Change? Obama Worse than Bush

The verdict is in, and Barack Obama did not produce the change he promised.  In fact, as he blames all his ills on the last 8 years, it is interesting to compare the Bush years to the Obama years.  Consider the following:

Average Annual Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush: $543,818        Obama: $1,497,601

Total Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush (8 years): $4,217,261   Obama (4 years): $5,990,407

Average Annual Unemployment (Also see here):

Bush: 5.26%                    Obama: 9.2%

Median Household Incomes:

January, 2009: $55,198       August, 2012: $50,678

The Average Annual Price of Gas (not even including 2012):

Bush: $2.14                     Obama: $2.89

Cost of Higher Education (adj. for inflation, not even including 2012):

Bush 2008: $16,661     Obama 2011: $18,497

But isn’t health insurance cheaper now with Obamacare?  No.  In 2012 the amount a family with employer provided coverage pays in annual premiums has increased to about $16,000.  For families with private individual plans, the amount is up to $5,615.  And before you ask why families don’t all just switch to private individual plans, remember that Obamacare taxes medium-large businesses up to $3,000 per employee that they don’t cover.

But we know Obama has handled the economy terribly.  The other thing people elected Obama for was to end the wars.  Obama promised to close Gitmo, which didn’t happen, and to end the war in Iraq.  He ended the war in Iraq by sticking to Bush’s timeline, but that wasn’t the whole story.  Obama intended to continue the war and leave troops in Iraq, but Biden could not negotiate simple immunity for our troops.  Don’t look now, but the Afghanistan war isn’t ending in 2014.  The administration is already negotiating to keep up to 25,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

Let’s look at war by the numbers.

Involvement in Major Foreign Conflicts:

Bush: 2 countries           Obama: 3 countries

Military Spending as % of GDP:

Bush, 2008: 4.4%          Obama, 2011: 4.7%

Average Annual War Spending:

Bush: $99.3 Billion       Obama: $155.1 Billion

Obama boasts of ending the war in Iraq, but how is the peace President doing in Afghanistan?

Average Annual Troop Deaths:

Bush: 606                        Obama: 445

Iraq:  528                         66

Afghanistan: 78              379

But what about Bush’s handling of Katrina?  Surely Obama has done better than that, right?  Former NYC Mayor Guiliani says no.

What about taxes?  Obama boasts about cutting people’s taxes, but most of the tax hikes he passed don’t go into effect until next year.  Obamacare has 20 different tax hikes in it, and many of those affect the poor and the sick.

But Obama saved the auto industry, right?  Actually, the only Detroit major that survived was Ford.  Ford didn’t take Obama’s bailout.  Chrysler did, and is now owned by an Italian company called Fiat.  GM took Obama’s bailout and is now owned by the taxpayers.  This was after Obama spent billions to bailout the unions before letting the two companies go through bankruptcy.  If that’s Obama saving the auto industry, I hope he doesn’t do me any favors.

Add these factors to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Black Panther polling case, Solyndra, and the other various scandals and overreaches of the Obama administration, and there is no reason to re-elect Obama.  Except of course if you got an Obama phone and are afraid of losing it.

How Obama Could Still Win:

Several states in play are ties or tossups in the latest polls.  In some, Obama is leading by 3-5%, but 3-5% are either undecided or going third party.  Obama can still win, even with his horrible statistics, if people vote third party or stay home.

I know many out there are voting third party or not voting to protest Romney.  I, like you, am a very libertarian leaning constitutionalist.  I’d love to see us out of the Middle East.  I’d love to see government spending cut in half.  I’d love to see us hold to our 10th amendment.  But Mitt Romney is NOT Barack Obama.

If anything, Mitt Romney is far closer to Reagan.  Despite being hailed as a conservative hero, Reagan is not as conservative as I would have preferred.  In fact, many Ron Paul and Gary Johnson voters would probably not vote for Reagan either.  But Mitt Romney is not the candidate you should be protesting.  You should be protesting Barack Obama.

Consider your goals and which candidate will get us there:

Less involvement in the Middle East: Mitt Romney has a comprehensive energy plan that gets America using its own resources to lower our dependence on OPEC.  Obama spent billions of your tax dollars on green energy companies that went bankrupt, and we are no closer to independence from foreign oil.

Simpler, fairer tax system: Romney’s plan reduces rates in order to remove loopholes and deductions based on the government’s definition of what a good citizen looks like without raising taxes.  Obama’s plan is higher taxes, more redistribution and a more complex tax system designed to pick winners and losers.

Foreign wars: Obama has proven himself to be an interventionalist.  He is not the peace President people hoped for.  He hasn’t closed Gitmo.  He only left Iraq because he was too incompetent to negotiate a way to stay there.  But he is already negotiating to keep 25,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Romney’s approach is to show the kind of strength Reagan did.  What major war did we fight when Reagan was President?  The Cold War, where we sat across the ocean from each other and didn’t pull the trigger for eight years.  Finally, the Soviet Union collapsed under their economic system.

More personal freedom and responsibility: Nothing took us backwards further as a nation than Obamacare.  Obamacare mandates that every American buy private health insurance or pay a tax.  Obamacare takes deciding power away from doctors and patients and gives it to the government.  If you protest Romney, Obamacare is here to stay.  If you vote to protest Obama, we have a shot at repealing this monstrous tax on the sick and the poor.

Does My Vote Count?

If you are thinking of voting third party or not voting because Romney is not as conservative as you’d like, you could be part of the margin that gives Obama four more years to take us down the path towards socialism at hyperspeed.  So where does Romney need your vote the most:

Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Arizona.

But believe it or not, he also needs you in Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine. If nothing else, vote to tell the liberals in your state that they do not have a mandate.  The country is changing and is leaning to the right.  You will never get the conservative, limited government you want if you let the country fall off the socialist cliff because the most conservative candidate who can win is not conservative enough for you.

When you walk into the voting booth, consider what you want America to look like in 2016.  Do you want to move forward the way Obama does?  Do you really want four more years of this?

The Desperate Democrat Attempt to Blame GOP Budget Cuts for the Attack in Benghazi

  Bookmark and Share   As President Obama enters the last three weeks of his reelection effort, he finds himself facing a tide that is turning against him.  Between his disastrous debate performance, a still stagnant economy, and continued unbearably high unemployment, polls seem to indicate that President Obama is finally being held accountable for his record.  But another recent event that the President has been trying his best to avoid accountability for is proving particularly hard for him to evade.  It is the tragic terrorist backed assassinations of four Americans within the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

Since the murder of Chris Stevens, our Ambassador to Libya, and the three members of his security detail, the Obama Administration has taken a tragic event and turned it into a scandal by trying to deny and hide the facts leading up to the attack and the facts surrounding the distortions and misleading statements from the Administration after the attacks.   But on Wednesday, as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began hearings in  to the matter, Democrats used the opportunity to help President Obama’s reelection effort.  Instead of seeking a legitimate line of questioning that would have helped to explain exactly what was behind the Administration’s continued misleading statements about the events in Benghazi,  Democrats on the committee did their best to ensure that President Obama was not held accountable for either the  apparent vulnerability of our representatives to the violent acts that took place, or the lack of honesty about the attacks in the days and weeks following it.

Leading this liberal reelection strategy for the President during the hearing was Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings and District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.  The two of them used their opening statements to claim that the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi were due to Republican cuts in the budget… specifically cuts in the levels of funding to embassies and consulates.  it’s a charge that was first made back on October 2, by Nancy “We Don’t Know What’s in The Bill” Pelosi.

On the surface, the argument sounds like a plausible factor in the success of the attack on our Libyan consulate.  However; when one understands the facts ignored within the claim,  they become privy to just how ludicrous the charge is and they also get an insightful look at exactly how hypocritical, deceitful and disingenuous Democrats and their argument are.

Cummings and his fellow liberal liars are referring specifically to the final fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations package that included $2.075 billion for the State Departments embassy and consulate security programs.  It is a figure that is  $567.5 million less than what the Obama administration’s requested.  And while it is true that Republicans proposed the bill that contained these cuts, it is also true that while a total of 147 Republicans supported the bill, 149 Democrats also cast their final vote for the bill and the cuts contained in it.  And Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat member of the House Oversight Committee who is blaming the cuts for the murder of 4 representatives in Benghazi, was one of them.

This raises several major issues.

1.- Were The Cuts Responsible For the Successful Terrorist Attack in Benghazi?

No.

When asked in Wednesday’s hearing if the refusal to provide more security was caused by budget cuts to embassy security, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs replied “No, sir”.   So according to Lamb, a lack of available financial resources was not behind the lack of proper security in Benghazi.

2.- What Was Responsible For the Lack of Proper Security in Benghazi?

According to Eric Nordstrom, the man responsible for security in Libya, told member of the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that the Obama Administration decided to “hope everything would” change for the better rather than provide additional security.

He added;

So when I requested resources, when I requested assets, instead of supporting those assets, I was criticized,”

Nordstrum further stated;

“There was no plan. And it was hoped that everything would get better.”

3.- Why Are Democrats Lying?

Democrats know that the President screwed up here.  But admitting that would be too detrimental to not only the President’s reelection chances, but to the rest of  their ticket in several states where Democrats have tight House and Senate contests that their candidates can’t afford a lack of long presidential coattails in.  So in a desperate attempt to change the negative Benghazi narrative that is adding to the President’s recent downward spiral, they are searching for any excuse that could buy them time between now and Election day.

Given the facts cited above though, while it is clear that budget cuts were not responsible for the lack of security provided at our Libyan consulate,  it is quite clear that the Obama Administration was ignoring the threat to our consulate and the staff operating in it.  There is even evidence that a decision was made within the Administration to deny the construction of a bob wired fence around the consulate because Obama officials did not like the fact that such a measure would look like there was a a problem that required additional security in Benghazi.

All of this is further evidence of a President and Administration that was negligent in the Benghazi terrorist attack and the President, the State Department, and congressional Democrats all know this to be the case.  That is why they have been trying to cover every aspect of this tragedy up since it occurred on 9/11/12.

It all started with their denial to admit that it was an attack by terrorists.  Why? Becuase the Administration did not want to use the word terrorist, especially in relation to the date… 9/11.  The relationship of the word and date makes it hard for the Administration to explain why on the anniversary of the infamous September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our nation, our embassies and consulates did not experience the type of heightened security that they usually do on that?   The need for additional security on that date is something which should not require any increased intelligence from the C.I.A. or F.B.I.  It merely requires average intelligence, something which the Obama Administration obviously lacks.

But it gets worse.

Fearful that they would not be able to defend their decision not to increase security on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 or to follow up on requests for additional security at the consulate during the rest of the year, in their attempt to avoid admitting that the attack was the work of terrorists, the Obama regime tried to claim the assassinations in Benghazi were attributed to a violent protest that was prompted by a video that offended Muslims.  The problem is that both initial assertions were wrong and the Administration knew they were wrong. This means those initial statement that came out after the attack were lies.  Mounting evidence has demonstrated that the Administration knew there was no protest prior to the attack, knew that terrorists were behind the attack, and they knew that the Benghazi consulate was at high risk of a terrorist attack. But the continued attempts by the Administration to mislead us ever since the attack first took place have now snowballed and are quickly turning a disastrous national security policy decision into  a humiliating and possibly criminal coverup scandal.  As a result, the Administration is now not only beginning to be held  accountable for the negligence of their policies that led to the deaths of our Libyan staff, their continued lies are implicating them more and more each day in the apparent attempt to coverup their negligence.

The recent outrageous and hypocritical attempts by Cummings and others on the left to blame the Benghazi attacks on Republicans sponsored budget cuts is just another example of how desperate Democrats are to ignore the facts and rid themselves and their President of the need to be held responsible for their actions that led to the deaths of our Ambassador and his three man security team, and the attempted coverup of the facts after the attack.

Making matters worse is a media that has now become complicit in this recent lie.

Outlets like the always unreliable Huffington Compost have gone out of their way to feature posts which continue to advance the narrative that Republican budget cuts were responsible for the deaths in Benghazi.  If such reporting was intended to be a sincere presentation of facts, how come they refuse to report “all” the facts?  All the facts that demonstrate how utterly false the charge is and all the facts that demonstrate even if the charge was true, Democrats, including those who made the charge, supported the budget cuts in numbers greater than Republicans.

Bookmark and Share

October Surprise? Obama Camp Trying to Coverup a Major Campaign Donor Scandal

  Bookmark and Share   According to sources at the Washington Examiner, President Obama’s reelection campaign has been trying to block reports that a national magazine and a national web site are preparing to release a story regarding what the Examiner describes as a “blockbuster donor scandal story.”

The Examiner’s sources claim that after a nine-month long investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising, an unnamed taxpayer watchdog group has discovered thousands of violation of federal election laws that were broken by the campaign’s solicitations of and acceptance of donations from unsecure, overseas accounts.

The pending story comes on the heels of the Obama camps recent announcement of a near record breaking collection of  $150 million in donations just for the month of September.  If the still developing story behind the potential allegations are true, this record haul of donations could be in large part due to the Obama campaign’s illegal participation in collecting donations via untraceable prepaid credit cards that would allow the campaign to hide the identity of donors and evade limits on how much those unidentified individual donors are legally allowed to give to the campaign.

In 2008, after then Senator Obama raised a similar amount of money also in the month of September, The Washington Post reported a story entitled “Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations”.  In it they described an online donation process that was nearly impossible to make foolproof.  In 2012 the donation collection process for Obama as well as Romney is still not foolproof and as in 2008 both campaigns conducted a comprehensive analysis of online contributions on the back end of the transaction to determine whether a contribution is legitimate or not.  When and if a contribution is found to be in some way improper or in excess of the allowable FEC donation limits, each campaign refunds the money.  But the real problem is the Obama campaign’s willingness to accept online donations through prepaid cards, something the Romney campaign does not do.  Payments through such prepaid credit cards makes it impossible to trace exactly where and who the donations are coming from.

The problem here is that unless the players behind this story can confirm that the Obama campaign or individuals in the campaigns were involved in a conspiracy to coordinate payments via prepaid credit cards, this story could wind up being more a story about the problems with the campaign finance process than a story about some Obama related scandal.  Until the two publications and the taxpayer watchdog group that the Washington Examiner credits with this story come forward, no one can tell with certainty if it is truly a scandal or not.  But the Washington Examiner seems eager to point out that when the full story goes public on Sunday or Monday, the Obama camp will be forced to confront an embarrassing and potentially damaging ethics and financial scandal.  And in typical fashion, to make matters worse, Team Obama is trying to cover it up.

If true, Bob Woodward may prove to be the most insightful political talking around.  On Thursday, Woodward stated that he believes the emergence of some sort of major political or personal event involving Obama may have been the reason for Obama’s disaterous debate performance on Wednesday night.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: