Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
“Anytime a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who were serving our country get killed, we have to figure out what happened and fix it,” Obama said in a taped interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe.
“But,” he added, “I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.”
That is simply a lie. It is a documented lie. We now know that the Obama administration was lying from the very beginning in characterizing as a “spontaneous act” motivated by a “video” was a complete fabrication of the facts. And Obama has absolutely refused to come clean in a strategy that realizes that the American people would vote him out if they knew the truth.
It is time to come clean so the American people can know whether their president is an adequate commander-in-chief or whether we need to urgently replace him with somebody who can get the job done:
The Benghazi debacle has three parts: how we neglected security while al-Qaeda was building a presence in Libya; whether the administration tried to mislead the public as to the nature of the attack; and now whether the administration denied pleas for help from operatives on the ground at the consulate.
Now, presumably at the behest of Gen. David Petraeus — who has been remarkably tight-lipped and not defended his agency against White House accusations that senior officials’ misstatements were the fault of the CIA — the CIA threw the hot potato right back in the politicians’ laps.
“We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood told Fox News. “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.”
So how about it, Mr. President — who called off a rescue and why? President Obama, a little more than a week before the election, won’t tell Americans what happened. Well, why should he — the press doesn’t hound him, the liberal elite still rushes to his defense, and his White House attack dogs bark “Politics!” whenever legitimate questions are asked.
Meanwhile, the father of slain SEAL Tyrone Woods is furious with the administration, demanding to know why his son wasn’t saved when “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.’”
Did Defense Secretary Leon Panetta take it upon himself to call off any rescue effort? (He told the press on Thursday that the Pentagon lacked clear information as to what was going on.) Where was the president and did he or some other official take it upon himself to deny help to the trapped Americans?
This is an appalling tale of, at the very least, gross incompetency and utter lack of transparency. The media, including those who continue to carry Obama’s political water, should be demanding Obama answer questions, before the election.
As for Mitt Romney, he’s not exactly been a profile in courage on this one. He, too, should be demanding answers and telling voters how he would conduct himself under similar circumstances. Sure, he got burned last time when the press freaked out over his remarks on the Cairo Embassy assault. But he’s going to face far worse as president if elected, so maybe it is time he, too, started pressuring the president to give some answers. That is what leaders do — speak up even when it is not easy.
The Navy needs more ships, Mitt Romney said in last Monday’s debate. It has fewer now than in 1916.
President Barack Obama pounced. “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed,” he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them … ”
In the spin room, some journalists laughed and applauded. Liberals imagine themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to conservatives. They love to put them down.
But “sarcasm and condescension only work if the speaker’s presumption of lofty superior knowledge is borne out by his command of actual facts,” said Pastor Donald Sensing, a retired Army colonel.
Mr. Obama was wrong on both the thrust of his argument, and on the examples he used. Aircraft carriers need smaller ships to protect them, lest they be sunk. The military has many more bayonets now than in 1916. Marines think so highly of them they’ve designed a new one, modeled on the famous KA-BAR fighting knife. Special Forces soldiers on horseback were critical to ousting the Taliban.
The facts matter little to liberals. Their assumption of intellectual superiority isn’t based on actual knowledge. Journalists declared the president the winner of the debate.
But facts and civility do matter to most Americans. A CBS panel of undecided voters in Ohio chose Mr. Romney, 6-2. A video of the dismay of CBS “This Morning” co-host Norah O’Donnell when this was reported is zipping across the Internet.
The Navy and shipbuilding are very important in southeast Virginia. With his wisecrack, the president may have kissed the state goodbye.
It isn’t just in Virginia where Mr. Obama’s fortunes are plummeting. When Missouri isn’t a swing state, but Minnesota is, Democrats are in big trouble. No challenger who’s cracked 50 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll has ever lost. Mr. Romney is polling better at this point in the campaign than did every victorious challenger from 1968 on.
It’s hard to see how the president can mount a comeback. His strategy of demonizing Mitt Romney collapsed when Americans saw in the first debate the GOP candidate has neither horns nor hooves. In an NBC/WSJ poll Monday, 62 percent of respondents said they want “significant change” from Mr. Obama’s policies, but he’s offered little in the way of an agenda for a second term. Instead he makes excuses, and ever more petty attacks. Voters now think Mr. Romney is just as “likeable” as Mr. Obama.
So the question may not be whether Mr. Romney will win, but by how much. When this dawns on Ms. O’Donnell, the video will be priceless.
Our politics are now so polarized I doubt that any candidate in either party — not even JFK or Ronald Reagan — could win much more than 52 percent of the popular vote. But law professor and blogger Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) thinks the odds of a preference cascade are rising.
Economist Timur Kuran coined the term to explain why totalitarian regimes usually collapse suddenly. A preference cascade happens when people discover millions of others share their doubts about the Great Leader. Massive media bias has made the term applicable here, Mr. Reynolds said. The Barack Obama that Americans saw in the debates bears little resemblance to the heroic figure portrayed by the news media.
The crowds have been enormous at Romney/Ryan events this past week. If this is the start of a preference cascade, many Democrats may drown in the undertow. The Obama campaign has vacuumed up so much Democratic money there’s little left for other candidates.
In yet another fund-raising appeal on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he and Michelle would be fine if he loses. If the president’s friends are indeed buying him a $35 million mansion in Hawaii, as Chicago blogger Kevin Dujan (Hillbuzz) claims, that’s certainly true. But public employee unions, crony capitalists and others who feed at the public trough have reason to panic.
Underlings must wonder if there will be legal consequences for the laws they’ve broken. I predict an orgy of document shredding Nov. 7.
The biggest losers could be “mainstream” journalists. Their blatant bias has dropped trust in the news media to an all-time low. It’ll plunge further if more evidence of collusion with the administration emerges. Nobody trusts a liar. There will be bankruptcies.
//
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.
You first need to understand what has been going on: we have seen a GIANT collapse of Obama to the tune of a well-into-the-double-digits implosion of Obama’s reelection versus just a few weeks ago. One question that emerges is was Obama’s pathetic debate performance alone really that damning of him as a leader? Was it because Obama had spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to build a despicable straw man caricature of Mitt Romney that Romney obliterated in that debate? Is it that the American people now largely realize they can no longer trust Obama as his demagogic hate ads were confronted by the reality that Mitt Romney is NOT the bogeyman that Obama so dishonestly claimed? Or was it that Obama never really had the kind of lead that the media assured us over and over again that Obama had – and that it was merely the propaganda of the mainstream media propping Obama up all along?
The mainstream media polls that have had – and in a few cases still have – Obama up have relied on models that counted on a +8 Democrat turnout for Obama; which is stunning given that Obama only had a +4 Democrat turnout in that 2008 election in which absolutely everything turned Obama’s way. Those models are simply downright false given what Gallup just found:
Gallup quietly published some stunning data this morning. Based on surveys conducted from October 1 through 24, Gallup finds that 36% of likely voters call themselves Republicans, compared with 35% who are Democrats. If leaners are included, the GOP advantage is 49%/46%.
How important is that? In 2008 the Democrats had a ten-point party ID advantage, 12 with leaners. If the data released today correctly reflect the voting population this year, you can throw away all of those polls that are D +9, D +7–or, for that matter, D +1. Substantially all polls show Mitt Romney with a wide lead over Barack Obama among independents. So if today’s party ID data are correct, not only will the presidential election not be close, but the Republicans will do better than currently expected in the Senate and House, too.
PolitiChicks.tv has just received confirmation that a voter in Las Vegas tried voting for Governor Mitt Romney but the machine automatically checked “Obama” multiple times instead.
Our source said:
“Yesterday I went to an early voting site at Centennial Center in Las Vegas, NV. I went with my 19 year old son who was a first-time voter. I went to an open machine and inserted my card. When the selections came up, all of the candidate pairings were listed and I touched the box for Romney/Ryan. The checkmark appeared next to President Obama’s name. I touched the check mark removing it and touched the box next to Romney’s name again. Again, the checkmark appeared next to Obama. I motioned for an observer to come over and showed him. I touched the mark next to Obama, removing it and again touched Romney’s name. The checkmark appeared next to Obama. At this point, the gentleman next to me was looking over my partition to see. I touched the checkmark, again removing it from Obama’s name and selected Romney. The checkmark appeared next to Romney. I double-checked the paper ballot to ensure that Romney was indeed selected and cast my ballot. I didn’t make a fuss but have called our local election department only to get recordings. I also wrote an email to the Clark County Election Department about the incident. My son said that he had no issues casting his ballot.”
I called the Las Vegas GOP office but haven’t gotten a response from anyone about this yet.
Please folks, check and re-check your ballots before turning them in. A similar case was reported earlier today in North Carolina.
The only chance Obama has at this point is massive voter fraud. You just can’t overcome the following disadvantages: the other party is larger than your party AND has more enthusiasm to get out and actually vote; plus independent voters support the other candidate by nineteen points more than they support you. Democrats only “hope and change” is to cheat and to cheat massively.
[Update, 10/31/12]: Just to make it official, Obama is cheating in Ohio, too:
MARION — Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem.
Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up.
It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded.
“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.
Stevens said she alerted Jackie Smith, a board of elections member who was present. Smith declined to comment, but Stevens says she mentioned that the machine had been having problems all day.
Obviously, I don’t know what’s going to happen in eight days. But I feel a heck of a lot better for the same reasons that a lot of Democrats are feeling a heck of a lot worse:
A massive and historic storm is barreling towards the beltway this weekend. The entire DC-NYC axis, headquarters of the left media complex, will suffer the effects of three storm-fronts, converging at the same time. Evacuations may be ordered, but it is likely too late. No, I’m not talking about Hurricane Sandy. The storm I mean is the growing realization that Obama is on the cusp of losing the election. But, with just a little over a week to go, it may be too late to hit the panic button.
Democrats and the media have labored under several false assumptions the entire campaign. They wove these into a narrative that Obama’s reelection was inevitable. It may have helped them sleep at night, but it caused them to miss the teutonic plates shifting beneath the election. This weekend three storm-fronts started converging that will sweep their assumptions away. Let’s look at each in turn.
The first storm-front is the expanding campaign battleground. I’ve long noted that which states become competitive towards the end of the race can tell you a lot about the state of the campaign. In 2008, when “red” states like Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Montana suddenly became competitive, it was a clear sign that Obama had a huge momentum advantage. This year, however, it is “blue” states becoming competitive. In the final week, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota are emerging as new battleground states. If Romney’s position is improving in states like these, its a good sign that he slated to win states like Florida, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.
Even if Obama still has the edge in these newly competitive states, the fact that the campaign will have to spend resources to shore them up says a lot about the campaign’s weak position.
The second storm-front is the increased convergence of the polls in the direction of Romney. Most national tracking polls show Romney with a lead, with two, Rasmussen and Gallup, showing him over the important 50% threshold. For a week or so, Democrats consoled themselves that Obama led in state-level polling. Most of those polls were built on samples that assumed Democrats would match or exceed the turnout advantage they enjoyed in 2008. This was always something of a fantasy, but now even this assumption can’t prop up Obama. Virtually every state poll over the last week has shown consistent movement towards Romney. Moreover, virtually every state poll shows Obama stuck below the 50% level of support.
For a variety of reasons, it is very difficult for an incumbent to get back above 50% once they have fallen below it for a considerable period of time. North Carolina, Florida, Colorado and Virginia are likely now out of reach for Obama. Ohio is definitely moving towards Romney.
Romney’s poll movement isn’t just on the overall head-to-head match up, though. In almost every poll he now has a substantial lead on who would better handle the economy. He has a significant lead on who can best tackle federal spending and the deficit. He is also starting to lead on the softer questions like “understands my problems”, is a “strong leader” and “can get things done. This suggests a major preference cascade toward the challenger.
Most important, though, is the clear lead Romney has with Independents. In 2008, Obama won independents by 8 points. This year, Romney leads among Independents in virtually every national or state poll, often by double-digits. There is simply no path for Obama to win reelection if he loses Independents by that kind of margin.
The third, most significant storm-front descending on Democrats is the change in the electorate. In 2008, the Democrats rode an historic wave from a near perfect political storm to their largest turnout advantage in decades. In the final vote, Democrats edged Republicans by 7 points, making the election D+7. New research from Rasmussen and Gallup, however, show that, not only is that advantage gone, but Republicans now have the edge. Both surveys report, for the first time in modern history, that more likely voters identify as Republicans than Democrats. Considering that every poll has found GOP voters more enthusiastic about voting then Democrats, this edge may be decisive. Keep in mind that every poll is built on the assumption that Democrats will have a turnout edge next week. If they don’t have the edge or if the GOP has an advantage? Well, this could be a blowout. And, a lot of down-ballot Dems will be swept under as well.
When the history of Obama’s failed reelection campaign is written, it will be noted that Obama’s campaign made a critical strategic blunder. Their plan was to disqualify Romney at the outset, rather than other up a compelling agenda for a second term. They essentially decided to run a challenger’s race, dragging down the opponent in a wave of negative ads. When Romney took the stage at the first debate in Denver, he didn’t just defeat Obama, he defeated Obama’s entire campaign plan. The Romney on the stage didn’t match the caricature painted by Obama and the media. It gave him an opening which he seized.
Obama responded by ratcheting up negative attacks and getting engulfed in small-bore issues issues relevant to mere slivers of the voting base. Big Bird. Binders. Bayonets. In a time of economic uncertainty and looming fiscal crisis, the issues Obama focused on were ridiculous. They were patently unserious. But, these are serious times.
So, going into the final week, Romney looks like a President on the road to reelection, while Obama looks like a challenger who knows he’s about to lose. While the “Gang of 500” media mavens hunker down for Hurricane Sandy, left with their own thoughts after the inevitable power outages, and away from cocooning lefty reassurances from people like Nate Silver, they will have this realization too. Campaign 2012 is just about over. And so, too, is Obama.
You rampage, you giant, pissed-off symbol of the Republican Party.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. That in effect is the theme of the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel’s Friday editorial endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. “When President Obama came into office in 2009, the economy was in freefall and though untested, he inspired us with promise of hope and change. Now, four years later, we have little reason to believe he can turn things around,” said the Sentinel.
“… Rather than articulate a compelling vision for growth,” continued the Sentinel, “the president falls back on the tired talking point of increasing taxes for the wealthy … it’s hard to see how raising taxes is going to kick start jobs in the private sector.”
Having admitted its mistake (the Sentinel endorsed Obama in 2008), the newspaper said, “We believe Romney will help this nation find the political will to address the challenges with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid … The greatest threat to our national defense is not the size of our military, but the ever-escalating size of our national debt. We must get government spending under control, across the board … We believe the best chance to get America back working again is to elect Mitt Romney. That’s why we endorse him for president.”
There is nothing like a near-death experience to help focus the mind.
The excuse making by the president and his supporters is at long last falling flat: They can’t explain away nearly 6 trillion dollars added to the nation’s debt; they can’t explain away the fiscal cliff approaching us this January; they can’t explain away 23 million chronically unemployed Americans; they can’t explain away the expansion of government power at the expense of the individual – personified by ObamaCare’s dictatorial “individual mandate”; they can’t explain away a collapsing economy barely held together by Federal Reserve bailouts and quantitative easing; they can’t explain away a foreign policy that blames an obscure YouTube video for inspiring the murder of Americans in Libya than admit Al-Qaeda terrorists attacked America on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11; they can’t explain away the deaths of a U.S border patrol agent and hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens resulting from their sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels and Central American gangs.
Less than two weeks before Americans head to the polls, the media’s blind support for the president is dissolving. It’s crunch time, and there are no excuses left for defending the indefensible – that Barack Obama should remain President of the United States.
The paper, the largest in Iowa, wrote that the top priorities in the election must be reviving the economy, spurring job growth and moving toward a balanced budget and reducing the deficit.
“Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate,” the paper wrote, citing Romney’s achievements as Massachusetts governor, a business leader and turning around the 2002 Olympics. “Romney has made rebuilding the economy his No. 1 campaign priority — and rightly so.”
Four years ago, the Iowa caucuses launched Obama’s presidential bid, and he handily won the state in the general election. The Register endorsed him, impressed with his background, his calls for Americans to come together and his positions on the economic crises that unfolded in the final months of the campaign.
This time around, the paper offers a sober assessment of his tenure, and his potential.
“The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House,” the paper wrote.
It’s unclear how much newspaper endorsements matter to voters, given that many gravitate toward media outlets that align with their political views. But the endorsement is notable because of the Register’s long history of supporting Democrats – the last Republican they endorsed was President Nixon in 1972.
And it may offer a window into the mood of heartland voters in a state that is a crucial battleground. Romney has been trying to court past Obama supporters there by focusing on the nation’s debt, a theme that resonates among many in a frugal state that has the lowest per capita credit card debt in the nation.
Obama gave a nod to the newspaper’s importance when, after speaking with the editorial board, he had a separate conversation two weeks later with the paper’s editor and publisher.
“I want your endorsement. You’ll feel better when you give it,” he concluded in his phone conversation with them.
Romney tweeted his appreciation for the paper’s endorsement. “We need Iowa to help get America back on track. I am honored to have the @DMRegister’s endorsement,” he wrote.
The news of the endorsement broke Saturday while Romney was speaking to 15,000 supporters at a rally on a high school football field here, capping a three-event day stumping in Florida.
“America’s going to win,” Romney said. “We’re going to make the change in November that will bring the real change that we need.”
Hell, you’ve even got New York Times columnists turning on Obama the Loser-in-Chief. A New York Times liberal turning on a Democrat president running for reelection will happen again in maybe about a hundred years – because hopefully it will take that damn long for the Democrat Party to annoint such a catastrophic failure as their candidate again.
Wake the hell up, you idiot Democrats. Your messiah failed America and he has failed YOU. And we need an actual leader in our White House if we want to finally turn this economy and this nation around.
I recall a movie I saw years back called “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.” There was this giant character named “Blaster” who was the thug muscle for a brainy little monster who called himself “Master”:
Well, Mad Max fought Blaster in a death match and managed to win when he discovered that Blaster was vulnerable to a dog whistle. He knocked Blaster’s helmet off and discovered the truth:
Blaster wasn’t really a monster; he was just an oversized idiot. And you couldn’t hold Blaster responsible for merely doing what smarter people who manipulated a feeble mind told him to do.
Perhaps I owe Obama an apology. He isn’t the evil tyrant Pharaoh that I assumed he was. No, Barack Obama is merely an idiot who doesn’t even know how to damn count:
Now I understand why Obama doesn’t understand the math when Romney was trying to explain to him in the debates how he planned to reduce the debt. He kept saying it doesn’t add up and it won’t work. Maybe it won’t work because he doesn’t understand it. The fact is Obama admits he struggles with math past the 7th grade. I’m not kidding…
No wonder he doesn’t want to turn over his college records.
Go to the 3:38 mark of this you tube video and you’ll hear proof when Obama answered questions from the audience asked by Jay Leno.
Obama in his own words at 3:40:
“Well, the math stuff, I was fine with up until about… 7th grade. But Malia’s now a freshman in high school, and, um, I’m pretty lost.”
No, you’re just hopelessly confused, Barry H. It is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAthat is “pretty lost” under your failed leadership.
I told a joke that we can know safely say was a very relevant parable about the Barack Obama regime:
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.
Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle’.’
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was. The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.’
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain.
‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there!.’
The question at this point isn’t whether Obama is fit to be president of the United States; it is rather who’s the damn puppet master who stuck a man who can’t even understand his daughter’s 7th grade homework into the presidency.
I guaran-damn-tee you that Mitt Romney won’t be thwarted by math that a child ought to be able to understand.
And just in case some toxic racist bigot wants to try to drag me into the racsit sewer he or she lives in because I questioned the intelligence of a man who is half black, allow me to point out that another former CEO and Republican presidential candidate named Herman Cain wouldn’t have been stymied by 8th grade math, either.
Fox’s Jennifer Griffin deserves a Pulitzer for the work she is doing to uncover what really happened during and after the assault at Benghazi. In her latest blockbuster, she reports on how American personnel were left without aid during the battle.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators 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 SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”
Who gave those stand-down orders? Was the CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, aware of them? Did he approve them? Who specifically took any part on this decision?
A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.
According to sources on the ground, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.
“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”
“Monday morning quarterbacking”? They had a laser on the target. An F-18 could have reached the scene from Sigonella in about an hour and destroyed it.
The denial of aid is criminal. Whoever gave those multiple stand-down orders may be an accomplice to manslaughter, at least.
The notion that there was nothing they could have done is absurd. The military has binders and binders — note that word — of contingency plans to deal with breaking security issues and attacks. But our troops, according to Sen. John McCain, were not even put on alert, and field operators on the scene were ordered to stand down.
More: When the 3 AM crisis phone call came in, Barack Obama hatched a plot to attack American free speech rights. And then he went to bed.
Clearly we need hearings with the president and his relevant cabinet officials either testifying or submitting comments, before the election.
You need to keep understand that the CIA denying this report is bad for Obama, because what we find out is that the CIA denies the report (that officials in the CIA chain of command ordered a stand-down with Americans being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi). And we find out that CIA Director David Petraeus states, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” Given that we further learn that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had asked for more security in Benghazi prior to the attack but the request was denied. The obvious question becomes, “Then who the hell DID order that stand-down? Who DID deny that request for more security?”
And there is one and ONLYone answer: Barry Hussein, the first demon-possessed president. The Predator drone video of the attack – that went on for seven damn hours – was shown to the White House. There is VERY good reason to believe that Obama himself saw it; he certainly would have been notified that an American installation was under direct attack. You have to ask yourself: how many people are authorized to go into a foreign country shooting that we are not at war with? The president and who the hell else??? That is a crucial question because only somebody who had the authority to make that decision could have made that decision. The White House is asserting that Obama didn’t make that decision not to send help to Americans under fire who desperately needed help. Okay, then who the hell DIDmake that decison??? Who the hell ELSE apart from Obama was even authorized to make that call to send in the cavlary to start shooting Libyans in Libya??? Furthermore, CIA personnel had already wisely repositioned assets to make it as quick and easy as possible for Obama to give the order to rescue the Americans trapped in Benghazi and have that rescue effort be successful. But no order was given. Nothing was done. And had it not been for the heroism of Tyrone Woods, the death toll would have been thirty rather than four.
Remember how much credit Obama gave himself for being in the White House Situation Room when the previously-supersecret-until-Obama-blabbermouthed-their-official-existence SEAL Team Six went in to kill Osama bin Laden??? Where the hell was THAT Obama??? Because he for damn sure won’t admit he was in that room when it mattered the most now.
From the very beginning, this White House, this administration, this president and this president’s stooges, have lied to the American people about a terrorist attack on American soil that resulted in the murders of four Americans including the first ambassador to be killed since 1979 when Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe.
With all due respect to the truth, conservatives such as myself and such as John McCain immediately came out and pointed out what the attack was: a TERRORIST attack by al Qaeda.
Though Democratic members of the committee blamed Republicans throughout the hearing for cutting security State Department security spending, Lamb clarified for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who was invited to sit on the committee for the hearing, that the staffing denial was not linked to budget shortages, just the result of evaluating conditions on the ground.
And we know that Obama did all this because he was trying to deceive the American people with a completely bogus narrative that, by killing Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama had won the war on terror and shattered al Qaeda:
8:21PM EDT October 19. 2012 – The Obama administration rejected requests for more security in Benghazi amid growing signs of terror threats because it wanted to portray Libya as a calm country and foreign policy success, according to leaders of the House Oversight Committee.
The administration “made a policy decision to put Libya into a ‘normalized’ country status as quickly as possible,” starting in November, stated a letter to President Obama from Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and National Security Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz.
The apparent aim of this policy was to convey the impression that the situation in Libya “was getting better and not worse,” states the letter released Friday.
That policy was why State withdrew security personnel and resources from Benghazi, including a DC-3 aircraft, the letter says, citing an email from Miki Rankin, a State Department post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia.
The policy of “normalization” was described to committee members by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs. And late last year, a State Department diplomat issued an “action memo” on why the Benghazi consulate should remain in place.
Then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman wrote Dec. 27 that the U.S. presence in Benghazi was having “a salutary and calming effect” on people in Eastern Libya.
The normalization policy was being pursued at a time when al-Qaeda affiliated militias were becoming increasingly active in and around Benghazi, according to Issa and Chaffetz.
The committee members said the normalization policy trumped security concerns expressed by professional security officials working for State.
Obama lied and Americans died. The attack on the US Consulate compound in Benghazi went on for seven agonizing hours. Had the United States acted quickly and decisively, this horrifying and shocking disgrace to America would have been defeated.
If this had happened under George Bush’s watch, and there emerged the kind of evidence tying a cynical political policy to an abject national security and foreign policy disgrace and disaster, you can bet that the mainstream media would have been crawling all over it. You can bet that EVERY SINGLE TIME Bush did an interview with ANYBODY this would have been the ONLY subject he was asked about. You can bet that all the late night talk shows would have mocked Bush for this oh, the way they mocked Bush for Abu Ghraib. You can bet that the networks would have figured out ways to include the shocking failure and debacle in Libya in their popular television dramas. Like they did with Abu Ghraib. And like they DIDN’T do with “Abu Ghraib moment” after “Abu Ghraib moment” when those moments were OBAMA MOMENTS. It would have been the goal of the mainstream media and the networks that every single American be repeatedly told that George Bush had failed America, much the same way that virtually every single American had repeatedly heard the George H.W. Bush words, “Read my lips, no new taxes” in order to guarantee Bill Clinton’s election.
Charles Woods, the father of heroic former SEAL Tyrone Woods – the one who was making those requests for help that Obama repeatedly denied – had this to say about the Disgrace-in-Chief:
The grieving father also described his brief encounter with President Obama during the ceremony for the Libya victims.
“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”
“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”
This disaster – and the cover-up of this disaster that has followed – is so much worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down Nixon it isn’t even funny.
The American people have a chance to hold Barack Obama responsible and accountable for this disgrace on November 6.
It’s a lot more fun to be a Republican now than it was four years ago – or even four weeks ago for that matter.
Four years ago, Republicans were trying to explain away the polls. Now those polls are for the most part telling us that Obama is on the way to having his ass kicked.
No presidential candidate in the history of polling has EVERlost election with the lead that Romney now has. And that lead now being affirmed by a decidedly LEFT-LEANING poll. And three of the four major tracking polls have Romney above 50%. To make it even more fun for Republicans, Dianne Sawyer anchored ABC’s news, and for some strange reason she barely mentioned her own network’s poll.
Romney isn’t merely winning in the polls and isn’t merely above the critical 50% point; he’s also hammering home runs on the absolutely crucial issue of the economy (leading Obama by a 52% – 43% margin):
Mitt Romney has seized further advantage on economic issues at the core of the 2012 campaign, taking him to 50 percent support among likely voters vs. 47 percent for Barack Obama – Romney’s highest vote-preference result of the contest to date.
The difference between the two candidates is within the margin of sampling error in the latest ABC News/Washington Post daily tracking poll, and their individual support levels have not significantly changed. But the momentum on underlying issues and attributes is Romney’s.
Romney’s gains are clear especially in results on the economy. This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that likely voters now pick Romney over Obama in trust to handle the economy by 52-43 percent – the first time either candidate has held a clear lead over the other on this central issue.
Equally important, Romney has erased Obama’s customary advantage on which candidate better understands the economic problems of average Americans. Today, 48 percent pick Obama, 46 percent Romney – essentially a dead heat. Yesterday and today mark the first time in the campaign that Obama hasn’t had at least a marginally significant lead on economic empathy.
Within-group trends on both these economic measures were covered in yesterday’s analysis; they reflect movement in Romney’s direction almost exclusively among white men, and particularly among less-educated white men.
SIGNALS – There are other signals of Romney’s gains. Expectations are one: Fifty-two percent of likely voters now expect Obama to win the election, down from a peak of 61 percent in late September. Forty percent expect Romney to win – still well fewer than half, but up by 8 percentage points.
Notably, political independents divide by 42-46 percent on whether they expect Obama or Romney to win; that’s shifted dramatically from 61-31 percent in Obama’s favor. Whites, likewise, have moved from a 55-38 percent expectation in Obama’s favor Sept. 29 to 44-48 percent now.
Romney is more competitive in another area, as well – international affairs. Even though likely voters by 2-1 picked Obama as the winner of Monday’s debate on foreign policy, comfort with Romney on the issue nonetheless has progressed. He runs essentially evenly with Obama in trust to handle international affairs, 48-47 percent, Obama-Romney; they were about this close on Monday, but it was +7 for Obama in mid-October and +8 in early September.
Obama retains a larger numerical (but not significant) edge on another issue, trust to better advance the interests of the middle class, 50-45 percent. It was similar, 51-43 percent, when last asked in an ABC/Post poll completed Sept. 9.
In other results, Obama has a 49 percent job approval rating among likely voters – it’s been 49 or 50 percent steadily since mid-October – but more “strongly” disapprove than strongly approve, 41 percent vs. 30 percent – an intensity gap that may work against him.
HORSE RACE – Romney never before has exceeded 49 percent support in ABC/Post polls, making his 50 percent a new high numerically. That includes new highs among a range of groups – including 60 percent support among whites, 56 percent among white women, 58 percent among middle- to upper-middle income adults and 83 percent among conservatives.
Most strikingly, Romney’s advanced to 57 percent support among independents. They’re a changeable group, less rooted in partisan predispositions, so their eventual preferences – and their turnout – are uncertain. But they’re key to Romney’s current fortunes; he’s improved among independents by 9 points in the past week.
The debates are one apparent reason. By a broad 47-10 percent, independents say the debates left them with a better rather than a worse impression of Romney. In the same group, by contrast, just 17 percent say their impression of Obama improved – and 26 percent say it got worse.
Polarization, meantime, is extreme; Obama is at a new high in support among nonwhites, 80 percent, and continues to pull in broad support from younger adults – six in 10 of those younger than 40. All the same, at 61 percent, his support among unmarried women, a core Democratic group, has reached a new low, chiefly because he’s slipped among unmarried white women.
Still, the gender gap overall remains wide: women for Obama by 54-43 percent; men for Romney by 57-40 percent.
As noted, the overall 3-point gap between Romney and Obama in this poll is not statistically significant. Given the sample size, it would take a difference of greater than 6 points for the result to be significant at the customary 95 percent confidence level, or more than 5 points at a less-stringent 90 percent confidence level (referred to as a “slight” or marginal difference).
While the race, then, remains close, Romney’s momentum has come in time for most voters: Thirty-seven percent of likely voters say they’ve voted early or plan to, but that includes far fewer, 8 percent, who already have done so. It’s a number that’s growing daily, putting each campaign’s get-out-the-vote efforts to the critical test.
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 21-24, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,386 likely voters, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents.Results have a margin of sampling error of 3 points, including design effect. (Questions 12f, 12h and 21 were asked Oct. 23-24 among 707 likely voters; those results have a 4.5-point error margin.) The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.
Partisan divisions in this survey, Democrats-Republicans-independents, are 34-30-31 percent among likely voters. Partisan divisions in the 2008 exit poll were 39-32-29 percent.
Let me put it this way: either Donald Trump is going to be writing a $5 million check to the charity of Barack Obama’s choice or the Redistributionist-in-Chief has something that would destroy his presidency to hide:
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Donald Trump offered to pay $5 million to the charity of President Barack Obama’s choice if Obama releases his college and passport records, the real estate mogul and television personality said on Wednesday.
“Frankly, it’s a check that I very much want to write,” Trump said in a YouTube video released via his Twitter and Facebook pages.
Trump has questioned whether Obama’s birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii is legitimate, suggesting Obama was not born in the United States, which could have made him ineligible for the White House. The White House released the long-form copy of Obama’s birth certificate in 2011.
Trump did not say what he expected the college and passports records to reveal but was specific in saying he wanted to see all of Obama’s college applications and records and his passport applications and records.
“President Obama is the least transparent president in the history of this country,” Trump said in the video.
“If he releases these records it will end the question and indeed the anger of many Americans.”
Trump, who had toyed with the idea of running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, said the deadline for the release of the documents was 5 p.m. (2100 GMT) on October 31.
(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Paul Simao)
What is interesting is that Donald Trump just put $5 million on the table to prove what a former classmate of Barack Obama has claimed:
I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.
Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.
This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.
By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.
My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.
Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.
My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.
Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.
If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.
But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.
Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?
The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.
Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?
Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?
I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.
Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.
If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:
A) He rarely ever attended class.
B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.
C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.
D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.
If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?
If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.
It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.
Obama won’t release his records because one way or another, he’s a gigantic phony and a lying weasel without shame or honor or integrity.
And as much as liberals love to redistribute other people’s money, they won’t call on him to take $5 million in charity from Donald Trump because liberals KNOWthat Barack Obama is a complete phony and lying weasel and in fact that’s the reason they love him so damn much. Because liberals are wicked, evil, demon-possessed people.
And as for the FACT that the media is a biased bunch of Marxist propagandists, consider how many damn times the media asked Romney to show his tax records and then wonder why there’s a goose egg after how many times Obama has been asked by “journalists” to show his college records.
There is simply no longer any question that Barack Obama personally and the entire Obama administration are DOCUMENTED LIARS over their cover-up attempt to hide their debacle at Benghazi.
The first three sentences alone prove that Barack Hussein Obama is a liar. Two weeks AFTER the attack he was trying to claim that we didn’t know what happened and we’re investigating. YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, YOU LIAR:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.
While officials did mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.
There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.
U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.
Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.
MISSIVES FROM LIBYA
The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”
The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”
The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”
A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”
The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.
Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.
It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.
Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.
By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda’s faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.
One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials “carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time.”
The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.
“Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely,” the official said.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)
You’ve got to understand: Republicans like Senator John McCain – and of course like MITT ROMNEY – were saying that this was a giant lie from about hour one of day one.
Meanwhile the entire Obama administration foreign policy that was based on the utter foolish dumbass lie that killing one man (bin Laden) somehow won the war on terror is melting down all over the world.
It’s time to get a new president. And then put the last one along with most of his entire damn administration in prison the way he tried to put the CIA heroes who successfully interrogated the al Qaeda terrorists.
Just to first document that the story that follows is no fluke, here are just a few of the articles I’ve written featuring Democrats proving over and over and over again that theirs is the ideology of hate and intolerance:
Vandalism is a normal part of the course of a political campaign — with signs stolen, cars with bumper stickers keyed or spray painted comments plastered on walls of offices used by candidates and their staff.
But the son of a Wisconsin state legislator paid the price for defending a Romney sign from two apparent Obama supporters, he was beaten for standing up for his property and the candidate his sign supports.
Early Friday morning, thugs presumably supporting President Obama beat up the son of Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie outside of his apartment in Whitewater. Kedzie caught the two men removing a Romney sign outside of his apartment around two o’clock in the morning. After telling them to put the signs back, one of the thugs attacked Kedzie and then put him in a choke hold and continued to beat his head.
Mark Belling spoke to the Senator’s son Sean on the radio earlier today. Sean Kedzie told Belling he was rushed to the hospital by ambulance with possible skull and eye socket fractures.
Here is Sen. Kedzie’s statement:
Early on Friday morning, October 19th, my son Sean was awakened by noises outside his residence in Whitewater. As he went to see what the commotion was about, he noticed an individual removing a Romney/Ryan yard sign from his property. He yelled to the person that they were taking something not theirs and to return it immediately. The individual returned the sign, however, a second person confronted and attacked Sean without warning.
Sean was wrestled to the ground by both persons, held down by a constricting chokehold, and struck repeatedly about the face and head. He nearly passed out from the chokehold and suffered contusions to his face and eyes. Fortunately, an alert neighbor heard the commotion, scared the individuals away, and called the police. My wife and I were awakened by a telephone call from Sean’s roommate that Sean had been taken by ambulance to Fort Atkinson Memorial Hospital.
Sean was treated for his injuries and released from the hospital the same day. As this was a private family matter, we chose not to remark publicly about it and allow law enforcement to do their job. But we understand these types of incidents will eventually become public and questions will arise, particularly in my position as a state legislator.
Sean is still recovering from the injuries he sustained as a result of this beating, and we are confident he will make a full recovery. But obviously, as parents, we are shaken by this event and very troubled it was apparently initiated and motivated for political reasons.
Soon – and particularly if Obama gets re-elected – we will be seeing unions and students violently rioting to get more of other people’s money. It is who they are because liberals are evil and violent and hateful (55 million babies murdered by Democrats and liberals are crying out for God’s justice as we speak). When violence comes to America, it will come from the left. Just as it is coming from the left now all over Europe.
Start Thinking Right 