives’ leadership deficit when it comes to fighting poverty — and made a big down payment toward erasing it.
It’s not that conservatives don’t have answers to the question of poverty. To the contrary, we’ve had striking successes in the 1996 welfare reform and school choice for low-income students, for starters. But we’ve lacked the coherent framing, leadership, and initiative to convey the conservative antipoverty vision in a way that would capture Americans’ imagination and dislodge the default welfare-state paradigm.
Advertisement
That’s one reason Ryan’s speech yesterday was so significant. It was clear about the competing visions, concrete in policy proposals, and compelling in its moral vision. What’s emerging is the fruit of Jack Kemp’s mentoring, and Ryan’s own digging into the federal budget and wrestling with Catholic social thought.
The welfare state has not done justice to the poor, and conservatives should be loud in demanding better. Policymakers must make the safety net really work for those truly in need. That means providing temporary material support in a way that puts recipients on a path toward independence by encouraging work. Workfare made the 1996 reform of one program — Temporary Assistance to Needy Families — effective. TANF work requirements helped reduce rolls by half and drove black child poverty to an historic low.
But American poverty is much more complex than material need. It is strongly correlated with the relational breakdown. For example, 71 percent of poor families with children are headed by a single parent. Marriage reduces the probability of child poverty by 82 percent. If we want to get serious about fighting child poverty, we need to get serious about restoring a culture of marriage.
The relational capital of civil-society institutions such as churches and ministries has a powerful role to play in transforming lives, rebuilding relationships, and restoring communities. In Ohio yesterday, Ryan highlighted the work of Bob Woodson at the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, based in Washington, D.C.: Woodson’s work to empower leaders to transform troubled neighborhoods has touched thousands of lives.
Woodson is focused on restoring responsibility, and his work is the sort of effort of civil society that government policy needs to respect. Sadly, as Ryan said, “we’re still trying to measure compassion by how much government spends, not by how many people we help escape from poverty.” He added: “Americans are a compassionate people, and there’s a consensus in this country about our fundamental obligations to society’s most vulnerable. Those obligations are not what we’re debating in politics.”
The debate is over effective compassion. Here, conservatives have a strong record; we need to explain it and expand on it, as Ryan did yesterday: “Welfare reform worked because it encouraged the best in people — it appealed to their desire to shape their own destiny and advance in life. And it made major strides toward getting the government out of the business of fostering dependency.”
When it comes to opening opportunity for all, conservatives must lead the way, “for the sake of millions of Americans who deserve to lead lives of dignity and freedom.”
– Jennifer A. Marshall is director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation and author of the book Now and Not Yet: Making Sense of Single Life in the Twenty-First Century.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
Obama auto-bailout strategy running on fumes in Ohio - Washington Times
Obama auto-bailout strategy running on fumes in Ohio - Washington Times
DAYTON, Ohio — The Obama campaign is counting on the auto-industry bailout to carry the president to a victory in Ohio, but it ultimately may hold little sway with voters across the state who are still out of work and struggling to stay solvent.
The bailout package undoubtedly saved thousands of jobs in places such as Lordstown, Toledo and elsewhere, but in Ohio as a whole, a weak economy and poor job prospects trump the car company rescue.
For voters like Rick and Jared Sargent, the bailout is of secondary importance, while prolonged periods of unemployment drove their decisions to support Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Mr. Obama “has destroyed this country in the last year. His whole campaign slogan is ‘forward,’ but for the last four years my family has just gone backward,” said Jared Sargent, 21, of Dayton, just after he and his father cast early votes for Mr. Romney.
“I’ve been out of work. … I can’t find a job making more than $8 an hour,” he said. “I’m terrified. If this country keeps going the way it’s been going, I wouldn’t want to bring a kid into this world.”
Read more: Obama auto-bailout strategy running on fumes in Ohio - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/25/obama-auto-bailout-strategy-running-fumes-ohio/#ixzz2AR9WPOEP
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Liberal Denial Will Only Get Worse « Commentary Magazine
Liberal Denial Will Only Get Worse « Commentary Magazine
For those following the polls, the evidence of the last few weeks has been pretty obvious. Following the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney began to eat into the lead that President Obama had amassed. In the last week, he has caught and passed the president in most national polls, especially those without samples that are not overestimating the number of Democrats who will turn out to vote.
The race remains very close, and the president is still ahead or tied in a number of the important swing states. Evidence that the Obama campaign thinks it is trailing is everywhere, as the president swings away at his rival as if he were the challenger not the incumbent. Even more telling is, as I wrote yesterday, the first evidence that some influential people within the president’s re-election team are starting to plant stories in the media alleging that an impending defeat isn’t their fault.
And yet despite all these signs of trouble for the president, the most popular story line for liberal pundits and analysts today seems to be an attempt to deny that Romney has momentum or to brand it a media creation. That was the conceit of a much talked aboutpiece in the New Republic by Alec MacGillis. His thesis is that the media — including publications and broadcast outlets that tend to favor the Democrats — are trying to foist a misleading story line about Romney moving ahead in order to make the election a better story. Even most liberals aren’t buying that idea but other voices, including polling analysts like the New York Times Nate Silver and Mark Blumenthal at the Huffington Post, are on slightly firmer ground when they claim that their reading of the polls tells them that Romney’s momentum is over. In a race this close, one has to admit the possibility that they might turn out to be right. But these frantic denials of a Romney surge not only contradict the clear trend of the polls. They smack of the sort of desperation that is often in evidence as candidates who were once thought in a commanding position start slipping. After months of liberals telling themselves that Romney was a fake or a fraud that no one could possibly take seriously, they are having a hard time coming to grips with the possibility that he might be elected president in 10 days. If denial is the first of five stages of grief, liberal mourning about the possible end of the Obama presidency can be said to have begun.
EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News
EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQa9wU6q
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQa9wU6q
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?
Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?
Charles Woods, the father Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).
“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that you’re son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”
Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”
“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.
“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”
WH: We Decline to Comment on When Obama Learned of E-Mails, Met With NSC on Benghazi | CNSNews.com
WH: We Decline to Comment on When Obama Learned of E-Mails, Met With NSC on Benghazi | CNSNews.com
(CNSNews.com) - The White House is declining to say when President Barack Obama first learned of three e-mails that the State Department sent to the White House on Sept. 11, 2012, directly notifying the Executive Office of the President that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, that U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens was at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack, and that the group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack.
The White House also declined to say when the president first met with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack.
“I have been asked by one of our spokespeople to relay ‘that we decline to comment,’” said White House National Security Staff aide Debbie Bird in a written response to CNSNews.com.
CNSNews.com had asked Bird: 1) “When did the President first meet with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12?” 2) “When did White House staff first discuss the substance of the e-mails that went to the White House with the President or with the National Security Advisor?”
Reaganism
Ask yourself: are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago?
Ronald Reagan, 10/28/1980, final Presidential Debate
Ronald Reagan, 10/28/1980, final Presidential Debate
Big Government Lesson In Irony
meals and food stamps ever, to 46 million people.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.
SOUND FAMILIAR?
"When the leader is morally weak and his discipline not strict,when his instructions and guidance are not enlightened,when there are no consistent rules,neighboring rulers will take advantage of this."
-- Sun Tzu
(c.500-320 B.C.) name used by the unknown Chinese authors of the sophisticated treatise on philosophy, logistics, espionage, strategy and tactics known as 'The Art of War'
SOUND FAMILIAR?
Obama's Little Plan Will Bankrupt America in his Second Term!
Obama's Little Plan
Under pressure from Mitt Romney, President Obama has finally released his own policy vision for a second term. And, yes, it's the same old, same old. Some are calling it a second first term.
There isn't a single true economic-growth incentive in this scant plan. There's no serious spending, deficit and debt reduction, and no attempt to solve the Social Security and health-entitlement problems, which are moving us toward bankruptcy.
Nothing. Nada.
But before getting into the details of this little plan, my basic conclusion is this: Mr. Obama wants to slash defense spending, raise all other spending and hike taxes to finance the largest government size he can possibly get.
In fact, if he had his way, I believe he would allow allthe Bush tax cuts to expire in order to generate as many revenues as possible to increase the size of government. He might even propose a value-added tax (VAT) for an additional revenue grab for government unions and green energy.
Review & Outlook: The President Sends His Non-Regrets - WSJ.com
Review & Outlook: The President Sends His Non-Regrets - WSJ.com
President Obama doesn't give many interviews these days outside Comedy Central, so it caused a stir Wednesday when editors at the Des Moines Register managed to pin him down and even elicit some news. Specifically, Mr. Obama said he wants to pursue immigration reform in a second term, as well as a budget "grand bargain" with Republicans that includes tax reform.
This will come as a surprise to voters reading the President's just-released 20-page brochure on his second-term agenda, which makes little or no mention of these priorities. Perhaps that's why the White House first demanded that the interview be off the record, making the transcript public only after the Register editor objected in a public blog post.
But the larger reason to be skeptical concerns Mr. Obama's answer to another Register question: Whether he regrets pursuing ObamaCare and other liberal social priorities in his first two years rather than focusing on the economy.
"Absolutely not," Mr. Obama told the Iowa journalists. "Remember the context. First of all, Mitch McConnell has imposed an ironclad filibuster from the first day I was in office. And that's not speculation."
Whoaaaa there, big fella. Mr. McConnell was then and still is the Senate MinorityLeader, and in 2009 he had all of 40 votes. Mr. Obama could have pursued any agenda he wanted, and the Des Moines editors wanted to know why he didn't focus on the economy first. Yet Mr. Obama's instinctive reaction is to blame Republican obstructionism that never happened.
Analysis: Americans to face tougher 2013 on rising prices, taxes | Reuters
Analysis: Americans to face tougher 2013 on rising prices, taxes | Reuters
Consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets next year to pay for costlier healthcare, more expensive grocery bills and higher taxes, an extra drag on the country's already slow-moving economy.
The additional outlays look set to test the resilience of consumers, whose spending accounts for around two-thirds of the U.S. economy.
"We think it's going to be a difficult six to nine months," said Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics for Moody's Analytics. "If anything, conditions are likely to get worse, particularly at the start of the year."
The strength of consumer spending has surprised some economists, given unemployment near 8 percent and anemic wage growth. Consumer spending has cushioned the blow to the United States from slower foreign demand for its goods.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Conservative Humor: God Endorses Romney
HEAVEN (AP) - The Romney campaign received a major boost this morning with the announcement that God Himself is officially endorsing Mitt Romney for President.
Pope Benedict XVI made the announcement during an unscheduled news conference early Monday, telling reporters The Almighty had instructed the Pontiff to relay His choice to the world.
"With the exception of his bizarre religion, The Great I Am likes everything about Mr. Romney, and wholeheartedly endorses him for President of the United States."
Democratic Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was quick to criticize the endorsement, saying, "Democratic voters could really care less what somebody so wrong on abortion and gay marriage thinks.
" She then pointed out that President Obama has garnered his own notable endorsements, including Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Honey Boo Boo.
Pope Benedict XVI made the announcement during an unscheduled news conference early Monday, telling reporters The Almighty had instructed the Pontiff to relay His choice to the world.
"With the exception of his bizarre religion, The Great I Am likes everything about Mr. Romney, and wholeheartedly endorses him for President of the United States."
Democratic Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was quick to criticize the endorsement, saying, "Democratic voters could really care less what somebody so wrong on abortion and gay marriage thinks.
" She then pointed out that President Obama has garnered his own notable endorsements, including Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Honey Boo Boo.
State Dept. Email to White House at 6:07 PM on 9/11/12: 'Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack' | CNSNews.com
State Dept. Email to White House at 6:07 PM on 9/11/12: 'Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack' | CNSNews.com
(CNSNews.com) - On Sept. 11, 2012, just two hours after the State Department first began notifying government agencies back in Washington--including the White House--that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed men, State sent out an email that went to at least two people in the White House that said the group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.
The email, which was sent from a State Department address at 6:07 PM on Sept. 11, 2012, was obtained by CBS News and posted online by the news agency in a PDF file. This email and others posted by CBS News had certain elements redacted--particularly the exact identities of the person who sent it and the persons who received it.
The email sent at 6:07 P.M. on Sept. 11 was sent by a person using an @state.gov email address. The subject line said: "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)"
The body of the email said: "(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
Among the addresses of those who received this email are two that include the tag "@nss.eop.gov," a White House email address. "EOP" stands for "Executive Office of the President." The names of the two recipients in the Executive Office of the President who received the email have been redacted.
Someone at the State Department sent an original email about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate at 4:05 PM on Sept. 11, 2012. This email was sent from an address tagged "@state.gov." The name of the person who sent the email is redacted.
Ryan on Poverty in America: 'We Deserve Better'
Ryan on Poverty in America: 'We Deserve Better'
Cleveland
“In this war on poverty, poverty is winning,” said Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Wednesday afternoon. “We Deserve Better!"
Speaking to an audience of supporters at Cleveland State University, Ryan, who's known for his wonky disquisitions on the federal budget, offered a comprehensive case for a vibrant civil society that cares for its poor on a local and personal level.
“Americans are a compassionate people, and there’s a consensus in this country about our fundamental obligations to society’s most vulnerable,” Ryan said in prepared remarks. “Those obligations are not what we’re debating in politics. Most times, the real debate is about whether they are best met by private groups, or by the government; by voluntary action, or by more taxes and coercive mandates from Washington.”
Another Reason to Unelect Obama!
Because of Obamacare,reimbursement rates to private insurers (who provide Medicare Advantage plans) will be permanently frozen at 2010 rate. That’s one way to kill competition. (BW, 10/2012
Freedom Quote
By physical liberty I mean the right to do anything which does not interfere with the happiness of another.
By intellectual liberty I mean the right to thinkand the right to think wrong."
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
By intellectual liberty I mean the right to thinkand the right to think wrong."
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
NOW THIS IS FUNNY - I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE.
The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of
President Obama on it.
The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes.
This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.
After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings:
1.The stamp is in perfect order.
2. There is nothing wrong with the glue.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side.
The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of
President Obama on it.
The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes.
This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.
After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings:
1.The stamp is in perfect order.
2. There is nothing wrong with the glue.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side.
Obama's Foreign Policy: Not A Pretty Picture
Governor Mitt Romney has a real opportunity to win Monday night’s foreign-policy debate with President Barack Obama. But to prevail, he will need to disregard the suggestions of some of his neoconservative foreign-policy advisers, who are out of touch not only with international realities but also with the realities of American politics.
Accusing the man who is justly credited with ordering Osama bin Laden’s killing and with ousting the Qaddafi regime in Libya of being a weakling who is constantly apologizing for the United States has little traction with most voters, including independents and many Republicans. Similarly, criticizing Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus” and promising to avoid an inch of daylight between Washington and Tel Aviv does not convey tough-minded American patriotism. A commitment to outsource decisions on war and peace to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu may appeal to a small segment of Jewish and evangelical voters, but it is bound to alienate many others in the process.
Instead, Governor Romney should be himself—a pragmatic, results-oriented leader—and tell the real story of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The truth isn’t pretty. Americans are not only worse off economically after the last four years but worse of internationally as well. And President Obama has failed to fulfill his key foreign-policy promises.
Take Iran. While the Iranian people are suffering from punitive sanctions and the mullahs may feel less secure, Iran’s uranium enrichment has if anything accelerated, and Tehran is closer to having nuclear weapons. And the president’s decision to pursue regime change in Libya, after the Bush administration persuaded Muammar Qaddafi to give up his WMD programs with a “live and let live” understanding, has made war with Iran more likely. Undermining a deal is not a way to build confidence.
At the same time, relations with China and Russia, where Mr. Obama promised new beginnings, are deteriorating. The administration has failed to define clear priorities in either relationship, leaving Moscow and Beijing confused and angry, suspecting that the Obama administration does not take them seriously as important global players and is trying to undermine their domestic legitimacy and stability. As a result, for the first time since Stalin, China and Russia have better relations with one another than with the United States.
In the Middle East, President Obama gave false hope to the Palestinians with a dramatic speech in Cairo, but he failed to follow through. The administration now has a credibility problem on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Once Obama demanded an end to new Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority could settle for no less. Peace talks collapsed as a result.
If the Obama administration threw anyone under a bus, it was not Israel but the friendly Mubarak government in Egypt. Mubarak was an imperfect ally and an even more imperfect democrat. But in the context of regional politics, he was trying hard to maintain ties with the United States and keep the peace treaty with Israel. In fact, his commitment to the treaty and his security policies contributed to the popular backlash that triggered his repressive response. Let me be clear: The Obama administration did not just let Egypt’s less-than-peaceful revolution run its course. It put severe pressure on Mubarak and the Egyptian military not to fight back. America should not side with oppressors, but neither should it casually abandon its allies when the going gets rough.
President Obama has withdrawn American troops from Iraq and is in the process of drawing down troops in Afghanistan, as promised. What he glosses over is that he leaves an Iraq that is neither truly democratic nor truly friendly with the United States. Baghdad not only refuses to prevent Iran from supplying Syria through its territory; it also cannot even be counted on for support if America decides to attack Iran. In Afghanistan, the administration’s surge did not bring military or political advances analogous to the Bush administration’s surge in Iraq. Once American troops are out, the corrupt and inept Kabul government will either collapse or be forced to settle with the Taliban. Alternatively, there may be a protracted chaos with multiple opportunities for international terrorists.
Mr. Obama’s record might best be described using President Jimmy Carter’s immortal characterization of his failed raid to free Americans in Tehran. That raid, said Mr. Carter, was an “incomplete success.” But at least President Carter was embarrassed by his failures; with typical bravado, President Obama portrays his own as successes. Governor Romney should help the American people to understand that the Obama administration’s foreign policy is the same as its domestic policy—a long list of unfulfilled promises—and that it has been implemented in the same highly partisan fashion. If Governor Romney did so, and simultaneously showed the same principled pragmatism on foreign policy that has animated his recent approach to domestic issues, he could deprive President Obama of his pretense of global leadership.
Dimitri K. Simes is president of the Center for the National Interest and publisher of The National Interest
.
Accusing the man who is justly credited with ordering Osama bin Laden’s killing and with ousting the Qaddafi regime in Libya of being a weakling who is constantly apologizing for the United States has little traction with most voters, including independents and many Republicans. Similarly, criticizing Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus” and promising to avoid an inch of daylight between Washington and Tel Aviv does not convey tough-minded American patriotism. A commitment to outsource decisions on war and peace to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu may appeal to a small segment of Jewish and evangelical voters, but it is bound to alienate many others in the process.
Instead, Governor Romney should be himself—a pragmatic, results-oriented leader—and tell the real story of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The truth isn’t pretty. Americans are not only worse off economically after the last four years but worse of internationally as well. And President Obama has failed to fulfill his key foreign-policy promises.
Take Iran. While the Iranian people are suffering from punitive sanctions and the mullahs may feel less secure, Iran’s uranium enrichment has if anything accelerated, and Tehran is closer to having nuclear weapons. And the president’s decision to pursue regime change in Libya, after the Bush administration persuaded Muammar Qaddafi to give up his WMD programs with a “live and let live” understanding, has made war with Iran more likely. Undermining a deal is not a way to build confidence.
At the same time, relations with China and Russia, where Mr. Obama promised new beginnings, are deteriorating. The administration has failed to define clear priorities in either relationship, leaving Moscow and Beijing confused and angry, suspecting that the Obama administration does not take them seriously as important global players and is trying to undermine their domestic legitimacy and stability. As a result, for the first time since Stalin, China and Russia have better relations with one another than with the United States.
In the Middle East, President Obama gave false hope to the Palestinians with a dramatic speech in Cairo, but he failed to follow through. The administration now has a credibility problem on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Once Obama demanded an end to new Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority could settle for no less. Peace talks collapsed as a result.
If the Obama administration threw anyone under a bus, it was not Israel but the friendly Mubarak government in Egypt. Mubarak was an imperfect ally and an even more imperfect democrat. But in the context of regional politics, he was trying hard to maintain ties with the United States and keep the peace treaty with Israel. In fact, his commitment to the treaty and his security policies contributed to the popular backlash that triggered his repressive response. Let me be clear: The Obama administration did not just let Egypt’s less-than-peaceful revolution run its course. It put severe pressure on Mubarak and the Egyptian military not to fight back. America should not side with oppressors, but neither should it casually abandon its allies when the going gets rough.
President Obama has withdrawn American troops from Iraq and is in the process of drawing down troops in Afghanistan, as promised. What he glosses over is that he leaves an Iraq that is neither truly democratic nor truly friendly with the United States. Baghdad not only refuses to prevent Iran from supplying Syria through its territory; it also cannot even be counted on for support if America decides to attack Iran. In Afghanistan, the administration’s surge did not bring military or political advances analogous to the Bush administration’s surge in Iraq. Once American troops are out, the corrupt and inept Kabul government will either collapse or be forced to settle with the Taliban. Alternatively, there may be a protracted chaos with multiple opportunities for international terrorists.
Mr. Obama’s record might best be described using President Jimmy Carter’s immortal characterization of his failed raid to free Americans in Tehran. That raid, said Mr. Carter, was an “incomplete success.” But at least President Carter was embarrassed by his failures; with typical bravado, President Obama portrays his own as successes. Governor Romney should help the American people to understand that the Obama administration’s foreign policy is the same as its domestic policy—a long list of unfulfilled promises—and that it has been implemented in the same highly partisan fashion. If Governor Romney did so, and simultaneously showed the same principled pragmatism on foreign policy that has animated his recent approach to domestic issues, he could deprive President Obama of his pretense of global leadership.
Dimitri K. Simes is president of the Center for the National Interest and publisher of The National Interest
.
Conservative Quote
If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security “benefits,” it is because he is more anxious than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit.
Barry Goldwater www.aHardRight.com
Barry Goldwater www.aHardRight.com
Romney’s the One: Boston Herald
Romney’s the one
Four years ago the voters put their faith in a man who offered vague promises of hope and change at a time when any change looked like a good idea and hope was in short supply.
What this nation got in Barack Obama was a president who used an economic crisis to further his redistributionist agenda — and, not surprisingly, failed miserably at restoring American prosperity. Oh, he brought change all right — to a government-knows-best philosophy that has given us four years of high unemployment, higher gas prices, a $16 trillion deficit, and a job-killing regulatory environment.
And this nation that was once a shining beacon to those around the globe who love liberty, who knew that these United States could be counted on to defend its friends and keep a watchful eye on its enemies, has been relegated by this president to “leading from behind.”
Best Quote About The Debate
"His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?"
London Telegraph
London Telegraph
Monday, October 22, 2012
Obama’s Senior Swindle to Prompt Subpoena
Obama’s Senior Swindle to Prompt Subpoena
By Jeffrey H. Andersonon Mon, 22 Oct 2012
Weekly Standard
Several months ago, President Obama’s Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, initiated the Senior Swindle, an $8.35 billion ploy (far more than either presidential campaign will raise this year) to hide the effects of Obamacare’s Medicare Advantage cuts from seniors until after the election. The Government Accountability Office has said it’s “concerned” about the legality of this taxpayer-funded gambit, which may cause voters to recall other aspects of Obamacare’s checkered past — like the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and Gator Aid. Now House Republicans have announced their intention to subpoena a heretofore uncooperative Sebelius, in an effort to obtain more information about this unprecedented election-year outlay.
Fox News reports:
“Republican Rep. Darrell Issa on Friday formally notified Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that he intends to issue a subpoena for health department documents on a program he claims is being used to ‘buy’ the election by hiding the effects of ObamaCare.
“The Department of Health and Human Services handed over reams of material just minutes before a 5 p.m. ET deadline Thursday in response to Issa’s demand 24 hours earlier. However, Issa’s office called the cache ‘embarrassing,’ insufficient and not responsive to the congressman’s request.
“‘Basically somebody hit a button and said print out a bunch of spreadsheets in an illegible format,’ Issa told Fox News. ‘So we will be issuing the subpoena.’”
Fox News writes, “The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee effectively is accusing the department of stringing them along for months in their request for documents about an $8 billion program that pays bonuses to Medicare Advantage plans” on a temporary basis.
Fox News adds:
“Issa claims the bonus program is being used to mask the first round of Medicare Advantage cuts in connection with the health care overhaul — in order to win favor with seniors.
“‘It’s an unbelievable abuse of power,’ he said Thursday.”...
As Benjamin E. Sasse, HHS’s assistant secretary for planning and evaluation until early 2009 and now the president of Midland University, put it this spring, “In scope and intention, this is something completely new, and if it’s allowed to establish precedent, the only limit on what future administrations could spend money on, or how much they could unilaterally spend, would be their own electoral calculations about what they could get away with.”
By Jeffrey H. Andersonon Mon, 22 Oct 2012
Weekly Standard
Several months ago, President Obama’s Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, initiated the Senior Swindle, an $8.35 billion ploy (far more than either presidential campaign will raise this year) to hide the effects of Obamacare’s Medicare Advantage cuts from seniors until after the election. The Government Accountability Office has said it’s “concerned” about the legality of this taxpayer-funded gambit, which may cause voters to recall other aspects of Obamacare’s checkered past — like the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and Gator Aid. Now House Republicans have announced their intention to subpoena a heretofore uncooperative Sebelius, in an effort to obtain more information about this unprecedented election-year outlay.
Fox News reports:
“Republican Rep. Darrell Issa on Friday formally notified Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that he intends to issue a subpoena for health department documents on a program he claims is being used to ‘buy’ the election by hiding the effects of ObamaCare.
“The Department of Health and Human Services handed over reams of material just minutes before a 5 p.m. ET deadline Thursday in response to Issa’s demand 24 hours earlier. However, Issa’s office called the cache ‘embarrassing,’ insufficient and not responsive to the congressman’s request.
“‘Basically somebody hit a button and said print out a bunch of spreadsheets in an illegible format,’ Issa told Fox News. ‘So we will be issuing the subpoena.’”
Fox News writes, “The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee effectively is accusing the department of stringing them along for months in their request for documents about an $8 billion program that pays bonuses to Medicare Advantage plans” on a temporary basis.
Fox News adds:
“Issa claims the bonus program is being used to mask the first round of Medicare Advantage cuts in connection with the health care overhaul — in order to win favor with seniors.
“‘It’s an unbelievable abuse of power,’ he said Thursday.”...
As Benjamin E. Sasse, HHS’s assistant secretary for planning and evaluation until early 2009 and now the president of Midland University, put it this spring, “In scope and intention, this is something completely new, and if it’s allowed to establish precedent, the only limit on what future administrations could spend money on, or how much they could unilaterally spend, would be their own electoral calculations about what they could get away with.”