GOP on Defense Instead of the Dems

I read this article in the National Journal with fascination this morning. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-republicans-think-the-irs-scandal-is-more-politically-potent-than-benghazi-20130516?mrefid=skybox

Oddly, while the Obama Administration is mired in three major scandals that raise serious questions about corruption, incompetence, and abuse of power--any one of which could and probably should bring down a President--it's the GOP that's walking on eggshells instead of the Chief!

What?! Isn't it interesting how careful the GOP has to be in reacting to these abuses of power by the left? Why? Are the Dems "careful" about crying "racism" at every turn? Do they hesitate to inflame with their unmeasured anti-capitalist rhetoric whenever a corporatist or "greedy rich guy" dares to earn a profit? Do they EVER resist the temptation to damn any conservative with a conscience for daring to speak out in defense of religion, life, or marriage? 

No! The reason Republicans can't react to these flagrant failures of big government is because the media will skewer them if they misread any nuance or misinterpret any fact. Democrats, on the other hand, are free to react as impulsively, outlandishly, and in as blatant a partisan political manner as they wish and the media will either amplify their outrage or cover their ignorance.   

Show me the last article like this that was written about Democrats afraid to take potent and full political advantage of opposite-party screw-ups as large and nasty as these! The current scandals are all real, legitimate abuses and failures by an overreaching, out-of-control, autocratic federal bureaucracy captained by a leftist ideologue who is leading the nation in deliberate decline. They are representative of what happens when any government gets too much power, and are indicative of what we can expect if we continue down Obama Lane. Sadly, the current offenses are but the tip of the iceberg under the Obama regime.

Lybia: The Answered Questions--Obvious Conclusions

Democrats and the Obama Administration insist that the rising tide of questions, revelations, leaks and speculation surrounding the tragic Benghazi terrorist attack that killed a US Ambassador and three other Americans are nothing more than a shallow political ploy. Meanwhile they politicize what the American people have a right to know about the worst paramilitary islamo-terrorist assault on America since 911 2001--in real time...as the facts emerge!

Who perpetrated the attack? What motivated the assault? What were the warning signs? Why was there inadequate security? Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi? What has been and is being done to bring the perpetrators to justice? Who failed to defend and/or rescue the victims? Why are four Americans dead and who will be held accountable?

Instead, the only thing that's transparent about this incident is the Administration's bumbling cover up, stalls, distortions and deceptions. Almost eight weeks after the event, the President has yet to give a news conference, speech, or any explanation to the American people for this serious aggression against our nation. No investigation is required to reveal the main facts for which the President is and should be held to account--election or no election. Most of this information had to have been known by high officials inside the Administration prior to and during the attack.

1. An American consulate and CIA safe house were successfully attacked and essentially destroyed by  an organized contingent of jihadists claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda on September 11th, 2012.
2. An American Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in the attack.
3. Video surveillance from a US military or intelligence agency drone fed real-time video to the White House situation room as the 7-hour battle was taking place.
4. A previous mortar attack had been made on the consulate earlier in the summer. 
5. Specific requests for increased security were made by the Ambassador and others as many as three weeks prior to the assault. Said requests were denied.
6. Ambassador Stevens and others made multiple requests for increased US Security forces at the consulate from at least 3 days prior to the event, up to, and on the day of the attack. All were denied.
7. The British Embassy was vacated days prior to the attack because of security concerns and the threat of violence. 
8. No "street mob" was present or protesting at the consulate on the day of the attack.
9. After the attack began, at least three requests were made by Navy Seals for permission to aid personnel under siege at the consulate. They were commanded to stand down.
10. US Military and intelligence assets were in range of Benghazi and could have given aid.
11. Navy Seals eventually defied their commanders and mounted a rescue attempt which was in part, successful but ultimately led to their tragic demise.
12. President Obama claims to have given the order to "do whatever is necessary" to protect and/or rescue those under assault.
13. No military or security personnel were deployed to the scene.
14. President Obama continued his election campaign without interruption immediately after the attack.
15. For two solid weeks following the bloody rampage, the President, Secretary of State Clinton, and Amabassador Rice insisted that the attack was a spontaneous uprising sparked by an anti-muslim video propagated on the Internet.
16. To this date, the Obama Administration has offered no official comment, clarity, or cogent explanation to the American people for this devastating act of war or its own actions before, during, and after the event. 

Four Americans are dead. At the very least, their murders are a clear indictment against the US Government for their failure to carry out its most basic and essential function--to protect the lives of Americans--and in particular its own emissaries on "American soil" abroad. Mistakes and failures happen and are forgivable. But they are far more serious than "bumps in the road." The people of the United States deserve transparency from their elected and appointed officials and a timely explanation of at least the basic known facts about so significant an international incident.

Instead, Stonewall Obama, his opaque administration, and his willing accomplices in the mainstream media have deliberately misdirected, avoided, and evaded any real disclosure related to the event forcing inside whistle-blowers to leak both classified and unclassified information to the public in order to shed timely light on the breadth and depth of the US government's failures related to this event.

Such an occurrence is, by its very nature, political. It is geo-political. So the Administration's hollow cry that Republicans are "playing politics" with the tragedy is redundant, disingenuous, and hypocritical. Of course the GOP will use the President's failures against him in an election year--as well they should! If said failures reveal the incumbent's unworthiness to continue to lead, it is their right and obligation to do so. Wouldn't the Democrats do the same?

But it's the President, his Administration and his media supporters that are playing politics. Instead of acting Presidential, communicating the truth, and taking appropriate responsibility and command of an international incident of this magnitude, this President has chosen to hide, obfuscate, deflect, and deceive. And the derelict mainstream press have enabled him in an unprecedented act of betrayal of the American people.

The Administration claims that an investigation is ongoing and it's too early to ask for answers or draw conclusions. But it's not the unanswered questions that should concern us. It's the answered ones. And some conclusions are quite clear. The Benghazi attack represents a devastating failure of this Administration's foreign policy specifically as it relates to the global Islamo-terrorist threat. The reasons for the breakdown are as yet unclear. But the fact that there was a breakdown and that it may be systemic, is undeniable.

Whether its a failure to understand the enemy, a neglect of or inability to recognize a volatile situation, a conspiracy to hang the Ambassador out to dry, or a mere lack of cooperation and communication between the White House, State Department, and Intelligence community is almost irrelevant. Any scenario you can paint reveals gross incompetence and a failure of policy and/or leadership on the part of the Obama Administration.

Though it may be too early, politically, for the Administration to reveal what they know, it's too late for America to choose a President who doesn't know or claims not to. Voters should seriously consider both the known facts about this incident and their implications when judging the fitness of this President to continue to serve as Commander in Chief. That's the responsible, rational, and patriotic thing to do when casting your vote in this election.

Obama Outscores but Romney Wins Debate

Obama was a transformed candidate in last night's 2nd of 3 presidential debates. The President came out swinging and with the aid of yet another liberal moderator, turned in an "aggressive" performance that at least tied the Governor's less dominant appearance, and may have even edged him out; at least in the eyes of pundits and committed voters. It may have been enough to stem the tide, but was it enough to turn it?

I don't think so. President Obama, like Joe Biden, shored up his demoralized base, but it's doubtful that he won over any independents or undecided voters. To the contrary, what remains of the "mass in the middle" are seeing a president who is inconsistent, often unpresidential, and offers no vision as to why one should expect the next four years to be any different--any better than the years just passed.

Governor Romney, on the other hand, again showed himself as a serious, competent, experienced executive with an actual plan to turn the tide of decline in the US. Independents looking for a viable alternative to the failed policies of BHO, saw that possibility in Mitt. His reassuring declaration that, "we don't have to settle for what we have today" will have resonated with these swing voters, while Obama's deflecting of economic challenges, excuse-making, and hollow assaults on Romney's plan and character will continue to be a turn off among the undecided.

Obama further damaged his own credibility--perhaps beyond repair--with respect to the Lybian crisis by suddenly claiming to have identified the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi as "an act of terror" in a Rose Garden speech the day after a US Ambassador and three other Americans were killed in a likely Al Queada military assault. While the President took great delight in how the audacity of the shocking claim struck Governor Romney, and the support he gained from "neutral" moderator, Crowley, this could prove fatal to the President's re-election bid in the coming days. His Clintonesque parsing of his own speech to change its meaning, and his disingenuous offense at the "politicizing" of the Benghazi attack, while great political theatrics, itself, will not stand scrutiny.

So while liberal pundits and Obama supporters revel in the "points scored" by their guy, I would expect the quiet shift toward Romney to continue as the governor is seen as a bona fide US Presidential leader. Romney will likely add to his gains after this debate, mirroring the direction of change demonstrated in the Frank Luntz focus group in Las Vegas where former Obama supporters felt confident that Romney offered a better alternative for the future of America. That's rational. And that's a Romney WIN!

If you saw it differently, please comment and explain why.

"Trouble" is Obama's Middle Name

Barack "TROUBLE" Obama

Barack Obama should never have been elected President. His election in 2008 was the perfect storm of a destabilizing economy, Chicagoland politics, Bush hate, and America's desire to make history by crowning the first black President. All this in a context of media malpractice, willing ignorance, and misinformation.

As a result, the nation is now saddled with the least experienced, least qualified, least competent, least vetted, and therefore least prepared Chief Executive perhaps ever to have occupied the Oval Office. He has created far more problems than he has solved and his supporters are now in the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible.

President Obama's abysmal record speaks for itself. After almost 48 months of his regime--2 years of which he was buttressed by control of the entire government--America is actually worse off than it was when he took office.

• Unemployment is now ostensibly at the same level as when Obama was inaugurated after TRILLIONS in deficit "stimulus" spending. Except it's not. Real unemployment stands at about 14% and growth is SLOWING.
• Unemployment among blacks and younger Americans, those who were supposed to benefit disproportionally from Obama's policies, stands at record highs. Where's the beef? 
• The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare was wrangled and rustled to passage in the most shameless display of hardball partisan politics ever witnessed by the American public--this despite the bill's continued unpopularity among voters. Even with some of the bill's most popular provisions in place 52% of Americans still want it repealed. It has also proven to be a job killer.
• Gas prices have more than doubled since Obama's election. Drilling permits on public lands are at 30-year lows, the job-creating Keystone Pipeline has been denied, and hundreds, if not thousands of jobs died when Obama spoke and the drills in the Gulf were stilled.
• Simultaneously, Obama's corrupt and misguided public "investments" in alternative "green" energy have withered on the vine, costing taxpayers over 90 billion dollars. 
• GM and Chrysler still languish after their $50 billion bailout. The federally mandated Volt has no juice whatsoever and since GM's fundamentals are still bad with the Unions in charge, there's no there, there.
• Obama promised to be above politics, a great uniter, post-racial, transparent. Even the rising seas would begin to fall. His administration, so far, has been the most divisive, partisan, and least transparent in modern times. And I don't know about the seas, but the world's supply of BS has done anything but fall since Obama took office. The manufactured wars on women, the middle class, and constant wolf-cries of "racism" are cases in point.
• The President's flip-flop on traditional marriage won him the support of social liberals, but cost him the support of some socially conservative blacks, Hispanics, and others. Gays may feel more free, but the faithful feel far more oppressed.
• Despite his reluctant elimination of Osama bin Laden, Obama's Middle East policy is a disaster. Though he imagined he had "burnished" America's image abroad, it's actually never been more tarnished. The Commander-In-Chief has spurned our allies while emboldening our enemies sending mixed signals that have fundamentally weakened our posture, prestige and positive influence around the world.
• The Obama Administration is riddled with scandal--you just don't hear much about it. From ACORN to Solyndra; the passage of ACA to the fight with Arizona on Immigration enforcement; from the death of a border control agent and Mexican Nationals via Fast & Furious to the terrorist killings of a US Ambassador and his compatriots in Lybia; from the appointment of the card-carrying communist, Van Jones, to the deliberate refusal of the justice department to prosecute voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers and the coddling of big union bosses, Obama showers favor on his cronies and brings the weight of Federal force and intimidation down upon his foes with near reckless abandon. 
• Energy, food, and commodity prices rise on the falling value of the dollar. After 3 episodes of "Quantitative Easing" designed to stimulate the economy, little stimulus has resulted. Though the stock market has been propped up, its fundamentals are weak and experts expect another corrective fall. Meanwhile, inflation, the cruelest tax on the middle class, robs Americans of their buying power even as household incomes tumble. 

The bullets could continue to fly but you get my point. Obama appoints commissions then ignores their advice. He skips his security briefings, but makes his Tee-times. He's absent on policy debates, but omnipresent with executive orders and regulatory Czars. He can't produce a budget, but scoffs at those who do. He has no time for world leaders but has plenty for his pals on The View, Letterman, and a host of puffy talk shows. He blames everyone but the family dog for his failures but takes immediate and full credit for others' achievements. He barks from the head, but leads from behind.

It's understandable that Americans want him to succeed. He IS after all the first black President. As historically important as that is, he is also a man, a politician, and a partisan. He's an ideologue who is out of sync with American ideals--even the ideals of many who support him. In only one sense is BO truly non-partisan: The misery he and his policies inflict affect all of us; regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status or political persuasion.

Barack Hussein Obama is simply not up to the task. Inadequately prepared, insufficiently vetted, unwittingly supported and unwisely elected, however noble the intent, Obama is trouble. And America is in trouble with this unfortunately incompetent governor at the helm. It's time to see him for who he isn't and vote for the kind of honest change that could just help us turn the corner and restore America and her people to the place of leadership, strength, and greatness that is both the example and the envy of the world. That's rational!

Biden vs. Ryan or He Who Laughs Last...

"When a wise man debates with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet." ~Proverbs 29:9

It's fair to say that Joe Biden got the first laugh in his 90-minute confrontation with his would-be successor, Congressman Paul Ryan in last Wednesday;s debate. The Vice President managed to escape without any major gaffes besides his odd demeanor. The gas-bag-in-veep appeared as something of a cross between Alfred E. Neuman and Archie Bunker in what was possibly the most obnoxious display of condescension and pure rudeness ever witnessed in a Vice-Presidential debate. In fact, had it not been for his non-verbal antics, the Democrat might have scored a solid victory over his Republican rival.

That said, conservatives who expected Paul Ryan to walk all over the Prince of Gaffes were sorely disappointed. Biden's penchant for blowhardmanship against Ryan's reputation for policy acumen set some conservatives up for the fall. While Ryan comported himself well and displayed the kind of seriousness and command of the issues one would expect in a Vice President, he spent most of the evening on defense and was not overly forceful in either his criticisms of the current administration or in selling his alternatives.

In fairness, debate moderator and Obama BFF, Martha Raddatz helped stack the deck against the VP hopeful. She conveniently steered the conversation away from Obama/Biden's monstrous Achilles heel, THE ECONOMY in favor of the more tedious and less differentiating details of foreign affairs. This played to Biden's limited strengths, and narrowed Ryan's target. Raddatz provided additional cover for Biden by allowing his 82 interruptions in 90 minutes and by shifting topics whenever Ryan began to take off.

At the end of the day, this debate wasn't a game changer. But if I had to pick a winner, I'd give it to Biden by a sneer--at least on Wednesday night. Despite his obnoxious and condescending style, "Old Joe" did an effective job of shoring up his base. He polished up the old collectivist vision about as pretty as it gets and advocated passionately and almost convincingly for the campaign's meaningless slogan about "growing the economy from the middle out." Try explaining that one after a beer or two.

By brute force, Biden controlled the debate, frequently interrupting Congressman Ryan, and putting the Republicans' agenda on defense according to plan. He struck all the familiar chords; class warfare and the 47% and the assault on Romney's lack of specifics. Meanwhile, he offered NO PLAN OF HIS OWN to address the mounting debt, deficits, the approaching insolvency of social programs, or the sustained high unemployment that has left millions of Americans--particularly the minorities and young folks that put Obama in the White House--broken down on the shoulder of the nation's economic bridge to nowhere. Despite the size of the target, Ryan failed to strike a forceful blow.

On foreign policy, Biden seemed vastly more in command of the issues as a matter of debate than his administration obviously is in command as a matter of practice. He spoke in familiar, if tedious detail about international policies and personalities, including his old pal "Bebe" (Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli PM) and reassured the nation that, in effect, "despite what you see, we've got this! Don't sweat the small stuff!" While his confidence was strangely reassuring, his "facts" don't seem to be standing the test of post-debate scrutiny. So this may come back to bite him.

His greatest FAIL of the evening was his inability to explain the current scandal surrounding the assassination of Ambasador Stevens in Lybia. Although she opened the debate forcefully on this topic, Raddatz clipped Ryan's onslaught multiple times and let Biden off fairly easily on this devastating issue. Score: Biden--for now. But as the debate deconstruction has commenced in the media, Biden may not be laughing anymore.

Still, Biden did effectively challenge the challenger saying "what would you do differently?" Other than a few uninspiring talking points about not slashing the military budget (most Americans think could stand some judicious cuts), supporting our more traditional allies, and bringing tougher sanctions against Iran, Ryan's rhetorical dip-stick came up pretty dry.

On the downside for VP Biden, his incongruous Cheshire grin, obnoxious laughter, and constant interruptions may have pumped up his deflated base but they're unlikely to win many converts from among undecideds. Joe's disingenuous "my friend" and genuine disrespect for his opponent made it clear that the senior statesman was not the grown-up in the room. In fact, if the winner were decided solely on "Who do you think is more equal to the dignity of the office?" Ryan takes it in a landslide!

For his part, Paul Ryan showed Presidential gravitas. He was poised, dignified and articulate. The Congressman demonstrated that he had a strong grasp of issues facing the nation, both foreign and domestic. He effectively underscored the fact that this election represents a clear choice between top-down collectivism ("trickle-down government") under an increasingly oppressive federal bureaucracy, versus a return to more traditional American ideals of individual rights, responsibility, and opportunity under a smaller, less intrusive federal government. Ryan wasn't the forceful or feisty champion of these ideals that we had hoped for (I found myself wishing the Mittster were in the room to speak for himself), but you can chalk that up to youth and inexperience. Of the two, however, he was the guy most Americans would probably rather have sitting in the Oval Office chair should it unexpectedly be found even emptier than it is today.

Biden had a few laughs Wednesday night. But he may not want to take them to the bank. In a digital world of fact-checkers and Monday morning quarterbacks, the twinkle in Joes manic eyes could turn to tears on November 7th. We'll see who's laughing then!

Has America Crossed Over?

In my recent article The Truth About Romney's 47%, I acknowledged that in his remarks, however indelicately made, Romney touched on an issue that is at the very heart of this election and a critical pivot point that will define the future of America for generations to come.

Here's the question: With 49% of our citizens paying no federal income tax, and a similar number dependent on direct cash payments from the Treasury for their very sustenance, are there simply too many Americans so dependent on the largesse of their fellow citizens (aka the government), to ever hope for a return to the smaller, more sensible, more efficient confederacy of states envisioned by the Founders and preferred by Mr. Romney and Republicans? Or "has America crossed over?"

I'm beginning to fear that it has! While I don't believe that everyone in the 47% is either a Democrat, a willing dependent, a victim, or entitled, (and neither does Romney if you listen to his words) most of them, and indeed, many, many of those in the 53% are actual victims of Washinton's overreach and federal excess.

While some of us are overtaxed, many are also overly benefited by the taxes (or debt) carried by our neighbors. Too many companies are favored by government contracts. Too many organizations and individuals benefit from lobbied exemptions. Too many profit from legislative favor. Too many of us are looking for that next government handout or simply take too much for too long when our turn comes. This creates attitudes of dependence, weakness, and entitlement that are eventually actuallized in the populace as a whole. We expect more from government, therefore we do less for ourselves and each other.

Both major political parties engage in the "candyman" syndrome of redistribution; giving away all they can to favored constituents while taking all they can from others. But in so doing, the GOP establishment is at odds  with its fundamental ideals and many of its grassroots constituents. The Democrats, however, do so with philosophical "integrity" and reckless abandon, in the name of fairness, proudly claiming the prize as the party of all good gifts. And because they control the media, too, the donkeys even win the PR battle convincing many that their ideals are more generous, more responsible, more moral and more fair when nothing could be further from the truth.

Additionally, while, from the Constitutional perspective, liberals represent the most extreme and radical departure from the uniquely American ideals and the principles that built our singular success as a nation, conservatives who seek only to restore and maintain those values, are painted as the extremists--ready to abandon the poor and disadvantaged while forcing a theocratic chastity belt on the loins of the body politic--also a liberal lie.

Unfortunately, the philosophy has become institutionalized. Redistribution is the present reality and has been for quite some time. But the perception that it's a good idea in the minds of either a large minority or even a majority of Americans is relatively new. And it's why I think we may have "crossed over."

The ideals of individual liberty, responsibility, achievement, and charity, have been the bedrock of American success and prosperity from our founding. Though diminished by encroaching socialism, these ideals remained a hedge against it. But the dam has been breeched and the floodwaters are pouring in dousing the flames of freedom and self-determination. Americans now almost universally acknowledge a federal power and responsibility, not simply to secure them in thier individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but to insure the material outcomes that define our perception thereof--a satisfactory job, a college degree, medical care, a three-bedroom home with a late-model car for each driver, a big screen TV, internet connection, cell phone,  burgers on the barby and a beer in the fridge--whether we've pursued them successfully or not. All this despite the truth that no Constitutional authority exists for a government with such materialistic powers.

If Americans continue to see the fruits of liberty in their own lives to be the result of their persoal responsibility, effort, and achievement, America will survive and thrive. But if, as signs portend, the nation has shifted to a collective mentality where each believes s/he deserves a "share" in the wealth created by all, as subtly, but unmistakeably articulated by Mr. Obama, the Democrat party, and their willing accomplices in the popular media, then America as we have known her, has indeed "crossed over" with all that those words imply.

nO-bama

nO Executive Experience
nO Budget
nO BiPartisanship
nO Cohesive Foreign Policy
nO Limit on Executive Power
nO States Rights
nO Restraint on Spending
nO Immigration Reform
nO Jobs
nO Presence in Iraq
nO More Capitalism
nO National Unity
nO National Pride
nO Jobs
nO Transparency
nO Accountability
nO Shovel Ready Jobs
nO Work Requirement for Welfare
nO Consequence for illegal immigration
nO Protection for the Unborn
nO Limits on Entitlements
nO Jobs
nO VP
nO Allegiance to Allies
nO Respect for Israel
nO Energy Policy
nO More Drilling
nO Keystone Pipeline
nO Jobs
nO Economic Game Plan
nO Leadership
nO Respect for Religious Rights
nO Solutions
nO Meetings with Jobs Council
nO Positive Change
nO Jobs
nO Hope
nO MORE!

No Rationale to Re-elect!