Saturday, October 27, 2012

Ex-Navy SEAL: Libya Obama's 'Watergate,' Admin. Actions 'Unconscionable'

Breitbart ^ | 10/27/2012 | Tony Lee

A former Navy SEAL told Breitbart News on Friday that allegations of negligence during the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack exemplified Obama's "failed policy of appeasement and apology" and was Obama's "Watergate" with four deaths.
Ryan Zinke, a member of the Montana state Senate former U.S. Navy SEAL, said it was "unconscionable that the Administration would not immediately act when our consulate is under attack," and this was Obama's "Watergate with one exception" -- "the result was the loss of our Ambassador and three young heroes."
"There is no better example of the President's failed policy of appeasement and apology than America being delayed because we had to ask Libya's permission to fly in their airspace to rescue our Ambassador," Zinke told Breitbart News. "Even sending aircraft overhead would have helped."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

State Department warns Texas AG not to arrest UN-affiliated election observers

Michelle Malkin ^ | 10/27/12 | Doug Powers

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has warned a group of UN-affiliated “international election observers” that they could be subject to criminal prosecution if they breach state laws by being within 100 feet of polling place entrances.

The US State Department issued a warning as well. No, not to the election observers — to Texas:
International election observers planning to visit Texas polling places have “full immunity” from being arrested in the United States, the State Department said when discussing a letter from the Texas Attorney General.
“I’m not going to get into any kind of hypothetical situations or predict where this is going to go other than to say we have every expectation that this will be worked out and to state the fact, which is that under U.S. law they are eligible for immunities,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. Reporters tried to get her to state explicitly that Texas could not arrest election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), but Nuland would only reiterate that OSCE observers have full immunity.
Hey, it’s not like the State Department has anything else to worry about.

The “observers” will in part be looking for voter fraud and suppression activities by conservative groups. They’re only monitoring conservatives because nobody on the other side of the political spectrum has been busted in a voter fraud scam since, oh… Wednesday.

A list of where the observers will be stationed is here. Because this group is affiliated with the UN, the comptrollers of those listed cities would be wise to prepare to have to unpaid parking tickets on the ledger until the end of time.

Our Liar President ^ | October 27, 2012 | Peter Ferrara

Dorothy Rabinowitz, one of the best writers of our time, encapsulated the Obama Presidency perfectly in Monday's Wall Street Journal. She wrote:

In the 1967 film "A Guide for the Married Man," a husband, played by a peerless Walter Matthau, is given lessons in ways to cheat on his wife safely: "Deny! Deny! Deny!" -- no matter what. In an instructive scene, he's shown a wife undone by shock, and screaming, with good reason: She has just walked in on her husband making love to a glamorous stranger. "What are you doing," she wails, "who is that woman?" "What woman, where?" the husband serenely counters, as he and the tart in question get out of bed and calmly dress.

So the scene proceeds, with the distraught wife pointing to the woman she clearly sees before her, while her husband, unruffled, continues to look blankly at her, asking, "What woman?" Confused by her spouse's unblinking assurance, she gives up. Two minutes later she's asking him what he'd like for dinner.

That is the Obama White House communications strategy exactly. I don't want to call the President a liar. I have used the term "Calculated Deception" many times before to describe it. But now it has come to the point where history will remember him as "the Liar President." That is not my fault. I am only discussing reality.

Dereliction of Duty
We can see this in the debates. In the second debate, he told the American people with a straight face that he had confessed the very next day in the Rose Garden that the murder of the Libyan ambassador and four other Americans in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Obama told the American people, with his straight Walther Matthau face, "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

But the truth is that the State Department, the CIA, and the White House itself all had access to real time video of exactly what happened. No doubt as word spread as to what was happening, the top levels of the Administration all tuned into the events, watching them all unfold in real time. So why is he telling us in the debate that "we are going to find out exactly what happened?" Intelligence made a full report within 24 hours.

An incredulous Mitt Romney exclaimed, "I think [it's] interesting the President just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said this was an act of terror." "That's what I said," Obama lied in response. Romney seeing the discrepancy with reality, noted "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." Obama replied, "Get the transcript."

Then, as if in a pre-arranged ambush, the supposed moderator "Candy" Crowley piped up and said to Romney "He did in fact, sir." To further demonstrate his mastery over the Democrat party-controlled media, Obama ordered live in the debate for every American to see, "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" Crowley stood at attention and reported "He did call it an act of terror."

The reason this was so obviously pre-arranged is that the transcript in fact does not back up what Obama fantasized and Crowley "reported." The transcript shows Obama mentioned terrorism in regard to 9/11, not Benghazi. Talk about calculated deception!

It took Romney alone among the three to correct the record, saying, "The Administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.... It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group."

Obama interrupted, appealing for a further bailout, by his plant, "Candy?" But Romney cut off his interruption, "Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous..." But Obama interrupted again to appeal for help, "Candy, I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy." Crowley took her cue again, "I know you, absolutely, but I want to move you on...." For the first time honestly, a relieved Obama said, "OK. I'm happy to do that too."

We all saw for 14 days with our own eyes not only Obama but his whole Administration perpetuating the fairy tale that the Benghazi murders were all due to some amateur 14 minute film trailer on YouTube, just as Matthau's wife in the movie saw him in bed with another woman. We saw Obama's UN Ambassador Susan Rice repeat this myth on five Sunday talk shows almost a week after the event. We saw Obama at the UN telling the whole world that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a previously unknown amateur video.

Obama continued his prevarication on this tragedy in the third debate Monday, saying about the Benghazi murders, "With respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those Americans still in harm's way...." We could use the White House phone logs on that one. Because while the attack that culminated in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens went on for hours, the U.S. Air Force was just one hour flight time away, in Sicily. But it was apparently too much to rouse them for a rescue, attacking and scattering the terrorist attackers.

Moreover, whatever President Obama did order in response, it was not only way too little, but way too late, because the Administration had been receiving requests from the Ambassador for additional security in an increasingly dangerous environment since February. But the requests were denied. Even on the anniversary of 9/11, when the heightened danger should have been obvious, no additional security was provided. Obama and the liberal softies in his Administration did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities with additional show of force. That is why the American guards were denied even ammunition for their guns, and the Administration was relying on Libyan security, even when Ambassador Stevens had reported that government security forces were outmanned and outgunned by the Islamist extremists.

Ambassador Stevens and the Marines and other American personnel killed with him volunteered to serve their country. They did not volunteer to be abandoned and murdered. President Obama's failure to provide the requested security, or roust available U.S. forces for a rescue, can only be described as dereliction of duty.

Unilateral Disarmament
In Monday's debate, President Obama says that Governor Romney "wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for." But the leaders of the military he is talking about serve at his pleasure, or may even have been appointed by him.

Romney again corrected the record, saying the under Obama's defense policies our Navy will be "smaller than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now down to 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through with sequestration." Moreover, under Obama's policies our Air Force will be "older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947." In addition, "Since FDR...we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we're changing to one conflict." The problem with only being able to fight in one conflict at a time is that once America is embroiled in a conflict, it is vulnerable to attack on a second front from anyone else. That is why that policy has not been followed since America became a superpower.

But Obama countered:

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities.

Notice that Obama here did not deny that our Navy under his policies is down to the lowest level since 1916. But he fails to see that Navy ships do not hold the status in today's military of horses and bayonets. Under his policies, moreover, we will have fewer aircraft carriers as well.

The military does not want any more ships than we had in 1916? That is not what both of Obama's Secretaries of Defense have said. They both said that Obama's defense cuts would be devastating to our nation's defenses. That goes for an Air Force that is older and smaller than at any time since our Air Force was founded in 1947.

But even more scary is President Obama's plans for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Most people do not know that President Obama has asked the Pentagon for plans to cut America's remaining nuclear deterrent by up to 80%. I say remaining because that is from what is left after President Obama's disastrous nuclear arms treaty with Russia last year.

Obama is the one who is stuck in a Cold War mentality, still negotiating arms deals with the Russians as if we were still in a bipolar world. Under Obama's New Start Treaty with Russia, America's nuclear forces are slashed to 1500 warheads, with essentially no cuts from Russia in return, because after the Soviet Union's collapse and disintegration, it cannot maintain nuclear forces even close to the limits allowed. What was smart about that? Another cut of 80% would reduce total warheads to 300, little more than Great Britain.

But that is in a context where Russia is not the only potential foe that we must deter. China is rapidly developing a more modern nuclear force. Proliferation is spreading from Pakistan to North Korea to Iran. Once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, we can expect Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and probably Egypt will as well. Even Russia is rapidly modernizing a threatening nuclear force.

Moreover, with just 300 warheads left, are we enticing a first strike to remove the remaining nuclear assets? Our nuclear strategy has always been based on the Triad concept, with nuclear forces on land on missiles, at sea on ships, and in the air through aircraft bombers. But just 300 warheads can be deployed on just 30 missiles with modern, multiple warhead technology.

Reagan gave us Peace through Strength. War threatens America with War through Weakness. Indeed, what exactly did Obama mean when he told former Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev to tell Russian strongman Vladimir Putin that he would have more flexibility after the election? Is that why Putin has endorsed Obama for re-election?

You Didn't Build That
In the debates, Obama has repeatedly bragged that under his leadership America has increased production of oil and natural gas to record levels, while "we've cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades." But Romney pointed out that the oil and gas production gains had nothing to do with Obama's energy policies, which had aimed at just the opposite results. Those gains all came on state and local lands, where Obama's policies could not stop them.

Romney charged in the second debate, "In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal lands and waters in half." "Not true Governor Romney. The production is up," Obama replied. Romney responded, "Production on government land of oil is down 14%, and production of gas is down 9%." Romney here was just citing accurately official U.S. government statistics from Obama's own Administration. But that did not stop Obama from saying in response, before the whole nation, "What you're saying is just not true. It's just not true."

What else can be said about this dishonorable display of dishonesty before the American people, other than that Obama is The Liar President. As the

Wall Street Journal

said on October 18:

The problem for the President is that a government outfit called the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) compiles these statistics. That's where Romney got his accurate figures on oil and gas production on government land and permitting in Obama's first term. The EIA also reports that total fossil fuel production in public areas -- oil, gas and coal -- has plunged to a nine year low, to 18.6 quadrillion BTUs, from 21.2 quadrillion in 2003.

The real problem is not President Obama. It is his supporters and contributors who are willing to blindly support this dishonesty, after four years of accelerating decline and failure, which will only continue in the second term. Obama is Marxist royalty by heritage, born and bred. Check the public record. Under his leadership, the Democrat party has become a Marxist party as well. Is that what a majority of Americans want? Despite the lies, so well supported by the Democrat-controlled media, the American people seem to be waking from their dangerous slumber.

AC-13OU Gunship Was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Refused to Let It Fire!

PJ Media ^ | 10/26/2012 | Bob Owens

If you don’t get torches-and-pitchforks irate about this, you are not an American:

The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

There were two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector.
The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of Kunduz
It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser.
An AC-130U flies in a counter-clockwise “pivot turn” around the target, with the weapons all aimed out the left side of the aircraft.
There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors, and synthetic aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the dark of night, clouds, and smoke.
The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm Gatling gun for area suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can engage hard targets.
What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists and saving American lives.
See video of AC-130 engaging in a live fire exercise on next page.
Update (Bryan): Here is an AC-130 engaging in a live fire exercise. The crackling sound you hear is its extreme rate of fire.
Update: BlackFive confirmed with a retired Delta operator: The fact that ground personnel were painting the target says there was a Spectre on station.
From the comments: Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me. One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station. Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area. If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta [sic] says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed. If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

Ruh-Roh! CIA Director Patraeus Tosses Prevaricator-in-Chief RIGHT Under the Bus on Benghazi Failure, Lies, and Cover-Up:

'We weren't the ones who denied military support
to Americans under attack in Benghazi'

Ah, what a tangled web we weave- and guess you should have realized you'll never own this patriot, Barry:

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?

Yet Obama still claims -entirely to the contrary-
that he 'gave an order' to secure our personnel-
another stinking lie:

Gateway Pundit:

Obama told Denver’s WUSA TV this in regard to the Benghazi 9-11 terror attack, 'I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.'

Tonight however, Bing West, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, told Greta Van Susteren, 'If that actually happened the way President Obama said it happened, there’s a paper trail and I think people reasonably enough can say, 'Can we see the order?' because hundreds of others supposedly saw this order.

Obama just got caught. He lied about his securing our personnel in Benghazi. And now the world will know about it...

Hillary of course has already lawyered-up, and her guy is saying in no uncertain terms that Obama's the one that ignored repeated pleas for added security in Benghazi over the previous months.

In Denver Dear Leader also purported that 'This election has
nothing to do with Benghazi
'- so
I guess if we all can just agree on that, this whole unpleasant thing can go away until after the election.

HAH HAH HAH ha ha ha ha ha
hyuk-hyuk guffaw snort-chuckle.

Leaks, Lies, and Libya: How Not to Inform a Nation

American ^ | October 17, 2012 | Larry Bailey, Captain (SEAL), USN (Ret.)

While the current administration has strayed far from Barack Obama's 2008 campaign promise that it would be the most transparent government in history, nothing so points to its failure to keep that promise as have events of the past two years.

Starting with the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, the Obama administration has, in a very real sense, "informed" Americans of current events via selective and random leaks (many of them apparently unintentional). For example, on the day after the bin Laden mission, both the president and the vice president identified SEAL Team 6 as the unit executing the mission.
One might call this a "leak in plain sight," but a leak it was, carrying with it every negative connotation in the word. From the perspective of my military mind, the identification of a specific unit as responsible for the death of bin Laden should, if it ever happened at all, have been the result of intelligence-gathering of the highest order on the part of America's al-Qaeda enemy. That information surely should not have been provided "free of charge" by the nation's commander-in-chief.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Obama Turned U.S. Economy into "Hostile Work Environment" ^ | October 27, 2012 | Wayne Allyn Root

The Presidential debates were Exhibit A for Obama's habit of "misplacing the truth" (ie lying). Obama told lots of hard-to-believe whoppers about his support of guns; his love of the oil, gas and coal industries; his unshakeable loyalty to Israel; and of course his response to the Libya Embassy attack. Boy can this guy misplace facts.

Only a lawyer could say stuff like that with a straight face.

But the biggest whopper of all was when Obama claimed to be a champion of small business. He stressed this misguided storyline in all three nationally-televised debates. Obama even made a specific claim to back it up in the second debate- he claimed to have cut taxes 18 times for small business. This storyline attracted my attention because I am a small businessman. I’ve spent my whole life as a small businessman. I know how important small business is to the American economy. Small business is the economic engine of America, and the heart of all job creation.

And what I know to be the truth is that President Obama has turned the entire U.S. economy into a "Hostile Work Environment."
Small business owners like me are struggling to survive under this President. Obama may be a champion, but he's a champion of taxes, regulations, bureaucrats, and lawyers- not a champion of small business.

I am the son of a small businessman- my dad worked for 20 years as a butcher to save up enough money to eventually start his own butcher store. I am also the grandson of a small businessman. My grandfather (an immigrant), spent 20 years working as a butcher to eventually save up the money to start his own butcher store. Several of my uncles were given money by my grandfather to immigrate to America and they too eventually started their own butcher stores- after years of hard work and sacrifice.

We built our own businesses. We never had help from government. Government didn’t put up the risk money to start our businesses. Government wasn’t by our side when we worked 16-hour days. Government had nothing to do with the marketing and advertising of our businesses. Government didn't help us land clients. WE WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO BUILT THOSE BUSINESSES.

Yet here was President Obama in front of the nation in three separate debates...the man who has demonized business owners for 4 years…the man who has threatened us with onerous new taxes for 4 years…claiming on national TV that he’s the biggest supporter of small business. And claiming to have given small businessmen and women (like me) 18 tax cuts.

What tax cuts? I have never heard of any Obama tax cuts for small business. Since I own multiple small businesses, isn’t that strange?

What I do know is that if you claim to be a champion of small business, first “Do no harm.” A champion of small business would not demonize or denigrate us. He wouldn’t kill our enthusiasm or motivation by saying “You Didn’t Build That.” Who would want to work for a boss like that? That’s verbal abuse. This is akin to a husband beating his wife, then claiming to be "the husband of the year."

Obama has created a "Hostile Work Environment" and now he's taking credit for saving us. Now that's audacity. The only person we need protecting from is...Obama.

Life isn’t just about money, or profits. How you feel, how you’re treated, whether you like to get up in the morning, is more important than money. Obama has destroyed the enthusiasm of small business owners. Obama’s verbal abuse and “hostile work environment” has killed our will to do more. Why would anyone work harder, or take more financial risk, for someone so negative and unappreciative? Hence the horrible Obama economy and miserable unemployment numbers. Don’t expect any improvement until Obama is gone.

Now to those 18 small business tax cuts that Obama claimed. I did a little research. They are small; obscure; most were renewals of tax breaks from previous administrations; many have already expired; and worst of all- Obama double counted them. Any time a tax cut was renewed, Obama counted that as two tax breaks. The lawyer’s lips are moving again.

The real story of small business under Obama is tax raises. Coming this January, Obama will unleash a torrent of punishing taxes on small business. We face the most massive income tax increase in history (remember we file taxes as individuals). We face the greatest expansion of big government in history with Obamacare. We face massive Obamacare tax increases on income, Medicare taxes, the sale of our business, the sale of stocks, the sale of our homes. We face onerous Obamacare mandates.

And that’s all just a start. Based on the mountains of debt Obama has already created, and the mountains of spending he promises in the coming years, we can expect many more massive tax increases on income, capital gains, a national VAT tax (sales tax), removal of legal tax deductions, and worst of all- an attempt to remove the cap on FICA (Social Security) taxes. If this came to pass, I’d lose my businesses. This small businessman cannot survive another 4 more years of Obama.

I have a message for President Obama. Mr. President, please stop "saving" us. We can't take it anymore.

And I have a message for small business owners. We need to sue. It's time for all small businesses to file a class-action lawsuit against President Obama and the federal government for creating a "Hostile Work Environment" that terrorizes us and prevents us from earning a living. Now that's a message even a lawyer can understand!

7 Questions That Will Determine the Outcome of the 2012 Election ^ | October 27, 2012 | Steve Deace

The debates are over, and although most of my fellow pundits were quick to tell us before they started that historically they don’t impact the eventual outcome, this time they certainly have.

This race hasn’t been the same since the first debate. Mitt Romney’s rout of a beleaguered and bored-looking Barack Obama dramatically altered the trajectory of the race from leaning strongly to the president to a toss-up/leaning Romney. The president bounced back somewhat in the second debate, and was much stronger in the final debate Monday night, but he’s still not been able to regain the momentum he lost in the first debate in Denver.

If Romney goes on to win this election that first presidential debate will go down as the biggest debate game changer in modern American political history.

So with the debates concluded, the campaign has now entered its final phase. The popular vote is trending Romney, but the Electoral College remains razor close and the president still has more routes to 270 than Romney does—although Romney’s path is much easier than it was at the beginning of October.

Heading down the stretch, the answers to these seven questions could determine the eventual outcome:

1. Will there be an October surprise? For example, the president clearly has a foreign policy edge over Romney, so could there be an unforeseen circumstance on the global stage that gives Obama one last chance to appear as a strong leader? Something like a rogue nation such as Iran doing something to insert itself into the election if it thinks it can handle an Obama second term more easily than a President Romney? Another potential October surprise could be the final two economic forecasts before the election, which will be on the rate of growth and unemployment. Will there be much more robust or negative numbers there when par for the course is expected? Or could it be something totally unforeseen, like George W. Bush’s revealed long-ago DUI on the eve of the 2000 election, which nearly cost him enough votes to give Al Gore the presidency?

2. Will the automobile industry bailout be the marriage amendment of 2012? In 2004, an instate fight for an amendment protecting marriage on the ballot in Ohio helped George W. Bush massively turn out the evangelical vote in that state, catapulting him to the win there and thus re-election. This time the Democrats are hoping an important but under-the-radar issue like the automobile industry bailout can do the same for Obama. The bailout wasn’t popular for Republicans, which is why Romney opposed it during the primaries, but it remains popular in Ohio. The Buckeye State is Obama’s firewall. With Ohio he stands a decent chance of denying Romney’s path to 270 Electoral College votes, and no Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio. On the other hand, if Romney wins Ohio it’s probably game, set, and match for the Obama Regime. This issue gives Obama his best chance of accomplishing that task, because he has no other record of economic achievement to run on.

3. Which base is more energized come Election Day? For much of this election cycle Democrats have been more energized than Republicans, who have been disappointed in the lack of leadership they’ve seen from many of the folks they just voted for in the Tea Party uprising of 2010. However, Romney’s rout in the first debate energized Republicans more than Democrats for the first time in 2012. Democrats have been trying to reignite that spark. Will Obama’s win in the final debate do it? Will something happen in the final two weeks that will do it? With so few undecided voters in this election, an energized base is even more vital. Obama is going to dominate traditional Democrat groups like blacks and Latinos, and Romney will dominate traditional Republican groups like evangelicals. Neither candidate has much cross-over appeal to the other’s base, which Obama was able to peel off some from John McCain in 2008. Without that cross-over appeal base turnout is even more important. Therefore, it won’t be the percentage each candidate gets of that group that matters as much as it will be the actual turnout of those groups.

4. What kind of coat-tails will each candidate have? For example, could a strong Romney win in Missouri ironically carry the embattled Todd Akin across the finish line there? Republican Linda McMahon has run a good campaign in Connecticut, but could she get swept up in Obama’s win in that state? Currently, Real Clear Politics is forecasting 10 U.S. Senate seats as toss-ups. Four of those are in states that Romney will likely win, two of them are in states Obama will likely win, and the rest are in true battleground states that could go either way. To get to 51 in the U.S. Senate, and thus repeal Obamacare, the Republicans need to win 8 of those 10 toss-up Senate seats. That is a tall order, and more than likely not possible without Akin’s seat in Missouri, which the party establishment still refuses to assist with.

5. No one else wants to say it, but since I’ve made a career out of saying stuff others don’t want to openly talk about I will. Between ACORN, the Secretary of State project, lack of Voter I.D. laws and lack of enforcement of voter fraud laws already on the books, and recent elections featuring districts and towns with more registered voters than the census says lives there, there is widespread anticipation from conservatives the Democrats are prepared to cheat if necessary. The progressive mantra seems to be “if you’re not cheating you’re not trying.” We know a multitude of attorneys were poised to invade Wisconsin for the Scott Walker recall, but he won “outside the margin of cheating” so it was a moot point. If we’re right to be paranoid about this, then Romney will need to win a state like Ohio by more than 2 points, or outside the margin of cheating. If it’s closer than that zany high jinks are sure to ensue.

6. Obama clearly won the third and final debate, albeit not in the same dominant fashion that Romney won the first one. The third debate also had the fewest viewers, and many polls showed folks’ minds weren’t changed by the debate either way. After the debate, I talked to Republicans I know around the country whose job it is to get Republicans elected. Two schools of thought emerged:

Optimism—The race is trending Romney’s direction, therefore he was wise to play it safe and say nothing that risked changing the subject from a referendum on Obama, which it has been since the first debate. Foreign policy debates always favor the incumbent, so all the challenger has to do is come across as a credible commander-in-chief. All the polls show that Romney did that.

Pessimism—Romney is playing prevent defense with the game still in doubt, and he may have peaked too soon in the polls. Remember in the primaries when a candidate surged as the “flavor of the month” only to be dropped by the voters later? The same thing could happen to Romney if he keeps playing it safe and let’s Obama off the hook on issues like Libya.

We won’t know which one of these schools of thought is correct until a winner is declared on November 6th.

7. Will any of the three wildcards play spoiler in the election?

Wildcard #1—Battleground states Nevada and Iowa each have strong libertarian/Ron Paul factions that aren’t enamored with Romney. Could Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson siphon enough votes from Romney to alter the outcome there?

Wildcard #2—The battleground state of Virginia features a rare third party candidate that has actually won multiple major elections there. Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode has been elected as a U.S. Congressman in Virginia as a Democrat, Republican, and an Independent. Goode received more than 157,000 votes in his last Congressional campaign in 2008. Obama won the state by 6 points four years ago, which was about 236,000 votes. Thus, you can see how much of an impact Goode can have on a razor close race there.

Wildcard #3—More than 30 states began early voting before the first presidential debate. How many of those voters were independents that couldn’t be swayed by that debate because they had already voted? We won’t know until Election Day.

Presidential Polls 2012: Romney Ahead Nationwide, Has a Real Shot at Victory!

PolicyMic ^ | October 27, 2012 | Jake Horowitz, co-founder

With just 10 days to go until election day 2012 finally arrives, President Obama and Mitt Romney are in the final sprint, and the latest presidential polls reveal the race is a dead-heat. According to Gallup's daily tracking polls, Romney leads 50 to 47. According to Washington Post/ABC, Romney leads 50 to 47, including a national lead of 9 points on who would better handle the economy (52 to 43).
President Obama has long been considered the favorite to win election 2012, but these starting numbers beg the question: Could Romney actually win this thing? In short, the answer is yes.
It can be extremely difficult to sift through all the polling data, because depending on who you ask, Obama is winning or losing. That is, political biases very much shine through in analyses of who's winning. For example, NY Times' Nate Silver gives Obama a 73% chance of winning and argued on Friday that the move toward Romney has "stopped." Silver said, [W]e can debate whether Mr. Obama has a pinch of momentum or whether the race is instead flat, but it’s improbable that Mr. Romney would have a day like [Wednesday] if he still had momentum." Meanwhile, just hours later, ABC's Gary Langer countered that Romney has all the momentum in the race, "[T]he momentum on underlying issues and attributes is Romney’s. Romney’s gains are clear especially in results on the economy."
Rather than look at what the media is saying about each candidate, then, it is instructive to investigate what each campaign is saying about their chances. According to Politico's Playbook with Mike Allen, Romney's political director Rich Beeson has said this about Romney's strategy and chances: “Florida is like an aircraft carrier: Once you start turning it, it's hard to stop, and it's been turning now for about the last 10 days. … We're ahead of where we were in '08, and … our Election Day turnout is going to be very strong." Romney camp is confident that Republicans can pull it together in the key swing states.
Beeson said, “Virginia is a lot like Florida: It's starting to head the right direction. ... We're holding our numbers in Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William. We will win Loudoun and Prince William counties. Then, as you go down to Hampton Roads and Virginia Beach, those Obama defense cuts are really starting to undermine him." He continued, "New Hampshire, … we were tied there before we went and bought the TV, and [are] going up with a heavy, heavy radio buy. … Wisconsin is a tie. There's no two ways about it, and the good news for us there is where we have room to grow is, the further north and the further west you go, those places where we cut up Santorum in the primary, we can still get some Republicans to come home. Nevada has been the toughest nut for us to crack, but having said all of that, we're still within a couple of points in Nevada. I think it was two weeks ago that people were asking if we were going to have to pull out of Ohio, and now … it is a tie in Ohio … [T]hey're counting party registration as a vote for them."
Clearly, the Romney team is banking on Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire to win the election, and they realize they are likely to lose Nevada.
Meanwhile, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina had this to say earlier this week about the Obama strategy and chances, "We are outperforming our early vote margins in key states, compared to 2008. We’re ahead of where we were against McCain, and more importantly, we’re ahead of Mitt Romney. Romney may be winning more raw votes than McCain did at this point, but … the numbers tell a very clear story. The electorate is bigger this year, and our vote margins are, too. ... In fact, more people are going to vote early this cycle than in 2008. And more of them will vote for President Obama in the states that will decide this election.
"Romney hasn’t been unable to knock us out of a single battleground, but we’ve forced him to continue to spend significant resources in states like North Carolina that the Romney campaign said they wanted locked up a long time ago. By contrast, we’ve gotten him to pull resources out of states like Michigan, Pennsylvania … and New Mexico. … The Romney campaign has bet that young people and minorities won’t turn out. The early vote numbers are already proving the folly of that gamble, and the wisdom of our plan. "Minority voting is going to reach an all-time high this year, projected as high as 28% of all voters in the ’12 Election. Most new registrants over the past three months are under 30, and nearly all—four in five—are youth, women, African American or Latino. … [T]hese are all groups that strongly support the President’s re-election."
The President's campaign is clearly banking on the youth and minority vote in order to secure relection for Obama.
What's clear here is that several key states are very much at play in this election, and Obama is not clearly winning in any of them. The race will come down to the wire. Take each tracking poll with a grain of salt and don't believe the media bias in favor of either candidate. This election could be historically close.

Sheriff Joe Captures Armed Human Smugglers Heading for Eastern States

Stand With Arizona ^ | 10-27-2012 | John Hill

Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio may be facing an onslaught of negative ads and out-of-state activists funded by leftist billionaire George Soros bent on his defeat, but it isn't stopping him from doing his job.
Sheriff Joe's deputies captured 11 illegal aliens and three U.S. citizens smuggling them into the country during a traffic stop - the kind that the Obama Administration and ACLU want to stop him from performing so illegals can go free. Two of the three smugglers were armed with semi-automatic weapons and have extensive criminal records, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office said.

This brings Joe's three-day total to 28 illegals and smugglers - ALL of whom were headed for states other that Arizona.

[Above: 4 of the Mexican illegals apprehended by Arpaio deputies in Phoenix]

The 11 Mexican nationals in the vehicle admitted to paying between $2,800 and $3,000 to be illegally smuggled into the U.S., sheriff's investigators said. Their destinations were Georgia, New York, North Carolina, New Jersey and Florida. The group admitted to crossing illegally into Arizona through Altar, MCSO said.
These patterns are typical. Arizona is the principal gateway for illegal entry into the U.S. Thanks to Arizona's tough immigration laws, 80% of illegals captured by Sheriff Joe and his deputies are headed for other states. And since Arpaio's department captures a staggering 25% of all illegals caught in the U.S. each year, Joe doesn’t just keep illegal alien rapists, robbers, gangbangers and identity thieves out of Arizona – he also keeps criminals from threatening cities and towns across America.
Which is exactly why the open-borders left wants him out of the way.

Help Sheriff Joe defeat George Soros and Obama now...

Obama the Classless!

The New American ^ | 26 October 2012 | Selwyn Duke

When Barack Obama called Mitt Romney a bull******* in a Rolling Stone interview recently, it was reminiscent of something involving a man who truly fits that description. What I’m referring to has to do with the 1990s, an intern, and America’s increasingly interned morality.

After Bill Clinton said that he didn’t consider Monica Lewinsky’s services to be sex as he “understood it,” many observers pointed out that his lawyering of lasciviousness was influencing the young. “Hey, even the president, a Rhodes Scholar, says it isn’t sex!” It’s what you call trickle-down decadence. And now what Clinton did for intimate relations, Obama is doing for relating.

A powerful man sets a powerful example, and Obama has always been classless. Many complained last year after he invited the rapper “Common” to the White House, but forgotten is that Obama admitted in 2004 that he let his daughter Sasha — a tender three years old at the time — listen to rap. If anyone exposed my child to that cultural effluent, the rap he’d get would be in the head.

As for Obama’s bovine-excrement descriptive, it clearly was calculated to appeal to Rolling Stone’s stoner demographic, which is supposed to conclude that BO is just, like, you know … such a cool dude (I’m just the bees’ knees myself).

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Al Qaeda is No "Remnant," Mr. President ^ | October 27, 2012 | Bob Beauprez

During his interview recently on the Jon Stewart Show, President Obama continued his established narrative that he has driven al-Qaeda into the ground sufficiently that only a few "remnants" of the radical Islamic terrorist organization remain.

A "remnant" is a "small group of surviving people" according to the dictionary. But, remnants don't grow, multiply, and spread. A remnant doesn't extend across a significant portion of the planet.
In the final debate, the President claimed that "al-Qaeda is much weaker than when I came into office."
At the Democratic National Convention – just five days before the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya - and frequently on the campaign trail, Obama brags that he has put al-Qaeda "on its heels."

True enough, Osama bin Laden is dead and other al-Qaeda leaders have joined him. But, the assassination of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi is a brutal reminder that radical Islamic terror groups have not disappeared and certainly are not dormant.
"al-Qaeda is not 'on its heels,'" asserts KT McFarland, a National Security Expert and former Reagan Defense Department official. "al-Qaeda and its affiliates are planting the flag into new regions around the globe and are now active in more than 30 countries," says McFarland.
The West Africa nation of Mali is among the latest tragic manifestations of al-Qaeda influence. Northern regions of Mali have been under control of the Islamic radicals since March. Malian military forces assisted by the French military (Mali was a French Colony until 1960) are currently preparing an attempt to retake the region by force.
McFarland's assessment that al-Qaeda is "active in more than 30 countries" certainly exposes the phoniness of the President's contention. So, too, does the following report filed today by Reuters describing the expansive methodology of al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Mali and elsewhere.
Flush with cash, Al Qaeda-linked gunmen - dubbed "gangster-jihadists" by French parliamentarians - are now key players in a web of Islamists and criminal networks recruiting hundreds of locals, including children, and a trickle of foreign fighters. Among the shifting alliances, Al Qaeda's North Africa wing, known as AQIM, has forged links with Malian Tuareg Islamists, and MUJWA, a group that splintered off from AQIM but still operates loosely with it.
The Islamists, who advocate a political ideology based on Islam, are trying to impose a strict form of sharia law. At least three suspected criminals have been stoned to death or executed by firing squad in Mali while several others have had hands and feet amputated.
Almahamoud, a man from Ansongo who was accused - wrongly, he says - of stealing cattle, suffered an amputation in August. "They cut off my hand to make an example of me," he said. "They will continue mutilating people to impose their authority. I don't know how I will live with just one hand."
Traditional, moderate Islamic customs have been crushed. Music is banned, women cover themselves with veils and residents are flogged for smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Ancient religious shrines central to the Sufi Islam practiced by many Malians have been smashed because they are deemed illegal by the hardliners. Read more.

It’s time for real change, America

Hot Air ^ | October 26, 2012 | Erika Johnsen

I hardly even know what to add to this. In a well-framed, critical yet optimistic, to the point, and refreshingly presidential speech in Iowa on Friday afternoon, Mitt Romney simply and clearly laid out his economic vision for his presidency. He touched on all the major domestic spheres of our economy and our society — our budget, education, energy, health care, regulations, you name it — without shying away or making excuses. It was a remarkable difference from the petty tone and shrinking subject matter we’ve heard from President Obama of late, and as Romney points out, the president so often likes to blame his predecessor for the problems he “inherited” — but Obama also “inherited” the greatest, most productive country on the planet, and just look at what he’s done with it.
If there was any newly receptive post-debate audience paying attention, he definitely struck just the right tone on this one. Listen and weep, Team Obama (full prepared remarks below):


