Category Archives: Obarrassments

You Know You’re A Communist When

485793_10151058251061657_947492276_n

Here’s a simple question: At what point do you know you’re a communist?

As a strongly principled Conservative/Libertarian, I feel like I could easily recognize other strongly principled Conservatives and Libertarians because their views fall similar to mine.

Using this logic, shouldn’t one communist be able to identify another communist? Better yet, wouldn’t someone who lived through Communism be able to identify a communist leader?

I think the answer is yes, and there is some frightening (only if you haven’t realized it yet) proof.

Recently an opinion article appeared in Pravda, a Russian Newspaper, by a relatively unknown writer, Xavier Lerma.

Let me start out by saying that after doing a little research on Xavier, I have found that he is not a Communist, Socialist, or Marxist. He is a Conservative, but Russian standards of course, with a true love for Vladimir Putin. If you read the column, you would catch on quickly to his favorable bias towards Putin.

While the column contains extreme spin and favorability towards Putin, everything that Xavier said about American and Obama is true – well, mostly true.

“Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.”

What about this isn’t true? Except for the ‘illiterate society’ comment, this paragraph expresses some of my feelings with the reelection of Obama to a tee.

Why do we study history?

We study history in attempt to learn from it, and to the best of our ability, not commit the same mistakes twice. However, we almost never learn from history and we always commit the same mistakes twice.

Xavier gets history though. He has learned from the past of the nation that he holds near and dear to his heart, and he is strongly against Russia committing those same mistakes twice.

Xavier knows that communism doesn’t work, nor does socialism. Xavier knows that low taxes are the way to go, and finally Xavier knows that faith, morals, and strong principles are the key to prosperity.

History tells us these things, and this is why Xavier is able to exploit all of Obamas mistakes. Not only is Obama and his administration not learning from history, but they are going in the direction of a “Soviet Plan”, something of which we know does not work. History tells us this.

The American media should be covering this story – its news. But they aren’t going to, that’s why you probably haven’t even heard about it, because American media doesn’t report the news anymore.

However, when Glenn Beck says something that is deemed to be “politically incorrect”, he is persecuted by the media.

What’s the difference between Beck’s thoughts on America and Xavier’s?

Nothing, and that’s why the media isn’t covering this story.

I suggestion you click on the link and read the column. It could do without all of the favorability towards Putin, but Xavier’s views about Obama and the current state of America are Right. On. Point.

Follow Chris On Twitter

 

 

MSM’s Love Affair with Obama Cooling Down

It’s true that the Mainstream Media has been madly in love with Obama since he came on the scene as a Presidential contender. But, over the past month or so, it’s been cooling down from a plot-free “XXX” sex-fest, to around an R-rated movie. Still a little hot and heavy, but at least that’s an improvement.

jamesomalley (CC)


One could argue that Jake Tapper started it, at least by grilling Jay Carney over the Benghazi attacks just a couple weeks ago. There were at least a few conservatives out in the twitterverse that got excited about that little dance. Even if it took a while for others to start joining in, the “maybe we really do need to question Obama” itch has been spreading slowly through the ranks of generally liberal journalists that have been protecting the President every chance they get.

CNN stepped up and questioned Obama’s second-term plan yesterday. Of course, the item in question begged for it, since it was just a fancy re-hashing of all the old Obama plans that haven’t worked. Not to be outdone, NBC’s Brian Williams managed to point out the lackluster numbers of crowds showing up for Obama events. Surprisingly, Williams even implied it might have something to do with the economy not doing as well as people would like.

From the print world, the Des Moines Register got the last laugh after the dust-up over an “off-the-record” interview with Obama. They gave the President the proverbial raspberries by putting his grumpy face picture on the front page next to a smiling Romney. Who said print journalism was dead?

Finally, CBS’s “60 Minutes” came clean about some deleted footage that shows the White House had lied about Benghazi. Of course it’s Twitchy.com and Breitbart.com pointing out these misadventures in journalism, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are happening. For those that were questioning whether or not the attack on Benghazi would make a difference in this election, this might be a major indication that it has. It at least threw a healthy glass of ice water on those lovers – the MSM and Obama.

Mitt Romney Debates Candy Obama

Candy Crowley: Pound for pound the worst debate moderator ever.

Candy Crowley: Pound for pound the worst debate moderator ever.

The Commission on Presidential Debates lowered the altitude for the second contest by 5,200 feet and simultaneously dropped the level of discourse considerably farther.

The candidates repeatedly interrupted each other, called one another liars and generally argued at a sixth–grade level. (Good enough for a passing under No Child Left Behind!) Yet in the end Mitt Romney was able to battle the tag team of Barack Obama and Candy Crowley to a draw.

CBS anchor Scott Pelley called it the “most rancorous presidential debate ever” and wondered why the Secret Service didn’t step in to protect Obama. And it’s true Romney delivered the first jab saying Obama was the one who took Government Motors into bankruptcy, while he only discussed it. But Obama, with timely assistance from “moderator” Crowley, gave as good as he got.

Both the National Journal and Forbes rated the bout a draw, which represents improvement over the President’s lethargic first effort in Denver.

In Denver BO suffered from bad body language. While Romney was talking, the incumbent slumped in his chair and appeared to be sneering as he dozed.

Evidently one of his corner men suggested he sit up and tilt a bit toward Romney so the President would look alert and engaged. In fact, still photos of the event show Obama leaning so far forward he looks like the new mascot for MSNBC.

His answers were less flabby, too. Last night he had new, improved responses featuring a specific number of “points.” So instead of Denver’s rambling discourses with no internal organization, the audience was treated to vague, vacuous bullet points.

And Obama attempted a more vigorous strategy in his own defense. My notes of the transcript read, “Yada yada yada, liar, liar, pants on fire. Yada yada yada, liar, liar pants on fire.” Which in truth is not much of a rebuttal strategy, although it quickens the blood of the more rabid elements of the Democrat base.

One technique Obama didn’t change was whining to the moderator about time. Could there be anything less presidential? Unfortunately, it’s working. Obama is now eight minutes ahead of Romney in total speaking time.

To put this in perspective, it’s enough time for a rousing defense of Libya and Solyndra with plenty of time left over to remind the audience that Romney’s rich.

And Libya was one of the topics. You’ll recall the administration initially claimed the attack was not something for which enlightened people could blame Moslems. The murder of our ambassador was a spontaneous reaction to a bad Internet video and couldn’t be helped, like projectile vomiting at Seafood Joe’s after swallowing a bad shrimp.

When asked who refused the request for more security at the consulate, Obama simply dodged the question. He explained after the attack his administration leapt into action: it beefed up security at the embassies that were still standing and dispatched Forest Service aircraft to drop fire retardant on those that were in flames.

As for Libya, as soon as the drones are refueled, Obama intends to see that there is a thorough, robust investigation that will hold accountable those responsible.

Here Romney dropped the ball. The obvious response to this butt–covering is to point out that if the late Ambassador Stevens had been offered a choice between a thorough investigation after his death or a detachment of Marine guards before; most likely he would have opted for the Marines.

Instead Mitt got into a semantics duel with a sophist over when Obama admitted Libya was a terror attack. They were fighting it out among the rose bushes when Crowley interrupted and declared Obama called it a terror attack the day after. In effect ruling that Romney didn’t know what he was talking about. But after the debate was over and TV audience gone, Crowley admitted Romney was right after all.

There was also fighting on the domestic front as Obama continued agitating for all out class war. Sounding a lot like the judge in The Dark Knight Rises, Obama put the wealthy on trial and found them guilty of being rich and not paying enough taxes. It would not have been surprising to learn he had traded his lapel flag for a miniature crossed torch–and–pitchfork pin.

Still “Pitchfork Ben” Obama may not have played well with undecided voters. The Weekly Standard reports the MSNBC focus group appeared convinced by Mitt and the 2008 voters for Obama panel, assembled for FOX by Frank Luntz, moved decisively to Romney after the debate.

All in all it looks bad for Barack’s career prospects: he’s not animated enough to be an MSNBC commentator and he’s not convincing enough to be re–elected.

Obama, Benghazi, and the Blame Game

Scandals bring out the worst in politicians, and politicians engage in scandalous behavior on a regular basis. Of course the people only end up hearing about the latter when said politicians get caught. Normally, this would happen as the result of members of the traditional media uncovering their dastardly deeds, but the age of investigative journalism in the mainstream media is drawing to a close. Now, it is in the hands of new media, and sometimes, other politicians.

Voice of America (CC)

In the case of the Benghazi scandal, it is a little of each. Now, anyone that believes that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the result of protest against an anti-Islam film is either delusional, or has been living under a rock for the past couple weeks. In the interest of being thorough, if anyone lost track, they can consult the timeline here. As for the Congressional Hearings, if nothing else, it can be called a “who’s who of the administration that will be thrown under the bus, if they haven’t been already.” Obviously, the lowest on the totem pole are likely to take the worst. But, as we saw in the Vice Presidential debate, someone obviously forgot to get Joe Biden on board with the administration’s official story on the matter. His statement that he didn’t know the Consulate needed more security came off as though the administration as a whole was unaware. The current message is (maybe?) that Biden and Obama didn’t know, implying some sort of disconnect between the Oval Office and the State Department.

Well, maybe that’s more than just implied, since it’s obvious that there is now a rift between Clinton(s) and Obama. That begs the question why Obama would now trust Bill to hit the campaign trail on his behalf – but, who wants to warn him that could blow up in his face? No one? Figured that.

Otherwise, in the endless effort to blame anyone but themselves, the Obama administration is at least attempting to stick with the “evil Republicans cut the State Department budget, so we couldn’t afford more forces there” argument. They shouldn’t expect that to work very well for two reasons. First, it doesn’t fly when one considers the “greening of Europe” initiative pointed out by Congressman Mike Kelly. As was pointed out in the hearings, obviously the State Department has their priorities a little out of order, since they’re spending huge sums of money on electric cars in Europe, while neglecting to provide needed security personnel in the Middle East and North Africa. But apparently the State Department can afford to send an attorney to babysit Congressman Jason Chaffetz on his trip to Libya to investigate the situation. Perhaps that was why Congress cut the budget in the first place? Second, there’s the problem with communication on National Security matters in the White House. We’ve been told for ages now that Obama rarely bothers with National Security briefings. Now, apparently he’s also not interested in hearing requests for increased security at Embassies. That is a rather odd decision under the circumstances, but who are we to question his choices.

And none of this could possibly be connected to the general state of denial within this administration when it comes to terrorism. We are no longer at war with terrorism. Osama bin Laden is dead. That fixed everything. There couldn’t be an increased threat from al Qaeda. The message is clear – the State Department is right to avoid calling those that attacked the Benghazi Consulate terrorists. And there wasn’t any real danger in Libya, so it was right to scale back security there. Stephanie Cutter is right – it is all Mitt Romney’s fault, and he’s politicizing the situation. Don’t believe her? Just ask Alec Baldwin.

Move along folks, nothing to see here!

Where’s that Teleprompter When You Need It?

The inspiration for Obama's flag pin.

The inspiration for Obama’s flag pin.

Not only did Mitt Romney win the first presidential debate, he was also victorious in the battle of the flag pins. Compared to the horizontal flag pin Obama was wearing, Romney’s looked like the mainsail on a frigate.

Obama’s pin resembled those narrow, black eyeglass frames that geeks and hipsters wear to show their superiority to people who don’t know what “jelly bean” on an Android is. It had the same proportions as the gunport on a pillbox, only smaller.

Romney’s pin, on the other hand, was large enough to contain a mysterious dot that even on HD–TV didn’t have enough detail to allow one to identify it. Had the debate been in Orlando, I would have assumed it was Mickey Mouse, but Denver is not associated with any cartoon characters, unless you include Gov. Hickenlooper. Turns out that Romney’s pin is the one worn by members of the Secret Service and it was given to him by an agent on his protective detail.

I suppose Obama’s Secret Service detail thought it more fitting to give him golf tees or a bank bag, either of which would have looked out of place at the debate. And speaking of out of place, where do you think Obama would have rather been last night? He spent most of the evening looking like a petulant celebrant missing his big 20th wedding anniversary shindig.

The audience thought it was a joke when Obama began his opening statement promising Michelle they would not be celebrating next year’s anniversary on a debate stage. But based his frowny–face during the split–screen shots when Romney was talking, I think he was serious. He looked testy and put–upon all evening.

It was evident the Obama hadn’t faced any hostile questions from anyone during the past four years, assuming you overlook Michelle’s demanding when he intends to quit smoking.

The “yowza boss” attitude of the White House press corps is not conducive to making one fast on his feet.  Nor is becoming an alternate cast member of ‘The View.’ Maybe his schedule for the day read “9PM: slo–jamming the debate with your PBS homies,” because he was woefully unprepared.

Ann Romney may not like the questioning the campaign and her husband have undergone this year, but it sure made him sharper on his feet. Mitt was even mildly humorous at times, although he had a tendency to step on his own laugh lines. He needs to pause a beat after the punch line to give the audience time to respond. He could have made the “changing insurance companies” comment into a punch line and made himself look more like a regular guy, with just a bit of work. And Mitt went too fast when he accused Obama of only picking losers, so the impact was damaged. Unfortunately every comedian in the country appears to be on the Obama team, so it’s hard for Mitt to rehearse. I wonder what Drew Carey is doing?

Currently Obama spinmeisters are complaining about the replacement referee, er moderator. But the fact is when Obama the moderator and drones on FIVE MINUTES longer than Romney, yet still loses the debate, your candidate and your campaign are in a world of hurt.

As a result, I predict the Obama campaign will demand changes in the ground rules for debates two and three. First and foremost David Axelrod will be in charge of the visuals. This means no more cutaway shots or split–screen views when Romney is speaking. Obama will be able to chew Nicorette and stamp his foot with the audience none the wiser.

They may even demand Obama appear backlit behind a screen like 60 Minutes does when they interview a whistle–blower who doesn’t want to be recognized.

And all evidence points toward Obama’s team urging him to be more aggressive during the remaining debates, ready to pounce on Romney and his evil plans.

Fors fortus, as the Romans say.

He may be able to frighten the White House staff and startle the interns when Obama gets forceful, but I have an idea that during the debate it will only look bitchy.

Barack Obama Continues to Lie About Taxes – Part 2

Part 1 can be seen here: http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/09/barack-obama-continues-to-lie-about-taxes-part-1

Let me start by saying that my grandmother used to tell me that if any part of anything I say is a lie, if there is anything that can be pulled out that isn’t true… then I’m lying. Keep that in mind. Deceit is deceit.

Well, what about hypocrisy?

The quick answer: There is no difference.

What am I getting at? Well, as you saw in Part 1, Obama has been lying to the American people about the tax rates the average American pays. Part 2 focuses on how he acts hypocritically by calling out Mitt Romney and the wealthy for using “loopholes,” “write-offs,” and “deductions” to pay less in taxes while he himself uses these very tax law tools. Not only does Obama uses these instruments of tax avoidance himself, but he uses them at a higher rate than Mitt Romney. Yes, you read that correctly: Barack Obama is better than Mitt Romney at using “loopholes,” “write-offs,” and “deductions” to pay less in taxes. But don’t take my word; let’s look at Mitt Romney’s and Barack Obama’s tax returns. Since the dust hasn’t officially settled on Mitt Romney’s 2011 returns (he allegedly paid more in taxes than he had to), we will use his and Obama’s 2010 documents for this analysis.

Here is President Obama’s 2010 tax return: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf (If this sounds a little facetious from here on out, please forgive me; you have to understand the sheer joy a conservative feels when showing just how hypocritical the left truly is).

Start by focusing your attention on page 1, line 22 – Total Income: $1,795,694 (and oh yeah, Barack Obama is in the 1% the left love so much to hate).

Next, look at adjusted gross income (AGI), line 37 at the bottom of the page: $1,726,096. What’s that?! He reduced his income by 1.69x the average American yearly income. Don’t worry; there’s more.

Go to the second page, near the top. Line 40 – Itemized deductions: $373,289. Holy cow! You mean Obama has used the current tax code, just as Mitt Romney has, to reduce his taxable income?

Line 43 shows the “smoking gun” – Taxable income: $1,340,247. Ta-da! President Obama has reduced his taxable income from the original $1,795,694 to $1,340,247, or by 25.4%!!!

Now let’s take a look at Mitt Romney’s 2010 tax return, and I can make this quick: http://thorndike.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Romney1040-2010.pdf

Page 1, line 22 – Total Income: $21,661,334

Page 2 (it’s further in the document) Line 43, Taxable income: $17,120,067

To make sure we are comparing apples to apples, this means Mitt Romney reduced his taxable income by $4,541,267 or only 21%!!!

So when it comes to who is the biggest player of the US tax game… who reduces their income by more… who skirts the system by using these “loopholes,” “write-offs,” and “deductions” the most, not only is President Obama playing the same game… he plays it MORE. He plays it better. He does all this while deriding Mitt Romney and the wealthy… all while doing it with a straight face. If this isn’t a double standard, I don’t know what one is.

UVA College Democrats Accidentally Blast Awkward E-Mail

Screen Shot 2012-09-25 at 12.31.05 AM

Justin Higgins at JHPolitics has obtained a rather awkward email detailing a meeting of the University of Virginia’s College Democrats chapter.  In the email, we reportedly had a woman named Carmen who went nuts, a bad turnout at their phone bank, and a bad turnout canvasing. As Higgins noted, their plan to remedy their unenthused cohorts is to conscript “hotties” from their respective sororities. The first lesson of E-Mail 101 is to be mindful of who is on the recipient list.

UDems Exec Agenda:  Sunday, September 22, 2012; 9:00pm; Outside Newcomb Board Room

I.               Highs/ Lows of the Week

II.             Old Business

A.    Meeting

a.     Somewhat competitive

b.     Carmen sounded crazy

B.    Phonebank

a.     Bad turnout

C.    Canvass

a.     Low turnout

b.     Some non-boardies didn’t show up

III.            Current Business

A.    This week’s meeting

a.     Professor Sanders-State Senator Mark Herring, Peter doing GOTV training

b.     Dean Grimes-education policy 10/3

B.    Publicity

a.     PMs will do it

C.    Phone Bank

a.     OFA one in the corner office

b.     Come after 5 PM

D.   Canvass

a.     Switch, make this local

b.     Meet by student health

E.    Program Managers

a.     Happening tonight

F.    Lynchburg Trip

a.     Charlottesville canvas

b.     Do an OFA one

G.   Sorority Forum

a.     Preve is gonna talk

b.     Send ur hotties

H.   Debate Thing

a.     We can do it!

b.     But it’s fall break – BUMMER BRAH

c.     It would be better as a forum and not a debate

I.      White House Updates

a.     Need to remind people they need 10 hours

J.     FIFE event

a.     Reach out for October 24th meeting with Denise Walsh

K.   Toscano Town Hall

a.     Thursday 6:30-9 PM, we need to be there from 5:20-7

b.     With Toscano and Deeds

L.    Election Night Watch Party

a.     Trinity was all into it

b.     They are fine with people under 21

c.     Just waiting to hear about the best one!

M.  Morven Farms Debate Screening

a.     Getting reps from UDems and CRs and be involved in the discussion

b.     ALich will be there, send out stuff to the listserve

c.     Date is 10/16

N.   Reserve Rooms

a.     Board at 9 PM every week

b.     Get Clark 108!

Romney-Obama: Two Speeches, Two Views

Romney-at-Clinton-Global-Initiative-2-jpg

Despite recognition by virtually everyone but the Oval Office that the White House trumpeted anti-Islamist video trailer has next to nothing to do with violence in the Middle East, and that it is simply a re-election distraction ploy that deflects blame from Obama’s failed foreign policy; in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly Barack Obama continued to blame the video for Mid-East riots and violent demonstrations.

Obama used that narrative as the backdrop for saying there is “No speech that justifies mindless violence.  There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents” and “No video that justifies an attack on an embassy”.  Obama also said that the video “is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-condemns-violence-tied-anti-muslim-film-145204587–election.html

How is the exercise of free speech by an American an insult to America?  Is Obama ever going to make a similar statement about artists who dip Crucifixes in urine?

Obama also said “I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that.”

So Obama recognizes that UN member states do not share American views on the protection of free speech by the U.S. Constitution.

What is Obama doing about it?  Recognizing that Islamists will continue to launch military assaults upon American embassies and consulates around the world while he continues to lay the blame at the feet of Americans exercising their right to free speech?

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, giving an address before the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual conference, made the case for the inherent strength and endurance of the private sector and the dignity derived by individuals reaping the rewards of their own labor.

“That must be at the heart of our effort to help people build economies that can create jobs for people, young and old alike. Work builds self-esteem. It transforms minds from fantasy and fanaticism to reality and grounding.  Work will not long tolerate corruption nor quietly endure the brazen theft by government of the product of hardworking men and women.”

Romney said if he wins the White House, he will “remind the world of the goodness and bigness of the American heart.  I will never apologize for America. I believe that America has been one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever known.  We can hold that knowledge in our hearts with humility and unwavering conviction.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-jokes-clinton-influence-2012-election-143506618–election.html

Two candidates for one high office offer distinctly differing world views.

Obama’s view is to preach moral equivalence while shrinking from defense of the U.S. Constitution and the God given rights it protects for all Americans.

Romney’s is to stand up for America and its economic system while celebrating the prosperity and good America has both created and symbolized for over two centuries.

Does the distinction need to be drawn more clearly?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/romney-obama-two-speeches-two-views/

To Obama, Mid-East Violence and Murders: “Bumps in the Road”, Israel: “Noise”

Violence-in-the-Middle-East_13

In comments made during a CBS ’60 Minutes’ interview, Barack Obama described violent attacks on embassies in the Middle East and the murder of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, as “bumps in the road”.

When asked if recent events in the Middle East had changed his outlook on supporting the Arab Spring, Obama responded: “Well, I’d said even at the time that this is going to be a rocky path. The question presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change.  I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal right, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance.   But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207861/Obama-describes-wave-Middle-East-violence-murder-U-S-ambassador-Libya-bumps-road.html

A coordinated military maneuver, confirmed by the head of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center as a terrorist attack, that employed rocket propelled grenades and other heavy weapons, which was launched on the anniversary on 9/11 against an American embassy that directly led to the death of four Americans, including an ambassador, is a “bump in the road”?

During the interview, Obama admitted that his campaign ads had made mistakes, but somehow, CBS News didn’t find that piece of information newsworthy enough to share with their viewers.

When asked if he was disturbed by fact checkers proving assertions in his ads were untrue, Obama responded:  “Do we see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, are there mistakes that are made, areas where there is no doubt somebody could dispute how we are presenting things? You know, that happens in politics.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-doesnt-air-obama-admitting-mistakes-campaign-ads_652973.html

That happens in politics when a campaign cannot run on its record in office, is so desperate to win that it deems it necessary to employ every long used dirty “progressive” smear tactic and suffers from a severe shortage of ethics, morals and socially redeeming qualities.

Remember when the United States was unquestionably Israel’s strongest ally?  Not anymore.  According to Obama, Israel is merely “one of our closest allies in the region”.

Since his inauguration, Obama has attempted to appease the Islamist world with an “even-handed” approach.  Now Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has serious doubts about American resolve to stand behind Israel.

For his part, Obama admitted to viewing Netanyahu’s requests for the U.S. to take a harder stance against Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as “noise” he must ignore when making American security decisions.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/09/24/obama-israel-closest-allies-region/

Is it sheer coincidence that the exact same word was used to describe Israel by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?   “I have spoken about this topic at length, previously. We generally speaking do not take very seriously the issue of the Zionists and the possible dangers emanating from them. Of course they would love to find a way for their own salvation by making a lot of noise and to raise stakes in order to save themselves. But I do not believe they will succeed. Iran is also a very well recognized country and her defensive powers are very clear.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-refers-israel-concern-over-iran-noise_652967.html

Is this any way for America to conduct foreign policy?  Does having cities in twenty different countries descend into weeks of anti-American violence and murder sound like a “bump in the road” or more like just cause for alarm?  Does treating long-time ally Israel like they are simply “one of our closest allies in the region” sound like a recipe for successfully enlisting new allies in the future?  Is this what Americans view as making America safer?  Is this what Americans see as elevating America’s standing in the world view?

Is it accidental that a large number of Americans who are currently engaged in early voting are oblivious to this information?

America deserves better than this, does it not?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/to-obama-mid-east-violence-and-murders-bumps-in-the-road-israel-noise/

Another Day Another Disaster

obama-letterman

Barack Obama’s foreign policy approval numbers plunged in a recent poll.  This is no surprise at a time when NATO is pulling back in Afghanistan, a move that is heightening doubts about the future of that country.  NATO’s decision, which leaves Obama’s exit strategy in doubt, makes his claims of “progress” in that arena suspect at best.

While the Islamist world raged in the first week of a stark, full blown display of vehement, bloody hatred towards the United States, Barack Obama was jet setting to a party with Jay-Z and Beyonce, where he enjoyed the sight of a lavish 18-foot tall tower of gold French champagne bottles.  That was, until he was obligated to move the party to the CBS Late Show with David Letterman for a conversation that was so important that Obama simply could not find the time to meet with that pesky Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

Oh yes, without a glimpses of a hint of a shadow of a doubt, Obama is the one and only candidate in this presidential race who is grounded, looks out for and cares for the little guy.

If you believe that, there is an exclusive ocean front property sale happening in Bolivia that is definitely not to be missed.

For the White House and the Obama re-election campaign, another day means another disaster.

Especially when additional evidence of his long term devotion to wealth redistribution surfaces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney rejected Obama’s views and policies by stating ‘We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution’.  That statement exemplifies how Romney is escalated his attacks on Obama’s economic vision.  A vision that has led to two credit downgrades for the United States, long term unemployment for millions of Americans, reductions in wealth and earning power at a time of higher prices at the grocery story and escalating costs for energy.

Thanks to an embarrassingly unprofessional and utterly irresponsible news media, most Americans are oblivious to the fact that the number of able-bodied adults who are dependent on food stamps has doubled since Obama’s illegal Executive Order suspended the work requirement for welfare recipients.

What is the “mainstream media” focused on?

For ABC News, the headline is: Romney Tapes Give Way To The Not-So-Calm After The Storm

Of special note for MICHAEL FALCONE (@michaelpfalcone) and AMY WALTER (@amyewalter) are:

•ROMNEY TAPES GET THE SUPER PAC TREATMENT: That didn’t take long. The pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, is quick out of the starting gate this morning with a new television ad featuring footage of Mitt Romney’s candid comments from a private fundraiser that has rocked the political world this week. The script of the ad, titled “Doors,” speaks for itself. A narrator says, “Behind these doors Mitt Romney calls half the American people….” And then the hidden-camera video of Romney finishes the sentence:  ”Dependent upon government, who believe they are victims.” The narrator returns: “Victims?  Behind these doors middle-class families struggle. And Romney will make things even tougher. Raising taxes by up to $2,000 to give multi-millionaires a $250,000 tax break.” And Romney again: “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility…” The group says the ad is part of their $30 million effort to underscore the effects of Romney’s economic proposals, which is underway on television and online in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. WATCH: http://youtu.be/uaKIeR4Sn3k

•THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN RESPONDS WITH TWO LUMPS OF COAL: Today the Romney campaign released two new television ads focusing on what Team Romney is calling “President Obama’s war on coal.” According to a release from the campaign: The first ad titled “Way of Life.” In the ad a man says, “My family’s worked in the coal industry for over sixty years. This is the way of life we know. Policies that the current administration’s got is attacking my livelihood. Obama said he was going to bankrupt any new power plants that opened up that’s coal-fired and he’s keeping his promise. I got two young grandsons. I’m scared for their future, let alone mine. I support Mitt Romney.” WATCH: http://mi.tt/S34HBp In the second ad, “War on Coal,” the Republican nominee touts his support for the coal industry: “We have 250 years of coal,” Romney says in the spot. “Why wouldn’t we use it?” WATCH: http://mi.tt/RoxS7W

•REDISTRIBUTION POLITICS: The Romney and Obama campaigns are sparring today over “redistribution” — specifically an audio clip of President Obama from 1998 on the subject. WATCH: http://bit.ly/V99buI Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski sums up the argument the GOP is seeking to make today — and likely for some time to come: “While Governor Romney talks about promoting personal responsibility and hard work, promising to deliver recovery, President Obama believes in redistribution and government dependency.” The Romney campaign has already been pushing hard on this line of attack and there’s more to come today, campaign aides tell The Note. Yesterday Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt weighed in: “The Romney campaign is so desperate to change the subject that they’ve gone back to the failed playbook co-authored by Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Fourteen years ago, then-Senator Obama was making an argument for a more efficient, more effective government — specifically citing city government agencies that he didn’t think were working effectively.”

The world is burning, Obama is fiddling, and the “mainstream media”, more appropriately described as the “progressive” Party Pravda, is focused on attacking and smearing the GOP candidate on behalf of the “progressive” in the White House.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-tapes-give-way-to-the-not-so-calm-after-the-storm-the-note/

Is this what America wants?

On November 6, 2012, Americans decide.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/another-day-another-disaster/

President Obama: Jihad Your Chance to Win the Election

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

The term for Christians and other non–Moslems living in Islamic countries is “dhimmi.” Think of it as Jim Crow with a turban. Think of it as Jim Crow right now.

According to Mitchell Bard, dhimmis in Islamic lands “on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman.”

Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, serve in the armed forces or own weapons. Non–Moslems cannot build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, construct houses taller than those of Moslems or drink wine in public, which helps to explain Donald Trump’s absence.

A dhimmi’s testimony in court was worthless, which meant attacking dhimmis was penalty–free for Moslems, just like today.

But one doesn’t have to live in the Middle East to be a dhimmi. You could be the President of the United States and impose dhimmitude on an entire nation.

Obama orders our soldiers to wear white gloves when touching the Koran (no word on whether the troops are required to suit up before touching the Bible or Bagvad Gita) and avoid drinking or eating in front of Moslems during their Ramadan fast.

His administration can insist there is no nexus between Islam and terrorism; and collaborate with Muslim Brotherhood front groups here at home.

And the President can treat the murder of our Libyan ambassador and an attack on our embassy in Egypt as simply a random act in response to provocation from US citizens.

In full dhimmi mode the embassy in Cairo and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton scrambled to burn the Constitution in a futile effort to placate readers of the Koran. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” the statement read. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The death of the ambassador presented a problem for the State Department since he was important, and not a grunt in Afghanistan. They couldn’t blame his death on asking to see photos of a Moslem’s wife and kids, like the military does in “green on blue” attacks in Kabul.

So Hillary “strongly condemned the attack” and asked the same Libyans who allowed the murder to provide additional protection for the rubble.

An attack on an embassy or the murder of an ambassador is not a law enforcement problem. It’s an act of war. The proper response is not a hand–wringing statement and a eulogy for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

That would be like FDR — Obama’s hero — issuing a statement after Pearl Harbor that saluted the dead, praised them for their public service and failed to mention the attack by Japan.

The proper response to an act of war is a demand the perpetrators be handed over immediately.

And until then, the US 6th fleet should blockade Libyan ports and institute a no–fly zone over every airport. In the case of Egypt, the administration should end discussions on forgiving its $1 billion debt and Egypt should not get a penny of the $1.5 billion in aid until rioters who violated US sovereignty are turned over.

(On second thought, keep the rioters. Since they crossed an international border while invading our embassy, this administration might feel relieved to finally encounter illegals that don’t speak Spanish. There’s a real possibility Janet Incompetano would offer rioters a green card and a free college education.)

Unfortunately, none of this will happen. This weak, feckless, incompetent excuse for a President puts a higher priority on making sure the Pentagon allows homosexuals in military uniform to march in “gay pride” parades than he does in protecting Americans and embassies overseas on the anniversary of 9/11.

Instead the Cairo embassy apologetically announced there would be no visa services on Wednesday due to clean up from a previously unplanned al Qaeda festival.

Any psychologist will tell you successful behavior is learned behavior and since 1979 Moslems have learned attacking a US embassy is penalty–free and gives the attackers plenty of cachet with the hijab hotties.

One of the Islamists at the embassy storming explained, “This is a very simple reaction to harming our prophet.” So why can’t the United States have a very simple reaction to harming our embassy and our citizens?

A good friend of mine observed that if Obama had ordered Marines in Cairo to fire when the rioters crossed the wall, he would have won the election yesterday. Fortunately for Mitt Romney, that dhimmi knows his place.

Obama’s Carter Moment in the Middle East

While it’s not happening practically on the eve of the election, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are rapidly shaping up to be like President Carter’s situation with Iran in 1980. But, before the Romney camp can start celebrating, there are some very important issues that need addressing when it comes to the fumbling of the current administration. And there are some loose ends that need to be tied together.

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

2012 DNC Platform and Israel

From Daniel Harper at The Weekly Standard:

An Obama campaign official confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD that President Obama “personally” intervened to alter the Democratic platform to include a reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The new platform, adopted this evening at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, now includes pro-Israel language that the previous document did not.

The president did want to make clear what his personal beliefs were because they were not in the original platform,” the campaign official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The new language reads, “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”

However, while the new Democratic platform apparently now reflects the “personal beliefs” of President Obama, it is now at odds with Obama administration policy.

In July, when White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked to name the capital of Israel, he refused to do so. Acknowledging that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, the Obama administration insists, would pre-judge one of the “final status issues” in the peace process.

The campaign official acknowledged this discrepancy. “The president has a personal view, but the president and the administration’s view as a matter of policy is ultimately that Jerusalem is a final status issue,” said the official.

She elaborated, “It doesn’t make sense for a U.S. a president impose his personal beliefs in a policy context. … But it’s important for him to make clear where he stands on these issues.”

So while Obama personally believes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, his administration will not say so.

The official insisted, however, that it is commonplace for presidents to hold conflicting personal and policy views on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, citing Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan as examples.

But let us not forget what President Obama said last year concerning the borders of Israel.

From the National Journal:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” Obama said. “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

President Barack Obama

2012 Democratic Platform on Jerusalem, Israel

The 2008 Democratic Party Platform said this about Jerusalem, Israel:

Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

However, the 2012 Democratic Party Platform has said nothing about Jerusalem, Israel, and the language about Israel is different:

President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values. For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years. The administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. And we have deepened defense cooperation – including funding the Iron Dome system – to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The President’s consistent support for Israel’s right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel’s security.

It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state. At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel’s security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel. We will continue to support Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years. And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.

But as this website notes, the language in the 2012 platform is much different and weaker than that of the 2008 platform.

The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient efforts and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Follow Chris On Twitter

Twitter Hashtag #RacistDemocrats

mialove

After becoming completely disgusted with MSNBC’s coverage of the RNC Convention, beginning with Chris Mathews assumption that all food stamp recipients are black, to their failure to cover Mia Love, or any GOP minority speaker, I took to Twitter to establish a new hashtag #RacistDemocrat, only to discover someone had beaten me to it.

With the thousands of examples of horrible epithets hurled at black conservatives from the left on social media, and the hundreds of examples of somewhat softer racism from the media and political leaders, it seemed important to have a place to post examples.

After Mia Love’s speech last night, open-minded tolerant democrats took to twitter to call her horrible names and even went so far as to edit her Wikipedia page, calling her a “house nigger.”

From Twitchy.com

Tuesday night after rising GOP star Mia Love brought down the house with her inspiring convention speech, the stomach-turning Left labeled the black conservative a “token” and an “Aunt Tom.”

Meanwhile, revoltingly racist, woman-hating Wikipedia vandals were hard at work updating her entry with disgusting slurs like “House Nigger” and “dirty, worthless whore.” The page called her a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”
Glenn Reynolds reported the defacement of Love’s Wikipedia page last night.

Here is a screen shot of the page before it was corrected:

While they claim to want a colorblind society, and discourse in a civil manner, it is becoming increasingly difficult to take anyone on the left seriously when they display this kind of bigotry and hatred.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »