Posts Tagged ‘lies’

White House Email: However You Manage The Sequester, You MUST NOT Do So In A Way That Undermines Your Führer’s Prediction Of Complete National Calamity

March 6, 2013

America must fall.  It must collapse.  Things must get as bad as they possibly can.  And if America collapses and the three hundred million plus souls who make up the population of the onetime greatest nation in the history of the world must fall so that Barack Hussein Obama can have a political victory, then the collapse of America is a tiny price to pay, indeed.

You must give your president his crisis so he can demonize and slander his enemies.

Period.

Imagine if George W. Bush had dictated this: exploit a political battle to make life as hard, as harsh, as bitter as you can for the poor and for federal government workers in order for the president to be able to cynically exploit a self-created crisis.

Take the very first paragraph: does anybody NOT know that White House tours are staffed almost exclusively by VOLUNTEERS???  The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are completely home in a universe of lies, such that no matter how baldly or wildly their messiah lies, they rabidly support him.  Obama is their god and the only god with whom Democrats will have to do, and they will follow their god to America’s assurred destruction.

The money quote of the article below:

“So it is our opinion that however you manage that  reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the  impact would be”

And what did the White House scream the impact would be?  Completely catastrophic.  To wit: your job as a federal employee (at least until Obama uses the axe on YOU) is to ensure that the American people suffer as much as you can possibly make them suffer.  You must create as many victims as possible and inflict as much harm and suffering as possible.  So Obama can get his $85 billion back – [erhaps stash some of it away the way Obama’s fellow socialist leader Hugo Chavez did.

Mind you, a couple of weekends ago just before the sequestration cuts were set to implement and there was still time to find a different path, Obama didn’t think it was enough of a crisis to think twice about his golf weekend with Tiger Woods.  There was no crisis; the president could go on vacation.  Did Obama come to some accord on sequestration with Tiger Woods as some kind of practice session for Congress?  Then he returns from his vacation Monday morning, and all of a sudden the world will end unless the thing that wasn’t a very big deal the day before – and which he proposed in the first place – doesn’t happen.

Here’s the deal: if you don’t give our Terrorist-in-Chief his tax hikes, he will sabotage every machine throughout his realm.

Email tells feds to make sequester as painful as promised
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times
Tuesday, March 5, 2013

The White House announced Tuesday that it  is canceling tours of the president’s home for the foreseeable future as the  sequester spending cuts begin to bite and the administration makes good on its  warnings of painful decisions.

Announcement of the decision — made in an email from the White  House Visitors Office — came hours after The Washington Times reported on  another administration email that seemed to show at least one agency has been  instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama promised they  would be.

In the internal email, Animal and Plant  Health Inspection Service official Charles  Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his  region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that  would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been  warned of.

“We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS  would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage  to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding  to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that  reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the  impact would be,” Mr. Brown, in the  internal email, said his superiors told him.

Neither Mr. Brown nor the main APHIS  office in Washington returned calls seeking comment, but Agriculture Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, who oversees the  agency, told Congress he is trying to give flexibility  where he can.

“If we have flexibility, we’re going to try to use it to make sure we use  sequester in the most equitable and least disruptive way,” the secretary told Rep. Kristi L. Noem, a South Dakota Republican  who grilled Mr. Vilsack about the email. “There are some circumstances, and we’ve talked a lot about the meat inspection,  where we do not have that flexibility because there are so few accounts.”

Ms. Noem told Mr.  Vilsack that the email made it sound like the administration was sacrificing  flexibility in order to justify its earlier dire predictions.

“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been put forward,” the congresswoman  told Mr. Vilsack.

Late Tuesday evening, the Agriculture Department issued a  statement disputing Mr. Brown’s read of the  situation. The department said Mr. Brown had suggested dividing his region’s  cuts among a number of states but he was told that idea was already part of  their sequester plans.

“The APHIS  budget officer explained that USDA is already  proposing these steps in order to avoid furloughs. USDA is committed to doing all we can to minimize the  impact of sequester [for] our employees and the farmers, ranchers, and rural  communities we serve,” the department said in its statement.

The $85 billion in automatic spending cuts began Friday, leaving the White  House with tough  decisions to make — though it argues its hands are tied by the way the cuts were  written into law.

That’s left the administration trying to balance dire predictions with good  management.

Last week, immigration officials confirmed they were releasing immigrants  awaiting deportation from their detention centers in order to save money, and  this week top officials said they were already seeing long lines at airports  because of cuts in screenings.

But those decisions are being scrutinized as agencies continue to advertise  for job openings and spend on other priorities.

The White House had to fend off questions  Tuesday about the Homeland Security Department’s decision to sign a $50 million  contract for new uniforms for airport screeners, just days before the  sequesters.

All sides in Washington agree there should be a way to lessen some of the  impacts of the cuts.

The House will take at least a step toward that Wednesday when it votes on a  new spending bill for the rest of fiscal year 2013 that would mitigate at least  some of the sequester impacts in the Defense Department.

Senate Democrats are looking to write an even broader bill to rearrange money  in several accounts.

Mr. Obama is pushing for the broadest possible deal later this year that  would raise taxes  and cut entitlement spending in order to restore some of the money trimmed in  sequestration.

The White House said he made calls to some  key members of Congress to sound them out on the  prospects for that kind of deal.

“The president is engaging with lawmakers of both parties and will continue  to do so,” White House press secretary Jay  Carney told reporters.

For now, though, the cuts remain in place — and that means the end of White House tours.

“Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform  you that White House Tours will be canceled  effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice. Unfortunately, we will  not be able to reschedule affected tours,” the White House said in an email to members of Congress.

The decision drew a derisive response from Capitol Hill, where Republicans  said the move undercut Mr. Obama’s promises of openness.

Rep. Bill Johnson, Ohio  Republican, said President Lincoln managed to keep the White  House open during the darkest days of the Civil War, and wondered why Mr.  Obama couldn’t do the same.

“If the president is unable to figure out how to keep the White  House open to the American people after an 8.2 percent budget cut, then the  American people are entitled to some answers from their chief executive as to  why.”

The Capitol is facing its own cuts.

At the Capitol, staffers entering the building’s West Front were told Tuesday  that the doorway there would be closed as of next week due to sequestration.  That entrance is currently limited to credentialed visitors, so it won’t affect  the public.

The article mentioned the $50 million Obama sneaked through so his brownshirts can have nicer looking uniforms.  Apparently the author was unable to predict the future to know that Obama’s new Secretary of State just handed out five times that much to the Muslim Brotherhood rulers of Egypt.  Maybe Obama could have stopped that deal from going through, too.  I mean, heck, if we hadn’t spent that money on funding terrorists in Egypt, maybe we could have still had our beloved White House tours to ObamaLand.

Obama refused the authority to be allowed to make the cuts less painful (see also here).  The Republicans in Congress voted to give the president the authority to decide where and how the $85 billion would be cut.  Obama threatened to veto any bill that would spare the American people from needless suffering and red tape delays.  He WANTS the American people to suffer.

It doesn’t matter that all the fearmongering Obama spewed was based on lie after lie after documented LIE.  It doesn’t matter that Obama had his cabinent heads go out and just flat out lie to the American people to fearmonger the sequestration cuts and predict the collapse of America if Republicans weren’t put in gulags.  Lies are at the center of Obama’s strategy, and the media rabidly protects that strategy for their god.

Democrat Maxine Waters actually said that over 170 million jobs would be lost if sequestration happened.  Which is actually at least fifteen million more jobs than exist in ALL of America BEFORE the sequestration.

Democrats are as dishonest as they are demon possessed as they are rabid as they are evil.

Do you want to know why nothing can get done in America?  Because, as I have learned in blogging, there is simply no possible way you can have a meaningful dialogue with dishonest slandering liars who merely keep chaning the facts and shifting the goalposts all while falsely demagoguing their opponents.

Somebody captured the thought of Thomas Sowell in this matter:

If there was a department of government that only did two things -erect statues of the Cat in the Hat -develop life-saving drugs for children

and this department was facing budget cuts, which would it cut?

The drugs for kids, of course. This would cause the most outcry and would lead to their budget NOT being cut. Whereas if they stopped the cat statues, no one would notice, and people would probably start to question why they were doing it in the first place.

We witnessed an example of that in Obama letting more than 2,000 criminally-convicted illegal immigrants GO FREE.  Are you so stupid and frankly so consumed with evil that you believe he had to do that???

And thus you can clearly see why Obama doesn’t want any fingerprints on the sequester (at least beyond having created the damn thing to begin with): he wouldn’t be allowed to play those shenanigans if he had the discretion to make the cuts less painful.

Obama doesn’t WANT any deals with Republicans.  He wants to force the Republicans into one impossible bargaining position – enhanced by his own and his leftist media’s lies – in hopes of crushing the GOP in 2014.  If you remember Democrats’ outrage when Mitch McConnell made an off-the-cuff remark about making Obama a one-term president, and YOU were angered by that remark, why is it that you now cheer your messiah while he does the very same thing you said was so wicked (and actually DOES it as part of a long-term strategy versus McConnell’s offhand remark)???  Why is it that you have no honesty or integrity whatsoever???

If Obama were managing your household for you, and you came home glum because you were going to get a 2% cut in your salary, Obama wouldn’t allow you to make your mortgage payment and your car payment.  No, he would tell you to increase your cable bill and buy yourself a new smart phone with a huge contract.  Because there’s no possible way in hell to manage the staggering 2% sequestration cut to the budget.  Obama would see to it that you were thrown out on the street bankrupt because there’s just no possible way to come back from a 2% cut, is there???

Why are the cuts so bad?  Because there’s no flexibility, liberals say.  Obama says the cuts are “dumb and arbitrary.”  So let’s give the president the flexibility he needs so that they’re NOT arbitary.  That way the cuts could be intentionally crafted to avoid doing any more harm to any people or programs than absolutely necessary.  No way, liberals say.  That would solve the problem and Obama doesn’t WANT to solve the problem; he wants to exploit a crisis.  So instead of solving the problem Democrats say that the Republicans are giving them no flexibility in cutting the budget even though OBAMA is the one who refused to have the flexibility to sensibly cut the budget.

It doesn’t matter if in actual fact Obama is the one who is physically sticking the torture screws into his population; he counts on the dishonesty and deceit of the mainstream media propaganda to cover for him so he can say Republicans are responsible for the sequestration that came out of his White House and which Republicans agreed to lest they be “obstructionist” and which he then personally signed into law.

And now we can know for certain that if there was a furlough, if somebody loses their job and can’t feed their family, it was because Obama destroyed that American worker in order to make a dishonest point to the American people that America must NEVER consider ANY cuts whatsoever.  Because even a tiny infinitesimal cut in our budget will lead to pain, you see.

If we had voted for Mitt Romney, we wouldn’t have had to suffer due to the national disgrace that is our president.  But then again, our “choice” this election was between a guy who thinks Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer and the guy who actually IS the spirit brother of Lucifer.  Heckuva choice in God damn America where there ARE no good choices.

Do you know that as Obama invites Republican Senators to the White House for dinner, this is the FIRST TIME since 2010 he’s met with them?  George Bush used to meet with the bipartisan heads of the House and Senate EVERY SINGLE WEEK; Obama can’t even muster the leadership or courage to meet with them every single YEAR.

I put it beautiful in 2008 when Obama was elected, because it remains as true today as it was then: “Obama Wins!  God Damn America!”

The beast is coming.  And Obama is his useful idiot.

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.

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.

Mother Of SEAL Murdered In Libya Terrorist Attack: ‘I Am Tired of The Obama Administration Lying About the Death of My Son!’

October 11, 2012

Given what we now know about the yes, TERRORIST attack on the US Consulate in Libya, given that we now KNOW that the Obama administration repeatedly lied a the very highest levels in repeatedly calling it a “spontaneous uprising” when there WAS no crowd prior to the attack that began on the compound, this grieving mother’s statement ought to be viewed as gasoline being poured on already burning Obama reelection chances:

MOTHER OF KILLED: I Am Tired of The Obama Administration Lying About the Death of My Son!
Washington : DC : USA | Oct 11, 2012 at 6:55 AM PDT
By agb100
October 11, 2012

MOTHER OF SLAIN STATE DEP’T OFFICIAL TIRED OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION LYING

Mom of Slain State Dept. Official Tired of Administration Lies Share

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Erin, thanks. Good evening, everyone. We begin tonight “Keeping Them Honest,” with a mother who is now asking the toughest question any mom ever can. Why is my son dead?

That is all Pat Smith wants to know. Her son, Sean SmithSean Smith, was one of the four Americans killed on September 11th in that terror attack on American facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Sean Smith, who is one of the computer specialists at the American consulate there. A month later — a month after she watched her son’s casket come off a cargo plane, a month after she says everyone promised her answers, everyone all the way up to the president of the United States. She says she is still waiting to hear. Still waiting for answers. Waiting for a call.

Congress held hearings today. We’ll talk about that shortly, but first, my conversation with Sean Smith’s mom, Pat.

[…]

Pat Smith did not speak about anyone’s political agenda tonight. She is, however, bitterly, bitterly disappointed with the State Department, the Defense Department and the White House tonight. You’re going to hear shortly about how the State Department is going to respond to her charges.

But first, though, more of my conversation with Pat Smith starting with her as yet unfulfilled search for answers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Who told you that they would give you information?

SMITH: You’ll love this. Obama told me. Hillary promised me. Joe BidenJoe Biden — Joe Biden is a pressure. He was a real sweetheart. But he also told — they all told me that — they promised me. And I told them please, tell me what happened. Just tell me what happened.

COOPER: So you’re still waiting to hear from somebody about what happened to your son? About what they know? Or even what they don’t know.

SMITH: Right. Right. Officially yes. I told them, please don’t give me any baloney that comes through with this political stuff. I don’t want political stuff. You can keep your political, just tell me the truth. What happened. And I still don’t know. In fact, today I just heard something more that he died of smoke inhalation.

COOPER: So you don’t even know the cause of death?

SMITH: I don’t even know if that’s true or not. No, I don’t. I don’t know where. I look at TV and I see bloody hand prints on walls, thinking, my god, is that my son’s? I don’t know if he was shot. I don’t know — I don’t know. They haven’t told me anything. They are still studying it. And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies.

That Susan Rise, what — she talked to me personally and she said, she said, this is the way it was. It was — it was because of this film that came out.

COOPER: So she told you personally that she thought it was a result of that video of the protest?

SMITH: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact all of them did. All of them did. Leon PanettaLeon Panetta actually took my face in his hands like this and he said, trust me. I will tell you what happened. And so far, he’s told me nothing. Nothing at all. And I want to know.

COOPER: It’s important for you to know all the details no matter how horrible.

SMITH: Yes.

COOPER: Or no matter how tough they are to hear.

SMITH: Exactly. I told him, if it’s such a secret thing, fine, take me in another room, whisper in my ear what happened so that I know, and we’ll go from there. But no. No, they — you know, they treat me like — at first I was so proud because they were treating me so nice when I went to that reception. They all came up to me and talked to me and everything. I cried on Obama’s shoulder. And he — then he’d kind of looked off into the distance.

So that was worthless to me. I want to know, for god’s sakes. Or for Allah’s sake or whoever’s sake is there.

COOPER: You deserve — you deserve answers.

SMITH: I think so. I believe I do. I believe it. It’s my son. I had him for the first — I told Obama personally, I said, look, I had him for his first 17 years and then he went into the service, then you got him. And — I won’t say it the way I said it. But I said you screwed up, you didn’t do a good job, I lost my son. And they said, we’ll get back to you. We — I promise, I promise you. I will get back to you. COOPER: Some of the administration have said well, you know, we’re investigating, we’re still trying to find out answers. But you just want —

SMITH: They still are.

COOPER: You would still want them to contact you and at least keep you apprised of the investigation, of where things are. You would think that they would at least do that.

SMITH: That would be so nice. That would at least acknowledge that I have a right to know something, something other than, we’re checking up on it, or trust me. I like that one the best of all. Trust me. I will let you know.

Well, I don’t trust you anymore. I don’t trust you anymore. You — I’m not going to say lied to me, but you didn’t tell me and you knew.

COOPER: Pat Smith, thank you.

SMITH: OK.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Here is the key dialogue from the above:

COOPER: So you don’t even know the cause of death?

SMITH: I don’t even know if that’s true or not. No, I don’t. I don’t know where. I look at TV and I see bloody hand prints on walls, thinking, my god, is that my son’s? I don’t know if he was shot. I don’t know — I don’t know. They haven’t told me anything. They are still studying it. And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies.

That Susan Rise, what — she talked to me personally and she said, she said, this is the way it was. It was — it was because of this film that came out.

COOPER: So she told you personally that she thought it was a result of that video of the protest?

SMITH: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact all of them did. All of them did.  Leon Panetta actually took my face in his hands like this and he said, trust me. I will tell you what happened. And so far, he’s told me nothing. Nothing at all. And I want to know.

Yeah, I want you to know too, Mrs. Smith.  Everybody wants you to know except Obama and his stooges.

The official record of what happened couldn’t be more crystal clear.  Obama’s political hacks have REPEATEDLY blamed this attack on the “video” because a) Obama hates America and deep down Obama believes that whatever happened had to be America’s fault and that video (that had actually been available since July) WAS made in America, after all; and b) because Obama has been campaigning on his messianic foreign policy and Joe Biden has been saying, “Ask Osama bin Laden if he’s better off than he was four years ago?” when Mrs Smith is out screaming, “Why don’t you liars have Ambassador Stevens and MY MURDERED SON ask him?”

Was there a “spontaneous uprising” rather than a terrorist attack as the Obama Administration at EVERY SINGLE LEVEL from Obama to Hillary Clinton to Jay Carney to Susan Rice repeatedly said???  NO:

Around 8:30 p.m.

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.

Around 9:40 p.m.

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.

We now know that in spite of the FACT that there had been over 230 security incidents in Benghazi prior to the attack that murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans including Mrs Smith’s son that not only was security not strengthened as the US Consulate and security personnel were BEGGING for, it was actually CUT.

And yes, we now know that absolutely every single thing Obama and his incredibly cynical political appointees have said has been an outright lie from hell.

A Great Suggestion On The Speech Mitt Romney Should Give About His Time At Bain Capital

August 24, 2012

Mark Twain famously said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.  Apart from fallen’s man’s historically demonstrated preference for exchanging truth for lies and choosing to believe lies simply because the truth often necessitates personal responsibility, there’s a fundamental reason why it is true that lies race around while the truth struggles to speak.

Take the lies about Mitt Romney: “You’re a vampire!”

It took three words to say something that is blatantly false.  How many words is it going to take for Romney to prove he isn’t a vampire???

