Ronald Reagan vs George W. Bush

Obama screwed up.  Instead of portraying Romney as George W. Bush, which has been a major campaign goal of the left, he instead tied Romney to Ronald Reagan.  Oh, Obama was so clever.  “The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back”.  The modified version of the old high school punchline is backfiring.

The problem with tying Romney to 1980s foreign policy is that we didn’t fight any major wars during Reagan’s Presidency.  Instead, our greatest enemy sat across the ocean with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us, not daring to attack out of fear of mutual destruction, until eventually they just collapsed under the weight of their own oppressive economic system.  That’s a foreign policy I could live with.

Biden Smiling

The real reason we are out of Iraq

Contrast that with Obama, who defended the Bush doctrine with his surge in Afghanistan and his own foreign policy which came across as a comedy of errors.  Obama praised himself for getting us out of Iraq.  The truth is, he barely managed to keep to Bush’s timeline.  Then Obama tried to negotiate to keep some of our intelligence troops in Iraq, but he sent “Chuckles” Biden to secure the terms and we ended up getting kicked out of the country.  After all the work, and blood, we have little influence over the direction of Iraq and we share their friendship with Iran.  Great job, Mr. President.

Romney was no cowboy in the debate.  He was calm, collected, and unfortunately even pulled his punches.  But I would feel much more comfortable with Romney sitting across the table from our foreign leaders than Obama.  Obama’s cowboyish attacks and disrespect showed the greatest evidence for why his foreign policy is a trail of failure and disaster.  We can only pray that his meetings with foreign leaders didn’t follow the same tone.

And of course we saw arrogant Obama in the debate last night too.  When he talked about killingsmiling obama Bin Laden and having Bin Laden in his sites, I had to laugh.  I’m picturing Obama with a sniper rifle.  I wonder if it was just a Freudian slip when Bob Scheiffer accidentally said “Obama’s Bin Laden”.

Commentators can say what they want about Obama’s new found aggressiveness and ability to attack Romney with zingers, truth be damned.  But I think most American families watched last night and saw a clear choice between which candidate they would like to see sitting down with Assad’s replacement to discuss the future relationship between our country and Syria, or which candidate they would like to see negotiating how we end our involvement in Afghanistan.  Or perhaps which candidate they would like to see negotiating trade with China.  I think we would prefer Reagan-esque Romney to arrogant Obama and “Chuckles” Biden.  The 21st century called, and we could use a little 80s foreign policy.

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

Romney’s to Lose

If you’ve followed recent polls, you might be tempted to buy into the media consensus that the race is over.  However, if you know whose side the media is on, it’s easy to figure out why they have come to this consensus.

Has Romney really lost?  Try this: conduct a poll of your own.  Do you know anyone who voted for McCain in 2008 who is voting for Obama in 2012?

Obama will argue in the debate that the economy is getting better because the stock market is over 13,000.  However, the high mark for the Dow is an expensive mask to cover the ugly economy we live in.  The government has borrowed more than a trillion dollars a year from our grandchildren and the Fed has deflated our future by $2.8 trillion to help get us to that 13,000 figure.

In the meantime, unemployment is over 8% and average wages have dropped.  So Wall Street is richer under Obama and the rest of America is poorer.  Where’s the 99% when you need them?

It has been pointed out that Obama cannot expect to receive the same levels of support among various segments of society that he did in 2008.  He has alienated many black voters with his support of gay marriage and failure to produce results that help them.  He has alienated many Hispanic voters as well by failing to keep promises on immigration reform and by selling weapons to Mexican drug lords.  Obama is not as cool as he was in 2008, which will hurt the youth vote, and many Americans have realized that assuaging their racial guilt is not worth the cost to the American economy.  The National Journal shows Romney with an 8% advantage among independents.  Obama cannot win if independents swing to Romney.

So how can Romney lose?  Simple: disaffected Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians may stay home or vote third party.  Obama doesn’t need 50% of the country to vote for him.  He just needs his 47% and 7% to stay home or vote third party.  Even with the awful job Obama has done, it is still very possible that 7% will stay home or vote third party.

Many Christians will not vote for a Mormon.  They won’t vote for a Black Liberation theologian either, but Obama didn’t need them in 2008.  Obama knows this and has started push polling Catholics with robo-calls asking if they can vote for a Mormon.  Many Christian Republicans will avoid Romney because he is perceived as more liberal and a Mormon, whereas they might have voted for McCain in 2008 even though he was also perceived as more liberal.

Libertarians will feel free to vote for a third party candidate because they don’t see any difference from their perspective between Romney and Obama.  Many of these are idealists who support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and see Romney as a big government Republican.

Conservatives may stay home if they believe Romney is going to lose.  Conservatives lean more realistic than idealistic, but are more likely to allow their vote to be suppressed by negative news and polls close to the election.

Romney’s key to success will be preaching the American Dream from a small government, individual responsibility perspective.  Believe it or not, his 47% “gaffe” may end up working in his favor.  Americans could use a healthy dose of optimism and a restoration of faith in the American Dream.  Even independents will vote for that.

Obama’s Class Warfare Targets Middle Class

By now, the country is used to the rich being the easy target of the left.  When a tiny percentage of the country pays the vast majority of the tax burden, it is easy to target that tiny majority as the evil villains who only have what they have because the government paved the roads between their dorm and class room.  This allows Democrats to come out in favor of massive tax increases while not losing elections.  The only people who are affected by taxes on the rich, other than the rich, are those bitter clinger Americans who still believe in the American dream and foolishly think they could also earn more than $200,000 some day.

So what does Obama do when the Supreme Court reveals that the Obamacare tax hike is in fact a tax hike?  What does he do when the numbers are tabulated and we discover that the majority of people affected by Obamacare are not the evil rich, but in fact are the angelic middle class?  Well, it’s time to do some re-branding.

Meet the evil middle class.  While making more than 400% of the poverty level, they still would rather pay an annual $695 per person tax than shell out $695+ per month for health insurance.  These are the “free-loaders”.  They are the people who supposedly can afford to spend 10% or more of their income on health insurance but choose not to.  As a result, when they get sick we all foot the bill.

The problem is that Obamacare is designed to vastly expand the evil, free-loading middle class.  First, the Obamacare tax is $695 per adult, making it far cheaper than overly taxed Obamacare approved insurance.  Second, the $2,000 and $3,000 taxes on businesses for not insuring their employees is far cheaper than the overly taxed Obamacare approved corporate insurance plans.  Third, you don’t have to have insurance.  Under Obamacare, you can skip getting insurance right up until the doctor hands you the bill for the expensive operation you just had.

The CBO predicts that 20 million people will lose their insurance because of the Obamacare tax.  I’m proposing that it will be more than that.  Ask any American if they would like to save upwards of $8,000 a year, minus $695, by simply dropping their already frustrating insurance plan and just buying insurance as needed when they get sick.  Obama is about to discover just how evil, and smart, the middle class really is.

All of this may end up being an academic exercise.  The evil middle class free-loaders, like the rich free-loaders, will find pay the Obamacare penalty tax in order to avoid paying the more hefty Obamacare tax embedded in insurance rates.  But the real crippler for Obamacare taxes will be states who refuse to pay the Medicaid tax mandate involved with fully implementing Obamacare.  Obamacare is, as Kagan described it, a boatload of federal money to increase state Medicaid programs.  But that boatload isn’t nearly sufficient to meet the needs of expanded Obamacare Medicaid state programs.  States like Florida who refuse to partner with Obama on the vast Medicaid expansion now have no threat of losing their current Medicaid dollars.  Losing the cooperation of the states will make Obamacare even more unworkable.

Obama promised no new taxes for people making less than $200,000.  He lied.  Obamacare is a tax on the middle class.  Now that this has been made supremely official, Obama must figure out how to continue to wage his war on the middle class and somehow still get the middle class to vote for him.  Misinformation seems to be his best bet.  That’s why many Americans still think Obamacare has anything to do with being free or universal.

Obama: Vote for Romney

Obama made a huge ecnomic policy speech in Ohio today.  He reiterated much of his Keynesian stump speeches from the last four years.  Then he gave a clear, unintentional endorsement of Mitt Romney.  Obama said “If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney”.

Obama’s self-delusional miscalculation is that he thinks things are better now than they were 6 years ago.  In fact, Democrats in the House and Senate might really want Obama to just shut up now.  Let’s consider the “polices of the last decade”.

When Pelosi/Reid took over Congress, they inherited a 4.4% unemployment rate.  At the end of 2008, it was 7.3%.  The last time unemployment was under 8% was January, 2009.

Since 2002, George W. Bush had 27 months of unemployment under 5%.  Obama had one month, his first in office, with unemployment below 8%.

The last month Republicans controlled the House and Senate, December 2006, unemployment was at 4.4%.  The last month Democrats controlled the House and Senate, December 2009, unemployment was at 9.9%.

In fact, Obama has a job growth chart that he loves to show (right up until May) that shows jobs lost and gained.  But he only shows it since 2008.  I’ve included the graph below since 2001.  Note the correlation between job growth and who controls Congress.

Was Obama talking about Bush, or Pelosi/Reid?

Obama has attempted to hit Romney on job creation by saying Romney’s state was as low as 47th in job creation.  But what Obama does not mention is that at that point Massachussetts already had 4.7% unemployment.  It would be the equivalent of saying LeBron James is short because he grew fewer inches than any fifth grader this year.

While Obama cheers an unemployment rate that has dropped to 8.2%, real unemployment remains at about 14.5%.  This rate includes people who have dropped out of the workforce and people who have taken interim under employment.

The last time the deficit was under $1 trillion was 2008.  The last time the deficit was under $500 billion was 2008.  In fact, even adjusted for inflation, you would have to add up all of Bush’s deficits going back through 2004 to equal one of Obama’s.  The last time we had a monthly budget surplus?  September, 2008.

The message from Obama was clear.  If you want 4.4% unemployment, you need to elect Mitt Romney and Republicans to the House and Senate.  If you want deficits under $500 billion per year, you need to elect Mitt Romney.  If you want unemployment at 9-10%, give Pelosi/Reid control over Congress.  If you want another four years of trillion dollar deficits and unemployment over 8%, re-elect Barack Obama. If you want the policies of the last decade when we had a record number of months of job growth, then do what Obama said.  Vote for Mr. Romney.

Does He Have Their Back?

In Barack Obama’s mind, black people listen to gospel music mixed with a sort of 70’s techno-rap.  At least that’s what I got out of his recent ad targeting one part of America based on their skin color.  Obama’s divide and conquer strategy relies on race politics and getting people to vote for him because they share the same color skin.  After all, that’s what worked in North Carolina in 2008 when 95% of blacks voted for him.

But recent polls are showing that Obama’s racial politics may not have the same decisive effect in 2012.  Already his support among black voters in North Carolina has dropped to the mid 70s.  Perhaps it has something to do with minorities questioning if Obama really does have their back. 

Unemployment among blacks has soared to the highest level in 27 years.  In fact, while unemployment among whites has dropped slightly, it continues to rise for blacks.  Guess when the last time the unemployment rate was below 10% for blacks.  During the Bush administration.

Obama wants blacks to have his back. Does he have theirs?

In fact, despite Kanye West’s claim that Bush didn’t care about black people, they certainly fared much better under a Bush administration than they have under Obama.  In fact, from 2002-2007, the number of businesses owned by people who identify themselves as black rose by an unprecedented and historic 60%.  That was more than triple the overall rate of business growth for that period.  Economically, blacks did much better than their white counterparts under a Republican administration.

Aside from economics, Obama has come down on the wrong side of several social issues for blacks as well.  Blacks still oppose gay marriage by a large margin.  In fact, while blacks were helping hand Obama California in 2008, they were also helping California define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to oppose abortion than whites, but there is still an odd disconnect where pro-life blacks are more likely to vote for Democrats.  On the other hand, Obama and Democrats have been intensely pro-abortion.  They have not paused their agenda at the doors of religious institutions, but instead are working to force religious groups to pay for some forms of abortion for their employees.

Democrats have pursued blacks aggressively with identity politics.  But in 2012 the tide may turn.  The key is a little bit of pursuit by Republicans.  In the past, Republicans have written off the black vote as a waste of campaign cash.  This time around, Republicans should take the time and money to win back a segment of America who should be the natural allies of the party of Lincoln.

Part of the issue facing Republicans is that the racist attacks on black GOP members is nearly as intense as the anti-women attacks on female Republicans.  While Democrats accuse Republicans of using racial codewords, such as “cool”, to describe blacks, Democrats have openly used racially offensive language against black GOP members in order to diminish their roles.  How does calling the President too cool compare to calling Allen West an uncle Tom?

If Republicans can deliver on what Obama promised, national unity and healing, then they have a good chance at defeating the identity politics of the left.

Fundraising Apples and Oranges

The media is shocked to see the pronounced dead TEA Party raking in cash.  They shouldn’t be.  At the same time, the media is making hay out of Obama contributions compared to Romney’s.  This is a false comparison.  Romney fundraising compared to Obama fundraising is apples and oranges.  Here’s why:

Romney has not positioned himself as an inspiring political figure.  He hasn’t made the election about himself.  He has made it about Obama’s record.  In fact, it should be no surprise at all at all that TEA Party conservatives who consistently split their vote in the primaries for the non-Romney candidates would rather give to the TEA Party than to Romney.  Have no fear, they will vote non-Obama in November.

Obama on the other hand is one of the few inspiring characters left in the Democrat party.  Don’t expect massive donations to a DNC run by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  Don’t expect people to be inspired to give when they see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid’s face.  But when Obama starts flashing Forward and talking about how nobody believed in America but him and how he shot Bin Laden and brought our troops home from Iraq, that sells.  Democrats aren’t going to shell out for DNC 2012 congressional elections or DNC superpacs, but they’ll buy Obama T-shirts and bumper stickers and pay for a one in a million shot at having a dinner with the President.

When political commentators measure campaign cash, really they should compare Obama to generic conservative groups and Romney to DNC pacs and superpacs.  In the end, the people who vote for Obama in 2012 will probably vote “D” down the line, and the people who contribute to the TEA Party and other Republican groups will show up to vote against Obama.

%d bloggers like this: