"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Pakistan Government Declares National Holiday For Protesting America

Will Malven

Exactly how badly President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been at conducting our foreign policy has, over the past week, been coming into clearer focus.  Now, we have an additional datum to broaden our insight and understanding.

Here's a clue:  They SUCK!

When President Obama descended from heaven and assumed his heavenly throne, in the White House, we were told, mostly by him and his acolytes in the press, that it would be a new day in American foreign policy and that President Obama would renew and reinvigorate our relations with nations in the Middle East.  We were assured that President Obama was singularly qualified to do so because of his (SHHHH!!!  Hush now, don't say this too loudly) early, Muslim education in Indonesia.

We were told that President Obama would "Restore respect for America around the world."

. . . umm, yeah, I see what they mean . . . I think.
  • Putin falls into paroxysms of laughter every time Obama's name is mentioned.*
  • Former French President, Sarcozy joked about waiting for Obama to "walk on water."
  • Iran has pretty much ignored Obama's protests and repeated warnings.
  • Pakistan is further from being a friend of America than it has been in 2 decades.
  • Iraq just allowed Iranian military aid and troops to pass through their territory on their way to fight in Syria, on the side of Assad.
  • Afghanistan has deteriorated to the point that our entire mission has now become moot.
And now, the entire Middle East has exploded in a fit of anti-American sentiment the likes of which we haven't seen in some time with four American's killed in an al Qaeda planned and executed attack in Benghazi . . . against which we had been forewarned.

The fact is, Obama's foreign policies (such as they are) have been as pathetic a failure as has his domestic agenda.  Summed together, it leads to the inevitable conclusion that Obama is (as conservatives have been saying for some time) a complete failure.

His failure was as inevitable.  You can't get blood from a turnip and the turnip Obama had no previous, applicable experience in his entire life to qualify him for being President--NOTHING.

How can anyone be surprised at his failure?  He was and still is the least qualified, least experienced, least talented, least capable guy in the room . . . well there was that one time he gave a speech in front of a bunch of grammar school kids, surely some of them were less prepared to be President than he.

America is now reaping the foreign policy rewards for electing Obama, just as we have been paying for that mistake domestically for 3 1/2 years . . . it just takes the FP pot longer to boil.  Problem is, when that FP pot begins to boil, the consequences can be very unpredictable and very, very unpleasant.

He has been such a disaster that one must wonder if Obama's alternative to winning has been to sour the milk so badly that nobody could fix it.

Romney and his team had better be prepared to start running day one, because Obama has left a nightmare's nest.  He couldn't have sabotaged our nation more if that had been his intent from day one.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

*Okay, I made that one up, but I'll bet it's closer to the truth than not.

White House FINALLY Admitting Truth On Those Premeditated Riots

Will Malven

Gee, are we FINALLY beginning to get straight information coming from the White House?  Well, partially anyway.  I don't know about Jay Carney's spin, but Matt Olsen Director of the National Counterterrorism Center has now come out and clearly stated:
"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."
Here's Guy Benson's take:

White House: Actually, Maybe the Benghazi Raid Was a Terrorist Attack After All

Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com

Today's the 20th, so they've been pushing the "spontaneous protest" line for more than a week, despite reams of evidence and basic common sense. Nine days into this disaster, the truth emerges:
"Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved. That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act. "Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday."
Why has the Obama administration finally begun to admit what everyone has either suspected or outright stated for days? Three possibilities: (1) They wanted to give the president as much political protection as possible while the story was red hot -- before the media moved on to obsessing over a statement from Mitt Romney not related to the government's bungled response to security breaches at multiple Middle Eastern diplomatic outposts. Now that the press' Gaffewatch 2012 sights are trained on '47 percent,' it's politically safer to quietly admit, "Okay, yeah, our ambassador was murdered in a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 due to mind-blowing security negligence. But how 'bout that secret video taken of Romney in May?" Just how bogus was the "spontaneous protest" rubbish? C'mon:
A Libyan security guard who said he was at the U.S. consulate here when it was attacked Tuesday night has provided new evidence that the assault on the compound that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was a planned attack by armed Islamists and not the outgrowth of a protest over an online video that mocks Islam and its founder, the Prophet Muhammad. The guard, interviewed Thursday in the hospital where he is being treated for five shrapnel wounds in one leg and two bullet wounds in the other, said that the consulate area was quiet – “there wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.

(cont'd at link)

I agree with Guy completely here. This has been nothing but a cover-up by the Obama Administration, in cooperation with the complicit media in maintaining the absurd story that the unrest in the Middle East is occurring, because of a film clip that no one has seen. The premise is ludicrous in the face of the evidence . . . and it has been from about 12 hours after the attack in Libya.

Anyone who has paid close attention to what was happening in the Middle East knew that what the White House and Jay Carney were spinning was complete BS intended to deflect from the inescapable conclusion that the President Obama's Middle East Agenda has been an absolute failure.

This has always been about his failure to lead. He failed to lead in the Libyan uprising last year, waiting until Ghaddafy's forces had killed or driven off most of the legitimate freedom fighters and left the resistance in the hands of the more radical and highly motivated Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda operatives.

It was the same M.O. that he used in NOT dealing with the failing health and growing weakness of President Mubarak and in not making any effort to have a presence in Egypt, again enabling the more radical groups to gradually rise to the top of the resistance movement.  Power abhors a vacuum.

It might be that the more radical elements, being more motivated than others would still have risen to the top, but it's not a certainty and without our intervention and stabilizing presence, the likelihood of radical Islamists taking control was greatly increased AND as we now know, the new Egyptian President, Morsi is a radical member of the Muslim Brotherhood who has called for disturbing changes in foreign policy--including the re militarization of the Sinai Peninsula.

Read the article at the link, I like what Benson says here and I believe it is true.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Is "Likability" Killing Romney?

Will Malven

Is "likability," or the lack there of, the missing factor in this race? 

Mitt Romney is imminently qualified to be President--far more qualified than the President is, even today, and he is laughingly so when compared to the joke candidacy of Barack Obama back in 2008 (unfortunately, the joke ended up being on all Americans).

So, what is the problem?  Why is Mitt Romney, a man with a very impressive record of success and accomplishment, so far superior to that of Barack Obama that the comparison is laughable, why is he behind in almost all of the polls.  Why is this disaster of a President--clearly the worst President for the American people in the past 60 years--leading in the polls?

A number of factors are in play, not the least of which is the extreme efforts that the mainstream media have put into bolstering and promoting this President and the lengths to which they have gone to protect him from the same level of scrutiny they focus on other candidate.

However, one of the most important factors, one that seems to be ignored by many, is  . . . well, let's face it . . . MITT ROMNEY IS NOT A "LIKEABLE" GUY.

I don't like him.  I didn't like him the first time I saw him and I haven't liked him since.  Perfect hair, perfect smile, perfect family, perfect tan . . . if I saw him on a used car lot I would run, not walk, in the opposite direction. Mitt Romney exudes that "used car salesman" personality. 

Romney also exudes that "high-up on the corporate ladder" feel, you know, those guys that you rarely see in the hallway who run the whole operation and who have all the apparent warmth of a winter night in Minot North Dakota (you usually run into them just as you're returning from using the copy machine to promote your football party) .

Combine that "feel" with his squeaky-clean, holier-than-thou life-style that Mormons live (no smoking, no drinking, no coffee--no life) and you have a very steep hill to climb in convincing people to like you. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he's a great guy.  Mormons usually are "great guys" (and "gals").  They have no vices, they tend to be very devout and moral, but . . . they tend to be about half-a-bubble off when it comes to being average Americans. 

Most adults have smoked cigarettes at sometime--even once--in their lives.  Most adults have swilled a few adult beverages in their lives, and coffee is the life-blood of our society.  Most people have done all that and more, which makes relating to the Mormon life-style all the more difficult for most Americans. 

I think that, in America, one can be "too perfect," too squeaky-clean.  The American people like a little dirt--not much--not anything too far outside the bounds, but a little something that brings home their humanity . . . something that makes them accessible.  The reaction to Tim Tebow reflects that same discomfort.  People like him well enough, they just don't relate to him

Yes I'm generalizing and no that's not fair, but stereo-types are based on reality--no matter how much the political correctness police try to say otherwise.

