Sunday, November 4, 2012

First casualty in second Obama term: Liberty

Times 24X7 ^ | 11/4/12 | Michal Conger

Many voters say this presidential election comes down to the economy. Others say they’re voting on social issues like abortion, or foreign policy and America's role in the world.
But Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliot believe it's about much more. Economic recovery and foreign policy, they say, are only pieces of a much larger issue at stake: liberty.
"The danger is that 2012 may not only the most important election of our lifetimes, but that it will be the last chance we have to save liberty as Americans have known it since 1776," they write in their recently released book, "Fool Me Twice: Obama's Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed."
In his now-infamous "flexibility" comments to Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this year, President Obama revealed that he has a hidden agenda ready to implement after re-election.
Mr. Klein and Ms. Elliot delved into the policies that shaped Mr. Obama's first term to see if they could uncover his plans for a second.
Their book, intended to be a sort of blueprint for the next four years of an Obama presidency, lays out his plans for the military, a new green stimulus, immigration and amnesty, health care, jobs and wages, and the economy.
“Fool Me Twice” is intended simply to inform voters by divulging what the president won’t say, Mr. Klein told Times247 in an interview last week. Mr. Obama's "ultimate aim," he said, "is to implement a progressive utopia."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Redskin Rule: Good news for Romney

The Washington Post ^ | 4 November 2012 | Mike Jones

The Redskins Rule is a trend involving NFL football and presidential elections.

This coincidence has held true since 1940.

The Redskins moved to Washington in 1937. Since then, there have been 18 presidential elections. In 17 of those, the rule applied:

If the Redskins win their last home game before the election, the party that won the previous election wins the next election. If the Redskins lose, the challenging party's candidate wins.
Here’s a rundown of the Redskins Rule games since 1940:
1940 – Redskins 37, Steelers 10 – Roosevelt (D) defeats Willkie. 1944 – Redskins 14, Rams 10 – Roosevelt defeats Dewey. 1948 – Redskins 59, Boston Yanks 21 – Truman (D) defeats Dewey. 1952 – Steelers 24, Redskins 23 – Eisenhower (R) defeats Stevenson. 1956 – Redskins 20, Browns 9 – Eisenhower defeats Stevenson. 1960 – Browns 31, Redskins 10 – Kennedy (D) defeats Nixon. 1964 – Redskins 27, Bears 20 – Johnson (D) defeats Goldwater. 1968 – Giants 13, Redskins 10 – Nixon (R) defeats Humphrey. 1972 – Redskins 24, Cowboys 20 – Nixon defeats McGovern. 1976 – Cowboys 20, Redskins 7 – Carter (D) defeats Ford. 1980 – Vikings 39, Redskins 14 – Reagan (R) defeats Carter. 1984 – Redskins 27, Falcons 14 – Reagan defeats Mondale. 1988 – Redskins 27, Saints 24 – Bush defeats Dukakis. 1992 – Giants 24, Redskins 7 – Clinton (D) defeats Bush. 1996 – Redskins 31, Colts 16 – Clinton defeats Dole. 2000 – Titans 27, Redskins 21 – Bush (R) defeats Gore. 2004 – Packers 28, Redskins 13 – Bush defeats Kerry, ending the streak. 2008 – Steelers 23, Redskins 6 – Obama (D) defeats McCain, restoring the Redskins Rule.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Lands Coveted Pee Wee Herman Endorsement ^ | 11/4/12 | Breitbart News

Team Obama must be sighing in collective relief this weekend.

Pee Wee Herman, the alter ego of actor Paul Reubens, has endorsed President Barack Obama in a typically colorful column over at The Huffington Post.

For me, this election is like the choice between store-bought ice cream (maybe even diet Ice Milk), and mouth-watering, homemade, unbelievably delicious frozen custard. How did I arrive at this conclusion? This week President Obama was working hard alongside Governor Bruce Springsteen of New Jersey (boy, he sure has gained some weight) to help the people most in need.

It struck me that the choice I'll be making Tuesday is like going for store-bought ice cream!

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

BENGHAZIGATE: The Real Truth About Benghazi!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_370/image.jpg%A0

1. Our Benghazi facility was not a consulate; it was the largest of our CIA operations centers in the Middle East which served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of post-Qaddafi Libya.

2. Our personnel there, aside from other routine things they may have been doing, were engaged in covert arms and weapons running from Libya to anti-Assad rebels in Syria via Turkey.

3. Russia was aware of the operation and warned America against working to destabilize Syria because (a) it would endanger Russia's own national security interests, and (b) they knew that as demonic, despotic and tyrannical as Assad may be, his forced ouster would leave yet another Mubarak-like and Qadaffi-like vacuum, and that the Muslim Brotherhood would move in and orchestrate more Islamic chaos across the region. (And Putin would be right about that.)

4. Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. The reason they met in person was so that his Turkish colleague could show Stevens overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad "rebels" being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria;weapons that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups; weapons that could be used as a "false flag" type of operation to "set-up" Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow. In that scenario, the projected collective reaction of the international community would be swift and punishing, and the world would demand Assad's overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia's moral position within the international community would be weakened. So, the purpose of that Turkish diplomat's in-person meeting was to show Ambassador Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop. You can bet that Panetta and the highest levels of the administration knew that the operation was compromised; Stevens would have reported that to them after the Turkish diplomat left.

5.The attack started not too long after the Turkish diplomat's departure the timing of which wasn't a coincidence.

6. The Obama administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone. If that was true, our military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, could have easily handled them in short order and rescued our personnel. So why was there no rescue operation?

7. No rescue effort was made because the attack was not conducted by a group of rebels; it was a nation/state coordinated and sponsored attack in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition and Panetta and everyone else knew it. They also knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not end sooner. From signal communication intercepts, they knew those nation/state attack teams were present but didn't know exactly where all of them were and that was the Obama administration dilemma. So, now, that gives deeper meaning to Panetta's statement about why no rescue attempt was made, and why Dougherty/Woods was told three times to stand down: the basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on. Would Obama-the-weak risk deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario, especially so close to an election? Remember, this is the president who for months kept wavering and vacillating on giving the OK to get OBL, and even with all that time STILL couldn't do it (Panetta had to make the call). So, cmon .. you don't think he's capable of actually making a tough call to deploy military assets in such a tight and fast-moving time frame, do you? I mean, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod could never allow that, don't you know? After all, what's "just" 4 lives when you compare it to the possibility of another 4 years?

8. As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the nation/state attack teams completed their mission in the remaining cover of darkness, killing four patriots.

Bottom line:

We were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria.
Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. 

Standing In Line

When former top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan Stanley McChrystal got called into the Oval Office by Barack Obama, he knew things weren't going to go well when the President accused him of not supporting Obama in his political role as President.
"Its not my job to support you as a politician, Mr. President, its my job to support you as Commander-in-Chief," McChrystal replied.
Not satisfied with accepting McChrystal's resignation the President made a cheap parting shot. "I bet when I die you'll be happy to piss on my grave."

The General saluted. "Mr. President, I always told myself after leaving the Army I'd never stand in line again."   

Is the Secret Service Ignoring Threats Against Romney?

Big Government ^ | Sunday, November 4, 2012 | Kristinn Taylor

The Secret Service appears to be playing politics by ignoring threats of riots and violence against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made by leftist filmmaker Michael Moore and the liberal group MoveOn.

