Author: kingsjester

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

Presidential Debate #2: The Prizefight

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Americans tuned into a Townhall Debate and a fight broke out.

The second Presidential Debate between Republican Challenger Mitt Romney and incumbent Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) resembled Ali vs. Frazier.

Romney answered the questions as a CEO addressing his Board of Investors….straight ahead, look ’em in the eyes, and hit ’em with the facts.

Obama got himself whipped up to the point of almost pleading, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright must have when it was time to preach on Tithing. He appeared desperate.

As her predecessors did before her, the Moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley,  injected herself into the debate, choosing questions that had not really come up in the campaign so far, and cutting Romney off more than she did Obama.

The president really did not seem to handle being challenged very well. While Mitt was answering questions, Scooter was over in the corner, sitting on his little stool, pouting like a petulant child…until he decided he had to interrupt Mitt, in order to save his own backside.

Yes, Obama was more aggressive, but he had no answers to back up his aggression.

All hat. No cattle.

John Nolte, posting at Breitbart.com, makes a great point:

We’re done with the second presidential debate, but it was apparent 45 minutes in that between the questions Crowley chose and her handling of who was allowed to speak and when, that this debate was a total and complete set up to rehabilitate Barack Obama. If these are truly undecided voters, they’re apparently undecided between Obama and Green Party. Moreover, as I write this, Obama’s already enjoyed four more minutes of speaking time than Romney. In a ninety-minute debate, that’s a big deal.

The lowest and most dishonest part Crowley’s disgraceful “moderation” was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama’s side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover, he claimed he had called the attack a “terrorist attack” on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement.

Romney correctly disputed that.

Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama’s side and the crowd exploded.

Here’s what Obama said that day:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this “act of terror” to … a mob action over a YouTube video — not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again.

Let’s not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror.

And during those two weeks the Obama administration lied like a rug. For Crowley to step in and attempt to correct Romney on a statement that is at best arguable, was completely out of line. The debate over this debate has only begun.

Indeed. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. Crowley inserted herself into the debate, rather forcibly. The Washington Times agrees:

Another debate, another debacle for America’s media.

In the runup to the second presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley declared that she would not just be a “fly on the wall” as she played the tiny role of moderator, that she would step in whenever she chose to say, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”

And boy did she, cutting off Republican Mitt Romney repeatedly and often throwing the floor to President Obama with an open “let me give the president a chance here.”

More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called “undecided” voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama — Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her).

She even chose this question, directed to both men: “I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”

Ms. Crowley, who called Mr. Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate a “ticket death wish,” asserted her unilateral power at the outset, telling the audience before the cameras went on that she planned to “give the debate direction and ensure the candidates give answers to the questions.”

After both candidates answered Question One, she blurted: “Let me get a more immediate answer” — whatever that means. But when Mr. Romney sought to correct falsehoods told by the president, she cut him off: “We have all these folks here.” In the end, Mr. Obama would get 9 percent more time.

At Question Two, Mr. Obama, asked by Mr. Romney how much he had cut federal oil permits, took over the floor — with Ms. Crowley’s silent approval. “Here’s what happened,” he said as he filibustered for a full minute. Mr. Romney sought to get the last word — as the president had the question before — but the moderator shut him down: “It’ doesn’t quite work like that.”

When Mr. Romney sought to counter Mr. Obama’s assertion after Question Three, Ms. Crowley again cut him off: “Before we get into a vast array….” she said before asking a completely different question.

The next question was pure Obama — workplace inequality (the president mention at every stop his Lily Ledbetter legislation). But the query gave him the platform to demand Americans pay for contraception for all women, saying the governor “feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.”

For the record, Mr. Obama spoke for two minutes, then Mr. Romney, then Mr. Obama again. Ms. Crowley then rushed into the next question.

And, that’s the way it went last night…on and on, ad infinitum.

Obama needed a third round knockout last night.

Considering all the lies Obama told last night, which the pundits on both sides will be rehashing today, I would say that, even though he was definitely more animated than his comatose performance in the first debate, Romney still won last night…by TKO.

Hillary Commits Political Seppuku…or Does She?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics8 Comments

On the eve of the Second Presidential Debate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, both politically and symbolically, fell on her sword for her President, Barack Hussein Obama…or did she?

CNN.com broke the story:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.

The attack on the night of September 11 killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the American consulate in Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after Vice President Joe Biden said during last week’s vice presidential debate that the White House did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi, contradicting testimony by State Department employees that requests had been made and rejected. After the debate, the White House said the vice president did not know of the requests because they were handled, as is the practice, by the State Department.

Clinton said President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

“I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.

Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded. In the wake of an attack, there is always confusion, Clinton said. But the information has since changed, she said.

The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of the assault. It was an “intense, long ordeal” as staff tried to find out what had happened.

Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again, but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.

“We can’t not engage,” she said. “We cannot retreat.”

Mark Baisley wrote the following in an article on townhall.com, which was posted early yesterday, before Hillary’s announcement last evening:

I am imagining that Hillary Clinton is spending a great deal of time with close advisors and political strategists this week. She has been a very good soldier for Barack Obama for four years now. But there is no way that Hillary Clinton is going to allow her own presidential ambitions for 2016 to be spoiled so that Barack Obama can be re-elected in 2012.

An inevitable gunfight has been building between the Chicago Democratic machine and the Arkansas Democratic royalty for weeks now. And President Obama can thank his short-sighted Vice President for expediting the inevitable shootout to begin at the same time as early voting.

President Obama has escaped disaster time after time with scandals and cover-ups that would have taken down the cleanest Republican president. The abuse of the National Labor Relations Board in an attempt to force Boeing to place its 787 plant in union-controlled Washington State left no chinks in Obama’s armor. Bribing Lockheed Martin with covering of legal expenses if they will postpone required layoff notices until after the election does not seem to have raised a single liberal eyebrow. Even invoking Executive Privilege to withhold information from Congress regarding the murders of an American Border Patrol and hundreds of Mexican citizens has not shaken the President’s loyal following.

But while the yellow-tinted, main-stream media is blatantly positioned on the side of the Democratic Party, they did not count on having to choose sides between Barack and Hillary in the final days of the 2012 presidential election.

It all started innocently enough. The President and his Secretary of State set out on an international tour beginning in 2010, sharing enlightened American liberalism to a welcoming world. Cultures who once hated America would naturally embrace the new oneness with a Presidential bow.

The State Department’s mission now includes promoting the agenda of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community worldwide. Or, as Secretary Clinton put it, “So here at the State Department, we will continue to advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We are elevating our human rights dialogues with other governments and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons.” (See http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/06/143517.htm)

We could certainly expect that asserting the LGBT acceptance message to other cultures, especially to muslim countries, would be the Obama Administration’sdaisy in the gun barrel milestone. To quote Secretary Clinton’s closing line in her address calling on every State Department bureau and every embassy to participate in the advancing of worldwide LGBT tolerance, this is “one of history’s great moments.”

Even Hollywood’s international ambassador, Madonna, did her part in carrying out the mission on an informal basis this summer. Last month, while entertaining a crowd in Washington, D.C., the pop star included this supportive mention of the President’s program, “Y’all better vote for f_ _ _ _ _ g Obama, OK? For better or for worse, alright? We have a black muslim in the White House. Now that is some s _ _ t. Some amazing s _ _ t. It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights. OK? So support the man, G_ _ _ _ _ mit!” This heartwarming message was delivered to an American audience shortly after returning to the U.S. from her tour in two decidedly Islamic countries, where she treated her muslim audience to a flash of her right mammilla during a concert in Istanbul.

After softening up the militantly modest sensibilities of Islam’s religious police through messaging, supported by Madonna’s indecent exposure tour, the Obama Administration got down to some thoughtful personnel deployments. In an apparent act of altruistic hope and change, the State Department dispatched a gay man as Ambassador to Libya. What could possibly go wrong?

…The Obama-Biden team seems very willing to let Hillary Clinton become the scapegoat for their poor handling of foreign affairs and for covering up the real story of a loyal American left shamefully vulnerable by a president who blows off intelligence briefings daily. Secretary Clinton will not take the fall for this president. And if Bill Clinton chooses to weigh in on behalf of his wife this month, Mitt Romney will walk across the finish line on November 6. In the worst timing for an administration up for re-election, a dithering media may actually choose to investigate the truth – out of not knowing what else to do.

Why would an Administration send an openly Gay man to be the Ambassador of a still-hotly contested, Fundamental Islamic country, where they hang people for simply being homosexual?

Was it to prove a political point, or is Obama and his Administration just that arrogantly and naively stupid?

And, why did Secretary of State Clinton take responsibility for the monumental screw-up in Libya, which cost four Americans their lives at the hands of Muslim Terrorists?

Consider how she intentionally timed her announcement to hit the eve of the Second Presidential Debate…

Is she protecting him in order to get Obama re-elected? Or, is she trying to expose him as inept and ineffective?

Another Democratic President, Harry S. Truman, famously said 

The Buck Stops Here!

Evidently, in Obama’s case, it doesn’t.

Debate Prep for Obama: “Everybody’s So Serious.”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and Republican Challenger Mitt Romney will be participating in a Townhall Debate tomorrow night.

Supposedly, Obama’s handlers are rigorously preparing the suuuper genius, so that he won’t get his clocked cleaned by Romney…again.

The Wall Street Journal has the story.

President Barack Obama is developing a bit of debate prep repetition, publicly at least.

Mr. Obama took a break Sunday from studying and engaging in mock sessions with his staff at a five-star waterfront resort here to deliver pizzas to one of his nearby campaign offices and make a couple phone calls to supporters, just as he did while preparing for his first debate in Henderson, Nev., two weeks ago.

“If you’re not on the phone take a break,” Mr. Obama said quietly as he entered a room where campaign staffers were making phone calls.

He then took a seat between two women and picked up the phone. “I’m gonna do my work,” he said, adding: “Everybody’s so serious!”

Mr. Obama arrived in Willliamsburg Saturday for three days of intense preparations for his second debate against Republican rival Mitt Romney. The stakes couldn’t be higher for Tuesday’s faceoff in Hempstead, N.Y., after his listless performance in the candidates’ first debate disappointed supporters, and cost him his comfortable edge over Mr. Romney in the polls.

The president began prep sessions Sunday at 10 a.m. and in between has strolled along the grounds of the resort, which is set along James River and features a golf course and a spa. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) was seen tooling around the resort on a golf cart, and Mr. Obama’s top aides are on hand to assist, including former White House communications director Anita Dunn who is playing the moderator of Tuesday’s debate, CNN anchor Candy Crowley.

Mr. Obama called two supporters from the campaign office while reporters and photographers were in the room. He thanked them for their help with his re-election effort and asked one woman to keep him in her prayers.

The president also gave a campaign staffer a lesson in using an old-fashioned phone.”Like this” he told her, pushing a button to show her how to dial. “We actually still have old style phones at the White House,” he said. “I don’t believe it,” the woman replied.

Everybody’s so serious?

Yeah, Scooter. The entire Democratic Hierarchy is a little bit anxious. You see, their meal ticket bombed bigger than Hiroshima in his first debate against Republican Challenger Mitt Romney.

In fact, Scooter, you acted like you did not even want to be there. As if, you don’t want the job anymore.

And that would be just peachy with the majority of Americans.

However, after being threatened by your handlers, and further decimated by your Vice-President’s idiotic performance in his debate, along with the daily revelations concerning how badly you’ve screwed up America’s Foreign Policy, culminating in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, by a bunch of Muslim Terrorists, you’ve decided that you’re going to “bring it” tomorrow night.

In fact, two of your most loyal henchman are promising that you’ll actually act like you want the job, this time:

“Nobody’s a harsher critic than the president is of himself and he viewed the [debate] tape,” Axelrod said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I think he’s going to make some adjustments on Tuesday.”

Axelrod would not detail any strategic changes that the president might be making, but said he’s “going to be aggressive in making the case for his view of where we should go as a country.”

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” senior Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs said the president was “disappointed” in his performance in Denver.

“He didn’t meet his own expectations,” he said. “He knew when he walked off that stage, and he also knew as he’s watched the tape of that debate, that he’s got to be more energetic. I think you’ll see somebody who is very passionate about the choice that our country faces, and putting that choice in front of voters.”

Expect the president to continue to attack Romney for his changing positions. In the two weeks since the first debate, the president’s campaign has tried to cast the GOP nominee as an extreme conservative trying to reinvent himself as a moderate in the run-up to the election.

Gibbs described Romney’s performance at the first debate as “magical and theatrical” because “for 90 minutes he walked away from a campaign he’d been running for more than six years previous to that.”

“We saw Governor Romney, sort of, serially walk away from his own proposals and certainly the president is going to be willing to challenge him on it as we saw the vice president challenge Paul Ryan,” Axelrod said.

So, the President’s going to attack Romney on his changing positions? 

Fine. That’s history, and very well known.

The question is: What’s Scooter going to do when Romney attacks his horrible performance as President?

Steven Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, said in a recent interview about Scooter:

“I’m afraid of the president,” said Wynn. “I have no idea what goofy idea, what crazy, anti-business program this administration will come up. I have no idea. And I have to tell you, Jon, that every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks.”

The hotel tycoon claimed that President Obama had attempted to put himself between him and his employees by resorting to class warfare, and said he cannot stand being the target of demagoguery from someone who doesn’t understand the economy or “hasn’t created any jobs.”

“The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees,” said Wynn. “By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money ‘billionaires and millionaires who don’t pay their share.’ I gave 120 percent of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years.”

He continued: “I can’t stand the idea of being demagogued, that is, put down by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn’t even understand how the economy works.”

So, even though Obama’s policies have hurt us in both the foreign and domestic area, he expects to brag on his failures, and be aggressive toward Romney in front of a live audience Tuesday night in a Townhall Format, where he will be answering the audience’s questions, and where Candy Crowley, the Moderator, will not be able to tag team Romney with him ?

Well, I hope he knows how to sing, dance, or tell some funny jokes…because he sure won’t be able to brag about his sterling record as president.

Unless he’s being sarcastic.

November 6, 2012: A Time for Discernment

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

As I publish this post, we are 25 days away from the most important Presidential Election of our Generation.  I tweeted yesterday,

26 days until Americans decide whether we return to the Shining City on the Hill or become the Proletariat. Pray for Americans’ discernment.

So, what is discernment?

Paula Marolewski, writing for ezinearticles.com, came up with a good description:

Hebrews 5:14 notes that discernment is the ability to recognize good and evil: “Solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” But you might say that recognizing good and evil is the end product of discernment. What about the actual process of discernment: how do we get to the point of recognizing good from evil? How do we gain that ability? What is involved in discernment? If we know the process, we will get the product.

The process begins with establishing a solid definition. The American Heritage Dictionary defines discernment as: “To detect or perceive with the eye or the mind; to perceive the distinctions of [which can be considered “to define”]; to discriminate.”

To detect. To define. To discriminate. Three “D’s” that define “discernment.”

Per Gallup, 78% of Americans proclaim Jesus Christ as their Savior. 92% profess a belief in God.

As we enter the home stretch to Election Day 2012, let’s look at the present Occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, through the three “D’s” Ms. Marolewski described.

1. To Detect – In 2007, Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) made a very telling comment, as CBN, explains:

Obama believes that religious conservatives need to accept the fact that America has evolved and government policies need to encompass all faiths because the country is no longer just a Christian nation.

“I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.”

In a speech last month to a church convention, Senator Obama told the audience, “Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.”

2. To Define – In an article written last March, David Barton, noted historian and the force behind wallbuilders.com, wrote an article titled “America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President”, in which he said,

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.

3.  To Discriminate – This is where the rubber meets the road.  Take a look at what happened at the coronation of Obama as the Democratic party’s Presidential Candidate.

Someone was not originally invited to the Democratic Party’s party, as Sally Quinn reported in the Washington Post:

Look what happened at the Democratic convention Wednesday. The 2008 platform had included the word God. Not this year. The original 2012 platform said, in part, “in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

Not a word about God. It didn’t take long for major outcries from both parties. Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan weighed in immediately.

“The (Democratic) party is veering further and further away into an extreme wing that Americans don’t recognize,” said Romney.

Connie Mackay, head of the Family Research Council’s political action committee, said, “It was easy to remove God from their platform given their support of issues such as abortion on demand and same-sex marriage go against what God’s word says on these issues.”

President Obama, seeing the gathering storm clouds insisted that God be restored. According to his deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, “They were a mistake and he said we’ve got to fix it. President Obama didn’t agree with the platform. He sought to change it.”

Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, an ordained United Methodist minister who chaired the platform drafting committee quickly rallied to reinstate the old language because, as he said, “our belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform.”

Not so fast. There were three voice votes on the language to put God back in the platform language, presented by Los Angeles Mayor and Democratic Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, which were not conclusive. There were many loud “No’s” and quite a few “boo’s” prompting right-wing media outlets and religious blogs to proclaim, “Democrats Boo God” and “God Booed by Democrats at Convention! Incredible!”

After a very ugly struggle language was changed to read “We need a government that. … gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

They actually booed God!!! Can you imagine?

George Washington said in his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796,

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to a political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim that tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.

The greatest President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan, said,

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

He also said,

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

I pray that God grants all Americans a spirit of Discernment, so that we will not forget that we are one nation under God on November 6th.

Amen.

BenghaziGate: Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

 New revelations are coming to light every day, concerning the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans at the hands of Muslim Terrorists.

The White House has thrown the entire U.S. Intelligence Community under the bus with their latest excuse:

The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said. Rhodes also pointed out that the officials were requesting more security in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. “In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST [Site Security Team] extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.”

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department’s reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

“We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met,” testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.

Issa released the unclassified cables containing those requests.

At Thursday night’s debate, Rep. Paul Ryan seemed to suggest that the requests were for Marines to go to Libya, which was not the case. The requests were to extend the tours of a Mobile Security Detachments [MSD] and the Site Security Team [SST] at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, which are teams of military personnel, not Marines, who can help protect an embassy and its personnel.

“What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security,” Ryan said. “There were requests for extra security. Those requests were not honored.”

In his prepared testimony, Nordstrom said that “because of Libyan political sensitivities, armed private security companies were not allowed to operate in Libya.” Instead, the Benghazi mission, through a British company, hired unarmed Libyan guards to work inside the compound and a local Libyan militia patrolled the exterior of the compound.

Ryan also erred when he criticized the State Department for assigning Marines to protect the ambassador in France but not Amb. Chris Stevens, who died in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

“Our ambassador in Paris has a marine detachment guarding him, shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi?,” Ryan said.

According to the U.S. Embassy Paris website, there is a Marine Security Guard Detachment in the embassy, but they are there primarily to protect classified information and are not part of the ambassador’s personal security detail.

Let’s go back to the Vice-Presidential Debate, where the folllowing statements were made by the one, the only Jar Jar Biden:

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that’s exactly what we were told —

MS. RADDATZ: By who?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat in the — from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. But —

MS. RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. That’s why I said, we will get to the bottom of this.

You know, usually when there’s a crisis, we pull together. We pull together as a nation. But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference — was holding a press conference. That’s not presidential leadership.

On October 3rd, Yahoo News (Reuters) ran the following story:

Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.

Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.

It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”

The existence of the early reports appears to raise fresh questions about the Obama administration’s public messaging about the attack as it seeks to fend off Republican charges that the White House failed to prevent a terrorist strike that left a U.S. ambassador and three others dead.

“What we’re seeing now is the picture starting to develop that it wasn’t a problem with the intelligence that was given, it’s what they did with the intelligence that they were given,” Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said in an interview on Tuesday.

“This picture is still a little fuzzy but it is starting to come into focus and it appears that there were, very early on, some indications that there was jihadist participation in the event,” he said.

The Obama administration has strongly defended its public accounts of what happened in Benghazi, and said its understanding has evolved as additional information came in.

“At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information, they updated Congress and the American people on it,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

Some officials said U.S. spy agencies tried to avoid drawing premature conclusions about how the violence began and who organized it.

“Unless you have very good reports that strongly suggest who was behind the attack for sure, it is prudent to be careful, because placing emphasis publicly, even tentatively, on any one group or groups too soon can lead everyone down the wrong path,” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

So, which is it, Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Company?

Were you kept in the dark by your Intelligence Agencies (which I highly doubt, since you sign their paychecks) or was telling the truth about the Muslim Terrorist attack in Benghazi so abhorrent to you that, instead of allowing it to sabotage your mission of support for the  burgeoning “Muslim Democracies” (a contradiction in terms) brought about by the barbaric violence of “Arab Spring”, you flat out-and-out lied to the American Public and the United Nations about the nature of the murder of Ambassador Stevens and the other 4 Americans at the hands of those bloody barbarians?

If, as I, and the majority of the rest of Americans suspect, it’s the later, you should be impeached…and ridden out of town on a rail.

Well, at least we can accomplish the “ridden out of town” part on November 6th.

The VP Debate: Paul Ryan Vs. Joe Biden AND Martha Raddatz

On By kingsjesterIn Politics10 Comments

As I write this Blog, the Vice-Presidential debate is wrapping up.

I admire the stew out of Paul Ryan.

He just spent 90 minutes debating both the Vice-President of the United States and the Moderator, ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who has known Barack Hussein Obama since her ex-husband, the current Chairman of the FCC, and young Scooter were classmates at Harvard Law School.

The scales were tipped from the get-go. Crazy Uncle Joe kept interrupting Congressman Ryan, in an obvious strategy to a) torque him off and get him off his game plan, and b) shout him down so that his arguments could not be heard.

The so-called Moderator, Ms. Raddatz, faithfully did her duty…to the Democratic Party. Every time Ryan would speak, she would interrupt him as well, asking infinitely more questions of him than she did of Jar Jar Biden.

While Ryan kept his cool, as well as his professionalism, Biden appeared to be badly in need of some Prozac, and at times during the debate came across as maniacally desperate.

Several noted Liberals were on Twitter during the debate posting disparaging remarks concerning Crazy Uncle Joe’s smirking and condescending attitude.

Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway: “Joe Biden’s laughing through talking about Iran sanctions?”

TIME’s Michael Scherer: “Not sure debate cameras have been light tested for Biden’s teeth. Best to watch with sunglasses.”

Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein: “Biden’s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?”

NBC’s David Gregory: “Biden’s smile is out of control.”

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith: “So did Biden practice laughing at Ryan???”

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Biden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.”

Former Eric Cantor staffer Brad Dayspring: “Joe Biden needs to realize this isn’t a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing. His laughter and condescending attitude is a disaster.”

Radio host Neal Boortz: “Looking like Biden’s gameplan is to laugh his way through this.”

Townhall.com’s Guy Benson: “Will Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?”

MSNBC’s S.E. Cupp: “Biden needs to laugh a little less through the Libya, Middle East, nuclear Iran segment.”

Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Ok. I have decided. I find the Biden smile slightly unsettling.”

PBS’ Jeff Greenfield: “Biden has always had a smile that at times is really, really inappropriate.”

Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard: “Can’t tell yet if Biden’s smirking, laughs, eye-rolling, head shaking, works for him or not against the oh-so-young looking eager Ryan.”

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: “Biden is at risk of having his laugh come across like Gore’s sighs. He should knock it off.”

The New York Times’ Ashley Parker: “Biden’s grin is Chesire Cat caliber.”

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean: “Biden laughing does not come off with the intended effect. It is actually hurting him. Looks very condescending.”

Movie critic Roger Ebert: “Joe! Stop smiling and laughing!”

Washington Times’ Emily Miller: “Biden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.”

Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin: “Biden’s laughing is losing the debate- obnoxious”

Comedy Central’s Indecision: “If this keeps up much longer, Joe Biden’s going to sprain his laugh muscles.”

And while Congressman Ryan was too much of a gentleman to do so, I wish he would have asked Ms. Raddatz last night, if she was a supposed to be a Broadcast Journalist or a Democratic Party Activist?

Foxnews.com summarizes the debate for us:

Vice President Biden and Paul Ryan came ready to rumble. And it showed.

The dueling running mates turned the lone vice presidential debate into an uncharacteristically feisty affair Thursday night, scrapping over everything from the economy to Libya to taxes.

The candidates interrupted each other. They talked over each other. Biden chuckled through many of Ryan’s responses. Ryan claimed his opponent was simply under “duress.”

The 90-minute session was a turnaround from last week’s opening presidential debate, a policy-focused bout in which President Obama was panned for his lackluster performance. On stage Thursday night in Kentucky, both vice presidential contenders aggressively challenged each other and came armed with a stack of talking points.

Ryan accused Obama of “projecting weakness” with his foreign policy, particularly in his response to the terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. At home, he accused the administration of presiding over a shoddy recovery.

“This is not what a real recovery looks like,” he said.

Biden went after the Romney/Ryan ticket with a directness that Obama did not a week ago in Denver. Notably, he hammered Romney over his secretly videotaped comment in which he said he doesn’t have to worry about the “47 percent” of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes.

“These people are my mom and dad, the people I grew up with, my neighbors,” Biden said, adding he’s “had it up to here” with those kinds of comments.

Ryan shot back, in reference to Biden’s tendency to make gaffes: “As the vice president very well knows … sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”

“But I always say what I mean,” Biden responded. “And so does Romney.”

Ryan opened the vice presidential debate with tough criticism of the Obama administration over its handling of the Libya terror attack.

“What we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,” Ryan said.

With the moderator, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, opening the debate with a question about the Libya strike, which happened a month ago Thursday, Ryan criticized the administration for waiting more than a week after the strike to call it a coordinated terror attack.

“This is becoming more troubling by the day. They first blamed the YouTube video. Now they’re trying to blame the Romney/Ryan ticket for making this an issue,” he said. Ryan was referring to a claim by an Obama aide earlier Thursday that the only reason the attack had entered the political debate was because of Romney’s criticism – a claim Romney rejected.

Biden was quick to retort: “With all due respect, that’s just a bunch of malarkey,” he said, on the debate stage in Kentucky.

“This talk about this weakness, I don’t understand what my friend’s talking about,” he said.

Biden also criticized Romney for making a “political statement”on the night of the attack, a reference to Romney’s criticism of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo’s early response to protests there.

The face-off Thursday night was taking on outsized importance for a vice presidential debate.

After Obama’s debate performance last week, the pressure was on Biden to recapture the momentum – while equally on Ryan to prevent the Obama ticket from blunting Romney’s surge.

In a matter of days, Romney has picked up steam in both battleground and national polls. The latest Fox News national poll of likely voters showed Romney edging Obama, 46 percent to 45 percent.

Other polls show Romney with more of a lead.

Judging from what I saw and heard last night, I don’t think that last night’s cranky old man performance by Crazy Uncle Joe will make a bit of difference.

One last thought:

The spin from the Democrats immediately after the debate was that Joe is “A Happy Warrior”.  So is aged Professional Wrestler “Hacksaw” Jim Duggan. But, I don’t want him to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, either.

VP Wars: Paul “Skywalker” Ryan Vs. “Jar Jar” Biden

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

…with a representative from “Emperor Obama Palpatine” moderating.

A long, long time ago…in a law school far, far away…

It seems that — with her jobs as an NPR correspondent and ABC TV journalist, and her marriages to Ben Bradlee, Jr. (with whom she has a daughter); FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski (with whom she has a son); and now an NPR journalist — she is very much a creature of the Washington establishment.

Maybe she will be fair to Paul Ryan. We will see. Given her past and connections, however, one cannot help suspecting where her sympathies lie — and it’s difficult to imagine her doing anything that would upset the NY-DC liberal elite cocktail circuit. I’d love to be wrong on that.President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.

After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.

Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, a liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation.

Genachowski — called “Jay” at the time of his wedding, sources told TheDC — and Raddatz would go on to have a son together before their divorce in 1997. They have both since remarried to other people.

A source who attended the 1991 wedding told The DC that Obama was also a guest there, and remembered that a man by the name of “Barry Obama” was among the guests dancing at the reception. (RELATED: Marital, personal ties link Obama administration to Commission on Presidential Debates)

…Carol Platt Liebau, a political commentator who was a Harvard Law Review colleague of Genachowski and Obama, wrote that “despite being a year below both men on the Review and not close personal friends with either of them,” she remembered Genachowski and Raddatz’s relationship as “quite public” during those days, and that “Raddatz visited Boston frequently.”

Genachowski’s friendship with Obama would continue through the campaign trail in 2008 and into the White House: He aggressively fundraised for Obama in 2008 as a campaign bundler, and served on the presidential transition team before winning his appointment to chair the FCC.

Tonight is the Vice-Presidential Debate.  By all rights, this “wrestling match” should be about as even as Jerry “The King” Lawler vs. Andy Kaufman was.

In fact, per weeklystandard.com:

Vice President Joe Biden has not sat down for a nationally televised interview in 5 months. The last big TV interview Biden did was on NBC’s Meet the Press, when he jumped the gun and came out in favor of gay marriage before President Obama was able to publicly shift his position. Days later, Obama did his own nationally televised interview and expressed his own support for that initiative.

Biden’s Meet the Press interview aired Sunday, May 6, 2012.

In fact, it is not just TV Biden has been avoiding. He’s done only one print interview since Paul Ryan joined Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket back in August.

“From all we can find, Joe Biden has done one interview since Paul Ryan joined the ticket August 11. One. And it was with John Heilemann for New York magazine. Over that period, Paul Ryan has done 197 interviews, 153 of those on TV (29 National & 124 local/regional). The rest print or radio,” says an aide at Mitt Romney’s campaign headquarters.

A Republican source explains why Biden is being kept away from the press.

“Joe Biden gets used by the Obama Campaign like Bernie from ‘Weekend at Bernie’s,'” says the Republican source. “They drag him out to a battleground state, prop him up on a podium in front of a teleprompter, pose him for photos with locals, and then quickly roll him back to Air Force 2 before reporters have a chance to ask him questions. They want Biden to be seen, but not heard in any interviews because they’re afraid he might embarrass the president with another one of his hilarious gaffes.”

Even President Obama has sat for interviews during this time. Most notably, Obama joined the ladies of The View for a daytime interview when he was in New York City recently for the United Nations General Assembly.

According to Paul Ryan, we shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover, or a politician by his gaffes:

GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan says he’s ready for Joe Biden to come at him like a “cannonball” in their debate later this week.

“Because they had such a bad debate, Joe Biden is just going to come flying at us,” Ryan told radio host Frank Beckmann on WJR in Detroit. “It seems pretty clear that their new strategy is just to call us liars, to descend into a mud pit.”

Biden and Ryan will meet in their only debate on Thursday at Centre College in Danville, Ky. ABC’s Martha Raddatz will moderate the event, which will feature questions on both domestic and foreign policy.

Ryan has been getting ready for the debate with the help of Ted Olson, a former solicitor general for President George W. Bush. Biden’s debate partner has been Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee that Ryan leads. CNN reported Obama adviser David Axelrod also sat in on some of the pre-debate sessions.

In the radio interview, Ryan called Biden a “gifted speaker” and “proven debater.”

Polls by Gallup and Pew found that voters believe Romney did better than Obama in their first debate last week. Ryan said today that his running mate “raised the bar quite high” for his own performance on Thursday.

I think Ryan will do well. This is an administration in the death throes of circling down the porcelain receptacle.

All the future Vice-President has to do is bring his light saber of truth, facts, and figures, and the “gaffemeister”, “Jar Jar” Biden, will not be able to formulate any sort of logical counter-attack.

Hopefully, just as in “Star Wars 6: Return of the Jedi”, a “Skywalker” will be victorious.

Obama Campaign’s Bird-Brained Idea Backfires

On By kingsjesterIn Entertainment, Politics1 Comment

…and the feathers are flying.

First, let’s hear from the rather large fowl in question:

Big Bird, it seems, isn’t thrilled about his cameo in the presidential race.

The folks at Sesame Street are asking the Obama campaign to pull down a TV ad released Tuesday that mocks Mitt Romney for vowing to yank the subsidy to PBS.

At the presidential debate in Denver last week, Mr. Romney said he would end the subsidy in view of the nation’s fiscal troubles.

“I love Big Bird,” the Republican challenger said “… But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”

Up went an ad by team Obama called “Big Bird’’ that suggests Mr. Romney is targeting children’s programming rather than legitimate threats to people’s economic interests.

The ad shows images of Bernie Madoff and others implicated in various financial and corporate scandals. A narrator then intones: “And the evil genius who towered over them?”

A silhouette of Big Bird flashes on screen.

“Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about, it’s Sesame Street,” the narrator said.

The ad is airing on national cable and broadcast TV, in time slots devoted to comedy shows, the Obama campaign said.

Sesame Street isn’t amused. Sesame Workshop, a nonprofit educational organization that produces and owns the show, issued a statement Tuesday saying “we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.”

A blog post on the Sesame Workshop website said that “Sesame Street would not exist were it not for PBS and its local stations, which is the distribution system for Big Bird and friends to reach all children across the United States, particularly the low income children who need us most.”

Of course, everyone has an opinion on this issue. No one wants to be seen as being chicken:

From Obama for America: 

Big. Yellow. Loved by kids everywhere. And only one candidate has the courage to go after him. Today, Obama for America is out with a new TV spot because, while President Obama passed historic Wall Street reform to hold big banks accountable and give consumers tools to make informed decisions for themselves, his opponent, Mitt Romney, has shown true conviction by vowing to take down Big Bird and keep Sesame Street under control.

From Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein:

Watching the “Big Bird” ad… I couldn’t help but think back to this part of Obama’s February 2007 speech in Springfield, Ill. when he launched his first campaign for president: “What’s stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics — the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.”

And Chuck Todd notes on MSNBC:

Serious question though: We’re six days later. The Obama campaign, on their own, seems to be looking back at the debate, not yet figuring out how to turn the page from the debate. Maybe it’s understandable given what we’re seeing given the bounce in the polls, and that it’s part of the entire campaign conversation. But of course they’re the ones running these look-back-at-the-debate ads. And you have to ask yourself, every time they bring up the debate, is that good for Obama or is that good for Romney?

Finally, the Republican Candidate, himself, got in a zinger yesterday:

Mitt Romney, speaking to a crowd of about 1,200 on a farm here in Van Meter, Iowa, criticized President Obama’s recent focus on Big Bird on the campaign trail.

“You have to scratch your head when the president spends the last week talking about saving Big Bird,” he said. “I actually think we need to have a president who talks about saving the American people and saving good jobs.”

But, Mitt…Obama can’t explain how his domestic policies have brought us to this point. That would be claiming responsibility for his own mistakes. Didn’t you know…after 4 years…it’s still Booooosh’s fault?

Anyway, kiddies, don’t feel sorry for the Bird. He aint exactly hurtin’ for money:

The 2011 IRS 990 form for Sesame Workshop (formerly the Children’s Television Workshop), the producers of Sesame Street, revealed that they received $7,968,918 in government grants last year. That sounds like a hefty amount, but the 990 also revealed that Sesame Workshop received $44,984,003 in royalties last year, which includes sales of Sesame Street brand merchandise like “Tickle Me Elmo” dolls. That means Big Bird made five times in merchandise sales than what he received in government grants.

An even closer look at Sesame Workshop’s finances shows the government funding Romney wants to cut is only a small part of their budget and may not be necessary at all. In 2011, Sesame Workshop received $31,555,192 in grants and donations last year apart from the U.S. government. They also raised over $2 million in additional funds from various fundraising events. In all, Sesame Workshop raised almost $34 million in private funds for Sesame Street, aside from government grants.

In addition, Sesame Workshop brought in almost $30 million in revenue from content distribution and media production. In total, Sesame Workshop brought in over $122 million in revenue, not including government grants. On their website, Sesame Workshop claims corporate, foundation, and government support make up 35% of their budget. Realistically, however, government funding only accounts for just over 6% of their budget.

Sesame Workshop has faced drops in revenue in recent years and seems to have weathered it. Recent tax returns reveal a drop of 3% to 5% in budgets in recent years, so a loss of government funding would certainly not mean the end of Big Bird. In 2009, they laid off 20% of their workforce in a cost-cutting move, and still survived. However, salaries still make up a large part of their budget. In 2011, they paid out over $54 million in salaries, a high percentage of their budget for a non-profit.

And, if he needs to, he can always do commercials.

Big Bird: Future Spokesperson for Church’s Fried Chicken.

Romney: “Hope is Not a Strategy.”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Yesterday, an American Leader gave an excellent, commanding speech on his vision for what our Foreign Policy should be.

And, it sure wasn’t Scooter.

Reuters.com summarizes the speech:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivered a sweeping critique on Monday of President Barack Obama’s handling of threats in the Middle East, saying Obama’s lack of leadership had made the volatile region more dangerous.

In what his campaign called a major foreign policy address, Romney called for a more assertive use of American influence in the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Romney, speaking before the white-uniformed cadets at Virginia Military Institute, questioned Obama’s handling of the episode in Libya last month in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed after the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under militant attack.

The former Massachusetts governor also accused Obama of failing to use U.S. diplomacy to shape events in Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Russia and elsewhere.

“The president is fond of saying that, ‘The tide of war is receding,'” Romney said. “And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today … it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office.”

Romney’s speech was short on specifics, but in broad terms he laid out his national security priorities before the second of his three debates with Obama, which will be at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York on October 16 and will include discussion of foreign policy.

Romney’s aim on Monday was to portray himself as having the presidential stature needed for the world stage. He had a similar goal during a trip overseas in July, but that was marred by a series of missteps, including his inadvertent insult of the organizers of the London Olympics.

In calling for a more forceful foreign policy, Romney indicated that he would not rush into armed conflict.

But he accused Obama of a hasty troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying hard-fought gains there are being eroded by rising violence and a resurgent al Qaeda. Obama considers his withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq the fulfillment of a 2008 campaign promise, sought by Americans weary of war.

Romney also said he might not be so quick to pull troops out of the unpopular war in Afghanistan. Obama has pledged to end the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan by the end of 2014 as part of NATO’s plan to hand over security responsibility to Afghan forces.

Romney said he would pursue a transition to Afghan security forces by that time but would evaluate conditions there before making a final decision to pull out.

Obama was right to order the mission that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden last year, Romney said, but he charged that other elements of the president’s strategy for the region were weak or ill-advised. Romney pointed to the extensive U.S. reliance on attacks by drone aircraft as “no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.”

Romney, who accused Obama of pursuing a strategy of “passivity” rather than partnership with U.S. allies, is running just behind or even with his Democratic rival in most opinion polls, which have gotten closer since Romney did well in their first debate last week.

Our Brightest and Best, who have to enforce the President’s Foreign Policy know, overwhelmingly, whom they want to be the 45th President of the United States. 

Here’s a newsflash: Per militarytimes.com, again, it ain’t Scooter.

The 3,100 respondents — roughly two-thirds active-duty and one-third reserve component members — are about 80 percent white and 91 percent male. Forty percent are in paygrades E-5 through E-8, while more than 35 percent are in paygrades O-3 through O-5.

Almost 80 percent of respondents have a college degree — including 27 percent with a graduate degree and more than 11 percent with a post-graduate degree — while an additional 18.5 percent have some college under their belts.

And they are battle-hardened; almost 29 percent have spent more than two cumulative years deployed since 9/11, while a similar percentage has spent one to two cumulative years deployed.

The Military Times poll shows that Republicans continue to enjoy overwhelming support among the military’s professional ranks.

For an example of the cockeyed Foreign Policy known as Smart Power!, check this out:

Yesterday, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez “won” reelection. Today, the White House is congratulating Venezuela on that outcome.

From the pool report, which details a gaggle held by White House spokesman Jay Carney:

-Carney said US congratulates Venezuelan people on its election, while noting the US has its differences with Chavez.

President Obama is on his way to tour Cesar E. Chavez National Monument in California.

UPDATE: From the White House transcript of the gaggle:

Q Speaking of foreign policy, can you react to the election results in Venezuela?

MR. CARNEY: The Venezuelan National Elections Commission has declared that President Hugo Chavez won reelection, I believe roughly 54 to 45 percent, with 90 percent reporting. We congratulate the Venezuelan people on the high level of participation, as well as on what was a relatively peaceful election process. I would note the challenger has conceded the race.

Re-electing the despot, Hugo Chavez, signals a strong “Democracy”?

Mr. President, I do not think that you know what that word means.

And, as far as your inept and chaotic Foreign Policy is concerned, therein lies the problem.

Will It Be “Morning in America”, Again?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Obama’s minion “Baghdad Bob” Gibbs tried to attack the highly successful Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, concerning his opinion concerning last week’s suspicious Unemployment Rate.

Foxnews.com has the story:

Obama senior campaign adviser Robert Gibbs on Sunday criticized former General Electric executive Jack Welch for suggesting the Obama campaign has influenced or manipulated the most recent U.S. unemployment numbers.

“The notion, quite frankly, that somebody as well respected as Jack Welch would go on television and single-handedly embarrass himself for the entire day of Friday by saying somehow that these statistics are made up … it’s incredibly dangerous,” Gibbs said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Conservatives and others suggested Friday, after the Labor Department report showed the September unemployment rate had dipped to 7.8 percent, that the number, the lowest since President Obama took office, might have been an outlier or based on incorrect data and assumptions.

Welch appeared to take the idea a step further Friday, two days after an unspectacular debate performance by President Obama, when he tweeted: “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything . . . can’t debate so change numbers.”

Welch appeared later on Fox News and said he was not sure how the federal government arrived at the numbers, but suggested the report should make officials look at measurements used.

“I don’t know what the right numbers are,” the 76-year-old Welch said. “But I’ll tell you these numbers don’t smell right when you think about where the economy is right now.”

He argued in his defense that 25 of the country’s top economists predicted the August unemployment rate of 8.1 percent would remain the same this month or drop to 8.1 percent.

“That’s why I tweeted,” Welch said.

The other Labor Department numbers being questioned by Welch and others are those on jobs added to the economy.

As I’ve gathered by  communicating with other Americans over the weekend, I can assure you:

No one is buying the 7.8% Unemployment Rate.

In fact, it does not appear to have made a bit of difference.

Per colorado.edu:

An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes — down five votes from their initial prediction — and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

While many election forecast models are based on the popular vote, the model developed by Bickers and Berry is based on the Electoral College and is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. They included economic data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Their original prediction model was one of 13 published in August in PS: Political Science & Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association. The journal has published collections of presidential election models every four years since 1996, but this year the models showed the widest split in outcomes, Berry said. Five predicted an Obama win, five forecast a Romney win, and three rated the 2012 race as a toss-up.

The Bickers and Berry model includes both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors. The new analysis includes unemployment rates from August rather than May, and changes in per capita income from the end of June rather than March. It is the last update they will release before the election.

Corroborating this report:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided.

And, finally, Jim Geraghty, in an Op Ed for the New York Daily News writes

So the choice before Americans is a rerun of the gridlock of the past two years, or something different — a Republican-controlled Washington, but with a President Romney whose record, demeanor and style is quite different from that of George W. Bush.

None of this means that the task remaining before Romney isn’t difficult. But for most of this general election, the race featured an incumbent and a poorly-defined caricature.

The debates demonstrated that no one can make the case for a candidate better than the candidate himself — not the SuperPACs, not the national party, not the surrogates nor the running mate. Only Romney himself could look the voters in the eye and demonstrate that he had the knowledge, the composure, the deftness and the concern they wanted to see. Romney’s message was simple but resonant — if we can get more Americans in jobs, we’ll see dramatic improvement in our budgetary, debt and social conditions.

If, by Nov. 6, Americans conclude they believe Romney can deliver on that vision, then the conventional wisdom of just a few weeks ago may prove spectacularly wrong. Romney may not just win, he may win handily.

Make it so, Americans.

 Last Thursday, after being pumped up by Mitt’s stellar debate performance, I Tweeted:

It may not be Morning in America again yet, but, after last night, we can see the first rays of sunlight on the horizon.

Judging for the reaction of the Obama Administration, their sycophants in the Main Stream Media, and their paid and unpaid Internet “pundits”,  they’re are all afraid of the light of day.

Hmmm. Perhaps they’re all vampires.

But…that’s a whole ‘nother Blog.