Author: kingsjester

64 year old Christian Conservative husband, father, and grandfather who has been writing since April 2010.

BenghaziGate: Four Brave Americans Sacrificed for Political Expediency.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Yesterday, we found out more details about the sickening actions of the Obama Administration surrounding their non-response to the Islamic Terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi and the murder of four brave Americans.

Charles Woods is the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He recently did an interview with Conservative Radio Host Lars Larson. Here is an excerpt:

“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”

Woods made clear that he isn’t “mad,” but that he wants to the “truth” to be told because he feels ” abandoned.”

Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have “come above [the area] and completely carpeted area,” and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack.

“When I heard, you know, that there’s a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don’t go rescue them. Because every person in the military–their first response [would be], we’re going to go rescue them. We need to find out who it was that gave that command–do not rescue them.”

The tragedy known as BenghaziGate took an even sicker  turn yesterday…

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, [on orders from General Petraeus] though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

That means that the order to stand down had to come from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and/or President Barack Hussein Obama.

We also learned yesterday, that there were two drones circling overhead, as four brave Americans were being slaughtered. Obama and his Administration knew exactly what was happening, yet, for the sake of political expediency, chose to do nothing about it.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday, called the criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack “Monday morning quarterbacking.”

Meanwhile…

Republican senators are demanding that the Obama administration make public the surveillance video taken during last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte wrote to President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, CIA director and attorney general demanding that the video be declassified.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that video, Senators. Obama  will stall until after the Presidential Election, when he “will have more flexibility”.

Texas AG Tells OSCE, “Not in OUR Polling Places, You Don’t!”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

One of our State Attorney Generals has told the OSCE from the United Nations that they’re going to have to wait outside, while Americans vote.

Thehill.com has the story:

Texas authorities have threatened to arrest international election observers, prompting a furious response from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

“The threat of criminal sanctions against [international] observers is unacceptable,” Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), said in a statement. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

Lawmakers from the group of 56 European and Central Asian nations have been observing U.S. elections since 2002, without incident. Their presence has become a flashpoint this year, however, as Republicans accuse Democrats of voter fraud while Democrats counter that GOP-inspired voter ID laws aim to disenfranchise minority voters.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott further fueled the controversy on Tuesday when he sent a letter to the OSCE warning the organization that its representatives “are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place” and that it “may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance.”

The letter goes on to accuse the group of having met with liberal organizations that oppose Voter ID laws. The OSCE put out an interim report last week saying that “recent state-level legislative initiatives to limit early voting and introduce stricter voter identification have become highly polarized.”

“The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional,” Abbott wrote. “If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections. However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) also weighed in, tweeting “No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process; I commend @Txsecofstate for swift action to clarify issue.”

In letters to Abbott and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose State Department invited the 44 election observers, Lenarčič reiterated that the group is only there to observe the elections.

“Our observers are required to remain strictly impartial and not to intervene in the voting process in any way,” Lenarčič said in a statement. “They are in the United States to observe these elections, not to interfere in them.”

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sought to tone down the controversy during her briefing Thursday. The department is eager to avoid giving the impression that the United States is unwilling to submit to the same scrutiny it demands of others when it comes to human and civil rights.

“Since the initial issue with Texas we’ve received a letter, both for Secretary Clinton and one for Texas authorities, from the OSCE assuring us and Texas authorities that the OSCE observers are committed to following all U.S. laws and regulations as they do in any country where they observe elections and they will do so as well in Texas,” Nuland said. “To my knowledge [Texas] is the only state that came forward and said ‘please reassure us that you’re going to follow our state electoral law.’ And they have now been reassured.

As I wrote in my post last Sunday, “UN Representatives to Monitor OUR Presidential Election”:

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM).

The fact that our soon-to-be former president (Please, God) selected a Jihadist to represent OUR country should give you a clue as to the nature of this UN Committee.

I’m sure you’re asking by now, “How did this mess start in the first place?”

Start the Wayback Machine, Sherman. We’re traveling to 2004…

The foreign observers set to monitor the U.S. presidential election for the first time ever this November said the election of a Florida Democrat as president of the group’s parliamentary assembly would not taint the group’s objectivity.

On July 9, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings – criticized by conservatives for his ethics and partisanship – was elected president of the OSCE’s parliamentary assembly, a position that will allow him to appoint and assign OSCE’s election monitors.

Although the OSCE members present at the press conference insisted that Hastings would not be involved in observing the election on November 2, at least one member did concede that Hastings has influenced the process by playing a role in the selection of OSCE Vice President Barbara Haering, a Swiss parliamentarian who will lead the observer operations on Election Day.

Olszewski told CNSNews.com that the appointment of Haering means that Hastings will stay separate from the actual observation process.

But Peyton Knight, executive director of the conservative American Policy Center (APC) dismissed what he said were the OSCE’s and Hastings’ attempts to distance themselves from each other.

“That is quite a different tune that [Hastings] was playing two months ago,” Knight told CNSNews.com.

“As the parliamentary president, Hastings often declared that he would get to pick the observers that would be observing this election,” Knight said.

In August, the APC objected to Hastings’ role with the OSCE, partly because of his questionable ethics. Hastings was impeached in a bribery and perjury scandal when he was a federal judge.

Hastings became Florida’s first African-American U.S. District Court judge in 1979, nominated by then President Jimmy Carter. But nine years later, the U.S. House impeached Hastings for taking bribes from the federal bench and for perjury. The U.S. Senate subsequently convicted Hastings on the charges and removed him from office.

Hastings in 1992 ran for the Florida’s predominantly black 23rd district in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he still serves.

According to APC, which refers to Hastings as a “disgraced federal judge,” Hastings’ comments about the Bush administration, including a comment that the president’s re-election team would “try to steal this election,” jeopardize his impartiality.

Hastings also is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, a group still smarting over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to stop Florida’s presidential ballot recount in 2000. The ruling effectively gave the election to George W. Bush.

…Knight said the APC’s objections to OSCE go beyond Hastings’ affiliation with the group.

“The OSCE is totally biased,” Knight said. He noted that OSCE observers are in the U.S. “at the behest of the most leftist Congress member on Capitol Hill, and that is who they are going to get their marching orders from.” Knight was referring to members of the Congressional Black Caucus and others.

“The OSCE monitoring of our elections is an insult to America and that is exactly what the few Democrats and internationalists in Congress want it to be – an insult. That was the goal,” Knight said.

“The other goal was to give false credence to claims that Republicans stole the election in 2000,” he added.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott was right in barring these “impartial observers” from entering OUR polling places.

The manner in which we exercise our right to vote, and, whom we vote for, is none of their business.

However, I do have a newsflash for the UN:

I do not think they are going to like the outcome of OUR  2012 Presidential Election.

Sho’ ’nuff hate it for ’em.

Did Obama Sanction Allred’s “October Surprise”?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

You’re Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm). Your record as President stinks on ice so badly, it would be like taking cyanide to run on  it….and your internal polls resemble the voyage of the Titanic…after it struck the iceberg.

What do you do? Well, you could return to the old, reliable Chicago Politics way of doing things, like your campaign did when you were running for Senator:

In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) decided to run for The United States Senate.

In order to have a successful Senatorial campaign, Scooter  had to secure tremendous financial backing and be the recipient of astute political mentoring.  No problem.

It is now very well-known that George Soros, evil genius, major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama. However, not too many people know that a loophole in McCain-Feingold allowed Soros and his family members to be extremely generous in their support of Obama’s 2004 Senatorial campaign.

Obama had to run against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires). Obama received huge donations from individuals, to so-called “millionaires exception.”  Usually,  individuals are limited to giving $2300 to candidates in federal elections, but if the candidates are running against millionaires, these limits do not apply and candidates are allowed to receive up to $12,000 from a single individual. Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000. This does not count the money that Soros was funneled to so-called 527 groups (Moveon.org, for example) that have also been politically active; nor does it include money that Soros raised fromtapping a network of friends, business associates, and employees.

Besides garnering unlimited campaign funds, as the campaigns entered their closing rounds, the news ”happened to be” leaked to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan had “personal scandals” in their past. The timely release of this news wiped out both of their campaigns, leading to an easy victory for Obama in the primary and then in the general election.

The New York Times Magazine revealed that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political and media adviser, may well have been behind the leak of the story that doomed the Hull candidacy as the primary reached its home stretch.  I’m shocked.

As he has shown over the years, Axelrod was right at home operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. One can not bring up Axelrod’s name  in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. Approaching the 2004 Senate primary, it was clear that it was a two-man race: the millionaire liberal, Hull, leading in the polls, and Obama, who was the figurehead of an impressive grass-roots campaign. One month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune “just happened” to reveal, at the end of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. This revelation proceeded to erupt into a full-fledged scandal.  This scandal destroyed Hull’s campaign and handed Obama an easy primary victory.

The Tribune reporter who wrote the story later admitted in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. However, a lot of folks in Chicago believe that Axelrod leaked the initial story. They will tell you that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign just happened to start at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was in the works for a long time.

Axlerod’s explanation?

An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you.

Now, back to the present election…and foxnews.com:

DNC delegate and partisan Democrat lawyer Gloria Allred attended the “30 Days to Victory” Obama fundraiser at the Nokia Theatre in Los Angeles on October 7th…featuring George Clooney and musical acts Katy Perry, Stevie Wonder, Jennifer Hudson, Bon Jovi and Earth, Wind & Fire. After the fundraiser, Allred admitted to O’Reilly Factor correspondent Jesse Watters that she “just had a few words with the President” backstage, “he had some very kind words for me,” and “knows of my work…” but would not elaborate more on the details of her conversation. Now, two weeks later Allred is spearheading an “October surprise” targeting Mitt Romney just days before the election.

Allred is looking to unseal testimony that the GOP presidential candidate gave in the divorce case of Staples founder Tom Stemberg. Staples was founded with seed money from Romney’s firm, Bain Capital and Stemberg is a Romney surrogate. Allred appeared in court today with ex-wife Maureen Stemberg. Many are wondering if there is any coordination between the Obama campaign and Gloria Allred, considering the relationship involved…

JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS: Now, be honest, were you here for the musical acts or President Obama?

GLORIA ALLRED: I’m a very proud supporter of President Obama. I was an elected Obama delegate to the democratic National Convention, I just had a few words with the President.

WATTERS: What did he tell you?

ALLRED: Well, I’ll just say he was very kind to me. He had some very kind words to me. And he knows of my work for women’s rights. And I of course am very appreciative of everything he has done and everything I know he will do in four years for women’s rights. And it’s so essential that we re-elect President Obama because the alternative is just unthinkable.

Graft, corruption, and dirty tricks…Chicago Politics at its finest.

We need four more years of this garbage like Lindsey Lohan needs another drink.

C’mon November 6th!

“Michelle and I Will Be Fine, No Matter What Happens.”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

In 13 days, American voters will decide whom will be the 45th President of the  United States of America. And, as I sit down to write this post, it looks more and more likely that it will not be the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Praise the Lord.

I believe that Obama knows this , too. Check out his latest plea to his supporters, courtesy of weeklystandard.com:

In his latest fundraising email to supporters, President Barack Obama says, “Michelle and I will be fine no matter what happens” in the election. Instead, Obama’s trying to win the contest “for our country and middle-class families.”

Here’s the full pitch:

I don’t want to lose this election.

Not because of what losing would mean for me — Michelle and I will be fine no matter what happens.

But because of what it would mean for our country and middle-class families.

This race is very close.

I’m not willing to watch the progress you and I worked so hard to achieve be undone.

Time is running out to make an impact — please don’t wait any longer. Donate $5 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Two-Weeks

I believe in you. If you stick with me, and if we fight harder than ever for the next two weeks, I truly believe we can’t lose.

Thank you,

Barack

P.S. — I don’t know what Election Night will hold, but I’d like you to be a part of the event here in Chicago. Any donation you make today automatically enters you for a chance to meet me — airfare and hotel for you and a guest are covered.

Yep. Don’t worry about Scooter and Mooch, y’all. They’ve got a place to stay.

Per hillbuzz.org:

Barack and Michelle Obama will be moving to Hawaii in January of 2013 and preparations are now being made to purchase an estate in close proximity to land owned by the University of Hawaii, where the Obama presidential library and “political center” will be located.

Here in Chicago, it’s pretty obvious that Michelle does not want to move back to this city and its winters (for any reason) and Michelle’s mother, who’s been living in the White House with her daughter and her family, will be happily making the move to Hawaii as well.

I have a friend whose family knows Michelle’s mother; they have been crystal clear that the elderly Mrs. Robinson regularly says that she’ll be in Hawaii next year permanently with her daughter and granddaughters. There is neither talk of returning to Chicago to live nor of living in the White House for another four years — instead, there’s a sense of “it was fun while it lasted” coming from Mrs. Robinson in her talks with her Chicago friends.

Democrats are already working to locate an acceptable property in Hawaii for the Obamas to live; this land and its complex of buildings must be ready to move-into in January and must meet all the requirements the Secret Service demands since the Obamas will be granted continued protection, by law, for nine years after Barack leaves office. The Reagans, Clintons, and second Bush family all had their post-presidential homes purchased quietly on the side by friends when their times in office were coming to an end. The Obamas are doing the same thing now.

They are not talking about building a complex on vacant land because there is not time for that. They will need a place to live come January, and they are not returning to their home in Chicago that was purchased with the help of convicted felon Tony Rezko. Chicago served its purpose in Obama’s life and moving back here provides him no additional benefits. As a former president, he’d always be the second most powerful man in a town where the Mayor of Chicago is essentially a feudal king. In Hawaii, the Obamas will hold court as a new royal family on the islands.

…UPDATE: Just found out that the asking price of the house they are looking at is most likely $35 million. Bobby Titcomb, the Hawaiian native who brings Obama “fish and poi” (that’s code for “weed and coke”) to the White House is most likely involved in the purchase of the estate on Oahu that the Obamas will most likely be moving into in January. Possibly watching Titcomb’s movements will give more clues as to which house, exactly, Obama will move to in January 2013.

…UPDATE #2: Found it! Here’s the only property that matches all the clues we’ve been given. It is on the market for $35 million, which matches what Mrs. Robinson has been saying about the “$35 million house she’d be living in soon”. This estate was also featured on TV’s remake of Hawaii 5-O recently. Do you see how that’s a little in-joke that Obama would like…the “O” in the show’s name, like the “O” he’s used as his personal emblem since 2008? A man who named his dog BO, after his own initials, would love to own a house that was featured in an “O” show, like after his last name. This is a photo of the house as featured on TV and in Honolulu Magazine so you can see a little inside. The link above has more pics of the house that Barack Obama will soon be living in as an ex-president.

Some Consolation Prize, huh?

Simply Scooter and Mooch’s reward for years of selfless Public Service.

Yeah…right.

The 3rd Presidential Debate: The Petulant President Vs. the Grown-Up Contender

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Going into last night’s debate, all you heard from the MSM, and all the Obama sycophants (but, I repeat myself) was that Obama was just cotton-picking brilliant in the area of Foreign Policy

Of course, I’m sure that Ambassador Chris Stevens would have a different opinion.

Foxnews.com describes the opening of the debate:

Mitt Romney ripped President Obama’s foreign policy at the start of Monday night’s debate, claiming the president’s strategy has not quelled the Al Qaeda threat.

“It’s certainly not on the run. It’s certainly not in hiding,” Romney said. “This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries.”

Obama, though, countered that “Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated.”

And he sought to portray Romney as someone who would be an unsteady leader on the world stage. He accused Romney of having a strategy that is “all over the map.”

Obama was tough on Romney from the outset, accusing him of having poor judgment and antiquated views on the world stage.

“I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaeda,” Obama said. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

Obama went on to say that, on foreign policy, “every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”

Romney fired back, “attacking me is not an agenda.” He accused Obama of looking at countries like Russia through “rose-colored glasses.”

Per businessweek.com:

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney accused each other of failing to have clear foreign policy visions as the two met for their third and final debate.

“I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong,” Obama said tonight at the faceoff in Boca Raton, Florida. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has put forth strategies that are “all over the map,” Obama said.

Romney began the debate by criticizing Obama for what he described as growing threats in Syria, Libya, Mali, Egypt and Iran. While he congratulated Obama for the raid that killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, he said, “we must have a comprehensive strategy” to reject extremism.

“We can’t kill our way out of this mess,” Romney said. Later, he said, “nowhere in the world is America’s influence in the world greater than it was four years ago.”

Obama stressed his commander-in-chief credentials while trying to paint Romney as out of his depth. He criticized Romney for once saying Russia was the biggest geopolitical foe facing the U.S.

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama said.

Later, Obama told Romney that a complaint he frequently makes on the campaign trail about lower U.S. navy ship levels was misplaced because the military has changed.

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets” than in the past because of differing national security demands, Obama said.

And that’s the way the evening went.

Mitt was acting mature and presidential, and Obama was petulant and rambling like a six year-old, who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

As I alluded to earlier, if you look at all the usual suspects this morning, CBS, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post, USA Today, et al, you would think that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) was absolutely brilliant.

If he is, then, so was Neville Chamberlain.

Investigativeproject.org reports:

A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.

The IPT made the discovery combing through millions of White House visitor log entries. IPT compared the visitors’ names with lists of known radical Islamists. Among the visitors were officials representing groups which have:

Been designated by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist trials; Extolled Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas and Hizballah;

Obstructed terrorist investigations by instructing their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement;

Promoted the incendiary conspiratorial allegation that the United States is engaged in a “war against Islam”— a leading tool in recruiting Muslims to carry out acts of terror;

Repeatedly claimed that many of the Islamic terrorists convicted since 9-11 were framed by the U.S government as part of an anti-Muslim profiling campaign.

Individuals from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) visited the White House at least 20 times starting in 2009. In 2008, CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist money laundering case in U.S. history – the trial of the Holy Land Foundation in which five HLF officials were convicted of funneling money to Hamas.

U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis later ruled that, “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the association” of CAIR to Hamas, upholding their designations as unindicted co-conspirators. In 2008, the FBI formally ended all contact with CAIR because of its ties to Hamas.

As I reported Sunday, Obama appointed a Jihadist to the OCSE, the UN Committee, who has been invited by someone (with no sense whatsoever) to monitor our National Election on November 6th. To remind you,

Salam Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Los Angeles-based Islamic advocacy group that defends Muslim extremist violence. MPAC has condemned the anti-terrorism measures of both the U.S. and Israel, and has called for a repeal of the Patriot Act.

This is Smart Power?

Obama’s Domestic and Foreign Policies both stink on ice. We cannot afford 4 more years of the Manchurian President. 

I know how I’m going to vote on November 6th. How about you?

The Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy: Another Time For Choosing

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama and Republican Challenger Mitt Romney will square off for the final Presidential Debate, which will be on Foreign Policy.

According to the New York Times:

When President Obama and Mitt Romney sit down Monday night for the last of their three debates, two things should be immediately evident: there should be no pacing the stage or candidates’ getting into each other’s space, and there should be no veering into arguments over taxes.

This debate is about how America deals with the world — and how it should.

If the moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has his way, it will be the most substantive of the debates. He has outlined several topics: America’s role in the world, the continuing war in Afghanistan, managing the nuclear crisis with Iran and the resultant tensions with Israel, and how to deal with rise of China.

The most time, Mr. Schieffer has said, will be spent on the Arab uprisings, their aftermath and how the terrorist threat has changed since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. No doubt the two candidates will spar again, as they did in the second debate, about whether the Obama administration was ready for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans. Mr. Romney was widely judged to not have had his most effective critique ready, and this time, presumably, he will be out to correct that.

The early line is that this is an opportunity for Mr. Obama to shine, and to repair the damage from the first debate. (He was already telling jokes the other night, at a dinner in New York, about his frequent mention of Osama bin Laden’s demise.)

I’ve heard Former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who is also Mitt Romney’s Foreign  Policy Adviser, state that Romney’s approach to Foreign Affairs with be like that of President Reagan: “Peace Through Strength”.

Amb. Bolton explained that concept further in an interview he did in September with The Washington Times:

It is central to successful U.S. foreign policy that we achieve the overwhelming preponderance of our key objectives diplomatically, without the use of force. But as the Romans said, si vis pacem, para bellum: If you want peace, prepare for war. George Washington used the maxim in his first State of the Union address, and in our day, Ronald Reagan characterized his policy as “peace through strength.” The point is clear.

Unfortunately, too many mistake resolve for belligerence. President Obama, for example, acts as if American strength is provocative, that we are too much in the world, and that a lesser U.S. profile would make other nations better disposed toward us. This is exactly backwards. It is not our strength that is provocative, but our weakness, which simply emboldens our adversaries to take advantage of what they see as decline and retreat.

…When our opponents sense a weak, inattentive U.S. administration, they are obviously motivated to seize the opening before a Reagan-like president appears. So, when Mr. Obama pleads with Russian President Medvedev to give him “space” before our election so Obama can be more “flexible” afterward, our adversaries take careful note. And when China’s official news agency scoffed last week that, “U.S. power is declining and it hasn’t enough economic strength or resources to dominate the Asia-Pacific region,” China’s neighbors shudder.

The perception of U.S. weakness can certainly be reversed, as Reagan did, but the costs are inevitably high. Today, debilitating cuts in the national-defense budget, with more to come if the sequestration provisions kick in, only make the task of rebuilding harder. International leadership is undeniably a burden, and many other countries benefit as free riders, but we cannot forget we are not leading out of altruism but because of the sustained economic and political benefits that accrue to America. We cannot have one without the other.

…George H.W. Bush correctly assessed his 1988 opponent Michael Dukakis by saying, “He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe.” This is essentially Mr. Obama’s view, that of a self-described “citizen of the world.” It rests on two elements. One is “moral equivalency,” seeing all nations as fungible, no one having a higher claim than another, including our own. Iran, North Korea, America — it’s just too parochial to treat them differently. The other is “mirror imaging,” the fallacy of seeing other nations as operating according to our same incentives and disincentives, our rationality and our same ranking of outcomes. While we can overcome these failures, we must first be aware how pervasive they are within the American Establishment.

…Beyond question, our gravest threat comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and the means to deliver them, including ballistic missiles. Whether in the hands of terrorists, rogue states or increasingly from a re-surging Russia and a rapidly advancing China, the WMD threat is growing. It has been so long since nuclear testing, above or below ground, that I worry too many Americans have lost sight of the power of nuclear weapons, seeing them as something from grainy black-and-white films from 1940s testing in Pacific atolls.

The consequences, however, are terrifying, whether we contemplate the loss of even one American city held hostage to nuclear blackmail by terrorists, or the prospect of Israel vaporizing in a nuclear holocaust. There is more to defending the United States than just the military assets we deploy. More fundamental is our basic attitude: Do we acknowledge, or not, the possibility — even the likelihood — that there are ideologies, religions or nations that wish us ill, even to the point of our destruction?

Amazingly, having just concluded a century where vicious ideologies like Nazism and Communism caused slaughter and torment beyond description, we find many political leaders — like President Obama (“the tide of war is receding”) — essentially prepared to declare “peace in our time.” No war on terror, no radical Islam, no geopolitical competitors, no nothing. This is a prescription not for peace ahead, but for imminent danger.

…Contrary to what its critics, including many in this country, say, American exceptionalism simply recognizes the reality of our distinct history. After all, a Frenchman, Alexis de Toqueville, first characterized us as “exceptional,” and he didn’t mean it entirely as a compliment! Mr. Obama once compared U.S. exceptionalism to Britain and Greece, and he easily could have listed the other 190 United Nations members. If everyone is exceptional, no one is, leading almost inexorably to believe that the United States has no special role to play internationally, even on its own behalf. It leads to a “come home, America” approach that inevitably weakens the United States, its friends and allies, and the values and interests we should be advancing.

Tonight, as you watch this last, and possibly, most important of the Presidential Debates, the question you need to decide for yourself is very simple: 

Which Foreign Policy will keep Americans safer from our enemies?

A return to Peace Through Strength and American Exceptionalism?

or

A continuance of the naive acquiescence, the alienating of our allies and embracing of our enemies,  that got Ambassador Chris Stevens murdered by Islamic Terrorists?

UN Representatives to Monitor OUR Presidential Election

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

A group from the UN, whose representative from the US, appointed by President Obama, is a jihadist, will be at the polls, monitoring our Presidential Election.

Thehill.com reports

United Nations-affiliated election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups during a meeting this week. The intervention has drawn criticism from a prominent conservative-leaning group combating election fraud.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, will deploy 44 observers around the county on Election Day to monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places.

Liberal-leaning civil rights groups met with representatives from the OSCE this week to raise their fears about what they say are systematic efforts to suppress minority voters likely to vote for President Obama.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, among other groups, warned this month in a letter to Daan Everts, a senior official with OSCE, of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

The request for foreign monitoring of election sites drew a strong rebuke from Catherine Engelbrecht, founder and president of True the Vote, a conservative-leaning group seeking to crack down on election fraud.

“These activist groups sought assistance not from American sources, but from the United Nations,” she said in a statement to The Hill. “The United Nations has no jurisdiction over American elections.”

The observers, from countries such as Germany, France, Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, will observe voting at polling places and other political activity.

“They [will] observe the overall election process, not just the ballot casting,” said Giovanna Maiola, spokeswoman for OSCE. “They are focusing on a number of areas on the state level, including the legal system, election administration, the campaign, the campaign financing [and] new voting technologies used in the different states.”

In a follow-up e-mail, Maiola noted that it is a limited election-observation mission. She said “the OSCE has regularly been invited to observe elections in the United States, in line with OSCE commitments.”

Access of international observers during voting is explicitly allowed in some states such as Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Mexico.

“State law does not generally provide for international observers,” Maiola said. “However, through our contacts at state and county level in certain states, we managed to secure invitations at local level and we have taken up the offer to observe. Where this is not possible, we will respect the state regulation on this matter and will not observe in precincts on Election Day.”

International observers will follow up on the concerns raised by civil rights groups.

“We attended their meeting, we took note of the issued they raised and we asked our observers in the field to follow up on them,” said Maiola.

Per the OSCE Handbook:

Election observation enhances accountability and transparency, thereby boosting both domestic and international confidence in the process. The mere presence of international observers alone, however, should not be viewed as adding legitimacy or credibility to an election process. Although the presence of observers may indicate that the process merits observation, it is the observers’ conclusions about the process, based on the ODIHR’s methodology, that will form the ODIHR’s opinion on the election.

Through my anger, I researched the OSCE further, because somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind,  the name rang a bell.  I soon discovered why:

Jewish leaders expressed outrage Friday over the State Department’s praise for, and defense of, a controversial Muslim leader who has defended terrorist groups and suggested that Israel may have been responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM).

Al-Marayati’s well-known anti-Israel bona fides prompted Jewish leaders and others to express outrage over the Obama administration’s selection.

“It is regrettable that someone with such distorted, conspiratorial views—even with a lackluster apology—is delegated by our government to represent our country abroad,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement to the Free Beacon.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, argued that the State Department is showing inconsistency by touting an individual who has defended the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations.

“One would assume that individuals selected to represent the United States at an international human rights conclave would share our government’s longstanding policy that Hamas and Hezbollah are dangerous terrorist organizations,” Cooper told the Free Beacon. “But Mr. Salam al-Marayati and his organization are long-time advocates that these deadly terror groups be removed from the U.S. terrorist list.”

“With terrorism continuing to roil the Middle East,” Cooper added, “the question is why the U.S. State Department would say he is ‘highly credible’?”

So, who is this guy, whom Obama chose as our country’s representative to this group that is monitoring the most important Presidential Election in our lifetime?

According to discoverthenetworks.org:

Salam Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Los Angeles-based Islamic advocacy group that defends Muslim extremist violence. MPAC has condemned the anti-terrorism measures of both the U.S. and Israel, and has called for a repeal of the Patriot Act.

On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, Al-Marayati used a Los Angeles talk radio program as a forum in which to accuse the Israelis of responsibility for that morning’s attacks on New York and Washington. Al-Marayati has also called for the U.S. government to unfreeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Global Relief Foundation and the Holy Land Foundation, that were shut down by the government because of funding they had given to terrorist organizations.

Al-Marayati refuses to call Hezbollah a terrorist group. “I don’t think any group should be judged 100% this or that,” he says. “I think every group is going to have . . . its claim of liberation and resistance.” He has similarly justified Hamas’ existence as a political entity that promotes social programs and “educational operations.” “Yesterday’s terrorists in the Middle East are today’s leaders,” he says. “The PLO is the number one example of this . . . The PLO 35 years ago was considered a terrorist organization, nobody should deal with them . . . But they became the people in authority, in Palestine, today. So Hamas today, the way it’s being viewed, is exactly how the PLO was viewed 30 years ago. And in fact, even Hamas in terms of its social and educational operations is doing exactly what the PLO was doing 35 years ago, as well as its quote unquote military operations.”

During a 1997 speech he delivered at the University of Pennsylvania, Al-Marayati equated the concept of jihad to the statements of the eighteenth-century American statesman Patrick Henry. Said Al-Marayat, “[T]he person who we think in America would epitomize jihad would be Patrick Henry, who said, ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’ That is a way of looking at the term jihad from an American perspective.”

Excuse me, sir, but, I beg to differ. Patrick Henry was an American Christian Leader, not a supporter of merciless Islamic Terrorism.

And, Americans certainly do not need you, nor the United Nations, involved in our elections. We are a Sovereign Nation. Men like Patrick Henry pledged their lives and sacred honor to give us the right to vote as we see fit.

And, neither you, the OCSE, nor the United Nations, is going to be able to do a darn thing about it.

Very soon, you will be joining your buddy and boss, Barack Hussein Obama, on the Unemployment Line.

We’ll see you on November 6th.

That’s Not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Yesterday, the 44th President of the United States of America, spoke to a crowd of college students at George Mason University.

Perhaps  in an effort to find a new profession in preparation for November 6th, when he gets booted out of office, the president tried out his D.L. Hughley imitation:

President Barack Obama has a diagnosis for what he considers rival Mitt Romney’s shifting positions: Call it a case of “Romnesia.”

Making a direct gender-pitch in hotly contested Virginia, Obama tells a college crowd that when it comes to issues important to women’s health and jobs, Romney has conveniently overlooked his past stands.

“He’s forgetting what his own positions are — and he’s betting that you will too,” Obama told an audience of 9,000 at George Mason University. “I mean he’s changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping. We’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through. I think it’s called Romnesia.”

Obama, a broad grin on his face, borrowed heavily from the style of comedian Jeff Foxworthy, known for his “you might be a redneck” standup routines.

“If you say you’ll protect a woman’s right to choose, but you stand up at a primary debate and said that you’d be ‘delighted’ to sign a law outlawing that right to choose in all cases, man, you’ve definitely got Romnesia,” he said.

Riffing as if he was still delivering one liners at Thursday night’s Catholic charity dinner in New York, Obama said he had good news for anyone who suffers from Romnesia. “Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions,” he bellowed. “We can fix you up. We’ve got a cure! We can make you well, Virginia.”

Obama renewed his criticism of Romney’s economic plan, quoting a line in a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman. “There’s no jobs plan. There’s just a snow job on the American people.”

Obama added, “If he offered you that deal when he was in corporate finance, you wouldn’t give him a dime.” So why, Obama asked, would voters cast their ballots for him.

Obama’s message was aimed at suburban women who form a formidable voting bloc in northern Virginia. The president raised once more Romney’s comment during the second debate that he received “binders full of women” when he sought to diversify his cabinet as Massachusetts governor. “You don’t want somebody who needs to ask for binders full of women. You don’t want that guy,” Obama said

So, while scores of Americans are trying to figure out how to pay their bills and put food on their tables, the President is out cracking jokes.

In the spirit of Barack Hussein Obama’s jocularity in front of those young minds full of mush yesterday, I’ve decided to do a little stand-up (while sitting down) myself.

Just keep reading. You’ll catch on.

If you refer to babies as a punishment, instead of a blessing…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you expect American taxpayers to pay $3,000 a year for a 30 year old professional student’s, who can’t keep her legs together, contraception…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If gas was $1.79 when you became president, and now, it’s $4.00 a gallon …that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you pass a Stimulus Bill, shortly after becoming president, that actually costs $3.27 Trillion, or $10,000 per American family, which winds up being nothing but pork-barrel spending…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you campaigned on promoting bi-partisanship, and you foster a four-year long fight between America’s Political Parties…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If Welfare jumps 32% during your presidency…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If about 11-12 million Americans will be subject to the individual mandate’s penalties under the “Affordable Care Act” you shoved down Americans’ throats — and half will simply opt to pay the tax…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If your Smart Power! Foreign Policy entails alienating our Allies and embracing our enemies…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you refer to the murder of four Americans by Muslim Terrorists as “not optimal”…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you run off to a Las Vegas Campaign Fundraiser, instead of handling your presidential duties during the siege of an American Consulate in Libya…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you stand in front of the UN General Assembly and blame the murder of four Americans at the US Consulate in Libya on a stupid Youtube video, which no one has even seen, when you know that al Qaeda murdered them…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you remark, regarding a teen-age thug, who was killed by a neighborhood watch member that was having the back of his head slammed repeatably against the sidewalk, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If  you describe Americans, living in rural Pennsylvania, as “bitterly clinging” to their guns and Bibles…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If your wife, the First Wookie, err…Lady, decides she knows better than parents and grandparents what their schoolchildren should eat for lunch…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If your wife takes lavish vacations , in-country and out, for four years, on the taxpayers’ dime, totaling over $1,000,000…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you proclaim after taking office that, “America is no longer just a Christian Nation.”, knowing that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and to this day, contains a population that is 78% Christian…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

And, finally…if you do your best, through a combination of arrogance, naivety, pomposity, bad manners, aloofness, and pure and total b.s., to turn the greatest nation of God’s green Earth into a Third-World Socialist country…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

…And, on November 6th, we’re not going to give you a second chance.

Obama: The Murder of 4 Americans “Not Optimal”, #BenghaziGate Continues

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Our nation’s Commander-in-Chief made a pompous, callous remark last night, regarding the death of 4 Americans, including a United States Ambassador, at the hands of Muslim Terrorists in Libya, while making a Campaign Appearance on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show on Comedy Central.

The Daily Mail has the details:

President Barack Obama, during an interview to be shown on Comedy Central, has responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the Benghazi attack, by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

Obama was speaking to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for a programme to be broadcast tonight.

Stewart, a liberal whose young audience is full of potential voters prized by the Obama campaign, asked the president about his handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith and security men and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 – an attack that the White House initially blamed on a spontaneous protest about an anti-Islam movie made in California.

Stewart asked: ‘Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? ‘Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within.

‘Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.’

Obama responded: ‘Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

He continued: ‘We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up.

‘Whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes, and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans.

‘And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency.’

The word ‘optimal’ was first used by Stewart in the question. But Obama’s use of it, in a sound bite that could be used to portray him as somewhat casual about the deaths, lit up conservatives on Twitter after it was first reported in a White House pool report by Mike Memoli of the ‘Los Angeles Times’.

Obama’s slip could help Mitt Romney recover from an awkward moment in the presidential debate in Long Island, New York on Tuesday when he challenged Obama over whether he had initially characterised the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

Unfortunately for our dhimmi President, it was Islamic Terrorism.

According to Fox News, the barbarians in Libya did not exactly appreciate us being over there:

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi may have been part of a broader campaign to drive the U.S. and western presence — and particularly a growing CIA contingent — out of eastern Libya, two military sources told Fox News.

The Sept. 11 attack was preceded by hundreds of security incidents in Libya over the past year. Several of them involved western targets in the Benghazi area, which could indicate a pattern.

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in June 6 with an improvised explosive device, planted in the ledge of the perimeter wall, was described as a probing attack to measure the response. This incident, coupled with attacks on the International Red Cross and an RPG attack on the British ambassador’s convoy — after which the British withdrew — suggest a pattern to drive western influence from the region.

Further, it fits with a broader effort by the Al Qaeda affiliate and the militant group Ansar al-Sharia to establish an Islamic state in eastern Libya. The New York Times reported Thursday that Libyan officials have named Ansar al-Sharia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala as the commander of the attack.

Those militants are also capitalizing on the proliferation of weapons, including portable surface-to-air missiles called MANPADS, since the fall of the Qaddafi regime.

Former CIA Director Porter Goss said the idea that militants were trying to achieve the expulsion of western forces and diplomats from the region “is a very accurate assessment.”

He said they likely “are trying to create more sanctuary areas by pushing us out — our diplomats, our military.”

A representative with the CIA declined to comment for this report.

During the Second Presidential Debate, President Barack Hussein Obama looked into the camera and said,

The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.

Isn’t referring to the murder by Islamic Terrorists of 4 Americans as being “not optimal” while appearing on a show on Comedy Central in the last couple of weeks of a Presidential Re-election Bid, “playing politics”, Mr. President?

That seems to be all you do.

Lord knows, you wouldn’t want to upset “our Muslim allies”.

The Aftermath of Presidential Debate #2: Second Verse, Same As the First

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

In the aftermath and interminable spin of Tuesday night’s Second Presidential Debate, I thought I would look back at another Second Presidential Debate, which occurred in 1980, featuring incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter against Republican Challenger Ronald Reagan:

The temperamental contrast between the two men was at the center of what may have been the campaign’s decisive moment: the Reagan-Carter debate of October 28, a week before the election. Both candidates held their own on substantive issues—indeed, many observers thought Carter was the better of the two, but Reagan was more relaxed and confident. When Carter accurately pointed out Reagan’s record of opposition to the Medicare program in the hopes of portraying his opponent an extremist, Reagan ignored the charge and softly replied, “There you go again,” a line he had rehearsed in debate practice. He wound up the debate with an effective iteration of his basic campaign theme asking Americans to make their decision on the basis of the Carter administration’s record: “Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?” For voters who answered “no” to these questions, Reagan was the clear alternative.

Reagan widened his lead in the polls in the week after the debate. The Reagan team had earlier worried that Carter might pull off an “October surprise” by winning freedom of the Americans held hostage in Iran, but after the debate they doubted that even this would rescue the President. On election day, Reagan overwhelmed Carter, winning 51 percent of the vote to Carter’s 41 percent. Anderson had less than 7 percent of the vote but siphoned support from Carter in states such as New York and Massachusetts, enabling Reagan to carry these states and win an electoral landslide. Reagan won 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 49.

Carter’s showing was the worst for any incumbent President who sought reelection since Herbert Hoover in 1932. This was largely because the frustrations with Carter outweighed the reservations about Reagan among undecided voters, who broke heavily against the President. Reagan did well among Catholic voters and made inroads among working-class Democrats and union families. He also did well in the South, which was Carter’s base. And the country as a whole was in the mood for change. The Republicans picked up fifty-three seats in the House of Representatives and twelve in the Senate, giving them a majority for the first time in the Senate since 1954.

While I’m not saying that Romney is Reagan, I am saying that I am experiencing a bit of Deja Vu, and evidently, so are the Democrats, as reported by the Washington Post:

Mitt Romney has taken a six-point lead over President Obama in the latest Gallup national tracking poll — his biggest lead to date and the first time he has led outside the margin of error.

The latest seven-day tracking poll of likely voters shows Romney at 51 percent and Obama at 45 percent, up from 50-46 on Tuesday and 49-47 on Monday.

Romney has steadily gained in the Gallup poll in recent weeks, turning what had been a growing deficit in September into a growing lead since his strong first debate performance. And when Gallup shifted its voter model from registered voters to likely voters last week, Romney’s numbers improved even more (among registered voters, the race is at Romney 48, Obama 46).

The new numbers, of course, don’t include much or any data collected after Tuesday night’s debate. It will take days to determine what effect that might have had.

Gallup continues to show a better picture for Romney than most other pollsters. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday showed Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 46 percent, while a Politico-George Washington University poll showed Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 48 percent.

In addition, Democrats have cast doubt on Gallup’s likely-voter model, with the Obama campaign releasing an entire memo on it earlier this week when Gallup showed Romney opening up a similar lead in the 12 most competitive states in the country.

But, hey, the First Mooch, err, Lady isn’t worried, per The Weekly Standard:

At a fundraiser today in New York, First Lady Michelle Obama expressed confidence in her husband’s chances for reelection. “On Nov. 7 we’re going to party hard,” she said. Election Day this year is November 6.

From the pool report:

“After hearing my husband talk about his values and his vision at the debate last night, I’m pretty fired up,” she said. “Let me tell you, I am so glad last night was such an awesome, awesome event,” she said. She mention[ed] her recent anniversary on Oct 3, the night of first debate.

“We got a quick little dinner. That’s about it,” she said. “But it’s okay. On Nov. 7 we’re going to party hard.”

Her biggest applause lines were about Obama’s policies on women – notably the Lily Ledbetter Act and women’s control of their bodies. She also won applause by talking about passage of the Affordable Care Act.

The way it looks now, Michelle, you won’t have the time, nor be in the mood to par-tay on November 7th. You’ll be too busy reserving a Moving Van and stealing…err, packing up the White House China.

I’m lovin’ it.