The threat was made via a web ad video released earlier this week in which Moore and MoveOn hide behind elderly women who make scripted terrorist threats against Romney and the nation over the presidential election.
One woman is shown inciting riots if Romney defeats Democratic party President Barack Obama, “I want the Republican party to know, if your voter suppression throughout this beautiful country enables Romney to oust Barack Obama, we will burn this mother****** down!” (Expletive edited from original.)
Another woman says she’ll attack Romney in his genitals, “If the Republicans steal this election, I am going to track down Mitt Romney and give him the world’s biggest ****-punch. What’s the matter sonny, you never heard that phrase, ****-punch? Right in the *******.” (Expletives deleted from original.)
Several phone calls to the Secret Service public affairs office about the threat to Romney, who is under their protection, over the past few days have not been returned. Detailed messages of inquiry were left with the voicemail of spokesman George Ogilvie.
A search of news sites shows no articles reporting a Secret Service investigation in to the threat.
Last April, conservative rock musician and outspoken Second Amendment activist Ted Nugent was investigated by the Secret Service within days of making an ambiguous comment about President Barack Obama.
There has been no statement from the Obama campaign or administration denouncing the threats of violence against the president’s chief political rival and riots by Moore and MoveOn.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

U.S. Army orders its first batch of suicide drones (What CIA needed in Benghazi)

MSNBC ^ | September 6, 2011 | Unattributed

Soldiers who fly hand-launched drone scouts to spot enemies on the battlefield may soon get a deadly robotic device capable of also delivering a knockout blow. The U.S. Army has ordered its first batch of small suicide drones that are capable of launching from a small tube, loitering in the sky and then diving at a target upon command.
The backpack-size "Switchblade" drone and its launch tube give individual soldiers a new level of precise control over an explosive weapon. Rather than calling in supporting artillery fire or airstrikes, soldiers can simply launch the Switchblade from out of sight, confirm a target on a live video feed from the drone, and then command the robotic device to arm itself and fly into the target at high speed.
"The unique capabilities provided by the Switchblade agile munition for standoff engagement, accuracy and controlled effects make it an ideal weapon for today's fight and for U.S. military forces of the future," said Bill Nichols, deputy product director at the Army's Close Combat Weapons Systems project office.
Operators can even call off strikes at the last second after arming the Switchblade. That kind of control allows soldiers to retarget in case an enemy moves out of sight, or avoid collateral damage if a civilian wanders too close.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Coal Barge Flying the Gadsden Flag

President Barack Obama's Concession Speech, Nov. 6, 2012

Imaginary White House ^ | November 6, 2012 | Barck Obama

President Barack Obama's Concession Speech.
White House. November, 6, 2012.

My fellow Americans. Change is part of life. Four years ago I said that “we are the change we are waiting for.” Tonight the American people have decided that they want more change and we respect their choice.
I can’t say that news of this change doesn’t hurt, but we can look with satisfaction on some of our promising proposals that were perhaps so bold that the nation wasn’t ready for them quite yet.
I want to thank all of my supporters for the tireless efforts that they have devoted to move our mission to fundamentally transform America forward. I am asking them to stand down and not lose heart that our hard fought campaign was less than optimal.
Americans are one people who must unite regardless of bumps in the road, like elections that don’t turn out the way that we would like. We will consider this a temporary set back. Our cause endures.
Michelle and I will soon be announcing our next step as we begin to lay the foundation for my presidential library at the Center for Peace and Hope in Honolulu. From this base we will continue to fight for the causes that we hold dear — such as exposing racism, up holding gay and abortion rights and working for a more just society that spreads the wealth around without giving in to the exploitation of the one percenters.
We will lick our wounds and fight on another day —so none of my supporters should be discouraged in the slightest.
About an hour ago, I called Governor Romney to congratulate him for how the vote count turned out. I promised to work closely with him in the next few weeks to create the best transition in American history. And I then sent him this text message and I’ll read it to you:

"It is now apparent that voters have chosen you as the next president. I congratulate you and pledge to you our fullest support and cooperation in bringing about an orderly transition of government in the weeks ahead. May God bless you and your family as you prepare to take the wheel of our ship of state. All I can say is, I hope that you have as good luck as I did".