The third strike against him also touches on the "likability" factor, and that is his perceived lack of optimism. 

People are attracted to optimism--if you don't think so, look back at the Reagan/Carter race.  Reagan gave us "that shining city on the hill," Carter gave us "malaise" which came to characterize his administration.

In the clip of Romney that Mother Jones released yesterday showing Mitt speaking at a donor's meeting, gives us an image of a man who isn't positive.  Instead of optimism which says "Yes 47% of voters are arrayed against us from the start, but I believe we can win their hearts and minds with the right message," Romney's take was . . . "Well, I can't win their support, so I won't worry about convincing them, I'll just have to focus on winning the others."

Does anyone remotely believe that Ronald Reagan would have uttered those words?  Reagan was the ultimate optimist--he was a realist as well, but he had an innate confidence IN AMERICA, he had faith in our system and in our economic model.  Ronald Reagan believed in American and it was evident in everything he said or did as President.

I'm sure Mitt Romney loves this country.  I'm sure he has faith in our system.  I'm even certain he's a nice guy.  The problem is, it doesn't shine through. 

Mitt Romney believes that America can and will come back.  Mitt Romney believes that all Americans are important.   Mitt Romney believes that building a business friendly environment will return America back to it's position as world-leader.  He believes in all the right things . . .

. . . I THINK.

And therein may lie the real likability problem; Americans also like men of conviction.  It matters less what you believe than that you appear to believe it whole-heartedly.  Romney lacks core political values.

Somewhere along the line Romney made the decision that success in politics is more important that what one believes.  It is therefore not surprising that Romney has been all over the map on many issues, depending on to which audience he was speaking.  Pro-abortion rights, anti-abortion rights.  Pro-state-run healthcare, anti-state-run healthcare, pro gun laws, anti-gun laws . . . if people can't figure out where you stand, then maybe you're not standing anywhere . . . and people don't like that either.

The bottom line is that Romney's problems go way beyond the issues--in fact, most Americans agree with him on the issues.  Poll after poll show the American people favor conservative principles over those the Democrats offer.  The disconnect here is "likability."

That is a gap that I'm not certain Mitt can close.  Is it enough to defeat him?  I don't know, but it certainly doesn't accrue to his benefit.

Just my take.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

DHS Now Says Cairo Embassy Had Two Day Warning Of Possible Violence

Will Malven

Okay, I know the ambassadorial mission in Benghazi was the one that was torched, but the DHS has released a report stating that the embassy in Cairo was warned 2 days before the riots began, that there were threats of violence and possibly burning down the embassy by members of an Egyptian terrorist group demanding the release of the "blind sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman."  From Fox News:

DHS report warned last week of call for 'burning the embassy down' in Cairo

By Catherine Herridge
Published September 19, 2012
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."

The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi.

Though the administration's version of events is still evolving, the three-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report further highlights potential threats that were being picked up before last week's attack.

(cont'd at link)

This destroys the Administration's claim of no prior warning, and of no premeditation.  Obama's own DHS sent the warning to the embassy in Cairo.

This also destroys the assertion by Obama, et al that these riots were in response to the alleged film that no one's seen.  This warning explicitly states that the threat was intended to force the release of the blind sheik.  Like the chant coming from the crowds in Cairo,
There is absolutely NO mention of any film . . . again.

As I have said from the outset, the film is a red-herring, it is the complete failure of Obama's Middle East foreign policy agenda that lies at the heart of these riots and protests.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Fast And Furious: Eric Holder Declares "Ego Me Absolvo"

Will Malven

Did you ever wonder what the results of a criminal investigation would be if we just allow the suspect to conduct the investigation?  Well, that is essentially what just happened over at OUR Department of Justice.

Eric Holder's Department of Justice has just issued a report clearing Eric Holder of any involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal (and thereby automatically absolving President Obama and his entire White House Posse at the same time).  Isn't that just peachy?

I'll bet John Wayne Gayce would have liked to have been the investigator of his heinous crimes too.

In a sad display of cynicism rarely matched in our political history, this administration has been turning the truth on its head since day one, solely for political gain.  We have a justice department that uses (abuses) its power to harass it's critics while it ignores crimes possible crimes, the investigation of which might cause embarrassment of the Obama Administration.

We have an IRS that investigates those who criticize the Obama White House and now, with the healthcare reform act just given Supreme Court blessings, it will monitor EVERY CITIZEN to ensure their compliance.
What a pathetic joke this Obama White House and the Democrat Party have made of our entire federal government. Small wonder that the electorate has become cynical and disinterested (which, of course, has always been the intent of the ruling elite).

Since AP initially broke the story, I'll have to source it with Katie Pavlich at TownHall.  They're not so draconian in the copyright enforcement.

BREAKING: Fast and Furious Inspector General Report Released

Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

The Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice has released a 400 page report, concluding the internal DOJ investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. Current IG Michael Horowitz will present key findings in the report tomorrow during a Congressional Oversight hearing on Capitol Hill. Horowitz took over the IG position in March when former IG Cynthia Schnedar stepped down. Schnedar, who did the bulk of the work in the report, is a long time friend of Attorney General Eric Holder and worked for him during his time as U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C.

DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, who played a heavy role during Fast and Furious and in its scandalous aftermath, submitted his resignation just moments ago.

(cont'd at link)
Just hearing this makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It is such a relief to hear that The Eric Holder Department of Justice has absolved Attorney General Eric Holder of any involvement.

Isn't that sort of like asking a conclave of foxes if they had been materially involved in pilfering chickens from the hen house?

I'll bet John Wayne Gacy wishes he had been the investigator in his crimes . . . in fact I'll bet all criminals would like to be in charge of their own criminal investigations . . . think of all the (other) "innocent" people who would be freed from prison.

Sadly for the criminals (but lucky for us) they don't get to do that.  One must be a liberal politician for the mainstream media allow that.  Only Democrat politicians are allowed to get away with committing civil and possible criminal acts without paying any price.

Glad to see (in that same article) that Daryl Issa isn't having any of it.  His statement is there on Katie's page--read it, it's terrific.

" Holder declared innocent by Holder" . . . yeah, that about sums it up.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Jay Carney Backpeddaling Denials Of Premeditation In Embassy Attack

Will Malven

You had to know this was coming, all the intellectual dishonest last week as the White House attempted to quell criticism in the press by sticking to the laughably implausible assertion that all of the unrest in the Middle East was due to a film that [almost] no one has seen, even as the President and his supporters spent the entire convention and the past year boasting to the world from the Presidential podium about how President Obama was the one who "brought Osama bin Laden to justice" by killing him.


Joe Biden suggested that as a bumper sticker and Democrats and the Obama campaign jumped on it.  Fine and dandy, I think it was a good thing too, but I don't need to be reminded of it in the midst of a global war on terror--AND NEITHER DO THE MUSLIM RIOTERS.

So now, after almost a week of living in Wonderland, Jay, Barry, and the boys and girls in the White House have finally been forced back to reality--not by their adoring MSM, but by the unrelenting tide of facts coming out of investigations into these attacks.  Here's the YahooNews article:

White House: Libya attack may have been planned

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 20 hrs ago

The White House on Tuesday explicitly left open the possibility that last week's dramatic attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens dead, was a planned attack.

Press secretary Jay Carney suggested the assault could have been the work of an armed group looking to "take advantage" of demonstrations he blamed on an anti-Islam video available online.

Carney repeatedly described that footage as the "precipitating" cause of the protests and the violence targeting American diplomatic posts in Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Tunisia and elsewhere.

(cont'd at link)
Of course, they're not prepared to go all the way to admitting that the entire attack was premeditated, because that would then lead to the inescapable conclusion that the foreign policy agenda President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been pursuing vis-a-vis the Middle East has been an utter and unmitigated disaster.

If they can't lay the blame for the uprisings on the film and it's producer, then the Obama Administration would be forced to admit that it's policies have failed to build the kind of close relationship with Middle Eastern nations that Obama predicted and promised back when he was inaugurated.

Obama's handling of foreign policy has already taken a huge hit even according to the WSJ/NBC poll (the one released today giving Obama a solid 5% lead).  President Obama's approval on foreign policy dropped from 54% down to 49%.  Among the important "Independent Vote," the fall is even more precipitous, standing at 13%.

This contest is far from over and the Republicans need to continue to press forward against the lies of the Obama/Democrat/MSM political machine.  The more the facts get out and into the heads of voters, the more likely Romney is to win.

Democrats want the race run on emotion for the simple reason that they can't defend their record.  Republicans want to run on facts, because the more informed the voters are as to the reality of Obama's failures, the more likely they are to vote for Romney.

Romney still must "make the sale" to the voting public.  He needs to get Stewart Stevens either to acquiesce to a more aggressive style, or fire him and get someone who knows how to run a campaign based on conservative principle.

The contrast that can be drawn between what Romney stands for and what Obama stands for is stark and easy to understand--do we want more entitlements, more dependence on government, less independence and less liberty, or do we want more prosperity, more freedom, more financial independence . . . and more money?

Obama promises more government in your life.  Romney promises more freedom and prosperity.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Romney: 47% Of American On Entitlements . . . Just Shoot Me!

Will Malven

Mother Jones has just released video it obtained at a private fund-raiser for Mitt Romney back in May of this year.  In it, Mitt discusses the entire spectrum of political topics, but the one that is creating the most stir is when he talks about Obama voters and who they are.

However accurate Romney's take may be, this does not make for good campaign optics or sound-bytes for the MSM.

So, here is the infamous clip, compliments of Mother Jones

Okay, there's no way to sugar-coat this and remain true to oneself; Romney expressed his core beliefs and while they may be partially accurate, taken as a whole his statement reflects the ideology of and can only serve to further the impression of a man who genuinely remains out of touch with the average American.

To claim merely an "inartful" wording, as his campaign has attempted, simply won't pass muster.  This was no mere slip-of-the-tongue, the ease and comfort with which these words were delivered belie his campaign's efforts.  This was a man speaking from his heart.

Do I still believe Mitt Romney is the only man running for President who can save this nation from the economic abyss to which Democrat Party policies have led us?  Absolutely!

Do I still believe that Romney can win the November election?  Yes, but this has made the job much more difficult.

In politics, more than almost any other endeavor, perception is reality, and how the public perceives this latest revelation is yet to be seen, but I suspect it will not embrace these sentiments whole-heartedly.

What is bothering is that the numbers he uses confuses several disparate statistics and conflates that into that magic "47% number."

Yes, it is true that 47% don't federal income taxes,* but that doesn't equate to 47% of the population being unwilling to take responsibility for themselves.  Many pay no taxes because their income is exempt, or because they have children and mortgages to deduct and are living on the ragged edge, struggling to avoid becoming dependent on government, many have been trapped by the poor job-market and the weak economy.  It is not their fault when companies lay employees off or cease building and manufacturing products, because it is no longer profitable.

Those on Social Security and Medicare paid into accounts to receive those benefits.  They are not asking the government to do anything, but give them what they have already paid for (the fact that Soc Sec is a Ponzi scheme isn't relevant, we were all forced to pay into it--no choice to refuse it).

Don't get me wrong, I am in complete agreement with most of what Romney said, in fact, I am a little astounded to here him espousing such a conservative take, but Romney must take the discussion to the next level and explain to those 47% why what he is campaigning for--Republican, free-market conservatism is good for them and America; that those conservative principles will allow them to lift themselves our of dependence on the government.

Many of those people are open to voting for Mitt Romney, BUT THEY MUST BE GIVEN A COMPELLING REASON!!!!!

You cannot win an election solely by telling everyone how bad the incumbent is, they already know that.  You MUST make a convincing case that you are the only man who can solve our problems and you must show us how you would do it.

It is as pollster Frank Luntz said following the two conventions, voters are already convinced that Obama is NOT the man for the job.  The are ready to vote for someone else.  Mitt has to make the sale that he is the one they should vote FOR.

The way the mistakes are stacking up, I'm no longer sanguine about my double-digits victory for Romney anymore.  If Mitt was a better candidate at conveying his message--along the lines of  Newt or Paul Ryan, it would be different, but we have who we have.

Romney will still win this, but it will probably be within 5%.  To me that is just astounding--astounding that the margin isn't 15%.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

*For the uninitiated, the FICA "Tax" is not a tax, but an retirement insurance premium and the Medicare "Tax" is not a tax, but a senior citizen health insurance premium.  The only reason they have been called "taxes," is for the same reason Justice Roberts recategorized the Obama-care penalties and fees as "taxes," to justify mandatory participation.

Update:  Gallop now says the the actual number of those

Sunday, September 16, 2012

The Verdict's In: President Obama Is Jimmy Carter's Second Term

Will Malven

I am reminded of that old Herman's Hermits song "Henry The  VIII, I Am" where he sings, "Second verse same as the first."

Is this President Barack Hussein Obama's 2008 term in office, or Jimmy Carter's 1980 non-existent second term?  How can you tell the difference?

As of today, President Obama's Domestic record:
  • The economy is a nightmare
  • Unemployment through the roof
  • Housing prices still falling
  • Inflation ramping up
  • Huge deficits as far as the eye can see
  • A monster debt which exceeds the entire gross domestic product of our economy
AND his foreign record:
  • The entire Middle East in turmoil 
  • Anti-American rioting by Muslims all around the world
  • American diplomatic staff being killed for the first time since 1979
  • Relations between Israel and Egypt almost back at square one
  • Egypt re-militarizing the Sinai Peninsula
  • Iran months away from having a nuclear weapon
  • Israel beating the military action drum
  • Afghanistan descending once more into chaos
  • Iraq turning more and more towards Iran
How is this not the long unlamented, unwished-for (by anyone but Democrats) second term of Jimmy Carter?   The complete economic collapse, the overall feeling of malaise, the worst racial polarization in 3 decades, the complete failure in foreign policy . . . even to the point of having dead United States diplomats.

With President Obama's first term we have finally come full circle back to the days of the "Malaise" of Jimmy Carter.

Not much more needs be said.  Two men, two different Democrat Administrations, same identical failed agendas.  Just as the election of Ronald Reagan gave Americans a new sense of hope and optimism--later born out by a surge of national pride and the longest peace-time expansion in our history--the election of Mitt Romney will lift us out of this pit of despair in which we find ourselves now.

With conservative--pro-business, pro-prosperity--principles and some actual leadership, we will see jobs being created, individual prosperity expand, our individual liberties more secure, and our relations overseas begin to stabilize.

This Keystone Kops Administration must be voted out before our nation is ruined beyond redemption.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Embassy Official Warned 3 Days Before Attack In Benghazi

Will Malven

CNN is now reporting (finally) what we all have been saying and the White House denying for the past several days, the United States was warned about possible violence and that the mission in Benghazi was untenable and that it was under direct threat of imminent violence.

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments

By Arwa Damon, CNN
updated 7:49 AM EDT, Sun September 16, 2012

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.
"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.
Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.  [Emphasis added]

(cont'd at link)
Finally, after repeated denials by the White House, we are getting closer to the truth.  There was ample time for the State Department to have prepared for these attacks.  Very clearly negligence was involved in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens--whether it was his own, that of those charged with mission security, the State Department's, or to be laid at the feet of the White House.

Somewhere along the chain, there was a disastrous failure and it cost 4 lives.  This is a failure of leadership from the White House.  When laxity and inattention to important matters exist, it is always due to a lack of leadership.  The buck always stops at the top and that top in this case is the Obama White House.

Obama's deferential approach to those who dislike us, only encourages these sorts of incidents.  Terrorists and those prone to support them, like all enemies of freedom, perceive deference and compromise as signs of weakness to be exploited.  They do not and never have respected those who come to them cap-in-hand to negotiate.

They only respect strength.  They may only be brought to reason by being confronted with firmness and resolve.  They do not trust whom they perceive to be weak and they certainly don't respect of keep their promises to them.  This has been true throughout history and it has been proven repeatedly since Hitler made that point so clearly when Neville Chamberlain come home with his infamous "Peace for our time" treaty, three days before Hitler invaded the Sudetenland.

The problem (well one of a myriad of problems) with liberals is that they will not comprehend that simple truth, no matter how many times it comes back to slap them in the face.

Again and again, these news organizations continue to propagate the myth that these uprisings were in response to the infamous film--The Innocence of Muslims--rather than a reaction to Obama's Middle East agenda, his ineffectual (actually lack of) leadership on the international front, and his incessant bragging about having killed Osama bin Laden.

The crowds around the embassy were chanting, "Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas!"

Not a single syllable about any "film," but a direct link to the Obama Campaign's tactic of bragging about killing Muslims.

Clearly, the MSM is, once more, covering up for President Obama's and Secretary Clinton's failures.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Ryan Eviscerates President Obama's Record On Economy

Will Malven

Ryan gave a devastating speech at the Values Voters Conference.

Here's part 1:

"The Obama Agenda failed, not because it was stopped, but because it was passed."

Here's part 2:

There's really little to add to this. Ryan is quite thorough.

"No politician is more skilled at striking heroic poses against imaginary adversaries, nobody is better at rebuking non-existent opinions . . ."

Absolutely!  The feigned self-righteous indignation and false umbrage that comes out of the Democrat Party leadership and this sad excuse for an administration is nauseating and it's criminal the way in which the mainstream media studiously ignores the unprecedented level of hypocrisy and dishonesty that accompanies it.

Long Live Our American Republic !!!!

The Puppet President? Is Obama Actually In Charge?

Will Malven

Pure speculation, today, folks.

Given the absolutely chaotic messages coming from the White House in the wake of and continuing during this middle of this Middle East Crisis, given the scapegoating of the film's producer, given the attempts (sadly successful with the willing support of the MSM) to deflect attention from White House foreign policy failures to whether Mitt Romney spoke out of turn, given the Hodge-podge response to these events, and given the apparent inability of our State Department to incorporate warnings received that protests and riots might be about to occur into our foreign missions' security arrangements, given all of these concurrent events, one must begin to wonder, "Who's in charge?" 

The sorts of responses and reactions we have seen coming from this President and his White House are far more reflective of government by committee than of the firm hand of leadership of a competent chief executive.

The primary response from President Obama has been to attack Mitt Romney and go to campaign events and fundraisers.  He's not met with his security team or been to a "DAILY" intel briefing in over a week--neither during the days before, or after, has he been briefed by his team, but he has done an interview with Jay Leno and David Letterman and he has set up a fundraiser with Beyonce and Jay Z.

Actions coming out of this White House have never been very focused and their approaches to our problems have always seemed haphazard and disjointed.  This has been true of the push for "Obamacare" and the ill-fated "Cap and Trade" bill, this was true of their response to the initial uprisings in Egypt and Libya where they were slow to respond and then, without really knowing to whom they were giving assistance, a precipitous leap of faith to embracing the uprisings.

They even went so far as to celebrate the so-called "Arab Spring."  They leaped on-board without looking with whom they had climbed into bed.  They appeared to be completely blind-sided by this "sudden and unexpected" uprising of anger towards America even as they have spent the past year shouting from the roof-tops about how successful they have been in using drones to kill Muslims
NOTE:  I, again, wish to be clear.  I do not object to these strikes, nor do I condemn the President and the White House for conducting them.  They have been very effective and President Obama deserves full credit for pursuing an aggressive anti-terrorist campaign.

It is the wanton touting, celebrating, and victory lapping to which I object.  Seal Team 6 should NEVER have been named by Vice President Joe Biden.  These missions should NEVER be discussed publicly.

The American people do not need to know every detail of every strike our intelligence/military team makes.  That is the very purpose of having a covert operation is to prevent the enemy from ever learning of it.

This White House has expended a great deal of time and money crowing over ever single action they have taken to attack terrorists.  No one could possibly believe that all of that boasting wouldn't have negative consequences.
This complete lack of substance coming from the President has led me to wonder:
  • Nothing but empty rhetoric from the President
  • A pathetically slow response to events in Benghazi and Cairo
  • The initial timidity of the response and the apologetic tone thereof
  • The second stronger, more directed response
  • The determination by this President to continue his unceasing campaign for reelection even as this crisis continues to grow and evolve
  • The seeming Presidential preoccupation with golf--again even in times of crisis (he was golfing as they prepared to attack bin Laden and had to be sent for so that he would be present during it)
  • Lack of preparedness within our embassies
  • The effort to deflect attention from the riots to Mitt Romney (to camouflage their ineptitude).
  • No apparent coherent foreign policy
  • No apparent coherent energy policy
  • No apparent coherent economic policy
  • No coherent plan to deal with Medicare
  • No coherent plan to deal with Social Security
  • No serious budget plan in his entire term in office
Lack of focus, lack of coherence in policy agenda, lack of rapid, effective response, lack of leadership--these are all signs of government by committee.  It is a sign of a number of disparate interests--fiefdoms--battling to set policy.

Clearly there is no leadership from the top.  Whether this is due to the Clown Prince Narcissist in Chief's incompetence and neglect, or by plan of those who are running him, we won't know until well after he is out of office.

Are we, indeed, in the hands of a cabal of actual decision-makers who are using this empty-suit of a President as a figurehead to camouflage who is driving this extreme left-wing agenda.  Are the true setters-of-policy, Valerie Jarrett, Vann Jones, Bill Ayers, and the like?  Have the American people allowed themselves to be completely duped into electing a nobody, a pretty face who stands before them reading the scripts others write for him?

It is shameful that President Obama is so obsessed with getting reelected that he hasn't got time to address our very real problems (American has now been down-graded from AAA+, to AA+, to AA-, by Moody's--another sign of our problems) or to deal with this new Middle East crisis.

However, if he is nothing but the figurehead I propose, then his inattention is irrelevant and we are subject to the whims of this group of unelected, unvetted, unapproved by the Senate, unconstitutional "CZARS" who now run the White House.

Sure looks to me as though Obama is nothing but a puppet being controlled by Jarrett and through her, by Soros and a cabal of anti-American leftists.

Only "government by committee" could look this incompetent and disorganized.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, September 14, 2012

Jay Carney: They're Not--They Are--Umm, We're Investigating

Will Malven

It just keeps getting better and better.  The Obama Administration couldn't be more clueless and asea in the real-world events now unfolding in the Middle East.

Less than an hour after Jay Carney denied the protests erupting throughout the Middle East were not directed at the United States, he has reversed himself--in carefully parsed language designed to maintain the illusion that he was telling the truth all along.

This is another Guy Benson hit from TownHall.com:

Video: Carney Gives Two Different Answers on Libya Attacks Within 45 Minutes

Guy Benson - Political Editor, Townhall.com 
Sep 14, 2012 03:03 PM EST

As you'll recall, I was very skeptical this morning of initial US government assertions that there was "no intelligence" indicating the deadly Benghazi raid was premeditated or planned in advance.  White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated this heavily-parsed denial at his briefing today (note that he appears to be reading a verbatim statement), only to give a markedly different answer just 45 minutes later:

ABC's Jake Tapper notes that the Defense Secretary briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee on the attack, telling Senators that the US Government believes it was a premeditated terrorist act.  At first Carney ducks, suggesting that reporters "wait to hear more from administration officials" (does he not qualify?), then concludes that the violent incidents are "under active investigation."  So which is it?  No indication of premeditation, or substantial indication of premeditation with an ongoing investigation?  I'll repeat the point I made earlier: Administration officials are very carefully denying something that nobody is alleging.  They're saying, "no, there was no direct, actionable intelligence that the Benghazi mission specifically was at risk of an imminent attack.  False, wrong, bad."  But the Independent story said the intel warned of attacks on our diplomatic missions in the region more generally.  They're not denying that.  In fact, they're taking pains to write out statements that sound like broader denials, but that are actually extremely narrow, by design.  Even so, might our government have extrapolated which locations were most likely to be in the cross-hairs based on, say, previous bombings and specific threats?

(cont'd at link)
Once more it is clear that this administration which, we have been informed (ad nauseum), is masterful in its handling of foreign policy, hasn't a clue as to what is going on or how to handle it.  Obama's Administration has been so preoccupied with getting him elected (and golfing) that they have ignored their most important obligations in governing.

How Many Mulligans Do The Get?

In the last two days, we've had President Obama denying that Egypt is an ally then "restating" his original comments in a spectacularly "fence-sitting" fashion . . . MULLIGAN?

We've had the initial statement released by the US Embassy in Egypt apologizing to Muslims everywhere for our freedom of speech prior to the attacks, then the State Department doubling down on that same statement AFTER THE KILLINGS.  Then we have the White House disavowing that same statement AFTER IT WAS CRITICIZED BY MITT ROMNEY and then issuing a statement denouncing the attacks and raising their collective noses in the air in feigned umbrage at being criticized by Romney . . . MULLIGAN?

Now we've had Jay Carney reverse himself--in less than an hour--in another pathetic attempt to cover up for White House lies . . . MULLIGAN?

Every time this President takes action or speaks out, it seems like he's taking another MULLIGAN.

Hey, Mr. President,fundraising, partying, and campaigning while American citizens who look to you for protection are dying isn't very "presidential," it looks cold and uncaring--you know, it exposes the truth about you.

Being President ISN'T LIKE BEING A GOLF PRO, Mr. Obama--you don't get to take a mulligan when the people you are sworn to protect and defend DIE THROUGH YOUR NEGLECT AND INCOMPETENCE.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Jay Carney: Riots Not Directed At U.S.

Will Malven


That was the chant of the crowds attacking the US embassy in Egypt.

I believe that said chant is direct evidence that these protesters are directing their ire against the President, the drone attacks, and the United States of America--I want to be sure here--we are talking about riots directed solely at United States embassies, aren't we?  No British embassy has been attacked, has it?  No French embassy or Swiss embassy?

Hmmm. . . far be it from me to contradict the all wise-all knowing White House spokesperson, but really?  The protests aren't directed at America?

Carney: Protests not directed at the United States

'This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims'


White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday the violent protests throughout the Middle East are not directed at the United States or U.S. policy but are a response to a YouTube video:

CARNEY: We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

Again, this is not in any way justifying violence, and we have spoken very clearly out against that and condemned it. And the president is making sure in his conversations with leaders around the region that they are committed as hosts to diplomatic facilities to protect both personnel and buildings and other facilities that are part of the U.S. representation in those countries.
(cont'd at link)

The problem with Mr. Carney's assertion is that these attacks have been planned for some time. The attack in Benghazi was carefully planned and executed. There is a large and growing body of evidence that the film was nothing but an excuse.  The actual source of the ire DIRECTED AT THE UNITED STATES is in response to the continued drone attacks being carried out by this administration and the efforts, by this White House and the Democrat Party to portray President Obama as some sort of "hawk" by crowing about it (sorry for the mixed metaphor).

NOTE:  I don't object to these attacks, I believe them necessary and effective.  I give the President full credit for his and the Intelligence community for their successes, but I do take exception to the constant hype surrounding them.

If anti-Muslim speech and film can spark the ire of Muslims in the Middle East, then certainly this continuous drumbeat of "Obama killed Osama," or "Osama's Dead and GM's Alive" has got to be at least as inflammatory . . . and nary a word's been said about it in the MSM.

Negligence, incompetence, dishonesty, hype, and ineffectiveness are the essence of this Clown Act in the White House.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Beyond Incompetence: President Obama Skips Intel Briefing THE DAY FOLLOWING Embassy Attacks

Will Malven

Folks, this goes way beyond incompetence and takes us well into intentional negligence.  Obama has been criticized for his failure to attend intelligence briefings.  Jay Carney's response [paraphrasing] . . ."The President is too smart to need briefings."

Does the arrogance of this White House have no limits?  Is the President's narcissism contagious?  Now the President is soooo all-encompassingly brilliant that he no longer requires intelligence briefings, he receives his directly from God.

Wow!  This is beginning to get scary. From the Washington Post Opinion section:

Obama alone: This president does not need intel briefers

By Marc A. Thiessen
Published: September 13

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States.

According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB. “As I’ve told you every time you ask, the President gets his PDB every day,” Vietor told me by e-mail, adding this swipe at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush: “Unlike your former boss, he has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.” (This new line of defense was echoed this morning by my Post colleague, Dana Milbank, who writes that Bush was briefed every day by his intelligence advisers because he “decided he would prefer to read less.”)

(cont'd at link)

I'm sorry, this is not the mark of a "brilliant man," it is the mark of a disinterested and detached man. This is not the behavior of a successful President, it is the behavior of an academic--the self-deception that one can access all knowledge solely by reading--the neophyte's mistake of arrogance.

You can't probe the mind of a printed briefing, you can't look into the eyes of a printed briefing and read how certain it is of the information it presents. You can't question a printed briefing--ask for clarification or further expansion on what is given.

It is a sign of his arrogance that Obama believes he can glean all he needs to know from a written brief.  It is more proof that his only concern is to get reelected and all other concerns take a back seat.  That's why he went to Vegas rather than return to DC when these attacks began in Libya and Egypt.  It's why he refused to meet with Netanyahu but kept his appointments to appear on Letterman, Leno, and the Beyonce/Jay Z fund-raiser.

Not incompetence, but negligence.  Obama's not "brilliant," he's clearly at best a mundane individual of average intellect.  Obama is also clearly not competent to conduct our foreign policy.

If Obama was as brilliant as he and Democrats and the adoring MSM claim, CHRIS STEVENS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Film's Producer Named By Obama Administration Justice Department

Will Malven

The Obama Justice Department has now released the name of the film-maker who produced the film  that we are being led to believe* sparked the attacks against American embassies which began two days ago.  What a cowardly act. How dare they endanger this man's life by exposing his name and location.

By doing so, they have endangered, not only the producer himself, but in identify him as "a Coptic Christian," they have placed an added concern to the already embattled Coptic Christians living in Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations.

Fox did it first, releasing the name of the former Navy SEAL who wrote the book on the bin Laden raid.  In doing so, they knowingly endangered the life of the author and his entire family . . . simply to get a scoop . . . it was unconscionable and inexcusable.  The pathetic response from Fox?  "Well it would have come out anyway."

It is inconceivable that anyone could be so irresponsible and uncaring as to intentionally endanger the life of a fellow citizen just to get noticed.  Fox News was and deserved to be excoriated for this negligent and endangering action.

Two wrongs, however don't make a right and as bad as what Fox News did is, it pales in comparison to what the Obama Administration has now done.

Fox is a private entity and has no obligation beyond what's legally required to protect people, (although one would wish they held themselves to a higher standard than they have so far), but Eric Holder's Department of Justice is part of our federal government.  It has a constitutional obligation to protect the lives of all who dwell within her borders, whether they are citizens of these United States or not.  For them to reveal the name of a private individual in a desperate attempt to assuage the anger of rioting Muslims is beyond wrong, it is criminal.

The Obama Administration has been wrong on the Middle East soup-to-nuts and their response to this whole business has been apologetic, timid,  muddled and ineffectual.  One thing is obvious, in they're confusion, the paramount thing in their minds is not protecting American lives or mounting an effective response to these acts, it is preserving Obama's reelection chances.

Instead showing outrage and anger at the murder of four American diplomats by angry mobs of demonstrators, instead of being outraged at the lack of protection given our diplomatic missions by these host nations, instead of confronting the issue and demonstrating a little leadership, they issue apology after apology to the attackers for our inherent right to freedom of speech. Instead of celebrating the fact and defending the rights every American, they apologize for the fact that we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Hillary's statement, in part said:
“. . .Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day (I would note that in today's world, with today's technologies, that is virtually impossible), but even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our constitution and our law and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be,"

“America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation, and as you know, we are home to people of all religions [Muslims included].  To us — to me, personally this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and provoke rage.”
Hilary saying essentially, "I'm sorry that we can't force our citizens to be silent . . ."  Her whole tone is apologetic.  As I said before, it is possible to condemn what someone says without apologizing for the fact that they exercised a right the government has no power to curtail.

Why didn't she say something like:
 "In America we respect and celebrate the rights of every citizen to express his or her opinion and to exercise their religious freedoms however they choose and reject any calls to reign in that freedom. The right of every citizen in America to express their opinion--no matter how objectionable we may find that opinion--lies at the core of every American's soul.

That liberty is the foundation of our nation's existence. It is what makes America the bastion of freedom and liberty it is.

This film and the comments of individuals surrounding it represent the individual opinions of those people and do not reflect what the majority of Americans think or believe. We may disagree with them and what they say--as we do emphatically in this case--but we defend to the death their right to say it."
This is a cowardly administration, cowardly and incompetent as any administration run by liberals must be.

The truth is, this isn't about some film, it isn't about Mitt Romney attacking the President, and it isn't even about our individual rights, it is about the complete failure of the Obama Administrations Middle East agenda.  It is about incompetence, it is about a failure of leadership.

It is what happens when you put an academic in charge of a real-world situation.  Indecision, defensiveness, apology, vanity and spinelessness will be the inevitable result--whether the problem is economic or geo-political, there is no substitute for real world experience.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

*NOTE:  As I originally speculated, there is growing evidence that these attacks were in retaliation for the drone attacks we have been conducting in Afghanistan, Yemen and other locations.  The infamous "film" may have been nothing more than a red-herring, an excuse to camouflage the true cause.  More and more it appears that al Qaeda was behind the attack in Benghazi and may have instigated other attacks by stirring up unrest.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Embassy Attacks A Failure Of Major Proportions For Obama White House

Will Malven

Some random thoughts and events--as the information pours in, this sad tale just gets more and more unbelievable.

If you have a weak stomach, you might not want to read this:

Lebanese report: US Ambassador raped before murdered 

By: Timothy Whiteman
September 13, 2012

The Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org is reporting that the murdered American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was raped prior to his killing September 11, 2012.

The Lebanese news report cited the Agence France-Presse (AFP) broke the story when given the information by an unnamed senior member of the Libyan Interior Ministry.

(cont'd at link)
I'm sorry . . . No, actually I'm not sorry . . . can we now eliminate all the pretense?  Isn't it about time we stop showing deference to these animals and their corrupt and perverted pseudo-religion?  Islam is not a religion, it's a cult of murder, rape, child molestation, terror and hatred.  It doesn't seek to coexist with other religions, it seeks to destroy them and kill their adherents.  It demands "submission" and is intolerant of any who refuse to do so.
Note about Islam:  Islam doesn't tolerate Christians or Jews unless they blaspheme by proclaiming Allah as the "true God" and Mohammed as the "true profit." Muslims tell Christians and Jews that they are "People of the Book" and therefore "brothers in the Abrahamic Faith, but Islam only recognize Christians who reject the Holy Trinity, the Crucifixion, the Resurection and who accept that Christ was a prophet of Allah that He will return to establish Shari'a Law.  For Jews, the bar is lower, they must believe only that Mohammed was the last in the line of Jewish prophets.
Radical Islam most resembles a plague and it needs to be stopped by means, fair or foul.   Those claiming to be "moderate Muslims" had better step forward and solve their internal problems before the world is forced to take more drastic action.  We've dealt with intolerance again and again throughout the world, and it never ends up well for those who trade in it.

So what else?

We are also now finding out that the Marines who were assigned to protect our embassy WERE NOT PERMITTED TO CARRY AMMUNITION.

What is it with liberals?  This is as bad as when the Obama Administration changed the rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan to "don't fire until fired upon."  This is like our Chief Dyke of Homeland Security sending national guardsmen down to bolster the border patrol--without ammunition.

These sorts of decisions far transcend mere stupidity and touch the realm of unreality--a place in which most liberals dwell in blissful ignorance.  It is the same idiocy which allows them to equate gun ownership restriction with personal safety--in spite of the fact that criminals never obey gun ownership restriction laws . . . ever.

And what else?

Warnings:  There were repeated warnings from the new Libyan government and a myriad of other Middle Eastern sources that there would be a real risk of these sorts of riots.

According to the Jerusalem Post:
Egypt's General Intelligence Service warned that a jihadi group is planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo, according to a report Tuesday by Egypt Independent, citing a secret letter obtained by Al-Masry Al-Youm.
Even The New York Times mentions the fact in their in depth article on the embassy attacks:

Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S.



Mr. Sharif also faulted the Americans at the mission for failing to heed what he said was the Libyan government’s advice to pull its personnel or beef up its security, especially in light of the recent violence in the city and the likelihood that the video would provoke protests. “What is weird is that they refrained from this procedure, depending instead on the simple protection that they had,” he said. “What happened later is beyond our control, and they are responsible for part of what happened.”
It appears to me that this genius of foreign policy and the harridan go-fer who works for him have made a real mess of the Middle East with their agenda of appeasement, genuflection, and cheer-leading from the sidelines.

It requires LEADERSHIP to run a nation and to conduct sound policy.  In Obama, we have an empty suit when it comes to any quality of leadership.

He has never lead anything but a protest chant.  He didn't lead on Obama-care, Pelosi and Reid did that.  He didn't lead in budget negotiations, the Democrats still have not offered up a budget in over 3 years, he didn't lead in the Osama bin Laden attack, he was out golfing when Panetta and Hilary made the call and sent the helicopter to get him.

He is nothing more than a two-bit huckster--an empty suit who found a great gig as a puppet for Jarrett et al from the Chicago gang--nothing more. ]

How many Mulligans does this Clown Prince Narcissist in Chief get, anyway?  Check out the latest "do-over," he insulted Egypt by saying they weren't our ally . . . not our ally?  Cairo was part of the peace accord with Israel.  They have been an ally for almost 4 decades . . . now suddenly they're NOT out ally . . .?

. . . OOPS sorry "DO-OVER" the White House "misspoke" (again).

What complete incompetence.

This clown act MUST be voted out of office . . . it's no longer funny, it's tragic.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Were President Obama and the Democrat Party Responsible for the Death of Ambassador Chris Stevens?

Will Malven

Update:  God I hate being wrong, but I will always let you know when I make an error--especially one this big.  I apologize to all for mistakenly attributing this film to Pastor Terry Jones.  The man responsible for this film, The Innocence of bin Laden, was produced by a Sam Bacile and now it appears that "Sam Bacile" may be a fake name.

I also apologize to Pastor Jones for making that attribution.  I picked up some bad information on the internet and failed to research it sufficiently.

Rush received a phone call today in which a woman asked an interesting question . . . did the Obama Campaign and the Democrat Party inadvertently spark the attacks against the US embassies in Egypt and Libya through their continual spiking of the Osama bin Laden "football?"

Think about it.  Ever since Seal Team 6 went in and killed bin Laden, the White House has been "spiking the ball."  "Gutsy call" was a consistent refrain coming from the left-leaning pundits, and periodically over the past year, Team Obama has repeatedly attempted to present President Obama as a foreign policy hero who feels no compunction about bringing the war to the terrorists through the use of RPV's to assassinate them.

Well and good, killing terrorists is a good thing, but you have to take the heat if you're going to take the credit.  Especially over the last couple of weeks, the killing of Osama bin Laden has taken a front seat in the campaign.

In their eagerness to distract attention from President Obama's abysmal record on the economy, they have repeatedly touted the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the campaign even going to far as to print bumper stickers that say:
It's a catchy slogan, but I'll bet nobody in the campaign thought about the possible repercussions in the Middle East from President Obama and the Democrats taking every opportunity to spout off about how "heroic" Obama was for making that "gutsy call"(since when is doing one's job "gutsy?")

Now remember, what was it that the crowds were heard to chant?
Now I don't know about you, but there seems a much more direct link to what occurred Tuesday in Egypt and Libya with this unbridled and enthusiastic celebration of killing bin Laden, than any unseen film by an obscure, unhinged preacher.

