General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. (USArmy, ret.) died yesterday in Florida at the age of 78.
35 years in the Army, all of it as a troop commander, makes for an impressive resume. Very little that this man did was insignificant.
Sleep well, sir... sleep well.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Thursday, December 27, 2012
The greatest Christmas gift... mark two
Last year I raved about my Kindle as the greatest gift I'd gotten outside of my family.
This year, I experienced the Kindle Fire.
I don't have one, mind you. I wasn't good enough this last year to warrant such a gift, but helping my 10-year-old set HIS up has shown me what a tool it is. Surfing the net, running countless apps, reading books, watching videos, listening to music... there is almost nothing this thing can't do!
With the busiest part of this silly season over, I can now tell all that I had a wonderful Christmas! I did get what I asked for (slippers, Amazon card (which equals books) and a tin of flavored popcorn) with the added bonus of once again seeing my family gathered together on the floor of our old, drafty house opening dozens of packages and squealing with glee. It was a great, if a bit early, Christmas day. The only dark spot was that I had to work... but that means I got to have Jake's birthday off, and it was just me and him all day today. We worked outside removing the mountains of snow we got last night, romped with the dog a bit, came in to warm up and have hot chocolate, opened his presents, set up his Kindle, played a game, watched a movie... and we still have the evening to go.
Now, all the kids are back, and Liz is only minutes away from home, having left work.
I do hope everyone's Christmas was a good as mine, but I know it wasn't any better.
God bless us, every one!
This year, I experienced the Kindle Fire.
I don't have one, mind you. I wasn't good enough this last year to warrant such a gift, but helping my 10-year-old set HIS up has shown me what a tool it is. Surfing the net, running countless apps, reading books, watching videos, listening to music... there is almost nothing this thing can't do!
With the busiest part of this silly season over, I can now tell all that I had a wonderful Christmas! I did get what I asked for (slippers, Amazon card (which equals books) and a tin of flavored popcorn) with the added bonus of once again seeing my family gathered together on the floor of our old, drafty house opening dozens of packages and squealing with glee. It was a great, if a bit early, Christmas day. The only dark spot was that I had to work... but that means I got to have Jake's birthday off, and it was just me and him all day today. We worked outside removing the mountains of snow we got last night, romped with the dog a bit, came in to warm up and have hot chocolate, opened his presents, set up his Kindle, played a game, watched a movie... and we still have the evening to go.
Now, all the kids are back, and Liz is only minutes away from home, having left work.
I do hope everyone's Christmas was a good as mine, but I know it wasn't any better.
God bless us, every one!
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Struggling to make sense...
First, let me say that my family's nightly prayers now include the parents of Sandy Hook, and will for some time.
There hasn't been a single story I've read on this unspeakable horror that hasn't caused me to pause to regain my composure before continuing. Last night I listened to the audio of a slain first grader's father, his voice cracking, saying that he and his wife don't know how to get through something like this. I wonder if any parent could ever get through such a thing. I can only guess that such a pain never leaves, it becomes a part of who you are. Each of us have young children. The idea that wrapped Christmas presents sit in closets, never to reach the child they were purchased for... it's a level of grief I simply can not wrap my mind around.
Titus I did find your post keenly insightful regarding the public reaction and the litany of historic school house murders. I expected for certain media and political quarters to blame "guns", but this time there does seem to be an added discussion regarding why this type of tragedy happens "only in America" as the mayor of New York put it. He's patently wrong by the way. You may remember the school bus massacre in Sweden (maybe it was Norway, but it was one of the high Western European countries) of only a few years ago.
First, I loathe such political discussions so soon after the parents of these slain children are just beginning to mourn the ultimate loss, but this must be said. I get it - the impulse Titus spoke of. The desire to find a concrete reason to blame, affix that blame, and move on. It feels safer. On the Left, point to a gun. Blame the gun. Support, pass and advocate the restriction of guns, keep your kids away from them in your own life, and you feel like you've exercised some measure of control. On the Right, point to movies and video games. Blame them. Advocate legislation restricting them. Ban them in your own home, and again you feel as if some measure of preventative control has been exercised. It feels safer. But that level of control is an illusion. Criminals, the insane, they don't care if you hang up a sign that decrees area x, y, or z "a gun free zone." Such zones, such laws, by definition only affect those willing to be law abiding. Criminals also don't care that violent video games come with a rating disclaimer. The terrifying fact is that responsible, loving parents sent their little children to school that day, never to see them again, and no law, no ordinance, no restriction can legislate the madmen from among us and guarantee such a thing wont happen again. Whatever legislation emerges from this tragedy, and I'm sure there will be some, will do nothing to prevent a killer from killing. And I'm not immune from such trains of thought. As a parent I am left groping for some measure of control to exercise. To say "okay, I did A and B, so C can't happen to my boys." Do I pull my sons from school? How about McDonalds? Should I ban them from all public places? How about forbid them from leaving our home? It's what I want to do, I'll be honest with you. Take away their first-person-shooter video games? Ban violent movies? Well Band of Brothers was certainly violent. Is that out too? In the end I must accept that their is no guaranteed way to protect what is most precious to me - my children. All I can do is be diligent about the common sense stuff, and tell them I love them an extra time each day. Ultimately, that's all I'm left with. After all, is there anything those parents wouldn't give for just one more I love you?
There hasn't been a single story I've read on this unspeakable horror that hasn't caused me to pause to regain my composure before continuing. Last night I listened to the audio of a slain first grader's father, his voice cracking, saying that he and his wife don't know how to get through something like this. I wonder if any parent could ever get through such a thing. I can only guess that such a pain never leaves, it becomes a part of who you are. Each of us have young children. The idea that wrapped Christmas presents sit in closets, never to reach the child they were purchased for... it's a level of grief I simply can not wrap my mind around.
Titus I did find your post keenly insightful regarding the public reaction and the litany of historic school house murders. I expected for certain media and political quarters to blame "guns", but this time there does seem to be an added discussion regarding why this type of tragedy happens "only in America" as the mayor of New York put it. He's patently wrong by the way. You may remember the school bus massacre in Sweden (maybe it was Norway, but it was one of the high Western European countries) of only a few years ago.
First, I loathe such political discussions so soon after the parents of these slain children are just beginning to mourn the ultimate loss, but this must be said. I get it - the impulse Titus spoke of. The desire to find a concrete reason to blame, affix that blame, and move on. It feels safer. On the Left, point to a gun. Blame the gun. Support, pass and advocate the restriction of guns, keep your kids away from them in your own life, and you feel like you've exercised some measure of control. On the Right, point to movies and video games. Blame them. Advocate legislation restricting them. Ban them in your own home, and again you feel as if some measure of preventative control has been exercised. It feels safer. But that level of control is an illusion. Criminals, the insane, they don't care if you hang up a sign that decrees area x, y, or z "a gun free zone." Such zones, such laws, by definition only affect those willing to be law abiding. Criminals also don't care that violent video games come with a rating disclaimer. The terrifying fact is that responsible, loving parents sent their little children to school that day, never to see them again, and no law, no ordinance, no restriction can legislate the madmen from among us and guarantee such a thing wont happen again. Whatever legislation emerges from this tragedy, and I'm sure there will be some, will do nothing to prevent a killer from killing. And I'm not immune from such trains of thought. As a parent I am left groping for some measure of control to exercise. To say "okay, I did A and B, so C can't happen to my boys." Do I pull my sons from school? How about McDonalds? Should I ban them from all public places? How about forbid them from leaving our home? It's what I want to do, I'll be honest with you. Take away their first-person-shooter video games? Ban violent movies? Well Band of Brothers was certainly violent. Is that out too? In the end I must accept that their is no guaranteed way to protect what is most precious to me - my children. All I can do is be diligent about the common sense stuff, and tell them I love them an extra time each day. Ultimately, that's all I'm left with. After all, is there anything those parents wouldn't give for just one more I love you?
Sandy Hook Elementary School
God bless the families and friends of all the victims... I struggle to recall a tragedy within my lifetime that has so touched my soul. 20 innocent children and six teachers, all dead by a mad-man's hand. So utterly senseless that it makes one scream for answers that will never come.
The sense of helpless frustration is compounded by the blatantly biased and myopic means by which the tragedy is being reported in most of the major media outlets. It would seem that simply throwing the disclaimer that "details are sketchy" is enough to justify the dissemination of patently false information on a 24/7 basis by everyone from CNN to Fox News.
Which leads me to my secondary point (after offering my prayers and hopes for those suffering in CT)...
Far, far too many pundits are making this tragedy out to be the latest in a growing trend in American society... as if America herself is to blame for the deaths of these children. Far too many people are calling for radical changes to this society because the very freedoms we enjoy are what are giving crazed killers the motive and opportunity to kill children at school.
How often over the last two days have I heard that this "trend" began in 1999 with the tragedy at Columbine High on CO? It most certainly did NOT begin in 1999... the first substantiated "school shooting" involving a student was in 1853 in KY, where a student shot and killed a teacher over a "disciplinary dispute" in front of 31 other kids.
The worst school-related massacre to ever have occurred in the US happened in 1927, where 43 people died (mostly children under the age of 11) in Bath, MI without a single death being attributed to a firearm. The killer used dynamite to destroy the school (and himself)... because of personal financial problems.
I'm not making excuses... anyone who lashes out with violence against innocent children should answer for the crime. The difference, I think, is that our modern society is constantly trying to "lay blame" outside of the perpetrator's actions. Does "mental health" play a role in such terrible acts? Certainly... what sane person would do these things? However, the mental health of people like Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh did not stand in the way of their punishments, and no one would EVER call either of them "sane". Responsibility did not lay with "society" in their cases, so why should it now?
Is society that different now? America reacted in much the same way in 1966, when a crazed student climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas-Austin campus and killed 16 people and wounded 32 others. Shock, confusion and a demand for answers... but the "blame" for the tragedy was understood to rest squarely with the man behind the gun, not with his developmental situation, or uncaring parents, or addictions, or society's attitude towards the Second Amendment.
The man was 20 years old... he will answer for his actions in the next life, and we should all be satisfied with that, without restructuring our own society because of his actions.
The sense of helpless frustration is compounded by the blatantly biased and myopic means by which the tragedy is being reported in most of the major media outlets. It would seem that simply throwing the disclaimer that "details are sketchy" is enough to justify the dissemination of patently false information on a 24/7 basis by everyone from CNN to Fox News.
Which leads me to my secondary point (after offering my prayers and hopes for those suffering in CT)...
Far, far too many pundits are making this tragedy out to be the latest in a growing trend in American society... as if America herself is to blame for the deaths of these children. Far too many people are calling for radical changes to this society because the very freedoms we enjoy are what are giving crazed killers the motive and opportunity to kill children at school.
How often over the last two days have I heard that this "trend" began in 1999 with the tragedy at Columbine High on CO? It most certainly did NOT begin in 1999... the first substantiated "school shooting" involving a student was in 1853 in KY, where a student shot and killed a teacher over a "disciplinary dispute" in front of 31 other kids.
The worst school-related massacre to ever have occurred in the US happened in 1927, where 43 people died (mostly children under the age of 11) in Bath, MI without a single death being attributed to a firearm. The killer used dynamite to destroy the school (and himself)... because of personal financial problems.
I'm not making excuses... anyone who lashes out with violence against innocent children should answer for the crime. The difference, I think, is that our modern society is constantly trying to "lay blame" outside of the perpetrator's actions. Does "mental health" play a role in such terrible acts? Certainly... what sane person would do these things? However, the mental health of people like Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh did not stand in the way of their punishments, and no one would EVER call either of them "sane". Responsibility did not lay with "society" in their cases, so why should it now?
Is society that different now? America reacted in much the same way in 1966, when a crazed student climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas-Austin campus and killed 16 people and wounded 32 others. Shock, confusion and a demand for answers... but the "blame" for the tragedy was understood to rest squarely with the man behind the gun, not with his developmental situation, or uncaring parents, or addictions, or society's attitude towards the Second Amendment.
The man was 20 years old... he will answer for his actions in the next life, and we should all be satisfied with that, without restructuring our own society because of his actions.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Nullification...
Now that the dust has settled after the 2012 election, the tantrums of the right have ended and the calls for succession have ended exactly where they began: nowhere.
There does seem to be a movement, however, that is leading some States to pick up the tired old chestnut of Nullification again. CO and WA have both de-criminalized the possession and use of "pot" within their borders, and four more States have legalized medical marijuana (including ME, of all places). Some States, including my own PA, have all but officially declared that the NDAA of 2012 will NOT be enforced or (presumably) be allowed to be enforced, within their borders.
I've always been a fan of States Rights... its why I never beefed about Romney-care, even once. I'm troubled, though...
Has it ever worked? Even once?
Jefferson and Madison both contributed to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798-99... but all were rejected by the other States completely. Thus, I think the argument for Constitutional Nullification is starting on shaky ground.
From 1807 through the end of the War of 1812, New England went almost bankrupt from the embargoes handed down by the Fed, without consideration (according to the Yankees) to the hardships that would result. This attempt at nullification damn near led to succession, and (again) failed utterly.
Nullification reached a crisis (literally) when John Calhoun went head-to-head with Andy Jackson over tariffs that Calhoun said favored the North over the South. Heavy-hand Andy wins, and nullification again takes a back seat to the Feds.
We'll skip the Civil War... everyone here knows how that turned out.
Jump ahead to the 1950's... and school desegregation laws that so inflamed the South. Ike wins, nullification loses.
I'm not saying that CO and WA attempts can't win in the end... the Fed can only win the fight if the fight it, right? But the precedent isn't there, or am I wrong?
There does seem to be a movement, however, that is leading some States to pick up the tired old chestnut of Nullification again. CO and WA have both de-criminalized the possession and use of "pot" within their borders, and four more States have legalized medical marijuana (including ME, of all places). Some States, including my own PA, have all but officially declared that the NDAA of 2012 will NOT be enforced or (presumably) be allowed to be enforced, within their borders.
I've always been a fan of States Rights... its why I never beefed about Romney-care, even once. I'm troubled, though...
Has it ever worked? Even once?
Jefferson and Madison both contributed to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798-99... but all were rejected by the other States completely. Thus, I think the argument for Constitutional Nullification is starting on shaky ground.
From 1807 through the end of the War of 1812, New England went almost bankrupt from the embargoes handed down by the Fed, without consideration (according to the Yankees) to the hardships that would result. This attempt at nullification damn near led to succession, and (again) failed utterly.
Nullification reached a crisis (literally) when John Calhoun went head-to-head with Andy Jackson over tariffs that Calhoun said favored the North over the South. Heavy-hand Andy wins, and nullification again takes a back seat to the Feds.
We'll skip the Civil War... everyone here knows how that turned out.
Jump ahead to the 1950's... and school desegregation laws that so inflamed the South. Ike wins, nullification loses.
I'm not saying that CO and WA attempts can't win in the end... the Fed can only win the fight if the fight it, right? But the precedent isn't there, or am I wrong?
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Pravda... Titus will like this
Pravda, yes that Pravda, ran a story (an opinion piece really), lecturing the Obama administration on its' embracement of a state run economy and extolling the virtues of Putin's pro free market policies. It goes on to explain this is only possible (Obama's rcent win) with an "illiterate electorate."
Read the full story HERE. Sounds like an SNL bit - Pravda lecturing a US president on the dangers of a planned economy - but that's where we find ourselves these days.
Read the full story HERE. Sounds like an SNL bit - Pravda lecturing a US president on the dangers of a planned economy - but that's where we find ourselves these days.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Nap time...
It's 4 PM EST...
An oven-roasted turkey, pot of garlic mashed potatoes, Brussel sprouts with hollandaise sauce, green bean casserole, sweet potato casserole, crab-stuffed mushrooms, giblet stuffing, biscuits, and turkey gravy... topped with home-made pumpkin pie and whip cream.
God almighty, I'm so full I could die.
An oven-roasted turkey, pot of garlic mashed potatoes, Brussel sprouts with hollandaise sauce, green bean casserole, sweet potato casserole, crab-stuffed mushrooms, giblet stuffing, biscuits, and turkey gravy... topped with home-made pumpkin pie and whip cream.
God almighty, I'm so full I could die.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm thankful for my wife and children... for my family and friends... for my home, the food we eat and the job that pays for it all. I'm thankful that I live where I do, where opportunity still exists for anyone willing to try, where barriers that once existed continue to fall away with each passing year, and were I am able to say what I feel without fear of oppression or retribution. I'm thankful for the men and women that have stood up and defended this country and its people without regard for the risk to themselves, past and present.
Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!
Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Call of Duty Black Ops "who?"
So I purchased my sons each their own copy of the new Call of Duty game, Black Ops II. We did the midnight release, the whole 9 yards. Something interesting... the game's campaign storyline is set in the year 2025, and guess who's the Secretary of Defense (identified by name and likeness) in the not too distant fictionalized future? If you said David Patraeus, you win the kinky officer award.
I like Patraeus. I think the PhD holding, author of the military anti-terrorism manual (literally the author), former commander of the Airborne, Uday and Qusay Heussein killing, architect of the surge, former CentCom commander, former 4-star general, and now former CIA director is the natural Sec-Def choice, fiction or non fiction. So despite his sex scandal I have no problem with him playing the role of "good guy" in my sons' video game. However, what I find utterly unbearable is that Patraeus' most prominent few minutes in the game depicts him accepting custody of a terrorist on board an aircraft carrier... the "USS Barack Obama."
UGHHHHHHH!
I like Patraeus. I think the PhD holding, author of the military anti-terrorism manual (literally the author), former commander of the Airborne, Uday and Qusay Heussein killing, architect of the surge, former CentCom commander, former 4-star general, and now former CIA director is the natural Sec-Def choice, fiction or non fiction. So despite his sex scandal I have no problem with him playing the role of "good guy" in my sons' video game. However, what I find utterly unbearable is that Patraeus' most prominent few minutes in the game depicts him accepting custody of a terrorist on board an aircraft carrier... the "USS Barack Obama."
UGHHHHHHH!
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Patreaus, the timeline...
Wow, this is the most bizarre story. What we must keep in mind throughout this is the 4 dead Americans in Bengahazi, Libya. THAT is what's at the heart of this whole scandal, not sex under a desk or Generals being lead around by their privates. The only upside is now that this involves sex, affairs, inappropriate emails and the like, the press may by accident get to the heart of the Benghazi scandal. Here's what I know, so far (source):
Spring 2006:
Biography of Petraeus co-authored by Broadwell, “All In: The Education of General David
Petraeus,” is published (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
Spring 2012:
TWO POINTS, as it pertains to the POTUS, and Benghazi.
1.) The POTUS
As an intelligent, informed, high end consumer of news and information, the White House would have me believe the following: the FBI only learned of the affair after Kelley went to them in the Spring of 2012, and NOT during the Summer 2011 FBI vetting of Patraeus for the position of CIA director; that the president's own top terrorism advisor, John Brennan, knew about the affair as early as the summer of 2011; that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about it as early as July 2012; that GOP Majority Whip Eric Cantor knew about the affair in October of 2012; and that National Intelligence Director James Clapper not only knew about the affair, but on Nov 6th, 2012 met with and essentially fired Patraeus, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION?
Come on. Clearly he knew. I'd be shocked if he didn't know prior to referring him as Director of Central Intelligence.
2.) Benghazi
Not as widely reported as "sex under the desk" is the fact that Patraes went to Tripoli and Benghazi at the end of October/early November 2012 (read: right before the election). He conducted interviews with the CIA station chief, with the quick reaction force, and other principles in the Benghazi attack. Think about this - the Director went and did a personal investigation into what happened. He did the interviews himself. He was set to testify, before the Senate, on Tuesday, November 13th (today) on what he found. Think about that - the election was November 6th. His testimony was set for November 13th. there was one week only, one very specific week, that the Patraeus affair/resignation could go public and it not effect the election yet come before his testimony. And MIRACULOUSLY he "resigned" that very week!
I don't know what Patraeus discovered in Benghazi or what he was prepared to divulge to the Senate. Were we supplying Al Qeada types with heavy weapons to overthrow Qaddafi? Were those same weapons then used against us in the Benghazi attack? Was the "stand down" order issued from the White House situation room? Broadwell has since publicly claimed (apparently inadvertently) that the CIA had two "persons of interests" being "interrogated" at that CIA safe house and that was the impetus behind its' attack. Of course, such "interrogations" would not fly with Obama's executive order on torture.
The bottom line (as F. Ryan sees it): One, the POTUS put Patraeus in as CIA director knowing about the affair. I assume they saw that bit of info as a card they could play if necessary, so the affair was a plus, not a minus - this is the Chicago style. And two, clearly the administration was seeking to prevent Patraeus' testimony. They probably (my conjecture) offered to keep the affair quiet if he would tow the administration line on Benghazi, under oath, before congress. He refused, resigned, and publicly acknowledged the affair to take their play away. So the only play the administration has left is to delay Patraeus' testifying for as long as possible as they leak out one perverted detail after another so by the time he testifies his credibility is shot and any damning statements will be chalked up to sour grapes. And that play could work given the Press core contains some of Obama's most devout cult members.
If I'm right, Patraeus should go nuclear now and divulge everything he knows short of national secrets act violations. At this point his credibility still retains enough respect for people to believe him. If he waits, who knows.
One last thing.... yes, I do believe the administration's end game in all of this is to keep the truth about Benghazi from seeing the light of day. Their many and varied stories on what happened makes that clear, as does the obvious move to prevent the Patraeus testimony. But the blade they held to Patraeus' neck before he resigned, and the club they're using to smash his credibility now, Patraeus handed those weapons to them on a silver platter. His affair left him vulnerable. I just hope he has enough honor left that he'll opt for personal shame - the public release of all the administration has on him - rather than lie to congress and the public, either directly or through omission. I think our discovering the truth on Benghazi hinges entirely on that man's honor.
Spring 2006:
- Paula Broadwell meets David Petraeus at a Harvard University function (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Broadwell decides to pursue a doctorate in public policy and conduct a case study on Petraeus’ leadership. Petraeus invites her to go on a run in Washington, D.C. (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Petraeus is put in charge of the war in Afghanistan and Broadwell would visit and observe him in Afghanistan (Reuters, Nov. 11, 2012).
- Senate confirms appointment of Petraeus as CIA director (Reuters).
- Petraeus retires after 37 years in the U.S. Army (ABC).
- White House counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan reportedly became aware of a relationship between Petraeus and Broadwell, according to Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin and Adam Housley (Fox, Nov. 12).
- Petreaus sworn in as CIA director (CIA)
- At some point after taking office, Broadwell broke off the affair but Petraeus continued to pursue her “sending thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment,” according to Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler (Newsmax, Nov. 9).
- Broadwell and Petraeus extramarital affair started after he left military service and ended about four months ago. (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Sometime within the past four or five months – one official said “early summer” – a woman complained to the FBI about harassing emails that were later determined to have been written by Broadwell. In the course of investigating that complaint, the FBI discovered an affair between Broadwell and Petraeus (Reuters, Nov. 11).
Spring 2012:
- FBI starts investigation, intercepting Petraeus’ emails and reviewing older emails going back to his time in Afghanistan, where he was commander of U.S. Forces from July 2010 to July 2011 (Newsmax, Nov. 9).
- Federal investigators interview Broadwell. (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Broadwell delivers speech at University of Denver, discussing details about how Petraeus handled the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and revealing possibly classified information about alleged Libyan militia members being held prisoner at that consulate and that situation may have been a potential catalyst for the attack (Fox News, Nov. 12).
- Federal investigators interview Petraeus. Prosecutors conclude afterward they likely will not bring criminal charges. (Reuters, Nov. 11)
- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office contacts FBI to inform them about information from an FBI whistle blower who told Cantor (R-Va.) in late October that Petraeus had been involved in an extramarital affair and was potentially putting national security at risk (New York Times, Nov. 10, 2012).
- At about 5 p.m.: the FBI notifies Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who oversees the CIA and other intelligence agencies, about Petraeus. Clapper speaks to Petraeus that evening and again Wednesday and advises him to step down (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- Clapper informs White House National Security Council official that Petraeus may resign and President Barack Obama should be informed. The president is told about it later that day (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- At 11 a.m. a Petraeus meeting with foreign dignitaries scheduled for 2:30 p.m. is canceled and his visitors are informed he has to go to the White House to meet with Obama. Petraeus meets with Obama at the White House and offers his resignation, explaining the circumstances behind it. Obama did not immediately accept the resignation (Reuters, Nov. 11).
- In a statement to CIA employees Friday, Petraeus said he submitted his resignation to President Barack Obama on Thursday and Obama accepted it Friday afternoon (CIA).
- Fox News reported the affair was with his biographer and was discovered during the course of an FBI investigation on an “unrelated and much broader case.” According to Fox, journalist and biographer Paula Broadwell’s name came up during the investigation, which led to uncovering the affair (Fox News, Nov. 9).
- Fox News analyst Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, speculates that Obama administration knew of the affair and waited for the right moment to “play the card” (Fox News, Nov. 9)
- A senior U.S. military official says Broadwell sent harassing emails to a woman who was the State Department’s liaison to the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, says 37-year-old Jill Kelley in Tampa, Fla., received the emails from Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell that triggered an FBI investigation. (TheBlaze/AP).
- It has since been learned that the commander who replaced Patraeus in Afganistan as head of US Forces, Four-Star General John Allen, was also an "acquaintance" of Jill Kelley, and he too sent "thousands" of "flirtatious" emails to Kelley.
- In addition, the original FBI agent that Kelley approached to complain about the threatening emails from Broadwell also became obsessed with Kelley. The FBI discovered this about their own agent via multiple "shirtless" emails he sent with suggestive captioning.
TWO POINTS, as it pertains to the POTUS, and Benghazi.
1.) The POTUS
As an intelligent, informed, high end consumer of news and information, the White House would have me believe the following: the FBI only learned of the affair after Kelley went to them in the Spring of 2012, and NOT during the Summer 2011 FBI vetting of Patraeus for the position of CIA director; that the president's own top terrorism advisor, John Brennan, knew about the affair as early as the summer of 2011; that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about it as early as July 2012; that GOP Majority Whip Eric Cantor knew about the affair in October of 2012; and that National Intelligence Director James Clapper not only knew about the affair, but on Nov 6th, 2012 met with and essentially fired Patraeus, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION?
Come on. Clearly he knew. I'd be shocked if he didn't know prior to referring him as Director of Central Intelligence.
2.) Benghazi
Not as widely reported as "sex under the desk" is the fact that Patraes went to Tripoli and Benghazi at the end of October/early November 2012 (read: right before the election). He conducted interviews with the CIA station chief, with the quick reaction force, and other principles in the Benghazi attack. Think about this - the Director went and did a personal investigation into what happened. He did the interviews himself. He was set to testify, before the Senate, on Tuesday, November 13th (today) on what he found. Think about that - the election was November 6th. His testimony was set for November 13th. there was one week only, one very specific week, that the Patraeus affair/resignation could go public and it not effect the election yet come before his testimony. And MIRACULOUSLY he "resigned" that very week!
I don't know what Patraeus discovered in Benghazi or what he was prepared to divulge to the Senate. Were we supplying Al Qeada types with heavy weapons to overthrow Qaddafi? Were those same weapons then used against us in the Benghazi attack? Was the "stand down" order issued from the White House situation room? Broadwell has since publicly claimed (apparently inadvertently) that the CIA had two "persons of interests" being "interrogated" at that CIA safe house and that was the impetus behind its' attack. Of course, such "interrogations" would not fly with Obama's executive order on torture.
The bottom line (as F. Ryan sees it): One, the POTUS put Patraeus in as CIA director knowing about the affair. I assume they saw that bit of info as a card they could play if necessary, so the affair was a plus, not a minus - this is the Chicago style. And two, clearly the administration was seeking to prevent Patraeus' testimony. They probably (my conjecture) offered to keep the affair quiet if he would tow the administration line on Benghazi, under oath, before congress. He refused, resigned, and publicly acknowledged the affair to take their play away. So the only play the administration has left is to delay Patraeus' testifying for as long as possible as they leak out one perverted detail after another so by the time he testifies his credibility is shot and any damning statements will be chalked up to sour grapes. And that play could work given the Press core contains some of Obama's most devout cult members.
If I'm right, Patraeus should go nuclear now and divulge everything he knows short of national secrets act violations. At this point his credibility still retains enough respect for people to believe him. If he waits, who knows.
One last thing.... yes, I do believe the administration's end game in all of this is to keep the truth about Benghazi from seeing the light of day. Their many and varied stories on what happened makes that clear, as does the obvious move to prevent the Patraeus testimony. But the blade they held to Patraeus' neck before he resigned, and the club they're using to smash his credibility now, Patraeus handed those weapons to them on a silver platter. His affair left him vulnerable. I just hope he has enough honor left that he'll opt for personal shame - the public release of all the administration has on him - rather than lie to congress and the public, either directly or through omission. I think our discovering the truth on Benghazi hinges entirely on that man's honor.
On this, I can't argue...
As has been said before... Obama has all the earmarks of a true, classically defined "cult of personality". More so than any other American President ever has, including Kennedy.
Now, is this something Obama has intentionally done? I don't know. I do know he does nothing to combat it... but who would? His "fans" include some of the biggest names in the media today... and the vast majority of them work for major news outlets like MSNBC and CNN. That is what is so painful, really... Obama doesn't have to do ANYTHING. They do it all for him, every time the TV news is turned on in America.
I've always had issues with the "Reagan-ites" who drop to their knees and prostrate themselves at the mere mention of Ron Wilson's name... but I guess that can't be considered a "cult of personality" since he is no longer in office (and, in fact, no longer alive). Perhaps Ron's legacy will one day include an "ism" similar to what Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin had, so that the ideology that he espoused (or that is attributed to him today, whether he espoused it or not) can more readily associate itself with those seeking power and authority. His "partner" in the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher, already has an "ism" that is routinely associated with the "conservative" attitude in Britain that demands further separation from the EU and globalism in general. Perhaps that is more akin to "rose-tinted glasses" than personality cults, however.
Either way, objective analysis is out the window... especially in Obama's case.
Now, is this something Obama has intentionally done? I don't know. I do know he does nothing to combat it... but who would? His "fans" include some of the biggest names in the media today... and the vast majority of them work for major news outlets like MSNBC and CNN. That is what is so painful, really... Obama doesn't have to do ANYTHING. They do it all for him, every time the TV news is turned on in America.
I've always had issues with the "Reagan-ites" who drop to their knees and prostrate themselves at the mere mention of Ron Wilson's name... but I guess that can't be considered a "cult of personality" since he is no longer in office (and, in fact, no longer alive). Perhaps Ron's legacy will one day include an "ism" similar to what Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin had, so that the ideology that he espoused (or that is attributed to him today, whether he espoused it or not) can more readily associate itself with those seeking power and authority. His "partner" in the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher, already has an "ism" that is routinely associated with the "conservative" attitude in Britain that demands further separation from the EU and globalism in general. Perhaps that is more akin to "rose-tinted glasses" than personality cults, however.
Either way, objective analysis is out the window... especially in Obama's case.
Monday, November 12, 2012
And they call Mormons a cult...
I've been wondering, since the President won reelection, about something. It's admittedly optimistic, but straws are all I have to grasp at while looking down the barrel of a 332-206 loss, right? Is it possible that this guy, this particular guy, Obama, was just impossible to beat? In other words, with everything that goes into his elections being "historic", the first black American elected president, his pop culture status, etc, etc, has it created a cult of personality that was incapable of defeat?
Lets consider these few explanations of his victory that may give us some hope that our fellow Americans aren't just butt-stupid...
1.) The popularity surrounding the personality of such cults is based on charisma, not results. This is the one politician that can can hang out with Jay-Z and George Clooney and still be the coolest guy in the room.
2.) An off-shoot of this personality cult theory - people voted for Obama for the same reason people drive hybrid or electric vehicles. They couldn't care less about performance, they like what their choice says about them... "I care", "I'm open-minded", "I'm cool too."
3.) Third, in my attempt to explain why he won without condemning 63 million Americans to embracing a socialist ideology, is our underestimation of the power of incumbency. In the last 100 years we (Republicans) have unseated a Democrat president only once, when Reagan beat Carter in 1980. Think about George W. Bush (by the way, Titus, he is not a "Jr."). The hatred for him in 2004 was vehement on the Left. Yet he won. And not only did he win, two years later in 06' his Party was demolished in congress. Which does not portend this overwhelming like of Republicans in general throughout the mid 2000's. Incumbents are tough to beat. In fact they have an impressive record, regardless of Party affiliation. The upside of that historical trend is we should do extremely well in the 2014 mid-terms.
Perhaps. and most probably, Obama's victory was a combination of all three. If you doubt it, ask yourself if the average, white, un-hip politician could have won reelection with these economic numbers. Does a Kerry, a Gore presidency survive the last four years? Like SNL said in their post election Obama parody, "Republicans, I can't believe you couldn't beat me. Unemployment is 8%, gas is $5, and I gave you a one debate head start." It's funny because it's true. Bare in mind that the same SNL episode portrayed Mitt Romney quailing his depression by going on a milk-drinking binge.
I said before the election that my only reservation about Romney's prospects was that this is now a nation which employs Paris Hilton via her popularity, purely via her popularity (I've also heard Obama called "President Kardashian"). And we just reelected the Paris of politics Commander-in-Chief.
But to be frank, I actually prefer to think 63,286,423 of my fellow Americans embraced Obama's "coolness" rather than his ideology. Under that scenario all we have to do is run a cool, suave, hip, good-looking conservative and we're a lock.
WOAH! ... I better clear my schedule!
Lets consider these few explanations of his victory that may give us some hope that our fellow Americans aren't just butt-stupid...
1.) The popularity surrounding the personality of such cults is based on charisma, not results. This is the one politician that can can hang out with Jay-Z and George Clooney and still be the coolest guy in the room.
2.) An off-shoot of this personality cult theory - people voted for Obama for the same reason people drive hybrid or electric vehicles. They couldn't care less about performance, they like what their choice says about them... "I care", "I'm open-minded", "I'm cool too."
3.) Third, in my attempt to explain why he won without condemning 63 million Americans to embracing a socialist ideology, is our underestimation of the power of incumbency. In the last 100 years we (Republicans) have unseated a Democrat president only once, when Reagan beat Carter in 1980. Think about George W. Bush (by the way, Titus, he is not a "Jr."). The hatred for him in 2004 was vehement on the Left. Yet he won. And not only did he win, two years later in 06' his Party was demolished in congress. Which does not portend this overwhelming like of Republicans in general throughout the mid 2000's. Incumbents are tough to beat. In fact they have an impressive record, regardless of Party affiliation. The upside of that historical trend is we should do extremely well in the 2014 mid-terms.
Perhaps. and most probably, Obama's victory was a combination of all three. If you doubt it, ask yourself if the average, white, un-hip politician could have won reelection with these economic numbers. Does a Kerry, a Gore presidency survive the last four years? Like SNL said in their post election Obama parody, "Republicans, I can't believe you couldn't beat me. Unemployment is 8%, gas is $5, and I gave you a one debate head start." It's funny because it's true. Bare in mind that the same SNL episode portrayed Mitt Romney quailing his depression by going on a milk-drinking binge.
I said before the election that my only reservation about Romney's prospects was that this is now a nation which employs Paris Hilton via her popularity, purely via her popularity (I've also heard Obama called "President Kardashian"). And we just reelected the Paris of politics Commander-in-Chief.
But to be frank, I actually prefer to think 63,286,423 of my fellow Americans embraced Obama's "coolness" rather than his ideology. Under that scenario all we have to do is run a cool, suave, hip, good-looking conservative and we're a lock.
WOAH! ... I better clear my schedule!
Man... enough with the doom-and-gloom!
Seriously, there are TOO many pundits out there ready to jump in front of traffic at the prospect of four more years of Obama... and FAR TOO many are actively contesting the election.
Please, people. It's over, and Obama won. Frankly, he won big. That's what happens in elections: someone wins, someone loses. Don't like it? Campaign harder next time.
This is NOT the most divisive campaign in US history... not by a long shot. Nothing was "stolen" from the American people and the country is not "ending", "over", or "dead".
1800. Jefferson/Adams... ugliest campaign season in US history. So ugly, that the incumbent (Adams) signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it illegal to write bad things about a sitting President or Senator.
1860. Lincoln/Douglas-Breckenridge-Bell: a divided Democratic vote leads to a Republican victory and the Civil War erupts. THAT was as close as we've come to an "end to America" people...
1876. Democrat Samuel Tilden has the election "stolen" from him (literally) by the GOP and it is handed to R.B. Hayes. This is as shady as it gets... Obama and Bush Jr. aren't even close.
Since 1912, and the defeat of Teddy Roosevelt by the GOP machine that wanted the more pliable Taft rather than the more popular Roosevelt, things have run pretty smoothly. It doesn't always go the way we want... but it does always go.
Please, people. It's over, and Obama won. Frankly, he won big. That's what happens in elections: someone wins, someone loses. Don't like it? Campaign harder next time.
This is NOT the most divisive campaign in US history... not by a long shot. Nothing was "stolen" from the American people and the country is not "ending", "over", or "dead".
1800. Jefferson/Adams... ugliest campaign season in US history. So ugly, that the incumbent (Adams) signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it illegal to write bad things about a sitting President or Senator.
1860. Lincoln/Douglas-Breckenridge-Bell: a divided Democratic vote leads to a Republican victory and the Civil War erupts. THAT was as close as we've come to an "end to America" people...
1876. Democrat Samuel Tilden has the election "stolen" from him (literally) by the GOP and it is handed to R.B. Hayes. This is as shady as it gets... Obama and Bush Jr. aren't even close.
Since 1912, and the defeat of Teddy Roosevelt by the GOP machine that wanted the more pliable Taft rather than the more popular Roosevelt, things have run pretty smoothly. It doesn't always go the way we want... but it does always go.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
332-206
The AP has officially called Florida for Obama. So that is the fnal electoral college count. Obama won the sunshine state by just 74,000 votes and a final tally of 50% to 49.1%. And essentially that"s the story here - Obama sqeezed out every close state he needed to, and a few he didn't need. Look, we can go on and on about how close the popular vote was at 60.2 million to 63.2 million (that includes Florida), but when you take 8 of the 11 swing states, end up in the 300's electorally, and outpace your opponent's popular total by seven figures, by all rights you can claim a "mandate." I sure as hell would. And what's more scary is the blue that covers the two coasts on the electoral map is inching closer and closer in, sqeezing heartland and southern red.
Let's face it boys, either he succeeded in fundementally changing our country or he was simply smart enough to recognize it had already changed. Half of Americans want garuntees in life. And if the GOP thinks the lesson here is to "out garuntee" the Left via amnesty or state benefits, then they'll become a regional Party, at best. The only possibility is to offer a clear, bold alternative. And we have an ace in the hole - our math works, their's does not. We need only someone with the guts to say it, WITH PARTY BACKING. Look, the Romney-Ryan ticket won the popular vote among ages 40 and over, and particularly showed well in the 65 plus group. I think that shows a willingness to consider a Ryan-esque plan to make these entitlements solvent by incorporating the private sector as part of the rememedy. But the fact that we know it as the "Ryan budget" is exactly the problem in my estimation. The Party has to have the guts to say to the nation via an actual plan, what it portends to believe ideologically. Two or three bright Tea Party types left out in the cold to defend their individual plan is not enough. It should be a Party plank. You want to rebrand the GOP so that a majority of Americans will trust you with leadership? Be known as the Party with measurable and specific alternatives.
Unfortunately I have no faith whatsoever that the GOP will embrace my message. Which means the nation will only turn to Tea Party-like solutions (or just plain common sense) after we have a nationwide fiscal calamity on par with Great Depression numbers. And as we all agreed on the phone, that now seems inevitable at some point in the not too distant future. And as a patriot I am heart broken that my nation must endure such misery before it makes a course correction.
Batton down the hatches gents... something wicked this way comes. And that's not conspiracy theory talk, that's just math.
Let's face it boys, either he succeeded in fundementally changing our country or he was simply smart enough to recognize it had already changed. Half of Americans want garuntees in life. And if the GOP thinks the lesson here is to "out garuntee" the Left via amnesty or state benefits, then they'll become a regional Party, at best. The only possibility is to offer a clear, bold alternative. And we have an ace in the hole - our math works, their's does not. We need only someone with the guts to say it, WITH PARTY BACKING. Look, the Romney-Ryan ticket won the popular vote among ages 40 and over, and particularly showed well in the 65 plus group. I think that shows a willingness to consider a Ryan-esque plan to make these entitlements solvent by incorporating the private sector as part of the rememedy. But the fact that we know it as the "Ryan budget" is exactly the problem in my estimation. The Party has to have the guts to say to the nation via an actual plan, what it portends to believe ideologically. Two or three bright Tea Party types left out in the cold to defend their individual plan is not enough. It should be a Party plank. You want to rebrand the GOP so that a majority of Americans will trust you with leadership? Be known as the Party with measurable and specific alternatives.
Unfortunately I have no faith whatsoever that the GOP will embrace my message. Which means the nation will only turn to Tea Party-like solutions (or just plain common sense) after we have a nationwide fiscal calamity on par with Great Depression numbers. And as we all agreed on the phone, that now seems inevitable at some point in the not too distant future. And as a patriot I am heart broken that my nation must endure such misery before it makes a course correction.
Batton down the hatches gents... something wicked this way comes. And that's not conspiracy theory talk, that's just math.
Friday, November 9, 2012
short answer: NEVER
I'm not being trite. I assume you mean the personal income tax and I am an advocate of a Flat Tax.
Let me explain...
I believe that history bares out that what markets and businesses from Main Street to Wall Street loathe above all is uncertainty. Specifically uncertainty in economic policy from their government. I posed (near the end of our New Deal debate) the theory that perhaps FDR's death ended the economic woes of the Great Depression era more than anything else. His year to year new proposals, the previous one's needing annual renewal, guessing what portion of the private sector he might wade into next, business didn't know what to expext. I dub it a policy of "systematic uncertainty."
What is its' opposite? A policy of systematic certainty. And nothing is more certain than a flat income tax. And as a means of getting the camel's nose in the tent, I'd even compromise to a three tier flat tax: 5% for $1 above the Poverty Line to $50k (incomes below the Poverty Line pay zero); 10% for $50k to $250k; and 15% for those at $250k plus. No deductions. Your tax returns are essentialy done on one peice of paper. To that, if we're talking what to do right now, I'd add a cut in the corporate tax rate, from 28% to 15%; and a cut in the Capital Gains tax rate, from 15% to 5%. Implement that and its morning in America again, on steroids.
Of course, I'd get hammered for, "Raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich!", so I'm only talking about what could be done if adults ran Washington... which isn't the case..
Let me explain...
I believe that history bares out that what markets and businesses from Main Street to Wall Street loathe above all is uncertainty. Specifically uncertainty in economic policy from their government. I posed (near the end of our New Deal debate) the theory that perhaps FDR's death ended the economic woes of the Great Depression era more than anything else. His year to year new proposals, the previous one's needing annual renewal, guessing what portion of the private sector he might wade into next, business didn't know what to expext. I dub it a policy of "systematic uncertainty."
What is its' opposite? A policy of systematic certainty. And nothing is more certain than a flat income tax. And as a means of getting the camel's nose in the tent, I'd even compromise to a three tier flat tax: 5% for $1 above the Poverty Line to $50k (incomes below the Poverty Line pay zero); 10% for $50k to $250k; and 15% for those at $250k plus. No deductions. Your tax returns are essentialy done on one peice of paper. To that, if we're talking what to do right now, I'd add a cut in the corporate tax rate, from 28% to 15%; and a cut in the Capital Gains tax rate, from 15% to 5%. Implement that and its morning in America again, on steroids.
Of course, I'd get hammered for, "Raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich!", so I'm only talking about what could be done if adults ran Washington... which isn't the case..
WTF?
I go online today only to find the news everywhere that ONE WEEK before he is slated to testify before congress on Benghazi, CIA director David Patraeus has resigned. The word is that the famous general turned director of central intelligence walked into the West Wing today and tendered his resignation because of an extramarital affair, and the president accepted that resignation. Umm, may I say... WTF?
First off, the Democrat Party doesn't force anybody to resign over affairs, that we already know. Secondly, the White House had to know this was coming before election day, and this is two days after news broke that Iranian missles were shot at one of our drones over the Gulf 5 days before voting day.
FOX News is now reporting that this resignation does in fact mean he will not be called to testify. My question is, why the hell not? Congress, in this case the Senate, has the power to subpoena any living soul within US juridstriction. Harry Reid is CLEARLY involved here. By the way, the DOJ leaked that Holder is stepping down asap as well. And Hillary has already flatly said she won't be part of a second term.
So let me get this straight, the man with the most direct knowledge of Fast and Furious - GONE. The woman with the most direct knowledge of Benghazi - GONE. Iran fires on a US drone - HIDDEN. And now the man who is unquestionably in a position to enlighten the rest of us on all three (to varying degrees) is also now - GONE. Okay, nothing fishy there. Please allow me a second, WTF?
Most disturbing to me is how plausible the Patraeus conspiracy theory, that I immediately jumped to, seems. Axelrod, et al, find a chink in the Patraeus armor, an affair. He is instructed to tow the administration line on Benghazi or risk exposure. He tells the administration to piss off, prefering to face personal shame rather than bring dishonor to the sacrafice of 4 dead Americans.
To my 60 million Obama-voting fellow Americans I offer today's third and final, WTF?
First off, the Democrat Party doesn't force anybody to resign over affairs, that we already know. Secondly, the White House had to know this was coming before election day, and this is two days after news broke that Iranian missles were shot at one of our drones over the Gulf 5 days before voting day.
FOX News is now reporting that this resignation does in fact mean he will not be called to testify. My question is, why the hell not? Congress, in this case the Senate, has the power to subpoena any living soul within US juridstriction. Harry Reid is CLEARLY involved here. By the way, the DOJ leaked that Holder is stepping down asap as well. And Hillary has already flatly said she won't be part of a second term.
So let me get this straight, the man with the most direct knowledge of Fast and Furious - GONE. The woman with the most direct knowledge of Benghazi - GONE. Iran fires on a US drone - HIDDEN. And now the man who is unquestionably in a position to enlighten the rest of us on all three (to varying degrees) is also now - GONE. Okay, nothing fishy there. Please allow me a second, WTF?
Most disturbing to me is how plausible the Patraeus conspiracy theory, that I immediately jumped to, seems. Axelrod, et al, find a chink in the Patraeus armor, an affair. He is instructed to tow the administration line on Benghazi or risk exposure. He tells the administration to piss off, prefering to face personal shame rather than bring dishonor to the sacrafice of 4 dead Americans.
To my 60 million Obama-voting fellow Americans I offer today's third and final, WTF?
This reminds me...
Ryan's comments on the Speaker's words made me think of something we "beefed" about a long time ago.
When are higher taxes "acceptable" in the eyes of the GOP?
If, correction pending as both Ryan and I suspect it is, we could mitigate the damage such a correction could do by increasing taxes by as little as a point or two before the correction occurs... would it be okay then?
My argument for Keynesian spending (oft used during the New Deal debates) falls apart when faced with a wall of debt already large enough to impede deficit spending during fiscal meltdowns. We weren't there in 1932. We weren't there in 1982. We ARE there in 2012... more debt than we can sustain, and no room for higher taxes if the economy is to grow.
I'm asking, not arguing... so please consider: When is higher taxes acceptable? Are we there yet?
When are higher taxes "acceptable" in the eyes of the GOP?
If, correction pending as both Ryan and I suspect it is, we could mitigate the damage such a correction could do by increasing taxes by as little as a point or two before the correction occurs... would it be okay then?
My argument for Keynesian spending (oft used during the New Deal debates) falls apart when faced with a wall of debt already large enough to impede deficit spending during fiscal meltdowns. We weren't there in 1932. We weren't there in 1982. We ARE there in 2012... more debt than we can sustain, and no room for higher taxes if the economy is to grow.
I'm asking, not arguing... so please consider: When is higher taxes acceptable? Are we there yet?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
A bit of politics...
Nice couple of posts there. You could make it easier on yourself and move into a neighborhood full of Mormons, hehe. I know Beck keeps advocating Texas and Oklahoma as self sufficient/minimum government states, but it occurs to me that rural Utah will have food and fuel for years after the Romulans blow up our sun.
Essentialy, we agree. Now perhaps to talk in terms of "the end of America" is the wrong phrasing and a bit extreme. But certainly, CERTAINLY, it's now prudent to talk (and prepare for) in terms of a major, sharp "correction" on par with the Great Depression. As we discussed, at some point the math wil kick in, and that "at some point" will likely look very, very ugly.
The politics I eluded to in my title: I found this shocking... 3 millon LESS Republicans turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain. I couldn't believe this at first. Now remember, Obama beat Romney in the popular vote by 2.8 million. Those 3 mil were registered Republicans. Romney didn't close the deal with his base, let alone Independents. Why? I have long thought that the man best able to turn out our base was President Obama. Is it possible that because the GOP nominated another moderate the base was supressed? Titus mentioned on the phone that had that been a Ryan-Romney ticket we would have done better, that we have to stop giving the nomination to the guy who came in second the last time. I think that 3 million number proves him right. A stark choice, a bold contrast instead of pale pastels as Reagan said. How often do you hear the word "Libertarian" these days? When we were growing up that word was non existent in everyday conversation. These are ex Republicans, fed up with the GOP. And now John Boehner, arguably the most powerful Republican in office now as Speaker of the House, says that they will consider tax hikes when negotiating with the PoTUS, "under the right circumstances."
Wow. Nice John. That's sure to roust those 3 million Republicans off the couch.
Essentialy, we agree. Now perhaps to talk in terms of "the end of America" is the wrong phrasing and a bit extreme. But certainly, CERTAINLY, it's now prudent to talk (and prepare for) in terms of a major, sharp "correction" on par with the Great Depression. As we discussed, at some point the math wil kick in, and that "at some point" will likely look very, very ugly.
The politics I eluded to in my title: I found this shocking... 3 millon LESS Republicans turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain. I couldn't believe this at first. Now remember, Obama beat Romney in the popular vote by 2.8 million. Those 3 mil were registered Republicans. Romney didn't close the deal with his base, let alone Independents. Why? I have long thought that the man best able to turn out our base was President Obama. Is it possible that because the GOP nominated another moderate the base was supressed? Titus mentioned on the phone that had that been a Ryan-Romney ticket we would have done better, that we have to stop giving the nomination to the guy who came in second the last time. I think that 3 million number proves him right. A stark choice, a bold contrast instead of pale pastels as Reagan said. How often do you hear the word "Libertarian" these days? When we were growing up that word was non existent in everyday conversation. These are ex Republicans, fed up with the GOP. And now John Boehner, arguably the most powerful Republican in office now as Speaker of the House, says that they will consider tax hikes when negotiating with the PoTUS, "under the right circumstances."
Wow. Nice John. That's sure to roust those 3 million Republicans off the couch.
Images my wife likes...
Liz seems to be developing a rather nostalgic appreciation for JFK. She's "liked" and posted these images on her Facebook page.
Again, I ask... How many Democrats today would listen to the words of JFK, without knowing their source, and accept them as the "platform" of the DNC in the modern era? How many liberals would read or hear read Kennedy's Inaugural Address and think it was something they could embrace today as representative of the Democratic Party's goals?
I'm constantly asked by my wife how I can still consider myself "Democrat"? Truth is, I can't. That's why I haven't been able to vote for a Democratic candidate since 2000... and why I firmly believe that someone standing up today and saying the same things Kennedy said in 1960 would NEVER even be considered for the Democratic nomination... more likely, he'd become a Republican and win a ticket.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
A talk with F. Ryan...
So, Ryan calls me... and we'd still probably be talking had Jacob not come home and needed help with homework.
Jist of it was that he's wondering if the Obama re-election means that America has proven that it is now dependent on a welfare state system. I'm inclined to think it is.
More than 58% of America is now, or will be soon, retired and thus, dependent on Social Security for their livelihood. Love it or hate it, SSI is a fact, and can't be ignored. We can argue and debate what it will take to keep it solvent, but whatever happens, the tax remains for those that are nearing retirement, and those that are decades away from even thinking about it. Someone has to foot that bill.
47% of America (according to Romney's now famous line) is dependent on some form of assistance from the Fed, in the form of food stamps, WIC, unemployment, etc. and that number is expected to grow (by both parties) over the course of the next 6 years. Someone will have to foot that bill, too.
Nothing about the Federal Government is going to "shrink" in the next four years... not the rate it grows, not its size or cost, and certainly not is ability to intrude on our daily lives. We can expect government regulation of business, finances, environmental issues and educational matters to probably increase substantially over the course of the next four years, and YES, someone will have to pay for that, too.
As has been said hundreds of times on this site alone... you could take ALL THE MONEY that the top 1% of Americans make (and have in savings) and it wouldn't run the government for 30 days. A 100% tax rate for the top 10 percent of wage earners will only feed the beast for three fiscal quarters... leaving a fourth quarter unpaid for each and every year the nation operates. The math simply doesn't add up, yet the American people want more and more of what Obama has been promising.
The rights and liberties of the individual have now become secondary to the needs and wants of the majority. This is the direction that we have chosen. I, personally, think it is the wrong choice... but that is just me.
Am I worried about the situation? Frankly, yes... but not to a point where I'm ready to panic, or declare the United States "dead in the water" as some pundits are doing. This current trend towards a more liberal (I think that means "European socialist") model of government is doomed to fail from the very start. Catch phrases like "wealth redistribution" and "progressive fiscal agendas" are more than simply words thrown about in heated political debates... they are milestones on the road to socialism in America, and as I have said a thousand times before: Socialism cannot work in a macro setting without lowering every facet of society to the lowest possible denominator.
I can tell you this, right now, officially and with great personal conviction: I think that when the time comes for the "correction" to occur (and a correction is coming, one way or another), it is going to be every bit as painful and costly as the correction that we now refer to as the Great Depression. I am obligated to my family and my children to ensure that all that I can do to prepare for this and mitigate the problems that will arise from such a situation are done well in advance of it actually occurring. If I learned anything from my experiences during the single largest crisis in my life (Katrina and the three years of financial disaster that followed) it is simply that counting on the Federal Government to do ANYTHING to help or support you in a time of need is taking the biggest gamble of your life. Not only will no help come when it is actually needed, it couldn't be provided to most people in serious need across vast regions even if it was available. The Supreme Court of the United States has already determined that there is no "obligation" for assistance or aide from the government (or any agency or institution therein) to the individual... only to the general population.
If you want to be sure you are adequately protected from hardships, deprivation, disaster or disease... then you had better protect yourself. I promise you, no one else will. That includes Barack H. Obama.
Jist of it was that he's wondering if the Obama re-election means that America has proven that it is now dependent on a welfare state system. I'm inclined to think it is.
More than 58% of America is now, or will be soon, retired and thus, dependent on Social Security for their livelihood. Love it or hate it, SSI is a fact, and can't be ignored. We can argue and debate what it will take to keep it solvent, but whatever happens, the tax remains for those that are nearing retirement, and those that are decades away from even thinking about it. Someone has to foot that bill.
47% of America (according to Romney's now famous line) is dependent on some form of assistance from the Fed, in the form of food stamps, WIC, unemployment, etc. and that number is expected to grow (by both parties) over the course of the next 6 years. Someone will have to foot that bill, too.
Nothing about the Federal Government is going to "shrink" in the next four years... not the rate it grows, not its size or cost, and certainly not is ability to intrude on our daily lives. We can expect government regulation of business, finances, environmental issues and educational matters to probably increase substantially over the course of the next four years, and YES, someone will have to pay for that, too.
As has been said hundreds of times on this site alone... you could take ALL THE MONEY that the top 1% of Americans make (and have in savings) and it wouldn't run the government for 30 days. A 100% tax rate for the top 10 percent of wage earners will only feed the beast for three fiscal quarters... leaving a fourth quarter unpaid for each and every year the nation operates. The math simply doesn't add up, yet the American people want more and more of what Obama has been promising.
The rights and liberties of the individual have now become secondary to the needs and wants of the majority. This is the direction that we have chosen. I, personally, think it is the wrong choice... but that is just me.
Am I worried about the situation? Frankly, yes... but not to a point where I'm ready to panic, or declare the United States "dead in the water" as some pundits are doing. This current trend towards a more liberal (I think that means "European socialist") model of government is doomed to fail from the very start. Catch phrases like "wealth redistribution" and "progressive fiscal agendas" are more than simply words thrown about in heated political debates... they are milestones on the road to socialism in America, and as I have said a thousand times before: Socialism cannot work in a macro setting without lowering every facet of society to the lowest possible denominator.
I can tell you this, right now, officially and with great personal conviction: I think that when the time comes for the "correction" to occur (and a correction is coming, one way or another), it is going to be every bit as painful and costly as the correction that we now refer to as the Great Depression. I am obligated to my family and my children to ensure that all that I can do to prepare for this and mitigate the problems that will arise from such a situation are done well in advance of it actually occurring. If I learned anything from my experiences during the single largest crisis in my life (Katrina and the three years of financial disaster that followed) it is simply that counting on the Federal Government to do ANYTHING to help or support you in a time of need is taking the biggest gamble of your life. Not only will no help come when it is actually needed, it couldn't be provided to most people in serious need across vast regions even if it was available. The Supreme Court of the United States has already determined that there is no "obligation" for assistance or aide from the government (or any agency or institution therein) to the individual... only to the general population.
If you want to be sure you are adequately protected from hardships, deprivation, disaster or disease... then you had better protect yourself. I promise you, no one else will. That includes Barack H. Obama.
A long, dark night...
That was my feelings about last night.
I read F. Ryan's prediction, and I spoke with Jambo about his thoughts on a "forty-State sweep", and I tried to be positive, but I really didn't have a good feeling yesterday at all.
I got to the polls yesterday at just about 9 AM, and there must have been a line of 80 people spilling out of the station doors and across the parking lot. The temp was only 30 degrees... pretty cold, really, but the turn out was a strong as I had seen since living in NEPA. My initial surprise was tempered while standing in that line for 40 minutes, listening to everyone around me talk about how excited they were to vote for Obama.
If memory serves, most were blue-haired women, stoop-shouldered old men, and a couple of "couples" (two of them with very young babies in their arms). Were these retirees supporting Obama because of the Medicare scare propagated by the Left? Did they actually think Romney would leave them homeless and shivering with no access to food, water or doctor's care? I can imagine that the two couples with the babies were (understandably) immersed in such programs as WIC and (statistically speaking) probably some form of welfare assistance... so their enthusiasm for "four more years" was almost understandable, if not entirely admirable. Did these several dozen people actually think the were better off today then they were in 2006? Or even later?
Saddest of all... and I almost hesitate to bring this up because of the volatile nature of topic... was the 65-year-old woman standing behind me in line. She never asked me who I was voting for, and she never told me that she was voting for Obama. What she did tell me was that she couldn't stand the thought that "women's rights" might be taken away if the election went one way rather than the other. "My body, my choice" was a term she used twice... even in the brief time we spoke. I did consider telling her that, since 1972 (when Roe v Wade became defacto law), there had been 24 years of Republican Presidential leadership in this country, and abortion was still available as a "choice" in all 50 States. I did think that perhaps I could explain to her that the GOP contention is NOT to end abortion as a choice in America, but to ensure that Federal funds do not pay for them... individuals do. In the end, I did nothing but smile and wish her a good day. Her choice was made, she had decided her course of action.
In the end, short on sleep and deeply frustrated, I guess I'd have to venture the opinion that Romney-Ryan failed to get the "message" of their platform out as clearly and plainly as Obama and the Dems did. If an otherwise bright and communicative retiree failed so completely to grasp the actual fundamentals of a topic like Federally funded abortions and the GOP's position on them, then I can't blame her, can I? It must have been a failure in getting that point across on a national level.
Watching the frustration and anger surface during the FOX News coverage was painful, but was nothing compared to the gloating and self-congratulation that was going on at the MSNBC coverage rooms. I'll give both their time to take in the event... neither is unbiased and both had a lot at stake and even more invested in the election... so both are allowed their "moment". The same can be said for both Parties. The GOP got spanked (speaking in relative terms, of course... it was a close race everywhere)... the Dems won two more seats in the Senate and four more years in the White House. I have to give the President credit... I listened to his "victory" speech last night at about 1:30 AM, and (without giving too much attention to what was undoubtedly pat, rhetorical phrasing) his words rang terribly, terribly true. The GOP will have to find a way to pick up the pieces and continue to effort, or nothing will change. The Dems will need to avoid the "end-zone celebrations" that will do nothing but further the rift between the two sides and work to accomplish something meaningful in the next two years (midterms) or face another Congressional upset.
Conservatives can't afford to be petulant and liberals can't afford to be "sore winners", or both sides lose in the long run. Time to pony-up and soldier on.
I read F. Ryan's prediction, and I spoke with Jambo about his thoughts on a "forty-State sweep", and I tried to be positive, but I really didn't have a good feeling yesterday at all.
I got to the polls yesterday at just about 9 AM, and there must have been a line of 80 people spilling out of the station doors and across the parking lot. The temp was only 30 degrees... pretty cold, really, but the turn out was a strong as I had seen since living in NEPA. My initial surprise was tempered while standing in that line for 40 minutes, listening to everyone around me talk about how excited they were to vote for Obama.
If memory serves, most were blue-haired women, stoop-shouldered old men, and a couple of "couples" (two of them with very young babies in their arms). Were these retirees supporting Obama because of the Medicare scare propagated by the Left? Did they actually think Romney would leave them homeless and shivering with no access to food, water or doctor's care? I can imagine that the two couples with the babies were (understandably) immersed in such programs as WIC and (statistically speaking) probably some form of welfare assistance... so their enthusiasm for "four more years" was almost understandable, if not entirely admirable. Did these several dozen people actually think the were better off today then they were in 2006? Or even later?
Saddest of all... and I almost hesitate to bring this up because of the volatile nature of topic... was the 65-year-old woman standing behind me in line. She never asked me who I was voting for, and she never told me that she was voting for Obama. What she did tell me was that she couldn't stand the thought that "women's rights" might be taken away if the election went one way rather than the other. "My body, my choice" was a term she used twice... even in the brief time we spoke. I did consider telling her that, since 1972 (when Roe v Wade became defacto law), there had been 24 years of Republican Presidential leadership in this country, and abortion was still available as a "choice" in all 50 States. I did think that perhaps I could explain to her that the GOP contention is NOT to end abortion as a choice in America, but to ensure that Federal funds do not pay for them... individuals do. In the end, I did nothing but smile and wish her a good day. Her choice was made, she had decided her course of action.
In the end, short on sleep and deeply frustrated, I guess I'd have to venture the opinion that Romney-Ryan failed to get the "message" of their platform out as clearly and plainly as Obama and the Dems did. If an otherwise bright and communicative retiree failed so completely to grasp the actual fundamentals of a topic like Federally funded abortions and the GOP's position on them, then I can't blame her, can I? It must have been a failure in getting that point across on a national level.
Watching the frustration and anger surface during the FOX News coverage was painful, but was nothing compared to the gloating and self-congratulation that was going on at the MSNBC coverage rooms. I'll give both their time to take in the event... neither is unbiased and both had a lot at stake and even more invested in the election... so both are allowed their "moment". The same can be said for both Parties. The GOP got spanked (speaking in relative terms, of course... it was a close race everywhere)... the Dems won two more seats in the Senate and four more years in the White House. I have to give the President credit... I listened to his "victory" speech last night at about 1:30 AM, and (without giving too much attention to what was undoubtedly pat, rhetorical phrasing) his words rang terribly, terribly true. The GOP will have to find a way to pick up the pieces and continue to effort, or nothing will change. The Dems will need to avoid the "end-zone celebrations" that will do nothing but further the rift between the two sides and work to accomplish something meaningful in the next two years (midterms) or face another Congressional upset.
Conservatives can't afford to be petulant and liberals can't afford to be "sore winners", or both sides lose in the long run. Time to pony-up and soldier on.
how?
Here`s my trilevel gut response to the reelection of Barack H. Obama:
1.) I am floored at how badly I, personally, misjudged my fellow Americans. I truly didn't grasp that my ideology is in the minority until tonight.
2.) It's possible we've witnessed the American Idol-ization of the office of president. Obama is a celebrity. He's cooler. Who needs low unemployment when you've got Jay-Z and Springsteen?
3.) And this is most dangerous of all. It's possible that we`ve changed as a people. More than half of the states in this Union currently believe that healthcare and housing are a Right. In other words, from medicine to retirement a majority of Americans now believe that government, not the individual, has a moral imperative to provide life`s basic needs, wants, and desires. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are no longer sufficient. Collectivism is caring, individualism is greed.
If that's true, we've lost more than an election.
1.) I am floored at how badly I, personally, misjudged my fellow Americans. I truly didn't grasp that my ideology is in the minority until tonight.
2.) It's possible we've witnessed the American Idol-ization of the office of president. Obama is a celebrity. He's cooler. Who needs low unemployment when you've got Jay-Z and Springsteen?
3.) And this is most dangerous of all. It's possible that we`ve changed as a people. More than half of the states in this Union currently believe that healthcare and housing are a Right. In other words, from medicine to retirement a majority of Americans now believe that government, not the individual, has a moral imperative to provide life`s basic needs, wants, and desires. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are no longer sufficient. Collectivism is caring, individualism is greed.
If that's true, we've lost more than an election.
Monday, November 5, 2012
286-252
Romney wins. That's my prediction out of the 538 Electoral College votes available. No need to hold the election, I have come out from on high and dispersed my wisdom... hehe.
As we all know, the first to 270 wins. Michael Barone, the Right-leaning gold standard of county by county election cycle science, went on record yesterday to say he's predicting Romney at 315 due to party identity, independents breaking, and enthusiasm. He's no political hack. He looks and talks like a scientist, a pure researcher. The only reason I gauged it closer (clearly he knows more than I) is my natural pessimism kicking in. In my opinion the bottom line is Ohio. If Romney wins its' 18 Electoral votes he's a lock. If Obama wins Ohio Romney still has a path to victory, but not an easy one (including Iowa and New Hampshire). I think the dark horse GOP state to win is Titus' stomping ground, PA. It's just possible the social issues combined with Obama's energy policy (coal etc) could tip this state to Mitt.
Now for something borderline delusional. I'm talking Mad Hatter, butterfly net territory. President Obama was in Madison, WI today (by the way, his need to defend Wisconsin should give us all hope - that Scott Walker recall was a major boon for the GOP), and when speaking to the gathered crowd he said the following (this is a direct quote): "This shouldn't be that complicated. We tried our ideas. They worked. We grew the economy, created jobs, and the deficit went down. We tried their ideas. The economy didn't grow. Not as many jobs were created, and the deficit went up."
Holy delusions of grandeur Batman!
Do you think he really believes this? Is the teleprompter guy just messing with him? I mean not even Democrats dispute the deficit nearly doubled, they just don't care. I assume he means George W. Bush when he says "their way." However, Bush's overall average numbers on unemployment; GDP growth; GDP to debt ratio; food stamp participants; gas prices; deficit spending - even including the second half of 2008 when the economic collapse occurred - were provably better than the last four years. It's not even close. What is he talking about then? George H. Bush? Reagan? Their numbers (in particular Reagan's) dwarf him in every category. President Obama is the first CIC in American history to have annual Trillion dollar deficits. He hasn't even passed a budget during his entire term, and that's with controlling both houses of congress during half of it. On the day he took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Tomorrow, on election day, it will be 7.9%. Again, I ask, is he delusional?
By the way, have you ever heard of the "Redskins Rule" of politics (I mean the NFL team, obviously)? I heard today that for the last 19 elections, whenever the Skins win on the Sunday before election day, the incumbent president wins. When they lose, the incumbent loses. The Skins lost yesterday.
As we all know, the first to 270 wins. Michael Barone, the Right-leaning gold standard of county by county election cycle science, went on record yesterday to say he's predicting Romney at 315 due to party identity, independents breaking, and enthusiasm. He's no political hack. He looks and talks like a scientist, a pure researcher. The only reason I gauged it closer (clearly he knows more than I) is my natural pessimism kicking in. In my opinion the bottom line is Ohio. If Romney wins its' 18 Electoral votes he's a lock. If Obama wins Ohio Romney still has a path to victory, but not an easy one (including Iowa and New Hampshire). I think the dark horse GOP state to win is Titus' stomping ground, PA. It's just possible the social issues combined with Obama's energy policy (coal etc) could tip this state to Mitt.
Now for something borderline delusional. I'm talking Mad Hatter, butterfly net territory. President Obama was in Madison, WI today (by the way, his need to defend Wisconsin should give us all hope - that Scott Walker recall was a major boon for the GOP), and when speaking to the gathered crowd he said the following (this is a direct quote): "This shouldn't be that complicated. We tried our ideas. They worked. We grew the economy, created jobs, and the deficit went down. We tried their ideas. The economy didn't grow. Not as many jobs were created, and the deficit went up."
Holy delusions of grandeur Batman!
Do you think he really believes this? Is the teleprompter guy just messing with him? I mean not even Democrats dispute the deficit nearly doubled, they just don't care. I assume he means George W. Bush when he says "their way." However, Bush's overall average numbers on unemployment; GDP growth; GDP to debt ratio; food stamp participants; gas prices; deficit spending - even including the second half of 2008 when the economic collapse occurred - were provably better than the last four years. It's not even close. What is he talking about then? George H. Bush? Reagan? Their numbers (in particular Reagan's) dwarf him in every category. President Obama is the first CIC in American history to have annual Trillion dollar deficits. He hasn't even passed a budget during his entire term, and that's with controlling both houses of congress during half of it. On the day he took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Tomorrow, on election day, it will be 7.9%. Again, I ask, is he delusional?
By the way, have you ever heard of the "Redskins Rule" of politics (I mean the NFL team, obviously)? I heard today that for the last 19 elections, whenever the Skins win on the Sunday before election day, the incumbent president wins. When they lose, the incumbent loses. The Skins lost yesterday.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Coast Bound....
Obviously with this being a public forum Im not inclined to be much more specific than that, but suffice it to say I put a deposit down today and as of 12/1 we will be residents of the MS Gulf Coast. I may end up sitting box 2 days a week to augment my income while I attend scool (starting in February), but with family all within driving distance (including a Bund brother), acceptance to a local university, my casino time diminished if not completely done away with, and the assurance that my sons wont spend their teenage years in Sin City, Im loads better off than I was in the desert oasis of Las Vegas. Now, if I can just avoid any Cat 5's in the near future I might just have a good shot at success in Act II.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Jobs...
The new jobs report came out today. We all know that when it comes to unemployment data the White House has the power to manipulate more zeros than a playmate at a scifi convention. But last month's (actually September's) drop from 8.2 to 7.8 was as shameless as it gets. For example they added, for the first time, part time employees, the "under employed" to the primary number of employed workers. There are something on the order of 8 different final unemployment numbers to represent formulas that include under employed, workers whom left the workforce, etc, all coded U6, U7, and so on, some of which have the total unemployment rate as high as 14.7%. And even the normally apolitical renowned former GE CEO, Jack Welch, was prompted to write an oped last month condemning the formula used as the primary unemployment number. He noted that if we used the formula of just the Clinton era the unemployment rate would be over 10%. If you use the formulas employed under JFK the real number is over 13%. They have simply changed the way the unemployed are counted.
But here's the bottom line of today's (October's) unemployment number. It's 7.9%. That's a tenth of a percent higher than September, and it has come out 3 days before the election. It's also a tenth higher than January 2009. What does this mean? That his "last" unemployment number as president is higher than his his first... if history tells us anything its that you don't get reelected when the unemployment rate is higher on election day than on your first day in office. Or lets count Obama's jobs record this way - since January of 09, for every 1 job created, 75 people were added to the food stamp roles.
By the way - with food and fuel shortages abound in NYC the question is being raised, where is the National Guard? They could do air lifts if nothing else. I vividly remembered the Guard everywhere after Katrina when we were finally allowed to return. Here's your answer: Bloomberg said the NYPD is the only one he wants with guns on the streets of his city. Apparently governor Cuomo is honoring that sentiment. Bloomberg's anti-Second Amendment, anti gun policy apparently knows no sane boundary.
But here's the bottom line of today's (October's) unemployment number. It's 7.9%. That's a tenth of a percent higher than September, and it has come out 3 days before the election. It's also a tenth higher than January 2009. What does this mean? That his "last" unemployment number as president is higher than his his first... if history tells us anything its that you don't get reelected when the unemployment rate is higher on election day than on your first day in office. Or lets count Obama's jobs record this way - since January of 09, for every 1 job created, 75 people were added to the food stamp roles.
By the way - with food and fuel shortages abound in NYC the question is being raised, where is the National Guard? They could do air lifts if nothing else. I vividly remembered the Guard everywhere after Katrina when we were finally allowed to return. Here's your answer: Bloomberg said the NYPD is the only one he wants with guns on the streets of his city. Apparently governor Cuomo is honoring that sentiment. Bloomberg's anti-Second Amendment, anti gun policy apparently knows no sane boundary.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The liberal "disconnect"...
The famous (and now rather old) Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) wrote an article yesterday, and I read it. I wanted to share my thoughts on Mr. Bernstein's story...
What a load of crap.
Common, Carl... seriously? Romney is the latest "puppet" of the great and evil GOP machine? Enslaved by the "radical" Tea Party faction of the conservative movement? A true moderate that cannot but dance to the tugging of the Party strings?
I'll give you this much, Carl... Romney is a moderate at heart, no question. So was Bush Jr. and John McCain was damn near a card-carrying Democrat.
So, even if the entire scope of your story is true (and I'm not suggesting it is, by any stretch), can you honestly tell me Obama hasn't made promises he'd rather not have made, to get where he is now? He isn't in bed with the far-Left on such issues as ending the war in Iraq on a time table even he didn't like? Or with the unions in Detroit, were the government bail-outs have entrenched union dependency even further than it already was (which contributed to the need for the bail-outs in the first place)? Why were his opinion ratings so low (less than 45% in some areas) prior to elections in May?
Why is the simple, undeniable FACT that Kennedy's inaugural address is hand-in-glove with the entire conservative agenda today so utterly ignored by the likes of you and your friends? Your claim that everything "conservative" strikes at the heart of all that has been accomplished since 1906 is simply not true... as untrue as Nixon claiming he's "not a crook".
What a load of crap.
Common, Carl... seriously? Romney is the latest "puppet" of the great and evil GOP machine? Enslaved by the "radical" Tea Party faction of the conservative movement? A true moderate that cannot but dance to the tugging of the Party strings?
I'll give you this much, Carl... Romney is a moderate at heart, no question. So was Bush Jr. and John McCain was damn near a card-carrying Democrat.
So, even if the entire scope of your story is true (and I'm not suggesting it is, by any stretch), can you honestly tell me Obama hasn't made promises he'd rather not have made, to get where he is now? He isn't in bed with the far-Left on such issues as ending the war in Iraq on a time table even he didn't like? Or with the unions in Detroit, were the government bail-outs have entrenched union dependency even further than it already was (which contributed to the need for the bail-outs in the first place)? Why were his opinion ratings so low (less than 45% in some areas) prior to elections in May?
Why is the simple, undeniable FACT that Kennedy's inaugural address is hand-in-glove with the entire conservative agenda today so utterly ignored by the likes of you and your friends? Your claim that everything "conservative" strikes at the heart of all that has been accomplished since 1906 is simply not true... as untrue as Nixon claiming he's "not a crook".
exquisite irony
"He looks presidential." That's all I'm hearing in the mainstream press regarding the President's handling of Sandy. First off, he is the President. Secondly, if he now looks presidential how did he look Monday, waste deep in the Libya scandal? And third, the entire reason friendly news outlets are claiming this is due to his assertion of Executive Branch power/authority. How did he flex Executive muscle? He promised to cut red tape and bureaucracy to get emergency funds rapidly released and instructed that federal formula regulations on fuel standards be waived to get any and all types of gasoline into the North East. Bare in mind the New York Times editorial is claiming, "see, see, big storms require big government." And we already know the President,s position on "big" government. Yet the whole reason he "looks presidential" is he essentially stood up and declared he'd get government out of the way in order to effectively deal with an emergency. Which is EXACTLY Mitt Romney's plan to deal with the economy!
My experience with hurricanes tells me that (politically) the handling or mishandling of natural disasters can make or break local officials. Bush's Katrina critics have successfully painted his post storm efforts as a failure, but by and large presidents are reelected (or not) based on the perception of their economic record with everything else coming in a distant second. However, I would argue mayors and governors, police chiefs and even preachers, this is when their effectiveness is judged and remembered. And there was no clearer demonstration of this then the difference between post Katrina Mississippi vs Louisiana politics. Blanco and the NO mayor (I forget his name) were crucified while Barbour solidified his state legacy. Which again underscores the irony of big government advocates during natural disasters - each state dealt with the same FEMA, yet it was the local ground game, private sector, city and state that made the difference.
The bottom line is no matter how good the PoTUS looks over the next 4 days it can not eclipse how bad he has done over the last 4 years.
By the way, did you hear Leno? "Don't ask don't tell is back. It's the president's new policy on Libya."
My experience with hurricanes tells me that (politically) the handling or mishandling of natural disasters can make or break local officials. Bush's Katrina critics have successfully painted his post storm efforts as a failure, but by and large presidents are reelected (or not) based on the perception of their economic record with everything else coming in a distant second. However, I would argue mayors and governors, police chiefs and even preachers, this is when their effectiveness is judged and remembered. And there was no clearer demonstration of this then the difference between post Katrina Mississippi vs Louisiana politics. Blanco and the NO mayor (I forget his name) were crucified while Barbour solidified his state legacy. Which again underscores the irony of big government advocates during natural disasters - each state dealt with the same FEMA, yet it was the local ground game, private sector, city and state that made the difference.
The bottom line is no matter how good the PoTUS looks over the next 4 days it can not eclipse how bad he has done over the last 4 years.
By the way, did you hear Leno? "Don't ask don't tell is back. It's the president's new policy on Libya."
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
I can't let this one go...
Through some fluke of fate, I'm able to hear the President's speech today about all of us "victims" of Superstorm Sandy. Oh, Fate... how you hate me.
First he talks about how he intends to "cut" all the red tape and hassle that surrounds the aid, assistance and recovery efforts that have hampered past victims (again, presumably ME, since I was a Katrina refugee, too) whenever the Government has tried to fix what was wrong... something I am ALL IN FAVOR OF, and specifically why I am voting for the OTHER GUY.
Then he turns my stomach... literally, makes me ill... with the comment "We won't leave anyone behind!"
What about J. Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador (deceased)? Or Sean Smith, Officer with the US Foreign Service (deceased)? Or Glen Doherty, USN (deceased)? Or Tyrone S. Woods, USN (deceased)? Can you explain to their children, families and friends how THEY weren't left behind either? Why THEIR well being and safety was less important than mine, or my neighbors, here at home?
The level of hypocrisy is almost amazing... and the ignorant manner in which it is brushed aside by the liberal supporters of the man truly are amazing. To use a promise made to every American service man and woman that has ever put themselves between harm and home... a promise he wouldn't or couldn't bring himself to keep... to make some cheap political points at MY expense, simply because I was somehow effected by this storm, along with 8.9 million other people? Those are some balls, Mr. President! Balls as big as church bells.
First he talks about how he intends to "cut" all the red tape and hassle that surrounds the aid, assistance and recovery efforts that have hampered past victims (again, presumably ME, since I was a Katrina refugee, too) whenever the Government has tried to fix what was wrong... something I am ALL IN FAVOR OF, and specifically why I am voting for the OTHER GUY.
Then he turns my stomach... literally, makes me ill... with the comment "We won't leave anyone behind!"
What about J. Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador (deceased)? Or Sean Smith, Officer with the US Foreign Service (deceased)? Or Glen Doherty, USN (deceased)? Or Tyrone S. Woods, USN (deceased)? Can you explain to their children, families and friends how THEY weren't left behind either? Why THEIR well being and safety was less important than mine, or my neighbors, here at home?
The level of hypocrisy is almost amazing... and the ignorant manner in which it is brushed aside by the liberal supporters of the man truly are amazing. To use a promise made to every American service man and woman that has ever put themselves between harm and home... a promise he wouldn't or couldn't bring himself to keep... to make some cheap political points at MY expense, simply because I was somehow effected by this storm, along with 8.9 million other people? Those are some balls, Mr. President! Balls as big as church bells.
Monday, October 29, 2012
On Sandy...
I can't seem to get away from these damn hurricanes, can I?
They have already declared a State of Emergency in both PA and NJ, the county I live in is crawling with power crews and Asplundh trucks, school has been closed for at least the next two days (really not good news)... but I'm still going to work.
Liz has stocked up on more stuff than I would have thought needed in five hurricanes. The lamps are full, the batteries charged, the coolers packed, the propane ready to burn, loose items and toys in the yard secured.
All I worry about is an extended time without power. Even PPL (the largest power provider in PA) is telling everyone via text messages and emails that they should be prepared to live 3 to 5 days with no power, and for as much as a week with interrupted power. Is that PPL being cautious and covering their collective butts, or is it a harbinger of what is to come?
Man, I'm tired of hurricanes.
They have already declared a State of Emergency in both PA and NJ, the county I live in is crawling with power crews and Asplundh trucks, school has been closed for at least the next two days (really not good news)... but I'm still going to work.
Liz has stocked up on more stuff than I would have thought needed in five hurricanes. The lamps are full, the batteries charged, the coolers packed, the propane ready to burn, loose items and toys in the yard secured.
All I worry about is an extended time without power. Even PPL (the largest power provider in PA) is telling everyone via text messages and emails that they should be prepared to live 3 to 5 days with no power, and for as much as a week with interrupted power. Is that PPL being cautious and covering their collective butts, or is it a harbinger of what is to come?
Man, I'm tired of hurricanes.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
This could break the President...
Which is why I am convinced that the Democrat-controlled Senate has issued the date for it's own investigation to begin AFTER the elections are over.
The White House has broken a sacred trust. The President is the "Commander and Chief" of all the Armed Forces of the United States, and everyone working under him must represent that position... even the civilian Cabinet positions.
If there were a motto that all branches of the military could claim, and all have adhered to since their inception, it is that "we leave no one behind". No one is left to fight "alone" involuntarily. If the means to support our personnel exist, we MUST do it... or we undermine the will and determination to fight for our whole defensive structure.
Those people that fought for their lives in Libya knew help was available... literally as little as 200 minutes away... and put up a defense waiting for that help to arrive. As Ryan said, there were assets on the ground that could have been employed, but were specifically and repeatedly told to "stand down" as fellow Americans and comrades were under attack. In short, I believe that the men stationed in Libya, and specifically in Benghazi, were left without support so as not to put the White House and its policies in a "bad light" so close to an election at home. This is more than bad policy or failed diplomacy... this is the ultimate example of failed leadership and command, and resulted in the ultimate cost to those most directly at risk.
As much as I detest the thought, I have tried to imagine what would exonerate the President and his staff in this matter... and nothing has presented itself, at all. There is no doubt in my mind that he KNEW what was happening, and that he KNEW what his top advisory and command staff was doing, and people still died because no help or support was given in their time of need.
I don't want to sound flippant or glib in light of the very serious nature that this topic follows, but anyone that might be considering answering the "Help Wanted" poster now being drawn up by the White House and the State Department needs to look long and hard at the possibility of the same thing happening to them. What kind of people do you think are going to take that job in the future? Certainly not the ones best suited for the position, I'd venture to say.
The White House has broken a sacred trust. The President is the "Commander and Chief" of all the Armed Forces of the United States, and everyone working under him must represent that position... even the civilian Cabinet positions.
If there were a motto that all branches of the military could claim, and all have adhered to since their inception, it is that "we leave no one behind". No one is left to fight "alone" involuntarily. If the means to support our personnel exist, we MUST do it... or we undermine the will and determination to fight for our whole defensive structure.
Those people that fought for their lives in Libya knew help was available... literally as little as 200 minutes away... and put up a defense waiting for that help to arrive. As Ryan said, there were assets on the ground that could have been employed, but were specifically and repeatedly told to "stand down" as fellow Americans and comrades were under attack. In short, I believe that the men stationed in Libya, and specifically in Benghazi, were left without support so as not to put the White House and its policies in a "bad light" so close to an election at home. This is more than bad policy or failed diplomacy... this is the ultimate example of failed leadership and command, and resulted in the ultimate cost to those most directly at risk.
As much as I detest the thought, I have tried to imagine what would exonerate the President and his staff in this matter... and nothing has presented itself, at all. There is no doubt in my mind that he KNEW what was happening, and that he KNEW what his top advisory and command staff was doing, and people still died because no help or support was given in their time of need.
I don't want to sound flippant or glib in light of the very serious nature that this topic follows, but anyone that might be considering answering the "Help Wanted" poster now being drawn up by the White House and the State Department needs to look long and hard at the possibility of the same thing happening to them. What kind of people do you think are going to take that job in the future? Certainly not the ones best suited for the position, I'd venture to say.
Friday, October 26, 2012
They hate us more than they value truth...
That's the conclusion I've come to. After all the economic data, foreign policy debacles and clear loyalty to an ideology which fails every time it's tried, I have determined that those still supporting President Barack Hussein Obama simply hate the "other side" more than they value intellectual honesty. There is no sane defense of this man. And the Libya scandal is making that horrifyingly clear.
This is an issue I've taken particular interest in, and there have been shocking new developments today (source). When the attack started, around 9:40pm 9/11/12, the two ex-Navy SEALS Doherty and Woods were at a secure CIA annex only one mile away from the chaos unfolding at the consulate/compound. After the men heard shots fired, they promptly let the chain of command know about the situation on the ground. However, sources now claim that they were told to refrain from action. This same mandate was again given to the men when they called a second time just one hour later to report that the dangerous situation was still unfolding at the consulate.
According to three newly released emails dispatched on the afternoon of September 11—as the attack was underway—the State Department Operations Center alerted multiple government offices, including the Pentagon, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and the White House Situation Room (including the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper) that the assault was happening. The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line ‘U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack’ and the notation ‘SBU,’ meaning ‘Sensitive But Unclassified.’ The email said the State Department’s regional security office had reported the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was ‘under attack.Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.’ The message continued: ‘Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.’
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin (chief National Security correspondent) is reporting that despite those alerts to the highest halls of government her sources have confirmed that a total of three urgent requests for military assistance were sent from that CIA annex and all three were all denied. In addition to the two SEALS, CIA operators within the annex, with rapid deploy capabilities, were also told to “stand down."
Doherty and Woods allegedly disobeyed orders from superiors to “stand down” in the wake of the attack and decided to go to the main consulate building to help U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under siege. At least two others, along with elements of the CIA Quick Reaction Force also ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. The quick reaction force evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith (a US diplomat), who had been killed in the initial attack.
A second email, headed ‘Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi’ and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.’ It said a ‘response team’ was at the site "attempting to locate missing personnel.”
In the end they could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. After arriving back at the annex, the incident was far from over for the security team, which at this point still included Woods and Doherty. An attack was launched on the annex — this one more intense than the initial assault on the main building. At that point, they called again for military support, reporting they were taking fire at the annex. The request was denied.
On Thursday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s responded to questions surrounding military reaction saying that forces did not intervene because officials did not have enough “real-time information” about what was happening on the ground, “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information…[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
However eyewitnesses arriving from the compound say there were no communications problems at the annex. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News reported that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. Military officials in Benghazi told CNN that rocket-propelled grenades were among the heavy firepower used by the attackers at the annex, with one official saying mortars were also fired. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex. The two ex-SEALS (if there is such a thing) Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by one of those mortar shells at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations.
Sources appear to claim that there were potential options that could have been pursued, although these avenues were reportedly not taken during the September 11 attack. While the forces available at Sigonella could have been flown into Benghazi in less than two hours, they, too, were also allegedly told to “stand down.” Around 3 a.m. that evening, a pro-U.S. Libyan militia finally showed up at the CIA annex. And an American Quick Reaction Force that was sent from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m., but was delayed for 45 minutes over transportation confusion. In both instances, though, the arrivals were hours after the initial attack took place.
Only several hours after the annex was finally evacuated did US officials even know the fate of Ambassador Stevens. A hospital doctor started randomly dialing numbers in a cell phone belonging to a corpse dropped off at his medical facility. One of those calls was to the US embassy in Tripoli. The corpse turned out to be the ambassador.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, to US based officials that carried the subject line: ‘Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.’ The message reported: ‘Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.’
In addition there has been debate surrounding drones and whether or not U.S. officials had the ability to watch a portion of the Libyan attack in real time. Some have dismissed the notion that the battle was being viewed live by officials as it progressed. But an October 20th report from CBS News claims that a portion of the attack was potentially seen by officials. In fact, according to the network, “hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.” FOX, too, reported today that there were two military surveillance drones that were sent to Benghazi after the attack on the U.S. consulate began. Both of these drones had the capability to send images back to government officials, including the White House situation room.
Let me remind you that all of this Intel, this entire timeline was available to the President in the FIRST 24 HOURS. He knew all this, as well he should. Yet the Press Secretary, The Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador, and the President of the United States himself spent weeks emphatically claiming they had "concrete evidence" as Press Secretary Jay Carney put it, that this was not a premeditated attack in opposition to America or American policy, but rather a spontaneous protest turned violent over an obscure You Tube video which had 19 hits as of July 2012 (with surely millions more now that the administration made it famous). In fact the father of one of the fallen hero SEALS has disclosed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him, at the receiving ceremony of the caskets, that they would get the maker of this film. THAT is the depth of deception they were willing to sink.
Why?
The Al Qaeda connections to Benghazi were well known. Images showing the black Al Qaeda flag being hoisted up over the city after the fall of Qadaffi were beamed to every corner of the earth. Al Qaeda and its affiliates had already attempted attacks on our consulate there, repeatedly, and even attempted to assassinate the British ambassador, our closest ally. The pattern of planned terror attacks was well-known. The new head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had called for attacks on U.S. interests in Libya after a drone strike had killed a top Libyan al Qaeda operative. Our now-dead Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and his team had repeatedly reported the escalating violence and had repeatedly requested more security. They were denied.
Again, I ask why?
As far as I can tell there are four fundamental questions yet to be answered by the administration:
1.) Why were earlier requests to increase security repeatedly denied given the threat level was publicly known to be extremely elevated (particularly on 9/11)?
2.) During the attack why were requests for military back up, made in real time by trained men with eyes on, denied?
3.) Whose idea/plan was it to blame an obscure video?
4.) Why did the administration, including the President, agree to that plan?
“That is cowardice by the people that issued that order. And our country is not a country of cowards. Our country is the greatest nation on Earth. And what we need to do is we need to raise up a generation of American heroes just like Ty who is an American hero. But in order to do that, we need to raise up a generation that has not just physical strength but moral strength. We do not need another generation of liars who lack moral strength.”
-Charles Woods, father of fallen SEAL Tyrone Woods on 10/26/12 responding to reports that back-up teams were repeatedly told to "stand down."
This is an issue I've taken particular interest in, and there have been shocking new developments today (source). When the attack started, around 9:40pm 9/11/12, the two ex-Navy SEALS Doherty and Woods were at a secure CIA annex only one mile away from the chaos unfolding at the consulate/compound. After the men heard shots fired, they promptly let the chain of command know about the situation on the ground. However, sources now claim that they were told to refrain from action. This same mandate was again given to the men when they called a second time just one hour later to report that the dangerous situation was still unfolding at the consulate.
According to three newly released emails dispatched on the afternoon of September 11—as the attack was underway—the State Department Operations Center alerted multiple government offices, including the Pentagon, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and the White House Situation Room (including the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper) that the assault was happening. The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line ‘U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack’ and the notation ‘SBU,’ meaning ‘Sensitive But Unclassified.’ The email said the State Department’s regional security office had reported the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was ‘under attack.Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.’ The message continued: ‘Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.’
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin (chief National Security correspondent) is reporting that despite those alerts to the highest halls of government her sources have confirmed that a total of three urgent requests for military assistance were sent from that CIA annex and all three were all denied. In addition to the two SEALS, CIA operators within the annex, with rapid deploy capabilities, were also told to “stand down."
Doherty and Woods allegedly disobeyed orders from superiors to “stand down” in the wake of the attack and decided to go to the main consulate building to help U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under siege. At least two others, along with elements of the CIA Quick Reaction Force also ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. The quick reaction force evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith (a US diplomat), who had been killed in the initial attack.
A second email, headed ‘Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi’ and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.’ It said a ‘response team’ was at the site "attempting to locate missing personnel.”
In the end they could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. After arriving back at the annex, the incident was far from over for the security team, which at this point still included Woods and Doherty. An attack was launched on the annex — this one more intense than the initial assault on the main building. At that point, they called again for military support, reporting they were taking fire at the annex. The request was denied.
On Thursday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s responded to questions surrounding military reaction saying that forces did not intervene because officials did not have enough “real-time information” about what was happening on the ground, “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information…[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
However eyewitnesses arriving from the compound say there were no communications problems at the annex. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News reported that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. Military officials in Benghazi told CNN that rocket-propelled grenades were among the heavy firepower used by the attackers at the annex, with one official saying mortars were also fired. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex. The two ex-SEALS (if there is such a thing) Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by one of those mortar shells at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations.
Sources appear to claim that there were potential options that could have been pursued, although these avenues were reportedly not taken during the September 11 attack. While the forces available at Sigonella could have been flown into Benghazi in less than two hours, they, too, were also allegedly told to “stand down.” Around 3 a.m. that evening, a pro-U.S. Libyan militia finally showed up at the CIA annex. And an American Quick Reaction Force that was sent from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m., but was delayed for 45 minutes over transportation confusion. In both instances, though, the arrivals were hours after the initial attack took place.
Only several hours after the annex was finally evacuated did US officials even know the fate of Ambassador Stevens. A hospital doctor started randomly dialing numbers in a cell phone belonging to a corpse dropped off at his medical facility. One of those calls was to the US embassy in Tripoli. The corpse turned out to be the ambassador.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, to US based officials that carried the subject line: ‘Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.’ The message reported: ‘Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.’
In addition there has been debate surrounding drones and whether or not U.S. officials had the ability to watch a portion of the Libyan attack in real time. Some have dismissed the notion that the battle was being viewed live by officials as it progressed. But an October 20th report from CBS News claims that a portion of the attack was potentially seen by officials. In fact, according to the network, “hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.” FOX, too, reported today that there were two military surveillance drones that were sent to Benghazi after the attack on the U.S. consulate began. Both of these drones had the capability to send images back to government officials, including the White House situation room.
Let me remind you that all of this Intel, this entire timeline was available to the President in the FIRST 24 HOURS. He knew all this, as well he should. Yet the Press Secretary, The Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador, and the President of the United States himself spent weeks emphatically claiming they had "concrete evidence" as Press Secretary Jay Carney put it, that this was not a premeditated attack in opposition to America or American policy, but rather a spontaneous protest turned violent over an obscure You Tube video which had 19 hits as of July 2012 (with surely millions more now that the administration made it famous). In fact the father of one of the fallen hero SEALS has disclosed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him, at the receiving ceremony of the caskets, that they would get the maker of this film. THAT is the depth of deception they were willing to sink.
Why?
The Al Qaeda connections to Benghazi were well known. Images showing the black Al Qaeda flag being hoisted up over the city after the fall of Qadaffi were beamed to every corner of the earth. Al Qaeda and its affiliates had already attempted attacks on our consulate there, repeatedly, and even attempted to assassinate the British ambassador, our closest ally. The pattern of planned terror attacks was well-known. The new head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had called for attacks on U.S. interests in Libya after a drone strike had killed a top Libyan al Qaeda operative. Our now-dead Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and his team had repeatedly reported the escalating violence and had repeatedly requested more security. They were denied.
Again, I ask why?
As far as I can tell there are four fundamental questions yet to be answered by the administration:
1.) Why were earlier requests to increase security repeatedly denied given the threat level was publicly known to be extremely elevated (particularly on 9/11)?
2.) During the attack why were requests for military back up, made in real time by trained men with eyes on, denied?
3.) Whose idea/plan was it to blame an obscure video?
4.) Why did the administration, including the President, agree to that plan?
“That is cowardice by the people that issued that order. And our country is not a country of cowards. Our country is the greatest nation on Earth. And what we need to do is we need to raise up a generation of American heroes just like Ty who is an American hero. But in order to do that, we need to raise up a generation that has not just physical strength but moral strength. We do not need another generation of liars who lack moral strength.”
-Charles Woods, father of fallen SEAL Tyrone Woods on 10/26/12 responding to reports that back-up teams were repeatedly told to "stand down."
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
To quote Kip....
"I love technology." I am right now posting from my xbox controller on my TV screen! The new update for xbox live included an internet explorer app for the dash board. I can peruse the news sites in the morning on a 52 inch screen. My eldest has also just seriously been set back in his argument to have his own laptop, hehe. Years ago I heard from a tech guy that "one day" our television screen will be an all encompassing activity screen and the idea of a seperate station for your home pc will be antiquated. That day is here ... now all I need is the Iron Man touch response hollogram app with the Jarvis voice add-on and I'll be set.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
This is driving me nuts!
I want to follow up to my response below... I've been walking around all day and no matter what I do or how I attempt to distract myself I keep having the arguments I would have prosecuted were it me debating Obama last night instead of Romney. Again, I get the idea that there are only a select amount of states in play and only select demographics within those states, so I understand last night's strategy to capture the three undecided single moms in Ohio by communicating, "I'm nice. I'm not Bush. No more wars, I promise." However, I tend to concur with Pat Cadell (a political analyst on Fox News whom has the unique distinction of being both an out spoken critic of Obama and the 1980 campaign manager of Jimmy Carter), that there were ways for Romney to avoid being painted as a war mongering Bush 2.0 without curling up into the fetal position. He played it safe. Fine. But playing it safe doesn't strike me as particularly inspired leadership when Americans are dying in foreign wars.
So if I am to get a single thing done in the next 72 hours I must purge myself of these arguments here. I give you an abrogated foreign policy debate between F.Ryan, son of Terrance, warden of the South and Barack Obama, second of his name and Lord of the East . . . (I've been watching Game of Thrones, forgive me):
Mr. President, I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt your ability. You see sir, as history has shown us wars are either won or lost, not arbitrarily ended so they may serve as campaign slogans. Many people may not be aware that in Afghanistan, our longest war, 70% of US casualties have occurred within the last four years. That was your watch. And that 2/3rds of the cost of the war has been spent in the last four years. It would appear that much like the stimulus spending the American people are not getting a good return on the blood and treasure they entrusted you with. Last month alone a half dozen Afghan soldiers, trained, housed and fed by our military so that they may stand up when we stand down have turned on our men, killing them in cold blood. Across North Africa and the Middle East we see embassies under protest, under attack and under evacuation. You stand up in the UN and declare we will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, yet the biggest obstacle to tighter sanctions, Vladimir Putin, is sent a secret message via his proxy so that he'll know things will get easier after your reelection... easier for him. As a candidate for president you declared it folly not to negotiate with the worst actors around the world. You described Iran, Cuba and North Korea as, "tiny countries that don't pose a threat to us." Mr. President, as it is today, in 1941 Japan was a tiny country in comparison to the United States. As any junior analyst at the CIA can tell you, the geographical size and population of a nation do not dictate their threat level. Their determination does. And as we sit, four years later, Iran seems as determined as ever to acquire nuclear weapons. They pursue their goals, threaten our closest ally with a second holocaust, and we do nothing. Your strategy has failed. They are undeterred. And why shouldn't they be? One of your first acts as President was to tell them and the world that essentially America has been a problem. You stood on foreign soil and proclaimed that we, the greatest nation ever to grace God's green earth, have "failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world" and added "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Mr. President you said these words in France. Let me ask you, were we dismissive at Normandy? Were we derisive at the liberation of Paris? Imagine the young Lieutenant coming in from patrol in Mosul where he spilled and spent blood that day only to come into his command post and hear his Commander-in-Chief call the country he spent all day defending, arrogant. I think your administration has failed to appreciate America's leading role in the world, and you have personally condemned it. In the Port of Spain you proclaimed, " [A]t times we sought to dictate our terms.” Your view on American history seems to have a theme - we are the problem. Mr. President, America is not the problem. America is the solution. I started this by stating that I don't doubt your sincerity in Afghanistan and Iraq, just your ability. Unfortunately the same can not be said of Libya. There has been much discussion on why a video and angry mobs were said to be at fault when it was clear there were neither. Discussions on why your Secretaries of Press, the UN, and State repeatedly and emphatically claimed that when our Embassy fell and four Americans died that a spontaneous protest was to blame. In your speech to the UN, nine days after the assault, you referenced this video and those protests no less than six times. Mr. President, it never happened. There were no protests. It was not due to a video. It was planned. It was premeditated. It was a terror attack. Not a "man caused disaster" as your National Intelligence Director insists on calling such attacks, not an "over seas contingency" as your Press Secretary refers to wars. It was an attack by terrorists. And the fog, the muddled haze that followed, which continues to this day, has been nothing short of dishonest. If the American people can not expect a straight answer on matters of life and death then how can they expect a straight answer on medicaid? On unemployment? On gas prices? So the question quickly becomes, why? Why do we see a foreign policy agenda unraveling before our eyes? I submit it is you. With all due respect sir you went into the office of President as a national security novice, and four years later the rest of us are paying the price. America trusted you and you have been irresponsible with that trust. And just for the record, the Navy classifies air craft carriers among their ships. Perhaps if you spent more time among world and military leaders and less time with David Letterman and raising crystal champagne glasses with vulgar rappers, you would know that. I think America has had enough of a foreign policy born of on the job training. The job is too important and your training is going too slow. You've had your four years to apologize for us. We're ready to go back to leading now.
So if I am to get a single thing done in the next 72 hours I must purge myself of these arguments here. I give you an abrogated foreign policy debate between F.Ryan, son of Terrance, warden of the South and Barack Obama, second of his name and Lord of the East . . . (I've been watching Game of Thrones, forgive me):
Mr. President, I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt your ability. You see sir, as history has shown us wars are either won or lost, not arbitrarily ended so they may serve as campaign slogans. Many people may not be aware that in Afghanistan, our longest war, 70% of US casualties have occurred within the last four years. That was your watch. And that 2/3rds of the cost of the war has been spent in the last four years. It would appear that much like the stimulus spending the American people are not getting a good return on the blood and treasure they entrusted you with. Last month alone a half dozen Afghan soldiers, trained, housed and fed by our military so that they may stand up when we stand down have turned on our men, killing them in cold blood. Across North Africa and the Middle East we see embassies under protest, under attack and under evacuation. You stand up in the UN and declare we will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, yet the biggest obstacle to tighter sanctions, Vladimir Putin, is sent a secret message via his proxy so that he'll know things will get easier after your reelection... easier for him. As a candidate for president you declared it folly not to negotiate with the worst actors around the world. You described Iran, Cuba and North Korea as, "tiny countries that don't pose a threat to us." Mr. President, as it is today, in 1941 Japan was a tiny country in comparison to the United States. As any junior analyst at the CIA can tell you, the geographical size and population of a nation do not dictate their threat level. Their determination does. And as we sit, four years later, Iran seems as determined as ever to acquire nuclear weapons. They pursue their goals, threaten our closest ally with a second holocaust, and we do nothing. Your strategy has failed. They are undeterred. And why shouldn't they be? One of your first acts as President was to tell them and the world that essentially America has been a problem. You stood on foreign soil and proclaimed that we, the greatest nation ever to grace God's green earth, have "failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world" and added "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Mr. President you said these words in France. Let me ask you, were we dismissive at Normandy? Were we derisive at the liberation of Paris? Imagine the young Lieutenant coming in from patrol in Mosul where he spilled and spent blood that day only to come into his command post and hear his Commander-in-Chief call the country he spent all day defending, arrogant. I think your administration has failed to appreciate America's leading role in the world, and you have personally condemned it. In the Port of Spain you proclaimed, " [A]t times we sought to dictate our terms.” Your view on American history seems to have a theme - we are the problem. Mr. President, America is not the problem. America is the solution. I started this by stating that I don't doubt your sincerity in Afghanistan and Iraq, just your ability. Unfortunately the same can not be said of Libya. There has been much discussion on why a video and angry mobs were said to be at fault when it was clear there were neither. Discussions on why your Secretaries of Press, the UN, and State repeatedly and emphatically claimed that when our Embassy fell and four Americans died that a spontaneous protest was to blame. In your speech to the UN, nine days after the assault, you referenced this video and those protests no less than six times. Mr. President, it never happened. There were no protests. It was not due to a video. It was planned. It was premeditated. It was a terror attack. Not a "man caused disaster" as your National Intelligence Director insists on calling such attacks, not an "over seas contingency" as your Press Secretary refers to wars. It was an attack by terrorists. And the fog, the muddled haze that followed, which continues to this day, has been nothing short of dishonest. If the American people can not expect a straight answer on matters of life and death then how can they expect a straight answer on medicaid? On unemployment? On gas prices? So the question quickly becomes, why? Why do we see a foreign policy agenda unraveling before our eyes? I submit it is you. With all due respect sir you went into the office of President as a national security novice, and four years later the rest of us are paying the price. America trusted you and you have been irresponsible with that trust. And just for the record, the Navy classifies air craft carriers among their ships. Perhaps if you spent more time among world and military leaders and less time with David Letterman and raising crystal champagne glasses with vulgar rappers, you would know that. I think America has had enough of a foreign policy born of on the job training. The job is too important and your training is going too slow. You've had your four years to apologize for us. We're ready to go back to leading now.
Lets not go too far here...
On me or Romney.
Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.
On me... I didn't endorse Romney's strategy of last night. I was clear about that. I don't like this stuff. I was clear about that. Reread my post, I wasn't happy. I simply acknowledged that this was a purposeful strategy that may work to capture the few mushy middle undecided voters still left. That's all - it was on purpose and may work. But I don't like the strategy of smothering with hugs just so the middle doesn't think you're "mean", especially when your opposition was caught dead to rights lying about the assassination of an ambassador. I prefer drawing clear and definite contrasts the way I feel Romney did on economic policy and the way Reagan did on every policy. That, I feel, is the more effective tact, but Romney's not paying me $900 an hour to advise him... maybe he should.
Now, on Romney... overall I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. I don't think that our "only hope" is the electorate realizing Obama is now making excuses for, rather than defending, his record. I think Romney has prosecuted the economic issue well and that this election will turn on whom the nation feels will be better on the economy (from gas prices to jobs).
In fact, here's my prediction - Romney wins in 2012 by more than Obama won by in 2008, in spite of giving an absolutely corrupt, historical-revisionist, self-loathing American, radical apologist a pass on foreign policy.
Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.
On me... I didn't endorse Romney's strategy of last night. I was clear about that. I don't like this stuff. I was clear about that. Reread my post, I wasn't happy. I simply acknowledged that this was a purposeful strategy that may work to capture the few mushy middle undecided voters still left. That's all - it was on purpose and may work. But I don't like the strategy of smothering with hugs just so the middle doesn't think you're "mean", especially when your opposition was caught dead to rights lying about the assassination of an ambassador. I prefer drawing clear and definite contrasts the way I feel Romney did on economic policy and the way Reagan did on every policy. That, I feel, is the more effective tact, but Romney's not paying me $900 an hour to advise him... maybe he should.
Now, on Romney... overall I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. I don't think that our "only hope" is the electorate realizing Obama is now making excuses for, rather than defending, his record. I think Romney has prosecuted the economic issue well and that this election will turn on whom the nation feels will be better on the economy (from gas prices to jobs).
In fact, here's my prediction - Romney wins in 2012 by more than Obama won by in 2008, in spite of giving an absolutely corrupt, historical-revisionist, self-loathing American, radical apologist a pass on foreign policy.
I didn't expect that...
I didn't expect F. Ryan to say what he did in his last post... not in a million years.
Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.
I thought he (Romney) was lack-luster at best. He danced to Obama's beat, and that cost him. I agree with you that it wouldn't have served to have Romney seem to do nothing but "attack" and "argue"... but he is spending FAR too much time and effort trying to say "Obama and I want the same thing" and that the voting public should pick Romney's means over Obama's, but still shoot for the same end. That is what I am hearing, and I don't like it.
I'll say this, too: Obama is beginning to look like he is making excuses for his policies and actions, rather than defending them. I can't say that any one point stands out, but it is a general impression that I HOPE like hell I'm not simply imagining but that others can also see.
It might be our only hope.
Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.
I thought he (Romney) was lack-luster at best. He danced to Obama's beat, and that cost him. I agree with you that it wouldn't have served to have Romney seem to do nothing but "attack" and "argue"... but he is spending FAR too much time and effort trying to say "Obama and I want the same thing" and that the voting public should pick Romney's means over Obama's, but still shoot for the same end. That is what I am hearing, and I don't like it.
I'll say this, too: Obama is beginning to look like he is making excuses for his policies and actions, rather than defending them. I can't say that any one point stands out, but it is a general impression that I HOPE like hell I'm not simply imagining but that others can also see.
It might be our only hope.
Playing it safe?
Not one word on the Libya cover-up from Romney. Not one.
He went after Obama on Israel, somewhat. He went after the apology tour, somewhat. He went after the administrations inability to identify democrats (small "d") within the Arab Spring to back with weapons and rhetoric, somewhat. It seemed that Romney was playing it safe, protecting a lead. He decided to handle the fiery, borderline insulting (strike that, there was nothing borderline about "We have these things called air craft carriers, planes land on them, and ships that go under water, they're called submarines.") and the other cutting jabs from Obama by smothering them in a peace-loving hug. Now look, Romney didn't "forget" about Libya. And he had ample opportunity to go after Barry with a sledge hammer (the POTUS even tried to draw him out on it saying, "let's return to Libya for a moment"), but Mitt was nothing doing. It was clear (and the Romney camp not only admitted this after the debate, but noted this was a strategy specifically insisted on by Mitt) that Romney was not going to go on attack over foreign policy in the way he went on attack over economic policy. He would instead find ground (with some notable exceptions) where they agreed on foreign policy, and use the balance of his time to pivot and hammer home the economic argument. Essentially he's decided "It's the economy stupid", to quote a fellow Southerner and Saints fan.
Look, we're not GOP sycophants here. If you're asking me for what I like to see in a debate, it's a brawl. It's precision cuts across the artery of the inner thigh, it's take him apart at the joints, it's what the hell do you mean Israel should retreat to the 1967 borders and are you going to let your madam SoS take the rap on Benghazi sir? It's shouting that you can find out all you need to know about the president's energy policy every time you pull up to the gas station, it's going for the soft underbelly all the time, every time, and Romney just didn't deliver for me ... BUT ... Romney's not looking to convince me. And that's the one other thing, besides pivoting to the economy, that I thought he was trying to do tonight - convince undecided voters that he's not George W. Bush. Due to Dubya's inability or flat unwillingness to defend himself during his two-terms, every GOP nominee for the rest of our lives will be forced to say "See, I'm not a war monger, I like peace." And that was Mitt's only other goal, "I'm tired of war too, I'm not Bush." It was either clever, or too clever by half, but I am willing to admit that the verbal blood on the sand I hope and cheer for may not be the winning strategy to capture those last few folks in the moderate, mushy middle. Time will tell.
One other observation. The roles were interestingly reversed in a traditional/historic perspective. Mitt seemed to be the seasoned incumbent, confident in his lead, unwilling to rock the boat, opting to play defense rather than keep a jab in his opponents face. While the sitting POTUS played the role of the scrappy contender, taking risks, coming off as almost belligerent. We at the Bund of course prefer a belligerent confrontation whenever it can be found ... but like I said, he's got us. On debate points, Obama wins. However, the only point tally Romney's debate strategy was concerned with is the electoral college. And I pray, literally, that this strategy worked.
He went after Obama on Israel, somewhat. He went after the apology tour, somewhat. He went after the administrations inability to identify democrats (small "d") within the Arab Spring to back with weapons and rhetoric, somewhat. It seemed that Romney was playing it safe, protecting a lead. He decided to handle the fiery, borderline insulting (strike that, there was nothing borderline about "We have these things called air craft carriers, planes land on them, and ships that go under water, they're called submarines.") and the other cutting jabs from Obama by smothering them in a peace-loving hug. Now look, Romney didn't "forget" about Libya. And he had ample opportunity to go after Barry with a sledge hammer (the POTUS even tried to draw him out on it saying, "let's return to Libya for a moment"), but Mitt was nothing doing. It was clear (and the Romney camp not only admitted this after the debate, but noted this was a strategy specifically insisted on by Mitt) that Romney was not going to go on attack over foreign policy in the way he went on attack over economic policy. He would instead find ground (with some notable exceptions) where they agreed on foreign policy, and use the balance of his time to pivot and hammer home the economic argument. Essentially he's decided "It's the economy stupid", to quote a fellow Southerner and Saints fan.
Look, we're not GOP sycophants here. If you're asking me for what I like to see in a debate, it's a brawl. It's precision cuts across the artery of the inner thigh, it's take him apart at the joints, it's what the hell do you mean Israel should retreat to the 1967 borders and are you going to let your madam SoS take the rap on Benghazi sir? It's shouting that you can find out all you need to know about the president's energy policy every time you pull up to the gas station, it's going for the soft underbelly all the time, every time, and Romney just didn't deliver for me ... BUT ... Romney's not looking to convince me. And that's the one other thing, besides pivoting to the economy, that I thought he was trying to do tonight - convince undecided voters that he's not George W. Bush. Due to Dubya's inability or flat unwillingness to defend himself during his two-terms, every GOP nominee for the rest of our lives will be forced to say "See, I'm not a war monger, I like peace." And that was Mitt's only other goal, "I'm tired of war too, I'm not Bush." It was either clever, or too clever by half, but I am willing to admit that the verbal blood on the sand I hope and cheer for may not be the winning strategy to capture those last few folks in the moderate, mushy middle. Time will tell.
One other observation. The roles were interestingly reversed in a traditional/historic perspective. Mitt seemed to be the seasoned incumbent, confident in his lead, unwilling to rock the boat, opting to play defense rather than keep a jab in his opponents face. While the sitting POTUS played the role of the scrappy contender, taking risks, coming off as almost belligerent. We at the Bund of course prefer a belligerent confrontation whenever it can be found ... but like I said, he's got us. On debate points, Obama wins. However, the only point tally Romney's debate strategy was concerned with is the electoral college. And I pray, literally, that this strategy worked.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
I was watching Romney...
and I didn't say Obama won, only that Romney missed chances.
I did call Romney's victory in the first debate, by the way... and I'll call him the winner in this, too. I had simply hoped for a bigger win, a more decisive victory.
My dislike of Obama is growing on a daily basis. I've never been one of those that are convinced he is determined to "re-write" the American Constitution to suit his socialist dreams, but I can't deny his socialist attitude. Add to that his pandering, meaningless platitudes and empty promises to the "American people"... and I'm almost to a point where his voice makes me ill.
Nothing came clearer to me in these last three debates than this fact: Romney/Ryan, while they use "I" and "we" in their rhetoric, don't MEAN "I" or "we". They are not promising that GOVERNMENT can fix any problems... they are promising that government is the PROBLEM. Obama is not only saying government is the solution, he is promising that HE is the solution. He wants the GOP to "get out of my way" so he can fix things... and that nauseates me. His utter disdain for anyone that has had, earned or come into any kind of material or fiscal wealth shows me that he sees two Americas... and he longs to be able to take from both equally and without restraint. Take the freedoms and responsibilities from the "have nots" and take the wealth and wages from the "haves" to pay for it all. Both Americas are equally reduced, both are marginalized in the political arena, and the Democrats are the better for it.
However, as Ryan said... I read this message clearly for what it is. The rest of America probably doesn't. That is sad in the extreme.
I did call Romney's victory in the first debate, by the way... and I'll call him the winner in this, too. I had simply hoped for a bigger win, a more decisive victory.
My dislike of Obama is growing on a daily basis. I've never been one of those that are convinced he is determined to "re-write" the American Constitution to suit his socialist dreams, but I can't deny his socialist attitude. Add to that his pandering, meaningless platitudes and empty promises to the "American people"... and I'm almost to a point where his voice makes me ill.
Nothing came clearer to me in these last three debates than this fact: Romney/Ryan, while they use "I" and "we" in their rhetoric, don't MEAN "I" or "we". They are not promising that GOVERNMENT can fix any problems... they are promising that government is the PROBLEM. Obama is not only saying government is the solution, he is promising that HE is the solution. He wants the GOP to "get out of my way" so he can fix things... and that nauseates me. His utter disdain for anyone that has had, earned or come into any kind of material or fiscal wealth shows me that he sees two Americas... and he longs to be able to take from both equally and without restraint. Take the freedoms and responsibilities from the "have nots" and take the wealth and wages from the "haves" to pay for it all. Both Americas are equally reduced, both are marginalized in the political arena, and the Democrats are the better for it.
However, as Ryan said... I read this message clearly for what it is. The rest of America probably doesn't. That is sad in the extreme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