In some ways, I’ve been the most fortunate of all presidents because I’ve had the daily aid of a wise man and woman at my side, in my judgement the best vice president and secretary of state any head of state ever had, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton!

We have seventy days to complete some final work, such as pardoning those falsely accused by our flawed judicial system and to announce some crucial executive orders that will promote more fairness in this beloved land.

This has been a long and hard campaign as you well know we must come together as a united people. Goodnight and may God bless America.

Historic, unprecedented depravity ^ | 11/3/2012 | Michael Oberndorf

Barack Hussein Obama has once more done things that are, as the Fifth Column Media used to love to call them, historic and unprecedented. This time, however, most of the Fifth Column traitors are trying to cover them up, rather than ram 'em down our throats. I speak, of course, of the unmitigated horror show in Benghazi and the subsequent cover-up by Obama and his administration.

As most conservatives, and even a few leftist Democrats now know, the slaughter of our Libyan diplomatic personnel on September 11, 2012, was completely avoidable. I repeat, completely avoidable, Unlike the deaths of American government employees resulting from Obama and Eric Holder's Fast and Furious gun running scheme, Obama and the lackeys responsible can't claim they couldn't foresee the outcome. In Fast and Furious they figured the guns would just be used to kill Mexicans, so, no problema! But Benghazi is something entirely different.

In spite to the massive efforts to hide and distort the facts by the White House and their running dogs in the Fifth Column Media, the truth regarding the actions of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and others is finally seeing the light of day. And what we are seeing marks the administration's actions as some of the blackest, most twistedly evil deeds ever perpetrated by people in the American government. They are being called by many traitorous, and murder.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Unemployed Big Bird?

Main Street in revolt !

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | November 3, 2012 | Salena Zito

The homemade sign for Mitt Romney in the yard of a well-manicured but modest home in Leadville, Colo., forlornly signals the fracture of another onetime supporter of Barack Obama.
If Romney wins the presidency on Tuesday, the national media, the Washington establishment and the bulk of academia will have missed something huge that happened in “flyover” America under their watch.
It is a story that few have told.
It reminds one of the famous quip by New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael following Richard Nixon’s landslide 1972 victory: “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon.”
Two years after suffering a historic shellacking in the 2010 midterm election, Democrats astonishingly have ignored Main Street Americans’ unhappiness.
That 2010 ejection from the U.S. House, and from state legislatures and governors’ offices across the country, didn’t happen inside the Washington Beltway world.
It didn’t reflect the Democrats’ or the media’s conventional wisdom or voter-turnout models. So it just wasn’t part of their reality.
In Democrats’ minds, it was never a question of “How did we lose Main Street?” Instead, it was the fault of the “tea party” or of crazy right-wing Republicans.
Yet in interview after interview — in Colorado, along Nebraska’s plains, in small Iowa towns or Wisconsin shops, outside closed Ohio steel plants and elsewhere — many Democrats have told me they are furious with the president. Not in a frothing-at-the-mouth or racist way, as many elites suggest. They just have legitimate concerns affecting their lives.
These Main Street Democrats in seven battleground states supported Obama in 2008. Now they are disappointed by his broken pledges: Where is the promised bipartisanship? How could health-care reform become such a mess? What direction is the country going in?
Their overriding sentiment is uncertainty over where the president is taking the country. They have no idea but get the feeling it isn’t the direction that traditional Democrats want.
They certainly haven’t gotten guidance from the president’s re-election slogans: class warfare, a hyphenated America, spreading the wealth around.
Over and over, these folks expressed unhappiness that fixing the economy doesn’t seem to be Obama’s focus; they have noticed that those in charge have high opinions of themselves but aren’t taking responsibility for the lack of progress.
It took Romney just 90 minutes, in a debate hall just a three-hour drive from that Leadville home’s sign, to convince many Americans (including many Democrats) that he passed their threshold test.
He came across as a qualified alternative to Obama who believes in their vision of an exceptional America and convinced them he can win.
And, just like that, “flyover” America was ready to vote its conscience.
What a shame that those from Kael’s “special world” don’t grasp the vicious cycle of their growing disdain for those alienated by their own actions.
They create dangerous narratives through Twitter and on TV that polarize and promote the rigidity of their ideology rather than introspection.
Never once have Main Street Americans heard Washington elites ponder, “What did we Democrats do to lose the confidence of so many voters?”
Plenty of traditional Democrats have voiced such concerns but are not being heard.
Conversely, Romney seems largely to have figured out what he did wrong in 2008 and what George W. Bush did wrong previously.
Obama’s progressivism no longer seems universal, upbeat and forward-looking; instead, it appears divisive, shrill and based on the worst kind of shortsighted power calculations.
Yesterday’s “special world” liberals, such as Kael, could be gently chided for their heart-in-the-right-place, head-in-the-clouds idealism.
Yet it is something else altogether to have today’s arbiters of political correctness order you to march “Forward” to a future with less promise, fewer choices, more intrusive government — and to justify it by telling you to accept that the new normal of high employment, low growth and diminished world influence is good for you.
Is it any wonder that Main Street America is in revolt, since no one is telling its story?
Perhaps election night will tell it, at long last
Read more: Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

Our Long Obama Nightmare Is Almost Over! ^ | 11/4/2012 | Stella Paul

If you're reading this, you've almost made it through the Obama years. God knows it hasn't been easy holding on this long. If you're like me, there were days you felt as if you'd aged ten years, just trying to bitterly cling to your leaky life raft.
Maybe you're one of the 23 million Americans who are unemployed, under-employed, or who have given up looking for work. Who can blame you for despairing, when two-thirds of the jobs in the last four years have gone to new immigrants, many of them illegals? But don't worry if, like one out of six Americans, you're sinking into poverty -- after all, Obama assures us that "the private sector is doing fine."
Maybe you or someone you love is serving in our military. Your lives have been endangered by Obama's disastrous rules of engagement, with 70% of the fatalities in Afghanistan occurring during his term. Every day, you wake up to a commander-in-chief so indifferent to your needs that he let four American heroes die, unaided, in a seven-hour terror attack in Benghazi. Making matters unbearably worse, he watched the assault live. But, rest assured, Obama thinks you make "a pretty good photo op," even if your slaughter is "not optimal."
Or perhaps you lost the business you started with your blood, sweat, and tears, or that your family had nurtured for generations.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Saving Obama


Leading From Behind

Beat it!

Stevie Wonder Obama Rally: Hardly Anyone Showed Up (Less than 200!)

Inquisitr ^ | November 3, 2012

Cleveland, OH — Perhaps because of its last-minute nature, only a small group of people were in attendance this morning for an Obama get-out-the-vote rally featuring legendary music superstar Stevie Wonder giving a free concert.

The event was held at Cleveland State University in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, starting at 9:30 am.
According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Fewer than 200 people showed up to watch Wonder perform a handful of his hits at the early voting event in support of President Barack Obama.”

The Washington Post reports that the crowd was only 50.
The Plain Dealer added that Obama for America Ohio tweeted its 34,000 follower about the event shortly before Wonder took the stage at 10:30.
Even though there was a shuttle bus standing by, Steve Wonder’s performance reportedly did not motivate anyone in attendance to actually head to the polls, however, although apparently many of them had already early voted:
” ‘I do a song. You go vote. You come back. We do some more music,’ [Wonder] said before opening with ‘Sir Duke.’
“No one left to vote after the first — or any — song.”
Stevie Wonder, who recently wrote a new song for the president called “Keep Moving Forward,” performed at a fundraiser for President Obama on October 7. He also joined Katy Perry, Bon Jovi, and Earth, Wind & Fire at a campaign rally on October 21 in Las Vegas. Wonder has also made other campaign appearances for the Obama-Biden ticket.
As a singer, songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist, Stevie Wonder has recorded more than 30 top ten hits and received 22 Grammy Awards, the most ever awarded to a male solo artist. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989.
Do you think in general that it would be better for celebrities and entertainers to steer clear of politics?

The Greater of Evils ^ | November 4, 2012 | Paul Jacob

President Barack Obama is on Tuesday’s ballot, seeking four more years as president of the United States. Like many Americans, I find that prospect deeply troubling — downright scary.

Some say the nation cannot survive another four years of Mr. Obama. Though that belief probably underestimates our resilience as a people, there is something about the Obama Administration that I find more frightening than the menacing administrations of presidents past.

Weeks ago, a friend suggested that we American voters have simply received the government for which we have cast our ballots. The enormous debt foisted on us by the various political gangs in Washington had somehow been all our own idea, and the corruption and cronyism that seems to be the federal government’s standard operating procedure has been a pretty solid reflection of the hopes and desires of the American electorate.

I did not merely beg to differ; I adamantly demanded to differ. The very idea that the federal government’s overspending, overstepping, waste, sloth and corruption had been somehow wished for and even chosen by voters (and was emblematic of the people’s same bad behavior) is patently absurd.

And easily refuted.

So, I began to present the simple case that every president, Republican or Democrat, from Gerald Ford on, had promised not more government, but less. They pledged from both the right and the left to streamline the bloated federal government and to balance the national budget. And they said these things to win our votes:
  • Jimmy Carter defeated President Ford in 1976 with a commitment to pare back the federal bureaucracy and balance the budget. Carter ran into fierce resistance, especially in his own party, and though he managed some important deregulation, the budget only became more out of balance.
  • President Ronald Reagan famously and repeatedly proclaimed, “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” For all his successes, federal government spending grew precipitously during his eight years.
  • George H. W. Bush moved from serving as Mr. Reagan’s Vice-President to the presidency in 1988 with the now infamous line: “Read my lips: no new taxes.” Clearly, he did not think citizens should pay more for more government, but rather that we should pay less for less. Little did the nation know that HW had his fingers crossed when making his pledge.
  • Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 after campaigning on a middle-class tax cut. That cut was quickly abandoned once Clinton took office, alas. Then, two years into his presidency, Mr. Clinton announced, “The era of big government is over.”
  • George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000 on a platform of a more humble foreign policy that would steer clear of nation-building efforts. The idea that he might engage the nation in two wars that would not be paid for except by the simple swipe of the national credit card and stuffing our generation’s IOUs into the diapers of newborns never occurred to anyone.
So, I thought, the record is mighty strong: those seeking to be president have, indeed, promised us a leaner federal government, though their promises have, admittedly, gone consistently unfulfilled. But the people cannot be blamed for being defrauded by lying politicians — especially since our other most notable choice was an equally lying politician or even a once-in-a-while truth-telling but tax-increasing big government politician.

As I detailed, smaller government promises got Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43) elected, though they nevertheless pursued many big government policies once in office. Then, it occurred to me that President Obama is really different.

Sure, Obama did promise a smidgen of “middle-class” tax relief in 2008, though his emphasis then and now is on hiking up taxes on the “wealthy.” He certainly didn’t run against the excesses of Washington. No, he instead sought to make the case that the federal government could and should do more in our everyday lives.

Barack Obama is the first president in my adult life to embrace the idea of a bigger, more intrusive, most costly federal government that does more for you . . . or to you.

When someone builds a big business, Obama is quick to remind us that it could not have been done without the assistance of big government.

Sure, I could quote chapter and verse of Obama’s harmful, disastrous policies from Obamacare to raising taxes, but it is his entire philosophy that government is the answer to every problem (even those created by government) that makes him so frightening.

Note that I’ve not said a word about former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney (as my Mother always instructed). There are only two things Mr. Romney has going for him: hope and change.