According To Him – The Words of Barack Obama

Are your ears open now, America? The first time around, too many failed to hear the words spoken by Barack Obama, looking instead to become a part of history. This time around, the words cannot be ignored. There is an entire term worth of quotes available for public consumption, and it is not hard to see that Obama’s words have translated into real, tangible policy as well. Take a look at this compilation and finally understand how the writing was on the wall – these words became action.

“The Cambridge police acted stupidly…what I think we know – separate and apart from this incident – is that there is a long history in our country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact.”

“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

• Both the Cambridge Police and Trayvon Martin quotes were an instant reaction to two incidences before any facts were released. The Cambridge police were white, arresting a black professor. Facts proved them in the right. The Trayvon Martin case is still ongoing. There is a good chance that George Zimmerman will be acquitted as a self-defense ruling. The main link between these two quotes – race.

“We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.”

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
• Obama discussing why he was having a difficult time winning over working-class voters

“Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation.”

“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…”
• Referring to his grandmother feeling uneasy walking by African-Americans on the street.

“I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world.”

“I’ve got two daughters. Nine-years-old and six-years-old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11. I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”
• Obama does not wear an American flag pin on his lapel, as most politicians do.

“Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics.”
• Basically saying that voting against him based on his politics is the same as voting against him due to race.

“The private sector is doing fine.”
• At a time when unemployment remained stagnant between 8% and 9%, while businesses continued to freeze hiring and economic growth was the slowest it had been in the last three years.

“Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
• After being asked by Pastor Rick Warren when he personally feels a baby should receive human rights.

“…I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.”
• Some of the most soaring, extreme and unattainable rhetoric in acceptance speech history.

“We can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees all the time…and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

“It’s very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth or sixth most interesting person.”

“…I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president – with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R. and Lincoln.”

“I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.”
• Obama’s own words directly from his autobiography.

“Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there…If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
• The quote that began the derailment of his campaign.

Four years later, we won’t be fooled again.

Posted in The Must Reads | Leave a comment

War on Women: The Great Myth

Not too long ago, a narrative appeared out of nowhere that turned 2012 back into the days of the women’s suffrage movement. Women began protesting the newly-discovered “War on Women” that, apparently, was being waged by the Republican Party and all its supporters. This time, it wasn’t about the right to vote or drive. It was about birth control. The narrative itself said that Republicans sought to take away access to contraception and enforce an ultra-religious agenda upon them. Next trickled in the topic of abortion. Roe v. Wade has maintained the separation of government from the choice of a woman to do with her body what she wishes. The new fear is that this separation would be removed. The last portion is equal pay for women, as so many believe they are intentionally being paid less than their male counterparts. The problem with this “war” is that it doesn’t exist. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

So how did the narrative begin? I don’t believe anyone would be surprised to learn that it began with one single shilling media member in the form of a debate moderator – George Stephanopoulos. During the Republican primary presidential debate in January, Stephanopoulos posed this random question to Mitt Romney:

“Do you believe states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a Constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney, obviously thrown by the off-the-wall nature of the question, especially considering there was no present existence of anything of the sort, responded.

“Uh, George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so and if I were a governor of a state or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking…given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so…you’re asking, could it Constitutionally be done?”

Stephanopoulos pressed further.

“I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Agitated and confused, Romney again responded along the same lines.

“George, I don’t know whether a state has the right to ban contraception, no state wants to! I mean the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do and asking me whether they can do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.”

With this came a roar of laughter from the audience. George wasn’t laughing. He continued to push. There were then several more back-and-forths between Romney and Stephanopoulos, making it blatantly obvious that there was an agenda behind the question. Romney finished by making the point that he believed those decisions should be left to individual states using the amendment process – leaving it in the hands of each state’s voters. He also voiced his support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. (Watch to see the full clip here: youtube.com/watch?v=jKWij_v4Twk). Not surprisingly, George Stephanopoulos was the communications director for Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1992 and was Senior Policy Advisor in the Clinton White House. His question set the narrative. This question was intentionally planted.

So let’s get down to the nitty-gritty of the false premise behind the “War on Women”. Firstly, contraception. With the Republican’s enthusiastic plans for a Romney presidency, the promise to repeal and replace Obamacare is on the agenda from day one. In the law itself, there is a regulation that requires all insurance plans to cover it. The narrative began to evolve with these plans, with women saying that by repealing Obamacare, they would no longer have access to birth control, which they feel should be fully paid for through tax-payer dollars. This contrived notion is beyond ludicrous. Nothing would change with the repeal of the law, as prescription insurance would still be available, as always, to cover the majority of those costs. However, the main point is this, making any other argument obsolete: women’s birth control is available for under $10 per month. As 30-year-old career student Sandra Fluke testified that costs could be $3000 over three years, three miles down the road from her was a Target selling birth control pills for $9 – without insurance. The Obamacare regulation even forces religious institutions to cover contraception, even if it’s against their faith. There are now dozens of lawsuits against the federal government by these organizations. Sounds much more like a War on Religion instead.

Next is the subject of abortion. Here is where there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans regarding belief systems. On the Democratic platform, they believe that abortion should be available in any form, at any time, no strings attached. Oh, and also be funded by tax-payer money. In Obamacare, there is a mandatory $1 abortion surcharge for every single policyholder. How many of you actually knew that? Most Republicans, on the other hand, believe abortion should be limited to the cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother. Both Democrats and Republicans individually differ on their own personal beliefs, but the parties themselves set basic guidelines. There is nothing new here. This has continued to be the platform and policy structure of the party for years. In 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion. I won’t go into the nauseating description of what that involves, but if you are unaware of what occurs during a partial birth abortion, I strongly urge you to look it up. The Democratic platform supports it. Could you?

The last point in the mythical “war” is fair pay for women. Again, this is where it feels like we are back in the suffrage era. President Obama passed the “Lilly Ledbetter Act” which pushes for equal pay. It was a lovely attempt to gain votes, but equal-pay laws have been on the books for decades. Facts are facts, and the real truth about equal pay for women is being suppressed by those who gain power through individual belief on falsities. First of all, the U.S. Labor Department says that the current cap between male and female workers is five cents on every dollar. But the truth lies in the differences between the life span of a man and a woman, which clearly removes any auspices of discrimination. In another Labor Department report, where a full-time job is defined as 35 hours per week and above, where 55% of the workers who work above that 35 hour minimum are men. The pay differentiation doesn’t take into account the hours above 35 that are worked. In other words, 10% more men work above this defined time than women, causing the overall differential in pay. Due to childbirth, men tend to work the lion’s share of the hours in the child-rearing age bracket, when women either choose to remain at home full-time or only work part-time. Another truth is that women without children in their 20s are making more on average than men. Combine these facts and you can see why today, even with those variables, there is very little daylight between the genders. Yes, there are specific incidences in companies where the owner chooses to pay workers a different pay based on gender, but it is pure incompetence to jump to conclusions without first looking at the background information in each case. (More info here: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296.html)

So we have President Obama running on a false narrative, bringing onboard famous female actresses to peddle the “war” to anyone who will listen. Obama may try and come off like a staunch supporter of women, but all it takes is a look at his own personal handlings of those working for him. At the White House, according to their 2011 annual report, female employees earned an average salary of $60,000 compared to $71,000 for males. Even during his 2008 campaign, he paid his female staff less than his male staff. Hypocrisy at its finest.

How have American women done overall during the Obama presidency? Since January 2009, 451,000 women have lost their jobs, bringing the current national total to over 5,000,000 unemployed women in the country, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Remember, this does not even include the number of women who have given up looking for work. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 25,700,000 women live in poverty, which is the highest it has ever been. Women on food stamps are also at an all-time high. The Obama Administration has not been good for women. This is why the female vote is now evenly split between President Obama and Mitt Romney this fall in all major polls. There are the 50% who see the reality of the last four years and see the “War on Women” as nothing more than extreme rhetoric. The other 50% have submersed themselves into this mantra and have become single-issue voters. Their votes will be based on the emotions evoked by the talk of returning to the early 1900s and keeping everything they deserve from them. We all know this is untrue.

Finally, let’s talk about a real War on Women.

• Malala Yousafzai, a fourteen-year-old Pakistani girl, was shot in the head at point-blank range on her way home from school last week after being sought-out by members of the Taliban. Her crime? Being a staunch advocate for the right of girls to get an education. She won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts and is currently recovering in a UK hospital.

• Mumtaz, a teenager from Afghanistan, was attacked with acid, permanently disfiguring her. Her crime? Turning down a marriage proposal. Four gunmen entered her family’s home, not only throwing acid on Mumtaz, but her sisters and mother as well. She now speaks out for women’s rights.

• In Egypt, a teacher forcefully cut the hair of two girls in class for not wearing a head veil.

• Also in Afghanistan, a 12-year old girl and 15-year-old boy were killed in an acid attack because they were friends of the opposite sex. Acid attacks are commonly used on girls as they walk to school in Middle Eastern nations opposed to women receiving an education.

These are real examples of what a War on Women really looks like. Does this look like America?

It’s time for the myth to die.

Posted in The Must Reads | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Broken Promises of Barack Obama

With exactly three weeks to go until Election Day, there is more than enough evidence to decide who should be elected President on November 6th. The last four years have been choc-full of controversy, decisions and rhetoric like this nation has never seen before. With the new addition of the Libya cover-up, the fact that the race remains as close as it has is a great mystery. However, one key factor regarding whether or not to re-elect an incumbent often comes down to this: what did they say they would do as President and did they accomplish it? Well…this list speaks for itself.

The Obama Promise
Close Guantanamo Bay

The Result
Guantanamo Bay is still open for business. In 2008, President Obama ran against the War on Terror and its techniques, shilling directly to his anti-war base. As president, he has sent in drones to kill suspected terrorists without question. He argued that he would end waterboarding, calling it inhumane, yet he now has a “kill list” and uses deadly force instead. He and Eric Holder sought to bring top-level terrorists, including the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, to New York City for civilian trials, receiving the same rights as American citizens. After massive public outcry spread across the nation, those plans were scrapped. Senator and candidate Obama did not understand the world of terrorism, and still does not (see Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Syria, etc), but when he put on his President pants, he realized all that he argued against is a necessary part of our national security.

The Obama Promise
Be The Most Transparent Administration In History

The Result
This administration has been the opposite of what was promised. Starting with the healthcare debate, President Obama said the Congressional hearings on the bill would be televised for all to see. That never happened. He promised that the bill would be available online at least five days before it was to be voted on. Again, that didn’t happen. Not even the Democrats voting on Obamacare knew what the bill contained, but passed it anyways. President Obama used executive privilege to prevent documents regarding the Fast & Furious gun-running program from being available for investigation. Now the events in Libya are being covered up, with facts being withheld from the public and blame laid upon an obvious lie. Not even the mother of Sean Smith, one of the American’s killed in the Libya attack, can get answers from the Administration (nationalreview.com/corner/330050/mother-american-killed-libya-wants-answers-katrina-trinko). The most transparent part of the Obama administration has been the lack of transparency.

The Obama Promise
Cut The Deficit In Half

The Result
Obama said President George W. Bush was unpatriotic for adding $4 trillion to the national debt over his eight-year presidency, which included September 11th and two wars. President Obama has added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt in less than four years – the most rapid increase in debt in U.S. history. Since President Obama’s plan for the next four years is the same as the first four years, it is easy to see that another $6 trillion-plus would be added during a second term.

The Obama Promise
Would Fix The Economy

The Result
Nearly half a million jobs have been lost since President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. Unemployment remained over 8% until last month (read the real truth about the unemployment numbers here: theruminatingconservative.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/the-real-unemployment-numbers/ ). Also take into account that over 20,000,000 workers are either underemployed or have given up looking altogether. Things have not improved. Over 46,000,000 Americans are now on food stamps – an all-time record – and up from 31,000,000 in 2008. Early on, President Obama said if the economy was not turned around during his first four years in office, it would be a “one-term proposition.”

The Obama Promise
Would Not Raise Taxes On The Middle Class

The Result
“I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” That was a promise from President Obama, directly affirming that no taxes would be raised on his watch. Well, guess what, another broken promise. On September 19, the Congressional Budget Office released a report showing that 6,000,000 people would be subjected to the Obamacare Tax. The majority of those 6,000,000 individuals are members of the middle class. One additional fact to remember about Obamacare is that 30,000,000 will still be left uninsured even after the law goes into full effect. Taxes on the middle class will continue to rise as Obamacare continues to be implemented piece by piece.

The Obama Promise
Obamacare Would Bring Down Insurance Premiums $2500

The Result
Insurance premiums have increased an average of $2500 per family – and Obamacare hasn’t even been fully implemented yet. Employers across the country are informing their employees of the rising costs they’ll be met with at the start of 2013. Not only will employees be paying more; so will the businesses that employ them. This will cause the loss of jobs, as businesses will not be able to afford the rapid increases of providing benefits. If they choose not to cut jobs, they will instead drop coverage for the employees, leaving it to the individuals to take on the cost of their own personal insurance and that of their families. As Obamacare is implemented over the coming years, the prices will continue to rise. This will cause the desired result: create additional dependency on the government.

The Obama Promise
Would Create 5,000,000 New Energy Jobs

The Result
Instead of creating energy jobs, President Obama decided to throw $535 million taxpayer dollars at failed energy company Solyndra, who went bankrupt, and with it, lost every last penny of our money. They are one of several known green-energy companies who have filed for bankruptcy after receiving tax-funded loans. Many of these companies were also run by major donors to the Obama campaign. GM put millions of tax-payer dollars into producing the electric-powered Chevy Volts, which cost more to build than they are able to sell them for. Obama sent millions of dollars to Brazil for their own oil exploration, but continues to ban oil drilling on all U.S. coastlines and refused the Keystone Pipeline. This has been an anti-energy administration, refusing to use our own natural resources at-hand and instead fund failed attempts at green energy. Gas prices have doubled since Obama took office and will continue to rise if we do not take advantage of the plethora of resources on our own soil.

Add to the list his promises to lift 2,000,000 Americans out of poverty and that the nearly one trillion-dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%.

Put all of them together and what do you get?

A one-term proposition.

Posted in The Must Reads | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Romney vs. Obama – Round Two

Tomorrow may single-handedly decide the White House.

After the romp that was the first Presidential debate, everyone wants to see whether there will be a repeat performance. One thing can be sure, President Obama cannot present himself the same way as he did in round one. One problem for him is that he cannot totally do a 180, because it will seem forced and desperate. The second issue is that the debate format has changed for round two. Tomorrow’s debate will be in the form of a town-hall meeting, meaning the candidates will be directly responding to questions from an audience of undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization. There will be less one-on-one time to intensely attack and speak directly to one another. That will not allow either candidate to gain the kind of momentum Mitt Romney did the first time around.

One possible advantage for Obama is the moderator. In early October, both the Romney and Obama camps agreed that the moderator should play a limited role in the debate. In the agreement, signed by lawyers of both campaigns, it reads “…the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic … The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.”

However, moderator Candy Crowley of CNN was not a party to that agreement and has made it clear that she would like to play a larger role than just facilitating the question and answer session. Last week, Crowley went so far as to say “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’” Following that comment, both campaigns contacted the Commission on Presidential Debates to press them to re-stress Crowley’s role directly to her and to ensure the agreed-upon guidelines of the debate are followed as-agreed. Whether or not that occurs is something to keep an eye on.

One additional reason for Mitt Romney to be concerned is that Candy Crowley herself deemed the Romney/Ryan pairing as “some sort of ticket death wish” on-air after Paul Ryan was selected as the Vice-Presidential candidate. Yet, they still chose her as a moderator for this debate. Not surprisingly, all four debates included moderators considered to be on the liberal side of the spectrum. During the first debate, Jim Lehrer stayed in the background and facilitated the conversation, recognizing he was not the main attraction and letting the candidates duke it out. He was scrutinized by the left as they searched for someone to blame for Obama’s self-implosion, but he nonetheless performed the role as defined. For the VP debate, Martha Raddatz began to show why choosing liberals to moderate a debate can cause partiality, as she interrupted Paul Ryan multiple times in mid-sentence and allowed Biden to run roughshod throughout, interrupting Ryan himself 85 times. As CNN reported, she seemed almost to be the “third debater.”

Surprisingly, even the most liberal of media outlets recognized that there was an obvious skew to the moderating during the Vice-Presidential debate. Combine that recognition with the Biden smirk-a-thon and any possible shift in momentum was immediately stunted. As you saw last week, the post-debate polls showed Paul Ryan as the winner. Playing it safe protected the Romney/Ryan lead and momentum. Both the Rasmussen and Gallup polls currently display a two-point lead for Mitt Romney, and the momentum clearly remains on his side.

So what should we ultimately expect from Romney vs. Obama, round two?

First, there is absolutely no way we’ll see the Barack Obama that showed up October 3rd. One more lackluster performance would be the final nail in the coffin. He also locked himself away at a Virginia resort over the weekend to prepare for this debate. He realizes the urgency tomorrow brings.

Next, Mitt Romney will be almost identical to round one. He is now the front-runner who also understands how essential his presentation will be. He needs to be seen as strong and consistent, which translates as being Presidential. If he can repeat his first appearance, nothing President Obama says or does will result in a win. At best, it will end in a tie, which still does not stop the surging momentum. Nothing illustrates this momentum better than the wide-reporting of rapidly-growing crowds at Romney/Ryan rallies around the country. When massive crowds flock to rallies, they’ll also flock to the polls. This fact cannot be ignored.

Lastly, keep an eye on the moderator. The warning signs are there for Candy Crowley. The moderator’s role for this debate has been defined. Will she follow that designation or will she attempt to facilitate an Obama win through bias and unfair questioning?

Tomorrow may be the quintessential moment of the campaign. Don’t miss it.

Posted in The Must Reads | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Event of the Week – The Biden Smile Seen ‘Round The World

Creepy, distracting, rude, unprofessional. Just a handful of the terms thrown out to describe Vice President Joe Biden and his unrelenting smirks and laughter during last night’s VP debate. Let’s not even mention the “crazy, drunk uncle” comparison (oops, I guess I just did). Looking back at the 90-minutes of barbed back-and-forths, it’s actually quite difficult to recall most of what was said. The split screen was absolutely distracting. Twitter blew up with comments from pundits and reporters on both sides of the aisle based solely on Biden’s mannerisms and actions, not the words he spoke. Here’s a selection:

Biden laughing while Martha talks about Iran getting the bomb is just weird.
-Kirsten Powers of The Daily Beast

If Biden’s strategy was to come off like a complete jerk, he’s succeeding brilliantly.
-Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner

Joe, seriously, STOP SMIRKING. This is serious stuff. Be Vice-Presidential.
-Piers Morgan of CNN

Will Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?
-Guy Benson of Townhall.com

I’d genuinely like to know how many dreams/nightmares across the country last night included that florescent grin. Now that’s a poll that should be taken immediately.

So, what does all the attention on actions-over-words mean?
A) The substance of the debate was nothing Earth-shattering.
B) Paul Ryan played it safe and made no glaring mistakes in his first-ever national debate.

Here’s where the smirking and laughing ultimately matters. It was essential for Vice President Biden to come in and put a tourniquet on the open wound, which began gushing immediately during last week’s first presidential debate. The narrative over the last week has been the historic debate performance turned in by Mitt Romney over President Obama and, even more so, the bumbling and apathetic presentation by the President himself. This was an opportunity to change, or at least slightly alter, that narrative. Guess what the narrative now becomes between last night and next week’s second Presidential debate? Joe Biden’s actions on stage. Not what he said. Not what Paul Ryan said or did. The focus is solely on JB’s antics. This ends in another loss for the Democratic ticket.

Taking a look at the two major post-debate polls, it was instantly obvious these observations had universally provoked negative numbers for the incumbent. The overall viewership numbers have not yet been released, but it’s easy to surmise millions upon millions were not oblivious to what they saw before their very eyes. Here are the polls:

CNBC Poll:
Ryan 56%
Biden 36%

CNN Poll:
Ryan 48%
Biden 44%

In the CNN poll, respondents also said that Paul Ryan better communicated his arguments 50% compared to 41% for Joe Biden. Asked who was more likable, Ryan again won 53% to 43%. 60% also viewed Ryan as qualified to be president over 57% for Biden.

One last point that deserves attention is the actions of the moderator, Martha Raddatz. If you hadn’t heard over the last couple days, a news story made the rounds that Barack Obama had attended Raddatz’s wedding in the 90’s, as he had been classmates with her then-husband (who, not surprisingly, was appointed head of the FCC by President Obama). Regardless of these ties, what was noticeable was the difference between Raddatz and last week’s moderator, Jim Lahrer. At times, instead of moderating, she almost joined in as a third-debater (which even CNN pointed out – www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/debate-raddatz/index.html?hpt=hp_t2), often prodding Paul Ryan on his answers and cutting off his responses much more than she did VP Biden. This is not based on bias, as it was mentioned by many post-debate commentators across the plethora of networks. Overall, this becomes a side-note to the story as a whole.

The whole story became Vice President Joe Biden and his not-so-Vice-Presidential antics.

And for another week, that narrative will continue to bury the donkey nation-wide.

Posted in Event of the Week | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Gaffes That Keep On Giving – An Ode to Joe Biden

In anticipation of tonight’s Vice Presidential debate, what better way to prepare than to take a look back at some of VP Joe Biden’s most famous quotes. It’s noteworthy to point out that President Obama described Biden at the Democratic National Convention as the best running mate he could have asked for. Whether he really meant that or not is up for debate. What can’t be questioned is that “Grandpa Joe” has more often than not hurt the cause rather than helped, yet he’s still on the ballot in 2012. So today, sit back, relax your brain, and let the laughter out.

Vice President Biden tells Chuck Graham to stand up. Problem is, Chuck is in a wheelchair…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4

“I’m told Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up Chuck, let ‘em see you. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about? I’ll tell you what, you’re making everybody else stand up, though, pal!”

During a campaign speech last week, Biden spoke out about the middle class being buried for the last four years. Uh, Joe, you do realize that you and President Obama have been in charge during that time, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlvqqNG4hr8

“This is deadly earnest, how they can justify – how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that’s been buried the last four years. How in the lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts?”

Leading up to the 2008 election, he made sure everyone knew he wasn’t the best choice for the job…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVy2yh28eig

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be Vice President of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight…She’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.”

When meeting with the Prime Minister of Ireland, Biden had a little family mix-up…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaQeGFYysA

“His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And although she’s… wait…your mom’s still…your mom’s still alive. Your dad passed. God BLESS her soul.”

Remember, we’re the racists, not them…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbooeNKKI8A

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Doughnuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…I’m not joking!”

Speaking of racism, Joe turned up the extreme rhetoric in front of a mostly minority crowd…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Q1I6PIIuY

“Romney wants to…he said in the first hundred days he’s gunna let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain…Wall Street. They’re gunna put ya’ll back in chains.”

Looks like a history lesson is in order: 1) FDR wasn’t president when the stock market crashed and 2) televisions were not widely used…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP-5X_1N3dw

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

1-2-3-4…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU

“Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.”

Speaking of Barack Obama before being chosen as his running mate, JB gave a brow-raising description of his boss-to-be…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a story book, man.”

And who could forget, during the Obamacare signing ceremony, the Veep got a little too excited…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_x2-Eh5oNA

“This is a big $&#^@%* deal!”

Although we may enjoy another four years of ridiculous quotes and gaffes from Joe Biden, it would probably be better if we just never have to hear from him again. But, for now, let’s hope we can add some more to the list after tonight’s debate.

Posted in The Must Reads | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Libyan Cover-Up: Lies Exposed

The foreign policy disaster the Obama Administration wishes would just disappear continues to grow larger as more facts surface. From the get-go, it was obvious the event had many question marks surrounding it and that, with actual investigation, much would become clearer over time. As we discussed in the previous post on the Libyan Embassy attack and the murder of our Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, the acts were blamed on the barely-viewed YouTube video and a random protest-turned-violent outside of the embassy. President Obama himself, even after others in his administration halted the charade, refused to call it a terrorist attack and, even in front of the U.N. General Assembly weeks later, continued to blame the video itself. Time has passed, and the facts continue to pour in. The cover-up is now under investigation.

Starting today, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will begin scrutinizing the facts and interviewing multiple people with knowledge of the attack. The key components to the investigation will be to see what failures occurred prior to the attack that allowed it to occur and, subsequently, what was done to suppress the real truth from coming out. As if the event itself weren’t already horrific enough, the fact that our government was so ill-prepared and willing to pull the wool over our eyes make Watergate look like a tea party.

In a matter of one month, the attack went from being described as a protest to not being a protest at all – both accounts coming from the State Department and high-ranking Administration officials. The new report is this: on the evening of the attack, the streets of Benghazi, Libya were quiet. There were no protesters and Ambassador Stevens and his staff were winding down for the day. In the dead of night, terrorists attacked the compound, setting it ablaze and opening fire as the escape attempt began. This was one of many lies. It was known all along that no YouTube video caused this attack. No protests were ongoing, yet the highest officials in the government refused to admit the truth. One month later, the lie has finally been admitted.

Failure and incompetence reigned in the lead-up to September 11, 2012. One of the individuals who will be questioned at today’s congressional hearing is Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who has stated that he asked the State Department to allow him and his Security Support Team to remain in Libya because of information they had regarding a build-up of outside fighters entering Libya from Egypt and headed for Benghazi. This was on top of the fact that there were repeated attacks and security threats to U.S. personnel in the region over an extended period of time. The individual receiving the request, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb, refused, saying that the compound in Libya provided enough of a safe-haven in case of an attack, particularly the safe room, which was supposedly impenetrable. This ended up being the room Ambassador Stevens was trapped in and where he eventually succumbed to smoke inhalation as fumes from burning diesel fuel inside the compound filled the safe room.

Ambassador Stevens himself let it be known that he feared for his life. In his journal, found after the attack, he wrote that he felt he was on al-Qaeda’s hit list. One of the other Americans killed texted that very evening that he may not live through the night. All those on the front lines knew they were in danger and made it very clear to the State Department that the Embassy needed additional security, yet were rejected numerous times. Another individual who will testify in the hearing today, Ex-State Department security officer Eric Nordstrom, also contacted the State Department on multiple occasions in March and July requesting additional security months before the attack. He received no response. He also reported to them that he feared the Libyans who were jointly assisting with security would not defend the U.S. interests if they were attacked because the State Department had failed to pay them for months. Not paid?! Combine the fact that there was little to no U.S. provided security AND a begrudged Libyan security group, it ultimately spelled disaster. Heads should roll, but a month later, no one has been held accountable.

Barack Obama went to bed. Remember this fact when you go to the polls November 6. It has been widely reported that President Obama was made aware of the attacks within 90 minutes of their start and also knew that they could not locate Ambassador Stevens or verify whether he was still alive. Knowing this information, Barack Obama went to bed. Chilling? Maddening? Despicable? You choose the term, but regardless of what you would call his actions, one thing is for certain: this dereliction of duty is reason enough to permanently end his presidency.

Surprisingly, the media has begun to investigate more deeply and provide previously unreported information to the public. Why? Because they now realize the extent of the lies that have been told to them. More facts will continue to come forward. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be forced to confront a cover-up that may ultimately end her career in public office. There is no longer a place to hide. The facts are damning, and America deserves to know what happened. Our leaders are extensions of the people, and the lies we have been continually told for four years are finally being observed. In four weeks, we’ll find out how badly America wants a return to the truth.

Posted in The Must Reads | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment