Bomb somebody, anybody, we have to save face!

On January 10, 2007, President Bush made a speech to the nation, not unlike the format of Obama's tuesday speech. As commander in chief he declared the nature of his plan for the "Surge" and predicted that it would end the Iraq war on our terms and lead to our bringing the soldiers home. The response from the media and from Democrats, including Senator Obama, was shock, outrage and vituperation. Senator Obama, who had already begun working with his braintrust on his Presidential campaign strategy, wanted to be at the forefront of hobbling the commander in chief's war plans. He authored a bill that would take away Bush's war powers for escalating our presence in the region and would set in law the withdrawl of our military presence in the region.

On January 30, 2007, Senator Barack Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007:

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said, alluding to Michael Scott Doran's essay "Somebody Else's Civil War" published in the Foreign Affairs journal in 2002. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

Polls at the time showed the nation split almost evenly on whether Bush's Surge would result in victory. A few percentage points, within the margin of error, opposed the President's plan. Our founders were very clear on War Powers. Although majority rules predominate in a democracy, in our Republic the Executive is entrusted with broad powers so the whims of the majority would not create unstable or fluctuating commitments when troops are in the field. It was also meant to protect the commander in chief from having the political opposition attempt to use military strategy as a bludgeon to gain power at the expense of our fighting men or national interest. A key difference here is in Iraq, soldiers were at that moment in harm's way and could be fighting under increased peril if needless division hampered our ability to confront the enemy and break their will. In Syria we have yet to attack.

In this case, Bush ignored Obama's predictions that the Surge would result in a worsening of the Iraq war and a further destabilization in the region. Within a year combat deaths had dropped to the lowest monthly rate since the first year of the conflict. The war was essentially over and even military experts were shocked at how successful Bush's victory was and how devastatingly wrong Obama and his party had been. One of Obama's solutions in his bill was to attempt to,

"...create more regional diplomacy with key nations in the region to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict."

And who in particular did he want to act as a stabilizer in the region? Iran and Syria

Obama is now suddenly trumpeting his war powers and claims he doesn't need "Advise and consent" on foreign policy, doesn't need support from the UN, NATO or even the support of public opinion which recently was as low as single digits for his plans. I will not characterize his self important declarations of his abilities as megalomaniacal, but it is hard to find a President who claimed so much omnipotence on military powers, but had so little support from so few. The main reason is the utterly incomprehensible message he is offering and the absence of trust in his motives and abilities.

Let's consider his parties previous memes about conservative presidents and his own actions. In his Tuesday night speech he even presented an almost cartoonish characterization of the two parties in an attempt to shame critics in to falling in to submission to his superior intellect. The "Uniter in chief" said,

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

This is the man who in 2007 admitted he would tolerate genocide in Iraq if his plan for pullout resulted in a bloodbath. In his speech he tells of how Assad killed 100,000 people (As Obama stood silently) with conventional weapons and then allegedly killed a 1000 with Sarin gas. His so called Russian solution is if he surrenders the ability to kill another 1000 with Sarin, he can stay in power and merrily go on his way killing another 100,000. Yes, Mr. President What kind of a world, indeed?

The reason Ronald Reagan was so good about delivering a speech on American values and moral imperatives is because he had a deeply thought out and clear understanding of his inner moral compass and a heartfelt vision for the moral crusade of our nation. It was not his presentation that made his vision sound coherent, it was the clarity and coherence that made it an effective presentation. The needle on Obama's inner compass points not at the north star, but at Barack Obama.

The Left has for years characterized conservative presidents as:

1. Making reckless, blustering macho slogans and threats of war to toss "Red Meat" to voters in order to bolster a war like image amongst slow witted yokels in an effort to win elections.

Obama made the ill advised "Red Line" boast on WMDs against Assad in the midst of an election year. John McCain and other prominent Senators had been encouraging Obama to do something about the ongoing civil war in Syria and Obama's remarks were considered by some as a way to declare why he had not become involved, but express with certainty that there were circumstances, i.e. WMD for which "Enormous consequences" would be inflicted on Assad. In August of 2012, when he mentioned the Red Line on WMD, he also stated "Assad must go". Now he seems to be OK with Assad staying in power and "Enormous Consequences" have become "Unbelievably small" consequences.

2. Having made blustering threats to smaller weaker nations, the conservative feels he has to follow through on threats in order to save face. Protecting Americans has nothing to do with it.

If Obama thinks that his cruise missiles will save face in the international community, how do these two failed promises fit in to that calculus. Clearly this is to save face domestically. Like the President, the Left in the media are not aware of how stupid they sound as they attempt to parrot what they imagine is the parody of conservative peace through strength.

The New York Times said,

"The goal of the cruise missile strikes the United States is planning to carry out in Syria is to restore the smudged “red line” that President Obama drew a year ago against the use of poison gas. If carried out effectively, the strikes may also send a signal to Iran that the White House is prepared to back up its words, no small consideration for an administration that has proclaimed that the use of military force remains an option if the leadership in Iran insists on fielding a nuclear weapon. "

In essence, Obama screwed up by having said this in the first place, so regardless of the merits, he must follow through or he personally will look foolish. Then there was the 45 minute walk in the garden where he decided to take it to congress after he was humiliated by the British. Many conservatives wanted to compliment the President for showing constitutional respect for the balance of powers. To them this move was so uncharacteristic of his combative disdain for bipartisan communication and inclusion. Then within hours the truth came out. The President's aides and his friends in the media began saying how this was a politically savvy move intended to outmaneuver conservatives. "Be careful what you ask for GOP". "This is a case of the dog catching the car". "Obama is going to force them to put up or shut up on Syria and make them accountable for their words". I'm picturing two soldiers on a war ship in the Mediterranean waiting for the go ahead to put their lives in danger on Obama's say so,... and one asks the other, "Why are we risking our lives today" and the other one says, "no real national security reason,... the President was trying to screw his political opponents, he missed, and we need to blow some people up so he can save face".


3. The war loving conservative doesn't care about the young Americans who must sacrifice and risk their lives in order to make the conservative President feel big.

By the first autumn of Bush's second term, 2000 lives had been lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is now autumn in Obama's second term and 2000 lives have been lost under his watch. Where are the photos of returning coffins at Dover that he once thought was so important. Where is the nightly drumbeat and body count that opened each nightly news cast. Ted Koppel's 2004 controversial Nightline episode (in an election year) where they read all the lives lost up to that date included 750 names.


4. The War loving conservative tries to inflame passions about war as a way to distract from failed domestic policies and reward corporate friends.

Obamcare is in flames. Immigration is possible, but not in a way that can make the Republicans look foolish and the President look good, so also on the rocks. Any other initiatives on the schedule this year? Umm...Nope! Are we at that point in the second term where the media starts naval gazing about the "Search for a legacy". And corporate friends? No administration in modern history is more embroiled in crony capitalism than Obama's. A decade ago, the most mainstream media personalities repeated the blood for oil meme and how Bush was waging war to make his oil buddies rich. Either Mr. Bush is very generous towards an invisible group of friends and not so interested in living on a palatial estate or he botched this get rich quick scheme. He lives in a fairly modest (by Hollywood and Manhattan standards) suburban neighborhood in Dallas. His home price has risen to approximately $1 Million dollars since he moved in to the cul de sac, which would be considered a fixer upper in most of LA. Obama on the other hand makes more in one year ($6 Million) than the average annual 1040s of all the Presidents elected in his lifetime...combined!

5. The War loving conservative President claims he is deterring violence by threatening and use of force against smaller nations, when in fact American aggression is the cause of terror attacks on the US

Obama said this on March 8, 2008 about George Bush and his predecessors:

In the context of a blistering critique of U.S. policy in Iraq, Obama said: “It’s the same course that continues to divide and isolate America from the world by substituting bluster and bullying for direct diplomacy.”

He repeated on several occasions the Democrat meme that the reason the world hates us is because of our (Republican) tendency to recklessly use force when diplomacy would convince others to do as we say. This was always a strange argument that implies most nations we come in to contact with were either perpetually acting in some way other than their national interest at our behest or if Obama had his way, by the use of his charm, they will forgo that national interest "willingly" and do what Obama tells them to do. Either way, the implication is that Obama wants other nations to change and thinks his carrot is better than the conservative stick. Either way, the point remains, nations act in their national interest and we do too, as we should. In this particular case, Obama is the one having a difficult time verbalizing his concept of national interest. This usually means he is making it up as he goes and imagining that we are so stupid or the media loves him so much that if he just dresses it up enough, people will have to buy it. If they don't he will demonize them, which in the midst of the speech he was already doing. Strangely enough both Assad and Obama suffer from the same problem,... a confusion between what is national interest and what is good for the supreme leader.

Obama's speech was a muddled mass of hyperbolic contradictions. First, Obama claimed that he wants to bomb Assad. And anyone that opposes bombing Syria or wants to postpone it is immoral. Then he switched gears. He claimed he is so smart he has found a way to avoid bombing Syria. He implies that it is too difficult to explain the details of his diplomatic plan and you'll just have to trust him that his postponing of the bombing is the right path. He'll get back to us. This is plan is on a need to know basis. Like Benghazi.

Both Obama and Kerry keep claiming smaller and smaller amounts of force are going to be used, until they are "unimaginably small". I don't know. I can imagine a pretty small use of force and I've got a pretty good imagination.

And he wonders why America is having a difficult time swallowing this. If you like your present Aircraft carrier, you can keep it and your rates will not go up. Just join me and I'll respect you in the morning. I rarely hear "The Arab street" say "America should be forgiven for bullying that middle east country because they used a two day pinprick. I didn't feel a thing". Oh, I forgot the US military does not do pinpricks. No, they're Bullies according to Sen. Barack Obama and they "strafe innocent Women and children" according to Sen. Kerry. They keep telling us no one will be pissed off, but Assad will become the friendly latte drinking thug that Pelosi and Kerry once enjoyed dining with only a couple of years ago.

Everyone keeps telling us what they think the lessons of Iraq are. One lesson is that assuming that brandishing a weapon like Cagney and Lacy will cause even the craziest madmen of the world to drop everything and submit to our every desire is definitely a farcical Primetime assumption made by non-military individuals or Presidents who think they can bluff Putin or Assad the way they bluff Boehner and Cantor. Saddam flipped double middle fingers at the US as bombs fell all around him and when the bombs stopped, he was the hero of every nutjob in the Middle East. Clinton bombed Saddam in 1998 for 4 days to "degrade but not eliminate" his WMDs and his ability to remain in power. Did that scare Saddam?

6. The war loving conservative President doesn't really care who he's bombing as long as he is bombing someone.

In recent weeks, several "un-named" Democrats have asked, "Does Obama really know who he is siding with". In Egypt he compared the Brotherhood to Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., then they began murdering Christians and taking on dictatorial powers. Members of their coalition representing the Blind Sheik's group Gamal Islamiya, the same group that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and are now members of Al Qaeda, arrived at the White House for a diplomatic discussion on how they could trade for the release of the Blind Sheik, Abdul Rahman. Regardless of how well that went for them, the very fact that they imagine our President is open to the idea is scary. Then the Brotherhood was toppled. Then Libya was the Arab Spring star of the moment. Kaddafi who gave up WMD after Bush convinced him to do so "through diplomacy" gets his show of weakness rewarded by getting sodomized with a rifle on youtube by Obama's chosen allies. If that's Obama's carrot, I'd hate to see his stick. Now Syria. And the very thought that Iran is doing anything but laugh at all this is ludicrous. How in gods name will Iran be scared or deterred by an "unimaginably small" strike after Obama promised Assad would be out of power and suffer "Enormous consequences". When Obama taunts conservatives to "reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just", he is making the same type of remark Madeliene Albright made to Colin Powell when she said "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it? " It assumes Cowboys are just waiting to pull out there six shooters and blow holes in the ceiling shouting "Yee-Haw" and that they can be counted on to support ANY military venture no matter how misguided or suicidal.

7. Bush the Cowboy should have focused on Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora, but he took his eye off the ball and I would have supported this war in Afghanistan whole heartedly because of the idea of self defense, assuming Bush wasn't behind 911, but it has been run so poorly, we missed our opportunity in the beginning to get it right and even we liberals can't fix it now, so we should just quit and come home because we've made our point kind of I guess, whatever.

There are many Democrats that claimed they supported war against Iraq and Afghanistan, but it wasn't carried out in the perfect manner that a good President would have and since the time has past to do it right, we have no choice but to walk away, regardless of who suffers because of it. How does that not apply here in Syria?

The ideal time to attack Syria would have been about a decade ago or attack Iran for that matter. Had we known Assad would start using WMDs then, we should have had Nancy Pelosi bring her Burqa home and start with tanks on the Iraqi border. The massive anti-war movement, Truthers and small time state senators from Illinois trying to exploit the war for their own personal benefit obviously hampered George Bush's war powers and his ability to conduct foreign policy. If dealing with Syria then was not right then how about 2011 when the civil war started. McCain asked Obama to act, just as McCain asked him to act in Iran in 2009, but nothing. This was before Al Qaeda had answered the call from the rebels to help them, only after Obama turned his back on them. The next time to act was in an election year, 2012, when in August Obama laid down the red line. It was not until just days after Obama won re-election that Obama began to address reports that evidence of chemical weapons being active had been verified in the months prior to election day. Then Obama starts his second term with hope of new programs and domestic legislation, but his inability to even speak to the opposition frustrates his plans. And as more evidence of chemical use begins to make him look weak, he tells the boys in the situation room to get fired up.

The scariest thing about this whole fiasco is, he really doesn't know what he's doing and it shows. He honestly believes conservatives want their commander in chief to look stupid to the rest of the world. Right, nothing makes us happier than placing a giant "Kick me" sign around the neck of the greatest nation and the shining city on the hill. I think that must be Obama's projection.

In February, the New York Times reported that Secretary Clinton and former CIA Director David Petraeus had crafted a plan in the summer of 2012 to provide vetted rebel groups with lethal arms and training, but after a year of McCain, Graham and Lieberman hounding the President to act on Syria and in the midst of his re-election bid, Obama rejected the proposal. Defense Secretary Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey then told a congressional panel that they agreed with the plan proposed by Clinton and Petraeus to provide arms to rebel groups.

John McCain was astonished after having prompted the response from the SecDef and the nation's highest ranking Military officer:

"What this means is that the president overruled the senior leaders of his own national security team, who were in unanimous agreement that America needs to take greater action to change the military balance of power in Syria,"

So Obama was on television on tuesday wagging his finger at the world as if only he has a heart and only he has the brains to understand the issues. So where was Obama a year ago?

Senate Republicans lead by McCain and Graham have pushed for Syria for two years. Defense minded Democrats like Lieberman, Menendez and Levin as well. Actually Lieberman was savagely ejected out of the Democrat Party by Obama and his buddies because he rightly believed the Surge would work. In May of 2012, his opponent Mitt Romney drew a clear difference between the two candidates by supporting action against Syria. Many of our allies supported action over a year ago, but Obama failed to use diplomatic persuasion to influence Russia and China who vetoed a Syria plan. This was about the time of his remark to Medvedyev that after he is re-elected he will be free to do what he wants. At the time that was interpreted to mean, I am forced to appear sensitive to the considerations of the majority in America for now, but after being re-elected, I can do whatever I want. Apparently not. Saving face is becoming a full time job for Obama.

Obama seems to imagine that showing up fashionably late to a party is only for VIPs like him, but when you show up and the party has moved on, its a lonely place. And screaming in to the dark won't make them come back. At least Bill Clinton apologized for standing by as Rwandans died. Don't hold your breath for Obama to apologize for the 100,000 Syrian dead, especially when his plan to jump ship and join the Russian's plan for Syria is to ensure Assad stays in power and kills more Syrians with conventional weapons. So much for a moral compass. The Presidential Limo should have a bumper sticker. "Don't follow me, I'm lost too."

Jesse and Obama, This is the best you got?

In recent days I have heard Jesse, Al and the other race hustlers compare Zimmerman to the murderers of Emmett Till and Florida as Apartheid, just to name a couple unbelievable comparisons. Tavis says America doesn't care about the life of a young black man. My question to these professional rabble rousers who claim we live under the worst oppression in the world and it is comparable to its worst era....

Question: Is this the best ya got? Is this case your best example to prove your point.

A decent man whose racial makeup is more black than Homer Plessy suffers a life threatening attack and defends himself resulting in the unfortunate death of a black man, his attacker. And this is the worst racial oppression on earth? If anything this proves the opposite. If the race peddlers, who constantly beg for an honest and open debate about race are so desperate for examples of the worst racial conditions in history, that they would settle for the Zimmerman case as the first high profile Black oppression case since OJ and Rodney King, two decades ago, then the age of Obama must be an era where Blacks have never been treated better by Whites anywhere on earth, ever.

Today our President, that is, the President of all Americans, of all races said this:

When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said, This could've been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could've been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community, at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away.

That is a pretty fair characterization of "Hate" .. Racial Hate. A person ( Black Person) that witnesses or experiences something negative regarding another person of a particular race. They then make a generalization about that race and apply it to other if not all people in that race and although they might claim they wish that entire race were different, no matter what occurs in the future or how much time passes, the original animous remains, forever. That is Racial Hate.

I once heard someone describe anger as unresolved pain, hate as unresolvable pain and fear as the anticipation of pain or hurt. We would like to believe Obama's promise of 2008 that a vote for him was a transformational sacrament. We now learn from his very mouth that you will always be guilty as long as your skin is not the same color as his.


I've noticed even many legal pundits that consider the case against Zimmerman ridiculous are bending over backwards to at least consider the possibility that some of the accusations against Zimmerman might be true. I'd like to look at some of the key points that they posit and why I think they are weak.

Some, including the juror on CNN, have said Zimmerman was too overzealous or a wannabe cop. To bolster the latter point, they imply he has a macho complex or small man's complex that explains why he would carry a gun or stick his nose in others business. Unless you consider all neighborhood watch programs bogus for starters, I think this is a way for non gun owning narcissists to explain away the personality of a person who clearly cared about others, who regularly volunteered for others including black children and far from idolizing police, he challenged the Police Department over a forgotten black homeless man that he claimed was mistreated by officers. Where was Jesse then when there were no cameras around? It was in his nature to get involved and care for others and when his wife witnessed another woman victimized by criminals in their complex, he offered help and chose to join a neighborhood watch which was recommended by local Police and by most American Police departments. Get involved. Well, he did. Now the Yuppies who are too self absorbed to get involved take pot shots at Wannabe cops.

To the former point on over zealousness. Although this is supposed to buttress the wannabe cop who is just itching to murder someone like Dirty Harry, I don't see that either. The most oft cited example was the debate over "following". Two things to consider. The "four minutes" in Mark O'Meara's closing and the remark the juror made on CNN about the mixed message the operator gave Zimmerman.

The four minutes was the time from which Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin ran from the curve on the driveway, then around the first apartment and off down the long breezeway, out of sight of Zimmerman until the first 911 call about two people fighting. It would take just seconds to run from the street 10 or 15 yards then to the right around the corner and out of zimmerman's sight. Had He hopped out at that moment, and pursued Martin, that would have been dangerous and overzealous. Yet he waited. The dispatcher first said, don't follow him,...but then asked is he still in sight?

The defense argued persuasively that Zimmerman had no intention of pursuing, following and confronting Trayvon. The dispatcher implied it would be helpful if Zimmerman had a vantage point to view Trayvon until the Police arrived. After several minutes, Zimmerman stepped out of his car, walked across the 10 or 15 yards of sidewalk to the place where the two walkways met so he could look down the long breezeway and see if he could spot the individual who we might all assume was four minutes away. Instead, Martin was just around that corner and that's when he approached Zimmerman, verbally threatened his life, and then attacked him. He either lied in wait until he heard the car door and foot steps or doubled back after having spotted Zimmerman exit the vehicle.

The other lingering characterization is the Giant white monster attacking the small innocent child. Trayvon has been listed at different proportions as has Zimmerman, but his own family listed him at 6'3". When you see the 7-11 surveillance video as he buys his Tea, he towers over the Hispanic man behind the register. Dwayne Wade of the Miami Heat is variously listed as 6'3". Zimmerman has been listed as 5'6" or 5'7" and at first as an incredible hulk of 260 pounds, which would make him about the size of actor Jack Black, but even heavier to the point of being clinically obese. In actuality he weighed about the same as Trayvon. The media's attempt to make him the child abusing giant seemed to backfire here.

I remember when I was in High School, there was a Senior from a cross town school that we knew as a tough guy that on a Saturday night with a few beers might pick a fight with someone. One summer night he had a road rage episode with a man nearly twice his age. The middle aged man driving his daughters home appeared to be a domestic and docile suburbanite. The two 17 year olds yelled at him chased him and eventually forced him off the road. When the older man got out with his hands raised, asking them to leave him alone, the 17 year old approached him threw a swing and the older man ducked and the punch missed, the second punch grazed the older man's shoulder. The older man then threw a single punch to the face that by some freak of nature killed the 17 year old instantly. Witnesses rushed over and attended to the situation and called the police. As the story passed around town, the general consensus was one, how tragic, two how random, and three, it served as a reminder to the other teenagers I knew,... Don't forget that picking a fight with someone, anyone, can end bad and sometimes be the final tragic mistake in a young life. Who could blame the middle aged father? I had sympathy for this family man that he was forced to carry this burden from that point on.

I feel sorry for Mr. Zimmerman that he was forced to carry this burden.

So in this case of George Zimmerman, you have an older, out of shape man with no intention of confronting this individual, who comes round the corner in the dark and is then faced with a rapidly approaching man the size of a large professional athlete, with the physical abilities of an athlete and although the battle to bring forth the evidence over a prosecution leaning Judge, he was proud of the many fights he had been in and won against other younger stronger opponents. In this case, Trayvon clearly believed this creepy ass cracker would not only fail to put up much of fight, he believed he could wail on him, crush his skull or worse as the whim of the moment struck him. Zimmerman didn't want to die though.

Zimmerman was asked in an interview if he would have acted any different had Trayvon not been black. It should be noted, Zimmerman's response to the dispatcher seemed uncertain, "He looks...um...black" in an uncertain voice. Had he been a vicious bigot, would he not have said triumphantly, "Oh Yeah, He is definitely a black man, we got one here!" But he didn't. But the question is ridiculous if you believe Zimmerman feared for his life as his skull repeatedly struck the cement and he let out those blood curdling screams for help. If you believe you are about to take leave of this world at the hands of an attacker, do you even for a split second ask yourself if that person is of one race or another, that you will just submit to your fate as a dead man.

I am not propping up George Zimmerman as man of the year, but his profile comes across as not only a thoroughly decent and giving man, but a man who volunteers to help people of all races, especially black people. He does not fit Eric Holder's desired profile no matter how hard Holder searched for just one witness who could say, "No, when he left the charity that helps black youths and went home, he tried to scrub himself white and donned a Klan hoodie and stood in his kitchen alone shining his illegal firearms".

So this little mixed race samaritan is Bull Conner? Can't these race hustlers do better than this. Jesse, Al Sharpton, Farakhan... all millionaires, driving fancy cars, with beautiful mistresses in the passenger seat on their way home to their mansions and very little time to behave like the members of the clergy they claim to be,... and yet their job is what? An endless search for the next Bull Connor to perpetuate the myth that a young black man's greatest challenge is to avoid the army of white attackers that want to kill them.

As Pat Buchannen pointed out today, the number of White on Black attacks is so small, it is statistically almost zero, when you consider the opposite is 40 times more likely.

When Holder delivered his 2009 “nation-of-cowards” speech blaming racism for racial separation, Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald suggested that our attorney general study his crime statistics.

In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms Mac Donald’s facts. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics.

And these may involve the kind of pat-downs all of us have had at the airport.

Is stop-and-frisk the work of racist cops in New York, where the crime rate has been driven down to levels unseen in decades? ....

...What about interracial crime, white-on-black attacks and the reverse?

After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”

Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?

And if the FBI stats for 2007 represent an average year since the Tawana Brawley rape-hoax of 1987, over one-third of a million white women have been sexually assaulted by black males since 1987 — with no visible protest from the civil rights leadership.

Today, 73 percent of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Growing up, these kids drop out, use drugs, are unemployed, commit crimes and are incarcerated at many times the rate of Asians and whites — or Hispanics, who are taking the jobs that used to go to young black Americans.

Are white vigilantes or white cops really Black America’s problem?

Obama seems not to think so. The Rev. Sharpton notwithstanding, he is touting Ray Kelly as a possible chief of homeland security.

The vitriol and venom coming from Holder and the race hustlers is for one reason only,... they realize they made this case their biggest showcase in two decades and it flopped. In fact, it appears to prove the opposite and that is that White hate against blacks is probably the least biggest problem in their lives. Blaming their problems on George Bush would be a likely second choice, but the cat is out of the bag now. The age of Obama is possibly the worst thing to happen to Black race hustlers. Just as Watergate and the end of the Vietnam war forced many hippies to trade in their love beads for neck ties, Jesse and Al are looking increasingly out of place,... but unlike the hippies, this national farce of feigned Apartheid is not going away,... it just looks even stupider, if that is possible.

Remember, JFK said his Catholic faith would have no effect on his job and as Mitt Romney quoted him, He expected to act as President of all America.

Obama's claim that the American history of black mistreatment in the distant past, which by the way does not apply to a Kenyan professor or Holder's parents from Barbados, never goes away, means any claims that "a new dialogue" on race will make things better, or if whites stop being racial "cowards" that we will progress to a better America for all is not something he believes in. So next time you hear Obama or Jesse complaining about how we can't progress in America on Race, our President just told us there is nothing Whites can do to make things better for ALL Americans, but they can make things better for him and youths that look like they could be his son.

And that's what it all comes down to. Are the marches being organized this weekend about a universal theme of justice for all,... or is it a farcical tribal manipulation to keep a few "Reverends", Suburban "Gangsta" Rappers and "Community Organizers" at the top of the Political Bling Bling food chain while the people they claim to represent are dying in the streets of Chicago and Detroit.

What is the biggest threat to a young black man in the most prosperous nation on earth? That should be the question at today's rallies. Clue..look for the bullhorns.

Broke down, Lonely road, Blizzard, No Phone, NO Gun and Dorner is at your door

Last Thursday night, February 7, I saw an interesting news story that could have been an NRA ad if the KCBS local reporter had recognized the irony. The reporter was in Big Bear, CA, reporting on the first day of the Chris Dorner manhunt. I’ve been to Big Bear many times since I was a kid. It is an eclectic collection of mostly unoccupied vacation homes peopled by those that enjoy the country life as opposed to the city. That includes a fair share of gun owning outdoorsman living side by side with granola eating green college graduates from LA living rent free in Mom’s empty vacation cabin with their girlfriends.

The reporter was interviewing a couple who I would guess fall in to the latter category. A twenty something couple arm in arm in front of their cabin answering questions as the first flakes of snow signaled the impending Snow Storm that was bearing down on them.

The reporter asked how they felt being alone in their remote cabin with a crazed spree killer on the loose in the area and presumably searching for a cabin to invade.

The young man looked first into the eyes of his trusting girlfriend and he said, “Well, we’re kind of nervous. He’s already killed 3 people and shot or attacked 4 others. I wouldn’t want to be sleeping outdoors on a night like this, so I could see why he might break into some place”

The Reporter said, “Yes, we are expecting over a foot of snow and you told me before you don’t have many neighbors here because these are vacation homes”.

He said, “Thats right, so we will be kind of alone on this road throughout the storm”.

At this point I was thinking, if Dorner would have been watching TV, this guy might as well have held up a sign saying, “Please come and break into my house and kill my girlfriend and I and no one will now until the spring thaw”. The other thing that struck me is this guy’s voice began to tremble as he began to utter the words that he had only been thinking up to that point, and the sound of his predicament, even to him, sounded not only irresponsible and stupid, but like something from a Stephen King novel.

The Reporter asked, have you two thought about going back down the mountain to be safe. He apparently had, but it seems only when it was too late. He then said,

“I think we are going to be OK. Dorner has a lot of other cabins to choose from so hopefully he won’t break into ours. My truck is not working, the storm is coming and we have kind of spotty cell service here, so we’re kind of stuck. (Stammering and voice quivering)...Umm, I guess, um, if he did break in, I would send my girlfriend to the back of the house and then I could turn over the coffee table in the front room to hide behind and just hope for the best,...um,...because we don’t have any weapons, which I guess is kind of stupid, considering the circumstance”.

This young guy and his old lady could have been doing a Public Service announcement for the NRA. Just looking at him, you imagine he must have voted for Obama and probably a week before was a staunch supporter of gun control. Take guns away from those school shooters and spree killers before another child dies!

But now its his life in danger. And the bad guy is the predator and he is hunting in your area.... and your plan to save yourself and protect your girl who is clinging a little less tightly around your waist now, is to run away from the banging door and push her screaming in to the back bedroom, then to pick up the cell and feverishly dial 911, only to see an out of service area message.

Then throwing it to the ground as Dorner’s arm begins to reach through the crack groping for the door knob, you jump outside the back door and try to start the truck, but the engine just cranks over and won’t start. Then as you run back to the house, you look in all directions through the blinding blizzard hoping to see a light on in one of the other cabins, but there are none and no one will hear your screams and even if you did get out, you can’t run very far or very fast in the deep cold snow. So you go back inside where your girlfriend is now screaming and wondering why she ever trusted you to protect her, and you find the coffee table that you had planned to turn over and hide behind. So you lay it on its side and lay down as the door finally opens. You realize now, as you said before, this is pretty stupid, because Dorner walks in with an assault rifle that he purchased legally as a member of law enforcement, a 9MM Glock in his holster, body armor, and combat fatigues. He walks over to the coffee table, and then walks around it to find you cowering in the fetal position. He asks if anyone else is in the home and if you have any weapons. You say, no weapons and yes, you will find my girlfriend in bed in the back of the house. Sounds like a great plan Granola man. Use the coffee table to combat evil monsters.

Gun control advocates will say, how likely is the average American going to end up in a situation like this where they might need a gun for self defense? The couple that actually did get tied up for 3 days don’t care about the odds now and the response is much more likely than having a kindergartener shot in his classroom in Connecticut.

Like many Liberal issues, if the example that demonstrates the veracity of the conservative argument only occurs once in a generation, then the argument is met with, “That will never happen”. So Liberals say, War is never the answer unless maybe America is attacked, but we have Nuclear weapons, so that will never happen, or if it does, we will all be dead. Sounds simple. So when the Twin Towers come tumbling down, war suddenly sounds like the answer, but having just had 40 years of fried brain cells blown, you must have a narrative to get back to your previous upside down logic, so you invent Trutherism, and the world is at peace again. In your mind.

There is no guarantee the Granola man or the tied up couple would have been able to surprise Dorner with a shotgun blast to the face had they been armed and trained, but there is no guarantee the cops will save you and no one said you have to use your gun to put a bullet in the intruders head if you feel like that is the right choice. Maybe a warning shot would have caused Dorner to move on. No guarantees of anything, but it gives you some degree of control over your right to live.

When he uttered those words: “ ...because we don’t have any weapons, which I guess is kind of stupid, considering the circumstance”. We may have just witnessed the moment a gun control advocate considered the value of a first time visit to your friendly neighborhood gun store. He wasn’t a gullible victim of scare tactics by the notorious gun lobby. He just had a brush with reality.

One of the premises for gun control by elites that live in gated communities with armed guards is that if we are threatened with violence, we can rely on government to save us by calling 911.

In my lifetime, aside from blackouts, floods, storms and other situations where rescue is hampered, I have experienced two occurrences of mob action on such a large scale that the protective capabilities of the Law Enforcement community were so overloaded, that they became completely unavailable.

One of those occasions was the Watts riots along with a string of other riots that summer in the 1960s and the other was the Rodney King Riots in 1992. In both cases, Law Enforcement would not respond to emergency calls. In that case, a gun was the only thing that would available to keep you alive, if you were threatened.

During the Rodney King riots in 1992, our extended family gathered our weapons and took an inventory of our ammo and our arsenal, because when a family member did not come home that night, and many people didn’t have cell phones then, we had to develop a plan to keep everyone safe and make sure we were all accounted for. A plan that was more than a coffee table.

911, gave a busy signal that night and for 3 days. Government failed. The Korean store owners who took refuge on the second story roof of their strip mall were not exercising their rights to hunt for deer or shoot ducks. They had in many cases legal AR15 style home defense weapons. From the top of that roof, as they were taking fire from better armed criminals who wanted to get close enough to torch their business and incinerate them with their property, they would not survive if they had fired from that distance with a shotgun. Nor would a handgun be very effective at that range. The Bushmaster, AR15 or what the media calls an assault rifle was the only thing that kept them from burning up or getting shot. And it should be noted, when the shooting started the cops told the Koreans to defend themselves and then fled. If anything the LAPD was not forceful enough in their response.

For what its worth, when Rodney King’s name was introduced to the national lexicon in 1991, Christopher Dorner was 11, so after reading his manifesto and his obsession with the King Riots and his claim the LAPD hasn’t changed,...everything he knows as an adult about the riots is what he has been told by others, presumably by the leftwing media whom he clearly holds in high esteem, from CNN to Charlie Sheen.

We didn’t use the guns that night in 1992 after all. The family member that had gone missing escaped from the riot zone be weaving through blocked intersections and burning tires by circling around the worst areas and arriving home 7 hours late, at midnight.

Someone said that night as we loaded our guns, If I only need to load my gun for the protection of my life or someone in my family just once in 30 years, that’s 30 more years of life and it makes it worth being a gun owner. Its times like this you understand why our founders gave us that right.

I was stunned by that news story last Thursday and I thank god Dorner has been stopped, but I think that young unarmed man in that cabin has a new perspective on guns being used for protection and I imagine his girlfriend does too.

Benghazi Bullet Points

Seems like there are too many lies to list in Obama's Benghazi defense and too many questions to ask, but here are some bullet points that keep rattling around for me:


*First this failure was four fold it was a failure on policy, preparation, tactical response to the attack, and the aftermath or coverup. The last three stem from the first, but two and three might be argued away as mis steps, errors or miscommunications at lower levels. One and Four were errors that fall on Obama fully.


* The video "The innocence of Muslims" has back story not fully investigated. I remember the arguments Clinton made in Kosovo that Muslims were suffering genocide and like Gaza videos, the militants knew how to play to the video to try to draw in the west. In this case, Sam Bacille (I know he has many aliases) had accomplices who intentionally tried to market and or disperse the video in Egypt to agitate for Coptics who have been the target of mass killings and bombings since the Arab Spring. My point is regardless of the motive, this was not a lone gunman or in this case videographer with with loopy ideas about an Islamic Davinci code. They were trying to instigate civil war so they could draw in the west. Would it have worked? Does it matter? It did in Kosovo where less than 2000 bodies were found where Clinton people said 100s of thousands would be found. I'm not bolstering Obama's false narrative. The video exists and played an ancillary role only in the fact that it "volumized" the Cairo attack which we now know was planned by Al Qaeda affiliates months before.

* Susan Rice told a lot of lies, but Victoria Nuland at the State Dept. did too and Jay Carney may have been the worst, but people seem to expect him to lie, so when they portray Rice as something a kin to a teleprompter reader with a script that comes from a musical chairs White House, then you can see where the model came from.

* On Meet the Press, Rice did not initially start with her CBS CYA disclaimer, ie, "There is an ongoing investigation (Now 70 days old), Our best assessment at this time (This could all be bullshit in 5 minutes), It appears from what we can ascertain from the best intel,... " Yes that disclaimor is sequential, Jeez! So on MTP she skipped that and launched in to "We know this was from the video" ... Later when Gregory, she fell back on the disclaimer. There is a difference between conditional statements and qualified responses and assertive declarative statements. She made many declarative statements. These were untrue.

* Rice claimed her words were religiously following the talking points, but in the talking points is says as one of the possible motives for the attack was the recent drone killing of Al Libi, which was an action of Obama, an action of the US government and based firmly on a policy of both. She states unequivocally, as did Carney over and over, this was based on the video, it was spontaneous, meaning no one was considering this before Sept 11, it happened as she said "after" the Libyans saw Cairo burning. Carny and Rice both said many times, "This had nothing to do with any US policy or action". Yet that goes against what we know was in the talking points about Al Libi. Susan Rice is lying. So was Carney, Nuland, and Obama who had access to the talking points, yet used this phrase.

* Rice is lying if she wants us to believe she had no outside information than what was on the memo. She had access to public info as we did. Obama supposedly said on Sept. 12 that this was an act of terror. We all saw it. How could she not have seen that. As you re-watch these interviews knowing what we know now, there are times where she literally goes five to six consecutive statements with each including at least one distinct and separate lie.

* The attacks on McCain, Grahm and Ayotte reminded me of Robert Byrd for some reason. I couldn't stand him, but he was so protective of the Senate at times that some times at moments like this when Democrats are openly lying under oath to the US Senate, he would pop up out of the blue and start ripping in to the Democrat liars on the floor of the Senate. That was cool. He's still an idiot.

*The statement that there was "no evidence that this was preplanned" was a lie. We know that the Consulate had been begging them and the bomb blast the month before would have most certainly been in the morning briefing. This comes back to McCain's remark that she is either lying or incompetent. If she did not know this, then it was Obama himself who witnessed the daily briefing and personally allowed her to do the full ginsburg ill prepared. For all we know, sending an ignorant person out to speak may have been a strategy. Nuland actually said, "literally", "I'm not very smart about these things".

* On MTP Rice said we knew Cairo would have unrest from video so preparations were made by calling on Egypt to help. Egypt later said they intentionally delayed the response. That was a failure by the White House to judge Morsi.

* On MTP Rice said when Obama heard of the Benghazi attack he sent security personnel to Tripoli and thn said the two SEALS were from that group. False. One was onsite the other came from Tripoli not into Tripoli. She is trying to claim Obama sent adequate security forces and he did not.

* Rice claimed the Cairo unrest was not premeditated and solely based on the video. One of the accomplices in Egypt of Sam Bacile provided the video to a media group in Egypt on Sept 8. It was unknown before that, yet Abdul (The Blind Sheink) Rahman's son announced the protest on the embassy 40 days before. His group Gamal Islamiya is a terror group that is part of Al Qaeda. Ayman Zawahiri's brother, also a terrorist working for AQ met with CNN within 24 hours before the protest and also explained the purpose was to get Rahman out of jail in the US.

* In June a member of Egypt's parliament, and a member of the terror group Gamal Islamiya, AQ front group visited the White House to ask for Rahman's release. Yes! Our White House. Yes that Al Qaeda. Yes, Al Qaeda given the OK to visit the White House by Obama's people.

* Morsi himself has asked Obama for Rahman's release.

* After watching how twisted the Obama folks twist facts around to portray it as having an opposite meaning, who can trust when Clapper says I changed the memo. This is a shell game. One person makes a broad statement, like Clapper, then it takes a week to get him under oath, which by the way he said the opposite under oath last week, then under oath and under questioning, he says something completely different. Then the White House comes out and tosses another meme on the floor for everyone to chase around for a week. They seem to believe that a chain of lies "plus time" is better than the truth. This is what Thomas Sowell calls "Cooling the Mark". The old conman trick of a side con on standby so if the Mark discovers you, the conman can spring the side con to inject doubt in the Mark long enough to skip town.

* Today the Gaza Israeli peace deal was postponed at the request of the White House in order for Hillary to arrive and take credit. During that time, more bombs fell, so who doesn't believe the Benghazi/Cairo narrative did not come up with Morsi and keep a close eye on the $2 Billion and the Attack Subs that were scheduled for delivery to Egypt. Keep in mind, Israel was shelling Gaza from Ships at sea, unmolested by subs.

* I still haven't heard any hard numbers or reliable proof on the veracity or volume of the "post Consulate attack" protest in the streets that supposedly showed how "America is seen by Iraqis as liberators"...oops I meant Libyans.

* The White House has admitted that during the attack Obama was in the Oval with Panetta and Biden. We also know the situation room was occupied and active with security staff monitoring the attack which went on for 8 hours. For those that do not know, the West Wing is extremely small. When you step out of the Oval there is the Roosevelt Room and the cabinet room and two hallways which you could walk maybe 20 0r 30 paces. The Situation Room is on the floor just below the west wing. It would take less than 60 seconds to come out from behind his desk and drop in to the Situation Room. Anyone that is trying to claim that Obama or even Panetta did not enter the situation room during that 8 hour period is lying. It is such close quarters that it would be like college guys in a dorm not hearing the keg party down the hall. This is very close. There is no way, he would have got the call, which came within minutes of the first shots and said, I'm gonna just hang out with Slow Joe while my political life hangs in the balance, never mind the actual lives at risk. It is probably the case that they admitted the Panetta meeting, because according to logs and scheduling, this would have been easily discovered, so why not cop to it now. Yet they still evade on the Situation Room.


There are just too many lies to mention here, but I will come back later and add more.

Obama creates Green on Green bloodbath in Energy world

I am conservative with a home in Baja that is totally off grid. I didn't build it to save the snail darter or reserve a seat at the table of Gaia and the other Environmental Gods in Green Heaven. I and the other neighbors (several thousand Gringos) in my area built solar homes, because we love the desert sun and the view of the ocean.

When we meet at the local coffee hangout by the beach, we discuss yesterday's sports scores, but at least once a day we chat about our energy systems the way teenagers used to discuss their four barrel carbs on their hot rods. Wind power, PV, propane, Solar Thermal, generators, etc. Old timers try to impress newbies with what the new technology they saw in Popular Mechanics.

The fact that just north of the border, California carefully regulates where one can build, communities like this would be too costly to spring up in this way. Small tinkerers is where new ideas are born, but Obama was in a hurry and that meant go big, go fast, and flood the green world with money.

I was reading a list of the dozens of big companies that Obama funded that went under. One of them was a company I had heard about from some of the local alternative energy experts. It was called Stirling Energy and they recently filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Although I do not know the details, but I've been told they were driven to bankruptcy by competing Photovoltaic price drops caused by artificially volatile prices in PV technology which as you know is the darling of Obama's "On Grid" Energy experts. Obama's energy eggheads live in traditional on grid houses, but they have read a lot about Alternative energy, so they pick winners and losers and are also under a deadline.

Stirling had bet on a fascinating technology, of which there are many, that competes with PV and is not as favored as PV. They only got $7 million. But this is how winners and losers are chosen and how green on green violence occurs in the alternative energy world. Stirling Energy had plans to build a solar thermal plant in the Mojave Desert. The Imperial Valley is sunny year round and can get as hot as 120 degrees F.

I don't know the exact Solar thermal specs of this company's product, but here is the general principle of Stirling engines. The technology is based on an idea around since the 19th century. A Stirling engine is similar to a steam engine, but with fluids more likely to be found in a refrigerator or air conditioner. This allows an engine to run with heat differentials of 60 degrees. Meaning a fluid that is heated by solar reflectors or concentrators to let's say 160 degrees can be run in to the ground or in water by tubes to cool to below 100F and you have a large scale energy source. The efficiency and price will always struggle to compete with PV, especially if PV is subsidized.

The Stirling engine and solar thermal is an interesting technology for tis area, because it can be developed and maintained by locals at relatively low cost in a region with lots of sun and modest incomes, compared to PVs which we all own down here, but they are high tech, high price and made by big corporations. But now with Obama subsidies PV prices have dropped, for now, and crowded out other innovative technologies. Will the prices stay low? Will the subsidies continue for ever? Who gets the favored status? No one knows.

Here is a description of Stirlings bankruptcy:

Stirling Energy caves in against PV's falling costs

06 October 2011
Stirling Energy Systems has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy as the stirling dish technology could not compete against the falling costs of solar photovoltaics (PV), according to media reports.

By Kari Williamson

A sign of the trouble to come was already visible at the beginning of the year when Stirling Energy's development arm, Tessera Solar, sold off its two large projects, the 709 MW Imperial project and the 850 MW Calico project to AES Solar and K.Road, respectively.

According to Reuters, Stirling had assets of US$1-10 million, whereas liabilities were in the US$50-100m range.

Stirling Energy's website has been down since the story broke in US media.

I am all for Alternative energy innovation, but Obama clearly has no clue about what it means to "go green", as they say. I know people that have windmills and PVs to supplement their on grid power, but when you are completely off gird, you think about your wattage all the time. I don't think Mr. Obama will ever have a passing thought about wattage. So how can he or his people save the economy by creating a green revolution which he promised, by rigging the system.

Here is that list of green busts:

It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($10 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

When I see the coffee gang of popsci engineers these days, several of them complain about certain technologies that were once up and coming and they were all excited to see how the technologies would develop, but unfortunately for these tinkerers, the field has been narrowed, not expanded by Eggheads in Washington trying to earn a place in green heaven. But even in the Green universe, good intentions don't earn a spot in green heaven, it gives you a one way ticket down the giant slide to a very Geothermal place.

Crowley plays Replacement Ref and declares touchdown for Obama

I killed Bin Laden once and I could do it again, if I get a second term

In 1858, the Seven Lincoln Douglas Debates was not only popular in Illinois, but the stenographers that transcribed the events for major newspapers were then covered in all the major papers in the Union. The Partisan newspapers, mostly Democrats, would edit out gaffes by Douglas or key debate points that they considered weak.

Now it appears in desperation, the media, motivated by meltdowns of their peers have decided to jump up on the stage and not just make their own arguments, but prop up the lies of their candidate with lies of their own and encourage the mob to hoot and applaud. Even the First Lady was clapping and cheering.

I remember in the Watergate era, we watched these same journalists pat themselves on the back as if they were saintly civil rights crusaders, because they had "saved the Republic" and one part of the narrative I fell for was the notion they peddled that with the new Television age, it would be more difficult, if not impossible for future Presidents to hide scandals or outright lie to coverup major policy failures and corruption that might hurt their chances of holding on to power.

Wow, was I wrong.

How could I have been so wrong to imagine Television would be used for truth and justice or that the power of government would be held in check by the priesthood of the box, which is the talking heads of the mainstream media.

It is clear Obama has made a decision to play semantical games from the school of the meaning of the word "Is".

The reason the first debate put Obama and the media are in such a free fall was the media protected Obama for 8 years and McCain who was burdened by a years of anti-Bush hammering was not able to prove that an unknown was lying about his abilities. For 4 years the media covered for him, he gave no real press conferences where he was force to answer to the people and the teleprompter jokes were considered rantings of rightwing radicals. Then in the current campaign, the media continued to inject itself into every aspect of the campaign trying to shape the narratives, not report on them. This campaign will be remembered as the "What about the Gaffes" campaign. The first debate showed that for the first time in Obama's life, he was forced to explain his capabilities, his performance and his achievements or lack thereof. And he looked like a complete moron, even to his friends. That was the real Barack Obama. Welcome to our shared national nightmare.

Without the objectivity of the media to point out the ridiculous notion that a President who spent nearly a month denying that the biggest terrorist attack by AL Qaeda was neither pre-planned or an act of terror, let alone associated in anyway with Al Qaeda, is somehow protected by a single remark in a speech that referred to 911 as terrorism, is so utterly ridiculous that it risks making anyone that justifies the innity with debate as somehow a nit picker.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say, here are the 978 times the governemnt claimed it was not pre-planned and it was solely a spontaneous reaction to the actions in Cairo and the video by Sam Becile,..and here is the one remark by Obama which was not what he says it was.

SO let the Nit Picking begin. Here is the quote from the Rose Garden about "acts of terror":

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

First paragraph he discusses the "Subject" of the acts of terror remark. He mentions 911 victims, those that died in Afghanistan and Iraq, Wounded warriors in hospitals and then he mentions "the attack" in Benghazi.

Is he claiming that all of the above people were victims of terrorism at the hands of Al Qaeda? No. Did all the dead of Iraq die at the hands of Al Qaeda. Obama and his friends claimed Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq.

Second Paragraph he clarifies the connection between these groups. He is explaining that not just our soldiers, but civilians or bureaucrats take risks too and they might die in a number of different ways, especially if they are trying to work in the middle east in non-military ways, like Ambassador Stevens. You might die at the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists like those on 911, you might die in Iraq by non terrorist acts, you might be wounded in Afghanistan by non-terrorist acts, you might be killed in a spontaneous eruption of violence which is not terrorism or pre-planned, but shares with terrorism the fact that it is a reaction to a misunderstanding of our character, which I Barack Obama am the living embodiment of and George Bush is not.

Third paragraph, he finally says "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,..."

If he wanted to say Benghazi was an act of terror, he would have, but he didn't. He gave a list of ways that Americans are injured or killed in the Mid East some as a result of "acts of terror" and some not, then he went on to convey whether it is a minor misunderstanding, a stupid war in Iraq, or even the most significant and horrific such as the 911 terrorist attacks that he had just discussed mourning over,...that none of these, the minor or the major will diminish our efforts to protect you.

The very essence of that statement is a lie. It is clear he is not calling Benghazi an act of terror, he is merely trying to elevate Stevens' sacrifice to a more meaningful level, by associating it with these other events, but the truth is, he died because of the bumbling of Obama and his misguided policies.

Worse than that, he is trying to rekindle the narrative of the Osama Bin Laden hit, by claiming he will hunt these people down. So far Sam Becile was the first villain to be captured and he is still in a Wen Ho lee style cell somewhere for making a crappy youtube video.

So he developed a comic book narrative that if you kill the Arch villain, that the henchmen slither down the drains of the sewers of Gotham and disappear. He killed Osama Bin Laden, so the war is over, or as Clinton used to say, the Russian missiles are no longer pointing at us, so we can cash in our chips for a peace dividend. The Arab Spring was the carrot side of the con job meant to convince us that Obama killed Al Qaeda and Democracies based on a model of "Ghandi and Martin Luther King" has emerged in the ashes of the now ended war.

The bizarre thing is, the narrative of the OBL hit is now being dredged up and imitated in a lame attempt to disguise how ineffective the killing of Osama Bin Laden really was in destroying Al Qaeda, which is very much alive and well in North Africa, because it killed Ambassador Stevens. This is the ultimate post modern foreign policy President. This is not wag the dog, its wag the snake, because the snake is all tail and no reality.

We have a President who claimed Bush was not fighting a war, he was using it as a distraction to steal valuable natural resources from people of color with a religion that Obama understands because he could see Islam from his front porch when he was 7. He claimed he would give sermons on the mount in Cairo and the arms would be laid down and liberty would "Let my people go" from Egypt and the Middle East would be a beacon of freedom.

This narrative had millions of holes in it, but had not really been covered by a main stream media that didn't want to point to trouble in paradise, unless the response to it created an opportunity for their candidate. Just like in Rwanda, the media admited later it feared a Black Hawk Down scenario of bad press for Clinton, if a sharper focus on genocide created a drumbeat for action, so they looked the other way.

So in Benghazi and Cairo, the warning signs were all there. Obama keeps sending out the word, don't use the word terror, don't act like the war on terror is still under way, lay low. Just as they laughed at Bush's Red, Yellow, Orange warning system, Obama was sending a message around the world not to worry, there is no danger. So many responded accordingly. Apparently those on the ground in Libya did not think it was peaceful, but those closer to the political center of the US government denied them the protection they requested.

In a previous attack in Benghzai, a breach in the containment wall was blown open big enough for an assault squad to enter. This would not have been a run of the mill security breach. In a country Obama where Obama had waged war just months ago, to have a consulate attacked in this manner would have absolutely made its way in to the Presidents Security briefing, which we know he has been criticized for not receiving in person while on campaign. So Obama either did or should have known of the security threat to terrorism at this exact location, assuming his briefing procedures had not been compromised for political reasons. This should have prompted him personally to comment on security there prior to Sept 11. He apparently did not. Because the requests were denied.

What we had on Sept 11 was a major terror attack on an Ambassador by Al Qaeda affiliates. Worse yet, Obama had met with Gamal Islamiya in the White House about the release of Abdel Rahman,... and this attack was spawned by Rahman's brigade. So Obama tried negotiating and didn't recognize it was the old Jihadi tradition of offering your opponent mercy before killing him.

Obama's entire post modern theme that Al Qaeda is dead and the radical islamists are now Ben Franklin in a Hijab is unraveling. It should be noted, when Obama cried out that Romney was accusing he and his staff of lying for political purposes and that he was extremely offended, Romney actually had not. But Obama's "accustaion" against Romney was ironic. Obama had just minutes before accusedRomney of politicizing the event, which by his standard is unpatriotic and further more gave Romney an opening for the next debate. Romney can now say in the next debate, "You accused me of accusing Susan Rice of lying for political reasons, you accused me of accusing you of lying for political reasons on the terrorist attack in Benghazi that caused the attack on Amb. Stevens that resulted in his torture and death and mutilation, and you claimed that I was using your many mistatements of fact on this act of terror and your inconsistent remarks and those of your staff and the circular blame that has circulated around your disoriented White House and characterizing all of that "Stuff" as a cynical attempt on your part to distract away from your failed policies in the region and your negligence for purely political reasons that are designed to keep your white knuckled clutches on the reins of power,...

....but I never accused you of that.

Here is what the attack did prove:

Al Qaeda is still alive and on offense

AL Qaeda is operating openly in Egypt and may actually be moving its headquarters there if Morsi continues to look the other way

If Egypt (and its neighbor Libya) becomes the new Afghanistan that means Al Qaeda now operates out of a sophisticated urbanized nation that controls the Suez canal, borders Israel, has a sophisticated military, is 300 miles from Italy and plays a leadership role amongst Political thinkers throughout Islam.

The Arab Spring never was

Obama is mostly annoyed with Israel and not very concerned with their existential fears

The Middle East is about to get much worse than we have ever seen it and much of the blame rests on Obama's doorstep

Obama is completely unequipped mentally and philosophically to respond to the shit storm that is about to hit us, and his ideological stubbornness means he never will, even if bodies keep landing at Andrews

Obama's White House meetings with Al Qaeda affiliate, Gamal Islamiya regarding the release of Abdel Rahman show he is ignorant of the true identity of who is running the Egyptian Government and is at the very least may be naively handing our enemies the opportunity to threaten Europe directly and isolate America.

So did he declare this an Al Qaeda terrorism attack on Sept 12? No. Has he ever declared a true act of terror as such within 24 hours? Never. Not Once. George Bush did. Even Clinton did. Obama as amatter of policy, never has and now his Chickens have come home to roost.

Obama,... Does the truth really hurt?

I find it hilarious that it's been 3 weeks since the 47% remark emerged as the MSM's excuse for a hard news prism by which to view this race. I watch all the Network News broadcast nightly news everyday and for 21 days at least one and usually all of them have had a story about the 47% with the accompanying video. Scott Pelley, erroneously asked Romney in an exclusive interview at the opening of his broadcast that Romney had said "He does not care" about 47% of Americans. Talk about someone having to deal with a bald faced lie, right in your eye.

The key element of the 47% and Obama's Epic Debate Fail is what does it reveal about the candidate and the race. The MSM want you to believe that Romney hates the poor and underprivileged and that he is careful not to reveal his secret agenda to kill them or let them die of cancer. This video "unveils" the "Hidden agenda" as they called Reagan's secret plot against the poor. It is clear Romney says the people he listed in his 47% remarks will vote for Obama regardless so he can't "worry" about them regarding their voting for him and he will never convince them to vote for him. Does that mean he does not care if they die of cancer just because he can not convince them to vote for him? If black people again vote at a 95% rate for Obama again, should Romney spend a majority of his time and funds on a campaign targeting African Americans? Does that mean he doesn't care about them or that he is racist? So what does the 47% remark reveal about Romney, a man we are told for 20 years spends between 10 and 20 hours per week "personally" helping families of dying children, poverty stricken families and individuals suffering from substance abuse. Never mind the more than one quarter of his income he donates to charity. So what does the 47% reveal about this man?

Now let's look at Obama's debate performance. Nobody denies Obama failed to give a good performance. Some admit he lost, most consider it abysmal, maybe the worst of any sitting President. Romney's 47% was a hidden camera remark nearly 6 months ago during the primaries and Obama's 90 minute performance was abundant, wide ranging, very public and should be considered a candidates most prepared for event, yet he could hardly put two words together. When he described his own Healthcare bill, his signature legislation, he mumbled and stammered and seemed to be confused about what it really meant. He seemed unprepared to speak extemporaneously about topics he claims to be the world authority on. When Romney took Obama's attacks, such as the oil industry subsidies of $2 Billion as ways to cut spending and Romney counter attacked by pointing out Obama's failed $90 billion energy subsidies to bundlers and cronies that went down the tubes, he just stared like the proverbial deer in the headlights.

Did the media portray this performance as "revealing" proof of what conservatives have said about him for 8 years, that he is inexperienced, naive, dependent on his handlers and his teleprompter and unable to respond when questioned about the validity of his poorly explained ideas? Even though it did demonstrate he is as Mitt Romney has been saying "In over his head", the media did not say that. Instead they proved Mitt Romney's words to be true, by contorting themselves in ways that are so ridiculous and far fetched, that the only answer must be the scary truth that the Emperor has no clothes. Was it the true Obama, who has never been talked to like this in his life that was fumbling around on the floor or was it the high altitude, the moderator, the debate prep team run by the French looking John F. Kerry, his anniversary, his lack of time since he never focuses on his campaign and spends too much time meeting with foreign dignitaries, too much zanax, he's just too nice, Republican racism forces him to be too nice so he can't come across as an angry black man, a big thud in the back of the room distracted him, Romney's cheat sheet distracted him,... or as Paul Krugman says, he has difficulty when faced with an untruth in a town swimming in untruths, so much so that he folds like a lawn chair when faced with one.

So a single sentence by Romney in a hidden video about which demographic he will spend time campaigning on that was twisted to convey he wants you dead gets 21 straight days of "This represents the true Romney".... but Obama swan dives off the podium and nearly starts foaming at the mouth and the media can't stop spitting out "un-truths" to convey "What are you going to believe ME? ... or your lying eyes? Was Obama's stumbling blatherings the real and unscripted man or was his first chance ever to face tough questions in public just a strange coincidental atmospheric anomaly?

For what its worth CBS Nightly News opened tonight's wrap up of the Sunday morning talk shows by saying, "..and nearly a WEEK later, they are STILL talking about the debate....". I did the math. As of the end of debate coverage the night of the debate to the filming of today's morning talk shows, 78 hours had past. About 3 days. Yet to the Liberal media, it seems like a lifetime.

The Truth most definitely does hurt.