Thank you all. It’s great to be back in Iowa. And don’t think that this is the last time you are going to see Paul Ryan and me, because you Iowans may well be the ones who decide what kind of America we will have, what kind of life our families will have.
The choice you make this November will shape great things, historic things, and those things will determine the most intimate and important aspects of every American life and every American family. This is an election about America, and it is an election about the American family.
All elections matter. This one matters a great deal. Over the years of our nation’s history, choices our fellow citizens have made have changed the country’s course–they were turning points of defining consequence.
We are at a turning point today. Our national debt and liabilities threaten to crush our future, our economy struggles under the weight of government and fails to create essential growth and employment.
At the same time, emerging powers seek to shape the world in their image–China with its model of authoritarianism and, in a very different way, Jihadists with Sharia, repression, and terror for the world.
This is an election of consequence. Our campaign is about big things, because we happen to believe that America faces big challenges. We recognize this is a year with a big choice, and the American people want to see big changes. And together we can bring real change to this country.
Four years ago, candidate Obama spoke to the scale of the times. Today, he shrinks from it, trying instead to distract our attention from the biggest issues to the smallest–from characters on Sesame Street and silly word games to misdirected personal attacks he knows are false.
The President’s campaign falls far short of the magnitude of the times. And the presidency of the last four years has fallen far short of the promises of his last campaign. Four years ago, America voted for a post-partisan president, but they have seen the most political of presidents, and a Washington in gridlock because of it.
President Obama promised to bring us together, but at every turn, he has sought to divide and demonize. He promised to cut the deficit in half, but he doubled it. And his budget? It failed to win a single vote, Republican or Democrat, in either the House or the Senate. He said he would reform Medicare and Social Security and save them from pending insolvency, but he shrunk from proposing any solution at all.
And then, where are the jobs? Where are the 9 million more jobs that President Obama promised his stimulus would have created by now? They are in China, Mexico, and Canada and in countries that have made themselves more attractive for entrepreneurs and business and investment, even as President Obama’s policies have made it less attractive for them here.
And so today, his campaign tries to deflect and detract, to minimize the failures, and to make this election about small shiny objects.
But this election matters more than that. It matters to your family.
It matters to the senior who needs to get an appointment with a medical specialist but is told by one receptionist after another that the doctor isn’t taking any new Medicare patients, because Medicare has been slashed to pay for Obamacare.
It matters to the man from Waukesha, Wisconsin I spoke with several days ago. In what were supposed to be his best work years, he used to have a job at $25 an hour with benefits and now has one at $8 an hour, without benefits.
It matters to the college student, graduating this spring, with 10 to 20 thousand dollars in student debt, who now learns that she also will be paying for 50 thousand dollars in government debt, a burden that will put the American Dream beyond her reach.
It matters for the child in a failing school, unable to go to the school of his parent’s choosing, because the teacher’s union that funds the President’s campaign opposes school choice.
The President’s campaign has a slogan: it is “forward.” But to the 23 million Americans struggling to find a good job, these last four years feel a lot more like “backward.” We cannot afford four more years like the last four years.
This election is about big things–like the education of our children, the value of our homes, the take home pay from our jobs, the price of the gasoline we buy, and the choices we have in our healthcare. It is also about the big things that determine these things–like the growth of the economy, the strength of our military, our dependence on foreign oil, and America’s leadership in the world.
President Obama frequently reminds us that he inherited a troubled economy. But a troubled economy is not all that President Obama inherited. He inherited the greatest nation in the history of the earth. He inherited the most productive and innovative nation in history. He inherited the largest economy in the world. And he inherited a people who have always risen to the occasion, regardless of the challenges they faced, so long as we have been led by men and women who have brought us together, called on our patriotism, and guided the nation with vision and conviction.
Despite all that he inherited, President Obama did not repair our economy, he did not save Medicare and Social Security, he did not tame the spending and borrowing, he did not reach across the aisle to bring us together. Nor did he stand up to China’s trade practices, or deliver on his promise to re-make our relations with the Muslim world, where anti-American extremism is on the rise.
What he inherited wasn’t the only problem; what he did with what he inherited made the problem worse.
In just four short years, he borrowed nearly $6 trillion, adding almost as much debt held by the public as all prior American presidents in history.
He forced through Obamacare, frightening small business from hiring new employees and adding thousands of dollars to every family’s healthcare bill.
He launched an onslaught of new regulations, often to the delight of the biggest banks and corporations, but to the detriment of the small, growing businesses that create two-thirds of our jobs.
New business starts are at a 30-year low because entrepreneurs and investors are sitting on the sidelines, weary from the President’s staggering new regulations and proposed massive tax increases.
Many families can’t get mortgages and many entrepreneurs can’t get loans because of Dodd-Frank regulations that make it harder for banks to lend.
The president invested taxpayer money–your money–in green companies, now failed, that met his fancy, and sometimes were owned by his largest campaign contributors. He spent billions of taxpayer dollars on investments like Solyndra, Tesla, Fisker, and Ener1, which only added to our mounting federal debt.
Energy prices are up in part because energy production on federal lands is down. He rejected the Keystone Pipeline from Canada, and cut in half drilling permits and leases, even as gasoline prices soared to new highs.
No, the problem with the Obama economy is not what he inherited; it is with the misguided policies that slowed the recovery, and caused millions of Americans to endure lengthy unemployment and poverty. That is why 15 million more of our fellow citizens are on food stamps than when President Obama was sworn into office. That is why 3 million more women are now living in poverty. That is why nearly 1 in 6 Americans today is poor. That is why the economy is stagnant.
Today, we received the latest round of discouraging economic news: Last quarter, our economy grew at just 2%. After the stimulus was passed, the White House promised the economy would now be growing at 4.3%, over twice as fast. Slow economic growth means slow job growth and declining take home pay. This is what four years of President Obama’s policies have produced. Americans are ready for change–for growth, for jobs, for more take home pay.
We have had four presidential and vice-presidential debates. And there is nothing in what the President proposed or defended that has any prospect of meeting the challenges of the times. Raising taxes will not grow jobs or ignite the economy–in fact, his tax plan has been calculated to destroy 700,000 jobs. A new stimulus, three years after the recession officially ended, may spare government, but it will not stimulate the private sector any better than did the stimulus of four years ago. And cutting one trillion dollars from the military will kill jobs and devastate our national defense.
This is not the time to double down on the trickle-down government policies that have failed us; it is time for new bold changes that measure up to the moment, that can bring America’s families the certainty that the future will be better than the past.
If Paul Ryan and I are elected as your president and vice president, we will endeavor with all our hearts and energy to restore America. Instead of more spending, more borrowing from China and higher taxes from Washington, we’ll renew our faith in the power of free people pursuing their dreams. We’ll start with our plan for a stronger middle class, which has five elements:
One, we will act to put America on track to a balanced budget by eliminating unnecessary programs, by sending programs back to states where they can be managed with less abuse and less cost, and by shrinking the bureaucracy of Washington.
Two, we’ll produce more of the energy we need to heat our homes, fill our cars, and make our economy grow. We will stop the Obama war on coal, the disdain for oil, and the effort to crimp natural gas by federal regulation of the very technology that produces it. We will support nuclear and renewables, but phase out subsidies once an industry is on its feet. And rather than investing in new electric auto and solar companies, we will invest in energy science and research to make discoveries that can actually change our energy world. And by 2020, we will achieve North American energy independence.
Three, we will make trade work for America. We’ll open more markets to American agriculture, products, and services. And we will finally hold accountable any nation that doesn’t play by the rules. I will stand up for the rights and interests of American workers and employers.
Four, we will grow jobs by making America the best possible place for job creators, for entrepreneurs, for small business, for innovators, for manufacturers. This we will do by updating and reshaping regulations to encourage growth, by lowering tax rates while lowering deductions and closing loopholes, and by making it clear from day one that unlike the current administration, we actually like business and the jobs business creates.
Finally, as we create more opportunity, we also will make sure that our citizens have the skills to succeed. Training programs will be shaped by the states where people live, and schools will put the interests of our kids, their parents, and their teachers above the interests of the teachers’ unions.
If we do those five things, our economy will come roaring back. We will create 12 million new jobs in just four years, raise take-home pay, and get the American economy growing at four percent a year—more than double this year’s rate. After all the false promises of recovery and all the waiting, we will finally see help for America’s middle class.
Paul and I won’t stop there. When we take office, we will take responsibility to solve the big problems that everyone agrees can’t wait any longer.
We will save and secure Medicare and Social Security, both for current and near retirees, and for the generation to come. We will restore the $716 billion President Obama has taken from Medicare to pay for his vaunted Obamacare.
We will reform healthcare to tame the growth in its cost, to provide for those with pre-existing conditions, and to assure that every American has access to healthcare. We will replace government choice with consumer choice, bringing the dynamics of the marketplace to a sector of our lives that has long been dominated by government.
These things among others we can only do if we work tirelessly to bridge the divide between the political parties. We will meet with Democrat and Republican leadership regularly, we will look for common ground and shared principles, and we will put the interests of the American people above the interests of the politicians.
I know something about leading because I’ve led before. In business, at the Olympics, and in Massachusetts, I’ve brought people together to achieve real change.
I was elected as a Republican governor in a state with a legislature that was 85% Democrat. We were looking at a multi-billion dollar budget gap. But instead of fighting with one another, we came together to solve our problems. We actually cut spending–reduced it. We lowered taxes 19 times. We defended school choice. And we worked to make our state business friendly.
Our state moved up 20 places in job growth. Our schools were ranked number one in the nation. And we turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $2 billion rainy day fund.
I know it because I have seen it: Good Democrats can come together with good Republicans to solve big problems. What we need is leadership.
America is ready for that kind of leadership. Paul Ryan and I will provide it. Our plan for a stronger middle class will create jobs, stop the decline in take home pay, and put America back on the path of prosperity and opportunity. And this will enable us to fulfill our responsibility as the leader of the free world, to promote the principles of peace. We will help the Muslim world combat the spread of extremism; we will dissuade Iran from building a nuclear bomb; we will build enduring relationships throughout Latin America; and we will partner with China and other great nations to build a more stable and peaceful world.
We face big challenges. But we also have big opportunities. New doors are open for us to sell our ideas and our products to the entire world. New technologies offer the promise of unbounded information and limitless innovation. New ideas are changing lives and hearts in diverse nations and among diverse peoples. If we seize the moment and rise to the occasion, the century ahead will be an American Century.
Our children will graduate into jobs that are waiting for them. Our seniors will be confident that their retirement is secure. Our men and women will have good jobs and good pay and good benefits. And we will have every confidence that our lives are safe, and that our livelihoods are secure.
What this requires is change, change from the course of the last four years. It requires that we put aside the small and the petty, and demand the scale of change we deserve: we need real change, big change.
Our campaign is about that kind of change–confronting the problems that politicians have avoided for over a decade, revitalizing our competitive economy, modernizing our education, restoring our founding principles.
This is the kind of change that promises a better future, one shaped by men and women pursuing their dreams in their own unique ways.
This election is a choice between the status quo — going forward with the same policies of the last four years — or instead, choosing real change, change that offers promise, promise that the future will be better than the past.
If you are ready for that kind of change, if you want this to be a turning point in America’s course, join Paul Ryan and me, get your family and friends to join us, and vote now for the kind of leadership that these times demand.
God bless you. And God bless America.

Defense Secretary Justifies Inaction in Benghazi Attack

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 26 Oct 2012 | John Semmens

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained that the US military commander for Africa, General Carter Ham, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and himself all decided against any intervention to rescue those besieged because “we lacked a clear picture of what was happening.”
Panetta admitted that “while the drone surveillance did give us a real-time view of events on the ground, there were still some unanswered questions. First, we couldn't be sure how many attackers were involved. Was it 50, 100? Without knowing this we couldn't be sure how many reinforcements to send.”
“Second, the pictures from the drone couldn't clearly establish the intent of the attackers,” Panetta continued. “We had no way of knowing they would actually kill the Ambassador. Maybe if those under attack had simply surrendered they would have been taken alive. We couldn't risk negating this potential option.”
“There was always the chance that an attempt to rescue the Ambassador might make things worse,” Panetta added. “As it now stands, only four Americans were killed. If we had sent in troops there likely would've been more casualties on both sides. By declining to charge in we at least have no Libyan blood on our hands.”
The Secretary brushed off reports that those under attack were desperately pleading for help. “It's to be expected that persons in their position would have a rather narrow perspective of the situation,” he said. “It's hard to appreciate the bigger picture when you're in fear for your life. Those of us with broader responsibilities must maintain a calmer demeanor and balance the costs and benefits of escalating the confrontation.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...

Are the TV Anchor People Rooting for President Obama? ^ | October 27, 2012 | Bill O'Reilly

It is widely perceived that the national television news industry skews left and in some cases actively supports liberal political candidates. While that is debatable on a case-by-case basis, the evidence is overwhelming that the folks who deliver the news to the nation are sympathetic to liberal causes, and that obviously favors President Obama during this election cycle.
Let's run it down:
--"NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams interned for the Carter administration early in his career. He has no registered political affiliation, and I can find no political donations he has made. However, he has denigrated conservatives on late-night TV.
--ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer once worked for Richard Nixon. She has no political affiliation and no donations on the record. She is perceived to be a social liberal but downplays any partisanship on television.
--"CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley is not affiliated with any party and has given no donations. He plays it straight on TV.
--Anderson Cooper hosts a primetime program on CNN. In 2004, he was a registered Democrat. No political donations have been made in his name. He has openly criticized the Tea Party on a number of occasions and is perceived to be liberal.
--Piers Morgan is also a CNN primetime host. A British subject, he is openly liberal on the air and earlier this month wrote an opinion article for London's Daily Mail newspaper in which he called Mitt Romney all kinds of names.
--Charlie Rose co-hosts "CBS This Morning" and was a registered Democrat early in his career. He is widely considered sympathetic to the left but has asked tough questions of liberal politicians on occasion.
--George Stephanopoulos co-hosts ABC's "Good Morning America" and is a registered Democrat who worked as an adviser to President Clinton. Stephanopoulos downplays his political affiliation on the air.
--Matt Lauer is the co-host of the "Today" show on NBC. He is not registered with a political party, and there are no political donations in his name. Widely considered to be socially liberal, Lauer is generally courteous to all points of view on the air.
The one thing all of the above news people have in common is that none of them is conservative. Also, I would be stunned if any of them votes for Mitt Romney.
So, how will that affect press coverage with the election around the corner? Well, the actual on-air reporting will likely be straight, but expect stories unfavorable to the president, such as Libya, to be downplayed. In addition, any gaffe the governor might make will definitely be highlighted.
As Walter Cronkite, a devoted liberal, once said: "And that's the way it is."
But it shouldn't be that way. There should be more balance among TV news anchors. That will never happen in this country, but such is life.

Liberals Find out Women Aren’t Amused ^ | October 27, 2012 | John Ransom

Soon will come the finger-pointing.

Liberals will gnash their teeth, pull their hair and recriminate.

Yes; true, this is normal behavior on the part of liberals. But this time the behavior will be uproarious and hilarious.

Because this time, the folks who brought us Occupy Wall Street won’t be in a drum circle, but in a circular firing squad facing their comrades, their righteous fingers loaded and looking for blame.
“Oh, Chicago!” they’ll say. “Bang, bang.”

Sure, there will be the typical liberal shots at the “racists” on the right who denied Obama a second term.
But the delicious irony lost on them will be found in their final chant of “It’s all Bush’s fault.” But that irony won’t be lost on history.
Count me amongst those laughing hardest.
Because Obama’s term can best be described as a Harold Ramis movie.
Remember when Obama had to redefine his stimulus program that was supposed to create millions of jobs, to only “saving” millions of government jobs?
“We spent a trillion dollars on what?” Ha, ha.
As Jimmy Kimmel explained at the 2012 White House Correspondents Dinner:
“Mr. President, remember when the country rallied around you in the hopes of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious. That was your best one yet.”
Well not quite.
There was that time that Obama got roughly $90 billion for green energy jobs, or green energy “investments,” as he calls them, which were touted to save us billions of dollars in imported oil and create 5 million green energy jobs.
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 set aside $90 billion in renewable energy grants and loans for a grab bag of thousands of projects—wind farms, solar installations, natural gas fueling stations, biofuel research, and a $5 billion weatherization project for low-income homes,” reports “Digging into the public records of the $21 billion spent so far through 19 U.S. Department of Energy programs reveals 3,960 projects that employ 28,854 people.”
Only 4,971,146 jobs left to go!
Four more years? No, at that rate it would take 693 years for Obama to create 5 million green energy jobs at the rate he created them over the first four years. And at the current cost, Obama would have to spend $3.6 trillion just to create those jobs.
That’s 25 percent of our GDP dedicated to creating about 3.5 percent of our jobs, if it ever happened.
You can not find a better punch line that knocks the water out of Obamanomics so completely. Forget about Obama’s 1 percent. At $727,000 per job, the 3.5 percent who would have green jobs would have it pretty good.
Thankfully economics, and by that I mean real-life market forces, not wishful theories by central bank and Ivy League economists, have prevented Obamanomics from working.
So as a healthy alternative to providing actual money to families during the recession, Obama created the bumper sticker war that liberals call: The Republican War on Women (R-WoW).
R-WoW’s not doing so hot though. It’s based on the faulty assumption that Republican men want to control women’s brains and their uteruses. And it's way too transparent an attempt to distract from Obama's record of failure.
I’ll admit that as a man I don’t always understand women. They are girly and often smell powdery. That and the insides of their purses intimidate me. But I know that they have a healthy respect for money. This I understand.
If you gave them a choice between a job that pays money and free birth control, the ones I know would pick a job.
They aren’t buying into the R-WoW credo that the GOP is somehow hostile to women. And it’s not just the girls I know. According to the latest AP survey the vaunted gender gap that Obama counted on to get re-elected has disappeared. The seven-point advantage that Obama had with women in 2008 has vaporized in 2012.
“Less than two weeks out from Election Day,” reports CBSNews “Republican Mitt Romney has erased President Obama's 16-point advantage among women, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows.”
Just a month ago, says CBS, “women favored Mr. Obama over Romney on the economy 56 percent to 40 percent. Now, the split has shifted to 49 percent for Romney and 45 percent for Mr. Obama.”
And the irony here is that the harder the administration tried to push R-WoW, the more they alienated women. It was just about a month ago that Obama’s disastrous debate performance forced liberals to cue up the War on Women once more as an alternative to…policy, results, progress, or a real president?
And yes, I find the irony of this hilarious.
Obama has been done in by his own campaign device, done in by women who wouldn't buy his R-WoW BS. Ha! It could all make a wonderful Will Farrell comedy. Women, however, it seems, are not amused.

Rumbling Toward a Knockout ^ | October 26, 2012 | Suzanne Fields

Reporters and pundits writing about politics and particularly presidential debates can't resist the metaphors of the ring. And why should they? The metaphors work.
"The incumbent fought with a challenger's aggression, while the GOP nominee mostly avoided heated disagreement, except to make jabs on the economy," reported the Hill, the Capitol Hill political daily. "But if Obama looked to lay Romney out on the canvas and the Republican preferred a rope-a-dope strategy, neither candidate was wholly successful."
Rope-a-dope was the clever name that Muhammad Ali, as clever with language as with the finer points of the sweet science, called his strategy in his famous "rumble in the jungle" against George Foreman in Zaire in the 1974. (His press agent actually coined the term.) The champ faked passivity on the ropes, absorbing repeated punches on his arms and body, until the hard-hitting Foreman, finally punching air in frustration, grew weary. Ali then struck swiftly, going for a knockout.
But there was no knockout in the final presidential debate. There was a lot of sparring in the clinches. You could see the president itching to draw his opponent into a slugfest, but the challenger played it safe, a thinking pugilist who expects to win by remaining cool.
Even when the president descended into condescension in their back-and-forth over the declining size of the Navy, Romney didn't retaliate. When the president tried an uppercut in answer to Romney's jab about the number of Navy ships, observing that America has fewer ships afloat than it did in 1916, the challenger stepped aside to let the president appear glib and merely slick with his own observation that "we also have fewer horses and bayonets."
Romney didn't counterpunch, and the next day the fact-checkers did it for him, reporting that the Army has 419,155 bayonets in its inventory, the Marines another 195,334 and has ordered 175,061 more this year, and horses, mules and even jackasses have been used in remote mountainous regions of Afghanistan.
Neither candidate looked like he was in a championship fight. Romney arrived with the momentum from his big win on points in the first debate. President Obama, who made an adequate comeback in the second debate, held his own in the third, if only proving Woody Allen's famous remark that "80 percent of success is showing up." But he ultimately failed because he couldn't make the crowd forget that Mitt Romney is no longer the candidate portrayed in $10 million worth of negative television advertising unleashed earlier in the campaign.
Gone is the 97-pound weakling who needed muscle-building lessons to deal with bullies on the beach who were forever kicking sand in his face. He's now the cautious fighter who knows when to raise his fists and when to hold his punches.
Romney telegraphed his safe strategy in the opening of the third debate when he didn't try to send the president to the canvas for his changing stories about what he did and didn't do in response to death and humiliation in Benghazi. Conservatives at ringside, who could see that the president's jaw was made of thin and fragile glass, wanted the challenger to land the haymaker to take him down. But the challenger was playing to a larger crowd, including independent women who might be turned off by blood in the ring. And the president's story about who knew what and when about Benghazi continued to unravel as the week wore on.
The president's snarky aggressiveness in the final debate was no doubt precipitated by the polls reflecting the Romney surge. The flurry of Obama left hooks, meant to reveal the challenger as a rich man out of touch with the common folk, no longer landed with damage.
"For the first time in this race," Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told The New York Times, "I'd rather be us than them. They spent months building him up as one thing, and in one night he disproved it."
With less than a fortnight to go, nobody is on the ropes, and every fight fan knows the dangers lurking in the late rounds of any fight. My father, Bo Bregman, was a fight promoter, and I grew up on of cautionary tales from ringside. Daddy had matched young Buddy Baer against Joe Louis on a warm night in May 1941 at Washington's old Griffith Stadium. "The Brown Bomber," as all the newspapers called Louis, was then in his prime and was everybody's favorite. Only two minutes into the fight, Baer knocked Louis through the ropes.
Baer continued to punish the champ, and the crowd of 35,000 smelled upset. Louis was hurt again in the fifth round, but early in the sixth the champ caught Baer with a left to the jaw. With another right to the head, Baer went down. He couldn't come out for the seventh round.
In life, in the ring, as in presidential politics, you have to watch out for the final rounds.

AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against blacks ^ | October 27, 2012 | The Associated Press

Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.

Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some Americans' more favorable views of blacks.
Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.
In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...