Archive for October, 2012

Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.

October 23, 2012

It’s rather interesting: in all four debates, no matter who was debating (Romney or Ryan versus Obama or Biden) or who the moderator was, somehow the Democrat was given more time four times out of four.

Now, I remember that Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that many people thought was very, VERY deliberate.  But here’s the thing: that was a one-off moment.  If Janet Jackson had done four Super Bowl halftime shows and had a “wardrobe malfunction” every single time, I don’t think most people would conclude anything OTHER than that it was very, VERY deliberate.  And for that very reason I can assure you that Obama-Biden getting more time in every single debate four times out of four was a very deliberate and intentional nod by the media to the Obama campaign.

I suppose there is ONE other possibility; and that is that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are rude, nasty rat bastards and they simply interrupted their opponents and then kept talking and talking.  But that doesn’t explain why Obama got more time when everybody agrees the man was ANYTHING but aggressive.

And then you add Candy Crowley feeling that urgent need to take Obama’s side in that second debate and, well, when it comes to bias you ought to get the picture in crystal clear, high definition format.

As we enter tonight’s debate, we find that Bob Schieffer literally wrote the book on Ronald Reagan.  The title – Ronald Reagan and the Supporting Players Who Helped Him Create the Illusion That Held America Spellbound ought to convey the arrogant liberal tone of the hit piece.  And Schieffer is also on the record for obsessing over what he demagogues as the GOP obsession.  So it’s not like he’s fair or objective anything.

So Romney starts out with that disadvantage of being a Republican right from the starting gate.  But nothing the media did stopped Romney from using the first debate to mop the floor with Obama’s face.  I mean, when you win a debate by fifty freaking points, you ought to be able to samurai-slice your opponent’s head off his shoulders at the end of the evening.

In the second debate, CNN’s post-debate poll said that Obama won the debate.  But if you actually looked at that poll, Romney won OVERWHELMINGLY on who would better handle the economy, who would better handle health care, who would better handle taxes, who would better handle the deficit and the debt, the answer was Romney across the board.  So unless you don’t care about the economy, or jobs, or debt, or health care, and all you want is a debator-in-chief, Romney won that second debate, hands-down.  And the clearly biased moderator couldn’t help Obama then, either.

I didn’t see  such a post-debate breakdown on issues in this third Obama-Romney debate.  But I do know that, like the second debate, a hardly overwhelming majority believed Obama won according to the CNN poll.

Frankly, I can see that.  Obama was considerably more aggressive, and “somehow” managed to get more time to talk, too.

Romney also could have been better, and after that pathetic first debate we all know that Obama could have been a whole hell of a lot worse.

I’ve got a theory on the debates that seems to fit the facts: namely, the guy in the biggest trouble is the one who comes out the most aggressively.  When Obama came out in debate #1, he had an overwhelming lead in both the national and the swing-state polling.  And Obama apparently decided he didn’t need to show up.  That debate changed the political universe such that in the second debate, it was Obama who was behind and damn he needed to come out and perform or the Romney landslide from debate #1 was going to roll right over his presidency.  The polls didn’t budge, and if anything Romney’s momentum had increased to the point where he went into debate #3 with a six-point lead according to Gallup.  For the record, that Gallup Romney lead is THE most dominent since 1968.  And so sure as shooting, a desperate Obama came out aggressively and ready to be nasty.

I submit that Romney could have won the debate and lost the election if he had focused on being “more aggressive.”

Why would I say that?  Well, there’s a movie I remember called “Poltergeist 2.”  The evil ghost is the Reverend Henry Kane.  He had convinced his followers that the world was going to end, buried them in a cave, and then wouldn’t let them leave to see if his prediction had turned out right such that they all died in their little hell-hole.  That’s basically how Obama wanted to present Mitt Romney: in the guise of, “If you elect my opponent, he will push the nuclear button and start World War 3 and kill you all.”

Romney did not fall for that trap.  He stayed away from being the warmongering ogre that Obama falsely tried to depict him as being.

What Romney DID need to do he accomplished: he presented himself as a man whom the majority of Americans could see as commander-in-chief.  He had to show that he knew enough to be commander-in-chief; he had to show that he wasn’t a warmonger; and he had to appear presidential.  I would argue that he succeeded on all three fronts.

What did Obama have to do?  He had to shatter Romney’s momentum.  And while the next five days will decide rather than me, I submit that Obama failed to do that.

And so the winner is Mitt Romney.

There were other things: Obama’s nastiest and I would say most petty line of the entire evening was when Obama lectured Romney:

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s  changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on  them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Well, the Marines still train with and use the bayonet (as I did as a soldier in the Army):

It’s too damn bad that Obama was too damned ignorant and self-absorbed to send some bayonet-equipped Marines to Libya so they could have saved the lives of our ambassador and the three other Americans who were murdered.

Aand you know what?  Our soldiers still do plenty of horseback riding too, it turns out (and see also here).  Well, and here:

Which is another way of saying pretty stupid fricking analogy, Obama.  And given that Obama himself was so completely IGNORANT of the military as president that he once repeatedly used the term “corpse man” to refer to a Navy medic, I don’t think his asanine arrogant tone has much virtue.

Obama claimed that he didn’t have anything to do with sequestration, that it was all Congress’ idea.  But Bob Woodward – you remember the award-winning journalist who brought down the Nixon administration? – says wrong, Barry Hussein:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Jack Lew and Rob Nabors both work for the Obama White House.  And sequestration was all their – and therefore all Obama’s – idea.  It’s just so fitting that the lying weasel-in-chief would try to disavow that.

In another highly contentious moment, Obama was the liar and Romney was the truth teller.  Romney was correct about his statement that he did in fact argue that the government should have a role in helping the auto companies in bankruptcy.

Voter Fraud: What Are The Odds Of A Democrat Activist Registering 583 Democrat Voters Over The Age Of 112 And 2,660 Over The Age Of 110???

October 22, 2012

You get the sense that voter fraud would be a huge issue in this country – if Republicans did it.

Please file this tale of Democrat voter registration under “Oh my GOD when the hell will somebody actually DO SOMETHING to stop these liberal Marxist thieves?”

North Carolina Registers Over 583 Democrat Votes Over the Age of 112
Elections 2012
October 21, 2012
By: Barry Secrest

There are obviously verifiable vote fraud problems in North Carolina.

In 2010 those problems surfaced meaningfully as indicated in the below voter fraud post from an earlier Charlotte Conservative Examiner article:

Perhaps in an effort to promote North Carolina as one of the healthiest States in the Nation, this latest voter twist comes to us from Susan Myrick of the Civitas Institute in North Carolina–not to be confused with Rep. Sue Myrick of NC who is unrelated.  In a radio interview with local WBT Anchor Tara Servatious, Susan reports that she has been keeping track of the number of votes in North Carolina of individuals over the age of 110 years and apparently we have quite a few, over 410 of the 110 year olds–to be exact– actually voted via absentee ballot on October the 28th. Yes indeed, now it would appear that good ole NC has the market cornered on the Centenarian vote.

At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote of over 2,660 people over the age of 110. Someone contact the Guiness Book and warm up the Ford, the Fountain of Youth exists and its right here in lovely NC.  It’s no wonder people are moving here in droves–maybe the use of tobacco isn’t such a bad thing after all? But, on a more serious note, with all of the irregularities going on all over the place, we can now begin to wonder about a few things.

Apparently those ultra-healthy seniors over 110 have aged and are now astoundingly over 112 years old, and are still able to make it to the polls ahead of time.

According to a post originally from the Silence Dogood political blog report, there were at least 758 individuals over the age of 112 who had either risen from their respective graves, or otherwise, to vote once again for the Democrats in charge, who might apparently have also guaranteed them an ever-lasting vote for life and beyond.

In visiting the political tracking site, we later found the same story in evidence, except the number of centenarian voters had increased measurably to 832 voters over the age of 112. Of these voters, over 70% were slated as Democrats, with a diminutive 25% counted as Republicans. The rest were unaffiliated.

When peering a little more deeply at the numbers we find that an astounding 2,374 people between the ages of 94 and 100 have already voted in the NC election to date. While an even more astounding 832 votes came from those individuals aged 112. However, according to the Guinness book of world records, the oldest living person in the world, at present, lives in Japan and is 114 years old. It would seem obvious that, according to the NC vote registry, this old fellow might be nudged aside in the near future, especially considering the crop of spry 112 year-olds seemingly alive and well in the old North State.

In fact, two of the 112 year aged voters were mail-in ballots from overseas; ostensibly  vacationing to escape the now bitterly polarized political contest, and who can blame them?

But it gets worse when we note from another concerned voter, who indicated  the following explanation, which goes but one full measure further to explain what’s happening in NC during this voting season of , perhaps, persistent political zombies:

I overheard a nice lady about 70 telling her friend the following: “Yes, I voted today.”

“Going back tomorrow too.”

“They took us to a place that don’t ask names and don’t write nothing down. They give $20 each time.”

She then handed her friend a card I couldn’t see and told her friend to call the number.

This same tipster later sent a message indicating that he had, indeed, contacted the local election center, who immediately patted him upon the head graciously for being a good citizen with a promise to check on it again much later, in due course.

Obviously there is a problem, one in which voter ID might clearly provide a solution. A thing that only the Democratic party swears against at any cost, and for reasons becoming quite obvious.

There isn’t an honest Democrat alive.  And that includes all the damn 112-year-olds that Democrats have “registered.”  You can see why Democrats don’t want voter IDs: long-demised corpses simply don’t photograph very well regardless of how good a job the mortician did with the body.

Of course, given that one day soon every single Democrat will be burning in hell for each and every single one of the 55 million babies they helped to murder, maybe Lucifer – up to his old evil tricks – is giving them time away from the burning fires in exchange for voting for Obama.

Barack Obama Is The Same Lying Cheating Fraud He Was Back In ’08 With His Illegal Overseas Campaign Donations

October 22, 2012

Same old lying song, same old lying dance.  Obama is accepting campaign donations from foreigners.  Again.

CNBC earlier proved that “foreign-connected money” goes to Democrats by a wide margin.  So this isn’t really anything new:

Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation — and may be hiding more
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
Last Updated: 10:11 AM, October 21, 2012
Posted: 12:34 AM, October 21, 2012

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.

The Obama campaign said the FEC data was the result of “a minor technical error.”

“All the ZIP codes and numbers are real and can be verified,” spokesman Michael Czin said.

The Obama campaign’s apparent lack of safeguards makes it possible to violate the law, says a report released by the Government Accountability Institute, a Florida-based watchdog group.

The report found that one Obama site — Obama.com — gets almost half of its traffic from foreign computer addresses. The site directs users to an Obama donation page.

“We are not suggesting that just foreign traffic by itself is a problem,” said Peter Schweizer, president of the GAI. “But for a campaign that is very sophisticated in its fund-raising capabilities, they do not make one effort to try to even see or ask somebody to check a box that says they are a US citizen.”

Obama’s re-election campaign took in $130,867 from donors who provided no ZIP codes and $2 million from those with incomplete ZIPs in September.

That same month, Romney’s campaign recorded $2,450 from donors without ZIP codes and $2,500 from those with incomplete ZIPs.

Walker said it should have been clear to the Obama campaign’s computers that his donations came from a computer with a foreign IP address.

The Obama campaign says it “screens all credit-card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address” and requests proof of citizenship if questions arise.

But not only did Walker’s Obama donations go through, but he said he began receiving two to three e-mail solicitations a day to give more. The e-mails asked for $188 or more.

If Walker gave $188, his total contribution to Obama would be $198 — less than the $200 threshold at which campaigns have to identify the donor to the FEC.

“I have not had any e-mails asking for proof of identity,” Walker said.

The GAI report found the Obama campaign Web sites do not ask donors to provide their three-digit card-verification value, or CVV, numbers to ensure they are the legitimate holders of the card. Romney’s campaign asks for such information, which is considered a standard security measure.

One conduit for Obama donations is Obama.com, which was registered in 2008 to Robert Roche, an American who lives and works in China, where he owns an infomercial company.

Roche is also a bundler for the Obama campaign and was given a seat at the head table for a 2011 state dinner with the Chinese president

The GAI report said that the site registration was changed in 2010 to make it anonymous and that it was unclear whether Roche still owns it.

Roche’s mother in Chicago referred calls to the Obama campaign. The campaign declined to comment.

Oh, well.  You remember Obama’s hot mike moment where he promised the Russians that if they laid off him and helped him get reelected, he’d be “more flexible” to rat-sodomize America.  You know that Russia wants Obama to give them the American farm.  And if we are stupid enough to elect the fool, we’re stupid enough to give Russia the (last) farm, too.

The Polls In Ohio Look A LOT Better For Mitt Romney Than The Media Is Telling You

October 22, 2012

On the traditional view that Ohio is THE critical state, this made me feel a LOT better about Romney’s chances in Ohio.

If you are a liberal, what can I say?  I hope this makes you feel sad:

Mittmentum: New Ohio Polls Better Than They Appear
By Josh Jordan
October 21, 2012 9:27 P.M.

Two new Ohio polls came out yesterday after my Ohio post, from from Gravis Marketing and PPP, both of which point to a razor-thin race in the most coveted swing state. A closer look at each poll shows just how much Romney has gained since the debates, and why he would be absolutely thrilled if these polls were accurate on Election Day.

The poll from Gravis Marketing shows Obama and Romney tied at 47 percent. But that’s as good as it gets for Obama. Among the most interesting tidbits from the poll:

Romney leads Obama by 19 percent among independents, 52–33, and holds 92 percent of his base compared to Obama’s 87 percent. Obama is underwater in job approval, 44–50, and independents disapprove of him overwhelmingly, 31–58. And the poll has a Democratic advantage of 9 percent, which is a 4 percent jump from 2008 — no one believes that Democrats can match their 2008 turnout advantage, let alone almost double it.

PPP (a Democratic firm) released their new poll yesterday showing Obama only up one point, 49 to 48. Just a week ago PPP had the race at 51–46 for Obama. But the four-point gain for Romney is even more impressive when you look at the poll’s findings:

This week’s poll has a Democrat sample advantage of 8 percent; last week’s advantage was 4. Romney gained four points on Obama in a week despite the sample’s having four percentage points more Democrats. Romney leads with independents by 7 percent, up from a 5 percent last week. Obama’s approval is underwater at 48–50, and independents disapprove of him by a 41–54 margin. Last week Obama was in positive approval ground at 50–48, and independents disapproved by a much smaller 45–50 margin. Romney’s favorability has gone from a minus-6 margin last week (45–51) to a plus-2 this week (49–47). Trust on the economy went from Obama plus-5 last week (51–46) to plus-4 in Romney’s direction this week (51–47). Independents jumped from Romney plus-5 last week to Romney plus-15 this week.

These two polls highlight what many saw in the second debate: Romney may have lost the overall debate, but he won handily on the issues of the economy, debt, and taxes. While Democrats were riding high this week after Obama narrowly won the face-off, Romney was quietly solidifying support from voters by commanding the issues that matter most. Based on these two polls, the only way Obama can win Ohio is if he finds a way to greatly surpass 2008 turnout with Democrats, which at the moment seems like an impossible task. If these polls hold, it won’t be long before the state Romney was declared dead in knocks down the last pillar of inevitability that Obama has left.

— Josh Jordan is a small-business market-research consultant. You can follow him on Twitter @Numbersmuncher.

It’s amazing that only a few weeks ago the (mostly liberal) talking heads said that Romney was dead in Ohio and should pull out.  Now Romney is surging ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and the liberal talking heads are saying Obama should pull out of Florida where again just a few weeks ago the polls said Obma had a six point lead.

Maybe if the polls give Obama a fifty point turnout advantage in their models Obama could look better.  Obama would have to do about twenty times better than he did in 2008 with Democrat turnout, but Chris Matthews is sure it’s possible for messiah given Obama’s power to make legs tingle.

Documents Continue To Prove What Lying Weasels Obama And His Toxic Administration Are In The Libya Attack

October 20, 2012

Barack Obama claimed that he referred to the Libya attack as an “act of terror” in a short speech he gave at the Rose Garden just before he flew off to do a fundraiser in Las Vegas.  It’s bullcrap, of course (and if memory serves, George W. Bush did NOT run off to do a fundraiser the day after the previous 9/11 attack), and as I document here, Obama HIMSELF – not to mention his entire administration – proves that he did NOT call the Libya attack a terrorist attack.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say Obama DID call the worst terrorist attack on American soil since that last devastating 9/11 attack that the more recent one was timed to mock “an act of terror.”  You know, just before jetting off to do a fundraiser.  Let’s say that Obama DID call it an act of terror.  Then the jackass-in-chief instructed his Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice to go to all five major network political programs and repeatedly say the exact opposite.  And then Obama sent out his press secretary Jay Carney to say the exact opposite.  And then he sent out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say the exact opposite.  And then two weeks later after being asked on both The View and on Univision whether it was a terrorist attack Obama refused to answer the question that Obama now says he’d actually already answered and instead said, “We’re still investigating.”  As bizarre and as dishonest as that is, let’s say that Obama actually DID call the attack on sovereign US territory in Libya an “act of terror.”

How in the hell would that excuse him for his abject failure of leadership that resulted in the murder of the first United States ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe way back in 1979?  And just why the hell is it that two of the last three Democrat presidents have killed US ambassadors versus ZERO of the last three Republican presidents, anyway???

We now know for a fact that not only did murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens ask for more security – only to have the inadequate security that he had CUT by Obama – but we now that in fact Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security at least forty days before his murder.  And in fact for SEVEN MONTHS prior to this attack security professionals were telling Obama there was a very big problem in Benghazi:

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
By James Rosen
Published October 19, 2012
FoxNews.com

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents — released Friday by  a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more  answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack — slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris  Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded  alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and  violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the  ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted  “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the  part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces.  These  forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier  with local militia commanders.  These men boasted to Stevens of exercising  “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed  candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political  jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled  “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.”  Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time,  “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent  incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual  incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a  diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative  impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of  opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on  the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until  authorities are at least as capable.”

By Sept. 4, Stevens’ aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong  Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies  about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against  western interests.” “Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively  deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely  to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised  explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that  an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had  “described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of  the consulate.”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the  ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times  flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of  requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the  attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their  assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.

“I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot,” said Eric A. Nordstrom, the  regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a  Feb. 12 email to a colleague, “when the ambassador (Gene Cretz, at that time)  that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD (a mobile security  detachment) there and been advised that DS (Diplomatic Security) isn’t going to  provide more than 3 agents over the long term.”

“DS is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this  has severely hampered operations in Benghazi,” wrote Karen Keshap, a State  Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. “That often  means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS (Department  of State) personnel present.  That often also means that outreach and  reporting is non-existent.”

Earlier that day, Feb. 11, a colleague of Keshap’s, Shawn P. Crowley, had  apologized to her and other officials in an email for “being a broken record” on  the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi.  Crowley added: “(T)omorrow  Benghazi will be down to two (DS) agents. … This will leave us unable to do  any outreach to Libyan nationals … and we will be extremely limited in the  ability to obtain any useful information for reporting.”

These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier  from Nordstom.  In a Feb. 1 memorandum, the officer warned that “Al-Qaida  affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other  violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political  turmoil in Libya.  The U.S. Government remains concerned that such  individuals and groups … may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct  attacks in the region.”

By Feb. 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias  enjoyed to “military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted,  crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm),” as well as “AK-47s, heavy  weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons.”

In the days leading up to Sept. 11, warnings came even from people outside  the State Department.  A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis,  confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since  the revolution, I am scared.”

The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing  the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House  Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.   In a letter to President Obama, dated Oct. 19 and accompanied by the  documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing  inadequate security before Sept. 11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of  the events on Sept. 11.

“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador  Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were  manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination  attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote.  “For this  administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11  anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, in response to the latest  documents: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault  on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what  happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

At the State Department briefing Friday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined  to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the  Central Intelligence Agency had informed the Obama administration on Sept. 12  that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.

Oh, yeah, that statement from the CIA station chief in Libya WITHIN HOURS OF THE ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE that it was IN FACT A TERRORIST ATTACK.  Keep in mind that Obama had instructed his administration to blame US intelligence for his administration’s lying to the American people for more than two weeks.  Note that the VERY FIRST SENTENCE utterly refutes the White House lies that were told to the American people over and over and over again:

CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press     Friday, October 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — The CIA  station chief  in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of  last  month’s deadly attack on the U.S.  Consulate that there was evidence it  was carried out by militants, not a  spontaneous mob upset about an  American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet  Muhammad, U.S. officials  have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw  the cable outside the CIA  at that point and how high up in the agency  the information went. The Obama  administration maintained publicly for a  week that the attack on the diplomatic  mission in Benghazi that killed  U.S. Ambassador Chris  Stevens and three other Americans was a result of  the mobs that staged  less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around  the 11th anniversary of the  9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those  statements have become highly charged political fodder as the   presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House  committee  questioned State  Department officials for hours about what GOP  lawmakers  said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist   Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday,  President Barack Obama and Republican  challenger Mitt Romney argued  over when Obama first said it was a terror  attack. In his Rose Garden  address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “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.”

But  Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call   the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the  president and  other key members of his administration referring at first  to the anti-Muslim  movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating  event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding  documents to show  what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during  and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack   probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked  group, with no public  demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary  RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of  war” for the early conflicting accounts.

The  officials who told the AP about the CIA  cable spoke anonymously because  they were not authorized to release such  information publicly.

Congressional  aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this  week to  build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare   that to what the White House was telling the  public about the attack.  That could give Romney ammunition to use in his  foreign policy debate  with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA  station chief in Libya compiled intelligence  reports from eyewitnesses  within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate  that indicated militants  launched the violence, using the pretext of  demonstrations against U.S.  facilities in Egypt  against the film to cover their intent. The report  from the station chief was  written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached  intelligence agencies in  Washington the next day, intelligence  officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points  sent by the CIA  to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi  were  spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S.  Embassy in Cairo and  evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by  the AP, added: “There are indications that  extremists participated in  the violent demonstrations” but did not mention  eyewitness accounts that  blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA  on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the  headquarters in  Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other  intelligence derived from  eavesdropping drones and satellite images.  Only then would such intelligence  generally be shared with the White  House and  later, Congress, a process that can take hours,  or days if the  intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or  may not  be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in  this case the delay  was due in part to the time it took to analyze various  conflicting  accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because  he  wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it  was  clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that  the early  question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they  were the crowd,” and  it took until the following week to figure that  out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

“I  think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very  good  individual, put out some speaking points on the initial  intelligence  assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair  Dianne Feinstein,  D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5  in California this  week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

“The  early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are   hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being  pretty far  afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want  to deter the  intelligence community from sharing their best first  impressions” after such  events in the future.

“The intelligence  briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent  with what the  administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry,  R-Texas, a  member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees.   Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA  report but  voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA  Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original  account when they  briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“How could they be so certain  immediately after such events, I just don’t  know,” he said. “That raises  suspicions that there was political  motivation.”

National  Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The  Office of  the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for  comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door  testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that  during  questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts   who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had  initiated  the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not  mention the CIA’s  early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that  the account could change  as more intelligence was uncovered, they said,  speaking on condition of  anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond  the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s  also  proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently   killed Stevens and his communications aide  or launched the mortars that  killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as  contract security guards at  a fallback location. That delay is prompting  lawmakers to question  whether the intelligence community has the resources it  needs to  investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight   against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials  say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi  militia, Ansar  al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but  is known  to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida  in the Islamic  Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan  locals  at the consulate during the  violence, and intelligence intercepts show  the militants were in contact with  AQIM militants before and after the  attack, one U.S.  intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence  has not been  able to match those reported sightings with the faces of  attackers caught on  security camera recordings during the attack, since  many U.S.  intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the  aftermath of the  violence, the two U.S. intelligence  officials said.

Nor  have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was   preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers  used,  setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the  backup compounds, then  attacking the main entrance to distract, while  sending a larger force to  assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may  prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to  bring about  relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a   post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is  so new  it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the  location of  U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

You had to be a brain-dead dumbass (i.e., even DUMBER than a regular garden variety dumbass) not to immediately conclude that an murderous attack from three sides utilizing heavy weapons on the anniversary of 9/11 was NOT a planned terrorist attack.  And there is absolutely zero question that the White House did not want to acknowledge the disaster that they had just presided over, which is why they lied their asses off and are STILL lying their asses off.

The Watergate cover-up led to President Nixon resigning from office.  And this is so much worse than Watergate it isn’t even funny.

I am preserving here another report from ABC on the damning Stevens memos that indict and convict Barack Obama and his entire administration:

Oct 19, 2012 3:22pm
Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
By Jake Tapper

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.

The U.S. State Department did not have an immediate comment.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

A Libyan government national security official told Stevens “that the attacks were the work of extremists who are opposed to western influence in Libya. A number of local contacts agreed, noting that Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya and that the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities in Derna,” a village to the east in Benghazi. Other contacts disagreed with that assessment, however.

Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”

Stevens wrote that the people of Benghazi want a security apparatus but “inherently fear abuse by the same authorities. This debate, playing out daily in Benghazi, has created the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

A cable signed by Stevens on the day of his murder, September 11, described a meeting with the Acting Principal Officer of the Supreme Security Council in Benghazi, commander Fawzi Younis, who “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure)…”

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.

In a letter to President Obama, House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations, note the Obama administration response that “two extra DS agents would have made no difference. This misses the point. These agents would have provided the added cover to fully evacuate all personnel from the compound – not just those who survived.”

One of the key conversations in the documents begins on February 11, at 5:29 pm, when Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, writes: “Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…”

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.

At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”

Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Nordstrom adds at 9:00 pm: “the last time we had only 2 agents at post, suspending outside movements for approximately 10 days.”

Meanwhile, security on the ground became increasingly precarious.

A March 2012 memo (mistakenly cited as 2011) from the Research & Information Support Center titled “Progress Elusive in Libya,” based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 “reports indicated that al-Qa’ida leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qai’da in the Islamic Maghreb.”

The committee also released some photographs of the Benghazi compound, before and after the attack.

Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”

This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.

-Jake Tapper

.

CIA Station Chief In Libya Reported Within HOURS That US Consulate Attack Was A TERRORIST Attack. So Why The Weeks Of LIES???

October 19, 2012

You need to understand why Obama was willing to lie and lie so outrageously about the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Libya.  A lot of people simply cannot understand why Obama would lie about a terrorist attack.  Here’s why:

Obama had based his ENTIRE foreign policy “triumph” on just ONE event: the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – amounted to Obama’s foreign policy being a disaster that was in shambles: China’s rise as a major military power that directly threatens the United States and its control over the Pacific under Obama’s nose; the asinine “Russian-reset” that proved such a debacle as Russia again and again thwarted virtually every single thing the United States tried to do in the United Nations that Obama almost exclusively relies upon; Iran now almost imminently away from nuclear weapons; the disastrous euphemistically titled “Arab Spring” that has brought violence and anti-American Islamist regimes in place of stable ones in vital Arab countries like Egypt that had been allied with the United States for decades.  I mean, a terrorist organization captured the Egyptian election and is now running the country; well over 30,000 civilians have been murdered in the Syrian bloodbath while no one has done anything to even stop Iran from arming the Syrian regime.  And if Obama wanted to call the intervention that removed Gaddafi from power in Libya, that is now gone as a major al Qaeda-linked terrorist attack resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador to be murdered since Carter screwed up the universe in 1979.

What did Obama want to do?  How did he want to posture?  He wanted to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the killing of Osama bin Laden essentially amounted to the killing of al Qaeda.  “Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run,” Obama said over and over.  As if the former event ipso facto had resulted in the latter conclusion.  And Obama was desperately hoping that his total fabrication, his grand illusion, would last him past the election.

But it didn’t.  Instead, a devastating terrorist attack linked closely to al Qaeda occurred on sovereign United States territory in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans.  And what we found out since has been an equally devastating indictment against Obama’s foreign policy leadership.  We have found out that the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens had been pleading for increased security even as the Obama administration proceeded to take away what little security he had in the most dangerous state in the world.  We have found that there had been more than 230 “security incidents” in Libya prior to that withdrawing of security that cost Ambassador Stevens and three other great Americans their lives.  In two incidents, an explosive device was used – and in one a giant hole had been blown in the wall protecting the Consulate.  We found that both Britain had closed down its embassy and the Red Cross had closed down its presence in Libya because of that growing buildup of terrorism that Obama was so obvlivious to because he’d chosen to skip 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.

As bad as these things are, it gets worse.  Because they say that the worst thing an administration can do – the very worst thing – is to try to cover-up a scandal.  And the cover-up is almost always worse than the scandal itself.  In this case that is debatable; Watergate, for instance, did not result in the murder of Americans and it did not result in an enemy attack against United States territory and the humiliation of the nation with terrorist flags going up around half a dozen of our embassies in addition to our ambassador being murdered.  But we find that cover-up is exactly what Obama did.

Let’s look at what the Obama administration said to describe the attack first.  Note they did NOT refer to it as a preplanned and coordinated “terrorist attack,” but rather as a “spontaneous” one that resulted from some stupid video.

The Obama administration trotted out the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to ALL FIVE major network political programs and had her tell what we now know to be an outright lie over and over and over again (see here for another link with more):

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Republicans called her dishonesty out from the moment she came out and so ridiculously lied that even Nancy Pelosi agreed that the Obama administration was completely full of crap.

An ad is pretty damning, as it packages up the lies told throughout the Obama administration rather concisely:

In hindsight, there can be absolutely no question that the Libyan president who called the attack what it was is far more trustworthy than the Obama administration.

We now know that there NEVER WAS a spontaneous protest in Libya prior to the terrorist attack.  And that Susan Rice directly lied to the American people.  We now know that murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens was BEGGING for more security for well over a month prior to the attack that was timed to commemorate the 9/11 attack anniversary.  We now know that there were ZERO Marines in Libya when we have Marines “guarding” many of the very safest and most secure embassies in the world instead.  We now have emails of the Obama administration via the State Department specifically rejecting those pleas for more security.  We now know that contrary to the deceitful Obama claims al Qaeda was GROWING rather than “being on the run.”  And we know now that when the Obama White House blamed faulty intelligence for their disastrous weeks of saying something that is now well-known to be a documented lie it was just another lie.

You can start to see why Obama would demand a cover-up.  And instead wanted to run on the fiction that “my messianic killing of bin Laden won the war on terror and changed the world.”

Now we find out that the CIA station chief in Libya reported within HOURS that the attack against our sovereign territory in Libya was a planned, coordinated terrorist action:

CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack
By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press     Friday, October 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — The CIA  station chief  in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of  last  month’s deadly attack on the U.S.  Consulate that there was evidence it  was carried out by militants, not a  spontaneous mob upset about an  American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet  Muhammad, U.S. officials  have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw  the cable outside the CIA  at that point and how high up in the agency  the information went. The Obama  administration maintained publicly for a  week that the attack on the diplomatic  mission in Benghazi that killed  U.S. Ambassador Chris  Stevens and three other Americans was a result of  the mobs that staged  less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around  the 11th anniversary of the  9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those  statements have become highly charged political fodder as the   presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House  committee  questioned State  Department officials for hours about what GOP  lawmakers  said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist   Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday,  President Barack Obama and Republican  challenger Mitt Romney argued  over when Obama first said it was a terror  attack. In his Rose Garden  address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “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.”

But  Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call   the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the  president and  other key members of his administration referring at first  to the anti-Muslim  movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating  event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding  documents to show  what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during  and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack   probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked  group, with no public  demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary  RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of  war” for the early conflicting accounts.

The  officials who told the AP about the CIA  cable spoke anonymously because  they were not authorized to release such  information publicly.

Congressional  aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this  week to  build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare   that to what the White House was telling the  public about the attack.  That could give Romney ammunition to use in his  foreign policy debate  with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA  station chief in Libya compiled intelligence  reports from eyewitnesses  within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate  that indicated militants  launched the violence, using the pretext of  demonstrations against U.S.  facilities in Egypt  against the film to cover their intent. The report  from the station chief was  written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached  intelligence agencies in  Washington the next day, intelligence  officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points  sent by the CIA  to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi  were  spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S.  Embassy in Cairo and  evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by  the AP, added: “There are indications that  extremists participated in  the violent demonstrations” but did not mention  eyewitness accounts that  blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA  on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the  headquarters in  Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other  intelligence derived from  eavesdropping drones and satellite images.  Only then would such intelligence  generally be shared with the White  House and  later, Congress, a process that can take hours,  or days if the  intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or  may not  be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in  this case the delay  was due in part to the time it took to analyze various  conflicting  accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because  he  wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it  was  clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that  the early  question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they  were the crowd,” and  it took until the following week to figure that  out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

“I  think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very  good  individual, put out some speaking points on the initial  intelligence  assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair  Dianne Feinstein,  D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5  in California this  week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

“The  early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are   hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being  pretty far  afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want  to deter the  intelligence community from sharing their best first  impressions” after such  events in the future.

“The intelligence  briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent  with what the  administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry,  R-Texas, a  member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees.   Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA  report but  voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA  Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original  account when they  briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“How could they be so certain  immediately after such events, I just don’t  know,” he said. “That raises  suspicions that there was political  motivation.”

National  Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The  Office of  the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for  comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door  testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that  during  questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts   who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had  initiated  the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not  mention the CIA’s  early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that  the account could change  as more intelligence was uncovered, they said,  speaking on condition of  anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond  the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s  also  proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently   killed Stevens and his communications aide  or launched the mortars that  killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as  contract security guards at  a fallback location. That delay is prompting  lawmakers to question  whether the intelligence community has the resources it  needs to  investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight   against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials  say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi  militia, Ansar  al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but  is known  to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida  in the Islamic  Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan  locals  at the consulate during the  violence, and intelligence intercepts show  the militants were in contact with  AQIM militants before and after the  attack, one U.S.  intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence  has not been  able to match those reported sightings with the faces of  attackers caught on  security camera recordings during the attack, since  many U.S.  intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the  aftermath of the  violence, the two U.S. intelligence  officials said.

Nor  have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was   preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers  used,  setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the  backup compounds, then  attacking the main entrance to distract, while  sending a larger force to  assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may  prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to  bring about  relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a   post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is  so new  it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the  location of  U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

How do you think the press would have covered it had George Bush essentially stated that the war on terror was over due to his policies and triumphs?  How do you think the press would have covered it if an event such as the one described above had rather catastrophically proven that Bush was a lying sack of cockroach turds?

This was NOT the result of poor intelligence, as the dishonest Obama administration is deceitfully demagoguing; this was NOT the result of a failure of intelligence, it was the failure of Obama policy.  Period.  The intelligence services were warning about an attack well before one actually occurred; specifically Ambassador Chris Stevens’ security team was screaming that the terrorist threat was growing and they were dangerously exposed.  No.  You can’t blame that on poor intelligence, unless you want to blame it on the poor intelligence of the commander-in-chief who couldn’t be bothered with such intelligence developments.

I’ve come to realize how the game is played: if a Republican is president, and says ANYTHING that isn’t the absolute unvarnished truth, he is decried as a liar by the media.  If, on the other hand, a Democrat is president and tells a thousand lies wrapped in a half-truth, well, he is praised for his integrity and transparency.

What is ironic, and possibly even funny depending on the outcome of the election, is that in doing the above in the case of Libya, the media may have fatally wounded their own messiah.  Because had they come out after Obama hard right away the way they would have come after Bush, they kept allowing Obama to have more and more rope to put around his neck with his lies and cover-ups – whereas Bush would have been smashed in the face with the very first appearance of deception and forced to come clean.  And what is happening now is that very pissed off intelligence professionals who don’t like being slandered are going to keep a story alive just before an election that otherwise likely would have been put to bed a month ago.  And by their refusal to go after Obama they have allowed him to fatally wound his own reelection.

The same thing happened with the first debate: the media sheltered Obama and Obama himself went only on friendly media territory where he would never be challenged.  And as a result he suffered the most disastrous first debate performance of any sitting president in history, losing by a catastrophic fifty freaking points because he was so ridiculously unprepared.

Romney Surge Continues With Seven-Point Gallup Lead And First EVER Lead In Electoral College Over Obama

October 19, 2012

First of all, there’s the Gallup poll of likely voters (the most accurate measure of actual voter turnout):

Mitt Romney has opened up a 7-point lead.  And if that number is even close to correct, this race is OVER.

Only a few days ago, the blabbing heads were talking about Romney winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college.  But now the Romney surge is showing up there, too in the RCP average:

Both developments are enough to individually put Chris Matthews into a straitjacket and then into a rubber room.  Not that he didn’t belong there already.

But just to make sure he enters his rubber room with a mouth frothing with rabis, too, another developement is that Obama is may be losing by four points in Pennsylvania.

The Washington Times has an interesting write-up about all of these recent developments:

EDITORIAL: Romney’s electoral insurgency
Republicans are picking off states while Democrats scramble
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Thursday, October 18, 2012

A political tectonic shift is under way. Heading into the final weeks of the  presidential campaign, the electoral map is changing decisively. Areas  previously thought safe for Barack Obama are  becoming competitive, and tossup states are turning into safe havens for Mitt Romney. A month ago, commentators were  claiming the roads to victory were closing for the Romney campaign. Now it’s the  Obama camp hunkering down to make a last stand around a few critical states.

On Thursday, the RealClearPolitics electoral-vote map gave Mr.  Romney the lead for the first time. President Obama  had an 88-vote advantage two weeks ago, but now the challenger leads by five.  This 93-vote swing took place chiefly because four states on the Great Lakes — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin — changed from “leaning Obama” to tossups. This combined 64-vote loss significantly broadened the territory the  Obama team needs to contest.

Last week, Suffolk University  pollster David Paleologos took criticism  for saying Mr. Romney had a lock on Florida,  Virginia and North Carolina, worth a collective 57 electoral votes. Today, that  is orthodoxy. The New York TimesNate Silver, who still points to an Obama  win, has Florida, Virginia and North Carolina in the Romney column as well as  Colorado’s nine electoral votes, which many analysts see as beyond Mr.  Obama’s reach.

Adding up these states puts Mr. Romney’s  base at 257 electoral votes, a mere 13 from victory. This was considered  impossible a few weeks ago. From that substantial position, the Republican could  win by taking Ohio (18 electoral votes), Michigan (16) or Pennsylvania (20).  Even if he lost all three of these large states, he still would end up on top by  taking Wisconsin (10) and one other small swing state from among New Hampshire  (4), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6).

This is the background to Major Garrett’s National Journal report on  Wednesday that Obama operatives have been  reduced to pursuing a four-state strategy. They are entrenching in Ohio, New  Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada in hopes of blocking the Romney endgame and eking out  a victory. Whether this strategic-hamlet approach can prevail against the Romney  insurgency remains to be seen, but it doesn’t account for the fluid nature of  the electoral battle space.

It’s true no Republican has won the White House without the Buckeye State,  but history isn’t destiny. In the 10 elections between 1952 and 1988, California  went for Democrats only in 1964. If Mr.  Obama focuses resources to hold Ohio but loses Pennsylvania or Michigan, he  won’t be re-elected.

Mr. Romney’s options for victory are  increasing while Mr. Obama’s dwindle. As the  Obama campaign hunkers down into its final electoral redoubts, it’s worth  recalling Gen. George S. Patton’s dictum that “fixed fortifications are  monuments to the stupidity of man.” The tighter Mr. Obama tries to grip these four states, the  more likely the election will slip through his fingers.

Obama and his mob of Chicago communists are going to be throwing more crap than monkeys in a dirty cage between now and the election.

No, Obama DIDN’T Call The Benghazi, Libya Terrorist Act Even An ‘Act of Terror,’ Let Alone A Terrorist Attack. But If You Say He Did HE’S STILL A LIAR!!!

October 18, 2012

Did Obama call the September 11 attack on the US Consulate In Libya a terrorist act or not?

The answer is “NOT,” since this is the speech he claims he did:

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
For Immediate Release September 12, 2012

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack [Me: what KIND of attack?  A coordinated terrorist attack or a spontaneous unplanned attack by an angry mob as the Obama administration kept claiming for DAYS after the attack?] on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks [Me: ah, yes, the 9/11 attack which even Barack Hussein Obama would agree would be “an act of terror.”].  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation [Me: is Obama claiming that the Libya attack he mentioned nine paragraphs earlier was the “act of terror,” or was he referring to the 9/11 attack  that he had just referred to 2 paragraphs previously], alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

So you can see that there is NO logical reason to believe Obama was calling the attack on the US Consulate in Libya a “terrorist attack.”  He had just been talking about the 9/11 attack which even OBAMA thinks is a terrorist attack.  And in what universe is referring to “acts of terror” the same as calling something “a terrorist attack”?  Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Barack Obama, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and most particularly US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice were correct, and the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi WAS a “spontaneous act” by a protest mob enraged by a stupid Youtube video: would that NOT be “an act of terror”???  What else would you call it if a bunch of religious fanatics who hated you and broadcasted that hatred because of their warped religion had gone nuts and murdered your whole family?  “An act of happiness”?

And keep in mind, for more than two weeks after what intelligence was calling “a terrorist attack” within hours, this is the VERY STRONGEST STATEMENT Obama can now point to to claim he promptly damned as at least “terror” (but not “terrorist”).

Here’s the other thing: let’s say for the sake of argument that Barack Obama was actually calling what everyone now knows (no thanks to Obama or his administration) was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack.  Then WHY did Obama order his army of cockroach demon minions to repeatedly lie and say the exact opposite thing:

See the problem?  Obama now says that he officially declared that the attack on the US Consulate was in fact a terrorist attack, but then he sent out high-ranking administration official after high-ranking administration official to lie for the next two weeks.

And what about Obama himself lying after his own incredibly brief moment of “truth-telling” when he supposedly said that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya was in fact a terrorist attack.

On September 20 – more than a week after Obama now says he referred to the attack as a terrorist attack – Obama said this to Univision:

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA:  “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

On September 25 – and this is now two weeks after the attack that Obama now says he called a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech – Obama responded to a direct question with the following answer:

QUESTION: “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So if you want to believe Barack Obama and that disgrace-to-journalism Candy Crowley, Obama told the American people the truth concealed in a weak statement on September 12 and then proceeded to personally repeatedly lie after that brief moment of weakly telling the truth.

And this after a parade of lies that included Obama appointee UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly specifically denying that it was a terrorist attack and repeatedly asserting something which we now know to have been a complete fabrication.  Which was it?

Either way you want to slice it, Barack Obama is a documented liar (again!) and he is the president of an administration of liars who have been doing everything they could to cover-up a terrorist attack that occurred on sovereign United States territory which resulted in the deaths of four Americans including a United States Ambassador.

And the fact that Obama would falsely assert that he called something “terror” that not only that very speech he referenced but the following two weeks AFTER that speech rather conclusively proves he didn’t is just another of a massive series of proofs just how willing Obama is to deceive.

Who Won The Obama-Romney Debate Last Night: A Closer Look At The Post-Debate Poll Shows It Wasn’t Even CLOSE.

October 17, 2012

Here’s an interesting article which has the virtue of laying out the most important facts in a very few words:

CNN Poll: Obama wins overall, Romney wins many issues
Oct 16, 2012
by Carla Marinucci

The major post debate polls are showing most debate watchers think President Obama was the winner — and a typical finding comes in the CNN post-debate poll of registered voters who actually watched the debate. They were 33 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican — which means it’s weighted a bit to include about 8 percent more Republicans than the voting population as a whole.

Bottom line: by 46-39 percent, the CNN.com poll respondents called Obama the winner. But asked who did the debate make you more likely to vote for, the respondents were tied between Romney and Obama, 25-25 percent.

Still, Romney won in other key areas:
*On who would better handle the economy: 58 percent Romney; 40 percent Obama.
*On who would better handle health care: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
*On taxes: 51 percent Romney; 44 percent Obama
*On who is a stronger leader: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
*On who is more likeable: 47 percent Obama: 41 percent Romney
*On who cares more about your life: 44 percent Obama; 40 percent Romney
*On who answered more directly: 45 percent Romney; 43 percent Obama

Okay, first the sampling of Republicans versus Democrats that Marinucci mentions.  It is incredibly interesting to me that CNN is giving Democrats an eight-point advantage in their sampling formula.  Do you know what the balance between Democrat and Republican voting was in the historic Obama wave election of 2008?  It was +7 Democrat.  CNN says it’s going to be +8 this time.  It’s really amazing when you stop and think about it: CNN and the other polling organizations that have such an oversampling formula for Democrats are literally predicting that this election will be even BIGGER for Obama than it was in 2008 when he was the messiah and everybody was blaming Bush and nobody could blame Obama because he promised hope and change.  Is that what you think?  Seriously?  Do you believe that the masses are even crazier for Obama now than they were four years ago?  I sure as hell don’t.

Okay, so the CNN poll shows that by a seven-point margin that Romney blew the doors off in the last debate, “Obama won the debate.”  You might remember that first debate – when Romney destroyed Obama by 50 damn points.

Well, here’s the question, when it’s time to vote, do you believe that voters will ask:

Who won that second debate?  The poll says maybe Obama did.  And the first debate that Romney won by fifty points is meaningless but that second debate was huge.  I’ll vote for Obama…

Or do you think they will ask:

Who will do a better job handling the economy?

If it is the second thing, like every sentient being (sorry Democrats, I know that rules you out) thinks it is, Mitt Romney won last night’s debate HUGE.  Who would better handle the economy?  After watching the debate, people by an 18-point margin chose Romney over Obama.

[Update, 10/17/12: Oh, my.  It’s even worse than I thought it was for Obama.  I found out that the CBS post-debate poll was even WORSE in proving that Obama has no answer for the economy and people overwhelmingly know he doesn’t.  Check this CBS article points out: the American people think that Mitt Romney will do a better job handling the economy than Obama by a 31-point margin (65% to 34%).

The Gallup poll among likely voters out today has Mitt Romney up by six points nationally.  I can’t imagine that Obama even slowed Romney’s momentum down last night.

Tom Brokaw: Obama Is Going To Have To Answer For His Out-Of Control Deficit. And HOW He Is.

October 16, 2012

When even doctrinaire liberal statesmen start saying stuff like this, Obama is in trouble:

Brokaw: ‘Obama Is Going to Have to Answer For’ Exploding Budget Deficit ‘On His Watch’
By Noel Sheppard | October 14, 2012 | 13:00

Criticism of Barack Obama came from a surprising source Sunday.

Appearing on Meet the Press, former NBC Nightly News anchor  Tom Brokaw said the President “is going to have to answer for” the explosion in  the federal budget deficit that “happened on his watch” (video follows with  transcript and commentary):

[See embedded video at Newsbusters for Brokaw saying the following on video]

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: The issue of the debt, the issue of  taxes. I think it’s important to get to one of the big issues here. We have got  to in these final few weeks try to reach some resolution about this revenue  issue, whether we raise revenue to deal with the debt, because whether it’s  Medicare or whether it’s dealing with the debt level at the level that it’s at,  without agreement on both sides, we’re not going to be able to tackle some of  the more difficult issues, Tom.

TOM BROKAW: You know, I think that both campaigns have  failed to say to the American public, “This is going to be hard. This is a real  crisis in America.” You look at the IMF projections about where the global  economy is now. They’re saying you have to get your act together. We could be in  another recession next year at this time. They’ve got to level with the American  people about everyone’s going to have to give something. And there is going to  have to be some revenue raised at some point as well. I do think that the  governor is right, and we’ll expect to hear Governor Romney go after President  Obama this time about, “I want more details about your plan. You keep harping on  me. I haven’t heard the details in your plan as well.”

I looked at that  debate we that talked about a moment ago, it was playing last night on C-SPAN,  and governor [sic], now President Obama was saying, “Look, we’ve got a deficit  of half a trillion dollars. I’m going to get that under control.” Well, this  week, that deficit is $1.1 trillion and it happened on his watch. He is going to  have to answer for that.

Imagine that – Obama is going to have to answer for something.

Of course, the question is whether this is going to happen or if his media  will continue to allow him to not speak to this issue as they press Romney for  answers right through Election Day.

Stay tuned.

I’ve said it over and over and over.  All you have to do is use my blog’s search engine and type in “deficit” or “debt” to find that out.  Conservatives have been saying it.  Republicans have been saying it.  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and the entire Romney campaign have been saying it.

But up to now, the elite media have refused to say it.  Until now.

The fact that it has been the brazen truth for four miserable years is completely beside the point, of course.

Look, the last budget under George W. Bush had a deficit of $455 billion:

Federal deficit hits record $455 billion
The shortfall for fiscal 2008 is larger than was feared. It is likely to be a key issue in the last weeks of the campaign.
October 15, 2008|Richard Simon | Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Compounding terrible economic news, budget officials announced Tuesday that the federal deficit has soared to a record $455 billion, injecting new urgency into the closing days of the presidential campaign about spending in Washington, including efforts to stem the financial disaster.

The final accounting for fiscal 2008 produced a larger shortfall than had been projected, reflecting the start of federal efforts to address the economic emergency. It is certain to become a significant issue in the campaign, confronting the candidates with new questions about their growing slate of proposals for new spending and tax cuts at a time when red ink is surging.

[…]

Democrats blamed Bush and his Republican allies in Congress for wiping out a budget surplus inherited from the Clinton administration through tax cuts that have been criticized for favoring the wealthy and through other spending.

Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the deficit was a “warning sign of the immense fiscal challenges just beginning to arise with the retirement of the baby boomers” and should be viewed as a call for Congress to control spending.

Now, I want you to notice that ending: Democrats demonized the other side and blamed them for everything (ignoring the fact that Democrats had controlled both the House of Representatives AND the US Senate for the previous two years, while Paul Ryan said we need to do something to fix our spending crisis or we will be in huge trouble soon.  One side focused on blame and demagoguery, the other side tried to get something done to fix the problem.

Democrats have lied and deceived about the Bush tax cut creating deficits for years, and they are dishonest.  Do you know which year produced the highest federal income tax revenue in American history, kids?  Was it in 1962 when the top marginal rate was over ninety damn percent?  No.  Was it back when we’re told that Bill Clinton paved every street in America with gold?  Nope.  It was the year 2007 thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts that encouraged people to start businesses and increase their investments.  That year, the United States raised a record $1,163,472 in individual income tax revenue and an also-record $370-plus billion in corporate income tax revenue.

That increase in tax revenues began almost IMMEDIATELY because of the Bush tax cut, for the official historic record.  Because Bush’s 2003 tax cut:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have been so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Even the New York Freaking Liberal TIMES was forced to acknowledge that the Bush tax cut had INCREASED FEDERAL TAX REVENUES:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

If you claim that the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit and blame Bush for the whopping deficit and stunning debt, you are therefore, henceforth, ergo sum and ipso facto a documented LIAR.  Because the fact is that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue and revenues have since PLUNGED because Barack Obama has spent the last four years demonizing the wealthy and threatening every single year to attack them with punitive tax rates.

By the way, I mentioned the top rate being over ninety percent in the 1960s; do you know that under Obama and his constant demagoguery of higher taxes for the rich, under Obama we’ve suffered the biggest drop in revenues SINCE the 1960s when the top marginal tax rate was over ninety percent and the wealthy were sheltering their money rather than using it to create jobs and increase investment?

Interestingly, in spite of the DotCom recession that Clinton created and handed to George Bush – which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and which annihilated 78% of the Nasdaq stock index valuation – George Bush that year produced over $160 billion more dollars in revenue than Bill Clinton EVER did in his very best year.  So how the hell is a tax cut plan that INCREASES tax revenues to blame for increasing the deficit other than the fact that being a Democrat is tantamount to being a pathologically dishonest and deranged weasel???

I have documented that every single time we have EVER cut tax rates in American history – EVERY SINGLE TIME – America has increased its federal income tax revenues.  That is what happened when Calvin Coolidge tried it; that is what happened when John F. Kennedy tried it; that is what happened when Ronald Reagan tried it; and that is what the hell happened when George W. Bush tried it.

Barack Obama is a pathologically dishonest liar.  What he did was pile up a massive, enormous load of debt and then blame it on Bush.  Let’s review that Obama spending:

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who passed the $862 billion stimulus on February 17, 2009.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who did that $79 billion bailout for Government Motors and their union Democrats in 2009.  Obama claimed the credit but stuck Bush with the bill because Obama did it in 2009.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who signed that $410 billion Omnibus bill in March of 2009.  Again, Bush’s fiscal year, therefore it must have been Bush who spent that money.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who left $350 billion in TARP money to President Damn Bush who spent it in early 2009.  Because according to actual reality Bush spent half of the $700 billion TARP fund and left the other half for Obama to spend.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who rammed that damned $2.6 trillion ObamaCare – Ooh, I’m sorry, BusheyCare bill – down our collectivist throats at the end of 2009.

Obama made some other incredibly deceitful and frankly demonic assertions in his budget math, too.  Obama asserted that the Iraq War would have gone on FOREVER unless he, the messiah, had ended it.  It didn’t matter that Bush won the Iraq War in spite of Obama’s demagoguery or that Bush negotiated the final status of forces agreement that the US followed when we pulled out our troops to “give Obama his great achievement.”  But Obama claimed that in “ending” the Iraq War on Bush’s timetable, Obama somehow saved $700 billion over Bush.  And of course Obama MASSIVELY increased the war in Afghanistan (something which Bush wisely avoided) such that more than 70% of all the American soldiers killed in Afghanistan were killed under Obama’s four years with fewer than 30% being killed over Bush’s eight years in Afghanistan.  But in Obama’s math, he inherited the war in Afghanistan and it doesn’t matter one wit if he’s the fool who massively escalated that war or not.  Bush gets the blame, regardless of what the subject is, and Obama gets the credit.

So of course by Obama’s logic Bush is somehow responsible for ALL the SPENDING of the two wars (including the nearly twelve-year-long war in Afghanistan that Obama massively escalated before cutting and losing), and Obama is responsible for all the SAVINGS from the same wars.

In any event, Obama managed to turn an actual Bush $455 billion budget deficit that Bush left him into an imaginary trillion-dollar deficit and then promised categorically that he would cut that deficit he “inherited” in half by the end of his first term.

And of course the problem is that Obama is a liar by EVEN HIS OWN INCREDIBLY DISHONEST METRICHis promise to cut the deficit in half was just one more among all the other major promises that he broke.

And now Obama is going to make a whole bunch of the same sort of promises he made before and he’ll be just as dishonest about keeping them as he was the last damn time we believed his lies.