The Democrat Party is a group of people who have a terrible agenda and who understand the power of lies.  And the “genius” of the Obama campaign is the realization that Obama can throw so much dirt at his opponents that they must spend their entire campaigns trying to correct the lies his campaign threw at them while Obama depicts himself as “hope and change.”  Obama became an Illinois State Senator by using lawyers who exploited arcane rules to suppress the votes of his opponent; he became a US Senator by unsealing and publicizing the private divorce records of his Republican challenger.  He became the Democrat candidate for president in 2008 by “playing the race card” on Bill Clinton himself and by so demonizing Hillary Clinton that she said, “So shame on you, Barack Obama.”

And now we’ve got an Obama campaign that has tried to exploit the division created by gender, by race, by religion, by sexual orientation, by income, and frankly by whatever he could think of to cynically divide and capture so that he can tear America into pieces but end up with 50 percent plus 1 of those pieces.

The Obama Team has said that Mitt Romney is a dog torturer (in spite of the fact that Obama actually ATE a dog).  The Obama Team has said that Mitt Romney is an outsourcer (when Obama is the outsourcer in chief).  The Obama Team has literally stated as a fact that Mitt Romney is a felon and a tax dodger when there is absolutely zero evidence of that and in a frankly fascist and Orwellian manner stated that the burden of proof is on the person who is demonized to prove himself innocent.  The Obama Team has  called Mitt Romney a “vampire” for his leadership of Bain Capital when Bain  successfullygrew 8 out of 10 companies it touched, when none of the examples – such as the bankruptcy of GST Steel – even occurred during Romney’s tenure at Bain, and when even many top DEMOCRATS have said that Obama’s attack against Bain and private equity are flat-out wrong if not flat-out un-American.  The truth is that GST Steel was struggling mightily the day Bain acquired it, and if anything Bain kept a company going for years that would have otherwise went belly up.  The truth is that Mitt Romney had been out of Bain Capital for two full years before the eventual collapse of GST Steel.  The truth is that the man who actually was running Bain when GST went bankrupt was actually the man who is now Barack Obama’s top bundler.  But truth be damned: so the Obama Team said that Mitt Romney was essentially a murderer exploiting the death of a union thug who once worked at GST in spite of the fact that it is a wildly false and frankly evil lie.  The Obama Team says that Mitt Romney wants to reinstitute black slavery.

The secret to Barack Obama’s political success is that he is a man who has proven that he is willing to get so dirty and throw so much hate at his opponents that they can’t get their own message out.  And he knows that even if he’s running against Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media will help him; so what do you think that same media will do if he’s running against Republicans????

As hard as it is to do, as difficult as it is to correct the record of Obama’s ocean of lies and deceit, Mitt Romney has to do just that very thing.

This is a good place to start:

Deroy Murdock: Here’s the speech Romney should give about Bain
Sunday, August 12, 2012 12:00 AM
by Deroy Murdock

NEW YORK — Mitt Romney cannot run from his record at Bain Capital. So, he might as well give this speech. …

Ladies and Gentlemen:

You have heard plenty about my previous life as a rich businessman. Yes, I made some $250 million in free enterprise and am proud I did — just as Berry Gordy is proud that he produced millions at Motown and Steve Jobs was proud he yielded billions at Apple. Like these respected and wealthy entrepreneurs, I added value, delivered products and services that people wanted and created thousands of careers along the way.

At Bain Capital, my team and I took small and sometimes struggling companies, injected cash and — eight times out of 10 — made them blossom. Among our triumphs:

• Bain seeded Staples with $650,000. Its 1,500 stores now employ 88,000 people who generated $25 billion in revenues last year.

• Bain helped Sports Authority boom from 10 stores to almost 700 outlets and 15,000 employees.

• Brookstone reportedly was in “dire straits” before Bain’s 1991 investment. It then opened 104 new shops, hired 741 people, and tripled net sales from $95 million to $270 million by 1999.

Atop private money, we added our management expertise to help our portfolio companies refine, manufacture and sell their market offerings. When we succeeded, we enjoyed the fruits of our labors. When we failed, we internalized our losses.

Contrast our venture capitalism with President Barack Obama’s “venture socialism,” as Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., calls it. Obama has “invested” $34.7 billion in grants, loans and loan guarantees for “green” companies. The Energy Department boasts that this money has created 60,000 jobs. That equals $578,333 per position. This is nine times the private-sector cost.

Even worse, at least 10 of these companies took your tax dollars and then went broke. Beyond Solyndra and the $528 million it flushed down a solar toilet, consider these Obama-led bankruptcies:

• Raser Technologies got a $33 million stimulus grant. Its geothermal ambitions turned to steam, and it went bankrupt in April 2011.

• Ener1 received a $118.5 million government grant to make electric-car batteries. It lost power last Jan. 26.

• Aptera scored a $150 million federal loan to make three-wheeled electric cars. It drove into a ditch last Dec. 2.

Your taxes sponsored at least six similar Obama-backed bankruptcies.

Using my Bain skills, I hope to turn around another distressed enterprise: the American economy.

The growing and uplifting economy that most of us remember can rise again. The key is to starve and sedate the federal government that expanded for decades, became fat under President George W. Bush and then, under Obama, grew morbidly obese and openly hostile to job creators.

How, specifically, can we reverse this damage? For starters:

• An optional, 15 percent flat income tax would put today’s flaccid 1.5 percent growth on steroids. So would cutting America’s uncompetitive 35 percent corporate tax rate to 15 percent. Capping dividend and capital gains taxes at 15 percent also would electrify business investment and expansion.

• A moratorium on new regulations and a critical review of Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley and other impenetrable laws would loosen and remove the red tape strangling American companies. Repealing and replacing Obamacare would be a powerful remedy.

• Freeze federal spending for one year, and then cut it 1 percent every year thereafter. Obama’s 49.7 percent increase in U.S. national debt (from $10.63 trillion at his inaugural to $15.91 trillion today) bought America nothing. Enough!

I have a secret weapon to make this plan succeed: the American people.

We can inspire the world again with our products, inventions and ideas. First, we must pry Uncle Sam’s unaffordable, dream-crushing boots from the necks of enterprising men and women. I have maximum confidence that when Washington once again is the home of our servants and not the mansion of our masters, this republic’s emancipated citizens will reconstitute the economy, the society and the nation that we love, remember and miss so much.

• • •

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Email deroy.Murdock@mail.com.

My dream president is what Ronald Reagan was: Reagan was a man who had had great person success in the private sector; who had actually led by governing a state; who was an older man with more life experience; and who was a man who had a conservative vision to return America to prosperity and strength and had a plan to carry that vision out.

While I have never been thrilled as a conservative about Mitt Romney – whose life has primarily been clearly that of a moderate – it is simply a fact that Mitt Romney easily qualifies for the first three of those four criteria.  Only a Romney presidency and history can judge whether he meets the fourth and most important criteria – but what is for certain is that Barack Obama has UTTERLY FAILED to return America to prosperity and strength throughout his entire presidency.

Obama Claims Campaign Raised More Money After ObamaCare Verdict Than Romney – Then Caught On Tape NEXT DAY Desperately PLEADING For Donations

July 2, 2012

Barack Obama is the most pathologically dishonest man who ever contaminated the White House. 

He has lied about everything else, so this really shouldn’t be much of a surprise.

After the ObamaCare verdict in which John Roberts sided with the liberals to protect the Supreme Court from unhinged Democrat rabid attacks, we had the following assertion:

Fund-raising flurry after Supreme Court ruling
Posted by CNN’s Rachel Streitfeld and Kevin Bohn

(CNN) – Both presidential campaigns are citing fund-raising spikes following the Supreme Court’s decision upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Mitt Romney’s organization said Friday morning it had raised $4.6 million online, and Obama’s operation, while not revealing specific numbers, said they had surpassed Team Romney’s announced total.

The Romney fund-raising figure included money from more than 47,000 contributions in the first 24 hours, the candidate’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul said.

Obama’s campaign wouldn’t reveal specific fund-raising numbers when asked, saying Friday their opponent’s hour-by-hour updates were “perverse.” They did assert, however, that their donations surpassed the Romney effort.

Do you want to know what is “peverse”???  Barack Obama in the White House.

The lying weasel was caught on tape pleading for money because an avalanche of doom is falling on this lying narcissist.  The ObamaCare verdict came out on June 28.  Within 24 hours – that’s by 10 AM Eastern time June 29, Romney said he had raised $4.6 million from 47,000 new donors.

Obama says he’s raised more.

But then THE VERY NEXT DAY there’s THIS:

Exclusive: President Obama Asks Campaign Donors to Send Him More Money
by Lloyd Grove Jun 30, 2012 6:40 PM EDT
In an anxious conference call from Air Force One, Obama asked campaign donors to send more money. Lloyd Grove obtained the tape and describes the presidential pitch.

President Obama sounded weary and maybe a tad worried late Friday during a rambling conference call with campaign donors whom he repeatedly begged to send money—and send it now.

“The majority on this call maxed out to my campaign last time. I really need you to do the same this time,” the president said in a highly unusual (and presumably legal) fundraising pitch from Air Force One on his way back to Washington from Colorado Springs, where he’d been assessing the terrible damage caused by uncontained wildfires. A special phone on the government aircraft is dedicated to political calls that are paid for by the campaign.

“I’m asking you to meet or exceed what you did in 2008,” the presidential pitchman continued, speaking to donors who were invited to dial in based on their contributions during the last election. “Because we’re going to have to deal with these super PACs in a serious way. And if we don’t, frankly I think the political [scene] is going to be changed permanently. Because the special interests that are financing my opponent’s campaign are just going to consolidate themselves. They’re gonna run Congress and the White House.”

The president’s 18-minute pleading—a recording of which was provided to The Daily Beast by an Obama contributor—hardly sounded like a man doing a victory lap after Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare, as the Affordable Care Act has come to be known. Or, for that matter, like a candidate who has been beating his Republican opponent in recent polls of key battleground states.

Rather, Obama sounded like a dog-tired idealist forced to grapple painfully with hard reality. “In 2008 everything was new and exciting about our campaign,” Obama said. “And now I’m the incumbent president. I’ve got gray hair. People have seen disappointment because folks had a vision of change happening immediately. And it turns out change is hard, especially when you’ve got an obstructionist Republican Congress.”

But lest any of his donors believe the president sounded depressed, Obama quickly added: “Nevertheless, we’ve gotten more done in the last three years than most presidents do in eight years … I just hope you guys haven’t become disillusioned. I hope all of you still understand what’s at stake and why this is so important … I still believe in you guys, and I hope you still believe in me and the possibilities of this campaign.”

“The special interests that are financing my opponent’s campaign are just going to consolidate themselves. They’re gonna run Congress and the White House.”

In his most detailed assessment of the race so far, Obama lamented the cash advantage of Republican nominee-designate Mitt Romney, but offered hope that he could win reelection with a superior ground game and a more popular message. “We don’t have to match these guys dollar for dollar because we’ve got a better grassroots operation and we’ve got a better message,” he said. “The American people—the nice thing is they agree with our message when they hear it. We just can’t be drowned out … A few billionaires can’t drown out millions of voices.”

Obama noted that campaign-finance law requires both him and Romney to release monthly reports on fundraising—“and that could be a double-edged sword,” he said. “The downside is that the media hear these numbers and hyperventilate over it, and there’s a tendency to blow them out of proportion. But it does make the process more transparent. We see where we stand. And right now on a month-to-month basis, we’ve fallen behind.”

The president added: “Last month the Romney campaign raised $76 million. We raised $60 million.” That determines “our planning for whether or not we are gonna go on the air in Florida or Ohio or any of these battleground states, how much advertising we buy, what we spend when it comes to organizing teams.”

He added: “The truth is that early money is always more valuable than late money. And what we don’t want to do is be in a situation where, because everybody thinks that somehow we’re gonna win or people will just think Mr. Romney doesn’t know what he’s talking about—and then suddenly we get surprised later because it turns out that a couple of billionaires wrote $20 million checks and have bought all the TV time and we find ourselves flat-footed in September or October … We’ve got to make sure that we purchase advertising through August and September before the conventions,” he went on. “I think it’s fair to say that if we wait till the last minute we could be in for a pretty rude surprise, and that’s part of what we’re trying to avoid.”

The president warned: “I can’t do this by myself, and the progress we’ve made could unravel pretty quickly.” He urged his listeners on the conference call to contribute “today or as soon as possible” because “we’ve got to have the resources to make the choice crystal clear for the American people both in the air and on the ground.” Obama’s solicitation was followed up by an urgent email from campaign manager Jim Messina asking recipients to write a check immediately.

“The good news is we’re spending a lot more money on our ground game and grassroots organizing and voter registration,” the president said. “We just can’t be outspent 10 to 1. That’s what happened in Wisconsin recently. The Koch brothers and their allies,” he said, referring to billionaire conservative super-PAC funders David and Charles Koch, “spent more than the other side’s entire campaign—our side’s entire campaign.”

Obama contrasted the former Massachusetts governor unfavorably with Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee last time around. “We’re facing a much different opponent than last time,” the president warned. “I don’t mean just the candidate—although last time we were running against somebody who at least believed in climate change, believed in campaign-finance reform, believed in immigration reform.”

“It’s also because the landscape’s changed because of the Supreme Court ruling Citizens United,” continued Obama. “We are going to see more money spent on negative ads through these super PACs and anonymous outside groups than ever before. And if things continue as they have so far, I’ll be the first sitting president in modern history to be outspent in his reelection campaign.”

Every single thing this turd liar-in-chief and his dishonest staff of campaign cockroaches says is pure dishonest lie.  It’s really quite remarkable.

I wrote about this story as it developed on June 29.  I pointed out then:

The Obama campaign is asserting that they took in even more. The fact that they refused to produce any of their numbers to back those assertions up is evidence enough to refute their bogus claims.

It is of course nice to be vindicated with the TRUTH.  If you have anything to do with Obama, you never get TRUTH.

I also pointed out the map of the historic ass-kicking that the enraged American people hit the genuinely evil Democrat Party with to punish it for the ObamaCare fiasco:

I also pointed out previously that Barack Obama – who lied to the American people when he became the first major party nominee for president to EVER refuse public matching funds

In 2008, Obama’s record haul was made possible by the fact that he broke a campaign pledge and opted out of the public financing system. He was the first candidate ever to take that step, and he justified it with the prospect of hostile outside spending.

– is now getting hung on his own damn petard.  Because the fact of the matter is that there has never been a worse political whore for campaign cash in the history of the planet than Barack Obama.  Obama is a weasel who has attended more campaign fundraisers with more crony capitalist special interest weasels than the last five presidents COMBINED

Thanks to ObamaCare, conservatives and independents – who despise ObamaCare by an overwhelming margin – will crawl across broken glass to give Mitt Romney money to get this evil narcissist turd out of the people’s house.

In 2010 the American people rose up to kick the asses of Democrats something fierce.  And that was when ObamaCare WASN’T the largest tax increase on the middle class in the history of the entire republic.

Which serves to remind of yet ANOTHER example of just how pathologically dishonest Barack Obama and the Obama Campaign truly is.  ObamaCare was declared constitutional ONLY as a tax.  IT IS A TAX.  That is now a documented FACT.  But good luck getting any of the pathological liars of the Obama camp to acknowledge that truth or the fact that Barack Obama is now a documented LIAR:

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase.  It is THE largest tax increase EVER on the middle class.

And it is time to get this lying weasel out of our lives.

The Obama Presidency And Fast And Furious: Now We Know Why The Oval Office Is Shaped Like A Toilet Bowl

June 22, 2012

Two federal agents are dead after the Obama Administration literally put guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartel murderers.  More than 300 Mexican citizens are DEAD.  For two years, Obama’s weasel at the Department of Injustice has stalled and obstructed and flat-out LIED to the American people.

We know for a fact that Eric Holder and his Injustice Department directly and repeatedly lied in a letter that Holder later retracted after numerous statements were demonstrated to have been materially false:

Justice Withdraws Inaccurate ‘Fast And Furious’ Letter It Sent To Congress
December 2, 2011
by Carrie Johnson

Under fire for losing track of weapons that turned up at crime scenes along the Southwest border, the Justice Department has taken the extraordinary step of formally withdrawing an inaccurate letter about the episode that it sent to Congress earlier this year.

[…]

The February 2011 letter said that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives makes “every effort” to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally before they cross into Mexico. It added that the allegation that the ATF had “sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons” to suspicious people was false.

Both those statements turned out not to be true in the Fast and Furious operation, which targeted people who moved weapons to the violent Sinaloa, Mexico drug cartel during the Obama administration’s tenure. Republican lawmakers want to know who wrote that letter and have demanded “accountability” for government lawyers who allegedly misled them.

It is also a fact that no one at the Holder Injustice Department has ever been fired or even disciplined for lying to Congress.

And that is hardly the only outright lie coming out of the Holder Injustice Department.  And this lie directly proves that Eric Holder is a political ideologue who cannot be trusted to do anything other than cover his and Obama’s guilty-as-sin asses.

Let me summarize the fact-citing article below: the “Bush did it” claim is a lie.  It was ALWAYS a lie.  From an out-of-control administration that has NEVER ONCE accepted any kind of responsibility for ANYTHING for going on four full years now:

Holder retracts claim Bush team knew about Fast and Furious
June 20, 2012
Paul Bedard
The Washington Examiner

In a second major retraction over its version of the the gun-walking scandal, the Justice Department has retracted Attorney General Eric Holder’s charge in a hearing last week that his Bush administration predecessor had been briefed on the affair.

In a memo just released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator reveals that Holder also didn’t apologize to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey for dragging him into the Fast & Furious scandal that is headed for a major legal clash and likely contempt of Congress charge against Holder.

According to Grassley’s memo, Justice said that Holder “inadvertently” made the charge against Mukasey in a hearing.

Here is the full text of the Grassley memo:

To: Reporters and Editors

Re: Second retraction of Fast and Furious Assertions

Da: Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Justice Department has retracted a second statement made to the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a hearing last week, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. Now, the Department is retracting that statement and claiming Holder “inadvertently” made that claim to the Committee. The Department’s letter failed to apologize to former Attorney General Mukasey for the false accusation. This is the second major retraction the Justice Department has made in the last seven months. In December 2011, the Department retracted its claim that the ATF had not allowed illegally purchased guns to be trafficked to Mexico. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s letter and the Department’s response can be viewed here-1.

In addition, the Justice Department released only one page of additional material prior to the Attorney General’s meeting on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. It is a page of handwritten notes by a public affairs specialist for the Deputy Attorney General, which the Department says it “just recently discovered.” The notes indicate that when Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein met with senior ATF officials on April 28, 2010, regarding the problem of gunwalking in Wide Receiver, the Deputy Attorney General’s public affairs specialist also attended the meeting. These notes can be viewed here-2.

The notes indicate that Fast and Furious was also a topic discussed at the meeting, in addition to Wide Receiver. These notes further corroborate contemporaneous emails in 2010 that show Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer and Weinstein seemed to have been more concerned about the press implications of gunwalking than they were about making sure ATF ended the practice. (These emails can be viewed here-3.) The notes also undermine the claim that senior DOJ officials failed to “make the connection” between the gunwalking in Wide Receiver–which Breuer admitted to knowing about–and gunwalking in Fast and Furious. In fact, both cases were discussed by senior Department leadership and senior ATF leadership.

Grassley made the following comment on these developments.

This is the second time in nearly seven months that the Department has gotten its facts wrong about gunwalking. Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gunwalking in Wide Receiver. The case Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on, Hernandez, is fundamentally different from both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious since it involved cooperation with the Mexican government. Attorney General Holder’s retraction should have included an apology to the former Attorney General.

In his eagerness to blame the previous administration, Attorney General Holder got his facts wrong. And his tactic didn’t bring us any closer to understanding how a bad policy evolved and continued. Bad policy is bad policy, regardless of how many administrations carried it out. Ironically, the only document produced yesterday by the Department appears to show that senior officials in the Attorney General’s own Department were strategizing about how to keep gunwalking in both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious under wraps.”

Claiming that Holder inadvertently blamed Muksey is like arguing that Obama inadvertently blamed Bush.  Bullcrap.  These weasels lie about their lies.

The Bush-era program involved and cooperated with the Mexican government, whereas Obama’s program did not so much as even notify the Mexican government that Obama was sending thousands of guns into their country; 2) The Bush-era program diligently attempted to electronically track every weapon involved and utilized “controlled delivery” of the guns to further monitor them.  A total of a dozen guns could not ultimately be accounted for.  Whereas the Obama program made ZERO attempt to track the guns in any way, shape or form.  Consequently, more than 1,400 guns were “lost” (i.e., were handed to drug cartel murderers) in UNCONTROLLED DELIVERIES; 3) Two U.S. federal agents (Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata) were MURDERED with guns that Obama put into said drug cartel murderers’ hands.  And 300 Mexicans citizens have been murdered with the guns that Obama handed out to drug cartel murderers.

In between the time on February 4, 2011 when Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice lied in his letter and the period in December 2, 2011 when Holder retracted his lying deceitful letter, numerous memos and emails were sent too and fro totalling about 1,300 documents.  We now know that there was a cover up that occurred at the highest levels including Barack Obama – who just issued an executive order to protect his cover up.

Interestingly, Obama had previously issued a statement that neither he nor Eric Holder had any knowledge or involvement with Fast and Furious.  So on what grounds is Obama now claiming privilege?

If the documents are revealed, Barack Obama will be impeached from office the way Nixon was.

But even after the Republicans dramatically narrowed the scope of their search to the cover-up of what is now openly and obviously a documented lie, Obama asserted executive privilege.

In 2007, our current Liar-in-Chief had this bit of pathological hypocrisy:

President Obama criticized former President George W. Bush for trying to “hide” behind executive privilege in 2007, after the Bush administration refused to turn over subpoenaed documents over the controversial firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

In an interview on CNN’s Larry King Live, Obama said there’s been “a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind exec privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taking place.”

“I think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this,” Obama said, after Bush claimed executive privilege on the issue.”

“I think” if Obama revealed his part in the murder of a federal agent and the murder of 300 Mexican citizens he would be impeached and possibly end up in prison.

There is no question that this administration and its Department of Injustice is pathologically dishonest.

As I said, not one individual at the Department of Injustice has ever been disciplined in any way, shape or form for documented lies to the Congress of the United States.  Who HAS been punished?  The agents who alerted the world to the fact that Obama was putting guns in the hands of criminals after American agents had been murdered with those guns, that’s who.

What pisses me off the most about this Obama program – you know, aside from all the people that Obama and Holder murdered by proxy – is the fact that Obama was FORCING gun dealers to sell guns to Mexican criminals over their objections while at the very same time demonizing gun dealers for illegally selling guns to Mexicans.  Which is to say that Obama wanted to force American guns into Mexico so that he could use the American guns in Mexico to overcome the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment protection of guns in America.

If the American people knew the truth about this, we would have our own Tahrir Square movement, in which hundreds of thousands of beyond outraged Americans were mobbed outside the White House demanding that Barack Obama be put in prison for his crimes against the American people.

You have to wonder why Obama let this process go on for two damn years before shielding his administration’s crimes and cover-up with executive privilege.  It’s like playing a game to the last move and then ending the game – and declaring victory – just before the other team can hit the winning shot.  But it’s no wonder he did.  Because the day we see those records is the day Obama will be forced out of office.

The biggest problem is that Democrats are liars and dishonorable people.  Consider the statement once made by Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummings about Fast and Furious:

“…I promise you, we will not rest… we will not rest until every single person responsible for all of this, no matter where they are, are brought to justice… I promise you, we will not fail you.”

What he meant by that was that Democrats would not rest until every single person responsible for Fast and Furious was protected and shielded by Democrats.  Because he’s now on the record refusing to hold ANYBODY accountable for ANYTHING.  He and all the other Democrats are in lock-fascist-step ensuring that no one will EVER be held accountable for Fast and Furious. 

It is the fact that Democrats are dishonorable liars and hypocrites without shame that Obama is counting on.  Nixon never would have resigned if Republicans had been one-tenth as determined to protect him as Democrats are to protect Obama.

Hillary Clinton’s Solemn Oath To Afghan Women: ‘We Will NOT Abandon You’ (Until Obama Cuts And Runs And Abandons You)

April 10, 2012

Another Obama promise bites the dust.  We can add the lie below to Obama’s “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal“; we can add that lie to Obama’s very first executive order swearing that he would close Gitmo within one year (psst: it’s still open); we can add that lie to Obama’s promise to accept matching campaign funds (until he broke that promise) and Obama’s promise that he would not accept super pac money (until he broke that promise); we can add that lie to a long list of Obama flat-out lies (see also here).

Sorry, women of Afghanistan.  I know this will be an incredibly painful lesson as Barack Obama returns you to the state of abject slavery that George Bush delivered you from.  Just remember from now on NEVER to trust Democrats; they will promise you the world only to completely abandon you the moment it becomes politically expedient for them to do so.

Status of Afghan women threatens Hillary Clinton’s legacy
The secretary of State has devoted herself to the issue, but gains made may be reversed as Afghanistan’s conservatives become more powerful in the West’s wake.
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
April 8, 2012, 6:05 p.m.

WASHINGTON — In the final months of her tenure as secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton is fighting a long retreat on a cause close to her heart, and to her legacy — the status of Afghan women.

Clinton embraced the cause long before the first U.S. troops landed in the country, and as secretary of State she has brought Afghan women worldwide attention, political power and unbending promises of American support.

“We will not abandon you,” she pledged.

But now, with U.S. officials laying plans to remove most troops in two years, the Afghan government and other institutions appear to be adjusting their positions on women’s rights to accommodate conservative factions. Restrictions on women have made a comeback.

“Most of women’s important achievements over the last decade are likely to be reversed,” predicted a bleak report issued last month by the Afghan Human Rights and Democracy Organization, a nonprofit in Kabul funded by Western governments and private groups.

This puts Clinton in a tough spot. Among senior U.S. officials, none is more closely associated with women’s rights: When prominent Afghan women are alarmed by developments at home, they often fire off emails to Clinton’s staff.

“She has been a very strong conscience of the world on this issue,” said Wazhma Frogh, director of the Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security in the Afghan capital, Kabul. “We have leaned on her help in the past, and we are looking to her help for our future.”

Clinton insists that the United States views women’s rights as a nonnegotiable “red line.” At a recent meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council, she insisted that “any peace that is attempted to be made by excluding more than half the population is no peace at all. It is a figment that will not last…. We will not waver on this point.”

Yet administration officials also acknowledge sharp limits to what America can do. Even future U.S. funding to help women is uncertain.

Melanne Verveer, U.S. ambassador at large for women and a longtime Clinton aide, said that American officials remain influential and will do all they can.

“But this is going to be in the end an Afghan-led process,” she said. “Ultimately, it is going to be the Afghans who are in the driver’s seat. We can’t see the future. This is a work in progress — we don’t know — we hope it will be progress.”

Senior U.S. officials see Afghanistan as an intractable foreign policy mess that will only get worse as long as large numbers of U.S. troops remain in the country. Winding down the U.S. commitment has become an overriding priority.

As America’s chief diplomat, Clinton has won praise not only from liberals, but also from conservatives. Gallup polls have found she is the nation’s most admired woman for each of the last 10 years.

Clinton has signaled that she will step down as top U.S. diplomat early next year, and the fate of Afghan women may not be clear until long after her departure. Even so, a reversal on women’s rights would be a blow to Clinton’s legacy.

“People will identify her with whatever happens,” said Shamila Chaudhary, who was National Security Council advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan until late last year and is now with the Eurasia Group research firm in Washington. “There’s a huge reputational risk in this for her.”

Clinton’s advocacy for women in Afghanistan goes back to her time in the Senate before the Sept . 11 attacks, when the world was horrified to see how the Taliban regime had marginalized women.

Clinton pushed for guaranteed seats for women in the Afghan parliament and other government bodies and has made sure that the United States has amply funded programs to support women’s health and education, businesses, legal clinics and shelters. Clinton was among the Western officials who lobbied the Afghan government to set up a women’s ministry and enact a tough law barring violence against women.

Her efforts have contributed to Afghan women’s gains. Over the last decade, women’s life expectancy there has increased from 42 to 64 years, and the number of girls in school has gone from 10,000 to 2.5 million.

But two months ago, the country’s top religious body, the Ulema Council, issued an edict that men are “fundamental” and women “secondary,” and barred women from mingling with men in schools or the workplace. Afghan President Hamid Karzai appeared to embrace the ruling, setting off an international outcry.

When Clinton called Karzai on March 8 to demand an explanation, Karzai said the ruling was only “advisory” and insisted that he stood by the Afghan Constitution’s guarantees of equality for women.

Yet the incident was widely seen as proof that Karzai and other Afghan institutions have started to position themselves for the more conservative era they see ahead.

Karzai “has a lot to lose if he can’t find a way to reach an accommodation with the Taliban,” said Heather Barr of Human Rights Watch in Kabul. “The consequences for him of moving against women’s rights are probably a lot less serious.”

Clinton’s pressure helped gain women nine seats in the High Peace Council, a body appointed to help direct the negotiations with the Taliban. But so far, Afghan women have been largely shut out of the preliminary talks, former First Lady Laura Bush, another advocate for the women’s cause, said during the meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council.

There are other trouble signs. Dozens of mixed-gender and girls schools have been destroyed by insurgents in recent years, including 74 in 2010 alone, Amnesty International says. Prominent female politicians have been killed and others face growing threats of violence, Amnesty says.

U.S. spending for Afghan women, like other aid, has begun to decline, women’s advocates say. Although the administration is committed to long-term development aid to Afghanistan, Verveer acknowledged that decisions on such appropriations “will be a negotiation between the administration and the Congress.”

Although Clinton has remained focused on women’s rights, others in the Obama administration have concentrated most on security goals, starting with winning Taliban commitments to break off ties with Al Qaeda, say current and former U.S. officials.

If the negotiators are able to work out an agreement on security and other key issues, “the final deal won’t be held up by a disagreement over women’s rights,” Chaudhary predicted. “No way.”

You can go back to what Democrats did to Bush on Iraq to see that Democrats are 100 percent reliable – to abandon their own words and instead cut and run when their allies need them the most:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

George Bush won his war in Iraq that Barack Obama demonized.  Vice President Joe Biden literally tried to claim credit for Iraq, claiming, “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Barack Obama proceeded to piss that victory away by not bothering for three years to get any kind of agreement to keep US forces in as peacekeepers whatsoever.  And now we find that Barack Obama is very obviously losing his war in Afghanistan.

And proving that anybody who trusts a Democrat might as well put a “kick-me” sign over their face.

The Coulter Counterfactual: ‘If I Were A Liberal’

October 28, 2011

Joe Biden gave a vicious, hateful, divisive and frankly fascist rant in which he essentially blamed conservatives and Republicans for all the rapes and murders.

It doesn’t matte that the “facts” that Biden claimed were all a bunch of lies.  From FactCheck.org:

Biden’s Whopper in Flint, Mich.
Posted on October 20, 2011 , Updated on Oct. 21, 2011

Joe Biden falsely claimed on multiple occasions that the number of reported rapes in Flint, Mich., has skyrocketed since 2008 — providing different accounts at different events that do not square with FBI data. He started at a 152 percent increase, and since then has said rapes in Flint have tripled and even “quadrupled.” But FBI data show the number of rapes in Flint has gone down 11 percent, from 103 in 2008 to 92 in 2010.

Biden also said the city’s murder rate has “tripled.” The city says there were a record-high 66 murders last year — double, not triple, the 32 murders that occurred in 2008.

Rapes Haven’t ‘Quadrupled’

The vice president has been touring the country delivering his pitch for the American Jobs Act, President Barack Obama’s $447 billion plan that includes $35 billion to prevent the layoff of police, firefighters and teachers. On Oct. 12, Biden visited Flint, Mich., which has had the highest violent crime rate in the nation for the last two years. The city’s violent crime rate has increased from 20.2 violent crimes per 1,000 residents in 2008 to 22.1 in 2010, a jump of about 9 percent, our analysis of FBI reports shows.

Crime is bad in Flint, no doubt, but Biden makes it out to be worse than it is.

[See site for video]

Biden, Oct. 12: You know Pat Moynihan said everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but they’re not entitled to their own facts. Let’s look at the facts. In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on the police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city. In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes — just to pick two categories — climbed to 229.

He has cited Flint’s crime stats in other appearances since then, including at an Oct. 18 visit to the University of Pennsylvania — the home of FactCheck.org.

[See site for video]

Biden, Oct. 18: I was up in Flint, Michigan, last week. Their police department’s cut more than in half. The murder rate, close to triple. The number of rapes have quadrupled.

A day later, Biden was asked by a reporter for Human Events, a conservative website, if he regretted “using a rape reference to describe Senate opposition” to the bill. Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, have criticized the vice president for suggesting that rape and murder will rise if the Republicans don’t pass the jobs bill. Biden replied: “I said rape was up three times in Flint. Those are the numbers. Go look at the numbers.”

We have looked at the numbers. We started with the number of reported rapes, because Biden makes three claims that don’t add up: that rapes have gone up from 91 to 229 (a 152 percent increase), that rapes have “quadrupled,” and that rapes have tripled. He’s badly wrong on all counts. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for those years show that the number of reported rapes declined from 103 in 2008 to 92 in 2010, or a nearly 11 percent drop.

We also calculated the rate of reported rapes per 1,000 residents to account for the city’s declining population. Even then, the rate has declined from .91 rapes per 1,000 residents in 2008 to .84 rapes per 1,000, a decline of 8 percent.

We asked the vice president’s office to explain such a gross discrepancy. It referred us to the Flint mayor’s office — saying the figures came from the city. In response to our questions, Flint Public Safety Director Chief Alvern Lock put out a statement saying the city “stands behind the crime statistics provided to the Office of The Vice President.” It also said: “The discrepancies with the FBI and other sources reveal the differences in how crimes can be counted and categorized, based on different criteria.”

The statement falls short of supporting Biden’s various claims, however. For several reasons:

  • The city didn’t specify what rape figures it gave Biden, and he’s given at least three different and conflicting accounts. He said variously that the increase from 2008 was 152 percent, that it tripled and that it “quadrupled.” At least two of those claims must be wrong.
  • It’s true that rapes are notoriously underreported, as the vice president’s office pointed out to us. But Biden was talking about reported rapes. In fact, he used the FBI data when he said that there were 103 rapes in Flint in 2008. So why was the FBI report accurate in 2008 but not accurate in 2010? The city didn’t explain that.
  • The FBI gets its data from the city, because Uniform Crime Reports are voluntary and self reporting. If there was a mistake on the rape data, then it was the city’s fault. But the city, in its statement, does not acknowledge making a mistake in reporting rape data to the FBI.
  • The city did admit that it made a mistake in reporting the number of murders that occurred in 2010. It did so immediately — on the day the FBI report came out in May — and it did so again in the statement released in response to our questions. But it did not admit to making any reporting mistakes on rapes, then or now.

Update, Oct. 21: City spokeswoman Dawn Jones later explained to us that the 2010 figure provided to Biden included not just rapes that the city reports to the FBI but also “all cases of criminal sexual conduct.” That means the city and Biden were comparing reported rapes in 2008 (103) with all acts of criminal sexual conduct (229), including rape. That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. And in any case those numbers don’t support Biden’s other inaccurate claims — that rape has tripled and quadrupled. Jones did not readily have the figure for criminal sexual conduct cases in 2008 and answers to other outstanding questions, but she promised to get back to us and we will update this item more fully when she does.

Update, Oct. 23: We have now found that rape figures reported by Flint to the Michigan State Police confirm rapes declined in the city from 2008 to 2010. We also found that the broader category of “criminal sexual contact” (CSC) was also down. State Police figures show a 10 percent reduction in total CSC reports between 2008 (242) and 2010 (217). Also, murder, rape and robbery are declining this year in spite of police layoffs in Flint, Mich., according to the most recent official report released by the State Police. For more information, please read our Wire item, “Biden’s Flint Fiasco, Continued.”

Murders Haven’t ‘Tripled’

Now, what about the number of murders in Flint? There is conflicting data on this point, too, but we accept the city’s account that there were 66 murders last year.

The 2010 FBI crime report shows that there were 53 murders in Flint. However, the city statement says that there was an “internal clerical error” in reporting the data to the FBI and that there were actually 66 murders last year. That’s consistent with what has been reported by the local media months before Biden’s visit. On May 23, the day the FBI report came out, the Flint Journal wrote that city officials said there were 65 murders, not 53. A few days later, the Flint Journal wrote that there were 66 murders — a figure others have used as well. It’s clear that the city made an immediate effort to correct the record on murders, something it did not do on rapes.

Even so, Biden was wrong when he said that the murder rate has “tripled.” In 2008, there were 32 murders in a city of 113,462 people for a murder rate of .28 murders per 1,000 residents. In 2010, there were 66 murders and a population of 109,245 for a rate of .60 murders per 1,000. That’s an increase of 115 percent, more than double but not quite triple.

As for the city’s police force, it’s difficult to assess whether Biden was right. The FBI says Flint had 233 full-time law enforcement employees in 2008 and 155 in 2010, a decline of 78 employees or 33 percent. That’s a significant decline, for sure. Biden’s figures, however, show an even greater drop. In Flint, Biden said the number of “sworn officers” declined from 265 to 144, a drop of 46 percent.

Who’s right? We don’t know. We asked the city to provide information about police staffing, too, but the statement issued by the city didn’t address our questions about staffing. It’s possible, for example, that Biden included part-time employees. The FBI provides numbers only for “full-time law enforcement employees,” which it defines as “individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers” and are paid from government funds dedicated for law enforcement.

We should also note that in Philadelphia, Biden said Flint’s police department was “cut more than in half.” He may have been referring to current staffing. In Flint, Biden said the number of sworn officers is now 125 — which would represent a cut of more than half compared with Biden’s 2008 figure (265), but not the FBI’s (233).

Biden is right on his larger point: Police staffing has sharply declined, and the number of murders has sharply increased. But the vice president is clearly wrong when he says the number of rapes have “quadrupled,” when in fact they have gone down, or that the murder rate has tripled, when it has doubled.

If he’s going to quote the former New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a quotation we used when launching this site in 2003 — then he should get his facts straight to support his opinion.

– Eugene Kiely, with Scott Blackburn and Wendy Zhao

Of COURSE they are lies; liberals are the worst kind of liars.   Nor does it matter that the rapes and murders that actually HAVE increased have increased as a direct result of the leftist “Occupy” movements that have sprung up, which if anything makes the LEFT and DEMOCRATS responsible for rapes and murders:

Violent Crime Up in New York City as Police Distracted by Occupy Wall Street
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

As the Occupy Wall Street drug parties protests continue in New York city, violent crime is running rampant as police resources are being allocated to keep occupiers in check, leaving those who really need police protection helpless.

Bullets are flying over Broadway — and everywhere else in the city.
The number of people shot surged 154 percent two weeks ago — to 56 from 22 over the same week last year — and spiked 28 percent in the last month.

Last week tallied another increase in victims — 22 people had been hit through Friday, including the three victims gunned down outside a Brooklyn school Friday.

Last year, only 17 shooting victims were logged for the entire week.

The recent gunplay has now pushed the number of shooting victims this year slightly above last year’s tragic tally — to 1,484 from 1,451 — through Oct. 16.

Four high-ranking cops point the finger at Occupy Wall Street protesters, saying their rallies pull special crime-fighting units away from the hot zones where they’re needed.

Since Occupy Wall Street took over Zuccotti Park on Sept. 17, the NYPD has relied heavily on its borough task forces, the department’s go-to teams for rowdy crowds.

But such protest duty takes the special units away from their regular jobs — patrolling public housing and problem spots and staking out nightclubs plagued by violence, supervisors said.

“Normally, the task force is used in high-crime neighborhoods where you have a lot of shootings and robberies,” said one source.

“They are always used when there are spikes in crime as a quick fix. But instead of being sent to Jamaica, Brownsville and the South Bronx, they are in Wall Street.”

So, on top of costing New York taxpayers over $2 million in overtime payments, occupiers are costing people their lives.

Sidenote: New York’s strict gun control laws are also to blame for a spike in violence because they make it impossible for innocent citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals, especially when the cops aren’t around.

Facts and truth are to Democrats what holy water and crucifixes are to vampires; they have a pathological hatred of both.

It doesn’t matter that all the crime and violence have clearly been coming from THE DAMN LEFT, with well over 2,500 arrests of liberals at “Occupy” events versus basically ZERO for all the Tea Party protests.

None of that matters to the left.  They would have to have a shred of honor, or decency, or honesty for stuff like that to matter.  And they are crawling vermin.

Ann Coulter gives a counterfactual “If I were a liberal” here’s how I would act tale that is worth reading.

If I Were a Liberal…
by  Ann Coulter
10/26/2011

If I were a liberal, I would have spent the last week in shock that a Democratic audience in Flint, Mich., cheered Vice President Joe Biden’s description of a policeman being killed. (And if I were a liberal desperately striving to keep my job on MSNBC, I’d say the Democrats looked “hot and horny” for dead cops — as Chris Matthews​ said of a Republican audience that cheered for the death penalty.)

Biden’s audience whooped and applauded last week in Flint when he said that without Obama’s jobs bill, police will be “outgunned and outmanned.” (Wild applause!)

I suppose liberals would claim they were applauding because they believe Obama’s jobs bill will prevent these murders. Which reminds me: Republicans believe the death penalty prevents murders!

Which belief bears more relationship to reality?

In a case I have previously mentioned, Kenneth McDuff was released from death row soon after the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 1972 and went on to murder more than a dozen people.

William Jordan and Anthony Prevatte were sentenced to death in 1974 for abducting a teacher, murdering him and stealing his car. They came under suspicion when they were caught throwing the murder weapon from the stolen vehicle in a high-speed car chase with the cops and because they were in possession of the dead man’s wallet, briefcase and watch.

The Georgia Supreme Court overturned their capital sentences in an opinion by Robert H. Hall, who was appointed by Gov. Jimmy Carter.

Hall said that the death sentences had to be set aside on the idiotic grounds that the jurors had overheard the prosecutor say that the judge and state supreme court would have the opportunity to review a death sentence, which might have caused them to take their sentencing role less seriously.

(If the facts had been the reverse, the court would have overturned the death sentences on the grounds that the jurors did not take their sentencing decision seriously, under the misapprehension that no judge or court would second-guess them.)

Prevatte was later released from “life in prison” and proceeded to murder his girlfriend. Jordan escaped and has never been found.

As president, Carter appointed Hall to a federal district court.

Darryl Kemp was sentenced to death in California in 1960 for the rape and murder of Marjorie Hipperson and also convicted for raping two other women. But he sat on death row long enough — 12 years — for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional. He was paroled five years later and, within four months, had raped and murdered Armida Wiltsey, a 40-year-old wife and mother.

Kemp wasn’t caught at the time, so he spent the next quarter-century raping (and probably murdering) a string of women. In 2002, his DNA was matched to blood found on the fingernails of Wiltsey’s dead body. Although Kemp was serving a “life sentence” for rape in a Texas prison, he was months away from being paroled when he was brought back to California for the murder of Wiltsey.

His attorney argued that he was too old for the death penalty. He lost that argument, and in 2009, Kemp was again given a capital sentence. He now sits on death row, perhaps long enough for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional again, so he can be released to commit more rapes and murders.

Dozens and dozens of prisoners released from death row have gone on to murder again. No one knows exactly how many, but it’s a lot more than the number of innocent men who have been executed in America, which, at least since 1950, is zero.

What is liberals’ evidence that there will be more rapes and murders if Obama’s jobs bill doesn’t pass? Biden claims that, without it, there won’t be enough cops to interrupt a woman being raped in her own home — which would be an amazing bit of police work/psychic talent, if it had ever happened. (That’s why Americans like guns, liberals.)

Obama’s jobs bill tackles the problem of rape and murder by giving the states $30 billion … for public school teachers.

Only $5 billion is even allotted to the police, but all we keep hearing about are the rapes and murders that Democrats are suddenly against (as long as being “against” rape and murder means funding public school teachers and not imprisoning or executing rapists and murderers).

Finally, did Flint use any money from Obama’s last trillion-dollar stimulus bill to hire more police in order to prevent rape and murder? No, Flint spent its $2.2 million from the first stimulus bill on buying two electric buses.

Even if what Flint really needed was buses and not cops, for $2.2 million, the city could have bought seven brand-new diesel buses and had $100,000 left over for streetlights.

Rather than reducing the rate of rape and murder, blowing money on “green” buses is likely to increase crime, since people will be forced to spend a lot more time waiting at bus stops for those two buses.

It’s going to be a long wait: The “green” buses were never delivered because the company went out of business — despite a $1.6 million loan from the American taxpayer.

But if I were a liberal, I wouldn’t acknowledge these facts, or any facts. I would close my eyes, cover my ears, demand that MSNBC fire Pat Buchanan and the FCC pull the plug on Fox, and pretend to believe that taxpayer-funded “green” projects and an ever-increasing supply of public school teachers were the only things that separated us from Armageddon.

Democrats posture themselves as the party of tolerance, with their adversaries being the party of rape and murder.  But they have it – just as they have everything – back-asswards.  It is DEMOCRATS who are profoundly intolerant and divisive, and it is DEMOCRATS whose “tolerant” policies toward rapists and murderers have done nothing more than increase the numbers of both.

Honoring Our Fallen SEAL Heroes While Being Utterly Pissed At Obama

August 7, 2011

The story is a punch in the gut:

KABUL, Afghanistan — In the deadliest day for U.S. forces in the nearly 10-year war in Afghanistan, insurgents shot down a Chinook transport helicopter Saturday, killing 30 Americans — including Navy SEAL commandos from the broader unit that killed Osama bin Laden — and seven Afghan commandos, U.S. and Afghan officials said.

The helicopter, on a night-raid mission in the Tangi Valley of Wardak province, west of Kabul, was most likely brought down by a rocket-propelled grenade, one coalition official said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, and they could hardly have found a more valuable target: U.S. officials said 22 of the dead were Navy SEAL commandos from two different special teams, including SEAL Team 6.

The number of SEALs killed has since been released as 23.  It’s the worst day in the entire history of the Teams, which date back to the early days of the Vietnam War.

And of course the previous worst day in SEALs history occurred in Afghanistan, also:

In June 2005, on a barren mountain high in the Taliban-infested Hindu Kush, Luttrell and three fellow Navy SEALs came together to talk. Their mission — to locate and possibly take out an important Taliban leader hiding in the Afghan village below — had just been compromised. Three goatherds, one a boy of about 14, had blundered onto their position. Sitting against a log under the watchful eyes of their captors, the Afghans clearly weren’t happy to see the Americans. On the other hand, they were unarmed, technically civilians.

As about 100 goats milled about, Petty Officers Matthew Axelson, Danny Dietz and Luttrell, and their commander, Lt. Michael Murphy, discussed what to do. Having tried and failed earlier to make radio contact with their home base, they were on their own.

As they saw it, they had two options: kill the Afghans, or let them go and hope for the best. They let them go.

It’s a decision Luttrell bitterly regrets.

Within hours, more than 100 Taliban fighters descended on the SEAL team. In the terrible gun battle that followed, Murphy, Axelson and Dietz died. A few miles away, a Taliban grenade brought down a rescue helicopter on its way to help the trapped men, killing all 16 aboard. It was the worst day in the 40-year history of the Navy SEALs

Our special operations warriors are most vulnerable when a) they’re risking their lives by treating their enemies like decent human beings and b) relying on helicopter transportation for their insertions and extractions.

Both “weaknesses” relate to my belief that Afghanistan is a terrible place for the U.S. to be fighting as our “central front.”  Bush was right to make Iraq that front; Obama was wrong to make it Afghanistan.  I point out that:

Iraq was a place where we could win, and Afghanistan was a place where we could fall into an abyss.  Iraq – with its flat terrain and its conventional military dynamic, was a place where American technological might could completely dominate.

In making Iraq the central front, Bush chose a war that he knew America could win.

In demanding that Afghanistan be the central front, Democrats – and in particular Barack Obama – may well have chosen a war that we can’t win.

And Democrats now have a well-known history of losing wars since 1950.

Our jet fighters are virtually useless in this incredibly mountainous terrain, as our our armored forces. And helicopters – especially Chinooks – are incredibly vulnerable to rocket fire when they are inserting troops. Afghanistan has been called “the graveyard of empires” with damned good reason.

The SEALs were shot down while being transported aboard a Chinook helicopter, along with the eight crew members of the Chinook and another seven Afghan Special Forces soldiers.  A U.S. military dog assigned to the SEALs was also killed

For what it’s worth, if Barack Obama deserves “credit” for the SEALs nailing Osama bin Laden, he deserves just as much “credit” for the Chinook crash and the 22 dead SEALs now. You can’t have it both ways. Obama wanted to take the credit before; let him take the blame now.  Especially since the latest reports are that the Taliban LURED the SEALs to the site in retaliation for the Osama bin Laden killing.  Obama took all the credit for the operation that got Obama; why doesn’t he take credit for the operation that resulted in the deaths of one-tenth of the entire SEAL Team 6 unit that got bin Laden?  Other than the fact that Obama is the kind of guy who takes credit for every sunrise and then demonizes the Republicans for every sunset???

And it is important to realize that making Afghanistan the central front (i.e. “the good war”) was entirely political:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq. In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

One graph is all you need to see that George Bush basically fought a war of containment in Afghanistan.  It was Obama who turned it into the central front:

And, to continue, let me also say that Obama’s demonization of George Bush has clearly since been proven to have been completely false as well as depraved.

Obama said hateful garbage like:

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

Match that demagoguery up with Obama’s reality:

UN: Afghan civilian death toll hits record high
Jul 14, 2011, 12:24 GMT

Kabul – The first half of 2011 has been the deadliest six months for Afghan civilians since the decade-long war began, the United Nations mission said Thursday.

‘Afghanistan experienced a 15 per cent increase in conflict-related civilian deaths in the first six months of 2011,’ the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said in it’s midyear report.

And just who the hell is “air raiding villages and killing civilians” now, Obama?

Karzai scolds US military over Afghan civilian deaths
Sardar Ahmad
May 29, 2011

President Hamid Karzai on Sunday scolded the US military for “arbitrary and unnecessary” missions that kill Afghan civilians, saying it was his last warning on the issue after 14 died in an air strike.

Citing initial reports that 10 children, two women and two men were killed in a strike in the southern province of Helmand on Saturday, Karzai said such operations amounted to the “murdering of Afghanistan’s children and women.”

And of course there is the story of the premeditated murders of civilians by a 5th Stryker Brigade “kill team” of hoodlums.  If Bush was president, there would have been a demand over the course of months for an investigation into exactly what Bush knew and when he knew it.

Obama – who just plain demonized George Bush while deceitfully exalting himself – created the now documented incredibly false dichotomy between the world hating America because of Bush and the world loving America because of Obama.  He falsely promised that the Muslim world would respect America with himself as president.  In one word, BULLCRAP:

Bush trumps Barack in the Arab world: President Obama is proving an embarrassing flop in the Middle East
By Nile Gardiner     Last updated: July 13th, 2011

Today’s eye-opening IBOPE Zogby International poll for the Arab American Institute Foundation should be a wake-up call to the White House on its failing foreign policy. After two and a half years of bashing Israel, appeasing rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria, and promising a new era of relations with the Muslim world, Washington is now less popular in major Arab countries than it was when George W. Bush was in the White House.

The poll surveys Arab opinion in six countries: Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and reveals that “Arabs see the Obama Administration’s handling of most Middle East policy issues as having made no contribution to improving US-Arab relations. Only on the issue of the “no-fly zone over Libya” do a majority of Saudis and plurality of Lebanese see a positive contribution.”

According to the report’s author, the Democrat adviser James Zogby:

After improving with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, U.S. favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran’s favorable ratings (except in Saudi Arabia).

… While many Arabs were hopeful that the election of Barack Obama would improve U.S.-Arab relations, that hope has evaporated. Today, President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab World are 10% or less. Obama’s performance ratings are lowest on the two issues to which he has devoted the most energy: Palestine and engagement with the Muslim world.

The Zogby poll overwhelmingly demonstrates that weakness and a markedly softer approach to the projection of American global power do not make the US president more popular abroad. In fact they simply strengthen the position of America’s enemies, undermine her effectiveness as a global power, and draw contempt and derision from both friend and foe alike.

Finally, conservatives have been pointing out that Obama’s whimpering exit to his own giant escalation would amount to a retreat which, combined with his “timetable for withdrawal,” would embolden our enemies and endange our troops.  And from all signs, we are now dealing with an emboldened enemy who know they have already won:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Three American senators visiting Kabul said Sunday they were worried that President Obama’s planned withdrawal of 33,000 American troops by September 2012 could undermine Afghan morale, embolden the insurgency and hamper efforts to defeat the Taliban.

It is LONG past time the American people finally start taking Obama and the media propaganda he depends on to task for all their lies.

These SEALs and the Chinook crewmen who made the ultimate sacrifice are far better men than me on multiple levels.  One of those levels is that they did something I wouldn’t have done: they stayed in the military and continued fighting because – Obama’s total garbage rhetoric aside – they knew that our enemies would hate us as much with Obama as president as they did when Bush was president.  And they made the conscious decision to put America’s security first.

This was what I once said:

I was a soldier, too. If a Barack Obama suddenly became my Commander-in-Chief, I would have realized the war is over, and America lost. I wouldn’t fight for the radical infanticide/abortion agenda, the radical gay rights agenda, or any other radical liberal agenda. I signed up to fight for the United States of America; not God Damn America. And I’d figure it’s about time that liberals sent their children off to die screaming in the mud for their new Peoples’ Socialist Republic under their new Messiah-in-Chief. Hell, instead of protesting military recruitment, these once-traitorous vermin (under the previous gone-but-not-forgotten United States of America) can quit protesting military recruiting stations and start actually signing up in them. That’s right, liberals; instead of bombing recruiting stations like Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers you can go and start signing up to sacrifice your blood and guts for your new country.

Geez, I wonder if you’d stop bitching about how evil American soldiers were fighting terrorists all over the world if you actually had to do all the fighting yourselves? Heck, it’s possible it might even start to occur to you that a place like Guantanamo Bay is a better idea than releasing terrorists who will immediately start trying to kill you again the moment they get back to their old stomping grounds.

And of course, here we are now, with the whole radical homosexual agenda imposed on the military whether it was ready for it or not.

I would have left at my first opportunity because all the crap that’s going on in God damn America is vile.  But these noble SEALs and crewmen realize that America needs to be protected and defended no matter which fool the American people elect as their president.

This country no longer deserves men like these, it no longer deserves the incredible personal sacrifices they have to make.  But they keep showing up where they are most needed, wherever the fighting is the worst, and keep making the ultimate sacrifices, just the same.

And thank God for their incredible nobility and their incredible heroism.

I think back to the example of heroism that still leaves me wondering.  It occurred during the Blackhawk Down incident in Somalia.  A Blackhawk was shot down in Mogudishu, and two Delta Force snipers aboard a circling helicopter demanded to be set down near the wreckage to protect the crew of the downed Blackhawk.  MSG Gary Gordon and SFC Randall Shughart were set down on what was very obviously a suicide mission of their own request.  The rest of us can only guess what these noble and heroic warriors were thinking, but I believe they saw the honor of the United States on the line, and they determined to give their own lives to protect that honor.

They knew they were going to die.  There is no question that when they asked to be set down, that they were going to die.

And they knew that this would be what would happen to their bodies.

And yet they made their decision.

I wouldn’t have done what they did.  Because the level of honor, and nobility, and courage, and raw heroism and willingness to suffer and die for their country simply transcends anything I can even begin to understand.

And I’m hardly alone in that.  There are approximately 313,232,044 Americans in the United States.  And only a tiny, tiny few would be willing to give their lives the way these men were willing to give their lives for a man they didn’t even know.

But many of those SEALs who died yesterday would have.  Because that’s just who those guys are.

As righteously pissed off as I am at the fiasco I am watching every single day as this nation is run into the ground, something like this national tragedy happens and it gives me pause.

In their spirit and in their honor, and in the honor of the men who knew them and fought with them, I say today, God bless America.  And may God bless the families and the comrades of those slain.  Thank you for giving us men like these, Lord God.  And thank you for the lesson their nobility and courage can teach us.