Obama’s Outright, Apalling LIE As He Avoids Responsibility For HIS Appallingly Poor Decision Covered Up By Mainstream Media – But Here It Is

Obama is the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race, bar NONE.  NO HUMAN BEING in the entire history of the world has been seen by so many telling so many lies.

I stated that fact after Obama had “fundamentally transformed” America’s health care system based on lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.

But I’m going to add the word “treasonous” to “liar.”  Because when you lie about the national security of the United States of America, that’s what you are: a traitor.

It wasn’t that long ago that Barack Obama angrily denounced as a lie the allegation that he was responsible for the decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq – which of course facilitated the invasion from across Syria into Iraq by ISIS/ISIL:

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. — is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq. [link]

Well, there is not only video after video after video after video of Obama claiming credit for ending the war in Iraq:

If you go to this recent article, I’ve got Obama’s “I got us out of Iraq” boasts ad nauseam.  And they SHOULD make you nauseous.  One of the quotes I cite is this one when Obama boasts that he is pulling out all forces from Iraq in 2011:

“I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.”

So we already knew that when Barack Obama claimed that it wasn’t HIS decision to pull US forces out of Iraq and leave a vacuum for the next terrorist organization to occupy, Obama was a liar without shame, without decency, without honor, without integrity, without courage, without virtue of any kind.

Barack Hussein Obama is a pathologically wicked man.  And I believe that it is clear that he is a truly demon-possessed man.

But we have more now: which the mainstream media would have long since dug up had the president been a Republican liar rather than a Democrat liar.  We actually have Obama in a national debate specifically disavowing any status of forces agreement and arguing that he was hell bent on cutting and running and would not allow American troops to remain in Iraq:

In fact, Obama very clearly objected when Mitt Romney declared during a debate that both he and Obama would have preferred a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) that left a residual force in Iraq:

“With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,” Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. “That’s not true,” Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

So when Obama tries to disavow and duck his personal responsibility for his incredibly godawful, outrageous, immoral decision to pull our troops out of Iraq rather than leave a residual force that would have kept Iraq as safe and as secure as Obama and Biden BOASTED it had become after George Bush won the Iraq War after Democrats did EVERYTHING they could to thwart him and undermine him and demonize him and slander him for doing so, HE IS A LIAR.

Joe Biden said the following about the Iraq War that President Bush had won:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

So we have it on documented historical record that Obama and his administration weren’t just claiming credit for ending the war and pulling all our troops out; they were claiming credit for the safe, stable, peaceful Iraq that had been left behind as Bush left office.

We’ve got Obama’s own words to confirm that FACT from 2011 when he was pulling all our troops out:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

We also know that the military was BEGGING Obama to change his mind with his incredibly stupid, depraved and evil decision to pull all out troops out and piss away all the sacrifices we had made:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

The generals KNEW this disaster would happen as terrorists swept back in.  But Barack Obama, reckless, demon-possessed Democrat FOOL that he is, ignored them and overrode them.

One of the architects of the successful surge strategy that turned the war around in Iraq PREDICTED the following AT THE VERY TIME THAT OBAMA WAS ANNOUNCING HIS WITHDRAWAL:

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’
Others echo call for strength against Iran
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times
Sunday, October 23, 2011

President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

U.S. troops will be vacating Iraq at a time when neither Baghdad’s counterterrorism skills nor its abilities to protect against invasion are at levels needed to fully protect the country, say analysts long involved in the nearly nine-year war.

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

How could Obama lie like this?  How could the Democrat Party so circle their wagons around such a clearly wicked and dishonest liar???

I submit to you that there is no possible way that Barack Obama and his Democrat Party and the media propaganda machine that protects him are all truly possessed by demons.  You cannot be that stupid, that blind, that depraved or even that dishonest without Satan owning your soul.

Barack Obama is the worst kind of coward there ever was.  He is a coward and a malignant narcissist who cannot face up to taking responsibility for his disgraceful decisions.

Now we’re back into Iraq and we can’t fight these brutally vicious people after Obama stupidly allowed them to gain a stranglehold over Iraq.

Obama’s handpicked Secretary of Defense just admitted this:

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel dramatically upgraded the U.S. government’s estimation of the threats America faces from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on Thursday, saying its jihadi network represents ‘an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else.’

ISIS is ‘as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen,’ Hagel told a group of reporters during a joint press conference he held with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

‘They’re beyond just a terrorist group.They marry ideology and a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well funded. …This is beyond anything we’ve seen, so we must prepare for everything.’

‘And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and – and – and get ready.’

Obama stupidly, arrogantly, narcissistically, had called this group “junior varsity.”  And they are so much better and so much stronger and so much better organized than we are – thanks to the pathological disgrace wicked, vile Democrats put in office TWICE – that it should make you want to scream and rip out every shred of your hair.

In the same article cited above, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also gave his input on the consequences of Barack Obama’s incredibly stupid and pathologically evil decision to allow ISIS beheaders to first overwhelm Syria – which Republicans had begged Obama to contain – and then overwhelm Iraq:

Gen. Dempsey warned that America’s involvement in Iraq will continue for years to come, citing the intensity of hatred among ethnic, religious and tribal groups there.

‘The conflict against those groups – most of which are local, some of which are regional, and some of which are global in nature – that’s going to be a very long contest,’ he said.

‘It’s ideological. It’s not political. It’s religious in many cases. So, yes, it’s going to be a very long contest.’

At the same time the decorated general cautioned that the ‘required participation’ of the U.S. would remain one of coalition leadership ‘to provide the unique capabilities that we provide, but not necessarily all the capabilities’ – a suggestion that an unlimited release of military might to crush ISIS is off the table.

Dempsey added later in the briefing that ISIS can’t practically be contained in Iraq, since it also has deep roots and tremendous resources across the Syrian border.

The terror group ‘has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,’ the general explained.

‘Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.’

Do you understand this?  Obama caused this.  This is BECAUSE of Obama.  We had WON in Iraq.  We had a chance to defeat Assad in Syria and aid a pro-democracy takeover of that country.  Obama lost both for us.

Let’s go back to the could haves, would haves and should haves, to the president we COULD have had if we didn’t have demon-possessed people destroying the soul and body of America (Democrats), if they hadn’t elected a complete fool for our president (Obama).  Let’s go back to John McCain’s strategy for securing Iraq:

[Voter at forum dubbed “EH” by McCain due to his likeness to Ernest Hemingway]: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –-

Mr. McCain: Maybe a hundred.

We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.

That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

John McCain rightly pointed out that having won the war – which we did – we needed to secure and maintain what we had won.  That’s what we did in Japan.  That’s what we did in Europe.  That’s what we did in Korea.  That’s what we needed to do in Iraq.

The New York Times captured the exchange in a transcript form (same link as above).  The same “EH” had previously said:

E.H.: I want to say at the outset I’m not going to be voting for you. I’m going to be voting in the Democratic primary in order to defeat the senator from new york, who I refer to as a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

I have listened to Hillary Clinton say probably a hundred times that she will end the war and I’ve heard you say we can’t leave Iraq.

And you see, the thing is that McCain was RIGHT and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were WRONG.  We CAN’T leave Iraq.  It is stupid and in fact morally depraved to leave Iraq after we fought so hard to win there.  Weakness invites thugs, withdrawal invites and literally incites terrorists.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might as well have said, “Please come in and take over and create a caliphate.”  Because that’s what their policy guaranteed.

The above discussion took place January 6, 2008.  At that time John McCain already understood that the corner had been turned in the war – which ultimately resulted in an exultant Joe Biden claiming victory in Iraq.  And McCain pointed out:

But the fact is it’s American casualties that the American people care about and those casualties are on the way down rather dramatically.

And the option, and I’ll say this again because you’ve got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I’d look you in the eye and tell you Al Queda would have said we beat the United States of America. If we’d gone along with Harry Reid and said the war was lost to Al Queda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East, and I am convinced of that and so is General Petraeus as well as others.

The Washington Post fact checker – a liberal paper, mind you – documented the disgraceful lies and frankly slander that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made of John McCain’s clearly wise policy.

John McCain was right.  The entire Democrat Party machine – including the Senate Majority Leader who had disgracefully said, “I believe the war is lost,” and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were united behind the defeat of America.  It is simply a fact that in hindsight anyone who isn’t a truly demon-possessed fool can see now.

And yes, ye demon-possessed Democrat who thinks Hillary is still anything other than a fool’s choice for president, Hillary Clinton JOINED Obama in betraying America in 2008 and slandering John McCain’s common sense wisdom regarding US policy in Iraq.

You need to understand that when you vote for the Democrat Party, YOU ARE VOTING FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL.  You are voting for evil to prevail in foreign policy and national security – as is clearly documented here.  You are voting for evil to prevail in the murder of more innocent babies (already surpassing 56,662,169 and counting) than were killed on all sides, civilian and military, throughout the entirety of the worst and bloodiest war in all human history (“only” 56,125,262 killed).  You are voting for homosexual sodomy which is the rock bottom low that the Bible clearly teaches in Romans 1:18-32 is the nadir of culture and guarantees the full wrath of God on that culture.  You are voting for evil to prevail in your socialism, which is the replacement of God with your State and the death of the dignity of the human spirit as you plunge people into government dependency when they should be dependent upon God their Savior and upon His people rather than your bound-for-hell Bureaucrats.  Your precious “separation of church and state” is nothing more than a perversion of everything that this nation has stood for and is nothing short of the separation of God from America.  And it shows in everything you do and in everything you stand for.

If you are a Democrat you have radically rejected Jesus Christ and you will scream in the fire of hell for all eternity for your wickedness.  And even eternal hell will not last long enough for you to suffer for all that you did on earth for the blasphemous crimes you committed against God and against the image of God and against humanity.

 

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

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.

Who Starred In That Movie ‘The Shining’? Was It Jack Nicholson Or Was It Joe Biden From His Debate?

I lifted this from a previous recent post that had a slightly different point:

Joe Biden mocked a lot of things in his debate Thursday night.  He mocked Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, of course.  But he also began to grin like the village idiot pretty much every time Paul Ryan began an answer, as if to point out that the world’s most intolerant lunatics can’t emotionally handle a different opinion in any way, shape or form.

Psychologist and brilliant political commentator Charles Krauthammer said that Joe Biden’s debate preparation clearly consisted in watching the movie “The Shining”:

And it’s a classic comparison: I don’t know how Jack Torrance (Nicholson’s character in the movie) would have debated any differently than Biden if he wasn’t allowed to take his axe to the debate.  In fact, I’ll bet Jack Torrance would have been slightly more polite than Joe Biden, and refrained from interrupting Paul Ryan 85 times the way Biden did.

CNN (which for the record declared Ryan the winner in their polling by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin) had an interesting find that was somewhat surprising: it said that women thought that Paul Ryan had won the debate by a larger measure than men did – which is exactly the opposite that one would expect given that women are considerably more likely to vote Democrat than men.

I have a feeling that many women put themselves in Paul Ryan’s shoes and saw Joe Biden as an overbearing, domineering, patronizing rat bastard who would mock them and denigrate them and smirk while a woman was talking so that everybody would know he thought she was an idiot.  And they didn’t like it.  And that debate performance may hurt Obama more than a lot of people realize right now for the very reason that it emotionally turned off the very women voters that Obama is most counting upon.

A female Republican pollster on Huckabee’s program pointed out that Obama and Biden actually depicted the two kinds of men women most loathe: Obama as the passive, uncaring, uninvolved man who couldn’t even generate the emotional energy to manufacture a little bit of eye contact; and Biden as the overbearing, loutish, patronizing, dismissive blowhard.

Personally I’d rather see Jack Nicholson’s face mocking me from the side of the door he’d just smashed in with his axe.  I mean, yes, Jack Nicholson in character would try to kill me; but Joe Biden in character would try to destroy me, my entire family, my way of life and my entire nation.

Some Democrat apologist said that she appreciated Biden’s performance because Joe interrupted Ryan every time Ryan stretched the truth.  You know what I would have done if I’d been on that panel?  I would have interrupted that idiot woman every time she spoke and said she was stretching the truth so I could interrupt her.  Pretty soon, after being cut off – oh, I don’t know, for the eighty-fifth TIME – she would hopefully realize how vile the tactic that she applauded Biden for truly was.  Because you know what?  BOTH sides think the other side is lying – and if I act like Democrat Nazis and decide that I have a right to interrupt a liberal every single time I think they’re saying something that isn’t true, well, guess what: that Democrat will NEVER get to complete a damn sentence.

Morally intelligent people – and yes, I know, that excludes the entire universe of Democrats – understand that the purpose of a debate is for both sides to present their views, and for the AUDIENCE to get to decide who is lying and who is telling the damn truth.  And that would have happened Wednesday night if liberalism didn’t equal fascism.

Joe Biden Mocked Iran’s Growing Nuclear Capability In Debate: Because He’s A Fool And Ignorantly Mocks Just Like The Fool He Is

Joe Biden mocked a lot of things in his debate Thursday night.  He mocked Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, of course.  But he also began to grin like the village idiot pretty much every time Paul Ryan began an answer, as if to point out that the world’s most intolerant lunatics can’t emotionally handle a different opinion in any way, shape or form.

Psychologist and brilliant political commentator Charles Krauthammer said that Joe Biden’s debate preparation clearly consisted in watching the movie “The Shining”:

And it’s a classic comparison: I don’t know how Jack Torrance (Nicholson’s character in the movie) would have debated any differently than Biden if he wasn’t allowed to take his axe to the debate.  In fact, I’ll bet Jack Torrance would have been slightly more polite than Joe Biden, and refrained from interrupting Paul Ryan 85 times the way Biden did.

CNN (which for the record declared Ryan the winner in their polling by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin) had an interesting find that was somewhat surprising: it said that women thought that Paul Ryan had won the debate by a larger measure than men did – which is exactly the opposite that one would expect given that women are considerably more likely to vote Democrat than men.

I have a feeling that many women put themselves in Paul Ryan’s shoes and saw Joe Biden as an overbearing, domineering, patronizing rat bastard who would mock them and denigrate them and smirk while a woman was talking so that everybody would know he thought she was an idiot.  And they didn’t like it.  And that debate performance may hurt Obama more than a lot of people realize right now for the very reason that it emotionally turned off the very women voters that Obama is most counting upon.

A female Republican pollster on Huckabee’s program pointed out that Obama and Biden actually depicted the two kinds of men women most loathe: Obama as the passive, uncaring, uninvolved man who couldn’t even generate the emotional energy to manufacture a little bit of eye contact; and Biden as the overbearing, loutish, patronizing, dismissive blowhard.

That said, one of the things that Joe Biden mocked was Iran getting a nuclear weapon.  It was frankly amazing how dismissive he was of what pretty much every expert in the field says is a frighteningly real possibility.

But those who dismiss Iran’s capability are as stupid as those who dismiss their resolve.

Let me give you a very real example as reported by the extremely überleftist Daily Kos:

The Christian Science Monitor reports that an Iranian engineer has told a reported what we suspected:  That they hijacked the drone and fooled it into landing in Iran.  The fact that it landed intact seemed suspicious.  But how could they have defeated the super power that spends more on it’s military than the rest of the world combined?

Simple:  They jammed the control signals forcing it into autopilot mode, then overrode the GPS signals to fool it into landing in Iran.

Iranian electronic warfare specialists were able to cut off communications links of the American bat-wing RQ-170 Sentinel, says the engineer, who works for one of many Iranian military and civilian teams currently trying to unravel the drone’s stealth and intelligence secrets, and who could not be named for his safety.Using knowledge gleaned from previous downed American drones and a technique proudly claimed by Iranian commanders in September, the Iranian specialists then reconfigured the drone’s GPS coordinates to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its actual home base in Afghanistan.

Read all about it here.

The article goes on to say that the US will continue to fly over Iran.  But based on this information it seems likely that future flights will meet a similar fate.

This seems like a huge vulnerability.  Makes one wonder if a big chunk of our military budget has been wasted.

What you need to understand is the Obama administration talking heads and the intelligence and military brass that serve at Obama’s pleasure basically said at the time Obama lost one of his drones over Iran that there was no way in hell Iran had the capability to comandeer a drone and the thing must have crash landed.

They also dismissively said this:

US officials skeptical of Iran’s capabilities blame a malfunction, but so far can’t explain how Iran acquired the drone intact. One American analyst ridiculed Iran’s capability, telling Defense News that the loss was “like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture.”

Yet Iran’s claims to the contrary resonate more in light of new details about how it brought down the drone – and other markers that signal growing electronic expertise.

A former senior Iranian official who asked not to be named said: “There are a lot of human resources in Iran…. Iran is not like Pakistan.”

RECOMMENDED: Downed US drone: How Iran caught the ‘beast’

“Technologically, our distance from the Americans, the Zionists, and other advanced countries is not so far to make the downing of this plane seem like a dream for us … but it could be amazing for others,” deputy IRGC commander Gen. Hossein Salami said this week.

According to a European intelligence source, Iran shocked Western intelligence agencies in a previously unreported incident that took place sometime in the past two years, when it managed to “blind” a CIA spy satellite by “aiming a laser burst quite accurately.”

More recently, Iran was able to hack Google security certificates, says the engineer. In September, the Google accounts of 300,000 Iranians were made accessible by hackers. The targeted company said “circumstantial evidence” pointed to a “state-driven attack” coming from Iran, meant to snoop on users.

Well, guess what that “ox-cart technology culture” did with the Ferrari Obama gave them?

They reverse-engineered it and built their own model so successfully that it overflew most of Israel (via their proxy puppet Hezbollah) and netted themselves all kinds of photographic intelligence (most useful for target acquisition) with it.  When Israel shot it down they discovered that it was built with stealth technology – which was why it had been able to penetrate Israel’s defenses.

Now, if you are a complete and abject fool the way Joe Biden and Barack Obama are complete abject fools, then you will keep dreaming your naive fool’s dream that Iran is a bunch of technological retards who are actually being cowed out of their holy war by some stupid sanctions.

If you’ve got a functioning brain in your head, you won’t think that way at all.

Experts say Iran is very close to having a nuclear bomb, as USA Today back in November of LAST YEAR pointed out:

There’s time for stricter sanctions to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, but the Islamic republic is much closer to such weapons than previously believed and a military strike may be necessary, foreign policy experts say.

“With each time we have used sanctions, they’ve had more impact, but ultimately if Iran wants to pay the cost, it can get nuclear weapons,” says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The question is, can we raise the cost enough?”

Western diplomats and nuclear experts who reviewed intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program say Iran has continued work on nuclear weapons with the help of foreign scientists, despite sanctions organized by the Obama administration, a report in The Washington Post said.

Iran IS close to a nuclear weapon.  And for Joe Biden to smirk and mock like the damned fool he is was just one of the numerous examples of Biden not only mocking, but doing so at incredibly inappropriate times.

And not merely “close”; DANGEROUSLY close.

I have pointed out REPEATEDLY that when Iran gets a nuclear bomb in will be ENTIRELY Democrats’ faults and particularly Obama’s and Biden’s fault.  You can go back to the 2008 debates for the Democrat presidential nomination and you can see every Democrat mocking George Bush for saying that Iran was a growing nuclear threat.  They dismissed it and mocked it and cited a report that turned out to be completely false and Iran has been the little nuclear bomb-making engine that could on Obama’s watch.

And the only thing – the ONLY thing – that has slowed Iran down was the Stuxnet virus that the United States and Israel developed UNDER GEORGE BUSH.  And Stuxnet was just one of the many secrets that the Obama administration treasonously leaded to try to make Obama look good on national security to compensate for his failed economy.

Speaking of secrets, Obama has apparently held a not-quite-secret enough negotiation with Iran via Qatar letting Iran know that Obama will suspend the hardest sanctions later if Iran will suspend production on enriched uranium until AFTER the election in November.  Which is another way of saying to Iran that if they hold off production for a month or so Obama will give Iran its nuclear weapon and not do anything to stop it.

Folks like me call that high treason.

Another development is almost as bad.  When Iran gets the nuclear bomb – and if Obama is reelected I guarantee you that Iran will get the bomb – they will not have to use it directly to hurt us badly.

Once Iran becomes a nuclear power with the bomb and the means to deliver it, they will be off-limits to any kind of attack.  It will be not only too late, but WAY too late to deal with the threat they pose.  And one of the things they will be able to do is block the Strait of Hormuz – and send oil prices to $12 a gallon – with absolute impunity.

Here’s another thing that Barack Obama has endowed America with: the threat of a Chinese missile capable of wiping out every single aircraft carrier in our fleet and transforming the naval balance of power in the world:

A new ‘smart missile’ threatens to tip the balance of power towards China, US military analysts say.

The latest generation of the Dong Feng 21D (DF-21D) [Photo] is a supercarrier killer according to experts on China’s armaments. The missile can be launched from land and strike an aircraft carrier 900 miles away.

China has 11,200 miles of coastline. That fact coupled with the range and accuracy of the new missile could spell doom for any US or allied carrier fleet.

Patrick Cronin, a senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program that is part of the Washington, DC Center for a New American Security organization admits the DF 21D is designed to kill carriers—specifically US Naval carriers. “The Navy has long had to fear carrier—killing capabilities. The emerging Chinese anti-ship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post—Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose.”

China and Iran are allies.

If we try to end a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, will we be surprised to find out that China has given Iran a few aircraft carrier killers?

Joe Biden smirked and mocked his way through the debate.  But this is a terrifyingly real possibility that is no laughing matter to anybody but the most deluded of fools.

Unless Iran is told – AND UNLESS IRAN BELIEVES – that the United States will launch a massive military strike that will wipe out Iran’s nuclear capability and as many damned Iranians as get in the way of our wiping it out, they will soon have a nuclear bomb.

And you can read all about the war that the Bible told us would happen in the Book of Revelation.

‘If You Don’t Have A Record To Run On… You Make An Election About Small Things.’ Obama Spends WEEK Trying To Make Election About Big Bird

“If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”  — Barack Obama

Hmmm.  Is making an election all about a fake bird a small thing?  I mean, Big Bird IS a “big” bird, after all, and therefore maybe not a small thing …

Maybe making the election about Big Bird DOESN’T make Barack Obama look like a complete lying hypocrite jackass?

I’m trying to figure out when Obama was more humiliated: after basically telling 70 million viewers that he was clearly not up to the job of being president in THE WORST DEBATE DEBACLE EVER or if it was after being told by  Sesame Street to please PLEASE stop demagoguing Big Bird to try to make the election about ANYTHING ELSE other than his failed record.

Then again, a big bird, a debate watched by 70 million people in which a sitting president is utterly humiliated.  A debate watched by 70 million people in which a sitting president is utterly humiliated, a big bird.  Which is the big thing and which is the small thing?  I just wish I could ask that Homer Simpson guy…

Here’s a compendium of articles on the latest example of Barack Obama being pathetic:

CNN, Big Bird Puts His Big Orange Foot Down

This is one angry bird. After President Barack Obama’s campaign released a commercial using the Sesame Street character to mock rival Mitt Romney, Big Bird’s parents at Sesame Workshop asked the president’s team to take it down. “Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns,” the group wrote. “We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.”

CNN, Team Romney Word On The Street For Big Bird Tactics: ‘Troubling’

“I just find it troubling that the president’s message, the president’s focus, 28 days before Election Day is Big Bird,” Madden said. “The governor is going to focus acutely on jobs and the economy and what he can do to create a better, more prosperous future for the American people,” he added. Still, Romney has yet to be pressed on how eliminating funding for PBS would have much of an effect on the deficit. “You would need to cut PBS more than 1,000 times to fill the hole in Romney’s debate promises,” an Obama campaign email pointed out, announcing its new spot. Both the Republican National Committee and the Romney campaign blasted out emails to reporters, with a reminder of what then Senator Obama said during his speech to the Democratic convention in 2008. “If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things,” Obama said.

Yahoo, Romney Camp Mocks Obama’s Focus On Big Bird

Mitt Romney’s campaign is mocking President Barack Obama’s decision to release a campaign ad focused on the Republican candidate’s repeated suggestion that Big Bird shouldn’t receive public funding.

Kevin Madden, a senior Romney adviser, told reporters on board the candidate’s plane Tuesday the campaign isn’t taking the Obama’s latest offensive seriously. “Right now, you’ve got 23 million Americans struggling to find work. You’ve got household incomes going down. You’ve got a federal deficit, federal debt that’s over 16 trillion dollars,” Madden said. “I find it troubling that the president’s message, the president’s focus 28 days out from Election Day is Big Bird.”

POLITICO, John McCain Mocks Obama Big Bird Ad

Slamming a new Obama attack ad against Mitt Romney that features Big Bird, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Tuesday that it shows the president is out of ideas. “It may show a paucity of ideas and ways to criticize Mitt Romney,” McCain said on NBC’s “Today” show when asked about the Big Bird spot. “The fact is the economy is still in very bad shape, and obviously the American people are still in very difficult conditions, and the one thing President Obama can’t run on is his record.”

Miami Herald, RNC Invokes The Count: Obama Mentions Sesame St. 13 Times; Economy+Libya=0

The Republican National Committee is pushing back against President Obama’s embrace of the Big Bird flap by quoting…. Obama. “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things,” Obama said in 2008. “And you know what? It’s worked before.” It might work again. The Obama campaign’s production of a Big Bird ad, which is supposed to run on cable, is funny. But it’s small-bore stuff (although small-bore stuff can be good when it comes to talking about DC’s dysfunction). The RNC has responded with a graphic, featuring County von Count. It notes that in the past few days, Obama has invoked Big Bird 13 times but he has said next to nothing about Libya, where an ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack that his administration at first denied publicly while admitting it privately.

Breitbart, Politico, NBC, ABC, MSNBC Criticize Team Obama’s ‘Absurd’ Big Bird Ad

At the same time Team Obama released a childish ad hitting Mitt Romney for daring to consider removing multimillionaire, one-percenter Big Bird from the federal government welfare rolls, the Romney campaign released a devastating graphic that shows that since his debate debacle, Barack Obama has mention Big Bird and Elmo 13 times but has not mentioned Libya or his plan to fix the economy even once.  A media that is obviously disappointed with Their Precious One’s debate performance and recent collapse in the polls, is not at all happy with this silly and stupid Big Bird attack. Politico criticized the ad as small ball, NBC News described it as “absurd,”  and ABC’s Rick Klein seems confused by the desperate smallness of it:

POLITICO, Chicago Gets Serious…

…and by serious, we mean not at all serious. The Obama campaign is out this morning with a goofy video of the Big Bird variety, mocking Mitt Romney, as the president has put it, as going easy on Wall Street but heavy on Sesame Street. The campaign is calling this a TV spot, but did not, as officials there usually do, say where it’s airing, suggesting this is a video for media and YouTube consumption. As Alex noted yesterday when the Pew poll numbers came out, we’ve long warned – and been warned – about big swings in surveys in what has been a fairly stable race. But the sampling of surveys out there do suggest a real Romney bounce.

National Journal, Big Bird Featured In New Obama Ad

The Obama campaign is taking silly season in politics to a whole new level in a television ad released on Tuesday featuring the star of last Wednesday’s debate: Big Bird. “Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Dennis Kozlowski. Criminals. Gluttons of greed,” a grimacing narrator says. “And the evil genius who towered over them? One man has the guts to speak his name.” “Big Bird,” Mitt Romney is shown saying three separate times. “Big. Yellow. A menace to our economy,” the ad continues. “Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about, it’s Sesame Street. … Mitt Romney. Taking on our enemies, no matter where they nest.”

New York Times, Obama Ad Features Someone Big, Yellow and Feathery

If President Obama loses the election next month, his ad makers may have a second career on “The Daily Show.” A new television ad by Mr. Obama’s campaign would fit right in on the sarcasm-laced comedy show. Or it could be an opening skit for “Saturday Night Live.”… The Republican National Committee responded within hours of the ad’s release, but apparently they didn’t think it was funny. In a release to reporters, a spokeswoman for the committee noted that Mr. Obama has mentioned “Big Bird” and Elmo” 13 times since Wednesday’s debate, but said the president has not talked about Libya or the economy.

The Columbus Dispatch, Big Bird Stars In New Obama Ad

Stomped in last week’s debate, caught up in an exchange of accusations about lying, and losing ground in the polls, the Obama campaign has resorted to a new adverstising tactic.

Yahoo, New Obama Ad Uses Big Bird To Attack Romney

A week after Big Bird became an unlikely character in the 2012 presidential campaign when Mitt Romney uttered his name in the first debate, the Obama campaign has approved a new ad that uses the “Sesame Street” character to attack the Republican nominee’s plan to cut federal funding for PBS… “Four years ago, President Obama said that if you don’t have a record to run on, ‘you make a big election about small things,’” Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. “With 23 million people struggling for work, incomes falling, and gas prices soaring, Americans deserve more from their president.” On the “Today” show, Sen. John McCain—who lost to Obama in 2008—said the ad “may show a paucity of ideas and ways to criticize Mitt Romney.”

The Washington Post, Big Bird Nosedive

“Jumped the shark.” “A campaign in panic.” “Lost it.” “Shocking.” These are just as few of the reactions among the media to the latest, dumbest move by the Obama campaign, an ad so trivial and unpresidential it makes one wonder if an epidemic of tone deafness has descended over Chicago… Just the thing to get over an unpresidential, contentless debate performance by the incredible shrinking candidate, huh? The Republican National Committee couldn’t resist and won the battle of Sesame Street ads. Almost as intriguing as the lame ad was the near-uniform negative reaction among mainstream reporters and pundits of all stripes.

Firedog Lake, Obama Ad About Big Bird Cannot Find One Prominent Wall Street Criminal Prosecuted By Administration

There’s only one thing that sticks out to me about this ad, though the casual viewer probably won’t notice it. Let’s look at that litany of Wall Street “criminals” and “gluttons of greed,” which later get juxtaposed with Big Bird. You have Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowski. So two CEOs prosecuted and convicted by George W. Bush’s Justice Department, and Madoff, whose son turned him in before Obama took office, in December 2008, and who pleaded guilty. So the Obama campaign could not fill a list of three Wall Street criminals that the Obama Justice Department actually sent to jail. Heck, they couldn’t fill a list of one!

I loved the Republican Response:

Just to complete the abject lying hypocrite trifecta, Obama also said:

“If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”

Bain Capital.  Shamus the dog.  Mitt Romney is a vampire.  Mitt Romney is an outsourcer.  Mitt Romney is a tax cheat.  Mitt Romney is a felon.  Mitt Romney not only laid me off, but he murdered my wife.  And of course after Romney mopped the floor with Obama’s face in front of 70 million people, Mitt Romney is a liar.

Yep.  Obama pretty much concludes that Obama has absolutely no business being president, doesn’t he?

Romney Now Up HUGE With Independent Voters (Even Enough To Overcome Mainstream Media’s Incredibly Deceitful Democrat Oversampling Models)

This is almost as short as it is incredibly sweet and delicious:

Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Romney up huge with independents
Posted by Christian Heinze at 3:53 PM

Fueling his current polling surge, Mitt Romney’s numbers with indies are just getting remarkably good.

a. IBD/ITP poll released today: Romney 52% Obama 34%.

b. Pew poll, released yesterday: Romney 46% Obama 42%.

c. Politico/GW poll, released yesterday: Romney 51% Obama 35%.

d. CNN, released last week: Romney 49% Obama 41%.

e. National Journal, released October 3: Romney 49% Obama 41%.

Now having said that, Romney has done well this entire cycle with independents, but not enough to overcome turnout models that suggested much, much higher Democratic turnout.

But now he’s killing it so soundly that it’s enough to overcome higher Democratic turnout. In fact, in ARG’s poll of Ohio today, Dems are sampled at +9% over Republicans, but Romney wins indies by 20%, which is enough to inch ahead, overall, 48%-47%.

Some of this is a debate bounce, but as I’ve said, one of the most under-reported stories this cycle has been Romney’s continual lead with independents. That always assured this would be a close election, regardless.

In fact, Barack Obama won indies by 8% in 2008. Romney is easily hitting that number in the most recent batch of polls.

The two best pollsters of 2008 – Rasmussen and Pew – both have Romney up nationally.  Rasmussen has Romney up by 2 points.  And Pew has Romney up by four points after having him down eight before Obama came out and told 70 million Americans that he was a chump who had no business being president.  And Gallup has Romney up by 2 points among likely voters.

Andrew Sullivan – a career liberal who just can’t acknowledge that he obviously is and always has been a career liberal – has officially panicked with his piece, “Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?”  It kind of reminds me of SNL’s mock-up of “thrill going up my leg” Chris Matthews being taken away in a straitjacket by men in white coats during his post-debate breakdown.

I can only say thank God my Messiah is Jesus, and so I’ll never have to find out what happens when my messiah spectacularly fails the way the liberals’ messiah just did.

How much of this was the result of the fact that Mitt Romney made Barack Obama look like a drooling imbecile last Wednesday at their debate, and how much is it because the mainstream pollsters figured they’d better start making their numbers appear realistic so they wouldn’t look stupid?  I don’t know.

But what I do know is that if independents vote for Mitt Romney in these percentages, it will be a very long, painful night for Obama and a very good night for America.

(At Least They Aren’t Blaming Bush!): Obama Team Blames Romney, John Kerry, The Moderator AND The Altitude For Obama’s Disastrous Debate Fiasco

Rest assurred, if the Obama campaign could have figured out a way to demonize George W. Bush to explain Obama’s failure in his first debate, they would have done so.  After all, that’s pretty much how they’ve explained ALL THE OTHER Obama failures up to now.

Team Obama Blames John Kerry for Debate Loss
by Alexander Marlow6 Oct 2012, 3:44 PM PDT533post a comment

The Obama campaign has been reeling since losing the first Presidential debate of this election cycle in front of 67 million viewers.  They’ve tried–and thus far failed–to craft a narrative to explain away the debacle in Denver.  Previously, we reported to you that Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe, who ran the President’s successful 2008 campaign, (falsely) accused Mitt Romney of lying.  In a rare comedic moment from the typically robotic former Vice President Al Gore, he suggested on Current TV that the Mile High City’s altitude was the reason Obama was low on energy and enthusiasm.  And, of course, Obama’s chronically dishonest deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and several others passed the buck to the moderator, Jim Lehrer. None of the above caught on, even with the mainstream pro-Obama media.

Now the Obama Administration is floating their latest excuse: that the campaign, particularly John Kerry (who played the role of Romney in simulated debates), did not channel Mitt’s aggression enough.

From CBS’s “This Morning”:

Norah O’Donnell: “Some Democrats say [Obama’s] campaign needs a wake-up call.  Bill Plante is here with that part of the story.  Bill, you’ve been talking to your sources; what are they saying?

Correspondent Bill Plante: “Well Norah, they’re simply upset and really outraged.  They blame the President’s team, first of all, for not preparing him to meet the challenge of an aggressive Mitt Romney.  They say that nobody in the room challenged him, including the guy that he was debating with, John Kerry, because, as they say, he wants to be Secretary of State so he’s not going to get in the President’s face. And Presidents are used to deference; they’re not used to people challenging them like that.  So they think that the debate prep was terrible, but they also fault the President himself for not understanding that Romney was going to be more aggressive.”

The 2012 Obama campaign continues to be a stark contrast from their 2008 effort.  In 2008, then Senator Obama used youthful ebullience, soaring rhetoric, and a precise campaign infrastructure to capture the hearts and minds of the American people.  In 2012, the President seems increasingly lethargic and quick to make excuses for missteps on the campaign trail.

What once was “Hope and Change” is now “Mope and Blame,” and this time it’s John Kerry under the President’s bus.

Along with the liberal New Yorker and of course Clint Eastwood, I blame the chair:

Actually, we ought to lay the blame for a president who was clearly incompetent on the backs of the American people, who were so dispicably foolish in 2008 it was unreal.  But as stupid and as depraved as it is to believe the Emperor had clothes on in 2008, anybody who still thinks the naked turd stinking up the presidency is anything but an empty suit when we desperately need a leader is simply in the category of “demon-possessed.”

As Mitt Romney Pummelled Obama With Fact After Fact About How His Presidency Has Hurt Millions Of Americans, Obama Looked Down And Smirked

This short video truly sums up the entire presidential debate Wednesday night:

More than seventy million people watched Obama get his face used like a mop by the far better man for the job of president.

I Prayed For Mitt Romney And Boy Did God Ever Hear Me! I Beg You To Do The Same – Because This Is A Beseech God In Sackcloth Moment For America

I’ve written about the biased and dishonest polls that the mainstream media have been stuffing down our throats the last several weeks.  But nevertheless, the consensus has been – even among conservatives – that Romney’s campaign wasn’t gaining any kind of serious traction.

I knew that the debates would be critical.  And particularly this first debate last night that was anticipated to be watched by 50 million Americans.

So every single night on every single walk, I took a little time to specifically pray for Mitt Romney’s campaign and particularly for his debate with Barack Obama.

I prayed that the Lord would give him wisdom and discernment and that kairos sense of timing in saying what needed to be said at the precise moment that it would be most powerful to say it.  Knowing that Romney would have to be very aggressive and yet somehow be likable, I prayed that he would be able to strike the perfect balance.  I prayed that Romney would be able to keep all of his facts and points in his head without coming across as stiff and rehearsed.

And I also prayed for Obama, too.  I didn’t quite know how to pray; prayer is a sacred thing for me and I have never in my life went before the Lord and prayed that somebody would be hurt or humiliated.  But the word “exposed” kept popping into my mind.  I began to earnestly pray that Obama would be exposed for what he was.

Anyway, I set out on my walk at 6 pm Pacific time and started my recorder just before setting out for my slightly over two-hour hike.  And when I came home, I turned on the TV to see what was going on.

Marco Rubio was speaking to Sean Hannity.  And it was when I heard Rubio say the exact words, “The president was exposed tonight….” that I realized that my prayers had been answered.  And of course it just kept getting better and better the more I heard and the more I watched.

Virtually every single thing I had specifically prayed for was specifically answered.  It was just amazing.

I know that I am not the only one who has been praying for Mitt Romney as America’s only hope to take this nation away from the failed leadership of Barack Obama.

But I know that a lot more Christians need to step up and seriously start praying for what is going to happen on November 6.

Isaiah chapter 5:1-7 contains a powerful metaphor that may well represent America if we are not careful.  This was a nation that powerfully began as one nation under God, with a Constitution that was for a “moral and religious people.”  But what God sowed He has not been reaping as we have instead degenerated into “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

And so God says:

Now I will tell you
what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled.
⁶ I will make it a wasteland,
neither pruned nor cultivated,
and briers and thorns will grow there.
I will command the clouds
not to rain on it.”

I don’t want that to happen to my country any more than Isaiah and the prophets wanted that to happen to Israel as that nation rejected God and turned on His ways.

There’s another haunting passage in Ezekiel 22:30

“I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before Me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none.”

America doesn’t have much time left.  Especially if Barack Obama is re-elected and is allowed to finish what he started.

We need to pray.

I believe that when Christians give up on America, God will give up on America.  And as long as God’s people keep praying and keep building up the wall and keep standing in the gap on behalf of the land, God will keep fighting for us.

The next debate is between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden on October 11.  The second Obama-Romney debate will be on October 16, and the third will be on October 22.  Pray for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan!

But don’t just pray for the debates or even for just the candidates; pray for the campaign and the campaign staff.  Pray for THEIR wisdom and discernment; pray that ALL of the people who are important to the Romney-Ryan campaign team would know what to say and when to say it.  And in the same way, pray that God would expose the Obama-Biden team for what they truly are.

Finally, pray for the wisdom and discernment of the American people.  Divine wisdom is ignored by those who have turned off their consciences and therefore turned off their minds.  Jesus was the wisest man who ever lived, and spoke Words of truth, but the people He came to as His own shouted, “Crucify Him!”  Pray that the American people would know the truth and respond to it.  Pray as you never have before for your nation while you still have a nation left to pray for.

What Mitt Romney Said Last Night About Tax Cuts And The Deficit Was Absolutely Right. And What Obama Said Was Absolutely Wrong.

Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night that he would not allow tax cuts to add to the deficit.  He repeatedly said it because over and over again Obama blathered the liberal talking point that cutting taxes necessarily increased deficits.

Romney’s exact words: “I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half during his first four years – but instead gave America the highest deficits in the history of the entire human race.

I’ve written about this before.  Let’s replay what has happened every single time we’ve ever cut the income tax rate.

The fact of the matter is that we can go back to Calvin Coolidge who said very nearly THE EXACT SAME THING to his treasury secretary: he too would not allow any tax cuts that added to the debt.  Andrew Mellon – quite possibly the most brilliant economic mind of his day – did a great deal of research and determined what he believed was the best tax rate.  And the Coolidge administration DID cut income taxes and MASSIVELY increased revenues.  Coolidge and Mellon cut the income tax rate 67.12 percent (from 73 to 24 percent); and revenues not only did not go down, but they went UP by at least 42.86 percent (from $700 billion to over $1 billion).

That’s something called a documented fact.  But that wasn’t all that happened: another incredible thing was that the taxes and percentage of taxes paid actually went UP for the rich.  Because as they were allowed to keep more of the profits that they earned by investing in successful business, they significantly increased their investments and therefore paid more in taxes than they otherwise would have had they continued sheltering their money to protect themselves from the higher tax rates.  Liberals ignore reality, but it is simply true.  It is a fact.  It happened.

Then FDR came along and raised the tax rates again and the opposite happened: we collected less and less revenue while the burden of taxation fell increasingly on the poor and middle class again.  Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

People don’t realize that John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Democrat presidents, was a TAX CUTTER who believed the conservative economic philosophy that cutting tax rates would in fact increase tax revenues.  He too cut taxes, and he too increased tax revenues.

So we get to Ronald Reagan, who famously cut taxes.  And again, we find that Reagan cut that godawful liberal tax rate during an incredibly godawful liberal-caused economic recession, and he increased tax revenue by 20.71 percent (with revenues increasing from $956 billion to $1.154 trillion).  And again, the taxes were paid primarily by the rich:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So we get to George Bush and the Bush tax cuts that liberals and in particular Obama have just demonized up one side and demagogued down the other.  And I can simply quote the New York Times AT the time:

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.

And of course the New York Times, as reliable liberals, use the adjective whenever something good happens under conservative policies and whenever something bad happens under liberal policies: “unexpected.”   But it WASN’T “unexpected.”  It was EXACTLY what Republicans had said would happen and in fact it was exactly what HAD IN FACT HAPPENED every single time we’ve EVER cut income tax rates.

The truth is that conservative tax policy has a perfect track record: every single time it has ever been tried, we have INCREASED tax revenues while not only exploding economic activity and creating more jobs, but encouraging the wealthy to pay more in taxes as well.  And liberals simply dishonestly refuse to acknowledge documented history.

Meanwhile, liberals also have a perfect record … of FAILURE.  They keep raising taxes and keep not understanding why they don’t get the revenues they predicted.

The following is a section from my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues“, where I document every single thing I said above:

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

---

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

---

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

---

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

---

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

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.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

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 be 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.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

[To read that article in its entirety, click here].

When Romney said that the small businesses that create jobs was going to be hurt by Obama’s taxes, he was RIGHT.  In a different article available here, I document the facts from official sources and then say:

Out of 27,281,452 total firms, 21,351,320 are listed as “nonemployer firms.”  Which means that 78.23 percent of all small businesses hire ZERO employees.   So when Obama says that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax hike, please understand that the whopping majority of those businesses that won’t be affected aren’t hiring anybody.  Another 3,617,764 small businesses have no more than four employees.  Those small businesses that hire zero workers plus those small businesses that hire no more than four workers constitute 91.5% of ALL small businesses.

Here’s a more relevant way to look at it.  When you consider the businesses that employ more than four people, you are looking at businesses that hire 94.97 percent of ALL the workers who work for small businesses.  And while not all of the small businesses that hire between 5-9 employees are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of Obama’s class warfare on small businesses, most of them do.  And virtually none of the businesses that hire more than ten employees are going to earn less than $250,000 a year.

Romney pointed out in the debate that half of all jobs created by small business and a quarter of ALL THE JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA would have their income taxes skyrocket under Barack Obama.

When Romney said that Obama’s taxation was going to destroy 700,000 small business jobs, he was RIGHT.

Which is why 85% of small businesses agree with Romney and disagree with Obama that Obama’s policies have led America down the wrong track.

Which is why 64% of small businesses are saying they plan to simply wait Obama out rather than create jobs while he’s trying to ruin them.

Obama deceitfully talks about giving tax cuts to small businesses when in fact he is actually massively taxing them.

Obama IS helping small businesses … into BANKRUPTCY.  And Obama says the recession is behind us while small businesses are going belly up in droves.

Romney absolutely crushed Obama in the debate last night.  Nobody had EVER won a debate by the margin that Romney won by in the history of CNN.  If you have any decency and care about people who need a job and love this country at all, please cast your vote for Mitt Romney.