Yay U.S.S.A.!!

It'll be interesting to see what comes next.  I don't see the GOP ever winning after this.  If they can't beat Obama this year given his liabilities, they certainly can't beat Hillary in 2016 - especially after amnesty is expanded.  Looks like one-party rule for the foreseeable future.  Definitely a good night for EBT cards, Social Security Disability Insurance, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, half-rate student loan interest rates, food stamps, free cell phones, free contraception, and whatever other handouts we can't afford that are needed to cobble together this super majority. 

 To add insult to injury:

Richard Tisei (R) is not looking good in my congressional district against John Tierney (D) despite his illegal offshore gambling ring family and convicted money-laundering wife.  Completely dispicable.  Also, fake Indian Elizabeth Warren was voted the first (female) Cherokee (yeah, right) Senator from Mass.  Instead of centrist Scott Brown who only voted with the GOP 54% of the time, we now have our very own Nancy Pelosi.

Some interesting blog facts to wrap up:

First post: July 17th, 2012

Last post: Nov 6th, 2012

Total posts: about 50

Page views: 3075

Entertainment Value: Reasonable

Obama-to-Romney Converts: None Confirmed

Elect Mitt Romney!

It was reported that Obama ended his campaign with a half-empty arena on election eve.  I was at the Romney rally in Manchester, NH and it was packed.  Several thousand more showed up but were not able to make it inside.  I was only a couple people behind the barrier - close enough to shake his hand afterwards.  I didn't get home til 2AM, but it was a fun time.

I hope the enthusiasm out there for a president that not only takes office, but takes responsibility, is enough to buck these polls in the battleground states.  I'm hoping for a Chick-Fil-A election.

It boils down to this: If you think things could be better, vote for Mitt Romney.  If you think things could be worse, vote for Barack Obama.

If You're Voting for Obama - Is It For... Revenge?

Revenge for what, exactly, Mr. President?

I prefer Mitt Romney's message, thank you very much:

Lesson Learned from Hurricane Sandy

When something like helping hurricane victims needs to happen quickly and efficiently, what's the first thing you do?  You get the government red tape and regulations out of the way - see the first 1 min or so of this clip of Obama below.  That's why the Republicans believe that a smaller government just works better.

This reminds me a bit of an old Seinfeld skit where he talks about a pilot coming on the intercom after takeoff is delayed to reassure the passengers that they'll go faster and make up the time in the air.  Seinfeld says, "Why don't they go faster all the time?"

When you think of the biggest problems facing our nation that need to be addressed ASAP, like the economy and healthcare, additional government with its rules and regulations is not efficient and is not the approach that will get the best results.

I love this photo that was taken during the President's helicopter tour of the damage:

Romney Cares About Women, Too - He's Just Not So Hell-Bent on Getting in Their Pants

There is not much dignity coming out of the Obama campaign lately.  There are two conflicting emotions for me when I watch Obama's recent "sex ad".  The first thing I feel is complete embarrassment at this ploy by the President to win over women.  The women I know have a lot more spine than the Obama campaign gives them credit for.  They keep their sex lives and birth control choices to themselves and do not especially care what the government or society thinks of their choices.  Same goes for the gay people I know.  I don't know any women who consider free birth control to be the most pressing issue facing our country right now.  With a $16T debt and $1T deficits, it's not something I support.  It's just another handout to buy some votes.  I laughed when I saw Vladimir Putin ads with the same references to sex and virgins - now I'm disgusted that we've sunk to the same level.

The second emotion I feel upon seeing this ad is a mix of hope and relief.  It's a sign of a floundering campaign for reelection - desperation by a losing candidate to scrape together a few more votes.  I see this ad and am pretty sure that I'm not the only one throwing up in my mouth a little bit.  I'm tired of a President promoting such a dependent society.

While we're on this topic, it's true that Republicans tend to be pro-life.  That doesn't mean that it's part of their legislative agenda, though.  It just means that they personally don't support abortion and don't want to be complicit in it through public financing of it.  Democrats suggesting that a Romney win will somehow result in a ban on a woman's right to make her own personal choice are resorting to scare tactics to get their candidate over the line.  People supporting Romney are fighting for Cut, Cap, and Balance to end the last 12 years of accelerating accumulation of the national debt.  That was the impetus of the Tea Party.  They are simultaneously disgusted with the blatant lies from Obama, particularly surrounding the Benghazi cover-up.  Abortion is not the issue that is compelling people to vote against Obama and is not something that is likely to change under Republican control.

Hurricane Sandy to the Rescue!

I think it's fair to say that nobody is hoping for a direct hit from Hurricane Sandy more than Barack Obama.

Anything to divert the mainstream media from the new developments on Benghazi!  Today's story from Fox News details how three requests for help during the 7-hour firefight in Benghazi were received and turned down - how the Navy SEALs who died even had the location of incoming mortars that eventually killed them identified with a laser target to facilitate an aerial hit.  One was named Tyrone Woods.  He had disobeyed direct orders to stand down and went with several others from a nearby CIA annex in an attempt to rescue the ambassador.  It's becoming clearer by the day that the administration failed to provide adequate security to the Libyan ambassador under threat, turned down three requests for assistance during the actual attack, and then lied to the American people and the world at a U.N. assembly about the attack being the result of a protest provoked by a youtube video posted by an American "misusing" his rights to free speech.  The father of the fallen SEAL says Hillary even told him (over his son's coffin) at Andrews AFB that they would arrest and prosecute the film maker.  Joe Biden asked him, "Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?"

You'd think CNN and ABC News would find this story newsworthy - I guess it's still just too "political" for them.  Rather than endure more hard-hitting interviews like the one below from 9News in the battleground of Colorado, Obama is hoping to spend next week's news cycle administering aid to Northern Virginia.  In fact, the best outcome for Obama would be disaster declarations from Pennsylvania and Ohio, too!.

Thanks to Kyle Clark at 9News, we now know what Obama's answers to any Romney attacks on the Libya issue would have been in the 3rd debate.  (Watch the first 1:42 of this video)  At this point, the pieces are coming together and the facts are catching up with this administration.

On Libya, Mitt Took the High Road in Debate #3

Well, for those of us hoping for closure on the Libya cover-up, the third debate was very frustrating at first.  But considering all of the people who were turned off by the aggressiveness of the candidates in the second debate, Mitt performed very well last night.  It's only in hindsight that Mitt supporters were convinced that leaving the Libya cover-up alone was the right move.  After the second debate, the full extent of the Benghazi cover-up finally got lots of daylight in the press.  Most likely voters now know about it in detail and those who [somehow] give the President a pass for that cover-up were not going to be swayed by the third debate.  Imagine how much time Obama, Axelrod, and Cutter must have wasted at Camp David last weekend choreographing a response that threaded the needle on that issue.

That was clever of Mitt to mend some fences with the big chunk of folks that were disappointed with the tenor of the second debate.  I must be a little desensitized, because I wasn't that turned off by it; but I do get annoyed with the far right who constantly criticize Mitt for "not having fire in the belly!" and "not taking the gloves off!".  That was a big reason Mitt got so little support in the primary - he wasn't as fiery as Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich.  The people far from the center of both parties don't seem to understand that non-ideological people near the center are more interested in a cognitive decision-making process to prioritize the different issues when choosing a candidate.  This election would not be nearly as close if it were just about the economy or foreign policy and not all of the social issues.  The Democratic Party would have a lot fewer supporters today if so many people weren't driven to them because of political correctness on the social issues.  That's why I like the emergence of the Tea Party - they just focus on fiscal policy and adherence to the Constitution.  To hear people think that as a Republican, Mitt Romney is somehow against women's rights or prejudiced against minorities is so ridiculous.  The majority of Republicans are mostly fed up with Obama because of his reckless spending.  His budgets don't get a single Republican or Democrat vote in Congress!

I liked hearing about Mitt passing "the Martian Test" in yesterday's debate.  The picture below sums it up.  If a Martian had landed on Earth and watched the debate, who would he think was the incumbent and who would he think was the challenger?  Romney has Obama on defense big time.

Final Debate: Time to Seal the Deal

People have had a week to parse through Obama statements on Libya.  I hope that Mitt is able to expose Obama's response in the weeks following the Libya attack for the cover-up it was.  No matter how kooky the California film maker might be, the blame for the ambassador's death should not have been pinned on him and I'm a little uncomfortable that he's still in jail.  Also, why was no backup rushed to Benghazi as soon as the attack happened?  Why was the compound and sensitive information inside it not immediately secured? 

I hope Mitt is able to make Obama explain how executive privilege applies in Fast and Furious.  What direct involvement did the President have in that debacle?

Welfare Spending Over $1T - Biggest 2011 Line Item

I started this blog in July on the heels of Obama's "You didn't build that!" speech.  At the time, I was most alarmed at the growing welfare culture and welfare fraud in our society.  Most recently, I've been distracted with a whole new concern about the Benghazi Attack cover-up.  However, a recent report that the U.S. welfare spending topped $1 trillion in 2011 got my attention.  According to this article, welfare spending, which is up about 32% since 2008 now tops non-war military expenditure, Medicare, and Social Security!  Welfare is now the biggest, and maybe fastest growing, government program.  Obama's got to go.

EBT Card

The CIA Kicks the Last Leg Out From Under the Benghazi Cover Up

The Benghazi Attack cover-up is going to go down as the biggest since Watergate.  Some would argue that a cover up involving the first slain ambassador since 1979 should actually dwarf the college-prank breaking-in of the DNC by the Nixon Republicans.

Obama asserted two defenses for his touting of the youtube video as the impetus for the Beghazi Attack: A) They were straightforward with the American people by conveying the best intelligence as it developed, i.e. the intelligence community initially told them that it was the video.  B) The White House never heard of any security requests by the Libyan diplomats.  Those requests didn't make it out of the State Dept.

Hillary tried to take the fall for the security requests, but no one would have respected Obama as a President if he didn't own up to that himself.  As for the faulty intelligence, today's news of a CIA report within 24 hours of the attack asserting that it was a militant attack and not connected to the video pretty well sinks that claim.  Now it's all but proven that the administration knowingly attributed the attack to the video and not to the obvious explanation of a terrorist attack on 9/11.

So what's the motive of the cover up exactly?  I guess the most obvious is to hide the failure of the Obama foreign policy in the Middle East with respect to killing (and bragging about the killings of) Qaddafi, bin Laden, et al.  That's the most obvious.  The other motive is the one I was on to earlier about Obama wanting to curtail free speech when it comes to anything offensive to Muslims.  While it's perhaps more complicated and far-fetched and not so beneficial with regards to the election, which we have to assume is the primary motivation, a few of the other pieces more easily fit into place: A) It's a good example of a crisis not going to waste.  Fewer people would complain about a ban on anti-Islamic rhetoric if it's in the interest of preventing attacks like this one  B) It would explain Hillary's willingness to participate in spreading the narrative.  Both Obama and Hillary have been fighting for the OIC-sponsored U.N. resolution condemning such offensive expressions, and C) this fits in precisely with Obama's speech to the U.N., "the future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam..."

Admittedly, neither of those reasons hardly seems worth all the trouble of this month-long cover-up, so maybe there's even something more sinister we haven't imagined yet.  Whatever the reason, it's a blatant cover-up on the heels of Fast and Furious and a miserable economic record and together, these should be more than enough to vote Obama out.  He's clearly screwing with us.

I Hear Obama Won the Debate - But Who Really Wants to Vote for Him?

On style, likability, and a handful of similar metrics, Obama apparently edged out Romney last night in the second of the Presidential debates.  Is this American Idol scoring really going to translate into more votes for him, though??  After all, polls indicate that Romney was way ahead when it came to the economy. Also, Obama made some pretty outrageous claims that must seem far-fetched, even to folks who aren't political junkies:

• For example, Obama says gas was less than $2 when Bush left office because the economy was in a tailspin.  So, gas is now a steady $4 because the economy is blazing?  Really?  Is that why a gallon of milk is $6 and a pound of bacon is $7?  Maybe a lot of things are just getting really expensive even though the economy isn't doing all that great.

• Obama tried to out-drill Romney on energy?  Who's going to believe Obama has anything to do with increased production in N Dakota and Pennsylvania under his watch?  I was happy that Romney gave voice to nuclear energy - everyone seems to dismiss this infinite source of energy that emits no greenhouse gases.  Despite 30 years of almost no new plants being built, nuclear still accounts for 20% of our generated power.  Seems like nuclear waste would be an easier problem to solve than global warming.

• Finally, Libya.  I don't see how anyone could possibly be falling for the Libya cover up

Obama is trying to convince everyone that he told the American people on Day 2 in the Rose Garden that the Benghazi attack was an act of terror and not a spontaneous protest about a dopey youtube video.  No one who reads the transcript of that speech would be convinced.  If so, why would he then go and espouse the deplorability of the youtube video on David Letterman, on Univision, at the U.N., on all the Sunday talk shows via U.N. Ambassador Rice, with Hillary over the caskets at Andrews, in paid apology ads aired in Pakistan, and on and and on and on...  Why would the White House unmistakably declare the video as a source of the problem a week later - not any resentment towards America or anything mean like that.  No - he blamed the video for provoking riots that led to the assassination of the ambassador.  The truth of a viable al Qaeda attacking a vulnerable consulate on 9/11 is too damaging to the President's claim that he killed Osama bin Laden and vanquished al Qaeda.  A really nice article on the Libya cover up is here.

See how convinced Candy Crowley is by Obama's Rose Garden assertion and tell me if Obama won that debate or just got a higher "score".

I think Obama's in for a really devastating night on Monday in the 3rd debate on foreign policy.  Obama has no explanations that will pass the B.S. test when it comes to Libya or Fast and Furious.  

More Unbelievable Economic Data! (Literally)

In about one week, we've seen some remarkable economic data:

• On Friday, Oct. 5th, we got the jobs report showing the first unemployment reading below 8% despite only routine and mediocre job creation.  I won't bore people again on how I think that manipulation was managed.

• Just last Thursday, Oct. 11th, we learned that the number of people filing new unemployment claims fell to 339,000 - the lowest number since 2008!!  Really?  Wow - said all of the economists who expected the number to tick up or remain unchanged from the previous level of 367,000.  Turns out, they left CALIFORNIA out of the calculation!  I heard that when asked why they left CA out, the guy at the Bureau of Labor Statistics said they didn't leave them out.  When pressed about why the CA was not included in the report, the guy said because they didn't get the CA data in time.  California since insists the data were submitted.  Regardless of what happened, the mission was accomplished - the headlines screamed about the lowest level of jobless claims in 4 years.

• The latest development was Friday (Oct 12) when more glorious headlines declared that the consumer sentiment index, while expected to fall slightly, shot up to levels not seen since 2007 before the recession.  

That was truly a remarkable stream of economic data showing a clear, unmistakable turn-around in the economy.  Stocks must have soared!  Actually, they went down overall.  Apparently, after initial spikes, the aggregate of people with money on the line have come to the consensus that these numbers are wrong at best and complete manipulations at worst.  We'll see if Obama declares victory with these numbers in Tuesday's debate.  While they may not describe a bustling economy, they make a better case for Obama than any real metrics can. 

They're Throwing Hillary Under the Bus!

Not only is Obama going to go down for lying to the American people about the circumstances surrounding the Ambassador to Libya's assassination - he's going to take Hillary down with him!  There is a solid paper trail of the State Department turning down requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security ahead of the attack on 9/11.  However, according to the White House, word of the requests never reached Obama or the Vice President.  The buck stops with ... Hillary!  Are the Dems going to allow Obama to pin Libya on Hillary??  She is at the pinnacle of the Democratic Party.  She's a shoo-in to make history as the first female president in 2016.  She could've and should've bumped Obama off of the ticket even in 2012!  Now she's damaged goods, thanks to Obama.  Bill must be pissed!  I don't see him staying out on the campaign trail for long.

Obama and Hillary's Day of Reckoning on Libya

Within a week, it was pretty clear to anyone paying attention that the President was full of B.S. to blame the Libya consulate attack on a youtube video.  The only problem was that you had to read foreign news sources and hear what the Libyan president had to say to work out that the munitions involved in the Libya attack, the precision of the strike on the consulate, and the Sept 11th anniversary all pointed to a well-planned assault to murder our ambassador on sovereign American soil.  Well, they've been forced to come clean after a month of solid lying.

So what in the world is going on when we have a president that has more details about what happened than any of us and then tries to pin the blame for the attack on us and our insensitivity towards Islamists by posting a mean video on youtube that no one had even heard of or seen? Even over the ambassador's body upon its return to Dover AFB with Hillary at his side...

Do you know when that movie was posted?  July 2nd! And we're supposed to believe the White House telling us that two months later, this obscure video sparks riots in Cairo and Libya simultaneously?  So why then were the Cairo protesters chanting "Obama, Obama we are all Osama"?  Could that be because of the 21 times the DNC "spiked the football" about the killing of Osama bin Laden at their convention the week before?  Certainly makes more sense than the youtube video.  I had been curious how the Zero Dark Thirty blockbuster about the killing of Osama would play over in the Middle East seeing how well the youtube video went over.  It was scheduled to come out in October to give the Obama campaign a nice boost, but has been quietly delayed until after the election.

The U.N. has been working on a resolution that Obama supports condemning the stigmatization, stereotyping, and profiling of people based on their religion.  It's an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and is opposed by most Western democracies.  It urges countries to take effective steps "to address and combat such instances".  If taken seriously, it would stifle free speech and weaken security since profiling even at airport security checkpoints would be more scrutinized than it already is.  Could this be what all the lying is about?  I really don't know.  I just know that this is the stuff Obama was touting in his U.N. speech last month and that he doesn't like to let a crisis go to waste.

It appears, too that the State Department even denied requests for additional security for the ambassador in Libya and overlooked warnings of a deteriorating situation - including a cable on the day of the attack!  Christopher Stevens was worried.  As of today, we have testimony and emails, but we already knew the basics from the diary CNN found in the compound shortly after the attack.  Mind you, it took the FBI about 3 weeks to get there.  Any evidence or sensitive information must've been long gone by then.  In any case, it's increasingly clear to what extent Obama and Hillary both failed to answer the 3 A.M. phone call.

Quick Recap on the Jobs Report Numbers

If you're Barack Obama and the economy is stagnant heading into the election, how do you get the unemployment rate to come down to less then 8%?!

Step 1: Sign an executive order eliminating the work requirement for welfare recipients.  Many welfare recipients will then stop the charade of applying for jobs and other job search activities.  After about 4 weeks, they then come off the unemployment roles and "leave the workforce".  This was extremely evident in the August Jobs Report where only 96,000 jobs were created, but the unemployment rate went from 8.2% to 8.1% because 368,000 people left the workforce.

My post on Step 1 has supporting links

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 2: Sign an executive order granting work permission to about one million DREAMers, or illegal aliens who were brought into this country when they were young.  This executive order in mid June had a 60-day fuse.  Sudden legal status of the DREAMers could go a long way to explaining the influx of over 500,000 "new" part-time workers, which reduced the unemployment rate from 8.1% to 7.8%.  Note that the unemployment rate was predicted by economists to go up to 8.2% based on an expectation of 113,000 new jobs created - the actual number was right on at 114,000.

My post on Step 2 has supporting links

So Are These Job Numbers Real or Just a - DREAMers?

A lot of people were surprised and skeptical to see the unemployment rate tick down so sharply to 7.8%.  Prior to the jobs report, economists were predicting that the jobs creation number would be 113,000 and that the unemployment rate would tick up from 8.1% to 8.2%.  The number of jobs created was spot on at 114,000 - so it was very surprising to see the rate off by almost 0.5% from expectations.  The difference came from over 500,000 people getting part-time work outta nowhere.  Maybe people really are getting out there and getting jobs that are available instead of just waiting for jobs they want.  That's great news.  It just comes at an awfully convenient time.

Many of us wearing tin foil hats have been expecting the unemployment rate to artificially come down to under 8.0% just in time for the election.  I've been banking on that happening as a result of Obama's executive order eliminating the job search requirement for welfare recipients, which takes them off of the unemployment roles.  The August jobs report fit that theory very nicely.  That's when only 96,000 jobs were created, but the unemployment rate went down from 8.2 to 8.1% because 368,000 "left the workforce" (some of them going on to SSDI and other long-term welfare programs).  This month's report did not follow that pattern, though.  The labor force reportedly went up by 418,000 this time.  So what gives?

I have one more nefarious theory, but it's admittedly on shakier ground than the last one.  It has to do with Obama's mini Dream Act in the form of an executive order in mid June.  That gave about a million young illegal immigrants the right to work in the country legally and it was said at the time that it would take about 60 days for the executive order to be implemented.  Could that have something to do with this surprise drop in the unemployment rate one month ahead of the election?  Imagine trimming the unemployment roles with the welfare requirement elimination and then stacking the employment numbers with part-time working DREAMers.  You wouldn't have to count the unemployed DREAMers since they haven't been looking.  But even I must admit, this would be pretty over the top if true.  I checked the number of Hispanics in the jobs report and didn't notice a spike...  Maybe the government's reporting them as white Hispanics like they did in the Trayvon Martin case.  Ha.

Whether you're skeptical of the jobs numbers or not, you have to admit that nothing about the current economic environment really explains the biggest jump in the number of employed people in 29 years.  So hiring is on a tear despite the exploding gas prices and the looming financial cliff?  Hmm.  Such a historic jump in employment would be expected to trigger a very good day on Wall Street, no?  They must be a little skeptical, too, because the Dow only went up 35 points (0.26%) and the Nasdaq and S&P were actually down on the day.  It seems like the only thing about the economy getting better is a jobs report number that is key to the President's chances of reelection.

So assuming that this report is an indication of the economy improving, let's hope things pick up steam.  However, no matter how you spin them, the fundamentals behind these jobs numbers remain about as bad as Obama's debate performance and no one's excited with the pace the economy is growing.  Romney is going to stay on the attack with these numbers and win the argument.  The unemployment rate would be closer to 11% if it weren't for so many people that have left the workforce - by design or not.  That's taking the number of employed people now and assuming the same participation rate of the population in the workforce as when Obama took office.  We have to make up that ground, too, to get the GDP back on track and that's a problem that's not going to get fixed by four more years of throwing more food stamps and Obama Phones at it or turning our money into Monopoly money by cranking up the printing presses.

Jobs Report Response Ads Coming in Already:

In Mass, Your Vote Truly Doesn't Count

You thought the national polls were bad - can you believe these Massachusetts polls?  Be thankful that Mass. doesn't have the final say, because in Mass. most people just line up and pull the lever for the Democrats with rare exceptions.  Even in a year as seemingly contentious as this one, there's no need for debate.  In Massachusetts, you have two main populations for the most part: the city dwellers who are recipients of liberal spending and the highly educated suburbanites who know what's best for everyone else.  There are a few folks that get squeezed in the middle, and many of them move to New Hampshire.  NH is sliding into Swing State territory, but they used to be a polar opposite of Mass.  Did you know that State Representatives in NH are paid only $100 per year for their service?!  When the legislature isn't in session, they earn their living like everyone else.

Fortunately, the Republicans have a fighting chance in the district I live in.  These are exceptional times.  John Tierney is the incumbent Dem Representative in Congress whose wife laundered $8M for her brother's illegal overseas gambling ring.  She was convicted, and sentenced to 30 days in jail.  It wasn't enough to bring him down 2 yrs ago, but he's up against Richard Tisei this time around who is a popular, bipartisan, openly gay State Senator.  

In the Senate race, you have Scott Brown, who has the 2nd most bipartisan voting record in Congress (he's was with the GOP 54% of the time) running against Elizabeth Warren.  Warren is like Justice Kagan in the Supreme Court - she was hand picked by the administration and they'll always be able to rely on her vote.  The main difference between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren, though, is that Scott Brown posed as a centerfold in Cosmo during his college years.  Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, has been posing her entire career.  She "checked the box" for Affirmative Action falsely claiming Native American lineage, she claimed to be the intellectual founder of Occupy Wall Street while living comfortably in the 1%, and it recently seems that she doesn't even have a license to practice law in Mass even though she represents clients here.  Normal people would get in a lot of trouble for that.  

These races would be slam dunks anywhere else.  Unfortunately, open-minded voters are in the minority here - it's only the race for President that's a slam dunk.

Looks Like the Shoe's on the Other Foot!

Apparently, a vendor hired by the Republican Party of Florida was caught submitting bogus voter registration forms. (See Article)  Some Democrats were pretty upset by this, which I found odd, because I've never heard the left get too concerned about illegitimate voters on the roles.  In fact, they typically sue to keep them there.  Maybe if enough voter registration fraud happens on the right, then Voter ID laws will be something we can all come together on.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"

Can you believe that's what the President of the United States said today in his speech to the U.N.?? 

Americans have always cherished the Freedom of Speech.  If you want to say something critical or even vulgar about the prophet of Islam (or any other topic for that matter), then have at it.  I'm shocked that Obama would even suggest otherwise and I'm worried that so many people are lying down and lining up to reelect him.

Just keep in mind that every terrorist attack has led to an added layer of security with added restrictions in what we're allowed to do.  The latest terrorist attack in Libya (or protest against a video if you're convinced by Obama) may well lead to limitations in what we can say since it could provoke thugs in the Middle East.  Obviously, Congress would never go along with something so ridiculous, right?  Well, they don't have to.  Just like amnesty for the "dreamers" and eliminating work requirements for welfare recipients, Obama will just issue another executive order.  In fact, it's no stretch of the imagination for Obama to declare the removal of that ridiculous youtube video a matter of national security.  The ability to make such modifications to the Web would be trivial to add to the executive order on cybersecurity, which is almost ready according to Janet Napolitano.  Then Obama wouldn't have to bother asking youtube to review whether troublesome content is "in compliance with their terms of use".

Where would it stop?  Clearly, "slanderous" comments against any religion would have to be enforced for fairness.  Then each of the protected classes would line up for their protections, too.  Today, such statements are "politically incorrect".  Soon, they'll be violations.  Forward?  No thanks - not with Obama at the wheel.

That's Odd - I'm Not Seeing Much On Obama's Gaffes

Here are three pairs of stories.  Pick which one you've heard being covered more.  The media bias is appalling.  I don't know if it's worse this time around or if I've just noticed it.


Statements on the Libya Attack and Ambassador Assassination
Romney was blasted by the media for his comments the night of the Sept. 11th attacks on the Egyptian and Libyan embassies that included that assassination of our ambassador in Libya.  His statement criticizing the Obama administration for apologizing to the rioters for the misuse of our First Amendment Right because of an offensive youtube clip was resoundingly declared a gaffe, although it was applauded by many on the right.

On the other hand, this week, the administration finally caved on their insistence that the attacks in Egypt and Libya were spontaneous riots sparked by a youtube clip.  They now acknowledge that the assassination in Libya was a coordinated terrorist attack.  I'm not sure if they've admitted the obvious that it was timed for Sept 11th or not.  The media must figure that since everyone pretty well knew the administration was lying from the beginning, it wasn't really a story once it was confirmed...  It's a sad state of affairs when the version put forth by the Libyan government is more credible than what this administration would have you believe.


Hidden Videos
A hidden video of a Mitt Romney Fundraiser is released that shows him making insensitive statements about the 47% of tax return filers that owe no federal income taxes.  Obviously, many of those 47% have legitimate reasons for not owing and I hope some of them do come out for Romney.  The real frustration lies with the (I'm guessing double-digit) percentage of filers who are freeloading the system.  These are the SSDI frauds, the "single mothers" living with their working "boyfriends" (i.e. fathers), and the unemployment filers working under the table.

The Romney campaign counters with (unhidden) video of Obama as an Illinois State Senator declaring that he is for wealth redistribution.  He wants to take all your stuff and pass it around as he and his party see fit.  Of course, some of that ends up in their own pockets, kind of like the Politburo.  How else did Harry Reid become a multi-millionaire as a legislator?  Interesting, too, is that the media coverage of Romney "writing off" the 47% that don't pay federal income taxes failed to contrast that with the Obama campaign's admission of writing off the white working class.  Anyway, here's the redistribution video:

A Real Obama Gaffe
Whereas Romney's media-declared gaffe after the attacks on Egypt and Libya practically derailed mainstream coverage of the growing crisis in the Middle East, I'm sure they won't put themselves out too much reporting every angle of Obama's recent interview on Spanish TV where he was mercilessly attacked for not keeping his campaign promises to the Hispanic community (i.e. amnesty) and for the bungled Fast and Furious operation.  In particular, Obama said he's learned in his first term that "you can't change Washington from the inside."  Oops.

Happy Birthday, Occupy Wall Street

It's the1-year anniversary of OWS's siege of Zucotti Park in Manhattan.  While I'm no fan of the handouts and gimmes that they demand, such as forgiveness of student loans, I do agree with them when it comes to the growing income disparity in America.  There are some books on the subject that I think I'll take a look at, but in the meantime, I thought I would offer one suggestion that could help the situation in a small government kind of way.

As I see it, the problem is that the vast majority of the money I spend goes directly to the 1%.  Aside from the occasional local restaurant, most of my money goes to fill ups from the oil companies, I mostly buy groceries from a large (Chinese-owned) chain, I enjoy going to Costco, my clothes come from stores that are located all across the country, and on and on and on.  How is anyone aside from the 1% really supposed to benefit much from all that money?  Sure, all those places employ people, but not at a very high rate of pay - too much of that money goes to the 1% of people that run and own the companies we've all heard of.

So I decided this weekend that I would try to spend more of my money in places where it'll benefit the 99% more directly.  I went to a privately owned grocery store in town that doesn't have as good of a selection, or strawberry jelly in the quantity I'm used to, but the price was actually OK at the end.  We're interested in buying more of our veggies and meats from farms in the area, and there are too many hairstylists in town to justify anymore trips to the Hair Cuttery.  The only problem is that it can be pricey doing the right thing.  My shoes are pretty worn out and not looking very presentable.  Instead of buying a new pair, I thought I'd try taking them to the cobbler in town.  A new pair is $100 at Rockport, but after some haggling, new soles on the pair I have are going to be $75 (ack!) and insoles will be another $12...  The Boston area is pricey, but I was expecting a lot more savings compared to a new pair of shoes.  I'll see how well they hold out.  To see if I'm getting too ripped off, I'm taking a similar pair of shoes in to the other cobbler in town next weekend.

Taxing the 1% so that the government can give the cobbler benefits when he goes out of business is not a very efficient way of redistributing the wealth.  Keeping those shops in business maintains a demand for skilled labor, keeps the moms and pops off the welfare roles, and keeps the quaint downtowns more vibrant, which increases property values.

We're Investigating Filmmakers Now

The Feds brought an amateur filmmaker who posted a video on youtube in for questioning.  It's bad enough that they've pointed their finger at him for causing protests and the murder of an ambassador half a world away in the first place.  Really?  He's the only one who's voiced or published slanderous statements against Islam on the World Wide Web?  Why don't we shine the media spotlight on what intelligence the administration had leading up to these Sept 11th anniversary attacks - not on this poor guy.

I wonder if the Feds will similarly be made to answer for facilitating the production of a Hollywood blockbuster on the killing of Osama bin Laden (Zero Dark Thirty).  I mean, who doesn't think it's going to hurt the feelings of some Muslims?  If it incites any Middle East protests, they won't be able to hide behind this line anymore:

"The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."  Link

Zero Dark Thirty

Who's Buying This?

Yesterday, the White House said:

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

So remember - when you see mobs burn our embassies, burn our flag, burn effigies of Obama, and murder our diplomats, it's not that they don't like us.  They just don't like youtube (and probably won't like the upcoming blockbuster "Zero Dark Thirty" much, either...).  See post.

You won't hear the media report this White House statement for the B.S. it is, though.  These are their marching orders.

OK, Can We Go Home Now?

Meaning, surely we can move beyond Barack Obama now, no?  There are credible-sounding reports that the US received some intelligence about 48 hours ahead of time about plans to attack embassies.  Where there's smoke, there's fire...  The White House denied it, saying they received no actionable intelligence.  That's not how you'd word it if you'd received no intelligence, right?

What's really bothering me is that the President and Hillary are going all out blaming some youtube video for inciting all of these attacks.  It seems more plausible to me that some group(s) orchestrated these attacks to start on Sept 11th and simply pulled a youtube video to incite some mobs, which is not the same thing.  If they did have some intelligence in advance and continue to double down on deflecting the blame to a youtube film anyway, that would be beyond pitiful.  I want to give them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't sunk that low.  However, I can't get past the absurdity of a youtube video being the source of all the problems we're seeing.  The media, on the other hand, seems to have no problem swallowing that explanation - the U.S. media, anyway.

Also, isn't it considered undignified to have cameras and the press at the Air Force bases when the remains of the fallen are returned home?  Not if you're Obama.  The media criticizes Romney for "politicizing" the crisis when he comes out against the administration for seemingly blaming our First Amendment Right of the Freedom of Speech for this crisis - but Obama's not politicizing it by making a speech over Ambassador Chris Steven's mortal remains?  Save it for the funeral.  I'm so tired of the media bias.

So how about that Freedom of Speech?  Are you ready to give up the right to express criticism against Islamists and their "religion of peace"?  Because it sounds to me like that's going to be what Obama would like to change most to prevent an occurrence like this in the future.  He certainly had nothing to do with it.

Where's the Gaffe?!

Romney comes out and calls the administration's response to the embassy attacks disgraceful because it included sympathy with the mob in the Middle East for any offense that might've hurt their religious feelings.  Consider for a moment that this administration actually stated that it's a misuse of your First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech to offend the religious beliefs of Muslims:

Here the Tweet released after the flag had been burnt in the Cairo Embassy:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

I'm still with Mitt on his statement released later that night, now tagged as a gaffe by the mainstream media:

"It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Romney reaffirmed his position in the morning during a press conference while Obama was making his first appearance to the public.  Obama kept an acknowledgement in his statement of some perceived provocation on the religious sensibilities of the attackers:

"...the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."

So we have another Romney/Obama distinction.  The Obama administration is concerned about offending fundamental Islamists in the Middle East - to the point where they may make such expressions a misuse of our Freedom of Speech.  After all, every other terrorist attack has led to more restrictions on us of one kind or another.  Romney wants only to denounce these zealots for attacking our sovereignty and killing our citizens.  It's no time for a soft and conciliatory response - wars have started over less.

Attacked Again

The Kardashian President

The conservative talk radio programs like referring to Obama as the Kardashian President.  It's fitting on days like today.  Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu requests a meeting on a day when two U.S. embassies are attacked in the Middle East and at a time when Israel has problems aplenty of its own.  Barack turns him down saying his calendar is full - then announces on the same day that he's booked an appearance with David Letterman.  I know it's very fashionable in a lot of liberal and 99%-er circles to trash Israel, but this is such a disgrace.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/11/obama-back-letterman

via link on the Drudge Report  www.drudgereport.com

A Little Comic Relief - Putin Campaign Ads

These most recent polls are so disappointing that I thought I'd cheer up with some humorous Putin campaign ads.  Despite my earlier posting on Putin, I can assure you I'm not obsessed with him.  The clips below are the last of what I know about him.   Meanwhile, I'm waiting for a few days to look at the polls again - once they include any reaction to Friday's jobs report showing 4x as many people going on the dole than getting a job. If that doesn't jolt the American people, what will?  In any case, on with the Bread and Circuses, which we'll need a lot of during the long and slow "recovery" Obama repromised if he's reelected:

In this first ad, "virgin" first-time voters are asked to choose Putin for their "first time".  

This second ad shows how voting for Putin is as good as having sex!

Jobs Report: Any Good News You Hear Today Is a Lie

Today is a really good opportunity to test the integrity of your news source.  Whether it's CNN, NPR, MSNBC - regardless of its reputation - anyone who puts a shine on this month's jobs report is lying to you and carrying water for Obama.  If you're surrounded by good news today, please consider diversifying your news sources.

The unemployment rate went down from 8.3 to 8.1%  Yay!  More evidence of progress on the slow road to recovery!  Well, all partisanship aside, there was no good news to be found anywhere in the jobs report this morning.  The fall in unemployment is the result of 96,000 new jobs being created and 368,000 people "giving up" their job search and leaving the unemployment rolls.  Those people have spent their 99 weeks and are moving on to more stable forms of unemployment, like Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).  Remember, SSDI is no longer just a safety net for those that are physically unable to work.  It's now a way of life for people who need only claim to be "too depressed" or "anxious" to work.  Keep in mind that only 1-3% of people who go onto SSDI ever return to the workforce.  

Another chunk of those 368,000 people are on other forms of welfare and are now free from looking for work thanks to a stroke of Obama's pen in mid July.  This was an executive order that ends a requirement Congress put in place as part of welfare reform during Clinton's administration.  I realize Clinton's speech at the DNC was pretty convincing that this was just done to free up states that want to try out their own programs  for getting people back to work.  Fine - but it will take months for these experiments to be evaluated and the start of this executive order was naturally timed for those welfare recipients to be coming off of the welfare rolls starting now and continuing through to the election.  Today's jobs report of lower unemployment and more people leaving the workforce than finding a job is a trend we can expect to continue in next month's report and in the one that comes out on Nov 2nd, the Friday before the election.  By then, Obama should be basking in an unemployment rate in the mid 7's.

Right wing lunacy?  Depends on who you ask - according to the most media sources, it's at least a lie and even racist if you ask the DNC chair.  I think manipulation of the unemployment rate with welfare fraud is has been in the works for a while and is real and is being embraced by the Democratic Party to get Obama reelected.  I don't know how deep their motives go, but I really don't want to see the "better place" Obama promises to lead America forward to.

Just a couple more numbers to consider:

• Based on the 96,000 jobs created this month, the unemployment rate today would be 8.4% if so many people hadn't "given up" their job search.
• Only 69.9% of men are now in the workforce - the lowest rate since the number began being tracked in 1948. 
• The overall workforce participation rate is the lowest since 1981.
• If the workforce participation rate had remained the same as it was when Obama took office, he'd have an unemployment rate of 11.4% today.

 

Bill Clinton's DNC Speech

If you're a Romney/Ryan fan, then there was some good news and some bad news last night at the DNC.  The bad news is that Bill Clinton made a great speech with a message that I think resonates with many in the middle of the political spectrum.  The only good news is that about 3 times as many people were watching the NFL season opener :)

What I thought was good about Bill Clinton's speech is that he stuck to the issues.  There was none of the divisive "You didn't build that" nonsense that has become the Obama and Elizabeth Warren platform.  There were no fear mongering false accusations that the Republicans are trying to take away access to contraception or the right of women to choose.  Instead, he gave an argument to all of the issues that the average person actually worries about.

Of course, I think some of Clinton's arguments were pretty ridiculous.  For example, he complimented Obama's energy policies and cited some domestic gas production statistics.  The gas (and associated jobs) boom in North Dakota and elsewhere is happening despite Obama's policies, not due to them.  Obama has mostly shut down U.S. offshore drilling while offering assistance to Brazil and others to develop their offshore resources.  Obama is the only obstacle remaining in the way of  the Keystone Pipeline. Obama once said that his policies would put coal-powered plants out of business. Link  How about supporting cleaner coal technology instead?  Obama's idea of domestic energy production is to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - and solar cells.

Despite what Clinton says, I still think Obama's executive order ending the work requirement for welfare recipients is a scam to reduce the unemployment numbers ahead of the election.  See my welfare fraud post.  Some new numbers come out tomorrow - we'll see if there is a drop in unemployment that is larger than can be explained with new jobs.  It's true that the executive order requires states who want the work requirement waiver to basically do a better job getting people employed - but it'll take months for the government to evaluate any state's alternative program.  So in the short term, it is a drop in the work requirement to get people off the unemployment rolls.

But I think Clinton had a point on some of the economic issues and the debt. His sound bite about the GOP argument was, "We left [Obama] a total mess. We feel like he didn't clean it up fast enough. So fire him, and put us back in." It is true that a big part of the debt consists of Bush tax cuts and Bush war costs (but you could make the same argument about a lot of expensive entitlements or discretionary programs, too).  Bush doubled the debt from about $4.5T to about $9T.  I get that.  But the problem is that Obama has increased the debt even more in half the time and has no intentions of turning the budget deficit around. Our debt is now higher than GDP, but that does not phase Obama as he saddles our economy with amnesty and more entitlements, i.e. Obamacare, without reforming any of the existing ones.

I'm voting for the Republicans this year with the hope that the Tea Party brings enough fiscal common sense and political pressure to the GOP to break the status quo.  The Tea Party has changed the GOP in the short time since Bush was in office.  The Tea Party is why Paul Ryan is the VP nominee.  The Democrats are not going to do our country any favors when it comes to the debt and deficits.  Their shift has only been towards the social extremes.  If the Democrats pull this election off, I'll be in agreement with them on one thing: it'll be Bush's fault.

A Preview of Obamacare

On display in Massachusetts is the latest example of what we can expect when the government takeover of healthcare is complete.  A prisoner serving life in prison for killing and nearly decapitating his wife has sued the state and *won* the right to have a sex change operation.  (Article)  For years, we've already been footing the bill for Michelle Kosilek's hormone therapy, etc, but apparently it's cruel and unusual punishment for her to be trapped in a man's body.

We can't afford this crap.  And even if we could, why would we even entertain such nonsense.  I could blow my money in Vegas and spend it more wisely than the government.  Now we have a precedent to deal with where transgender prisoners may be entitled to sex change therapy and ultimately operations.  There are 600 of them according to Michelle's thank-you note to the judge!  So why in the world would Obamacare bureaucrats deny the same treatments for anyone with Obamacare?  They wouldn't.  This is the tip of the iceberg of how Obamacare would go way past what we can afford and what's reasonable.  The government has proven itself unworthy to entrust with so many of our tax dollars.  Aren't there more important things to do than castrate Michelle Kosilek?  We need to massively shrink the scope of our government and focus it on our economic well-being.  There are better and easier ways than Obamacare to expand healthcare access and lower costs.  Here's my favorite, for what it's worth.

Are You Voting for Obama Because You're One of the "99%"?

Not me.  I'm voting for Romney because I'm in one of the 54% of households that owed federal income taxes in 2011.

First they came for the "1%" and I said nothing because I'm not in the 1%.  Then they came ...

Already, "millionaires and billionaires" are households making $250K per year.  It's a slippery slope!

A fair tax system would be a broader base and fewer deductions.  Simplify.  That way, everyone would be able to guess pretty closely what percent of his income Romney had paid in taxes - and what percent their neighbors and colleagues had paid.  When everyone chips in, there are more eyes on where the money goes and it's spent more carefully.  Right now, it's taken from people who have too much anyway and given to people who can't get enough.  How do we ever go back when the takers outnumber the givers?

Have You Checked Out Putin Lately?

A black belt in Judo...

Who likes to play hockey.

The cold doesn't bother him much.

But warmer is better.

His favorite place to fish is anywhere there are bears.

 Likes to shoot?  Of course.

How else do you hunt?  Here, kitty kitty kitty.

Whale hunt, anyone?

Remember that bomber that invaded US airspace a little while back?  That may have been Putin himself!

My other car is a Harley...  when it's not a deep-sea submarine.

Comfortable with his body - and yours.

Apparently he has a soft spot.

But don't worry - I'm sure our guys have them quaking in their boots, too!  Keep up those P90X workouts, Paul Ryan!