Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The twighlite/spin zone

I was emailed this and it was too good not to share:

No matter what side of the AISLE you're on, THIS is FUNNY.

Judy Walkman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Senator Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory:

On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'

So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.

Harry Reid:
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:

"Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Is Obama's "Counter-Culture" ethos ending?

Counter Culture -- A counterculture (also written counter-culture) is a subculture whose values and norms of behavior deviate from those of mainstream society, often in opposition to mainstream cultural mores.

It is widely believed that the American Counter Culture collapsed in 1973 when two things occurred:

First, most of their political goals were accomplished and
Second, the Vietnam war ended.

In 1971, Obama moved back to the State of Hawaii where he attended Sunday School at the Unitarian Church.  This congregation as early as 1969 has had ties with the Students for a Democratic Society from which Bill Ayers cut his terror teeth. 

It is easy to see that Obama held this "subculture" ideals from an early age until today.  We now know, for example, that Obama's mentor outside of the radical church he attended in Hawaii was Frank Marshall Davis who was an espoused Communist. 

It is also a fact that Obama's mothers and her parents were also communist.  As Glen Beck aptly notated "You’ve got a communist mom and a communist dad and a communist mentor and communist grandparents and then you go to school and you hang out with communists and then you become President and you appoint communists all-around you,” Glenn said. “I mean this sincerely. It would be almost impossible for Barack Obama to not be a Marxist.”

So, where am I going with this communism/marxist stuff.  I believe that this election will resoundingly reject the rebirth of the 1960's counter culture that Obama and his fellow travelers have worked so hard these past four years to bring to us, in his fundamental ways.

Remember during the rise of the tea party when the faces at the rallies were grandma in her red white and blue attire being labeled racist, terrorist and haters?  The pictures we saw did not square with the Democrats vitriolic and venomous descriptions of them.

Now, look at the following campaign ad for Obama and see if this aptly describes what they labeled grandma tea party.

Grandma and Grandpa revolutionaries.  So much liberal anger in this rest home.  Maybe they should let them out a little more often.

One thing for sure, this ad will not resonate with the elderly vote.  These angry libs were probably at Woodstock and Height Ash bury in the 1960's protesting the war and stoned on LSD provided by Timothy Leary.  I surely hope they have access to anger management counselors after November 6th.

Now, keeping with the counter culture meme of Obama's, lets take another look at yet another ad that is surely not in the social norm.  I found it rather coincidental that the starlet of this gem bears the same last name as Obama's mother (Dunham).

OK, the first social norm broken here is the fact that Obama has two daughters and he finds this garbage OK for them to view. 

So, recap here.  First ad was targeted for elderly voters, the second ad was targeted at the MTV crowd and now the Obama campaign rounds out the "children" exploitation meme.

All three subjects are counter to American culture.  All three subjects are desperate and quite frankly beneath the Office of the President of the United States.  This much desperation hurled at us at light speed because the "hippies" are losing their grip on power.  The sixties ended and they are still angry as hell and looking for revolution.  The picture that comes to mind is from the movie Butch Casidy and the Sundance Kid (replace Butch and Sundance with Obama and Biden) as they hide behind the walls that separates them from the entire Bolivian army (replace the Bolivian Army with American voters ready to send these two outlaws packing). 

Why Obama/Democrats are wrong

I have written much about the Democrats and their socialist, progressive, communistic ways.  I have surely been hyperbolic at times when describing and paint a mighty big stroke of my brush against those who call themselves Democrat as well as those who support their policies.  When I say policies, I also mean ideology because no truer practice of policy is found the ideology it represents.

If the Obama Administration and those in Congress and the Senate pass laws like Obamacare it is surely indicative of their ideology of the State run health care.  The State has the power over the individual.  Before I go on, I do concede that there are many on the Republican side of the isle and who follow them that have exactly the same thoughts of Statism vs. Individual liberty. 

The most prominent example of Republican transgression along Statism lines are the auto industry bailout of GM.  Mitt Romney has taken a beating by the Obama campaign and those who support him in the MSM as someone who wanted GM to fail.  They said he wanted to bankrupt GM.  That message resonated well in the polls until the debates.  Mitt Romney made his point clear that he believed that GM should have been forced to go through the Bankruptcy process and enjoy all of it's protection in order to reorganize to exit the other side leaner and smarter in order to compete.  Unfortunately, the losers were the shareholders and creditors, the winners were the Auto Unions, for now.

This is really the heart of Obama and his fellow travellers ideology -- the State picks winners and losers

"Churchill: I've said it before and will say it again: "The follies of socialism are inexhaustible."

I watched the long, slow, agonizing decline of British industry under socialism following World War II… and I know that government only makes things worse by meddling in the economy. Whenever governments try to pick winners and losers, they invariably wind up picking losers and compounding failure. And there are good reasons for that.

When losses are made (under free-market capitalism), these losses are borne by the individuals who sustained them and took the risk and judged things wrongly, whereas under state management all losses are quartered upon the tax-payers and the community as a whole. The elimination of the profit motive and of self-interest as a practical guide in the myriad transactions of daily life will restrict, paralyze, and destroy British ingenuity, thrift, contrivance, and good housekeeping at every state in our life and production, and will reduce all our industries from a profit-making to a loss-making process."

Under Obama, the State picked GM over the individual risk takers (shareholders).  Under free markets the consumer (individual) picks winners and losers.  In America, the consumers reject electric cars yet the Obama Statist picked GM forced the re-tooling of their plants to produce the Chevy Volt at a whopping loss that the free market, still as it is, reject whole heatedly.  This, in spite of the Statist lavished incentives to purchase them in an effort to "create" a market niche for it's success.  The State has decided for the individual that you must abandon you SUV and squeeze into this fire trap on wheels.

Under Obama, the State picked Solyndra over the individual risk takers in the domestic oil markets in the US.  The Canadian pipeline killed, the oil drilling leases on Government land killed, Fracking technology taking early hits in the eventual killing of that industry for what, solar panels made in Denmark and China.  Obama and the Statist again pick the loser, the taxpayer, who has to pick up the tab.

Everywhere the Statist succeed in picking market based winners -- turn into losers of the individual liberty kind.

Democrat humor and Michael Moore teamed up for this ad:

I wonder if they kiss their grandkids with these mouths?

Monday, October 29, 2012

The looming "war of the Secretaries"

The naked emperor has tweeted his plan this morning.  It is a 5 point plan.  Sound familiar?  Bereft and adrift this Administration is at the 11th hour that now everything they have thrown at Romney, spending millions and millions to "move the needle" have failed they now are left with the mimic card.

At, Katie Pavlich reports -- "If he gets another term, President Obama has a new plan about how to get businesses hiring again. He wants to appoint a Secretary of Business. Yes, that means creating another government position which will naturally lead to more paper work, more bureaucracy and more chaos for the country's job creators."

So, Obama really thinks we are stupid naives or what?  I had to laugh out loud enough to have my wife come into my office at inquire just what was so funny.

I told her that the resulting chaos between the "Secretary of Business" and the "Labor Secretary" would be palpable.  Hilda Solis would walk a picket line outside the new Cabinet members office until they capitulated to Labors demands.

The Obama Administration has less than 8% (the lowest in history) of Cabinet members with business experience so it would be a farce to see who he attempts to appoint.  One thing we do know is that the House and Senate Republicans have already paved the way for an appointment without the vetting process.  Nice, huh?

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Holding Congressional Communists in check

The Conservative Center for Security Policy has released their ranking of all 535 members of Congress.

The center rated all 535 members of the Congress on eight issue votes taken in the Senate and 22 in the House this year, including a measure to defund the U.S. wars on terrorists (a “nay” vote was promoted by the organization) to a bill that would define terrorists as enemy combatants and try them by military tribunal (the center recommended a “yea” vote). The center gave 195 members of Congress 100 percent “champion” ratings on the issues, including one Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) and one Independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) The 74 members receiving a 0% rating were all Democrats.” -- Human Events

8 of the 22 bills put forth in the House for vote were drafted by Communists who are, or were at the time of the votes members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. All 8 were rejected. They were the following subject matter:

Eliminate U.S. funding for Iraqi Security Forces
Reduce funding to anti-ballistic missile defense
Decrease funding to nuclear weapons activities
Decrease funding to nuclear weapons activities
Withdraw from Afghanistan
Cutting funding/delaying development of nuclear bomber
Cutting funding for missile defense
Restricting funding for land-based missiles

Can anyone see the trend here? I am sure Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba and Iran are excited to see so many in Congress share their vision of a severely crippled American capability.  I have posted the detail of the bills that were rated and the votes (to include who drafted and put forth the bills).  I have bolded the bills put forth by the CPC membership, all of which were voted down.

1. Eliminate U.S. funding for Iraqi Security Forces. The Holt Amendment (D-NJ), sought to eliminate $1.5 billion in funding for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund. Pronational security vote: NO; REJECTED 299-133, 1 not voting (Roll call vote 48; Amdt. #A008 to H.R. 1; Feb. 16th, 2011)

2. Reauthorization of expiring intelligence gathering provisions. The FISA Sunsets Extension Act (Rep. Sensenbrenner, R-WI) extended two expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and one provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act concerning access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO: 279 – 143, 11 not voting (Roll call vote 66; Bill # H.R. 514 (on motion that House agree to Senate amendment); Feb. 17th, 2011)

3. Allow detainees to be tried in the U.S. federal courts. The Smith Amendment (DWA), sought to limit use of funds to transfer detainees who are not United States citizens or members of the Armed Forces to the United States until 45 days after the President has submitted a plan to Congress for the disposition of each detainee who is proposed to be transferred to the United States. The amendment also sought to hold open the use of federal civilian courts as a means of trying such detainees when they are transferred to the United States. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 253-165, 13 not voting (Roll call vote 356; Amdt. #A022 to H.R. 1540; May 26th, 2011).

4. Define terrorists as enemy combatants to be tried by military tribunal. The Buchanan Amendment (R-FL) required that any foreign nationals who engage in a terrorist attack inside the United States, or on U.S. personnel/property outside the United States, and are subject to trial by military commission for the attack, be tried only by military commission, not in the civilian court system. Pro-national security vote: YES, AGREED TO 246 – 173, 12 not voting (Roll call vote 357; Amdt. #A023 to H.R. 1540; May 26th, 2011).

5. End the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces. The Amash Amendment (R-MI) sought to strike section 1034 of 17 the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1034 authorized the use of military force against, and affirmed our engagement in armed conflict with, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 234-187, 10 not voting, (Roll call vote 361; Amdt. #A027 to H.R. 1540; May 26th 2011).

6. Reduce funding to anti-ballistic missile defense. The Sanchez Amendment (D-CA) sought to reduce the funding for Ground-based Midcourse Defense systems by $100,000,000. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED: 234-184, 13 not voting (Roll call vote 369; Amdt. #A036 to H.R. 1540; May 26th, 2011).

7. Decrease funding to nuclear weapons activities. The Welch Amendment (D-VT) sought to increase the amount for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $491,000,000 and decrease the National Nuclear Security Administration weapons activities account by a similar amount. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 300-123, 8 not voting (Roll call vote 546; Amdt. #A024 to H.R. 2354; July 12th, 2011).

8. Decrease funding to nuclear weapons activities. The Holt Amendment (D-NJ) sought to increase the Department of Energy's Office of Science account by $42,665,000 and reduce the Weapons Activities account under the National Nuclear Security Administration by a similar amount. The intent of the amendment was to restore funding for the DOE Office of Science to Fiscal Year 2011 levels to help funding for the implementation of the America COMPETES Act. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 261-164, 6 not voting (Roll call vote 576; Amdt. #A038 to H.R. 2354; July 14th, 2011).

9. Withdraw from Afghanistan. The Lee Amendment (D-CA) sought to end the war in Afghanistan by limiting funding to the “safe and orderly withdrawal” of U.S. troops and military contractors. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 303-113, 15 not voting. (Roll call vote 264; Amdt. #A005 to H.R. 4310; May 17, 2012)

10. Foreign terrorist trials by military commissions only. The Rooney Amendment (RFL) required that any detained foreign national who has engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States and is subject to trial by military commission, be tried only by military commission and not by an Article III civilian court. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO, 249-171, 11 not voting. (Roll call vote 266; Amdt. #A007 to H.R. 4310; May 17, 2012) 18

11. Cutting funding/delaying development of nuclear bomber. The Markey Amendment (D-MA) prohibited Department of Defense funding for the development of a long-range penetrating bomber aircraft for fiscal years 2013-2023, and reduced related Air Force research and development funding by $292 million. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 308-112, 11 Not voting. (Roll call vote 268; Amdt. #A011 to H.R. 4310; May 17, 2012)

12. Cutting funding for missile defense. The Polis Amendment (D-CO) reduced funding for the ground-based midcourse missile defense system by $403 million, with the reduction to be derived from the East Coast Missile Defense location. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 252-165, 14 Not voting (Roll call vote 269; Amdt. #A012 to H.R. 4310; May 17, 2012)

13. Providing constitutional protections to detained terrorists. The Smith Amendment (D-WA) deleted provisions requiring automatic military custody of foreign Al Qaeda terrorists, and eliminated indefinite military detention for any person detained under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) inside the United States by providing immediate transfer to trial in federal or state court. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 238-182, 11 Not voting. (Roll call vote 270; Amdt. #A029 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012)

14. Prohibiting unilateral reduction of nuclear weapons. The Price Amendment (R-GA) prohibited the president from reducing nuclear weapons beyond what is required under the New START treaty, unless such a further reduction is required by a Senate-ratified treaty or specifically authorized by an Act of Congress. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO, 241-179, 11 Not voting. (Roll call vote 280; Amdt. #A024 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012)

15. Halting sequestration. The Rigell Amendment (R-VA) halted the FY 2013 portion of defense “sequestration”, the $500 billion automatic, across-the-board cuts to the defense budget over ten years as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011, provided that Congress were to enact a reconciliation bill or other legislation that offsets the cuts over five years; also requires a report from the Department of Defense on the impact of sequestration before it occurs. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 220-201, 10 Not voting (Roll Call vote 281; Amdt. #A025 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012) 19

16. Prohibiting funding for United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty organizations. The Duncan Amendment (R-SC), prohibited funding for any institution or organization established by the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty; Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 229-193, 9 Not voting (Roll call vote 283; Amdt. #A030 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012) 1

17. Restricting funding for New START nuclear reductions. The Rehberg Amendment (R-MT) prohibited funding for the Department of Defense to implement New START delivery vehicle reductions unless the President can certify that Russia must make a similar reduction under New START and that Russia is not developing strategic delivery systems not covered by New START and capable of reaching the United States. The amendment also restricted funding for the Department’s nuclear reductions if such reductions would result in eliminating a leg of the nuclear triad. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 238-162, 31 Not voting (Roll call vote 288; Amdt. #A042 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012)

18. Restricting funding for land-based missiles. The Markey Amendment (D-MA) prohibited funding to be used to operate or maintain more than three hundred land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 283-136, 12 Not voting (Roll call vote 482; Amdt. #A028 to H.R. 5856; July 18, 2012)

19. Prohibiting funding for nuclear reductions. The Turner Amendment (R-OH) prohibited funding for the implementation of the President’s nuclear reduction strategy, and provided that any nuclear reductions the President seeks with a foreign nation have to be done in accordance with the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which requires approval by treaty or an Act of Congress. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 235-178, 18 Not voting (Roll call vote 491; Amdt. #A047 to H.R. 5856; July 19, 2012)

20. Prohibiting funding for nuclear reductions. The Berg Amendment (R-ND) prohibited funding for reducing the number of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, including heavy bomber aircraft, air-launched cruise missiles, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pronational security vote: YES; AGREED TO 232-183, 16 Not voting (Roll call vote 493; Amdt. #A050 to H.R. 5856; July 19, 2012)

21. Reauthorizing Intelligence-Gathering on Foreign Nationals Overseas. The FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX) reauthorized 20 for five years 2008 legislation establishing procedures for gathering intelligence on non-U.S. citizens located outside the United States, including clarification that a court order was not required for conducting surveillance on foreign targets outside the United States. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 301-118, 10 Not voting (Roll call vote 569; Bill # H.R. 5949; Sept. 12, 2012)

22. Preventing Sequestration. The National Security and Jobs Protection Act (Rep. Allen West, R-FL) provides that any enacted legislation that replaces Fiscal Year 2013 sequestration with alternative spending reductions achieving the same level of savings over five years would automatically cancel sequestration. The Act also requires the President to submit within these parameters his own plan by 15 October 2012 to prevent sequestration, due to activate in January 2013 unless reversed. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 223-196, 10 Not voting (Roll call vote 577; Bill # H.R. 6365; Sept. 13, 2012)

I find it telling that the 74 members that received a “0” ranking were all Democrats. I have also included the CPC membership roll and found that it has 76 members. Of the 76 members in the CPC 6 did not show up in the adverse ranking. Of those 6, 1 is a Senator (Bernie Sanders) and did not vote in the House and 2members are “non-voting” representatives Donna Christensen (D - Virgin Islands) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). Only three members did not have an adverse national security voting record while all of the other 70 members of CPC received the “0” ranking. 74 members received the “0” rating and of those 74, 70 were CPC members.

So, my detractors will say that I am participating in “hyperbolic” and “guilt by association” in labelling the CPC members, as Allen West does, communist. So to be fair, I will throw them a bone. The sole Republican of the 74 members that received the “0” ranking was in fact one of the ones who wanted to be President of the United States during the primaries. That Republican was Ron Paul.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Liberal Law Enforcement mentality

The Obama Administration is now falling back on the "same old -- same old" law enforcement canard they always do when it comes to violence.  Clinton did it when it came to Al Qaida and Obama is doing the same.  The liberals have always wanted to bring all of those terror subjects from Guantanamo Bay, bestow American rights to American courts, and try them. 

The Benghazi terror attack is quickly unravelling before Obama's eyes and he is quickly painted into a box that he is unable to escape from.  He wants America to just be patient enough to get to the bottom of the investigation so we can begin to dispense justice to those who were responsible.

Sound familiar?  Obama is comfortable in his box just as long as it contains his culpability along with him.  He'll just wait out the firestorm until after the election.  But the real question is why?  Obama is a calculating and shrewd politician so he has to have some plan while he sits patiently in his box. 

We know that Obama has absolute control over the nations law enforcement with his chief lackey Holder at the helm.  The Senate, which is in Democrat control has just announced that they will hold hearings on Benghazi just after the elections, how convenient.  Why after the election?  We all know why.  It was a political decision to give Obama more space in his box that he is sitting in until after the country speaks.  The Senate (run by Reid) and law enforcement (run by Holder).  The CIA (run by Panetta) and the State Department (run by Clinton).  It seems the box is getting larger and more comfortable by the minute.

We know that Obama is now employing his "right to remain silent" when, if he was innocent, wouldn't be necessary but in his lawyerly way, is fine just sitting in the box, silently. 

There are many things that are disturbing surrounding the events of Benghazi, but now we have an investigation under way and the Senate holding off until after the elections.  I guess national security be damned and that a dead Ambassador is not important enough for the Senate to drop everything that they are NOT doing to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible.

"Folk" tales

As a former veteran of our Armed Forces I am getting really pissed off at the incompetent and criminal President.  I served two tours in the US Navy and my first Commander in Chief was Jimmy Carter (I enlisted in 1977).  My second tour (I re-enlisted in 1981) was Ronald Reagan.  The comparisons of Obama and Carter are similar in many ways except one Carter was better.

I was "on station" for over 400 day's off the coast of Iran during the Iranian hostage crisis.  As an American service member sitting at sea twiddling our collective thumbs we voted on board ship for our next CINC who turned out to be Reagan.  I can tell you clearly and precisely that the overwhelming number of shipmates voted for action, for Reagan and one of our two wishes were realised.  We got Reagan, but action never came because the Iranians knew to end the conflict immediately for self preservation.  Without a shot being fired, they released our fellow countrymen because the one thing Reagan communicated to fellow Americans during the campaign was to promise action if elected.

This is what Carter and Obama lack, in spades -- an American backbone!

So, now we see parallels between Carter and Obama in the Benghazi slaughter.  Embassies under siege (Tehran under Carter), Ambassador (Adolph Doss under Carter) murdered and feckless non response. 

The one thing that really pisses me off, more than the lies coming from those on Obama's team, is the blatant characterization of both the murderers and victims of Benghazi as "folks".

Obama on KUSA 9News -- "These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do. But we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice."

In this short, but telling statement, the President of the United States described our country and those who murdered them exactly the same -- as "folks"!

The way we should have brought justice to those regular folks firing shoulder missiles and machine guns at our folks would have been from immediate air cover and extraction by an elite Seal Team.  We may not have saved their lives, but justice would have been swift and sure.

So, Mr. President this American does not find your commitment to be genuine as obviously you cannot distinguish the difference between American "folks" and Terrorist "folks" as I am sure you think that they (terrorists) are just someone who lives in the neighborhood like your good buddy Bill Ayers!

Friday, October 26, 2012

Two guy's named Moe

In the latest undercover sting operation, James O'Keefe brings down another with his outlandish, yet highly effective style of journalism.  This time, he approached Democrat Representative Jim Moran's son at a restaurant with a story of "Me and my friend have a van and a fistful of voter identifications we want to use to vote in their stead".  Like every other "mark" O'keefe lures with his ridiculous antics that are so bizarre normal people would just laugh at, he snags them like bottom feeding carp.

Project Veritas (O'Keefe's moniker for his purpose) which is Latin for "truth" has single handed exposed the filthy corrupt underbelly of what the Democrats and their fellow travellers are doing, openly and to much amusement -- stupidly!

When one of his expose's hit the news it not only takes down his intended target but a whole host of others that should be exposed along with it.  Such as a lame Main Stream Media who should be doing investigative reporting with serious effort.

When a white man dressed as a pimp of an under aged illegal immigrant ho's walk into a ACORN office in order to obtain government assistance to open a brothel sounds like an opening to a racist joke, but in fact it was the strategy employed to get the desired results.

When a white man goes into a polling place to vote as a black man named "Eric Holder" and argues with the poll worker that he should get his ID out of his car to prove he is who he says he is, again, sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit.

Yet, again and again, his surreal approaches work with such ease that one can only wonder just how smart these Democrats (who profess they are the intellectuals) are.

Most people don't know this fact about O'Keefe but he actually got his start in this "freelance journalism without a net" at Rutger's an undergrad when he and his friends decided to expose the University practices of racial sensitivities. This time, he goes into the Campus Diversity Officer's office and in his usual trademarked deadpan complained that he and his Irish student counterparts were highly offended by the fact the University served "Lucky Charms" on campus. He singled out particular dismay at the "Little green guy" on the box cover as stereotypical evidence.

Soon thereafter, the Campus announced that the cereal was banned from campus.

Irony, yes!  Here again O'Keefe goes into the belly of the Academia beast with their own absurdity and prevails.  Thank God O'Keefe graduated from Rutgers into the mean streets to bring his mind bending effective journalism to the rest of America.  He has single handed done more damage to the dark side than any individual has since "Woodward and Bernstein"!  What out Democrats, Coco Puff's are next because we all know that "we're coo coo for Coco Puff's and as such any product exploiting mentally ill stereotypes will NOT be tolerated......

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Horses and Bayonettes

As Obama was ridiculing Romney on the US Military with his now infamous 'horses and bayonet" comparison to Romney's concern the US Navy ship count is dangerously low I was struck by the image of the opening days of the Afghanistan war where our US Special forces were reported charging at the Taliban with the aid of the Northern Alliance -- on horseback!  Yes Mr. President there are fewer horses in the military but we still use them and effectively I might add.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

That daylight between US and Isreal

Romney delivered some crippling blows to Obama last night when he started with "Obama's apology tour" and bullet point after bullet point (just as he did in the 2nd debate with the Obama economy) dismantled Obama's fascade on foreign policy.  But it was most devestating when Romney reminded America the treatment of the Jewish State by this Administration during their current crisis with Iran.

Romney proudly stated when "he himself" travelled to Isreal during this election, spoke with he great freind Bibi about the Iranian issue.  He then reminded Obama of the "space between the US and Israel" policy of the Administration and the snub Obama showed our ally when Bibi travelled to Washington to see the President.

Obama's jaw tightened and his faced twisted in anger and couldn't wait to respond.  I believe it was at that point Obama looked at the moderator and said "Bob".........................."Bob"....................... in an attempt to get the moderator to intervene, to stop Romney as he did with Candy Crowley. 

Once Romney was finished wiping the floor with the Obama reality, Obama responded.

I was curious what he was about to say because I personally know full well that Obama, during his first Administration has yet to travel to Israel.  A first for a US sitting President and also Obama did in fact disrespect, publically, Netanyahu when he refused to meet with him over Iran when he was in Washington. 

Obama, immediately trotted out that when he was a candidate before the 2008 election, he travelled to Israel excuse.  That was it, four years ago as a candidate he went to Israel.

This should be the fate of his failed reelection bid.  It was plain for all to see that Obama travelled to Egypt on his first trip abroad to declare America is not a Christian nation, promptly apologized for everything America has ever done and since then has been apologizing ever since.  The only apology he hasn't uttered was his failure to back our Jewish friends who stare down the gun of Islamic terror every night before they go to sleep.

Romney's "Trump" card

On Fox yesterday, Donald Trump said that on Wednesday he was going to announce something that will possibly sink Obama's reelection?  All of the talk up to this point has talked about an October surprise coming out of the Obama camp.  Gloria Allred for one has hinted something or and Iranian deal to end their nuclear program secretly arranged behind the scenes by Obama surrogates for another, but this is the first we hear of something in the works against the regime.

I admit myself, I had never even considered something coming from our side.  Why, I don't know.  Possibly because I am cynical and know that the MSM is in the Obama bag.  But when I start to think about it, Obama has soooooo many skeletons that he is ripe for a devestating blow on many fronts.  It could just be about anything you can possibly think of especially someone with Trump's money and influence to pay for the juicy tidbits.  It could be nothing, or it could be everything.  I can't get the tv commercial song out of my head -- you know the ketchup commercial with Carly Simon's song -- "anticipation, it's making me wait..."

Monday, October 22, 2012

Get the Transcript!

During the second debate when Obama received help from Candy Crowley on the Benghazi terror attack Obama blurted out "Get the Transcript" when referring to Obama's failure to lable the attack as terror for 14 days.  Of course it is absurd to think that Obama and Crowley were right when this Administration paraded Administration official after Administration official out to blame the attack on a video.

So, the question is what did the President know and when did he know it?  If he knew immediately that there were no "demonstrators" present as we are now learning, then why was this Administration blaming a terror attack on a ficticous event?  We are now seeing sicophants in the Administration falling on their swords to protect this Administration (Hillary and now the CIA) from allowing the bloody buck to stop with him, where he himself said it stopped.

So, let's check the transcripts!  I am not talking about the "Rose Garden" speech transcripts where Obama did utter the word terror (in the broader concept to the 9/11/2001 remembrance), but to the 2nd debate itself.  When asked by a participant on Benghazi, Obama said the following:

"As soon as we found out the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions: Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but in every embassy and consulate in the region."

Notice, in the opening sentence Obama said "consulate was being overrun"!

This indicates "real time knowledge" vs. after the fact knowledge.  He said that "as soon as we found out the Benghazi consulate was being overrun"!

He must have got that 3am phone call Hillary referred to in her campaign.

He then admits that he immediately got on the phone with his "national security team" also showing he had real time contact with people in the know (Like Hillary Clinton's State Department as well as the CIA). 

There you have it.  He admits he found out that our Consulate was "being" overrun as it was unfolding and yet his sicophants immediately and for 14 days lied to the American public about it. 

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Terrorist not in Obama vocabulary

We already know the whole sordid lie that this administration went through in the Benghazi terror attack.  We also know that since the Seal Team 6 killing of Bin Laden which Obama takes full credit for, the Al Qaida network is fractured and on the run.  They are on the run, the run to fill the void left by this Administrations foreign policy that armed the very same terrorists in Libya and elsewhere.

All of these dispicable things that the Administration do in order to spin politics in order to cover their failures pales in comparison to what this Administration has caused the families of another terror attack on American soil -- Ft. Hood.

The reasons and excuses boggle the mind to the length to which this Administration will go to advance the narrative that is counterintuitive to reality that radical Islam is still planning and killing our citizens.

But the dispicable lable that this Administration has given to Ft. Hood as a "workplace violence" incident is robbing our men and women in uniform as well as their families the right to compensation as well as purple hearts for their wounds sustained in this terror attack.

We wonder how Benghazi could have happened on 9/11, we need look no further than Obama and his political correctness and his failed vision for America is the reason for all our ills mantra.

Obama's endorsements

In a continuation to my article titled "Bringing a gun to a knife fight" I thought it appropriateiate to point out the mere fear of a prospect of a Mitt Romney win.  Remember, Romney is about jobs, business and commerce first and foremost.  The gist of my prior article is that a "strong America at home, is a stronger America abroad"!  A strong vibrant economy that America is known for, pre-Obama, is exactly what the Mullahs, Chavez, Putin and the UN lovers fear.  They key word is fear.  This is the "strength" America projects when it is second to none financially.  This is what Obama has painstakingly and methodically dismantled and apologized for since he took office.

There were two articles today that I read that are directly on point here.  The first is titled "Mullahs panic over prospect of Romney victory"!

and "Chavez, Castro, Putin:  Four more years"!  You would think that if your candidate had these endorsements it would make you pause for a least a minute.

These thugs do not want Romney because Romney is what America needs and they know it.  A strong and vibrant American Economy spells trouble in those neighborhoods.

The daughter of Raul Castro came to America and said:  "I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart,” Mariela Castro said during a cable news interview. ...

There is that communist key word again ("forward") that emblazons Obama campaign signs.  Notice Castro said "he needs greater support"!  She knows he doesn't have the support he needs to move forward.  Not here, not America, and not now.

The two bit dictatorships want a weak, apologetic and bowing President so they themselves move forward as they have been doing without a peep from the paper tiger.

"Mittmentum vs. Romnesia"

So, Obama thinks he is clever with his "Romnesia" quote.  Well, how about a clever quote for Obama to chew on -- "Mittmentum"!

At a time when Obama is realizing greatly dimminished crowd sizes and Romney folks are having to work extra hard to accomodate unexpectedly large crowd sizes everywhere he goes to speak it must be difficult for the Obama camp to come up with humorous quotes in such dark and gloomy reality.

Obama will lose the election!

Why?  Plain and simply because he deserves to.

In an article in Newsmax magazine by David A. Patten the case is made exactly for that reason.  Mr. Patten takes some of his ammunition to stress this point from an online book written by radio talk show host Michael Medved titled "The Odds Against Obama:  Why History and Logic Make the President a Likely Loser".

Some of the reasoning Medved utilizes are:

"Historically, presidents win second terms when voters believe things are getting better, not worse."

Recently we have seen at the second Presidential debate where an African American, former Obama voter, asked the President what can he do to alleviate his fear and unease and growing distrust of him after he voted for him?  This was Obama's constituent speaking to 67 million voters across the nation telling them basically, he has serious buyers remorse. 

The same goes when a "Frank Luntz" focus group were asked to raise their hands if they voted for Obama and the majority raised their hands.  Then he asked of those, who are going to again vote for Obama and a small fraction (I think 4 if I remember right) raised their hands.  Finally, Luntz asked of those who didn't raise their hands to vote for Obama to be reelected, who voted for Obama in 2008, who among them are changing their vote to Romney -- The majority raised their hands.

Medved also points out -- "Every president who has ever won two consecutive terms has drawn more support in his second bid for election than he did in his first successful campaign."

No one can honestly say that Obama has increase support over the numbers that he enjoyed in 2008.  His campaign rallies belay that.  Obama has had to shift outdoor coliseum venues indoors, rope off areas of seating to have camera angles appear the crowds are as large giving weather and a host of excuses why the change occurred.  America is not that stupid.  So too is the MSM getting anxious about his "failure of leadership" and stature to the point Obama will only go to entertainment shows for press conferences and appearances. 

Finally, the biggest reason that Obama deserves to lose is because he is a serial liar who has been exposed as such.  We aren't talking about indiscriminate sexual act in the Oval Office with an intern here, we are talking about serious subjects that have gotten Americans killed.  Not only Federal Government personnel, but also hundred's in Mexico. 

The last article I posted here has to do with the upcoming foreign policy debate and the suggestion that Romney needs to hammer home Obama's failed economic policies in that venue because a "Strong America at home, is a strong America abroad" theme.  This President cannot claim foreign policy high ground based upon this reality alone. 

Obama's October surprise that has been leaking out of the press where he has cut a deal with Iran and will lift sanctions and allowing them to continue "peaceful nuclear" programs will backfire dramatically as a "Neville Chamberlain" moment of naivety.  This is just another example of the lengths Obama will go to to stay in power.  His transformation is not yet complete as he whispered into the Russian President's ear.  He wants that unaccountable flexibility and Americans are not prepared to give it to him.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

School field trip to terror

The title may be a bit "hyperbolic" to my detractors but hear me out.  This election is about competing visions.  On Obama's side we have a massive centralized government making all of our decisions for us.  On Romney's side we have smaller goverment and individual freedom to choose our own fate.

After all, a government that has the power to give, has the power to take. Tyranny is probable and freedom is the loser.

I give these opposing visions to illustrate that our current public schools are controlled by the Government and as such Tyranny is already present. The video below set's the scene:

This indoctrination occurred in Massachusetts in 2010. 

In Minnesota, home to Rep. Keith Ellison (the first Muslim to be elected to Congress), the all powerful teachers union has it's teachers take 2 days off to attend a conference that has them play with dolls and then attend workshops to teach them about Islam.


In Chesapeake, Virginia yesterday we learn that an elementary school teacher was charged with assault after a 10-year-old girl's hand was reportedly cut during an aggressive lesson on an Islamic hand signs.

"Stephanie Bennett, the child's mother, told The Blaze that the teacher "has a disturbing trend of 'indoctrinating' students with Islamic teachings," and openly campaigns for Barack Obama in the classroom.

According to Bennett, Harris also “'prays to Allah in Arabic' around five times a day in front of students and teaches them about Islam and how it is superior to other religions," Howerton wrote.

“The teacher was going over Islamic hand signs with the children — she stayed on this issue for two days straight during their reading and math class,” Bennett said."

If you are greatly disturbed by the infiltration of Islamic Brotherhood members and sympathisers at all levels of government maybe we need to also shine a big bright light on their obvious success at getting at our children with the help of the Teacher's union.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Bringing a gun to a knife fight!

There was an article over at "American Thinker" today that brings a very good point for Team Romney to consider when getting into the ring again for the final debate.  Continuing with the boxing analogy here, Obama is already in his corner having his wounds closed and his trainers are yelling at him that he is losing and needs to come out in the final round and go for the knock-out to win.  He cannot win on points at this point, it has to be a knock-out.  Team Obama has already thrown everything at Romney, including the bus reserved for Hillary Clinton (Benghazi).

Now that you have that visual in mind and know all the facts that paint this picture as "realistic" I have to agree with the author that Romney can deliver the final blow ala "Cinderella man" by going to a subject already used in the past fights that were convincingly effective -- the economy! 

Even though the upcoming final debate subject is "foreign policy" the underpinnings of America's foreign policy is our economy, a robust economy!  It is Romney's gun that he will be bringing to Obama's knife fight. 

Under Jimmy Carter's feckless policies that are not so dissimilar to Obama's, Iran had taken America hostage until Reagan bloodied Carter in his reelection hopes.  The day Reagan took office Iran released them after 444 days of captivity.  Reagan wasn't stumping about bowing to Iranian, Russian or Saudi rulers to effect his policy vision for America.  No, Reagan was talking about bringing jobs and prosperity to that "shining city" on the hill vision.  Once Iran capitulated, Russia was next.  Did Reagan bow to Russian rulers or capitulate to them as Obama has done?  No.  He strengthened America through prosperity while driving communist Russia to ruin. 

All Romney needs to do is point this out, this Obama economy to the viewers the world over and watch the stock market react the day after.  We are within weeks of taking our country back from feckless, clueless and malfeasant Democrats and as the victory party gets under way the Iranians, Venezuelans, Russians, Chinese and most importantly the Al Qaida "dead-enders" will sit up and take notice.  Israel can breath a sigh of release as well as everyday Americans that relief is on the way and that we don't have to settle for less because our man came to a knife fight, armed with a gun.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Dead batteries

Just as Obama's "green energy" policies are depleated of energy so is another "Solyndra-like" company awarded hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax payer money.  Notice all of the usual players -- Michigan Governor, Obama, Steven Chu, etc., all patting themselves on the back while touting thousands and thousands of jobs just waiting to be created in the Obama visionary Manufacturing sector. 

So, when a "green company" fails after being provided tax payer energy stimulus money it is allowed to seek protection in US Bankrupcy court, but GM and others circumvent this process.  I guess there were too many "hypothetical" union jobs to warrant saving through further intervention by big Government.  This is a prime example of what Mitt Romney was implying when he told Obama that HE was picking winners and losers -- just losers.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Romney put Obama in the "liars" box

During the debate, Romney painted Obama into a corner that he could not get out of with his lies.  To wit:

Romney -- ""I think it's interesting the President just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.'"

Obama -- ""That's what I said." 

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 are saying?"

Romney -- ""I wanna make sure we get that for the record because it took him 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

Obama -- ""Get the transcript"

OK -- Stop here!  Giving the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt.  I have embedded that Rose Garden speech below.  It is 5:35 minutes and wish for you to watch for yourself to see whether or not Obama lied in the "public arena".

After the attack UN Ambassador Susan Rice (who, mind you made her swing through all of the morning talk shows emphatically stating is was a spontaneous attack) again says it was a spontaneous act:

Then on September 19 -- WH Spokesman Jay Carney doubles down yet again.

We now know for a fact that the Administration, Intelligence, had "real time" intel as the events unfolded.

So, when you go into the voting booth on November 7, you need to ask yourself -- Do you trust a proven liar to remain in the White House?

Obama woke up

Obama may have shown up for last night debates but the fact still remains clear -- he not only debated against Romney, he debated against himself (record).  The debate had that 2008 feeling where Obama orated, forcefully, he grand vision as if he didn't have 4 years of failure already in the bank.  In one elequent moment Romney reminded everyone:

"This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if ObamaCare is passed, or implemented – it’s already been passed – if it’s implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500 on top.

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, “Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.” That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year, and more slowly last year than the year before.

The president wants to do well. I understand. But the policies he’s put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have.

You might say, “Well, you got an example of one that worked better?” Yeah, in the Reagan recession where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between that period – the end of that recession and the equivalent of time to today, Ronald Reagan’s recovery created twice as many jobs as this president’s recovery. Five million jobs doesn’t even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.

The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked. He’s great as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn’t been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median income is down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work. That’s what this election is about. It’s about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve."

Obama, was hammered by Benghazi, as he should have been.  Then shortly thereafter, during the question about "assault weapons" Mitt hit Obama square in the chops on "fast and furious" and a funny thing happened -- Obama didn't counter it, didn't even respond to it.  Obama just swept it under the carpet hoping that nobody noticed.
The one question that, for me made an impact, was the one from the "african american" who voted for Obama in 2008 and was very nervous about what he has not done for him.

This is the question that should haunt Obama from his bubble. 

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The Benghazi Spontaneus Protest

The NSC admits that our intelligence networks had "real-time" intel and video as the terrorist attack was unfolding.

Is it had to imagine that the picture to the left occurred during this "real time' video of our Ambassador being dragged out of the compound.  In fact the photo on the right was purported to be the Administration watching the Bin Laden raid "real time"! 

There has been much "conspiracy" theory about this very photo as some believe that "Obama" was airbrushed into the photo given his body size compared to everyone else in the photo.

The current investigation on Capital Hill is trying to determine what and when the Administration knew the truth.  Isn't it ironic that the killing of Bin Laden was Obama's reasoning that "Al Qaida", as an organization, was dead.  The war on terror is over. 

Hat tip to Human Events outlining the timeline:

"On Sept. 11, scores of men with automatic weapons and RPGs launched a night assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and set the building ablaze. Using mortars, they launched a collateral attack on a safe house, killing two more Americans, as other U.S. agents fled to the airport.

On Sept. 14, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the attack came out of a spontaneous protest caused by an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.

On Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the entire nation the attack had not been premeditated or preplanned but emanated from a spontaneous protest of the nasty video.

On Sept. 25, Obama at the United Nations mentioned the video six times."

WH Press Secretary, Ambassador Rice, Hillary Clinton and Obama all told the same story.  Coordinated responses abound.

"If real-time intelligence and U.S. agents at the scene knew it was premeditated, preplanned terrorism by Sept. 12, who told Rice to deny specifically on Sept. 16 that the attack was premeditated or preplanned?

Indeed, why was Rice sent out at all? She is not in the chain of command. Why she accepted the assignment is obvious. She wants to be Hillary Clinton’s successor as secretary of state. But who put her up to this? Who pushed her out front to mislead us?

The CIA’s David Petraeus or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should have been sent out to say what we knew, five days after the massacre. As Chris Stevens reported to the secretary of state and President Obama, why was Hillary or National Security Adviser Tom Donilon not sent out to explain what had happened to Stevens and the others?

Looking back, Carney and Rice appear to have been used by their superiors.

Carney would never have gone out to speculate on his own about what happened in Benghazi. His line on Sept. 14 had to have been fed to him by the White House chief of staff, Donilon, Obama or all of them.

As for Rice, someone contacted those five TV networks to put her on. And the party line she delivered — the opposite of the truth — had to have been fed to her, almost word for word — by Donilon or the chief of staff.

Could Donilon or Hillary have been in the dark about what Rice was going to say? Could they have still been in the dark about what had happened five days before in Benghazi, when Hillary’s own deputy Charlene Lamb had followed the terrorist attack in near real time?"

Is "Atlas Shrugg" ing?

This morning the business world woke to some surprising news.  The CEO and COO of Citigroup resigned abruptly, without reason, just walked away.  The news has all the pundits scratching their noggins.  Why?

One of the leading guesses is that the day after the bank posted a strong quarter that sent it's stock upwards 5% is because of executive compensation rules imposed by the State.  $1 is all the salary and compensation the CEO was receiving.

Sound familiar?  Just read Atlas Shrugged.  Who is John Galt?  Vickram Pandit may be John Galt. 

Monday, October 15, 2012

Want to see real results of Progressives policy?

Look no further than Detroit. 

Recently the Police Union warned that their fair city was much too dangerous to visit and to enter at your own risk.  So, get a good look at the video below for a tour of things to come.  Consider me the "ghost of Obama future":

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Forward - part two

On Capital Hill hearings are convened to investigate the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya and the failure of security that led to the carnage.  Keep in mind that this failure occurred on September 11 and the terrorist attack was perpetrated by Al Qaida.  So, given the facts that another attack on that date by those who attacked us in 2001, is disturbing to most Americans on many levels.

In the MSM this morning the following interview occurred:

"Maryland Democrat Elijah Cummings, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told CBS's Bob Schieffer Sunday that the committee's hearings into the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Libya were "turning into a witch hunt." (see "witch hunt below).

One must take into consideration the background of this "senior Democrat".  First and foremost he is a card carrying member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  Second, he is also the one who claimed that members of the Tea Party spat on him when he and his fellow communist sympathisers were walking arm and arm up the steps of the Capital building with Nancy Pelosi carrying her gavel the day of the Obamacare vote.  Third, at the same rally -- "Recall that in March, 2010, when the Obamacare battle was raging, following a walk through a Tea Party rally outside the Capitol, black congressional leaders John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver accused the Tea Party protesters there of spitting on them and calling them the “n-word.” Media outlets ran with it, but then Andrew Breitbart promised a $100,000 reward to the NAACP if anyone can show a video confirming the charge. The $100,000 was never paid.

Nanci Pelosi, John Lewis, Emanuel Cleaver as well as Elijah Cummings are all card carrying members of the "Congressional Progressive Caucus".  This walk through a tea party crowd in solidarity to socialist values is striking in it's audacity.  No longer are the Communist's fearing the stigma of association.  More importantly the communists are at all level's of our elected government all the way to the top.

Allen West made reference to the CPC as communist's and the usual slander occurred from the usual CPC members using the "Witch Hunt" analogy -- McCarthyism is synonymous with the term "Witch Hunt":

CPC Co-chairmen Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) compared West’s remarks to those of former Sen. Joe McCarthy, who “divided Americans with name-calling and modern-day witch hunts that don’t advance policies to benefit people’s lives.” McCarthy was censured by the Senate for the tactics he used in his attempt to root out Soviet spies and sympathizers during the Cold War.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - Mission Statement
  Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. We will work tirelessly, in partnership with citizen-watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy.   So explain how communist's are able to gain seats at the table of "oversight" of our own government? 

The lesson's of 9/11 are of no consequence to the communist and their fellow travellers in the hallowed halls of congress.  It doesn't fit with their vision of moving "Forward">>>>>>

Friday, October 12, 2012

Code words?


In the MSM recently we have seen liberal commentators, guest speakers, politicians and all of the usual suspect fellow travellers talking about the same theme -- "Republican Code Words".  They are consistently implying the when "Republicans & Conservatives" use terms like "socialists; communist, liberal, progressive and community organizers" it is code words for "blacks". 

This "mirroring" (calling someone something that you yourself are) is a common tactic to deflect reality and to mitigate the truth through intimidation.  Of course when Republicans and Conservatives use those particular words as nomenclature in describing Obama and his policies as well as all of those on the left who share Obama's vision, they are talking about all of them in terms that they are "socialists, communist, liberal, progressive and community organizers" that happen to be black, female, male, hispanic, etcs.

That said, I wish to solidify this belief that Obama and his fellow travellers are indeed what "Republicans and Conservatives" label them.

Before I get into that detail, I wish to remind the readers that:

1) Obama and the Democrats have not passed a single budget, as required by law.
2) Obama and the Democrats have not given speeches or even imbued their policies, or laws they have crafted over the last 4 years that promote individual freedoms (which America's heritage enshrined).

For instance, Obamacare.  Personal choice is replaced by the expanded Federal Government over the individual to make decisions on their behalf.  Michelle Obama and her takeover of student nutritional guidelines pushed into the cafeteria's.  I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  The only thing that they ardently defend in that arena is abortion.  Whereas it is a personal choice for the mother, the unborn and soon to be exterminated baby has no say.

Now, a look at some scary details that will undoubtedly label me as racist for merely suggesting the communist connections and code words the left is actually employing for their quick transformational changes that are already occurring.

In 2008, Obama's campaign slogal was "Hope & Change" and the effectiveness of this mantra is inspirational. 

Saul Alinsky:   In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generationn of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.

If the above quote isn't enough to give the idea that when you apply it to current events of the left and what they are advocating today and realize it is straight from Alinsky then there is more to convince you.  For instance, did you know that Hillary Clinton's college thesis was on Saul Alinsky?

Then perhaps another quote taken from Alynski:

"On page 103 of Rules for Radicals,

The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose.

In 2008, Obama and the MSM inpregnated a large portion of America with his desire to "fundementally transform America" meme.  Of course, the population thought he meant transform Washington DC insider political games, partisanship and kicking out lobbyist.  What we got instead, well, you know.

In 2012, Obama's new campaign slogal is "Forward".  Vladimir Lenin founded the publication “Vpered” (the Russian word for “forward”) in 1905.

One of my favorite blogs that I follow is "Hack Wilson".  Awhile back he had an excellent article on this very subject which you can read here!

Code word?  Coincidence"   You decide in 3 weeks!  American needs you to organize against the Chief Community Organizer"!   Throw them out, all of them!  They do not represent America or her ideals and heritage......

Thursday, October 11, 2012

November 7, 2012

Breathing a sigh of relief, and then?

So, you wake up on November 7th and learn that Obama has been defeated and come January Mitt Romney will be moving into 1600 Pensylvania Avenue, or will he?

I've been thinking about all of the things that we might be reading from the press on that day and started to get that chill down the back of my neck.

Landslide - Team Obama lawyers fan out across countryside to contest election they say was illegal as it suppressed the vote.

Riots - In Los Angeles, New York, Philedelphia as angry voters take to the streets in protest

New Black Panthers march on UN with leaders of the NAACP to demand immediate investigation into voter irregularities

Dow Jones has the biggest single day gain in history as investor's frenzy of buying and selling is expected to continue as the cloak of financial uncertainty is lifted

Chris Mathews has on air meltdown, rushed to the hospital

Cher seen boarding plane headed for Paris

Israel attacks Iranian nuclear sites in pre-dawn strike

General Motors announces halt to Volt line production

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The duties of a Journalist

A journalist's responsibility

A journalist is responsible for his job towards people, he has to respect their dialogue with ombudsman. He has to create idoneus instruments (reader's guarantee, pages for readers, spaces for reply etc.), giving a wide diffusion to their activity.

A journalist only accepts suggestions and instructions from the editorial hierarchy of his newspaper, as long as the dispositions are not against the professional law, against the national Italian journalist's work contract (CNLG) and the Ethic Code (Carta dei Doveri).

A journalist cannot discriminate against people on grounds of race, religion, mental and physical conditions or political opinions.

Circumstances that are not extenuating, references that are not insulting or denigratory concerning people and their privacy are only accepted when they are relevant to the public interest.

A journalist respects the right of secrecy of every person and he may not publish news about someone's private life, unless they are transparent and relevant to the public interest, however, he must always make known his own identity and profession when he gathers such news.

The names of the relatives of people involved in such daily events cannot be published unless they are relevant public's interest; they can be neither made known in case of danger to people's safety, nor can they publish other elements, that can expose people's identity (photos, images).

The names of victims of sexual violence can be neither published, nor can a journalist give details that can lead to their identification unless it is required by the victims themselves for relevant general interest.

A journalist has to proceed with great caution when publishing names or elements that can lead to the identification of members of a legal team or of the police, when they ma provoke the risk of incolumnity for themselves or their families.

Now that you have read the above Journalist creed, apply it to the MSM.  Do they (MSM) create news with their bias?  Do they diligently dig for the facts when it comes to Obama and his background?  Are they independent "watchdogs" for the people against their Government?

Never let a crisis get you wasted

As expected the carefully crafted Administration lie is unravelling a light speed.  The lie itself, to the American public as well as the World, cannot be ignored for what it is.  The inept handling of the whole affair from the begging got the Ambassador killed along with members of his staff. 

In crafting this lie, the Adminstration also utilized an American citizen as further fodder (the filmaker) to promote this lie into something that caused more deaths when the anti-islam narrative fanned the flames in the streets of Libya.  While doing so, this Administration also put a chilling effect on free speech when Federal police took this filmaker in custody under the guise that he broke with his probation.

Whether that is the case or not, the appearance that he was taken into custody for other reasons has been floated out there in cyberspace.  If you think for a moment that Obama is headed for a "foreign policy debate" victory, think again.  Bill Clinton can come to Obama's rescue all he wants as Hillary is so tied up in this illegal coverup that he will have to split himself in two defending them all.

The MSM is already advancing the narrative that the investigation is partisan and for political reasons.  But what you have is cast of miscreants that are in charge of our national security and are willing to do nothing in order to advance an "all calm" illusion when the enemies are literally at our gates.....

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Credibility and Common Sense

October isn't over yet, but at this juncture it appears that the "October Surprise" is the massive drop in the unemployment statistics to 1/10th of a percentage below the level when Obama took office.  The timing of this report of course was just after Obama's drubbing at the hands of Mitt Romney during the debate.

I have written many times about the reaction (human nature) of those around us, who we trust and love, caught in a lie and what we do as human beings in reaction to this discovery of trust breached.

If you found your spouse has lied to you or a family member or a best friend what is your human reaction to the lost of profound trust built upon mutual respect?

You shun them.  You do not embrace them as Democrats did when Bill Clinton told the American public "I did not have sex with that woman"!

Going into the debates we have example upon example where Obama has outright lied to us, deceived us and diverted our attention intentionally like we are stupid, unruly children.  So when the MSM came out the day after the day after and started the "Romney lied so many times that Obama just couldn't keep up with them" meme to explain his drubbing just ask yourself the question:  "Do I trust Obama's words"?

For the matter, do I trust the MSM's words?

So, moving forward to the interview that Chris Mathew's had with Jack Welch (former GE CEO) about his comments that the unemployment books were cooked goes to the heart of this.  Welch admits that he had no proof they were it is just that he doesn't TRUST their veracity and gives many qualified anecdotal evidence, least of which is trust.

Here is the highlight of the exchange:

“We had 600,000 government jobs added in the last two months. We had 873,00 jobs by a household survey — which is a total estimate — from 50,000 phone calls. Of those, 600,000 were temporary workers. Chris, these numbers are all a series of assumptions. Tons of assumptions. And it just seems somewhat coincidental that the month before the election, the numbers go one-tenth of a point below where the president started. Although, I don’t see anything in the economy that says these surges are true.”

873,000 jobs reported from 50,000 phone calls in the survey?

That would mean that out of those 50,000 households, each and every call would have had the respondent answering that 17 1/2 members in their family or friends would have found a job since the last reporting cycle.  17 1/2!!

Now, ask yourself or ask anyone or everyone you know or can meet if they have found work since last month.

Coincidence, or lie?

Mathew's wasn't done trying to get Welch to walk back his assertion:

“It’s not funny, Jack…You’re talking about the President of the United States playing with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ numbers. This is Nixon stuff. This is what Nixon said back in the old days,” Matthews said.

“Chris, don’t lose it now,” Welch said.

“I’m not losing it. Look at my face. I’m not losing it,” Matthews said.

“Jack, do you want to take back the charge that there was corruption here,” Matthews asked again, getting the same answer.

“You don’t think it’s coincidental that we’ve got the biggest surge since 1983 in the jobs surge? Come on, Chris,” Welch said, refusing to back down. “It’s a six percent improvement in employment in two months…The numbers don’t jibe.”

He continued: “These numbers defy logic. They defy logic. We do not have a 4 to 5 percent booming economy with 873,000 people added. I mean, stop it, Chris. On the face of it, we don’t have this GDP. I love you, but you can’t get there.”

Well, maybe Welch lied at least once when he said he loved Chris Mathews.

"Mene mene tekel upharsin" -- Daniel 5:25

This is the interpretation of each word.

MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it;

TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and

found wanting;

PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to

the Medes and Persians.

Now, we must ask ourselves a common and logical question:

Is Jack Welch credible and is his question about the employment statistics being dubious possible?

Has Jack Welch done anything to give the viewers a reason to distrust him?  Is Jack Welch a job creator and eminently qualified to make even a slim assertion to the "books being cooked"? 

The answers, in order, are -- YES, YES, NO and YES resoundingly.

Jack Welch knows business and his reputation is solid whereas Obama's, Mathew's and their fellow travellers are NOT.

Jack Welch, in his long and successful business career created more jobs than Obama could ever hope to, but again is Obama hoping to create a single job?  Is it more plausible that Obama, who professed to work so diligently until every American has the job they want and need, to never rest, really want all of us subservient to the State, on welfare, on the dole?

This is why Obama looked so feckless during the debates.  Romney hit him, again and again, on his record where up until that point the Mathew's of the world created an alternate universe where Obama was godlike in spite of his failures.  Obama looked like someone who was being lectured after caught lying.  He looked guilty as Romney charged.  He looked petulant and angry that he could not control the message that was being beamed to 58 million Americans.

Finally, one last question -- as in any crime or lie, who stands the most to gain from it?

Obama does of course and the "coincidental timing" of the biggest decline in unemployment since the 1960's is just as Welch proclaimed -- too much to believe....

I think I will let my trust, my belief, my human instinct side with Welch and by extension Romney.  There is only one thing left to do and that is to banish the liars from our lives as we would do with someone close to us have done at one time or another in our individual lives.  A spouse that lies to another usually ends in divorce, so we much divorce these cretins from ever lying to us again.  Once and for all....What say you?