Thursday, December 13

National Park Service - Job Killer

Ken Salazar is the United States Secretary of the Interior. In his position he is in charge of the U.S. Government Department responsible for the management and conservation of most federal land and natural resources, and the administration of programs relating to Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, territorial affairs, and to insular areas of the United States. His Department includes the National Park Service.

Recently he made news for refusing to renew a lease for California's last remaining oyster farm:
U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told a popular oyster farm at Drakes Bay on Thursday to pack up and leave, effectively ending more than a century of shellfish harvesting on the picturesque inlet where Europeans first set foot in California.

Salazar's decision ends a long-running dispute between the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. and the National Park Service over the estuary at Point Reyes National Seashore where Sir Francis Drake landed more than 400 years ago.

The National Park Service intends to turn the 2,700-acre area into the first federally designated marine wilderness area on the West Coast, giving the estuary special protected status as an unaltered ecological region. To do that, Salazar rejected the oyster company's proposal to extend its 40-year lease to harvest shellfish on 1,100 acres of the property.

Salazar gave the farm 90 days to move out, issuing his decision a day before the lease was set to expire and one week after visiting the Point Reyes National Seashore for a tour. -

The Obama Administration always talk about how they are 'Pro-Jobs' but they never do anything to show it, unless it happens to be a teacher or Government job. As I have said a number of times before, the Democrats HATE YOUR JOB. This is a perfect example. This decision kills off this business and all of the jobs associated with it.

Now Secretary Salazar is claiming that this decision is for the benefit of the collective people of the United States, but lets see if they let us enjoy this 'treasured landscape'. This is the same part of the Government that has been restricting access to beaches for a while now, including the infamous 'Leave No Footprints behind' signs.
Planning a vacation this summer to Miami’s Biscayne Bay for a little fishing?

Think again, because the National Park Service wants to set aside a large swath of the pristine area as a marine reserve zone, so you might have to leave the fishing poles at home. And the boat.

Perhaps horseback riding is more your speed and the family plans to ride through California’s Sequoia or Kings Canyon National Parks? Sorry, but all of the permits were pulled for those activities this summer.

Or maybe you just want to lounge on the soft sands of North Carolina’s Outer Banks and read a novel, fly a kite with the kids, toss a Frisbee to the dog, and watch dad catch some fish?

No, no, no and no.

Beachcombers along specific stretches of those legendary shores are seeing signs telling them to leave their kites and pets at home, and to watch where they step.

“Leave no footprints behind. Walk in water where footprints wash away,” read the signs posted in February by federal officials.

Beaches that once welcomed fisherman to drive up to the water’s edge are also off-limits to the vehicles, and so is fishing.

These vacation destinations are all national parks that once encouraged such recreational uses and enjoyment but their new “no trespassing” attitudes have angered the local communities, and some in Congress as well. - Human Events
Killing jobs at the beach is becoming a speciality of the Obama Administration.
In California, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes says that by eliminating horseback rides to the backcountry, the National Park Service has essentially blocked the only access that many Americans, including those with disabilities and the elderly, have to wilderness areas. The new restrictions are the result of a lawsuit brought by environmentalists who say the activity may be a threat to nature.

Losing the permits means that at least 15 companies that provided horseback rides are out of work this summer, along with an estimated 500 employees.

“This is just another example of the Obama administration actively killing jobs,” Nunes said. “They have the authority to seek permission from the courts to put these folks back to work, yet they have so far refused to entertain the option.” - Human Events
If the Democrats could get away with it, they would ban access to these areas entirely in the spirit of protecting the environment.

Keep in mind that this is the same part of the US Government that lost a $3+ Billion court case related to mismanagement of revenue due to the American Indian trust funds.

Add to Google

Wednesday, December 12

US Government Borrowing $4.8 billion Per Day

As some conservative blogs have been pointing out, what is not sustainable cannot continue forever.
( – The federal government ran a deficit of $292 billion for the first two months of fiscal year 2013 – October and November 2012 – amounting to $4.8 billion of borrowed money each day. “The federal budget deficit was $292 billion for the first two months of fiscal year 2013, $57 billion more than the shortfall recorded in October and November of last year,” CBO said in its Monthly Budget Review Friday. -

That comes out the the US borrowing $160 a day per American (at 300 million Americans) or $640 a day for a family of 4 including weekends. so for each week, the Government is borrowing $4,480. At this rate, the US Government will borrow over $58,000 per American in 2013 which totals over $230,000 for a family of four. Keep in mind, this is not what they plan on spending per American, that total is much great. This is only what they have to borrow because tax revenue is not enough to pay for all their spending. 

Just one more example of why this is s spending problem not a revenue problem. After all, how can you possibly keep up this level of spending when the Government is spending more per person that 98% of the population earns
Add to Google

Tuesday, December 11

2.3 Percent Tax on Medical Devices To Kill Thousands of US Jobs

Keep in mind that the US Government's definition of 'Medical Devices' that will be subject to a 2.3% tax on gross sales includes even such generic items such as rubber gloves. Even better, the tax applies to products that are are also used in veterinary medicine.

So vet visits are probably going to go up as well. And since this is a gross sales tax, regardless of profit or loss, it seems that some medical manufactures are thinking twice about having their manufacturing in the US:
According to the Treasury Department, the medical device companies actually stand to benefit from the law. Though the 2.3 percent tax hits the industry, the department argues that the millions of new health care customers insured as a result of the law will increase the demand in hospitals to order more equipment -- in turn boosting medical device companies' profits.

That’s not how the industry sees it. Stephen J. Ubl, president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, said this week in response to the IRS rules that the tax could cost thousands of jobs – and is already causing companies to lay off workers and cut back on research and development.

“While Washington talks about a fiscal cliff, this tax could push us off an innovation cliff, costing as many as 43,000 jobs and hurting the ability of medical technology companies to find tomorrow’s treatments and cures. It should be repealed,” he said. - Fox News
Sure, you can say that it is only 2.3 percent, but this is out of a maximum of 100%, any more and the business involved is operating at a loss. Out of that 100% revenue total needs to come all of the expenses of the business from raw materials, salaries, manufacturing, research and so on. And lets not forget that if you manage to make a profit, you need to pay taxed before passing those profits to the shareholders, who then pay taxes on this same profit again.

As I have said before, President Obama and the Democrats hate your job. This is just one more example where they are doing nothing to protect these jobs or the industry as a whole, which I would dare say is probably a global powerhouse of development and innovation and at the end of the day a source of massive amounts of tax revenue both directly from the corporations as well as from those who back these companies and eventually profit from them.

Update: 11 Dec 12
 Surprise! Senate Democrats are calling for a delay in implementing this job-killing tax:
In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, 18 Democrat senators and senators-elect have asked for “a delay in the implementation” of the Obamacare medical device tax. Like most of the significant tax increases in Obamacare, the medical device tax is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2013, conveniently after the 2012 presidential election.

Each of the 18 Democrat signatories voted for or supported Obamacare in the first place. And now they want a sweetheart exemption from one of its most onerous provisions. Even in Washington DC, that shows a lot of gall. - ATR.Org (Click to read the list of Democrat Senators signing the letter)
There is one way to delay the tax, delay ObamaCare!
Add to Google

Friday, December 7

Howard Dean: "The Truth Is Everybody Needs To Pay More Taxes, Not Just The Rich"

I have said it before, the rich do not have enough money to pay for all the Democrats spending demands. At least one prominent Democrat is willing to admit this:
The only problem is -- and this is initially going to seem like heresy from a progressive is -- the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. And it's a good start. But we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes. And if we don't do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more. - Real Clear Politics

Click the link and watch the interview. Howard Dean admits that the country would actually be better off if we go over the 'financial cliff' and return to the Clinton era tax rates for everybody, because that is how you really increase Government tax revenue.

Increasing taxes on the rich only solves 8% of the deficit problem. President Obama and the Democrats are silent about the other 92% of the solution because they have no intention of solving the problem.

Add to Google

Thursday, November 29

Obama to Republicans - Eliminate the Debt Limit Now, Spending Cuts Later, Maybe

In an earlier post I covered Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's proposal/demand that Congress simply eliminate the debt limit.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S. “absolutely” should get rid of the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

“It would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it,” Geithner told Bloomberg TV on Friday. “The sooner the better.” - HuffPo (Found at Hot Air)

As it turns out, this is the demand that was made today to the Republican members of Congress as part of the fiscal cliff solution talks.
House Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits. - NY Times

The 'deal' includes no cuts to Government spending. Only a suggestion to discuss cuts sometime next year. The offer is so ridiculous that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell burst into laughter. Unfortunately, this meeting confirms my belief that the Democrats have no intention of dealing with the Nation's debt problem.

Geithner’s visit to his office left McConnell discouraged about reaching a “balanced” deal on tax hikes and spending reductions designed to prevent a shock to the economy in January. “Nothing good is happening” in the negotiations, McConnell says, because of Obama’s insistence on tax rate hikes for the wealthy but unwillingness to embrace serious spending cuts. - Weekly Standard

So there you have it, Obama and the Democrats are unwilling to commit to any real spending cuts, outside of cutting spending for the Military. They have already run the country for four years with no budget. Now they are demanding to be able to run the country with no limit on spending.

Like I said before, they have no intention of solving the debt and deficit crisis. If they did, they would know how high the debt would grow before a plan of increased revenue and decreased spending would eliminate the deficit. Of course they might have even more plans for increasing spending. Perhaps legalizing the illegal aliens and giving them Obamacare benefits. That would surely increase Government spending.

Keep in mind that raising taxes on the richest 2% will only solve about 8% of the deficit problem.  This demand is confirmation that President Obama and the Democrats have no intention of solving the debt problem. 

They plan to run up the debt as far as it can go.
Add to Google

Tuesday, November 27

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Lies: 'Social Security does not add one penny to the debt. Not one penny.'

So the latest story concerning the fiscal cliff the US is facing is news that some Republicans in Congress are thinking of being flexible when it comes to their 'Grover Norquist' no tax increase pledge. However, I think this issue brought out a huge lie pushed by Democrats in general but said by Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin. He said that
 'Social Security does not add one penny to the debt. Not one penny.' 
His statement was in response to Republican demands that entitlement spending reform be on the table . Basically Senator Durbin is claiming that there is no need to reform Social Security Entitlements because Social Security is not a part of this nation's spending/deficit crisis. Unfortunately, this is not the case and Senator Durbin for sure knows that this is a lie. Zero Hedge explains:
This statement is a lie that is covered over by a dopy accounting system called the Unified Budget. In this magical world, the deficits driven by entitlements are hidden. The reliance on this accounting fiction is a dangerous path for liberals to take. The fact is, SS (and the other government retirement programs for Federal workers and the Military) are running billion dollar cash deficits today and will run Mega-Trillion dollar cash deficits for the next seventy-five years. Every penny of those deficits will result in more borrowing from the public.

These deficits may be “Off Budget” in the magical world of Unified Accounting, but they do add to the publicly held debt on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The Rating Agencies are part of the Cliff discussion (like it or not); those folks are no dopes and they fully understand that Senator Durbin is all wet with his talk of Off Balance sheet debt. - Zero Hedge
If a publicly traded company did this sort of accounting gimmickry, shareholders would eventually lose their investments and people would go to jail. Ironically, Democrat politicians would then be crowing to every TV camera how we need even more laws to prevent this kind of criminal behavior, all the time committing a much larger theft right out in the open.

Finally, the Trillions of dollars in assets that the Social Security Trust fund has are currently held in the form of US Treasury Bonds. In short, the money was given to the Government and spent. The Government will then have to redeem the bonds as the money is needed to pay Social Security recipients. This means that they will have to get the money from somewhere. Given that the Government plans to run a deficit into the sunset, that means that they will either have to print or borrow the money.

Graphs pictured above were taken from the US Government's own Government Accountability Office. The article is titled 'Federal Debt Basics'. Clearly, this is a topic Senator Durbin and many of his follow Democrats would fail if a grade was given. Unfortunately, it is we who suffer as a result of their incompetence and criminal behavior if they had to be judged the same way that they demand businesses be held to account.
Add to Google

Saturday, November 10

'Pro-Oil' Obama Administration Now Closing Western Lands To Oil Drilling

During this last election, President Obama proclaimed that oil drilling in the US has never been greater, implying that he was responsible for this oil drilling boon. In reality, the increase in oil drilling had been taking place on private lands that the Government had little ability to stop.

Now, that President Obama has won re-election, his pro-oil Administration is planning to close off Western Government land from oil exploration.
The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.
The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.
The move is sure to rankle Republicans, who say President Obama’s grip on fossil fuel drilling in federal lands is too tight. - The Hill

The Obama Presidency, redefining 'Pro-Oil'. Then again, his 'All-of-the-Above' energy policy seems to mean 'None of the below'.

Add to Google

Sunday, November 4

Romney is the Right Man for the Time

Keep in mind that the race for President is now down to two choices:
  • Sticking with President Obama for four more years 
  • Electing Romney as they new President 
We have all experienced four years of Obama and there is no reason to expect any dramatic improvement in how he and his team (Biden-VP, Geithner-Treasury, Holder-'Justice', Solis-'Labor', Sebelius-HHS, Chu-Energy, Napolitano-Homeland Security, Jackson-EPA and Rice-UN) are running this country.

Perhaps President Obama's term would have been much better if he assumed office during good times. Then perhaps with nothing to fix, he could have run after his liberal agenda without the rest of the country suffering. As it so happens, his supporters blame the poor economy for the President's poor performance. However, Obama applied for the job of president knowing that the economy was a mess and that he was the man to fix it. Unfortunately for all of us, he was not.

So what can we expect with having Romney as President? How about a President with experience in fixing messes and turning around and transforming unprofitable businesses and events.

Take the Salt Lake City Olympics. The Olympics was setting up for a huge disaster. Mitt Romney was brought in to save the event, which went from being a huge money pit to actually turning a profit. Mitt Romney took control of the Olympic Games and turned them around from a disaster into a success.

Now picture Obama being put into the same situation. Might we have seen the same result. Or perhaps might he have turned a bad situation worse? Obama's experience has no examples of him doing anything similar. In fact, President Obama has little if any business experience. Instead, his presidency is full of examples where businesses have been targeted as the enemy. And remember that Obama and the Democrats Hate Your Job and your coal job.

Take his role in Bain Capital. He is being attacked for running a company that took businesses in trouble and either turned them around, restructured them to make a profit or closed them down if they were doomed.

Obama and the Democrats will have you think that the actions of Bain were somewhat bad. But lets think about this for a second. It is not like Bain was dismantling successful businesses. Let's face it businesses come and go, even successful ones. Remember Blockbuster Video? Borders Books? Reader's Digest? KB Toys? Bennigan's? Circuit City? Bethlehem Steel, Kodak? Polaroid? Sometimes it is nothing more than changing technology and a corporation's inability to adapt fast enough.

Take Polaroid and Kodak. they were experts at what they did, but have not been able to transition fast enough to survive the coming of digital cameras. Should the Government step in and save these companies? Should the Government save the jobs in these companies? Well what about all the new jobs being created as the new technology takes over from the old? Oh, you say that these new jobs are being created in China? Many are, but there is nothing that we can do about it. At least not until the living standards on those countries catches up to ours. Until then, companies are going to have to keep their manufacturing expenses as low as possible to ensure that the greatest number of people can afford their products. People in China need cars. Very few of them can afford any car made in the US or elsewhere in the first world. So they are going to have to be made in China and other low wage countries. But that fine because most Americans are not going to want to buy such a car. We are a different target market. This leaves room for other manufacturers to meet that demand.

As for jobs, I expect a Romney Administration to do the following to stimulate job creation:
  • Stabilize the business and personal tax rates
  • Replace all of Obama's political appointees
  • 'Green light' the Keystone pipeline
  • Open of more Government lands and offshore areas to drilling
  • Ensure that new power plant applications are approved
  • Stop attacking the:
    • Banking Sector
    • Insurance sector
    • Medical sector
  • End mandatory healthcare coverage
Ah, that last point. Stop forcing companies to pay for employee medical care. This requirement along with increasing the minimum wage are killing all sorts of jobs. One group (among many) that has suffered are the young. Raising of wages and increasing the expense of employing people, such as through forced benefits, has both eliminated jobs for teens and other young as well as displace young workers with older workers who now find those jobs more appealing. Take supermarkets. You used to see young people working in those jobs. Now the supermarkets are full of employees who are working these jobs as full-time workers. Partly because these jobs have been forced to compensate them better and partly because there are less jobs of other kinds out there. Unfortunatly, there are even less supermarket jobs because companies are replacing some of these workers with automatic checkout. Simply because you do not have to pay for medical coverage for a machine.

Many Obama supporters are claiming that they do not want to take a risk on Romney. Well the country took a risk on Obama and we are all worse off. Will some people be worse off four years from now because of Romney? Sure. But we should not flush the whole country down the drain in defense of giving some people an ever-increasing basket of freebees. And this brings about the last important item - Benefit reform and passing a sustainable budget and budget plan. Romney and Ryan will be able to present a path forward. Obama has proven that he cannot and will not tackle the debt issue by failing to pass a budget in the last four years.

I understand that there are many reasons to vote for Obama, such as sticking it to rich people. Unfortunately, there are not enough rich people around to pay for our current spending and certainly not enough to pay for Obama's promise of 'FREE HEALTHCARE'. Things need to be paid for. In order to pay for as much as possible, more people need to be working. Romney will accomplish that. The first step is getting the Government's boot off the necks of the more prosperous half of the country.

Vote Romney. 

Add to Google

Friday, November 2

Where is my Nokia Lumia?

My current Nokia phone is just over two years old.

All of my Finnish friends (at least those who have not been laid off by Nokia) have given up on Nokia. That was pretty shocking revelation from my summer trip to Finland.

I do not want an iPhone.

So, here I am waiting for the Nokia Lumia to come out. I signed up at Nokia's website for news on when the phone will be available and have not heard a word.

Worse, I am a T-Mobile customer and I understand that they will not be offering the Lumia 920. Pretty odd strategy Nokia has in only offering their newest phone via the cellphone carriers that carry the iPhone.

This phone better not be a failure....
Add to Google

Thursday, November 1

'Congressman' Gerry Connolly: "Vets Unqualified to Serve in Congress"

I just don't like my Congressman Gerry Connolly. He is a Liberal tool right behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So I will be voting for the man seeking to replace him as my Congressman, Colonel Chris Perkins.

Here is a statement and video by Chris PErkins responding to comments made by Congressman Connolly, both touting his accomplishments in the district, which sounds lots like taking credit for securing Government funding for local projects in which he expects to be rewarded with being re-elected to his spot in Congress. Well, if that is how we should vote, then why not vote in the most corrupt people we can find. That will surely get the money flowing. Anyway, here is Chris Perkins statement:

I was forewarned that politics can be an ugly thing, but I was unprepared for the latest development in my congressional race to represent the 11th District of Virginia.

Incumbent Congressman Gerry Connolly has shocked many of his constituents by suggesting that career military veterans, like myself, are unqualified to serve in Congress – implying that their service to the nation at-large does not amount to sufficient “sweat equity” in the district they seek to serve in Congress.

While speaking to a local Chamber of Commerce and touting his own accomplishments during his 16 years in local politics, Mr. Connolly recently asked the audience: "Where has my opponent been?" Many in the room who were aware of my military career, including those wearing lapel stickers listing the Democratic Party ticket, were visibly taken aback and later distanced themselves from Mr. Connolly’s attack. Unrepentant, the congressman subsequently pressed his line of attack when he spoke to a local neighborhood civic association. Once again describing the work he did as a Fairfax County Supervisor in the building of schools and sidewalks for his community, Mr. Connolly again dismissed my more than 24 years of military experience, saying "I expect a candidate to have demonstrated some sweat equity!"

I am happy to answer the congressman's question. I was in Iraq trying to rescue American fighter pilots who had been shot down. I was hunting down war criminals in Bosnia, and I was evacuating U.S. Embassy personnel in Africa from armed mobs that would do them harm. I was at Arlington National Cemetery 17 times paying my last respects to brave men that I had the privilege and honor to serve with.

I am profoundly disappointed that Congressman Connolly believes career military men and women are unqualified to serve in Congress simply because they chose to serve and protect their country rather than enter local politics. Mr. Connolly’s statements are outrageous and demonstrate an out-of-touch career politician who thinks that only those who climb the ladder of local politics can graduate to higher office. By Mr. Connolly’s standard, many of our forefathers, including George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, were unqualified to hold federal office. His statements are offensive to our service members and their families who have sacrificed so much for the country they love.

This country’s military veterans, professional intelligence officers and career first responders don’t just have sweat equity in their communities, they have blood equity in America. I believe the voters in Virginia's 11th District appreciate that.

Chris Perkins is a retired U.S. Army officer and congressional candidate for Virginia's 11th District. - Washington Times

Add to Google

Monday, October 29

Libya Attack - Amazing that All The Americans Were Not Killed Or Taken Hostage!

Most Americans do not realize that there were two attacks in Benghazi the night of 9/11. One attack on the US Consulate and a second attack on the CIA Annex building in the City.

Those in the CIA Annex, called for help. Help was denied. Not only that, but they were ordered twice not to go and help those at the consulate.

At least three operatives disobeyed that order. Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was one of them and is one of the Americans who died later that night, about 7 hours after the attacks began. Most Americans believe that he was in the Consulate when the attack happened and that he died there. In fact he was at the CIA Annex. Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty also died while defending the CIA Annex.

With each day news of how the Administration completely mishandled the response to the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya just keeps getting worse. In recent days comes more troubling news that those on the group were pleading for help and there are claims that the requests for help were actively denied, by an as-yet unknown senior person in the Government, perhaps even the President himself or someone in his staff.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down." - Fox News
It seems to be a huge stroke of luck that those at the CIA Annex disobeyed orders, went to the Consulate and rescued the majority of the Americans there otherwise it is possible that all of the Americans at the Consulate would have ended up dead. Where is the Administration hiding them? Kind of interesting that none of them have had an opportunity to give their version of the events.

Making this twist in the story even more interesting is the news out of the CIA that no one within the CIA would have denied a request for help.
the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No. It would have been a presidential decision. - Link
President Obama is damn lucky that only four Americans died during the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, not to mention all of the Americans there that survived the attacks. It is only due to the heroic efforts of those on the ground defending their location that they were not assassinated or kidnapped and made hostages in some sort of Tehran Embassy repeat. This attack could easily have ended up that way. It almost defies belief that over the course of the attack, no direct assistance was given.It is incredible and suggests to me that the President considered everyone on the ground that night expendable.

It certainly seems like the Administration is hiding a number of facts of the attacks, starting with the most basic details right to the lack of details of any response efforts made during the attack as well as what military assets might have been in the area to help. Were the predator drone in the area armed as it is suggested that at least one of them was? Was there a SPECTRE Gunship in the area as has been rumored? Finally, why where the Americans defending the CIA Annex lasing a target with the expectation that it would be hit from above? They would only do such a thing if they thought that there were military assets in the area with the capability of dropping a bomb or missile on their target. Might it be that they were told that help was coming? There just seem to be ever more questions regarding this attack..

One last thing. It is perfectly understandable that the Vice President and even the President would not know most of the details of this attack just after it happened, but one would think that weeks after they would be well briefed on the details of this terrorist attack. So it is somewhat inexcusable that Vice President Biden would have no idea that the Americans under attack in Benghazi had requested additional security in the month before the attack. Was the Vice President truly not briefed in these matters, or was he lying? Either way the answer does not bode well for the country.

Add to Google

Sunday, October 21

Obama Administration Lying Is What Politicized The Benghazi Terror Attack

The Benghazi terrorist attack which killed the US Diplomat to Libya and three other Americans is a big deal. The Obama Administration has accused Mitt Romney of politicizing the attack. This is a load of bull. The Obama Administration has been lying about the attack for weeks and even to this day still can't give straight answers as to how it came about that the US Consulate has less security than the US Embassy in peaceful Helsinki, Finland. This is despite pleas from the Ambassador for more security.

In addition to the lax security question, also unanswered is why the Administration decided to do nothing when they learned about the attack. The attack was brought to the President's attention while it was underway. The Administration took a 'Wait and See' approach.

The Administration openly blamed a stupid internet video. Even though they are downplaying the link now that the association has so opening been seen a lie, they are still holding the producer of the video in jail, not to be brought before a judge until after the election.

Then the Administration waited weeks before securing the Consulate site, leaving classified material free for the taking, even by the news media.

So the next time Obama declares that Mitt Romney politicized the Benghazi terror attack, hopefully someone will point out that it was the weeks of the Administration lying about the attack that politicized it.

Then there is the other Obama foreign relations disaster with a body count, that being 'Fast and Furious'. I hope that comes up for discussion during the last Presidential debate. Along with kicking our long-term friends the UK, Canada, Australia, Israel, Poland, Taiwan and other to the curb, while at the same time embracing Russia, the UN's despot-controlled 'Human Rights Council' and groups traditionally seen as supporters of terrorism.

Add to Google

Obama's Sandra Fluke vs Clinton's Monica

First, there would have been no point to this story. But the Democrats had to insist in forcing companies and religious institutions to provide birth control to adults at no charge despite 'lack of access to birth control' not even being listed as any of the major reasons why women get accidentally pregnant.

One of Obama's major vote for free birth control warriors is Sandra Fluke. She has been activly promoted by Obama's re-election team, even given a speaking spot at the Democrat National Convention. Personally I do not know why, as the message of a 31 year old law graduate whining about her need to get free birth control does not really ring with me. It actually rings pretty hollow when you find out that a month's worth of birth control costs about $10. Everyone can pony up $10. The fact that Sandra can't gather a crowd of more than ten persons at an Obama re-election rally is pretty good evidence that her 15 minutes of fame is about over.

(Photo found at Ace of Spades)

Now take Monica Lewinsky. I had a chance to see her back in 1999 when she appeared in Helsinki Finland for her book signing. This was her second appearance that day and all of the people packed into the bookstore are trying to get a glimpse of her. the first bookstore was so packed that you could not get into it. All of this is 3 years after the scandal that made her famous.

So maybe Obama should ask Monica if she can help him campaign. Because Sandra's message is just not cutting it.

Add to Google