"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

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

MSM Doing It's Utmost To Get Obama Reelected: Reality Be Damned

Will Malven

Happy Halloween to all.  Looks as though MSNBC and the rest of the Democrat propaganda machine are hard at work spinning the Obama victory tale.

Today, MSNBC's "Morning Joe" was citing over and over again the Quinnipiac/New York Time/CBS poll which, unbelievably, shows Obama maintaining a 5-point lead in Ohio, a 1-point lead in Florida, and a 2-point lead in Virginia.

Joe Scarborough actually claimed that the NYT/CBS has been one of the most accurate polling organizations.  One is forced to wonder if Joe's presidential aspirations aren't just clouding his judgment, but influencing his opinion (he's face a far tougher climb against an incumbent Romney than an open presidency).  The facts are far different.

According to an analysis done at Fordham University in 2008 the CBS/NYT polling operation scored an embarrassing 22nd out of 23 organizations.  Only Newsweek scored lower

As one ventures into the internals of this poll, it is easy to see why they are over estimating Obama's chances.  The DRI (Democrat/Republican/Independent breakdown) is D +7 in Florida, D +8 in Virginia, and D+8 in Ohio (it can be found on the last page--p. 18) of the detailed poll results here).

Even in The Great Obama Ascension of 2008, Obama would have struggled to reach +8 and no sane individual believes Obama will come close to duplicating the turnout or the enthusiasm he enjoyed in 2008.

For a more realistic DRI, I would be inclined to look at the 2010 elections (DRI = 35/35/30) even though there was no national candidate.  Given what happened in 2010, in Wisconsin with the recall election and the enthusiasm gap which is becoming more and more apparent, the actual Q/CBS/NYT poll numbers would be Romney +3 in Ohio, +7 in Florida, and +6 in Virginia . . . quite a different narrative than that being promulgated by the MSM.

Not satisfied solely with running skewed polls, MSNBC also began a full scale attack on Romney for holding a food donation rally in place of an already scheduled campaign rally in Ohio.  Romney spoke for less than 10 minutes and what he said was focused only on the victims of Hurricane Sandy and what people could do to aid them.

For his selfless generosity and efforts to aid victims, Romney was pummeled by MSNBC's aggressively partisan programming.  Katy Pavlich documents this well over at Townhall.com with 3 short video clips of Andrea Mitchell and Martin Bashir (possibly the worst, most partisan of all MSNBC leftist commentators).

I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished as far as the leftist camp at MSNBC thinks as they pursue their "Obama or Bust" anti-Romney crusade.

No big deal.  Liberals are simply incapable of understanding a man like Romney.  They can't fathom why a wealthy successful businessman like Romney would give so generously of his own wealth year, after, year after year, while they bend all their efforts towards assuaging their guilt at being rich by asking tax-payers to contribute more and more of their hard earned salaries to the poor and suffering.

For liberals, charity begins and ends with government.  The concept of personal generosity escapes them completely.  Conservatives believe in charity and they demonstrate that belief in their own personal actions and donations.  Liberals believe in charity using someone else's money.

Don't believe the hype in these horribly skewed polls; they have but little in common with reality no matter how intensely they are spun by the MSN and the Democrat Party.

Romney is still on course for a moderate blow-out of 8-11 percentage points.  Still predicting Romney 54, Obama 46.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

[Note to readers, I'm a little under the weather, so my posts are commensurately fewer, but I will be back with more soon]

Friday, October 26, 2012

White House Knew Of Benghazi Attack "Within Minutes"

Will Malven

Today Rush Limbaugh had a caller who was (or claimed to be) very familiar with the procedures followed when a situation like the Benghazi attack occurs. If what he said is true, then the President of the United States of America is guilty of negligent manslaughter at the very least.

According to the caller, Doug in San Antonio, who claimed to be a Lt. Colonel who served 15 years as a special operations planner, within minutes of the onset of the attack, a flash message system would have been activated. This system sends an alert, a code word, directly to the White House Situation Room.

This is a MUST LISTEN.  I have absolutely NO doubt that this guy is the real deal.  I'll bet you won't have any doubt either after hearing this.

This is gross negligence on the part of the President and those advising him--Panetta, Clinton, possibly Jarrett, et al--and possibly a coldly calculated murder allowed to occur just to protect the President from having his Middle East agenda revealed as the complete failure it is.

This is horrible and the American people MUST BE TOLD THE TRUTH. It is time for our elected officials to DO THEIR JOBS.

Barrack Obama has the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, former SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and computer expert Sean Smith resting directly on his shoulders. This IS a HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR . . . or gross incompetence at a level this nation has never witnessed in a President. It is either an impeachable offense or proof positive that Obama is absolutely incapable of executing the duties of the President.

It means, if the President is telling the truth and he did not know about the attack within minutes of it occurring, then someone else kept it from him and thus he isn't even in control of his own White House.

If this doesn't finish the President's election chances then America might as well run up the white flag to radical Islamists and begin mass conversion.

This is shameful behavior; this is incompetent behavior, this is possibly criminal behavior and it means that there is no adult at the helm of our government.

If I sound over-the-top angry, I am. These men were ALLOWED TO DIE when the resources to protect them were readily available and prepared to go. It means that political expedience trumped Presidential responsibility.

Where was Hillary? Where was Panetta? WHERE WAS THE PRESIDENT??? Did Valerie Jarrett prevent the Duty Officer's report from reaching the President? Is this a case of "plausible deniability" resulting in the deaths of four Americans?

What do you think our troops are thinking after this fiasco? If the White House won't authorize a rescue mission for our Ambassador, what are the chances they will authorize a rescue mission for one of them???
We must elect Romney. This unfeeling, uncaring, coldly calculating, incompetent Narcissist in Chief MUST BE DEFEATED.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Not Just America--World-Wide Press Dominated By Leftists

Will Malven

We conservatives have long known that our press was dominated by left-leaning editors and reporters and that they rarely bothered to hide that bias in their "reporting."  Now we have a bird's-eye view of the mainstream media world-wide and it isn't pretty.

Daniel Harper of the Weekly Standard gives us a graphic presentation of just how overarching that bias has become:

Obama Has Massive Lead in Global Poll

6:37 PM, Oct 23, 2012

It is not even close: In a world poll of the U.S. presidential race, President Barack Obama is the clear favorite over Governor Mitt Romney. By a margin of 50-9 percent, Obama is favored in the poll of 21,797 respondents in 21 countries around the world.

There's another graph showing Romney's popularity in declining order so follow the link and drop by to read the blog.

I have long maintained that the reason Obama was so wildly popular over in Europe in 2008 is because the European press was so slanted that what they provide their readers essentially blinds them to any possible alternative other than leftist lies.

Now I have proof. Mere mathematical probability would require a more balanced breakdown that what we see here. This kind of one-sided result can only occur through a focused concerted effort. Europeans aren't smarter than Americans, Asians are not more sophisticated than Americans, South Americans are not more politically astute than Americans, they are all just fed a far more biased dose of BS than even the American people are being fed.

The best possible analogy I can think of is that the bulk of the mainstream media overseas is a larger manifestation of our own MSNBC. Their dedication to their leftist agenda far exceeds any sense of responsibility they may have to report factual and unbiased information.

Of necessity, foreign coverage of American politics is shallow--think of our own coverage of foreign elections--but what little does filter through is as slanted towards the left as an MSNBC discussion panel.

WADE UP PEOPLE!!! The press, as a source of information has deteriorated into nothing more than a leftist propaganda machine, for which one of the primary objectives is to bring America down.

Just thought this was interesting and very revealing (it also explains why Europeans have turned their backs on their faith, as well even the faithful will begin to question themselves when they are being fed a constant stream of anti-religion propaganda).

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

[And to the rest of the world (sorry my British friends), screw you if you hate us--we've got the bucks and the bombs--we don't care . . . well liberals all care, but the rest of us don't].

Obama KNEW! White House Emails Reveal

Will Malven

Let the White House spin machine start spinning!

If the mainstream media were actually interested in reporting news, rather than trying reelect Obama, this story would be the page one feature article and the whole world would now know that the President of the United States intentionally attempted to deceive the American people . . . for the crass political purpose of reelection.

Reuters is reporting today that the White House received three emails from the diplomatic compound in Benghazi--as the attack was occurring--which identify the attackers as probable members of Ansar al Sharia and/or al Qaeda.


While it is true that the phrase "acts of terrorism" and the term "militant groups" were both used by the President and some in the White House in discussing the murderous attack in Benghazi, there can be absolutely no doubt that there was a concerted, orchestrated effort on the part of the President and members of his administration to mislead the American people into believing that the attack was solely a spontaneous reaction to and part of a Middle East-wide reaction to the now infamous film.

Here's an excerpt from the Reuters and a link to the story.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
Reuters reports that they have obtained three emails and these emails were addressed to a number of offices including the Pentagon, our intelligence agencies, the FBI, AND the White House Situation Room.  These emails were sent on September 11 as the attack took place.

The White House knew or suspected that these attacks were being carried out, not by some amorphous mob of angry rioters, but by well armed militant groups, including the possible involvement of al Qaeda, on the first day--even as Obama was jetting off to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser.

It is now clear that the White House went out of its way in an attempt to create the impression that these attacks were part of the reaction to the film.  Five days after the White House received these emails, Susan Rice was sent out to the entire round of Sunday morning political talk shows to deny any terrorist involvement and to lay the blame on the film.

Nine days after the attack, the President himself went on the Dave Letterman Show and repeated the same lies.

There are only two possible reasons for this attempted deception, neither of reflects very well on the President and his national security team.
  1. The President and his advisors were so convinced that the death of Osama bin Laden brought the end of any terrorism threat that they were unable to bring themselves to the conclusion that this attack was a terrorist attack.
  2. The President and his advisors chose to deceive the American people intentionally so they could continue the White House campaign narrative that the President's drone attacks had so weakened terrorist organizations that they were incapable of mounting an attack.
The course of the White House's narrative is out there for all to see.  Susan Rice didn't go out of her own volition to claim repeatedly that the attack was a reaction to the film.  Administrations don't work like that.  Any member of the cabinet who goes on television does so at the behest of the President and what they say is carefully scripted (if this isn't what happened then there are other very serious problems within the White House which tell us that President Obama isn't in control).

We know that Rice was acting under White House direction, because the President did exactly the same thing a four days later on Letterman.

So . . . was this simply an incorrect deduction dictated by liberal naiveté and blindness, or was this intentional deception?  Is this White House so blind to the threat terrorism poses that they were simply unable to bring themselves to believe this was a terrorist attack--even with the reports they received and the intel they had gathered telling them differently--or is this White House just lying to us?

Given the amount of information the White House received prior to these public appearances that contradicts the official narrative and their decision to promulgate what they knew, or at least suspected, was a false narrative, the conclusion is inevitable.

The White House deliberately attempted to deceive the American people in the vain hope that all of this contradictory information wouldn't come out until after the election.

Obama must go.  We cannot trust what he says, as it is very clear that whatever happened initially, he intentionally lied during the debates about what he knew and when he knew it.

They cannot simply claim "prudence."  They can't claim they didn't want to mislead the people or "jump to the wrong conclusion," because they went out and told a specific and demonstrably false tale.

A lie is a lie whether it directly stated or by omission and this President along with members of his administration--including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--lied repeatedly to the American people.

This is not like former President George Bush's WMD claims.  This is not a situation in which all available intelligence was telling President Obama the attack was due to rioters, it is exactly the opposite.  All available intelligence was telling the President that the attack was not due to spontaneous riots . . . and he chose to make that assertion in spite of what he knew.

A lie is a lie, is a lie, is a lie.  No excuses, Mr. President.  Time to fess up to your lies.


Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, October 22, 2012

Debates Round Three: Obama By A Nose . . . But . . .

Will Malven

The one thing I always attempt to do, is be honest.  I don't believe in declaring victory for my candidate, just because he is my candidate--I fail to see any advantage in lying simply for propaganda purposes.   I am very partisan and conservative, but intellectual honesty is important.

So it is no thrill to me to say, I just finished watching the third and final Presidential debate and I have to admit, President Obama again got the better of Romney.

The victory was by a narrow margin and no knockout punches were thrown by either candidate, but by drawing or even coming close, as Romney did tonight, he once again proved himself a reasonable alternative . . . and in appearing to be an rational choice, Romney wins out in the end.  Why?

Mitt Romney just spent an hour and a half with the sitting President and didn't look incompetent or incapable of executing the duties of the office of President Of The United States Of America.  He didn't look dangerous--as the President and his campaign have repeatedly attempted to portray him, he didn't appear out of his depths.  He look entirely equal to the task.

That the President won rests solely on the fact that, as in any such debate, the sitting President has an enormous advantage and, to his credit as a clever politician, he used it to his advantage.

So, what will be the results of this debate?  I believe it puts Romney one step closer to the White House.

Remember, the President has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to destroy Mitt Romney.  His campaign spent $150 million trying to portray Mr. Romney as some ogre who would snatch birth-control pills out of the hands of women as they were purchasing them, as an unfeeling uncaring corporate executive who would destroy American industry, export all of our jobs, and channel Marie Antoinette in saying as the people starve, "Let them eat cake."

The first debate destroyed that carefully constructed narrative and the American voter realized that Mitt Romney was not only a viable alternative to President Obama, but that he was a caring, feeling human being who was offering genuine experience in job creation and governance as an alternative to the drifting, directionless, spendthrift policies of this administration.

Nothing in the second debate altered that fact, therefore, though the President won that debate, it had no effect on the race other that possible slowing the growing momentum for Romney--but not very much.

Mitt Romney's ability not to appear as some trigger-happy war-monger, but as a reasonable strong leader who would work to keep America strong--AND AT PEACE--erased all of the Obama Campaigns spending on advertisements suggesting the opposite.

Romney wins, because he proved he can sit side by side with the current President and debate him on every issue and do so articulately and knowledgeably and, simply put, look PRESIDENTIAL--advantage Romney.

As I stated in an earlier commentary, the first debate was the deciding debate.  The fact that the President managed to battle back in the second two is immaterial--all of the damage occurred in the first debate.  The remainder were nothing but beauty contests.

Simply by making himself look like a reasonable, rational, capable alternative--Romney wins.  The American voter is ready for a change.  They are tired and scared after four years of huge deficits, horrible unemployment, and an economic "recovery" that looks a whole lot like one long continuous recession.

. . . and that will be enough.

I'm holding with my 54-46 Romney victory, but we shall see . . .

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Saturday, October 20, 2012

An Angry Black Man Takes On Obama, Jesse Jackson And The NAACP

Will Malven

This is one of the most powerful videos I have ever seen. It's a black man speaking to blacks in their own vernacular.

Because he refuses to be bounded by the Democrat plantation and their designated black trustees, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the like, he is under constant personal attack from those who have chosen a life of dependence on the government and have lost all pride and sense of self-worth.

It is ever the lot of any African American who refuses to toe to the designated line of stupidity dictated by the Democrat Party and the NAACP, to be the target, not of rational, reasoned argument, but of vicious, personal attack and threats.

But Mr. Williams isn't afraid, he's mad. He's mad at his own fellow African American citizens for giving up the right to think for themselves and for choosing dependency on the government and their designated slave-masters whose sole purpose is keeping the black community dependent on handouts and voting for Democrats.

WARNING:  The language used in this video is NOT for the delicate and is not what one customarily finds on this webpage, but the message is important enough to warrant this exception.

It's sad that so many African Americans cannot see the prison they have constructed for themselves by relying on the government for their income rather than going out and building themselves real lives with real jobs and real incomes . . . and real freedom.

Mr. Williams has written a book, "Whatever Happened To Common Sense?" and has his own webpage:  Whatever Happened to Common Sense.

All you have to do is read the comments being made in response to this video to know the truth of it . . . not a single refutation, not a single rational response.  Every comment that is critical of Mr. Williams' rant is a personal attack.  You just can't argue with the truth; all you can do is try to deflect from it and to destroy the person--that never invalidates what was said and it simply proves the attackers vacuity.

It is criminal that those race pimps have sold their supporters a bill of goods and filled their minds with so much resentment and hatred solely for their own selfish political and financial gains.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and every other Democrat member of the Congressional Black Caucus have sold their souls to the Democrat Party for power and wealth. They are absolutely no different from the African slavers who sold their fellow countrymen into slavery to the white men.

Their only purpose is to perpetuate their own power at the expense of their constituents, which is why they must keep them angry and dependent. They are the modern slavers of this nation.

Sadly, most people in the black community have become so reliant on government services and so filled with the hate and anger preached by their leaders that they won't listen to this man or to any voice of reason. preferring to lapse into abusive attacks rather than be faced with the truth that they have been fooled.

For anyone, black or white, being confronted by the truth about oneself is a terrible experience. Discovering that you aren't as brilliant as you believe yourself to be, discovering that you have allowed yourself to be conned is a terrible and painful experience and sadly most people prefer to continue being lied to.

That is a human trait, not a black or white issue.

That is why this election isn't a 70/30 Romney election. It's a very, very hard thing to accept the truth and it is unpleasant to feel the shame and humiliation associated with that realization.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Thursday, October 18, 2012

LOL! Uncle Joe (Biden) Is At It Again . . . IRAN?

Will Malven

"The gift that keeps on giving," is at it again.

Guy Benson of Townhall.com graces us with another blooper from that king of bloopers, Vice President (and Official Obama Administration Court Jester), Joe Biden.

One speech, one gaff and one viciously worded attack.  Hey, Joe, what happened to that "new tone," you were calling for?

Follow the link above to read about the attack, here's the next in a long line of idiotic comments:

I am ever fascinated by the non-working minds of liberals.

The level of self-delusion and denial necessary for people to believe, in all sincerity, that a community organizer with absolutely no private sector experience who surrounds himself with ivory-towered academics who have never worked in the private sector could possibly be more qualified and capable of running our national economy than a businessman and former governor with an astounding record of success, is simply breathtaking.

I often make derisive comments on the intelligence of liberals and it suffices for occasional amusement, but the truth is that liberals are generally as intelligent as the next person.  What they lack is the ability to reason  situations out, the wisdom to see the complete historically documented failure of the basic tenets (socialism), and knowledge (factual information).

That is what makes individuals of reasonable intellect look at the unbroken record of failure that has accompanied every effort, in every nation that has attempted to adopt the tenets of socialism or communism and persist in the belief that it will work. 

As one dear, liberal friend said, in all sincerity, when I confronted him with that argument:
"But this is America, don't you think we could do it better?"
How does one combat that level of denial?  How can one possibly reach the mind of an individual who is so convinced of the rectitude of his philosophy that he is incapable of incorporating new, contradictory information into his world view?

The truth is, you can't.  It is the reason that liberals construct the fantasy world in which they live . . . and it is why, on the rare occasion that a liberal experiences such an awakening, it is an earth-shattering event in their lives.

The 9/11 conversion of comedian/conservative commentator Dennis Miller comes to mind.  Liberals rarely if ever experience an awakening of the evolutionary type, it is almost always a sudden convulsive change of outlook.

Anyway, enough blather from me, enjoy the video.  I bet you never knew we even had troops fighting in "Iran."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Laugh At Candy: Henry Payne Cartoon

Will Malven

The instant I managed to stop laughing, I knew I had to post this political cartoon from Mr. Payne.

Courtesy of Townhall.com

Before political ideology trumped journalistic integrity in the MSM, Candy Crowley would probably have been fired over her actions in the debate, but now the MSM just circles the wagons and the pseudo-journalists all protect each other.

Rush Limbaugh was talking about it today. His example was what occurred with Dan Rather. Yes, he lost his job, but he was honored at a special awards dinner held for him by Brokaw et al and now he is honored like a Professor Emeritus.

The MSM has absolutely no credibility left with anyone who halfway pays attention and prefers truth to political slant.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Moderator Candy Crowley Lies, Helps Obama - Stymies Romney

Will Malven


We have all gotten used to having the MSM play a clearly partisan role in covering political contests and throughout the 2008 election and this election they have become almost a parody of themselves as they stumble over each other in their efforts to see who can be more blatant in the disparity of their coverage.  So it comes as no surprise that those who accept the role of debate moderator have shown a propensity to allow that bias to infiltrate their efforts as an alleged "impartial"referee.

Last night Candy Crowley took a step beyond even the interrupter role of Vice Presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz who took it upon herself to interrupt Congressman Paul Ryan 82 times during his 41 minutes of talking time.

In response to Mitt Romney's criticism of the President for his administrations failure to be forthcoming with the fact that the attack was NOT part of any reaction to the film "Mohammed's Innocence," but a carefully planned and executed terrorist attack, President Obama claimed to have called it "a terrorist attack" in his remarks made from the Rose Garden on September 12.
 It was during that exchange "moderator" Candy Crowley injected herself actively in the dispute by affirming INCORRECTLY that Obama had done so.

Here's the exchange:
Romney:  “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration — is that what you’re saying?  I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama:  “Get the transcript.”

Crowley:  “He did in fact, sir. So, let me — let me call it an 'act of terror.'”

Obama:   “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

Crowley:   “He did call it an act of terror.  It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”
Not only did Crowley support the President's assertion, but the exchange interrupted the flow or Romney's argument and clearly turned the issue, which has been a growing thorn in the Obama Campaign's side, back in Obama's favor.

The problem is, President Obama did NOT  call it an act of terror.  In fact he went out of his way to again reinforce the initial impression that it was a reaction to the film--a response to some insult to the prophet Mohammed.  

The full transcript of his Rose Garden remarks follows.  You will note towards the end of the second paragraph, he said: 
"We reject all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."
As a confirmation of Romney's claim, UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on the entire spectrum of talk shows the Sunday following the attack and declared unequivocally that it was a spontaneous uprising in response to that film . . . 5 days after the attack was made.  If the President knew on Wednesday that the attacks was "an act of terror," then why was Susan Rice out there saying the opposite?  Why was the President himself on the David Letterman Show perpetuating the "film myth" two weeks after the attack?

Was the President lying last night, or did he and his administration and its surrogates lie to the American people repeatedly for the two weeks following the attack?  It can't be both.

Late in the Rose Garden remarks, the President did make a vague reference to "acts of terrorism," but in no way was that a specific allegation, rather a generic assertion that Americans will never yield to the threat of terrorism:
"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."
The President lied to the American people last night, barefaced and brazenly and instead of executing her duty as an impartial referee, at a critical moment in the debate, she wrongly and dishonestly defended that lie.

This is another in a long line of unconscionable lies streaming out of this White House and another in an unending tale of leftwing media bias.

The American people deserve better, both from their President, and from the self-proclaimed "Fourth Estate," which has again been revealed as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the lies Democrats tell.

Long Live This American Republic

UPDATE:  Candy Crowley AFTER THE DEBATE admitted to the fact that Romney was correct:
". . . I did turn around as say "You are totally correct, that they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. [NO you didn't say that, not so as to allow the audience in the auditorium and at home could hear it clearly.  You more or less muttered an abbreviated, less definitive version of that] So, he [Mitt Romney] was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word [whatever the heck that means].

--As I said too little, way, way too late.  Thanks for nothing, Candy.  I hope you enjoy your 2 dozen doughnuts (or whatever it was Obama gave you for covering his butt during the debate).

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Rose Garden
September 12, 2012

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families; sometimes they brave grave danger.  Yesterday four of these extraordinary Americans were in an attack at our diplomatic attack in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as foreign service officer Shawn Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed and today the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in their thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  In working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats, I've also directed my administration to increase our diplomatic security around the world and make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Romney vs. Obama, Round II - Obama Comes Alive

Will Malven

This isn't very thrilling.  I have to say that Obama won this debate very clearly.  The first half, the President dominated as Romney looked stiff, lacked compelling responses, and very clearly was NOT on his game.

On the other hand, Obama was facile, more responsive to the questioners, and more focused. Of course when you lie with impunity, as the President did repeatedly, your job is much easier.

One of the most egregious lies told was amplified by the "unbiased" moderator, Candy Crowley, when she confirmed the President's claim that he called the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack that first day when he made his speech from the Rose Garden (just before he jetted off to fund-raise in Las Vegas and Colorado).

In fact, he never called the terrorist attack a terrorist attack, he mentioned vaguely generic terrorist attacks . . . not the same thing at all.  We know the truth of this, because he sent his UN Ambassador, Susan Rice out that Sunday--5 days after the President Rose Garden address--to DENY that this was a terrorist related attack.

However, the real problem was Romney's weak responses to the President's lies.  In the discussion above, the President, as is his custom, took great offense (he does that often) at any implication of a cover-up.  The correct response to that would have been to say:
"Mr. President, what is "offensive" is being lied to by your administration for weeks following the attack.  What's offensive Mr. President is your sending Ambassador Rice out to deceive the American people when (according to what you just claimed) you knew it was a terrorist attack.

"So which is it Mr. President, did you know the first day that this was a terrorist attack and thus you sent Ambassador Rice out with false information, or did you not know at that time and Ambassador Rice was providing the information you had accurately?"
As I said, Romney was not on his game, though he did get stronger in the second half.

The verdict, Obama wins.  The score is now 1 - 1.

More later after I have had time to digest it all . . . right now I have indigestion . . . LOL!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Friday, October 12, 2012

Biden Channeling Mika Brzezenski In Debate?

Will Malven

I had this thought early this morning as I lay contemplating the day and the debate last night.

The stand out overall impression I was left with from the debate was that Vice President Joe Biden must have been channeling his inner Mika Brzezinski.  Mika appears to serve one purpose on MSNBC's Morning Joe program, that is to sit there and utter bovine banalities on the issues of the day and make faces at the camera to make a 12-year old girl green with envy.

Joe Biden's penchant for mugging the camera, the audience, and for inappropriate laughter (Joe, do you really find the deaths of 4 American diplomatic service employees something worthy of laughter?) and flat out rude behavior.

Because Democrats cannot argue facts on the issues, they always attempt to deride, interrupt, or otherwise distract attention away from those with whom they are arguing.  Usually it entails "bunny trails," side issues of no relevance brought up simply to deflect from a particularly cogent, factual argument, but last night it devolved into a pathetic, juvenile display of rudeness and discourtesy.

Biden's behavior was completely inappropriate to the moment, the issues being discussed, and most especially unbecoming and unexpected, coming from the Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world.

Hey, laughing man, Joe Biden, do you really believe that record unemployment, record debt, record demoralization within the work force, record dependency on government, the complete collapse of our Middle East foreign policy agenda, and the deaths of American diplomats . . . do you REALLY  find all that so amusing?

What we actually saw last night was . . . DESPERATION.

Obama was so thoroughly defeated in the first Presidential debate that Democrats are now desperate.  The polls are all turning Romney's way and indications are that by November 6, Romney will be a landslide victor.  They know they must try something to stop the hemorrhaging, so they tried to have Biden emulate what they think they saw in Mitt Romney's first debate.

To Democrats, Romney was disrespectful (he didn't sit quietly and allow the President and Jim Lehrer to lie with impunity, nor did he allow them to short him on his time), to Democrats, that's being rude (the the rest of us, it's simply not being a doormat).

Also Romney was laughing and smiling when he was attacked, because he had the facts and experience to slap down the lies and distortions of the President, but more than that, to fill in the blanks left by the President's superficial responses.  Biden's performance was a pathetic, Democrat Party version of that . . . and it came off as plastic and simply RUDE.

The Vice President's boorish behavior may go over well with his base . . . and, to an extent, that was what he was after, to enthuse Obama's flagging base . . . but it made him appear juvenile, mean, trivial, and dishonest (I can't believe he lied so brazenly about "not being aware of requests from the security staff in Libya for more forces).

Again, this debate is mostly immaterial.  Romney is the candidate and he will be the next President--in 2013.

As I said last night, both did what they needed to accomplish, Ryan looked every bit the accomplished capable candidate, and Biden struck an aggressive pose and attempted to dominate the debate--in doing so, he enthused his base.

Nothing more could be demanded of either candidate.  Now attention goes back to where it belongs, on the Presidential race and the last two debates.

I have already stated my opinion that the only debate that really matters is that first one.  Romney accomplished everything he needed to at that time, the remainder of the debates are really just entertainment.

Romney will win this one going away, unless something truly dramatic or disastrous occurs.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Vice Presidential Debate: Battle Between 70-Year Old Child (Biden) And 42-Year Old Adult (Ryan)

Will Malven

Liberals are immature.  That's been evident for some time.
  • They respond as children do to most situations.  
  • If they aren't getting their way, they lash out with personal attacks and lies directed at whomever they believe responsible.
  • They won't take responsibility for their failures
  • They want to claim credit for everything good that happens
  • AND they CAN'T handle criticism. 
We witnessed this childish behavior last Wednesday during the Presidential debate, with President Obama throughout most of the debate looking like a teenager being lectured by his parent--always looking down or away pretending that he can't hear what they're saying to him and too embarrassed at being caught that he can't look them in the eye.

Now, tonight we saw the other child, the child with A-D-D who can't sit still, who can't keep from making faces or mugging the audience, and who can't be expected to behave like an adult.

He was rude, childish, and dishonest.

It's sad, really, Mr. Biden has a wealth of information he could have spent his time communicating, but he was too interested in trying to score political point   Now, I know that it was his job to try and take Mitt Romney down a peg, but, just as I predicted, Democrats overcompensated for Obama's imitation of a somnambulist in the last debate and turned Biden into a CLOWN (and here I though Obama was the Clown Prince.

Over all, the debate was probably a tie.  I thought Ryan too timid and too reluctant to strike back at thing Biden said, but Ryan was really fighting two battles, one with his opponent and one with the moderator who seemed more than eager to interrupt Congressman Ryan and too willing to give Biden a chance to interrupt.

At the end, Biden complained about the time being given to Ryan . . . the tale of the clock, 41:30 for Biden, 40:00 for Ryan.  Just as in the case of the first debate, the Democrats seem to begrudge allowing Republicans equal time . . . this is interesting since Biden repeatedly asserted that he and Obama wanted a "level playing field for all Americans" (I guess that excludes Republicans).

The only really one-sided even was the closing statement by Ryan who absolutely knocked it out of the park, focusing solely on the failed policies of Obama and the need for a new direction, back to well known and established economic principles that will create a job-friendly environment.

Wish Ryan had been more explicit in describing who that 3% of small businesses are that Biden and Obama want to raise taxes on . . . those "small businesses" (they're actually more accurately described as mid-sized) hire about half of all small business employees, so the number of people the Obama/Democrat tax increase will adversely affect (and put out of jobs) is potentially quite high.

Any-who, it wasn't a great debate, nobody actually won and nobody is going to get much of a bump out of it.

My opinion only, we'll have to wait to hear the pundits and the polling.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Romney by 10+

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Obama Talking Big Bird: Libyan Investigation Stalled, Israel-Iran Tensions High, Turkey-Syria Tensions High, Unemployment High . . . Is Obama High???

Will Malven

The saddest joke ever played on the American people just gets sadder and sadder.  President Obama, typical of most liberals with their level of maturity locked at about 10 years old, has decided to latch on to Mitt Romney's mention of Big Bird in last Wednesday's debate and use it as a campaign issue.

Let's get this straight, President Obama is attacking Mitt Romney for mentioning Big Bird as an example of things the federal government is funding and should not be . . . as though the threat to Big Bird is a major issue . . . MEANWHILE:
  • Unemployment is "7.8%" (certain to be revised upwards, post election)
  • REAL unemployment, that unemployment number which doesn't dismiss as unworthy of being counted the 7 million people who have given up all hope and stopped looking for work stands at over 14%. [I guess Obama doesn't care enough to bother counting them]
  • Labor force participation is at a 30-year low.  
  • The national debt is over 16 Trillion dollars and 
  • We are adding over 1 Trillion dollars  each year to it.
  • Israel is on the verge of going to war with Iran.
  • Iran is threatening all Persian Gulf traffic
  • Our ambassador to Libya was murdered (after being raped and beaten repeatedly) along with members of his security team over 2 weeks ago and the investigation STILL hasn't gotten started,
  • Turkey and Syria are exchanging fire and Turkey has described the situation as a "worst case scenario" playing out in Syria.
  • The Syrian government is killing its own citizens by the thousands
  • Al Qaeda has moved into Syria (as well as Libya) and is positioning itself to build a power base there in alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and other less radical groups.
  • The economy remains in the tank and under the continued threat of a "double-dip recession"
  • Healthcare costs continue to rise and record rates
  • Doctors are refusing to accept new Medicare patients because of low compensation rates [and now Obama has cut $716 Billion from it--most from doctor and hospital compensation]
  • Fuel costs have doubled [Obama is on record advocating high prices to force conservation]
  • Food Stamps up
  • Sorry, just not enough time or room to mention everything bad that bears the Obama stamp
All of that and more and President of the United States Of America . . . is talking about Big Bird. [Apparently Big Bird is not very thrilled with President Obama either . . . he has requested the Obama Campaign withdraw the add featuring him]

Are you serious?  Can it get any more pathetic.  Democrats are like spoiled, mean-spirited little children--certainly they reflect that level of maturity.  
"Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah.  You attacked Big Bird, you mean old man."
Isn't it time to get the adults back in charge?  Isn't it time we have a serious, MATURE, conversation about the issues?  Okay, I know that's now what Obama and the Democrats want, they tried that last Wednesday and Obama didn't fare so well.

That the press isn't serious about reporting the truth, but prefers the role of cheerleader, makes it even worse.  President Obama and the Democrats couldn't get away with their "Seinfeld campaign" (a campaign about nothing--other than smearing a good man's reputation) without the willing assistance of those in the so-called "Fourth Estate" [more like the Democrat Party Bureau of Propaganda].

If by some bizarre fluke, Obama gets reelected, well then the American voters will get the "shared sacrifice" they promise as well as the shared lives of quiet desperation and misery that invariably accompanies it.  Not something I look forward to.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, October 8, 2012

Mid-East Blowout Signals Obama Foreign Policy Failures - Hillary's Incompetence

Will Malven

The more we learn, the worse it becomes for Team Obama and their apologists in the MSM/Propaganda Wing of the Democrat Party.

CBS News, who have been Johnny-on-the-spot in reporting on the growing scandal surrounding the death of Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and the failure of not only the Obama Middle East strategy, but the failure of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her staff to exercise due diligence with respect to the security requirements of our diplomatic staff.

In their latest revelation, they interview  the former head of the Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya, who relates a tale of repeated efforts to retain necessary security forces and equipment in Libya and repeated denials of those requests by the Obama State Department.

Here's the original report:

Ex-U.S. security team leader in Libya: "We needed more, not less" security staff

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

For the full report and to listen to the interview, follow the link back to CBSNews.com.
We know that the Obama White House was aware that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack within hours.  We also know that for almost a week after, they attempted to deceive the American people by propagating the narrative that it was a reaction to the infamous film, "Mohammed's Innocence," that almost no one saw.

They persisted in this lie well after it became public that the attack was staged, well armed, and well organized--characteristics not typical of a spontaneous eruption of violence, but very typical of organized terrorist attacks.

Why maintain the fiction until well after the truth was known?  Simple, because if the Obama White House was forced to admit that the attack was made by organized terrorists, it would lessen the President's image as having defeated terrorism by killing bin Laden and using drones to kill known al Qaeda leaders.
Note:  Exactly how do unknown terrorist leaders become "known terrorist leaders?"  That's easy, by interrogating the known terrorists . . . AFTER CAPTURE.  You can't interrogate a dead terrorist leader, so when you strike at him from 20,000 feet with a drone, you lose a valuable intelligence asset.  Bush understood this and pursued the capture of terrorists, Obama doesn't and prefers the publicity of a drone strike to the effectiveness of capture.
Now we also know that the Obama Administration had repeated warnings of possible terrorist activity, repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens for additional security resources, repeated requests from the head of special security teams to retain more resources in country.

This is an indictment, not only of President Obama's new softer easier tone in dealing with hostile nations, not only of his detached, "lead from behind" (a.k.a. "follow") leadership style, but it also decimates Hillary Clinton's reputation as some sort of foreign policy genius.

Let's look at Hillary's actual record of achievement. She failed when husband Bill Clinton gave her the project of restructuring our national healthcare system, as a sitting Senator, she called the head of the entire Afghanistan theater and designer of the strategy that finally pacified Iraq, General Patraeus, a liar, and now she has through her inaction or incompetence allowed an American Ambassador to be killed--THE FIRST IN OVER 30 YEARS.

Face it folks, it all boils down to Obama's failed attempts to re-image America as a softer, kinder, gentler nation. It shows the naivete that appears to afflict all liberals (and libertarians) and eerily echoes the sad innocence of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's "Peace for our time."

If you can't understand the nature of evil, you will be doomed to repeated victimization. Evil understands only strength. This attack would never have happened under Bush. Terrorists understood President Bush. They understood that, should they attack Americans, our nation would exact a heavy toll on them.

It is a fact that continues to baffle Democrats and liberals.

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." 
       --Anon. [frequently attributed to Burke, but not sourced]

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Enslavement Of A Once Proud People: Nine In Ten Households In Scotland On Dole

Will Malven

Today we have an object lesson on the corrosive and destructive nature of socialism and government largess.

Now this one hurts.  My ancestors come from Scotland (well, some of them--like most Americans, I'm a mutt, a mix of Scottish, Irish, Swedish and German extract).  Scots have been throughout history a proud, fiercely independent people who fought war after war against the British Crown in a failed effort to retain their independence.

Even after they became part of the United Kingdom, Scotts have maintained a fierce spirit of independence and kept fighting for Scottish autonomy.  But, what the British Crown could not do through force of arms, they have managed to accomplish through socialism.

The Telegraph today reports that:

Nine in ten Scots 'living off state's patronage'

Almost nine out of 10 Scottish households take more from the public purse than they contribute in taxes thanks to a “rotten system” of state patronage, the Tory party conference will hear on Monday.

By Simon Johnson, Scottish political editor
11:25PM BST 07 Oct 2012

Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, is to highlight official figures showing that only 283,080 households north of the border – 12 per cent of the total – pay more in tax than they receive in public services.

She will tell delegates that, because the public sector is seen as the key provider of everything from housing to employment, state spending now accounts for more than half Scotland’s wealth.


Miss Davidson supported her claims by publishing figures from the Office for National Statistics, which showed the average Scottish household consumes £14,151 more in public services every year than it pays in tax.

Even the families in the middle income groups consume around £20,000 more in state spending than they contribute.

However, those in the top 10 per cent pay £17,205 more in tax than they receive in public services.

(cont'd at link)

How very sad to see such a once proud and fiercely independent people reduced to slavery to the state.  It will happen to any group of people.  It doesn't matter how determined and resistant they are to subjugation to the state, decades of creeping socialism, increasing dependence on the aid of government, decreasing wages and availability of jobs, using the national education system for continuous indoctrination rather than education.  

Over generations this leads to a gradual acceptance of the unacceptable, dependence on government largess, as something towards which to aspire and self-reliance as strange and anti-social.

All of it works to complement each other to achieve the aims of Lenin and of Marx, an emmasculated, demoralized, easily controlled electorate who is incapable of discerning fact from fiction and who looks to government for all its needs--including what the people "need" to know.

It's quite Orwellian . . . and it is a window into America's future should we continue down the path on which President Obama and the Democrat Party have set us.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

When indoctrination replaces education, then

Friday, October 5, 2012

Another Hint Romney Cleaned Obama's Clock

Will Malven

I just had to share this with you folks.

QUESTION:  How does a liberal, empty suit President know when he's lost a debate so badly that he will lose the election?


It appears that Clint Eastwood isn't the only one who thinks the President is an empty chair.

This is a sneak peak at next weeks cover, courtesy of The New Yorker Cultural Desk. 

Now you know it's bad when a bastion of Northeastern liberal thought portrays the sitting President as and empty chair.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Thursday, October 4, 2012

More Debate Observations

Will Malven

During several exchanges, the differences between the President and Mr. Romney could be clearly seen.  The difference?  Obama has an agenda, Romney has a plan.

When asked about jobs and how to create them, President Obama went off into the usual wish list of liberal agenda items, struggling to relate them back to some relevance in job creation.  Mr. Romney talked about how to create jobs and what he would do to get government out of the way and allow the private sector to lead the way.

When Obama came into office, he promised "a laser-like focus" on jobs, what we got instead was a laser-like focus on fund-raising and playing golf. 

Last night that difference was glaring.  While Romney talked about reducing regulations where possible and freeing up capital for investment with sound tax policy so that this economy could begin a real recovery and produce Vice-President Joe Biden's favorite "three-letter word" J-O-B-S, the President talked about "hiring 100,000 new teachers," or "adding 2 million more openings" in our universities and colleges, or investing in "green energy" and research and science funding . . . all very fine and noble aspirations, but all associated with Democrat Party efforts to advance a particular leftist agenda.

All of these items, Obamacare (universal government run healthcare), green energy in preference (and even to the exclusion of) coal, gas and oil, all of which are more accessible and cheaper to produce and consume, and expansion of the federal workforce, are straight off the Democrat Party wish list that have been sitting there waiting for Democrats to get the power to pass them.

There has always been a lot of rhetoric coming from this White House about jobs, about creating jobs, about focusing on jobs, they even attempted to create the impression of recovery by having Vice President Joe Biden declare the summer of 2010 the "Summer of Recovery."  I believe it was just after that the jobs took another negative dip.

Problem is, even as Obama was paying lip-service to "creating jobs" (governments don't "create jobs," it can only create a regulatory and tax environment that encourages businesses to expand) he was pursuing a reckless agenda of spending directed at bolstering, not the economy in general, but his chances for reelection.  Most of his efforts went toward his supporters on Wall Street (his campaign was the recipient of huge contributions from the banking industry), the unions (most of the stimulus money went to bolster union jobs and union pension funds, and his cronies in all the politically correct industries, like the "green industry" fiascos of Solyndra and Fisker.

The press has done its dead-level best to drag the stumbling President across the finish line, but judging from his lackluster performance, even Obama believes he doesn't deserve a second term.

Last night, not only was the emperor revealed as having no clothes, but the myth of the great orator died a well deserved, teleprompter-less death.

Watching that debate was the most fun I've had in politics since Reagan's presidency.  Obama was schooled by Romney . . . Obama looked like the tyro he is, out of his depths, with no command of the facts, (he had only what his spin-meisters provided, all half-truths and misrepresentations of Romney's agenda), and subject to personal outrage that Romney had dared to question him.

Narcissist rarely react well when their self-created defensive, illusory world which surrounds them is dismantled.  I fully expect to see an aggressive, snarky, rude Obama in the next debate. 

Just as in the Gore Campaign, Obama has no self-image beyond the "I am wonderful" common to all narcissists, therefore, he has to pretend to be someone he's not . . . again as Al Gore did in 2001 . . . and just as Al Gore did in the second debate, the Obama camp will move too far in the opposite direction.  They believe that Obama was too passive, that he should have been more aggressive and confrontational.

Therefore, the next debate will be characterized by Obama looking like the jerk he truly is . . . the guy who won't allow anyone by him to tell jokes in the White House, the guy who truly believes he lives on a superior plane to the rest of us, the guy who is so superior to his American citizens that only he can decide what is best for them.

Well, Romney won this debate just as he will win the next two.  Obama will struggle to find his "true self" and come out swinging and get stomped once more.

Believe me folks, barring some unforeseen major disaster, Obama is toast.

My prediction . . . Romney/Ryan - 54%,  Obama/Biden - 46%.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Romney Devastates Obama In First Debate

Will Malven

I watched the debate and I believe Mitt Romney just clinched the election.  He didn't just outshine President Obama, he decimated him.  IF it had been a little league game, they would have called this one in the first half-hour. 

Yes, it was that bad for Obama.

Romney came armed with all the facts, knowledge and experience of his career in business and as governor of Massachusetts and countered every boilerplate attack the President tried with facts and reason and he refused to allow Obama to paint Romney with the usual half-truths and distortions by countering each with the truth.

I just heard Pat Buchannan say, "If this was a fifteen round fight, Romney won every round."  I agree.  The President looked down and not at Mr. Romney while Romney was speaking, whereas Romney looked directly at the President.

On optics alone, Romney won this debate.  He looked up, enthusiastic, and up beat.  By contrast Obama looked uncomfortable, unhappy, and out of his depths.

I may discuss it more tomorrow, but I hardly think the Obama camp can be happy with his performance . . . Oh, they'll try to put on a good face, but the truth is, Obama was outclassed, out argued, and flat out beaten . . .on every topic and every question.

This is a happy night for Republicans and a great night for America.  The sooner we get this marginally intelligent, unqualified, unaccomplished, dishonest Clown Prince Narcissist in Chief out of office, the better for all of us.

I believe I will go back to my original estimate tonight, Romney/Ryan by 10.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

It's Still Romney, Never Doubt It

Will Malven

I took a week or so off just to sort of step back and watch the antics in this election cycle.  The level of self-delusion among the liberal press and Obama camp is really fascinating.

They persist in using polling data from polls which have, not just consistently, but INVARIABLY used numbers equaling or exceeding the exit polls from 2008. 

The assumptions necessary for them to believe that turnout for Obama in this election will equal that of 2008 rather than that of 2004 or 2010 (the most recent data point we have on voter turnout).

By last Friday, virtually every pundit or talking head that wasn't a "true" conservative was announcing that the race was over, that Romney had lost, and nothing could prevent Obama from winning.

Note:  I'm talking about the likes of Joe Scarborough, George Will, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks and the other pseudo-conservatives, as well as their liberal friends . . . ie. all those who live inside the DC/New York/Boston corridor.

Get away from the echo chamber of the Northeast and out into the real world, conservatives have never lost faith.  People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt . . . and your humble author . . . have refused to be caught up in the left-wing trap of allowing negative news to demoralize us.

We read the same polls, we just don't accept the faulty premise behind them.

Today most polling results show the race within the margin of error . . . including the CNN poll which over-polled Democrats by 8%.  Do the math.  If Obama leads Romney in the CNN poll by 2%, then adjusting the numbers to a more realistic 4% suddenly shifts the race into the Romney wins category.

Note:  The recent "swing-state" poll that showed Obama with a 10 point lead . . . polled only 160 people--total!  That's worse than useless, it is downright dishonest.  Anyone with even a slight familiarity with the science of statistics knows that with a representative population of 160, the poll is virtually useless--with a margin of error of over 10 points.

Clearly the point of that poll--and pretty much all the polls that are being touted in the MSM--was not to measure anything.  It was intended, solely, to generate the headlines and narrative that it did.

This is not "News."  This is not "informing the public."  This is active campaigning for  President Obama.   FREE OF CHARGE.  The Obama Campaign should be forced to declare "in kind" contributions for the unfettered support and enthusiastic campaigning network pundits are doing on his behalf.

Now the above calculation is simplistic and not really valid for a number of reasons.  It was used for illustrative purposes only.  If you want to see a more realistic picture of polls that have been corrected for the obvious bias inherent in these polls, try those at UnSkewedPolls.com.

UnSkewed Polling Data
Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:14:58 PM
Poll Date Sample MoE Skew Obama(D) Romney(R) Spread
UnSkewed Avg. 9/10 - 9/30 -- -- +6.1 D 45.8 50.0 Romney +4.2
CNN/ORC 9/28 - 9/30 783 LV 3.0 +3 D 46.0 50.0 Romney +4
ABC News/Wash. Post 9/26 - 9/29 813 LV 3.5 +3 D 49.0 49.0 Tied
Fox News 9/24 - 9/26 1092 LV 3.0 +4 D 46.0 44.0 Obama +2
Reason/Rupe 9/13 - 9/17 787 LV 4.3 +8 D 45.0 52.0 Romney +7
Reuters/Ipsos 9/12 - 9/20 1437 LV 2.9 +17.5 D 44.0 54.0 Romney +10
NBC News/WSJ 9/12 - 9/16 736 LV 3.6 +7 D 44.0 51.0 Romney +7
Monmouth Univ. 9/13 - 9/16 1344 LV 2.5 +6 D 45.0 50.0 Romney +5
QStarNews 9/24 - 9/28 5061 LV 1.4 +0.4 D 47.0 50.0 Romney +3

Personally, I'm not paying attention to the polls or what the talking heads think. I'm going by my gut feeling. People feel worried. They don't see any of this so-called "recover" manifesting in their own lives.  Their mortgages are still underwater, they may or may not have a job (1 in 5 don't or are working in a minimum wage, part-time job). 
  • They can't get loans.  
  • They see prices beginning to rise from all the fiat money being pumped into the economy by the Fed.  
  • They see a $16 Trillion debt that places a bill for $50,000 on the back of every newborn child (for services rendered to parents and grandparents).
  • They look overseas and they see the formerly stable, if not altogether friendly, Middle East in complete turmoil, with so-called "democracy" movements that the Obama Administration touted and attempted to take credit for, morphing rapidly into the intolerant, Shari'a Law enforcing, Islamic caliphates the more sane among us were warning against.
  • They see Iran about to become a nuclear power and President Obama standing on the sidelines, apparently cheering on the possibility, all the while paying lip-service to Israeli national security.
Obama's a failure at the economy and he's a failure in foreign policy . . . all he has been truly competent in is spending tax-payer money to fund boondoggle projects and companies for his cronies and campaign contributors . . . $5.6 Trillions worth in just under 4 years . . . in itself a record.

The majority of Americans will not reelect Obama.  They see his failures, his inability, and hear his empty rhetoric--the exact same rhetoric of four years ago--and they are not fooled.

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

Romney by 5 (and maybe all the way back up to the 10 I originally predicted).

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!