Mitt Romney has made the prevention of President Barack Obama’s sequestrationplan one of his primary campaign talking points. He’s probably done this for two reasons: it plays well with voters in Virginia and veterans, but it also helps with those who want the U.S. to have the strongest military possible.
There’s nothing wrong with the U.S. having a strong military; the Constitution says the country must be able to defend its borders. However, the country is dealing with $16-trillion in debt which means some cuts have to happen. It’s here where Romney is wrong on an increase in defense spending.
For the sake of America’s financial future, there have to be cuts to defense and changes to how the Pentagon doles out cash. Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz wants the State Department to start prioritizing spending. The Defense Department needs to do this as well. The way to figure this out is through Senator Rand Paul’s suggested audit of the Pentagon.
The best example of how wasteful the Pentagon can be is a look at military auctions websites. Listings include a stroller, weights, a driving simulator, a Piper Arrow IV aircraft, a Vantage Motor Scooter and a 1978 Corvette. The weights make sense because soldiers need to be in shape. The driver simulator makes sense as well, because it’s cheaper to use a simulator than wreck a vehicle. But having a motor scooter or a Corvette in our military inventory makes zero sense whatsoever. Here is where cuts help the military prioritize spending and eliminate waste.
There can also be reforms into how military contracts are handed out. Citizens Against Government Waste has done an excellent job at pointing out some of the problems, including analysis on defense issues (anyone remember the $640 toilet seat?).
Just because spending cuts happen doesn’t mean the U.S. military can’t recoup some of the money lost. The simplest way is to go through some of the surplus warehouses, find things which are valuable and sell them. Michelle Ray has told the story of how someone she knows made a 200% profit minimum by stripping the copper from spools of wire and selling it. If private citizens can do this, why can’t the military?
The military could also save money by selling aircraft and weapons it doesn’t use. Obviously there are concerns about Iran getting a hold of some technology; however, completely scrapping the entire F-14 Tomcat fleet in 2006 makes zero sense. The sale of the airplanes to Israel or Brazil or Taiwan would help offset some of the cuts. A similar solution could be devised for our fleet at sea.
Military cuts don’t have to mean gutting the armed forces. Senator Pat Toomey has proposed a plan which reduces spending in all areas and yet still makes sure the military is strong. A strong military ensures the country can defend itself from foreign threats the natural borders with the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can’t. It also makes sure our bases and embassies across the globe are protected from threats.
But as former Joint Chief of Staff chair Admiral Mike Mullen has said, the national debt is the greatest threat the U.S. has. Spending and the growth of government need to be stopped.
This means no sacred cows. Not if there’s going to be a financial future for the U.S.
**A CDN reader sent us a response to this article in which he disagreed with the author – you can see the response HERE.
The latest Obama Administration talking point is attempting to make the September 11th attacks in Libya a campaign issue. Both Stephanie Cutter and David Axelrod claim Mitt Romney’s camp is trying to “exploit” the tragedy by mentioning it on the campaign trail.
This obfuscates the problem. It’s not a campaign issue, but a policy issue. It’s still not known why there wasn’t enough protection at the compound, who denied requests for additional security and what intelligence agencies did or didn’t know at the time.
It also doesn’t answer why both the administration and the State Department decided to blame a non-existent “movie” on the attacks, when they apparently treated it like a terror attack from “Day One.” Despite the best efforts of the Administration and their surrogates, both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people in various speeches and media appearances on the matter.
The biggest issue is how the original conflict came to be. According to “The Washington Post,” the Arab League and Libyan rebels requested U.S. involvement in March 2011 but the White House was divided. It was Clinton who convinced Obama to launch the airstrikes after several meetings in Europe.
Where was Congress in all this? Nowhere. The administration did the Libyan action without congressional approval. The President did inform Congress of what was going on, but there was no vote on the matter. The only congressional action was the Senate approving the non-binding resolution about a “No Fly Zone.” Outside of that, Congress wasn’t involved.
According to the U.S. Constitution in Article One, Section Eight, only Congress can declare war. The president doesn’t have the power to unilaterally make military decisions.
This is why Libya is an issue because it violated the Constitution.
Situations like this have gotten the U.S. in trouble before. The Korean War wasn’t approved by Congress and neither was the Vietnam War, despite the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Both conflicts ended badly for the U.S. with little or no gain. It’s possible the administration believed Libya was similar to the 1999 action in Yugoslavia but that obviously wasn’t the case. The September 11th attacks proved it.
A truly unconstitutional war has been compounded by a completely avoidable death. Saying it’s being exploited for political means only forwards the belief the administration is hiding something. Axelrod may be being a loyal soldier, but he’s showing the Obama Administration is behaving like poltroons for not tackling what happened in Libya head on.
It’s why Romney and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson can talk about the attacks without it being exploited.
Founding Fathers Know Best, by Ross Edward Puskar. Hugo House Publishers, 2012 vii + 283 pp., Amazon price $17.95 paperback; $9.95 Kindle.
Have you ever wondered what America’s founding fathers would say to President Barack Obama? Imagine the rhetorical thunder that would ensue from that clash of philosophies. If you’ve been anxiously awaiting such a meeting then you’re in luck. Ross Edward Puskar brings them together in his book Founding Fathers Know Best.
Mr. Puskar’s first foray into political fiction cleverly inculcates American history with current events through a literary narrative that pays homage to Dickens A Christmas Carol. In Founding Fathers Know Best there is a club known as the President’s Club. The club is comprised of the spirits of deceased U.S. presidents, and it’s purpose is for the spirits to visit sitting Presidents so that they may impart their wisdom and counsel. As one may surmise the president of the club is George Washington, who personally selects the apparitions that visit each sitting president.
In the case of President Obama George Washington sends his A-team to visit the White House; the spirits of former presidents Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison. Given President Obama’s vision to transform America through his “hope and change” mantra over the course of seven evenings the three spirits endeavor to remind Mr. Obama of his obligations and responsibilities as president. Mr. Puskar imbues each founder with their own distinct personality as they embroil the President in their evening deliberations.
The spirits deconstruct for the President the negative impact his domestic and foreign policies have on America’s well being and reinforce to him his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. They educate him on America’s rich, proud heritage and strong moral fabric that has sustained it over troubled times. It’s a tall task for Messrs. Jefferson, Adams and Madison as they each take their turn to convince the obdurate President of his misguided principles and challenge his administration’s integrity.
Over the course of their seven visitations the three spirits confront President Obama on the gamut of challenges facing his administration from domestic and foreign policy, education, entitlements and unions to race relations, environmental issues, immigration reform, corruption, taxes and leadership qualities. It’s a pressure packed week of give and take as the spiritual incarnations of the founding fathers and the President passionately engage each other and debate solutions for the pressing issues facing America.
Founding Fathers Know Best is a quick and lively read that engrosses the reader in the heated exchanges between three paragons of American heritage and America’s most post-modern progressive president. Through those interactions the reader is also informed of eye-opening facts that may surprise even the most informed political junkie.
In Ross Edward Puskar’s maiden work he blends fun with facts. Founding Fathers Know Best will be enjoyed by young and old as a book that brings to life the timeless argument between preserving or changing America’s socio, economic and political cultures, and it is undertaken in a “spirited’ fashion.
We all got a shot of life Wednesday night from Mitt Romney. I received a lot of flak, and some insults, for my previous post castigating Romney for lacking joie de vivre, but he came out swinging and left the president looking for his teleprompter. While some posted polls in the comment section to show Romney’s campaign wasn’t in trouble since we’re in a dead heat – we should all be thanking Obama’s poor economic policies for that buffer. Regardless, Romney was prepared for battle, while the president was utterly unprepared and began to ramble towards the end of the debate.
Romney was animated. He was, as Steve Schmidt put it, “clear, cogent, and concise.” He also delivered his remarks in a tone we haven’t heard before. It displayed a sense of confidence that is a critical quality for the position Obama currently occupies. In all, it was polished and presidential. One could easily see Mitt Romney in the Oval Office with his cool delivery that seemed to make the president very uncomfortable. However, detractors will say that he’s had plenty of debate preparation concerning the grueling Republican primaries, although I’m not sure how being prepared can be construed as a negative. After all, the president called his own debate preparation a “drag.” Even though it was made with facetious overtones, it conveyed a sense of arrogance and unseriousness that has been one of the main criticisms hurled at the president. He assumed he would get bonus points for being the leader of the free world and he was grossly and ignominiously mistaken after his first bout with Romney.
Concerning Romney, I think it was for the first time that we saw him begin to understand what it means to be a conservative. The comparing and contrasting between private markets and government-oriented programs within the health care market was a good example. The notion that states are the “laboratories for democracy” was one of my favorite lines of the night. However, when the question about the role of government was asked – Romney successfully channeled his inner Madison and reiterated that the role of the state is to”promote and protect the principles” outlined in the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, he stated that our rights come from our creator, not from government. Our founders, especially Madison, believed that rights preceded government and drafted a constitution to embed those rights so that other may not take them away. Adhering to that notion is a ”severely” conservative affirmation.
While the president may have had a brief moment of exuding his presidential attributes with Medicare, he was often dominated by the litany of facts thrown at him by Romney highlighting the economic pain his presidency has inflicted upon the nation. The right hooks Romney delivered on jobs, the economy, and the crony capitalism connected to green energy rendered Obama’s statement on corporate welfare for oil companies moot. Furthermore, Obama seemed to sabotage his own efforts to scare seniors with the false narrative that Romney wants to destroy Medicare. He agreed that Romney’s reforms to our entitlement programs aren’t that much different from his policies.
As a result, the president gave Romney the death stare midway through the debate. There’s no doubt that the stare, coupled with the puckered up lips, were indicators that Romney got under Obama’s skin. In an ironic twist, Obama seems to have become John McCain concerning the feelings of indignation towards those who dare to have opposing views on the issues. For Obama, Romney disagreeing with him isn’t just wrong – it’s somehow reprehensible.
However, there are still some conservative critics, who agree that Romney crushed the president, but ceded policy ground. Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner posted a buzzkill column on October 3 reiterating the:
…two reasons why for conservatives to keep their exuberance in check. In past elections, it isn’t uncommon for the rusty incumbent to come off lousy in the opening debate. This was the case when Walter Mondale won the first 1984 debate against Ronald Reagan and John Kerry won the first debate against George W. Bush. In both cases, the incumbents recovered in the subsequent debates, and ended up winning the election.
Another reason for caution is that Romney, as part of his efforts to disarm Obama’s criticisms, made a number of policy concessions that could box him in and make it more difficult for him to govern as a limited government conservative if elected. At various times during the debate Romney said that he wasn’t interested in cutting taxes, particularly on the wealthy; that he would cover individuals with pre-existing conditions; that he wouldn’t touch Medicare and Social Security over the next decade and would be willing to give more money to seniors for prescription drugs; and that he’d be open to hiring more teachers. Should he be elected president, all of the major fights – repealing Obamacare, overhauling the tax code and reforming entitlements – will trigger a massive campaign by liberals to portray him as trying to hurt the poor to the benefit of the rich. If he is so willing to concede policy points during the campaign, will he fight for limited government as president?
However, as Joel Pollack wrote on Breitbart, “on health care–which might have been Romney’s weakest issue–Romney argued for the repeal of Obamacare as the best Tea Partier might have done, attacking the board that the law sets up to ration care as a cost control mechanism. The best that Obama could do was remind voters–as if they did not already know–that Romney had passed a health insurance law in Massachusetts. He had to concede one of the best arguments Romney offered–that Obamacare has actually increased the cost of insurance so far.”
Furthermore, if you go to Mitt Romney’s campaign site, coupled with his support for the Ryan budget, you can see that not only will taxes be lowered for everyone – he’ll eliminate the death tax and push for tax reform. However, the deductions he’ll eliminate has been a rather nebulous subject. Lastly, with an active and vocal Tea Party contingent in Congress – Mitt, if elected, would have to operate as a small government conservative since (a) he owes us and (b) nothing would get done with Democrats and Tea Partiers forming an unintentional coalition to block his agenda. Democrats obstructing because he’s Mitt Romney and tea partiers obstructing because it doesn’t cut enough spending, reform the welfare state enough, or does enough to pay down the national debt. Politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows. Lastly, the reaffirmation to uphold the principles of the constitution is a tacit agreement that Romney would adhere to the Madisonian ideals of limited government. If he’s elected president and becomes squishy – he should be prepared for a primary challenge, despite the historical ramifications of such an action.
However, while Republicans rejoiced, Democrats must have felt like the world was ending. It brought on reactions of disbelief and abject anger from MSNBC. Chris Matthews, Obama’s number one fan, was quite agitated during MSNBC’s post-debate coverage.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Tonight wasn’t an MSNBC debate, was it? It just wasn’t. It didn’t mention all the key fighting points of this campaign. […] I don’t know what he was doing out there, he had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it.
Romney on the other hand, came in with a campaign, he had a plan. He was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive. He was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively. He was going to relish the evening, enjoying it. Nothing to do with the words he spoke.
Here’s my question for Obama. I know he says he doesn’t watch cable television but maybe he should start. Maybe he should start. I don’t know how he let Romney get away with the crap he threw out tonight–about Social Security.
Listen to the stuff he got away with. He said, you know, emergency room–the latest thing we got from Romney because he said so was you know what I want to do with people when they’re poor? Shove them in the emergency room. Why didn’t Obama say that? Why didn’t he say that?
You talk about Social Security and Medicare people, they’re part of your 47 percent, you want to drop them from the list of eligible Americans. You don’t have any care for these people. What are you talking about? We’ve got it on tape, Governor! We’ve got it on tape what you think of these people! Don’t come out here and pretend you care about old people because you met somebody at some campaign event, you’ve written off 47 percent of the country before you even started!
Where was Obama tonight?! He should watch, well not just Hardball, Rachel [Maddow], he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence [O’Donnell]. He would learn something about this debate.
There’s a hot debate going on in this country and you know where it’s being held? Here on this network is where we’re having this debate. We have our knives out, we go after the people on the facts, what was he doing tonight?! He went in there disarmed, he was like, ‘oh wait, an hour and a half, I think I can get through this thing and I don’t even look at this guy.’
Whereas Romney — I love the split-screen — staring at Obama, addressing him like prey. He did it just right. ‘I’m coming at an incumbent. I got to beat him. You’ve got to beat the champ and I’m going to beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy, the moderator, whatever he thinks he is because I’m going to ignore him.’
What was Romney doing? He was winning. […] If he does five more of these nights, forget it. […]
Obama should watch MSNBC, my last point. He will learn something every night on this show and all these shows. This stuff we’re watching, it’s like first grade for most of us. We know all this stuff.
Ed Schultz’s blood pressure went through the roof lamenting how he was “stunned” that Obama was “off his game.” I think liberals are finally coming to the realization that President Obama isn’t a good debater and lost almost every battle with Hillary Clinton back in the ’08 primaries. Allahpundit posted about the mayhem from Twitter concerning the president’s debate performance.
Michael Moore tweeted:
Lastly, Bill Maher commented on Obama’s utter lack of direction during the debate with this:
Yes, liberals were in shock and awe concerning how bad the president, the best thing since the resurrection of Christ, performed, but that’s not to say it’ll be the same the next time Obama and Romney duke it out. However, I’m confident that Romney won’t be the push over that some in the media were conveying before Wednesday night’s smackdown.
Mitt surely stepped up his game during the debate and I found myself enthused for the first time, in a long time, since Romney began his campaign for the presidency last year. However, I admit that I backed Perry before his epic meltdown. Nevertheless, Romney has shaken off the criticism that he’s robotic and proved to his skeptics that he’s passionate, hungry, and ready to lead this nation towards economic prosperity. Mitt is definitely here.
Much of what I have discussed over the last two articles are what I believe to be a massive problem here within the United States. President Obama and his party are some of the most destructive individuals in American history. Their ideology puts man above God. Their belief in race and class is the basis for all of their rhetoric, and they do it not because they believe it will solve problems, but because they want to be in power, and they believe that the American people are to stupid to actually understand the issues that face this nation. President Obama is one of the most divisive president in American history, he uses class warfare as his hallmark attack strategy, not only in his campaign but against America itself. He looks down on those who love America and what she stands for. President Obama and his party hate capitalism, free markets, and free people.
President Obama is the biggest liar that I have ever seen. Each lie that he tells, he insults the intelligence of those of the American people. President Obama’s belief in the individual does not exist, unless he is that individual. President Obama believes that he is above the rest of the American citizens, which is evident by the lies and rhetoric that he tells during his speeches. He treats the American population like children, or just a group of people as a means to his end. President Obama and his party seek to destroy the independent individual through government programs, and creating a system of dependency, so that the individual needs government and cannot sustain on their own.
If President Obama actually cared about the individual, he would not seek to destroy the individual through his destructive economic practices and his evident disrespect of the constitution, religious liberty, and his constant attack on the success of the individual, such as the , “You didn’t build that” comment. Another example that president Obama is destroying the life of individuals, is the devaluation of the dollar, by constantly printing money. This lowers the purchasing power of the dollar, making it harder for the individual to provide for themselves and/or their family. This then makes it harder for the individual to sustain current quality of life. One way that this hurts the individual is the cost of oil, which then lowers the purchasing power of oil, the price of oil is fixed to the dollar, which raises the cost per gallon on that individual at the gas pump, which was $1.84 a gallon nationally in 2009, and now is currently around $3.50 a gallon.
President Obama’s ideology is one that believes that the Individual can be shaped and molded through government programs, institutions, and if that individual does not wish to be part of that system, they must be minimized, marginalized, and ultimately eliminated. The left believes that their ideology can replace the teachings of the bible, by replacing government with God.
Since president Obama has taken office, the Left Wing Hate Machine has continued to use racially charged rhetoric in order to divide the American population. President Obama, as the leader of their party has done nothing to suggest that he disagrees with this tactic, rather while on the campaign trail, he re-enforces that style of attack with his class warfare, which also divides Americans. It creates resentment and hatred, envy, and greed. What ever happened to that concept of uniting the American people from his 2008 campaign?
President Obama uses government handouts as “goodies” in order to enslave the citizens to the government plantation. For example, the interest rates on student loans are set to a lower rate through force of government, therefore creating a situation that might entice an unsuspecting victim into a system they might not engage in if the “natural” interest rate was applied to that student loan. This “candy” insults the intelligence of that individual, and proves that President Obama is just looking to grow the dependency of the individual on government, which enslaves that individual to government. President Obama has begun his assault on the independent individual by increasing the amount of individuals on food stamps, President Obama is the food stamp president. When he took office, the food stamp program had around 33 million people enrolled, now it is around 47 million people. That is 47 million people who have been forced onto the government plantation.
Left Wing Hate Machine, attacks the very essence of the individual every chance they get. They wish to subvert the American system through legislation and racially charged remarks. They wish to create a system that replaces God with Government, which was evident during the democratic national convention, which nominated our current president who said that he wishes to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. The Left Wing Government party hates the very existence of the constitution because it limits their ability to tell us how to live our lives. They Left Wing Hate Machine is the party of “No Choice” because they limit what we put in our body, what we purchase, where we can go, what schools we can go to, what classes we can take. However, when it comes to the life of the unborn, they attack that child and extinguish that flame of life, removing that individual’s “Choice.” Even president Obama has assaulted the unborn and even the born children by voting for infanticide. Every action the Left Wing Hate Machine takes, seeks to destroy the very essence of America, They seek to create a heaven on earth, a utopian society where everyone is equal in all ways. Everyone is not equal, everyone cannot do all things equally. If everyone was equal in all ways, there would be no need for different jobs, professions, and interests, because everyone could do all things. All men were created equal, equal in Gods eyes, provides equal opportunity, not equal stuff, not equal outcomes, not everyone has all things. They seek to have government be the deciding and end result in how we live our lives. What government can give, it can take away.
130 million homes, 7 key battleground states, the largest cable distribution of a political film in history… Could The Hope and The Change impact the November 6th presidential election? David Bossie and Stephen Bannon not only think it’s possible, they’re hoping for it.
David Bossie of Citizens United and Stephen Bannon of Victory Film Group have teamed up to present a game-changing political film that defies the typical rules of documentaries. Without endless tape of sob stories, pouring over boring statistics or shocking viewers with graphic photos, The Hope and The Change takes viewers into the lives of typical Americans throughout the country. It features 40 Obama voters who are registered Democrats or left-leaning independents. Their stories are compelling and relevant. They will affect you, and they will cause you to examine why you vote the way you do, regardless of political affiliation.
Bannon, the film’s director, says, “We wanted to show the real stories of real people… so we chose 40 democrats and independents, people who had voted for Obama in 2008, to tell their stories.”
The film took a year to complete with much of the pre-production work centered around polling and choosing the cast. Bannon chose Pat Caddell and Chandra Stewart, popular democrats, to lead that effort saying, “It was so important that we chose credible people to make this film. I think we achieved that.”
For conservatives, the film is almost a “told ya so” moment, but for Bannon, that’s not the intent. He says this film’s desired audience is the neighbor or friend who is having a little buyer’s remorse, someone who thought they were doing the right thing in voting for Obama. It’s for the grandmother who thought Obama would help her Medicare situation or the trucker who thought his business would thrive under lower gas prices. The Hope and The Change reminds everyone of the failed agenda and broken promises, but also offers true hope for a better future. In a sense, the film is giving these former Obama supporters permission to make a change.
The Hope and The Change has launched a massive ad campaign that spans the gamut of cable channels and will be aired multiple times throughout the last weeks of the campaign. The hour-long film, which will be in more than 130 million homes throughout the US and in key battleground states, could be a game-changer.
To find showtimes in your area, click here (and show a friend!): Showtimes
Another Bannon/Bossie collaboration, Occupy Unmasked, hits theaters this week and is sure to be a controversial end to the amazing life of Andrew Breitbart who is prominently featured in the film. Read more here: Occupy Unmasked
Want your very own American Flag printed version? Well Barack Obama and his campaign site are selling their very own version. That is right, President Obama and his team of artists have created a newer version of the American flag. This new “Our Stripes” flags replaces President Obama’s Forward logo with the 50 stars on the American flag. Now, among the many items that are being sold on the Barack Obama campaign website. This flag, “Our Stripes” is being sold for 35 dollars each, along with many other items targeted for different groups of Americans. There are T-Shirts, stickers, prints, buttons, pens and notepads.
There have been observations that since President Obama has been in office about his understand of the “American Traditions” and respect for the flag. This is not the first that President Obama has had different flags with either his face on it, or his logo either. This has been a trend with Obama and his Campaign, that it was caught trending on Twitter when this new flag was released. Michelle Malkin, who is a great conservative warrior has a website Twitchy.com who has captured the story and responses from the twitter community.
Last night at 5:31pm, Glenn Beck and The Blaze.com broke the story of the Obama and the State Department are “actively considering” the release of the terrorist, the Blind Sheikh. The Blind Sheikh is being held in an American prison for his 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center. The Blaze reported that;
The U.S. State Department is actively considering negotiations with the Egyptian government for the transfer of custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as “the Blind Sheikh,” for humanitarian and health reasons, a source close to the the Obama administration told TheBlaze.
The Department of Justice, however, told TheBlaze that Rahman is serving a life sentence and is not considered for possible “release.” Previous calls to the State Department were referred to the Department of Justice and so far, the State Department has neither confirmed nor denied the report.
An Egyptian follower of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman flashes his poster outside in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Sept.11, 2011. (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)
A former intelligence officer who now works for The Blaze spoke with a high level official who has access within the Obama administration and told The Blaze that releasing the Blind Sheikh to Egypt might be a “solution” to help calm the current Middle East Crisis. The State Department and the Obama administration see this as a three part solution. First, continued Muslim out reach in order to advance the view of America throughout that part of the world. Second, it might help calm the middle eastern riots that are currently taking place. Third, it will be a good faith humanitarian action that will assist in the Obama administrations out reach doctrine of appeasement. This “release” would also not take place UNTIL after the election.
A veteran intelligence analyst and researcher for TheBlaze said he met with an official within the Obama administration who told him the transfer of the Blind Sheikh to Egypt is something that is being “actively considered” by the administration as a solution to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. His source asked not to be identified.
When asked if the transfer of the convicted terrorist was being seriously considered, the intelligence analyst said yes, according to his source, who stressed that the move, if executed, was not intended to take place or be announced until after the presidential election.
The official from within the Obama administration who wishes to remain secret at this time, told The Blaze that; “When radical Islamists in Egypt were calling for the burning down of the U.S. embassy this past weekend, before the riots took place this week, they said they were going to do this to push for the release of the Blind Sheikh,”
Watch the Glenn Beck Program break the story on his Internet TV network Show:
A new video released by the Emergency Committee for Israel which is a pro-Israel group. The ad suggests that through President Obama’s influence since taking office, he has pushed the Democratic Party farther away from its relationship with Israel. On September 11th 2012, Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requested a meeting with President Obama later this month. Prime Minister Netanyahu was turned down due to a scheduling conflict. Israel is one of the strongest allies the United States used to have. At a time when Israel is surrounded by enemies and seeking support from the United States, the democratic party changes their party platform at the Democratic National
This video set to air during a football game in Florida. The Washington Free Beacon is reporting that;
The spot, which will air during Sunday’s football game between the Miami Dolphins and the Oakland Raiders in what is being described as a “significant ad buy,”
accuses Obama of leading his party to weaken the U.S.-Israel alliance.
The important issue that is pointed out in this video is that the Democratic Party removed Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and God. The director of ECI told the Washington Free Beacon that;
“The debacle at the DNC signifies where Obama is going in a second term. The first four years have been bad enough, but what happens when he has more ‘flexibility?’” Pollak wondered.
By saying, “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” Democrats are going beyond liberalism. They are taking their platform to corporatism.
Phrases like “we’re all in this together” may seem like they were meant to look good on paper and to voters. But combining it with the phrase, “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” goes into statements someone like Mussolini or Hitler or Lenin might make.
In fact, based on their praise of The New Deal, it’s possible they might even rise from their graves and cheer the DNC’s video.
According to Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s book “Three New Deals,” both German and Italian newspapers loved the tone President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used in the 1930s. One German newspaper said Roosevelt’s speech demanded “collective good be put before self-interest.” Schivelbusch also discusses how Hitler saw Roosevelt’s ability to discuss self-sacrifice and duty as something which were “quintessential” to how Nazi Germany did things.
Isn’t what the Democrats of today are discussing something similar? Hasn’t the tone taken by the President echoed this line of thinking? When Obama tweets how donors “own a piece of this campaign,” or tells an union group, “think about everybody who depends on you,” it’s simply corporatism.
It’s making people think they’re no longer individuals but part of a group that operates as a whole.
Obama is banking people will want to be in the middle class. Be part of that amazing group of people who just have enough to live and save, but not enough to be in the upper class. By shuffling everyone into that group it makes him look like a benevolent leader who’s looking out for their interests.
The greatness of America and the states we live in, is that we’re individuals. We can take whatever job we want, live whatever life we want and if someone wants to make $20-thousand, $200-thousand or $2-million it doesn’t matter. Or as Clint Eastwood put it last week, “politicians are employees of ours!”
Saying “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” is dangerous and wrong. It shows how far Democrats, not Republicans, have gone in their ideology.
It’s not what America was created to be. And certainly not what it should become.
Profits for Government Motors, the crown jewel of White House efforts to portray their venture capital investment efforts in a successful light, dropped 41 percent in the second quarter. Using GM as a staple of his never ending re-election campaign efforts, the current Oval Office occupant has consistently crowed from the stump about how the GM bailout was part of his master plan to save or create jobs.
Never mind that the government-managed bankruptcy violated hundreds of years of precedent by stealing equity from secured investors and redistributing it to the United Auto Workers, staunch “progressive” Democratic supporters. Forget that a majority of the auto dealerships that were closed as a result of “progressive” business mismanagement were owned by Conservative Republican small business owners.
Speaking of business, jobless claims rose again. For the week ended July 28th, initial jobless claims increased by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 365,000. In a now familiar pattern that has persisted since the current administration assumed stewardship over the economy, July 21 week ended claims were revised upwards from the initially reported 353,000 to 357,000.
According to the White House and their “progressive” co-operatives, underperforming jobless numbers would vastly improve if only those selfish small business owners would “pay their fair share”. Never mind that small businesses are under assault from government mandated regulatory obligations imposed by unaccountable bureaucracies. Big government “progressive” control freaks will never comprehend how small businesses are far less likely to hire new workers when a disproportionate amount of their limited funds are tied up in accounting and legal fees forced upon them by regulatory dictates.
Not surprisingly, poor economic reports caused stocks on Wall Street to drop, with the Dow and S&P averages showing the biggest single-day drops since late June. Reports showed both the Dow and S&P down by nearly one percent.
But not to worry, a growing “progressive” big government has determined that for America the best way to solve all of these economic problems is to have said “progressive” big government take over one sixth of the economy by seizing control of the national healthcare system. A tax that “progressives” refuse to call a tax imposed on “free” individual American citizens for refusing to comply with a “progressive” big government mandate to buy a commodity will be enforced by an IRS that has paid out billions of dollars in fraudulent refunds. In a report issued on Thursday, the IRS inspector general said that identity thieves are filing bogus returns and could collect $21 billion over the next five years.
Having the government in control of their healthcare system should be of minor concern to American voters. With trillions of dollars being tossed around more freely than Frisbees on a French Riviera beach, knowledge that 7,000 healthcare providers already paid over $6 billion by Medicaid not paying federal taxes to the tune of nearly $800 million should be considered nothing more than a small accounting error. What’s a mere $800 million among friends?
It isn’t like partisan politics could interfere with making sound judgments.
That is unless “progressives” are making those decisions.
Early in his presidential campaign back in July 2007, then candidate Barrack Hussein Obama said: “The least employers can do when they’re anticipating layoffs is to let workers know they’re going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough time to plan for their future.” Of course, now that having certain key employers do exactly that would threaten his re-election aspirations, he is against it.
Since passage of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, employers with one hundred or more workers are required to give employees a sixty day notice of pending mass layoffs or plant closings. With the jobs of up to one million U.S. defense contractor workers threatened by looming budget cuts at the Defense Department, those contractors should be sending layoff notices to their workers just a few days before the upcoming Nov. 6 election. The administration said that those federal contractors do not need to warn their employees about pending mass layoffs or plant closings because the budget cuts slated to begin Jan. 2 are “still speculative.”
Can you say John Kerry? He was for it before he was against it too, right?
But Americans really should not sweat the small stuff. Should it matter that thanks to business hostile policies of “progressive” politicians, those self-imagined self-appointed members of the intellectual elite, the American economy is crumbling before their eyes? After all, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to make statements like: “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom”?
Think about it. What difference will the state of the economy make if a nuclear armed Iran starts a nuclear world war that annihilates the entire planet?
Is there any truth to the rumor that George Soros is speculating untold billions of his ill-gotten gains on cockroach futures?
Is this the way Americans wants their country governed?
What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into themind of the conservative, bold, full strength, and unfiltered.
Tonight: Special guests: Tracy Henke, Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer for Americans For Prosperity. Twitter: @AFPhq. Sean Bielat, Congressional Candidate for MA District 4. www.seanforcongress.com. Twitter: @SeanBielat. Andrew Lawton, Editor-In-Chief of Landmark Report. Twitter: @AndrewLawton
The current Oval Office occupant has claimed, and while speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno continued to claim that under his stewardship people have a new attitude towards and more confidence in America.
“Four years ago, I stood before you at a time of great challenge for our nation. We were engaged in two wars. Al Qaeda was entrenched in their safe havens in Pakistan. Many of our alliances were frayed. Our standing in the world had suffered. We were in the worst recession of our lifetimes. Around the world, some questioned whether the United States still had the capacity to lead. Because we’re leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America. There’s more confidence in our leadership. We see it everywhere we go.”
“So, four years ago, I made you a promise. I pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world. As President, that’s what I’ve done. And as you reflect on recent years, as we look ahead to the challenges we face as a nation and the leadership that’s required, you don’t just have my words, you have my deeds. You have my track record. You have the promises I’ve made and the promises that I’ve kept,” he said.
Do the promises you’ve kept include the over $1 trillion in pending defense cuts, which will lead to Army, Air Force and Marine Corps troop levels being reduced by tens of thousands? Does this qualify as instilling more confidence in American leadership?
Do they include an embarrassingly incoherent strategy for how to engage the Arab Spring? Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen are now heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria appears to be not far behind.
Did the promises you made include blaming Israel, not the Palestinians, for the absence of peace between them? Are you including snubbing and humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu?
Neither Iran nor North Korea have been deterred or dissuaded from further pursuit of nuclear weapons. They both remain belligerent towards other countries in their regions. Are these facts included on your list of promises kept?
Does the list of confidence inspiring deeds include your decision to leave Iraq’s fate twisting in the wind by pulling out prematurely? Does it include failing to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Malik? How about leaving a power vacuum certain to delight Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Mullahs?
Is ratification of the New START treaty with Russia, one that weakens America’s missile-defense capabilities included in your calculations?
How about Senator Dianne Feinstein stating that national security leaks came from the White House: “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from its ranks. I don’t know specifically where, but I think they have to begin to understand that and do something about it.”
Is your ongoing failure to secure America’s borders, allowing illegal aliens to continue pouring into the United States while Mexican drug-cartel violence spins out of control on your list of inspirational achievements?
Are you including your decision to state a hard timeline for American troop withdrawal from Afghanistan that, if kept allows Al Qaeda and the Taliban to wait America out?
Did you include sending a bust of Winston Churchill, a gift from Britain to America as sign of solidarity with the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington back to the British Embassy?
How about your refusal back in 2010 to meet with then Prime Minister Gordon Brown after no less than five requests, further undermining America’s long time special relationship with Great Britain?
The list could go on.
It is fair to say that the White House has instilled around the world a new attitude towards the United States. To say that it has created a climate of new confidence in American leadership is not aligned with the facts revealed by a review of the administration’s foreign policy actions. Claims that the White House has renewed America’s leadership in the world are nothing more than wishful thinking and empty campaign rhetoric.