War Porn

What else do you call it if Obama sat and watched Americans under attack and did nothing?

Talk About Timely

I posted about Greens bearing gifts below and today the Hill is reporting that the rats are scrambling to get off the ship. My, my, my. What do we have here?

As of Sept. 30, LCV (League of Conservation Voters, otherwise known as shills for Tester)  had donated $410,000 of the nearly $417,000 in the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund’s PAC, which is responsible for the TV ad. LCV is backing Tester, in part, for his vote against a measure that would have blocked implementation of Obama administration air emissions rules.

 So, the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund raises $7k on their own, but they have help from Big Brother in the form of $410k?  But we know that money would never impact the good folks at HAL Fund.  In fact, I am sure that they are happy to be demonstrating their independence.  As the article says:

When contacted about the ad, Joe Splinter, treasurer for the Hunters and Anglers PAC and an associate with Washington, D.C.-based Hilltop Public Solutions, declined to comment.

Whoops, maybe not.

To My Libertarian Friends

Beware of Greens bearing gifts.  No, that's not a typo, I mean the Green lobby helping the Libertarian cause should raise some concerns for us.  I consider myself to be a small "l" libertarian, in that I believe in the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, the same principles as the Republican Party even if they don't always follow them.  But I have really taken a disliking to the big government approach of the so called Green Movement, and their encroachment on property rights and the expansion of government power through regulations.  Want to exercise your dominion over your property?  Not if the the Greens disapprove.  You have to have permits, reviews, approval from the proper authority before you can do anything.  And their lust for power and control just keeps growing.
So, why would the Green Movement suddenly decide that they want to help Libertarian Senate Candidate Dan Cox?  You can watch their video here.  Are the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership fund really interested in the principles of limited government and property rights?  If you go into who the leadership is, you find some telling points:

Montana Hunters and Anglers” is run by Members of President Obama’s Campaign Leadership Team in Montana and Political Operatives with Close Ties to Sen. Tester and Sen. Baucus.

Montana Hunters and Anglers President, Land Tawney
Member of Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mtsportsmen/)
Member of Senator Tester’s Montana Sportsmen’s Advisory Panel (http://tester.senate.gov/Newsroom/pr_021011_sportsmen.cfm)

Montana Hunters and Anglers Secretary, Kendall Van Dyke
Member of Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mtsportsmen/)
An elected Democrat State Senator from Billings (http://kendallvandyk.com/)

Montana Hunters and Anglers Treasurer, Barrett Kaiser
Former staffer to Sen. Max Baucus
Former consultant to Sen. Tester’s 2006 campaign (http://www.hilltoppublicsolutions.com/about/team_barrett.html)
Donor to Senator Tester (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/)

Montana Hunters and Anglers Treasurer, Beau Wright
Democrat activist and long time Tester supporter
http://bigskydemocrats.org/meetus
http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2006/05/28/490/
http://bigskydemocrats.org/

Montana Hunters and Anglers Director, George Cooper
Donor to Senator Tester (http://w5.melissadata.com/lookups/Fec.asp?cyear=2012&cident=C00412304)
Lobbyist for Forbes, Cauthen and Williams (The Forbes is Jeff Forbes, former Chief of Staff to Sen. Max Baucus)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Donor, Robin T Nichols
Donor to Montana Hunters and Anglers: total contributions $5,000
Donor to Tester: total contributions $2,500 (http://tinyurl.com/67xavm3)

Now it's possible that these good Democrats have suddenly become small government activists and are interested only in preserving property rights.  But a simpler explanation is that they are trying to siphon votes from Rehberg in order to maintain Democratic control of the Senate.

I will admit, that I have been encouraging my Democratic friends to vote Gary Johnson instead of Obama because Montana is so thoroughly in Romney's camp that their votes won't make a difference.  It will help the cause of libertarianism if we get more of a presence through the ballot box and increase the likelihood that a Libertarian will be included in future Presidential debates.  But the idea that Democrats are trying to convince us to vote for a Libertarian Senate candidate in order to  retain control, and doing so underhandedly just ticks me off.  Why can't they have the decency and integrity to say exactly who they are and why they are trying to distract us?  Probably because they have neither integrity nor decency.

Shame on them, and shame on us if we fall for these types of tricks.  While Denny may not be the ideal candidate for a Libertarian, Tester definitely is not the one we want. 

Vote for liberty and property rights.  Rehberg, not the puppet Cox!

How Long Do We Wait?

The Benghazi debacle is getting worse and worse.  From Obama denying that it was an Al Qaida attack for nearly two weeks, the arrest of some dope of a film maker as justification for the attack we now learn that the four Americans died while nothing was done.  Initially, I was thinking that it would have been difficult to move assets to support the consulate based on the distances.  Then I learned that there are AC-130s less than five hundred miles away that could have been sent.  These are just the type of plane that you would want in an urban environment.  They have the ability to deny use by area or to pinpoint attack a position.  And yet they were never sent.

While Panetta says that it's unwise to send forces into a situation when you don't know what is going on is correct, that doesn't mean you don't have options.  Why not at least launch one or two of the Spookys to give an option to the President.  Instead they were told not to go. 

Why? 

The man who made the "courageous decision" to kill bin Laden couldn't make up his mind to save Americans?  That the President went to bed while our consulate was under attack because he had a busy day fund raising scheduled?  I am so looking forward to the end of this misery.

There is no such thing as Voter Fraud

Check it out.

Apparently the people claiming that the concern over voter fraud is not true are the ones who are actually doing it.

Guess they didn't want the competition.

"Never Attribute to Malice . . .

That which is adequately explained by stupidity" (otherwise known as Hanlon's razor) should be the motto of the Obama administration regarding Benghazi and the death of our ambassador.  But I believe we may have a new variant - Obama = malice plus stupidity.  Allow me to explain.

The first response by the administration was that this was just an unruly mob that got out of control.  In fact, they used it for their political advantage when Gov. Romney decried the silly notion put out by the Egyptian embassy that the video was responsible for the unrest.  Milking the political advantage of Romney's so called gaffe, they continued with the meme of blaming the video for weeks after, even having the President go in front of the UN to apologize for the basic rights under the Constitution.  Our UN ambassador went on five different Sunday news shows to argue that it was all the natural reaction by the mobs to the video.  But things just don't make sense with the additional information that keeps coming out.

The Congressional hearings have let us learn that the State Department was watching the attack in real time and knew this wasn't a protest.  So, why did the head of Intelligence say more than two weeks after the attack that it was his fault that the administration was told that it was a mob that attacked the embassy?  Certainly it's possible that our intel was so incompetent that they forgot how to pick up a phone and let the White House know that they had the story wrong any earlier than they did.  That would certainly explain the incompetence, but it really does stretch the bounds of idiocy to make it go on so long.  Unless there is a reason that they needed to make it go on so long.

So, let's take a look at what we do know in order to form a basis for a different explanation of what happened.  First, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi, not the capital Tripoli.  While it is certainly possible that it was just a coincidence, the Ambassador's diary complaining about the lack of security and his concerns for his life make it curious that he would be there.  Especially on the eleventh anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks in our history.  Our next fact is that the two former SEALs who were killed in the attack were not there to provide security to the consulate but instead were there to locate and destroy antiaircraft weapons that had fallen into the wrong hands.  They apparently were off site from where the attack took place but responded when they heard it begin.  Last, there is the fact that there was a CIA "base" in Benghazi that was in operation looking for lost weapons.  This base had more fortifications as well as video surveillance which may be where the video came from.

With these facts in mind, Small Craft Advisory blog has come up with a theory on what happened.  His theory is that the Ambassador was in Benghazi in order to collect the weapons that the Obama administration gave to Al Qaida during the overthrow of Khadaffy.  Testing his theory against the facts, we have two former SEALs working under contract to procure the weapons otherwise known as MANPADS and the Ambassador on a special mission to make a deal for the weapons.  So let's assume that the Al Qaida version operating in Libya decides to set a trap that would also be a statement of their viability on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.  They arrange a meeting to supposedly hand over the weapons but only to the US Ambassador.  But Al Qaida wants more than just to kill the ambassador of the US, they want to also attack the CIA where they are tracking the weapons.  Perhaps they place conditions on the handoff that the Ambassador was not to have a security detail.  They then attack the consulate building and flush their prey into the CIA base which is where the video came from.  At this point, the contractors arrive and are killed and the base is overrun.

Certainly an interesting theory, and it probably explains the reasons for the Obama administration wanting to keep the story on the video as they attempted to ascertain how much they had lost in the attack.  Of course, it could also be as Small Craft explains it that they didn't want anyone knowing that they had armed Al Qaida, since that would make the whole arms for hostages deal of the Reagan administration look like a misdemeanor compared to what they had done, especially when the next airliner crashes outside of an airport thanks to weapons the administration had supplied.

Never underestimate the stupidity of this administration, but I think we can add malice in that they saw an opportunity to take Romney down a peg or two at the same time that they were trying to figure out where the MANPADS went.  Not very flattering for either their ability to work politically or in secret.

If You Want Good Govt. Vote Republican

Behghazi Gate, foreign contributions through sham credit card collections, Fast and Furious, Sibelius violating the Hatch Act, sending the IRS after political enemies, and that is just in the last month.  Where is the outrage?  Where is the investigative reporter bringing down a corrupt government?

Nobody died in Watergate, but the numbers of the dead from this Administration's actions keep growing, all the while they keep lying.  If we had a Republican administration, the calls for resignation would have been overwhelming.  Instead, the press agents for the Democrats remain mostly mute.

You want good clean government supervised by a watchdog press?  It ain't going to happen with a Democrat in the White House.

Mr. President, You Are Just Wrong.

Post debate, the Left is spinning that everything that Romney said was a lie.  It was only a lie if you believed the lies of Obama.  Trying to claim that the recovery was doomed because of the worst financial crisis ever and the "mess he inherited" is just plain wrong.  The problem is that it is a counterfactual that can't be disproved since we can't run a similar set of circumstances and try something else.  But the claims that all this mess is the result of Bush's policies are absolutely untrue. 

Check out this chart:

Mr. President, you can have your own house and your own plane, but the only people believing your BS were voting for you anyway.  The rest of us are highly annoyed at your lack of contact with reality.

You Are Not Entitled to Success

I hope you are happy with your station in life, because Obama wants you to stay there.

Maybe I was wrong about Biden

I always figured him for a clown, nowhere near his reported "gravitas" that the Left portrayed.  Remember that this is the same group that thought Palin to be stupid.   But when you couple him saying that the middle class has been buried for the last four years and now that he and Obama want to raise taxes $1 Trillion, I figured out that he is really a deep cover Republican mole.

Keep up the good work Joe, your reward will come in less than five weeks.

Well Said!

Post Debate

Clearly a Romney win, but more than a point score, Romney gave people a reason to vote for him besides the fact that he is not Obama.  I also came to the realization that the difference between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan was a well rounded person with a coherent philosophy.  Obama is an actor reciting lines written for him by others.

Watching the Debate

Watching the first 20 minutes of the debate, I am struck by how stark Obama is holding to his talking points even when Romney says it isn't true.  I just wist after the third iteration of the $5 Trillion in cuts that Romney says he isn't going to do, that Romney would turn to Obama and say "I think I know what the problem is with Washington not functioning.  You don't listen!"

Prepare Yourself

Six months ago, I had predicted that Romney was going to win the election which was in spite of the polls at the time. Lately, it seems that the polls are even more suggestive of an Obama victory, but I continue to maintain that Romney will win nonetheless. A recent poll shows that Obama and Romney are tied at 47% each. But if you look at the internals, there are some real problems with the poll. First, the poll assumes a weighting of 36% Democratic, 29% Republican and 30% Independent. They are basing these weights off the 2008 election results when

according to CNN exit polling, 74 percent of voters were white, 13 percent black, and 9 percent Latino, with Democratic turnout at 39 percent, Republicans at 32 percent, and independents at 29 percent.

Hmm, I wonder if the conditions could have changed from the greatest Democratic wave election since 1974? Is it possible, that Republicans who were dispirited in having to defend Bush for eight years would have been more anxious to vote then than they are now? How else do you explain the 3% drop in Republican weighting? Or for that matter, are Democrats really so enthused that they only have lost 3% since 2008? Most of the Democrats I know, are saying that they are going to grit their teeth and vote for Obama in spite of his record. And that's not counting those on the Left who were so morally outraged over wiretaps, Gitmo, tribunals, lawbreaking by the administration, etc. when Republicans were in office and who continue their outrage against the same thing when a Democrat does it. Of course, that's probably only 1% of all Democrats. The rest were just posturing for political advantage.
Setting aside the obvious problems with the polls, there is one sure test for why Obama is going to lose: Democrats fear Romney, but they don't love Obama. Their intensity is nowhere near as great as it was four years ago. Without that intensity, there may be the belief that the polls are accurate and that there is no need to actually go and vote.
 Republicans on the other hand may not love Romney, but he has that one shining asset that makes him their favorite: He's not Obama. Throw in the independents who when faced with the choice of four more years of the new normal or take a chance on changing things, and Obama may not even get the full value of his 47%. When we wake up on November 7th and find out that Romney has just been elected by the biggest electoral victory since 1984, what do you think all the good Democrats are going to be thinking? That's right, there will be a hue and cry throughout the land "We wuz robbed!" And the only way that they could have been robbed was through voter fraud and voter intimidation by Republicans, because all the polls showed that Obama was going to win.
And so, we have the first shot in the salvo to deligitimize President Romney. Just like they tried to deligitimize G. W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 (remember the tampered with voting machines in Ohio?) and the Republicans did with the birther nonsense, the idea is to remove the moral authority to govern. Throw in the newly discovered racism of all the people who lied to the pollsters, and you can be sanctimonious in your outrage that the first black President of the United States was denied his opportunity to bring us all to a healthy and happy place.
Just don't remind them that opposition to bad policy is not racist when it's bad policy.