Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Final Debate: Romney Solid, Obama … Weird

If you will excuse my sports metaphors and comparisons Mitt Romney reminded me of my beloved New York Giants football team in the final presidential debate of this election cycle Monday night, grinding it out on the ground, and sitting on the lead until the clock runs out and they win.

The key point being, they win; as in last year's Super Bowl.

Romney showed that he has a firm and wide grasp of international relations, refused to be baited into meaningless diatribes or arguments that only serve to make the participants look like buffoons, not presidential candidates, and in the end, didn’t fumble and had no turnovers. In short, he won.

President Barack Hussein Obama on the other hand spent the night mis-characterizing his record on foreign and domestic relations, as though American voters don't have a clue to what is going on and has been for the past four years. And he kept staring at Romney with the weirdest look I have ever seen on a man who is interviewing for a job.

Some in the media are calling it a "Death Stare" apparently intended to offset his performance in the first presidential debate where he hardly looked at Romney at all. Whoever is advising him on debate demeanor apparently decided that staring intently at Romney all night would make up for his failures in the previous debates.

But within five minutes of the beginning of the debate I turned to my wife and said that Obama would lose just on appearances if he kept up the freaky stare. He did. I also told her that Obama reminded me of Snoopy, the dog character in the Peanuts comic strip who sometimes sits in a tree pretending he is a vulture.

Thanks to GETTY IMAGES for the debate photo.

In the end, I believe voters' reaction to the debate will have more to do with how Obama looked than what either man said. 

Try this: tell me what you remember of the vice presidential debate. Was there some defining moment – other than the moderator trying to bail out Joe Biden – in which Biden's light shone so brightly that it carried through the post debate analysis? Or do you remember Biden constantly cackling and solidifying his credentials as the court jester?

After all the pundits have talked themselves blue and out of breath, I believe we will have a similarly enduring image of Barack Obama, a.k.a. the Vulture and, like Biden in the VP debate, it isn't pretty.

There is plenty of Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking going on in the world of punditry with people who have never run for office talking about what they would have done in Romney's place. But if you actually review the transcript of the debate you will see that Romney scored some huge points.

The best, in my opinion, came when moderator Bob Schieffer asked Romney what he would do if he got a call from Israeli officials in the middle of the night saying their bombers already were on the way to hit Iran.

Romney refused to play that game saying bluntly, "I won't get that call." That my friends, was brilliant. It also saved Obama from having to answer that question, but nonetheless, it was Romney who came up with it, on the spot, no preparation, and he scored big on it.

Romney also told Obama that he won't be dealing with Russian premier, president for life, prime minister and dictator Vladimir Putin while "looking through rose-colored glasses," and promising "more flexibility" after the election. (You may remember that Obama got caught making that promise to the Russians when he thought his mike was off.) 

When he is president, Romney said, Putin will encounter "more backbone," in America's relations with Russia.

The worst line of the night came from Obama when he blamed "failed policies" in an obvious reference to his never ending commentary on the previous president, George Bush, for "two long wars." That was just plain stupid.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought because we were attacked by Islamo-fascist extremists who want to defeat the United State, and in fact all of western society, and replace our laws and customs with Sharia, their laws and customs. We fought not because George Bush had bad policies, another part of the Obama mantra with which I disagree, but because we had no choice; it was fight, be enslaved, or die.

If there were failed policies that led to the September 11, 2001 attacks that slaughtered 3,000 Americans they were failures of the Clinton administration. They included leaving our Army Rangers and Delta Force personnel hanging out on a limb in Somalia in 1993 and then turning tail and running away; not taking the opportunity to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden in the late 1990's when we had the opportunities; not retaliating for the bombing of the USS Cole; and sending in the FBI instead of counter-terrorism hit squads when the American military barracks known as the Hobart Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed.

Those were the failed policies, all during the Clinton Administration, that led to the 9-11-2001 attacks, not something that George Bush or Dick Cheney did or didn't do. That one comment from Obama showed that without question he is out of touch, or just plain delusional.

Therein I believe lies the Obama-Biden message for the final days of the campaign. Biden already is on the campaign trail pushing the mantra that America is not in decline, but in fact is ascending. He says Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan "are in denial." Obama said essentially the same thing last night about our status in the wider world.

That position is so ludicrous and so easily disprovable simply by looking around the economic and international landscapes that it seems better to let the administration hang it self with its own rope than to go on about it.

What Biden has been displaying on the campaign trail in recent days, Obama displayed in front of a national television audience. His "two long wars" comment and "vulture" stare, showed the voters everything we need to know to make an intelligent choice on Election Day.

In the final analysis, both Obama and Biden had to win all four debates by a significant margin to convince voters that somehow they can turn around their disgraceful performance of the past four years. In the first debate Obama was taken to the woodshed, and from that point on he and Biden had to resort to theatrics and assistance from moderators whose support ranged from sympathetic questions to outright collusion to break even, much less actually win.

But the voters are not stupid, and we can see the true state of the country – high unemployment, manipulation of jobless statistics, widespread media propaganda including the dissemination of false polling information, and creeping regulation that will cost us all in the long run. On foreign affairs one word can best describe our world status; chaos.

I don't care what the national media has to say about the debate; Romney won on appearances and on points scored. No amount of media propaganda can counter my impression of what I saw and heard, simply because I have faith in my own abilities to make good choices. I saw the whole debate and I know that based on my view of the world, Romney won.

Now it is time for Romney to sit on the lead and run out the clock. (Unless he can get within range of a sure field goal and add a few points to the spread.)
Monday, October 22, 2012

Debate Question: Does Obama Support Sharia Law?

The final debate of this year's presidential campaign season is scheduled for tonight with a focus on foreign affairs and the Obama Administration's foreign relations record.

The administration's changing stories on the deaths of our ambassador and three other Americans at the consulate in Benghazi Libya on Sept. 11 is sure to be a source of debate. But I have another question; does President Obama support Sharia Law?

I am no expert on the Muslim religion but I have gleaned from research on it that Sharia is a system of legal and cultural rules adhered to by devout Muslims that defines not only how they practice their religion but how they live. Many western women are adamantly opposed to Sharia because under that system they are relegated to a status that is lower than livestock, and have virtually no rights.

The recent shooting of a teenaged Afghani girl who was demonstrating in her country in favor of education for females has evoked international outrage and focused attention on Sharia and its implications for future generations. The little Afghani girl was shot by the Taliban, Muslim extremists who were part of the Islamo-fascist conspiracy that led to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and still fight us today.

Sharia imposes restrictions on women's right to be educated, work or even leave their homes unescorted. But Sharia dehumanizes females in far more insidious ways than simply requiring them to be covered from head to foot wherever they can be seen in public; it defines rape in such a way that a woman can almost never prove that she was assaulted, proscribes the approved methodology for wife beating, and even allows women to be stoned to death for crimes such as adultery.

Sharia is the preferred source of government and religious control for extremists in Libya and Egypt where Obama supported the overthrow of existing governments, as well as other Muslim countries. The chaos that now exists in that part of the world is due in part to pro-Sharia forces attempting to gain dominance.

In what Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has labeled Obama's "World Apology Tour" where he bowed to kings and emperors of foreign countries, Obama promised a new era of cooperation with the Muslim world. Does the promise of "cooperation" include the subjugation of women in addition to non-believers?

The imposition of Sharia culture on western women has been clearly demonstrated by attacks on female reporters. A correspondent for France 24 TV was “savagely attacked” near Cairo’s Tahrir Square after being seized by a crowd, the network reported Saturday. The report said that Sonia Dridi was attacked around 10:30 p.m. Friday after broadcasting on a protest at the square. She was later rescued by a colleague and others.

You also may remember that at the height of the so-called Arab Spring, supported by the Obama Administration, Lara Logan, a correspondent for CBS, was sexually assaulted and savagely beaten in Tahrir Square. She said later that she believed she was going to die.

Logan, much to her credit, has not been quiet about what happened to her and what it means for our futures. You may want to take a few minutes to see her recent commentary especially from the 3-minute mark forward.

But we don't have to go to Muslim countries to find examples of Sharia law. We have it right here in the United States in areas such as Dearborn, Michigan, where nearly half the population is now first-generation Muslims. Dearborn has been the scene of clashes between immigrant populations and local Christians, but that is not the only place where these incidents occur.

And although you won't see many reports in the mainstream media, the Internet does have plenty of evidence of "honor killings" by Sharia compliant Muslim males against female family members. These "honor killings" are seen not just as the duty, but the "right" of males to avenge the actions of women family members who attempt to westernize or disagree with the Sharia dictate that their husbands be selected for them.

The message delivered by such incidents is clear; Muslims who believe in Sharia have come to Europe and America not be absorbed in our culture and give their families a chance at a better life, but rather to impose their cultures on us. What I want to know is if Obama's efforts to impose a new era of relations with Muslims whether they be in North Africa, the Middle East, the Far East or Dearborn, Michigan, includes the imposition of Sharia law over state laws and the US Constitution?

Tonight's debate will be moderated by CBS anchor Bob Schieffer and hopefully he will not repeat the debacle caused by Monica – sorry – Candy Crowley who claimed to be the "moderator" in the last presidential debate.

Crowley, who clearly sided with Obama and even lied to the national television audience that was watching, should be aware that she is now to the Obama regime what Monica Lewinsky is to Bill Clinton … without the cigar. Perhaps Schieffer is more cognizant of his legacy and therefore will be more objective.

Politics aside the debates and those involved in them have an obligation to America and the rest of the western world, particularly women, to fully explore these questions. Obama can pull a Joe Biden and laugh it off or Schieffer can pull a Crowley and try to shield Obama from himself.

But the question still remains. Does President Obama support Sharia law? Yes or no is the only answer I want to hear. Anything else is insufficient.
Thursday, October 18, 2012

Bridgeport: The Fix is In … Again!

The comic strip Doonesbury once included a panel that contained the phrase – "It was like spending a night in Bridgeport, only worse."

The strip's creator, Garry Trudeau is a graduate of Yale University - a short trip east on Interstate 95 from the city of Bridgeport - so presumably he knew what he was talking about.

Bridgeport as a city and political entity has long been an easy target for comedians. But in addition to being the butt of jokes, Bridgeport made serious national headlines two years ago when allegations of gross election improprieties – including "discovery" of bags of previously uncounted ballots after the polls were long closed - led to the alleged election of Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy.

Bridgeport’s vote totals weren't available until three days after Election Day, and surprise, surprise they provided just enough of a margin to ensure that Malloy was elected – even though the majority of the rest of the state went for GOP candidate Tom Foley – and that the total was outside the legal margin to require an automatic recount.

Now Bridgeport is back in the news, and once again not in a good way. Last Friday, according to a release from the US Senate campaign of Linda McMahon, Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch was caught on camera laughing while assuring McMahon's opponent, Democrat Congressman Chris Murphy that he will receive a “big turnout in Bridgeport.”

But that wasn't enough, Finch went on to joke to Murphy and a gaggle of tittering followers that “We may come in a couple days late; (but) you can be guaranteed you’re gonna get the vote.” You can watch it here and see the reaction from Murphy and Finch's followers yourself.

This video is disturbing on a number of fronts. First, they obviously are mocking and as far as I can see, validating, Bridgeport's reputation as the Chicago of the East.

Bridgeport is the city where there are more votes cast than there are voters, where the dead rise up and travel to the polls not on Halloween Night but on Election Day, and where the final count will come in days after the election when the exact number needed to sway the election is known.

This may be funny to political insiders, but to me it is no joke. And it shouldn't be a joke to the people who live and work in Bridgeport either.

If this is what we see on the surface we can only imagine what goes on under the covers. Are the city's schools up to par, are the streets in good repair, do the sewer and water departments provide the services the taxpayers deserve, is the police department above reproach? If not, you can see for yourself where the problem begins.

I realize that there are many political insiders who blame the Bridgeport debacle two years ago squarely on the party. The voter registration disparity between Republicans and Democrats is huge, and GOP candidates rarely campaign in Bridgeport unless they are running for a city office. But the video nonetheless gives us an unvarnished look at Murphy and his campaign to be a US Senator; as his opponent calls it a "promotion" from his current job as a US Congressman.

Any serious candidate knows better than to be caught in public – or private – mocking the wisdom of the voters or the integrity of the system. Yet here he is, surrounded by staff and supporters, laughing about the very real possibility of stealing the election.

McMahon's campaign forwarded the video to former Republican State Party Chairman Herbert Shepardson and he in turn sent a strongly worded letter to both Murphy and Finch. Whether that will have any impact on politics in Bridgeport is debatable but at least the issue is out in the open – on the Internet. I haven't seen anything about it in local news reports but that doesn't exactly surprise me.

We have a serious election facing us, statewide and nationally, and even the hint of voter fraud should raise the ire of voters and the media as well as state and national election watchdog agencies. Where is the outrage?

McMahon's campaign released a commercial this week showing Murphy as "a funny guy," who voted against defense funding in a state that relies to a huge degree on the defense industry, but then puts a photo of a Norwegian submarine in his campaign communications.

McMahon has a good point, especially since we already have one comedian in the US Senate, Al Franken, Democratic U.S. Senator from Minnesota and judging from the sparse news we get on that guy, his election – in a hotly disputed vote by the way – was not the best thing to come out of Minnesota. One comedian in the Senate is too many; we don't need another.
What we have here is an issue of character. Murphy's campaign ads show him as a sincere, middle-class family man, with wife and kiddies by his side. But that is not what we see when we get an unscripted and unedited up close view of him in an unguarded moment.

When you peel back the layers of protection he gets from campaign staff and a media that spends all its time looking the other way, you see that he might be a character – and not a likeable one at that. But we don't need a Senator who is a character; we need a Senator who has character. It seems Murphy is sorely lacking in that department.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Romney = The Champ; Obama = Bum O'the Month

You wouldn’t know it from scanning the news today but Mitt Romney took on Barack Obama and Candy Crowley simultaneously in the second presidential debate Tuesday night, and even though Obama pulled a Biden, Romney put a smackdown on his tormentors.

Romney did this despite obvious collusion between the moderator and the Obama camp, both in the types of questions posed to Obama and Crowley's insistence throughout the "debate" that Romney be shut down every time he was scoring points. When these circuses are over, the majority of voters likely will remember best the unceasing efforts by the media to rescue Obama from his own mendacity.

Obama needed to come out looking presidential, after looking like a joke in the last debate. Instead, he alternatively looked petulant or overly aggressive this time, seemed about to nod off on his stool on occasion, interrupted repeatedly, retreated when Romney pressed him, and relied heavily on intervention from Crowley – a propagandist who works for the Communist News Network CNN – to bail him out of tight spots.

Crowley was supposed to be the moderator but it was later disclosed that she screened the questions beforehand, and selected those that would be asked to both candidates. She even involved herself in a blatant effort to rescue Obama from his own foreign relations failures, when Romney was hammering him on the issue of security in Benghazi, Libya.

Romney nailed Obama repeatedly on the failures of his administration while Obama resorted to inaccurate caricatures, warmed over campaign rhetoric, and I can't say it often enough, intervention from Crowley.

Romney for instance, went straight to the president's space when Obama claimed that Romney was lying about Obama's restrictions on oil exploration and production on federal lands and off shore. When Romney quoted the percentage of reductions in oil and gas production Obama shouted "That's not true!"

So Romney questioned what exactly were the right numbers according to the Book of Obama. Instead of answering Obama retreated to rhetoric and tried to change the subject, until Crowley intervened.

That marked the second time this week that Obama hid behind a woman, the first being when Hillary Clinton took full responsibility for the deaths in Benghazi which everyone except Obama groupies took with a grain of salt.

Romney also nailed Obama when Obama brought up the investments Romney's blind trust makes for him, asking Obama if he had looked at the investments made by his own pension fund. Obama for the umpteenth time in the evening, tried to portray Romney as the detached rich guy while Obama is the working class hero - what a joke - but Romney who obviously has looked at Obama's pension more than Obama has, noted that its investments are eerily similar to those made by Romney's blind trust.

But the really big issues where Crowley jumped up to shield Obama from the harsh glare of reality and truth involved gun control and the Libyan debacle.

When a teen in the audience asked Obama what he was going to do to rid the streets of AK-47 rifles Obama gave her the standard gun control rhetoric; but Romney tied the question directly to the Fast and furious scandal. For those who watch network news and don't know what Fast and Furious is all about, it was a program hatched by Obama and his advisers in November 2009 in which they forced firearms dealers along the border with Mexico to illegally sell guns including AK-47s to people representing Mexican drug cartels.

The guns were then transported unimpeded across the border and used against police, civilians, and the drug cartels' competitors. But they also were used to kill a US border agent which led to a Congressional investigation, a finding of contempt of Congress against Obama's Atty. General and Obama invoking executive privilege to prevent Congress from getting any documents that could tie him to the operation.

Crowley, as expected, interrupted Romney and changed the subject, telling Romney at one point "I understand the stakes here. I understand both of you. But I - I will get run out of town if I don't..."

But the final indignity of the evening came when Romney correctly pointed out that Obama didn't call the Sept. 11 attacks on the Benghazi consulate a terrorist incident until weeks later. Romney noted that, instead, Obama and his minions including UN Ambassador Susan Rice repeatedly claimed that the murders resulted from a spontaneous uprising of Muslims who didn't like a critical YouTube video.

Obama, obviously very thin-skinned about the issue and the ongoing cover-up associated with it, interrupted claiming that he said it was a terrorist attack in a 5 minute and 35 second address to the media in the White House Rose Garden on Sept. 12, just before he left to party in Las Vegas with high rolling donors.

Crowley also interjected herself into the debate, telling the audience that Obama was correct, according to the transcript of Rose Garden remarks.

She wasn't accurate at all – the word terror was used in a very general sense at the end of that address but Obama never called the murders the result of terrorists. Here, read it for yourself: As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. 

Yes, the word terror was used at the end of his address, but he did not call the murders in Benghazi a terrorist act then, or for weeks afterward, and in fact went out of  his way to play down that issue and instead blame the obscure anti-Islam video. But I have a larger question than the issue of semantics regarding the Benghazi murders.

Why, of all the things a president says on any given day, all the speeches, off-the-cuff remarks, news releases, and official statements, did Candy Crowley have a transcript of one five minute and 35 second appearance in the Rose Garden? How is it that the moderator of last night's circus had access to just that transcript and how is it that she felt obligated to jump into the fray and lie for the president?

If Obama did one thing right last night it was when he emerged from behind Hillary Clinton's skirts – and Crowley's too – and said he is responsible for the travesty in Libya. Fine, now that we have that settled, let's talk about what Obama also said about Libya: And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.

He stared at Romney as he said that, also referring to being at Andrews Air Force base when the bodies of four Americans were returned home for burial.

What I think is offensive is that our people came home in coffins rather than under their own power after repeated requests were made for beefed up security – and denied – following a series of attacks on US property overseas this summer that received scant media coverage.

I think that if Obama hadn't been such a complete failure across the spectrum of responsibilities as president, those four Americans would not have come home in flag draped coffins that Obama used as a backdrop for his political campaign.

And the picture of those coffins, along with the litany of falsehoods and misinformation that are the hallmarks of the Obama administration, are all the evidence we need that Obama should not spend one second as the president beyond his first term.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Obama Hiding Behind Hillary's Skirts; She Takes Blame for Benghazi

Hillary Clinton has emerged from self-imposed exile in Peru and is taking the blame for the massive failure of security at the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans on September 11, 2012.

Clinton is in Lima speaking on women's issues but her statement is a clear attempt to save Obama's increasingly shriveled bacon on the Benghazi abomination. There was no immediate word on whether she will be fired for incompetence and brought up on charges of dereliction of duty.

However, in appearing to provide a cover story for the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama, Clinton's acceptance of the blame for the debacle actually makes him look that much worse. Where other presidents in his party have "manned up" to take responsibility for what happens in their administrations, including Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman, Obama has run for cover, hiding behind Clinton, his Secretary of State.

Considering that Obama is already on the hot seat to improve on his appalling performance in the first presidential debate against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Obama now will have the added burden of explaining how he was out of touch, out of the loop, out of a backbone and why he shouldn't be out of the office of president.

In her capacity as Secretary of State Clinton took responsibility for the security lapses that resulted in the murders of American personnel, saying the entire issue is all her fault. Sorry, Hillary, I'm not buying it.

You can delegate authority but not responsibility. Clinton works for Obama, she was selected by him to be his Secretary of State and now he is faced with another ticklish issue; how to respond to her statement.

Obama is under fire from within and without to explain why and how our consulate was subjected to a coordinated attack without appropriate American security on the scene, and why an ambassador, another staff member and two former Navy SEALS who came to help the embattled diplomats were killed. Obama and his minions also have been tripping all over each other with conflicting stories about what happened, who knew it, when they knew it and what they said about it.

Obama's administration has been accused, with a reasonable amount of reliability, of covering up what really happened after it became apparent that desperate pleas for increased security personnel in Muslim countries in the months before the attack were denied.

The first official report was that the consulate in Benghazi was attacked as part of a spontaneous uprising of Islamo-fascists across the Muslim world who supposedly were angry because some guy living in California made an insulting video about their religion several months earlier. That story was known to be false immediately because U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens entertained another dignitary at the consulate the evening of the attack and less than an hour before the attack the street out front was quiet.

But less than an hour later a full-scale coordinated assault was underway, as evidence by messages that came from inside the consulate and videos showing heavily armed men outside with weapons ranging from automatic rifles and rocket launchers to mortars. Despite claims from administration apologists to the contrary, weapons of that type are not synonymous with spontaneous street demonstrations which usually involve rocks and burning tires.

In the weeks following the attacks the Obama Administration issued several conflicting stories of what happened, all designed to make it appear that someone other than the president bore the responsibility for his dismal performance on foreign relations.

Then, last week, during the vice presidential debate, vice president Joe Biden took a minute to stop cackling like an aging witch and claimed that "We did not know" that security personnel had been asking for stepped up security in the region, especially in the wake of several previous attacks on US facilities this summer. That statement was met with incredulity across the political spectrum and Obama's efforts to insulate himself failed miserably, resulting in Clinton's astonishing statement that she is at fault.

So now the airwaves are full of questions about what this all means and what impact it will have on the debate tonight. Some are saying that tonight Obama will use Clinton's admission of guilt to step up and say no, it was his fault and he won't let her shoulder the blame for him.

Nice theory but I don't agree. It is not exactly a political secret that Obama and the Clinton's don't like each other, and Hillary stands to take far more away from this than Obama. Either way, everyone knows it is ultimately his fault so no matter what he says now, no one is going to believe him except his usual stooges and they don't matter.

Hillary could use her "team player" approach in her own bid for the presidency four years from now, but for the moment, her statement serves only to further divide the already divided Democrat Party and further confuse an issue for which confusion is not an acceptable definition.

Someone said on a morning news show today that Mitt Romney can't afford to make a major mistake tonight! Seriously? Romney? Have you ever seen a man more in control of himself?

I don't think Romney's performance tonight is the big question. I think Obama's performance is the issue; will he accept Clinton's "admission of guilty" and if so will he fire her? 

Or will her try to appear all noble and chivalrous and take the blame instead, which only serves to give us what we wanted in the first place, a president doing his job instead of living it up on the taxpayers' money and leaving the country to people we don't know who were never elected.
Friday, October 12, 2012

VP Debate: Was Biden High, or Just Drunk?

Note to Joe Biden: America is laughing at you not with you!

Biden, appearing in the only vice presidential debate of this election cycle against challenger Paul Ryan Thursday night, put in the most reprehensible, inane, inept, deceitful and juvenile debate performance I have witnessed at that level going back to the 1960s. I really did have to ask myself whether the man who holds the title Vice President of the United States went out to meet his challenger under the influence of alcohol or drugs; he was that bad.

From the very outset he appeared to be attempting a Cheshire Cat imitation, flashing a diabolical grin every time Ryan began speaking, supplementing his facial contortions with laughter, sighs, humphs and interruptions. I actually was shocked that he didn't resort to sticking out his tongue at Ryan.

I could say that Biden was worse than an out-of-control third grader but that would be an insult to out-of-control third graders. In the end, he succeeded only in emphasizing the win that presidential candidate Mitt Romney scored on Biden's boss, Barack Hussein Obama, last week.

Biden came across as an angry old man, jealous of Ryan, unprepared or unaware, or both, and most important in these debates, highly unlikeable. Where Romney was successful in contrasting his experience with Obama's inexperience last week, Biden was successful only in displaying himself as cantankerous.

"A cranky old man," was the description a close associate used in connection with Biden's performance - and that was before he really got going!

For a man who has spent the last four years one heartbeat away from what used to be the most powerful public office in the world, Biden was stunningly unprepared with real facts, relying instead on warmed over campaign rhetoric. It appears that Obama has been keeping Biden deep in the bowels of the new bunker that the president had built off the West Wing of the White House in the past year.

When caught with the facts of the debacle in Libya last month in which four Americans, including the ambassador were murdered by Islamic terrorists, Biden blamed it all on poor or inaccurate reports from American intelligence agencies and the State Department. 

Another note to Biden: The buck stops with you and your boss.You can delegate authority but not responsibility and that Mr. Vice President - and Mr. President - makes it your problem and your fault and you can stop blaming the rest of the world for your inadequacies.

When the moderator, who spent the night running interference for Biden and helping him interrupt Ryan when the latter was scoring points, noted that Biden was spreading misinformation about the premature draw down of American forces from Afghanistan, Biden blamed the Joints Chiefs of Staff. Then Biden, who according to a preliminary analysis got more time to speak than Ryan, had the temerity to complain that he wasn't getting enough time to get his points across.

I guess that goes without saying when you are making things up and trying to keep your lies straight.

When Ryan pointed out that the remaining American troops in Afghanistan are being tasked with the same jobs, but at significantly reduced strength, which puts them in increased danger, Biden snapped that "They came to us first," referring to the Joint Chiefs. If that statement is even half true, the entirety of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be fired immediately and face courts martial for treason.

Biden's performance was, in fact, so horrendous that the Republican Party should pay a performance bonus to the people who were involved in his debate preparation. When he wasn't making a mockery of the process he was sticking his finger in the moderator's face, or pounding the table in frustration.

About the only criticism I have for Ryan is that he should never have said he agreed with Biden on anything – which he did in part regarding the situation in Syria. Personally I think the Obama Administration has been so bad for America and our allies across the globe that there is nothing from it that is worth salvaging.

When Romney and Ryan are sworn in on Inauguration Day they should make the complete dismantling of the Obama-Biden travesty their first order of business.

In the post-debate discussions, some were saying that Ryan was too respectful and that by not lowering himself to Biden's sewer dweller tactics he appeared to be conceding points to Biden. I respectfully disagree.

All Ryan had to do, to amply display the difference between the respect he and Romney have for America, and the disdain in which Obama-Biden hold our country and our government was to let Biden run his big mouth, which he did at every opportunity. Biden was his own worst enemy, and the best example voters could hope for in contrasting the two teams of candidates.

And maybe some will have to go back and watch reruns of the debate, but Ryan had his own subtle way of needling Biden. I noted that when the debate began Ryan called Biden "Mr. Vice President," but by the time it was all over it was simply "Joe." That is called "intelligence" and truly educated people will understand what Ryan was doing.

Personally I think Ryan could have referred to Biden as Curly, Larry or Moe and he would have been right on the mark.

In the end, by itself, the vice presidential debate probably won't be the defining factor in this year's election. By this time next week the talking heads will be all focused on next week's presidential debate.

But the debate last night certainly will have some impact on people who needed to see for themselves exactly who has been running this country into the ground for the past four years. Last night they got all they needed to see the origins of the horrendously flawed and failed policies of the Obama-Biden administration.

If there is a silver lining in this four-year cloud, I guess it would be that we are nearly at the end of the Obama-Biden reign of terror and nothing untoward has occurred that would put Obama out of office, necessitating that Biden step in as president.

Considering how bad things are under Obama's stewardship, we can only shudder when we think how much worse it could be with a deplorable jackwagon like Biden at the helm.
Thursday, October 04, 2012

Romney – Chairman of the Board; Obama – Intern

Mitt Romney showed America why he is successful running major organizations ranging from international businesses to the Olympics in his first debate with Barack Obama Wednesday night – and why he will equally successful as our next president.

Romney was totally at ease in his role as Chairman of the Board, with a firm grasp of the issues facing our country, while Obama, playing the part of the smarmy intern who thinks he's as smart as his mommy told him, was reduced to ineffective campaign sound bites.

In a free ranging debate that showcased Romney's wide grasp of issues and his toughness – which the media is inaccurately blaming on moderator Jim Lehrer – Romney won hands down. Frankly, although Lehrer didn't always stick to the rigid timetable established for the debate I think we got a far better look at both candidates and how they act when they have to think on their feet.

For years the media has portrayed Obama as a tough, street-smart, capable intelligentsia but last night he came across as timid, bumbling, inaccurate and inept. I wrote yesterday that the media already had ready-made excuses for a poor performance, but frankly, he was so bad that even the in-the-tank media was embarrassed.

Even Obama's attempt to blame everything that is wrong with America on the oil companies fell flat, especially when Romney noted that Obama has provided incentives to bankrupt 'green' energy companies that equates to 50 years of oil company incentives – and could have created jobs for 2 million teachers.

I suppose Romney also could have smacked Obama on his cozy relationship with General Electric and that firm's non-payment of taxes, but Romney doesn't really want to hurt any business; his whole point is getting everyone back on track.

The best example of the extent of Romney's victory was the lack of debate commentary on my web provider's home page, which can be counted on each morning to bombard me with pro-Obama drivel. In fact, rather than anything remotely resembling an analysis the headline on my home page was Debate Fact Check. Really.

But facts are facts and last night Romney had them, Obama did not.

Had the narcissist-in-chief even done marginally well we could reasonably have expected him to be shouting from the rooftops "Look at me! I'm great! I've got this country so under control I can kick butt in a presidential debate with no preparation at all. I can beat this guy with one hand tied behind my back. Whoopee, I AM the man!"

So now we have the next debate to look forward to, which Obama's handlers already are saying is in the bag for him because it will be in a town hall format, where people from the audience get to ask the questions. This is Obama's forte, the reasoning goes; "he is so much better in one-on-one exchanges with the working people," forgetting of course that for at least the last six years the media has been portraying Obama as the best debater and best orator since Socrates, regardless of the format.

And guess who selects the people in the audience, those who will be asking the questions, all of whom are supposed to be unaffiliated voters? The Gallup polling organization, that's who, the one that is being sued by the Obama Justice Department because Obama didn't like the poll numbers that Gallup was reporting on the presidential race.

I guess both sides could claim that the federal lawsuit could bias the selection in the other guy's favor, but the fact is, Gallup has a conflict of interest due to Obama and shouldn't be in the mix at all.

Nonetheless, I expect Romney to do just fine in that format. He has been on the campaign trail for years now, dealing with supporters, cynics, and hecklers. Romney's greatest asset is his grasp of the facts, which doesn't come from campaign ad sound bites, but from reality. As long as Romney can articulate those facts as well in future encounters as he did last night, the format is pretty much irrelevant.

In truth, the debates probably will have no more of an impact on the electorate than they have in previous presidential races, which often is little to none. Since all the debates will be moderated by a member of the liberal mainstream media, meaning every debate will be moderated by a pro-Obama volunteer, each debate is automatically stacked against Romney from the outset.

But in the final analysis, the person who caught the most flack after last night's debate was not Romney, and not even Obama, but rather Lehrer. I suppose we can expect the next moderator to be even more strident in her support for Obama, but I can just about guarantee that will backfire on the moderator more than on Romney.

(I have no idea why the Republican National Committee or the Romney campaign permitted this scenario, especially when every national news organization is taking part in the massive fraudulent poll scam showing Obama way ahead of Romney that is being perpetrated on the voting public.)

Nonetheless, for the moment, it is Romney way, way out in front, and as one commentator said today, last night proved that the emperor – Obama – is not wearing clothes.  Maybe by the next event his handlers can dress him up, although they still will have to wonder if they can take him out.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Executive Orders vs. Lawful Orders; The REAL Presidential Debate

The Internet is alive with claims about President Obama's excessive use of Executive Orders to circumvent Congress and the Constitution, with a common fear expressed that he is attempting to set the stage for an American dictatorship whether or not he is thrown out by the voters next month.

Much of what I have read lately, particularly on the number of EOs the president has signed is patently false, but I have major concerns about the potential impact of just one. On March 16 this year Obama signed the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order which actually does give him the powers of a dictator should he declare a national emergency.

The existence of this EO was brought to my attention through a newsletter from Texas Congresswoman Kay Granger alerting her constituents of its potential to disrupt and discard our entire government. The order outlines the Obama administration's authority to take over production and distribution of energy supplies, construction materials, food and water, transportation – military and civilian, and health resources.

The executive order also gives Obama surrogates the authority to draft people into the military and to develop programs that will lead to "effective utilization and distribution of labor," which in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba and other communist regimes amounted to forced labor camps. He also gives himself power over civil transportation which "includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate or foreign commerce with the United States it territories and possessions …"

Under that Executive Order Obama also can "stockpile" materials and supplies like food if the government requisitions them and then decides it doesn’t need them right away. Do you know who else did that?

Joseph Stalin did it in the Ukraine in 1932-33. He "stockpiled" virtually the entire annual harvest of the Ukraine that year – in Russia – and created a famine that killed an estimated 10 million people - possibly more.

Think it can't happen here? Then why has the "stockpile" of high-powered hollow point bullets being amassed by the Department of Homeland Security grown from the 450 million rounds I wrote about last month to more than 1.4 billion? Obama's "stockpile" of ammo also now includes hundreds of thousands of rounds of sniper rifle ammo.

So how will Obama enforce an executive order of this magnitude and if it was so necessary why didn't he issue it when he first took office and we still were fighting the War on Terror on two fronts? And how will the average American citizen react?

There is quite a bit of speculation that Obama's surrogates will create a false emergency, ranging from a faked assassination attempt to riots that will erupt when he loses the election. The excuse for the riots will be that the election was stolen and the basis for that will be the false polls disseminated by the media that show him far ahead of Mitt Romney when in reality he is trailing Romney, swing states and all.

That in turn will give Obama the reason he needs to declare martial law and put into effect all the means necessary to create his dictatorship.

What can prevent this? Two entities come to mind; first would be the refusal of loyal American government workers who know the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship to go along with his plan, and the second would be the American military.

Many of my friends believe that the majority of our state and federal workers would never participate in such a heinous plot. I would like to agree but I also am forced to point out that about 100 million people who now are dead thought the same thing in Russia, Nazi Germany, Red China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere.

The second deterrent to an Obama dictatorship is the American military. There are numerous roadblocks to military involvement, such as Article 18 of the US Code – Posse Comitatus which prohibits federal troops from deploying into the individual states unless there is a request from the state governor, the legislature, or an outbreak of insurrection – including nuclear, chemical or biological warfare.

But since every member of the military took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies "foreign and domestic" and since usurping that Constitution would make the usurper a domestic enemy there could be room for the military to intervene. But what would the commanders say?

I'm not sure. Last month the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called a private citizen and gave him a lecture – or threat – on his support of the guy who made the anti-Islam video that Obama blames for the deaths of the American ambassador in Libya, so I'm not overly confident of what the top people would do or whether they would follow the commander-in-chief even if he was issuing illegal orders.

I also read a lot of current military literature and am well aware that dozens upon dozens of senior commanders are being fired from their services, often on allegations that don't hold up – such as creating a hostile work environment – which is pretty much anywhere you go in a war zone. That means that further down the line field grade commanders are going to have to make decisions on just what constitutes a lawful order, and what to do when they are faced with an illegal order. (Please see the Nuremberg Trials.)

The mere existence of this executive order once again shows that there is so much in the world of politics and the media that is portrayed as real when in fact it has very little to do with reality.

Tonight's debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is a classic example. The Obama campaign staff members – posing as journalists in virtually every major domestic news outlet – have been floating the story that Obama is going into the debates with little in the way of preparation behind him. They are giving us this nonsense even though he has been LIVING the events we only read about – when the media lets us – for nearly four years now.

The back story is that Obama is so busy – fixing nearly four years worth of screw ups I guess – that he can't take time to properly prepare. Actually this either gives him a ready-made excuse should the president come across poorly or a ready-made victory speech if he does well.

Frankly, I think he isn't concerned with whether he is considered a winner or loser. If he gets his national emergency and enacts his National Defense Resources Preparedness order, it really won't matter how the debates go, or how the election goes for that matter.

The media already can be counted on to declare Obama the overwhelming winner regardless of how he performs. And you can bet the debate questions won't be on his executive orders.
The debates are just another diversion in a long history of diversions, and the American public is once again left to worry about whether we get a real election, or a fair election, and what will happen once it is over.

All I can say is God Save the Republic.


hypoctite sm

Granny Snatching


Signed author copies


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon

Masters of the Art

Masters final cover
Personalize inscription


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon and Barns & Noble

Blog Archive





Popular Posts