The killing of Osama bin Laden was a great thing, long overdue and long desired and I give the Obama Administration a great deal of credit for being willing to do what Bill Clinton's White House lacked the courage to do, but if you're going to take credit for something, then you need to take responsibility for any and all repercussions from that act.

Team Obama has been burning up the airways attempting to portray Obama as an expert in foreign policy and Romney as the neophyte who lacks experience (governors, generally have a great deal of experience in dealing with foreign leaders on critical issues) leaping to attack anything he says.

Well, Barry old boy, if your going to take the credit, then you better face the fact that all that crowing you and your fellow Democrats did last week may very well have precipitated these attacks and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

President Obama can claim superiority in his knowledge of foreign policy, but as yet there has been no evidence of that superiority.

If anything, Obama is a lamb in wolf's clothing and foreign leaders like Putin, the Ayatollah, and all of your "friends" ARE LAUGHING AT HIM.

The chant alone lays the death of Chris Stevens right at the feet of President Obama and the whole Democrat election machine.  It's as direct a link as one can think of.

EDIT.ADDENDUM:  It may not have been the match that lit the fire, clearly that was the film that congenital idiot Terry Jones (the pastor, not the former member of Monty Python's Flying Circus) Sam Bacile made.

I loathe people like Pastor Terry Jones--they are invariable self-righteous to the point of vanity -(Todd Akin is another one)--BUT this is the United States of America and I will defend to the death, the right of every American to speak his or her mind.


". . . against all enemies, foreign or domestic . . ."

Sadly the administration we now have seems more intent on appeasing our international critics than in condemning the terrorists.

It's true this time and it was true the last time when Pastor Terry Jones was trying to make a name for himself by burning a Koran.  The Obama Administration was fearful that such an act would be a provocation to the people of Afghanistan and around the Middle East (since when do these animals need a "provocation?"); so much so that they even got General Patraeus to issue a statement warning against such an eventuality.

I said it then and I'll repeat it.  General, Mr. President, it is precisely for the reason of defending our rights to free speech--defending the right of an idiot like Sam Bacile or Pastor Jones--to do exactly what he has chosen to do, that the office you hold and the rank the General held exists.

Rather than blaming Pastor Jones, Obama should be defending his actions.  Rather than attempting to silence him, you should be doing everything possible to ensure his continued right and ability to speak out. 

It is quite possible to reject the sentiment and yet still defend the man's rights.

Obama's first instinct was to criticize Sam Bacile.  Mitt Romney's first instinct was to condemn the monsters who launched the attack. One is the act of a cowardliness, the other the acting presidential.  One is interested in appeasing his critics, the other in defending the rights and privileges of American citizens.

Obama speaks out of fear, Romney out of conviction.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Obama Snubs Netanyahu

Will Malven

Today, US-Israelis relations took a huge step backwards.  With war tensions building over the last few months, rumors of Iran putting the finishing touches on their nuclear capability and rattling sabers around the Gulf, with Israelis already contemplating a "go it alone" strategy for a preemptive strike against Iran, one would think that President Obama would leap at the opportunity to have some serious face time with his Israeli counterpart--but then that would require President Obama actually caring about our relationship with Israel and assumes that he is interested in stopping Iran.  Neither quality exists in President Obama and it is about time American Jews who support Israel wake up and figure it out.

The Democrat Party is now the enemy of Israel--they proved it in Charlotte at the convention when they voted down inclusion of the language recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, they proved it once again when, having recognized such an omission might be damaging, they decided to reinstate the language and it failed to get enough votes to pass (though in typical dictatorial fashion, the Democrat Party ignored the vote and reinstated it anyway)., and now Obama has proven it once more refusing to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  From Haaretz:

White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama

By Barak Ravid
The White House declined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request on Tuesday to meet U.S. President Barack Obama during a UN conference in New York at the end of the month.

An official in Jerusalem said that the prime minister’s office sent the White House a message stating that although Netanyahu will spend only two and a half days on U.S. soil, he is interested in meeting Obama and is willing to travel to the U.S. capital specifically for that purpose. The official added that the White House rejected the request and said that at this time Obama’s schedule does not allow for a meeting.

It's unimaginable that an American President would refuse to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel--has never occurred before--but at a time when there is serious discussion of military action between Israel and Iran and unrest throughout the Middle East (including the take over of our embassy in Cairo) this is bordering on criminal behavior.

You don't snub your friends and allies and Obama has made a habit of snubbing and being rude or inconsiderate to anyone who embraces freedom and liberty.  Remember the manner in which he shoved the Dali Lama out the back door of the White House?  Remember the box of DVD's this White House thought would be an appropriate gift for a STATE VISIT or the Ipod filled with President Obama's speeches (another gift Obama thought would be appropriate).

President Obama's time in office has been a clown show when it comes to conducting foreign affairs.  I shudder to think where we would be had Hilary Clinton refused to accept the job of Secretary of State (believe me I've never been a fan of hers, but Obama without her--YIKES!) .  Obama is such a pathetic incompetent, no telling where we would be on the international front.

President Obama ought to be seeking out opportunities to talk to Netanyahu and other foreign leaders at a time like this.  Syria is in absolute chaos, Egypt is rapidly approaching the same, Iran is going nuclear and threatening her neighbors, Israel is considering a unilateral attack against Iran . . . and Obama is doing interviews with radio DJ's, campaigning, and I'll bet he manages to squeeze in a couple of rounds of golf as well.

Seriously, the President of the United States of America has time to go on Jay Leno, David Letterman's shows and to attend a fundraiser with Jay Z and Beyonce, but doesn't have time for the national leader of one of our closest allies and the only stable democracy in the Middle East?  Seriously?

If you've been paying attention, it's not too difficult to suss what's occurring.  Remember Netanyahu's last meeting with President Obama?  Obama ended up receiving a lecture from the Israeli Prime Minister and I suspect, being the chronically immature man-boy Obama is, he is allowing his personal pique over the last meeting to interfere with his ability to conduct foreign policy.

The man is no leader.  He lacks the courage to take any responsibility for anything that occurs.  How can one lead if he's not willing to take the heat?  All President Obama wants is the glory--LIKE ALL NARCISSISTS, OBAMA LOVES TAKING CREDIT--usually for what other have done.

President Obama, the more you know him, the more you revile him.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Saturday, September 8, 2012

What Does Bill Clinton REALLY Think Of Barack Obama?

Will Malven

From all reports, Bill Clinton gave a rousing, ringing endorsement of President Obama's reelection bid (sorry, I didn't watch it--my stomach is only so strong and the probability of Clinton giving one of his patented long, rambling, speeches was too high).

. . . Well, that's to be expected.  Bill Clinton is a good soldier for the Democrat Party, so I would expect him to take one for the team (or in this case, to preserve his and Hilary's popularity within the party and bolster her chances of winning the Democrat nomination in 2016).

Unfortunately for Obama's campaign, Bill Clinton is ALREADY on record as to exactly what he thinks of Barack Obama . . . and it isn't precisely the same opinion that he expressed Wednesday night.

Very telling, isn't it?
"That is the central argument for his [Barack Obama] campaign:
It doesn't matter that I started running for President less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate; I am a great speaker, a charismatic figure, and I am the only one who opposed this war from the beginning' . . ."
Clearly Bill Clinton saw in Obama what everyone not dazzled by the spectacle of "First Black Candidate for President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama" and the doting mainstream media fog of praise and worship which surrounded him saw . . . AN EMPTY SUIT.

Or, as Bill Clinton so aptly put it:
". . . Give me a break!  This whole thing is the biggest fairy-tale I've ever seen . . ."
Bill, "I feel your pain."  I still feel your pain.

Unfortunately your pain became all of America's pain and I'm disappointed in you that you are now actively aiding the authors of that tale in their efforts to write a second chapter.  If you were genuinely a man of honor, you couldn't do what you did Wednesday night--but then I watched as you pointed your finger at the camera and lied to the American people, as baldfacedly and brazenly as any good sociopath might--without shame.

The problem with having an ego as large as Bill Clinton's (or Barack Obama's) is that in maintaining such a high profile in front of the press, the possibility of being exposed in a moment of candor is quite high--especially in this day of cell phone cameras and recordings.

The clip above shows what Bill actually thinks of Barack, but let's see what he thinks of Mitt Romney's qualifications for being President:

So according to Bill, Barack Obama was unqualified to be President--was "the biggest fairy-tale" he'd ever seen, but Mitt Romney "a man whose been governor with a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

Uh-oh, Barack, I guess that ringing endorsement Wednesday night lacked only one thing . . . the ring of truth.

President Obama still lacks any grounding in business and it shows in the policies he advocates and the regulations coming from his administration.  Almost every action taken by this administration has had a negative effect on businesses.  What little recovery we have seen is more a function of the underlying strength of our free-market economy than some manifestation of benefit from governmental policies.

The government can do little to "create jobs" or revive businesses other than establishing a business friendly environment and keeping out of the way by limiting it regulatory actions.  The Obama Administration has done precisely the opposite . . . thus the struggling economy we now have.

The only time you can trust what Bill Clinton says to be completely honest, is when he is caught in these inadvertent candid moments. When he's scripted, as he was Wednesday night, everything he says is suspect . . . and if you notice, Wednesday night he rarely, if ever, looked directly in the camera--it's a hard thing to do when you're lying, as Bill knows full well.

Barack Obama is STILL less qualified than Mitt Romney to be President--even after four years in office--"leading from behind" is NOT a qualification.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, September 7, 2012

Unemployment Numbers: Lying With Statistics

Will Malven

The new unemployment numbers came out and . . . guess what . . . unemployment dropped to full tenths, from 8.3% down to 8.1%.  Great news, right?  Well, if you're a superficial (read Democrat) person, yeah it's good news.  The problem lies in the source of that number.

Due to population growth, the American economy needs to generate about a quarter of a million jobs each month, just to keep up.  Last month, we generated only 96,000 new jobs--30,000 fewer than "economists were predicting."
Note:  I have never understood why these pseudo-scientist receive so much respect, they are almost never accurate and we have been reading the words "unexpected" and "unexpectedly"--with a negative connotation--almost monthly for the past 2 years as the economy (predictably to all non-liberals) invariably fell short of economists predictions.
With so few jobs being created, why did the official unemployment rate drop?  The second figure explains why.  There are today, 368,000 fewer people in the workforce than there were one month ago.  Four times as many people gave up looking for work as got jobs.  In fact, we have fewer people in the workforce today than we have had at anytime in the past 30 years.

The number of work-eligible and work-capable Americans who have left the workforce entirely has now reached 88,921,000.  That's 89 million people being carried by the 142,101,000 Americans who are still working.

Record 88,921,000 Americans ‘Not in Labor Force’—119,000 Fewer Employed in August Than July

By Terence P. Jeffrey
September 7, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans whom the U.S. Department of Labor counted as “not in the civilian labor force” in August hit a record high of 88,921,000.

The Labor Department counts a person as not in the civilian labor force if they are at least 16 years old, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks. The department counts a person as in “the civilian labor force” if they are at least 16, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and either do have a job or have actively looked for one in the last four weeks.

(cont'd at link)
This cannot be good news for the Obama reelection effort.  This report very clearly details the abject failure of President Obama and the Democrat Party policies and their antiquated socialist/government dominated economic philosophy.

The "Obama Record?"
  • Fewer people working.
  • More people giving up on work
  • Stagnant job growth
  • Stagnant economy
  • Burgeoning debt (something Obama called "immoral" in 2008--it has grown by 51% under his watch)
  • Annual deficits in excess of $1 Trillion as far as the eye can see or the economist predict
  • Greater racial tension than at any time in the past 40 years
  • More intrusive government with the DHS becoming a State Security Force and looking more and more like the East German Stazi
The list of failures and destruction keeps getting longer and longer.  It's difficult to believe that a man and his party could wreak so much destruction in a few short years.

The truth? 
President Obama and the Democrats thank their lucky stars everyday that so many people have given up hope (Hope and Change, anyone?) and quit searching for work.

Barack Obama, he's worse than you thought.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Democrats Remove Then Reinsert (to "BOO!"s) "God" Into Their Platform

Will Malven

Alright now, all conventions have their moments when everyone in the leadership wishes something hadn't happened.  With the Republicans, it was the Clint Eastwood "empty chair Obama" routine.  Bad taste, bad programing, disrespectful, offensive and dumb (I'm aware that I am in the minority among Republicans, but I still believe in Conservatives acting like mature adults and with a degree of decorum when discussing the President--I boiled when GWB was the but of many disrespectful attacks, I remain unhappy that BHO is receving the same).

That said, what occurred yesterday at the convention in a platform committee action should shock everyone.
  • First one must wonder what genius believed removing the word "God" from the platform would be a good political move.  What we know is that it was done with the President's (at least) tacit approval, because he knew of the deletion of both "God" and "Jerusalem" (as the capital of Israel).  This nation still polls at about 75% "God-fearing" Christians--down historically, but still a massive majority of American people (voters included) attend church regularly and profess their faith in God.
  • The second occurrence was the decision to reinstate both phrases.  Obama personally directed that the language be reinstated . . . AFTER it became a big negative issue.  This was not a President Obama "offended by the absence or removal of 'God,'" this was Candidate Obama in panic at being attacked--once more--on the perceived weakness of his claimed "Christianity."  NOT A MOVE OF PRINCIPLE BUT OF POLITICS.
Three times, by a clear majority vote,  those in attendance voted down the reinstatement of the language.  They voted "NO" on God three times!  Then, in the best tradition of leftist dictators, the "democratic" Democrat Party chose to ignore the will of it's members and declare the vote FOR reinstatement in spite of the wishes of those voting (the teleprompter already had the desired vote results on the screen--BEFORE THE VOTE WAS HELD).

I feel sorry for Mayor Villaraigosa, he looked like a deer in the headlights out there on the stage.  I don't think he had any idea what was happening, like someone just grabbed him and told him to go out and read the teleprompter.

The members on the floor who voted no immediately erupted with shouts of BOO!  Protesting the fiat actions of the DNC.
NOTE:  I do NOT believe, as has been asserted by some, like Sean Hannity, that the people in the arena were booing the reinsertion of "God" into the platform per se--isn't it enough that they originally chose to remove it--that it was NOT, as has been claimed, "an oversight," but a deliberate choice?

No need for embellishment, Democrats hang themselves with little help.  What they were expressing their vehement displeasure over was the heavy-handed way in which the vote was handled and the fact that, very clearly, not only did they not have a 2/3 majority in support of reinstatement, but they had a clear vocal MAJORITY who objected to reinclusion of the language.
How can you trust a party that doesn't even live up to its own name?  How can you trust a leader who believes it is perfectly acceptable to dictate actions AGAINST THE WILL OF HIS OWN SUPPORTERS?

What does it say about the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat Party that they are offended by the very word "God?"

Love of God was the prime motivator for the migrations which created this greatest of nations.  The people came to America to escape religious oppression and for the freedom to worship God as they pleased.  God permeates every facet of our founding,

He was mentioned in the Declaration by Jefferson in his justification for American independence.  We are a Judeo-Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  In spite of the best efforts of atheists and liberals, God and God's laws remain at the very core of our system of government.  And the freedom to worship when and where we wish is the paramount, the first individual liberty our Founding Fathers saw fit to protect in the Bill of Rights.

The only thing astounding about this whole episode is that the Democrat Party of FDR, HST, and JFK has so thoroughly turned it's back on American traditions and founding principles that they assumed no one would care that they removed "God" from their platform.


Simply shocking to see a major American political party TURN IT'S BACK ON GOD.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

UPDATE:  The White House, which earlier admitted that Obama had seen and signed off on the language of the platform is now claiming that they didn't become aware of it until AFTER it became a topic of political controversy.

Again, we get two diametrically opposite statements within a matter of hours from a White House that is asking Americans to TRUST them with another four years in office.

How do you trust people who lie so routinely that they are in virtually continuous emergency response mode?

". . .Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive . . ."