The hardest thing about being conservative is dealing with the fantasies of the Left. Keynesianism should be buried with a stake through its heart. $850 Billion in direct spending coupled with a Trillion dollars in debt every year for the last four years should show that government spending does not increase the economy.
Since Obama has been reelected, attention is now being turned to the fiscal cliff. Harry Reid wants higher tax rates on everyone making over $250k, Chuck Schumer doesn't want to fix the tax code, (so that he can still give his friends the perks they paid him for) and Speaker Boehner says that he doesn't want higher tax rates. Seems like a recipe for stalemate. But in addition to the tax increases that are coming, we also have the results of Obamacare being implemented. The number of companies that are going to be forced to lay off workers is only going to be matched by the rise in prices that those companies that don't lay off workers are going to have to impose. It's entirely possible that you will see your hours cut to 28 a week and an increase in prices all at the same time.
So how about this - Let Boehner go along with the tax increase on the wealthy, but with a caveat: If the unemployment rate goes about 8.2%, the Bush tax cuts are fully reinstated and made permanent. Obama has been touting his "Summer of recovery" for the last three years, and unemployment has finally fallen below 8%. If his economic model is so wonderful, by historic standards we should be really rocketing up in GDP by now (bad base line is an easy way to show rapid growth).
Would have the advantage of saying to Obama, have it your way, which would remove the cudgel of class warfare, while at the same time making a bet that his economics don't work.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Boy Was I Wrong
Wow, just wow. The fundamentals dictated that no President could possibly overcome all that was going on in this country. The economy, 23 million unemployed, Benghazi and the rest of the Middle East, the coming fiscal cliff all should have led to a complete dismissal of The One. The fact that Mitt was competent even if not inspiring should have given hope that the USS Economy could finally be steered out of the shallow waters and once again prowling the oceans at full speed.
Instead, we get more of the same. Which was really the biggest reason I thought that Obama would lose. When people went to vote, would they ask themselves if this is as good as it gets, or can it be better? Unfortunately, it seems to be that they think that this is as good as it gets. And with his reelection, I guess this is as good as it gets.
But there are some fundamentals that can be learned from this election. First, go negative early and often. Keep hammering your opponent even if it's not the truth. The low information voter seems to be especially susceptible to the first message that hits him or her. Do not allow any accusation to go unchallenged. What would have happened if Mitt had responded to Obama, "Mr. President, you said that I was against government assistance to the auto companies. You either retract it right now or show yourself for the liar that you really are." Pretty disrespectful, but certainly merited. In fact, probably the most iconic moments of irony had to be Bill Clinton asking if we really wanted a President who lied to us. Apparently so.
Structurally, the Libertarian Party has to go. Republicans are going to have to work to include them, since they are a drain on votes for their candidates. If you add the 29k votes for Cox to Denny's total, Denny wins. Same with Rick Hill, who only needed half the Libertarian candidate's votes to win. Republicans can try and ostracize the Libertarian Party, but that's just like wrestling with a pig, the pig likes it and you get dirty. It wouldn't take that much to bring libertarians into the party, since both agree on the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. The problem is always the social conservative movement of the Republicans. Not to say that they aren't vital and valid, but you are never going to get anywhere with a libertarian by arguing that his principles on limited government have to be sacrificed in the name of a war on drugs or whatever. At the same time, libertarians have to be made abundantly clear that pulling votes from Republicans just elects Democrats. So, while the Libertarian may feel the Republican is not pure enough, he gets the Democrat elected who is completely antithetical to his beliefs. Half a loaf and all that.
Going forward, we have to address the concerns of the low information voter instead of ignoring them. The Democrats took full advantage of these people in order to get elected. Who are they? The ones who believe that Mitt Romney was going to take abortion away, or only cared about the rich. Now, Romney never really addressed abortion because the reality is that the big problem was the economy. If he had just asked the rhetorical question "If we allowed abortion on demand until the fetus graduates from High School or turned 18, which ever occurred later, how would that change the economy?" it would have pointed out the absurdity of the whole issue. But it certainly turned a lot of women voters. Second, Mitt should have addressed the rich issue by pointing out that right now if you implemented Obama's tax increases, you would fund the deficit, not the debt for about four days. The problem is the spending, not the taxes.
The whole rich versus poor thing is a fools errand. We become forced to fight on the battleground of their choosing. We should be pointing out instead that government is the problem. What if Mitt had been saying that Obama wants to bankrupt Social Security in order to keep paying Planned Parenthood, or that Medicare payments were reduced to the point that no doctor will take Medicare because of the low reimbursement rates in order to transfer "green money" to Obama's political contributers.
In fact, the Republicans miss the biggest easy target that the Democrats can never successfully defend. Every year, Sen. Coburn comes out with a list of government waste. Why are we raising taxes when we have so much waste? Most people would agree that it is better to get rid of government waste than to raise taxes, but Republicans just don't seem as interested in presenting the issue. Using a modified version of Malthus, doubling of the size of government results in an exponential growth in government failures and mismanagement. That is where the Republicans need to concentrate. Democrats would be running from fire to fire trying to put out the stupid stuff that the government does.
Yesterday was a loss. Today is the first day of the new fight. Let's fight smart.
Instead, we get more of the same. Which was really the biggest reason I thought that Obama would lose. When people went to vote, would they ask themselves if this is as good as it gets, or can it be better? Unfortunately, it seems to be that they think that this is as good as it gets. And with his reelection, I guess this is as good as it gets.
But there are some fundamentals that can be learned from this election. First, go negative early and often. Keep hammering your opponent even if it's not the truth. The low information voter seems to be especially susceptible to the first message that hits him or her. Do not allow any accusation to go unchallenged. What would have happened if Mitt had responded to Obama, "Mr. President, you said that I was against government assistance to the auto companies. You either retract it right now or show yourself for the liar that you really are." Pretty disrespectful, but certainly merited. In fact, probably the most iconic moments of irony had to be Bill Clinton asking if we really wanted a President who lied to us. Apparently so.
Structurally, the Libertarian Party has to go. Republicans are going to have to work to include them, since they are a drain on votes for their candidates. If you add the 29k votes for Cox to Denny's total, Denny wins. Same with Rick Hill, who only needed half the Libertarian candidate's votes to win. Republicans can try and ostracize the Libertarian Party, but that's just like wrestling with a pig, the pig likes it and you get dirty. It wouldn't take that much to bring libertarians into the party, since both agree on the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. The problem is always the social conservative movement of the Republicans. Not to say that they aren't vital and valid, but you are never going to get anywhere with a libertarian by arguing that his principles on limited government have to be sacrificed in the name of a war on drugs or whatever. At the same time, libertarians have to be made abundantly clear that pulling votes from Republicans just elects Democrats. So, while the Libertarian may feel the Republican is not pure enough, he gets the Democrat elected who is completely antithetical to his beliefs. Half a loaf and all that.
Going forward, we have to address the concerns of the low information voter instead of ignoring them. The Democrats took full advantage of these people in order to get elected. Who are they? The ones who believe that Mitt Romney was going to take abortion away, or only cared about the rich. Now, Romney never really addressed abortion because the reality is that the big problem was the economy. If he had just asked the rhetorical question "If we allowed abortion on demand until the fetus graduates from High School or turned 18, which ever occurred later, how would that change the economy?" it would have pointed out the absurdity of the whole issue. But it certainly turned a lot of women voters. Second, Mitt should have addressed the rich issue by pointing out that right now if you implemented Obama's tax increases, you would fund the deficit, not the debt for about four days. The problem is the spending, not the taxes.
The whole rich versus poor thing is a fools errand. We become forced to fight on the battleground of their choosing. We should be pointing out instead that government is the problem. What if Mitt had been saying that Obama wants to bankrupt Social Security in order to keep paying Planned Parenthood, or that Medicare payments were reduced to the point that no doctor will take Medicare because of the low reimbursement rates in order to transfer "green money" to Obama's political contributers.
In fact, the Republicans miss the biggest easy target that the Democrats can never successfully defend. Every year, Sen. Coburn comes out with a list of government waste. Why are we raising taxes when we have so much waste? Most people would agree that it is better to get rid of government waste than to raise taxes, but Republicans just don't seem as interested in presenting the issue. Using a modified version of Malthus, doubling of the size of government results in an exponential growth in government failures and mismanagement. That is where the Republicans need to concentrate. Democrats would be running from fire to fire trying to put out the stupid stuff that the government does.
Yesterday was a loss. Today is the first day of the new fight. Let's fight smart.
Monday, November 05, 2012
What if . . ?
What if contrary to all the energy, Obama is able to steal enough votes in Ohio win,what will happen after the election? It's clear that the Republicans are going to keep the House and may take the Senate. If they do, we will have an ideologue in the White House who has said that he is willing to work with anybody. Sure he hasn't shown it yet, but he's saving it for his second term, I'm sure. You know, when he will have more freedom, like with Putin.
The one advantage for keeping Obama is that he can immediately start working on the "fiscal cliff" that is looming on the first of January. I predict that he will tell the Republicans that they have to cave because "I won" just like last time. Only this time, there is not going to be any pretense of civility between the two sides. Republicans are going to hold fast to their no tax pledge and with good reason. Remember, Obama has more of a habit of conceding than seeing something through to the end. While Republicans will be excoriated for their failure to compromise, they have some things going for them. First, while Congress is held in low esteem, everyone of them will probably have won with more than 50% of their home district support. As in, "Screw Congress, but I love my congresscritter."
Assuming we run over the cliff, the economy is going to shut down. Anyone with money will be parking it offshore in some form of stable currency like whatever Somalia uses. But it's the principle of the thinkg to Obama. He would rather see the economy tank, 720,000 people losing their jobs and riots in the street than give up on his punitive tax on the so called wealthy. Remember, it's not about reducing the deficit or increasing revenue to the government. This is all about class warfare baby. If it wasn't, why would Obama have agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2010?
There will be a surfeit of new regulations designed to punish the few remaining businesses that failed to have the good sense to contribute significantly to his re-election. Not that it will matter, except to all the Obamavilles that will spring up and be required to put a catalytic converter over their fire barrels.
But it's not all bad news. Because there will be no limits on what Obama will attempt to do by executive fiat, the 2012 elections will probably result in the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party. My forecast is that there may be fewer than 50 Democrats combined in Congress after the election. Hmmm, isn't Max coming up for re-election then?
But you don't have to worry. The assumptions built into the polling models are just enough wrong that they end result will be 53-47 Romney with over 300 electoral votes. If in this highly energized year you don't understand that the Democrat turnout will be matched by Republicans, it will be the independents who will provide the necessary energy to propel the first Mormon President. When Romney leads among them by 22%, Obama doesn't have a chance.
And Nate Silver is going to have some explaining to do over at 538.
The one advantage for keeping Obama is that he can immediately start working on the "fiscal cliff" that is looming on the first of January. I predict that he will tell the Republicans that they have to cave because "I won" just like last time. Only this time, there is not going to be any pretense of civility between the two sides. Republicans are going to hold fast to their no tax pledge and with good reason. Remember, Obama has more of a habit of conceding than seeing something through to the end. While Republicans will be excoriated for their failure to compromise, they have some things going for them. First, while Congress is held in low esteem, everyone of them will probably have won with more than 50% of their home district support. As in, "Screw Congress, but I love my congresscritter."
Assuming we run over the cliff, the economy is going to shut down. Anyone with money will be parking it offshore in some form of stable currency like whatever Somalia uses. But it's the principle of the thinkg to Obama. He would rather see the economy tank, 720,000 people losing their jobs and riots in the street than give up on his punitive tax on the so called wealthy. Remember, it's not about reducing the deficit or increasing revenue to the government. This is all about class warfare baby. If it wasn't, why would Obama have agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2010?
There will be a surfeit of new regulations designed to punish the few remaining businesses that failed to have the good sense to contribute significantly to his re-election. Not that it will matter, except to all the Obamavilles that will spring up and be required to put a catalytic converter over their fire barrels.
But it's not all bad news. Because there will be no limits on what Obama will attempt to do by executive fiat, the 2012 elections will probably result in the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party. My forecast is that there may be fewer than 50 Democrats combined in Congress after the election. Hmmm, isn't Max coming up for re-election then?
But you don't have to worry. The assumptions built into the polling models are just enough wrong that they end result will be 53-47 Romney with over 300 electoral votes. If in this highly energized year you don't understand that the Democrat turnout will be matched by Republicans, it will be the independents who will provide the necessary energy to propel the first Mormon President. When Romney leads among them by 22%, Obama doesn't have a chance.
And Nate Silver is going to have some explaining to do over at 538.
Friday, November 02, 2012
Why We Need Tester to Leave
Harry Reid has just declared that he will not work with Mitt Romney when he becomes President. I suppose this is meant to be payback for Mitch McConnell's comment that he wanted Obama to fail. Now the reality is that is not exactly what McConnell said back in 2010 (or well into the fiasco of Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches of government). McConnell wanted him to change, and if he didn't change, then he would fail. And lo and behold! Obama didn't change. Hence his impending failure at the ballot box (absent sufficient vote stealing of course.)
But the easiest way to keep Reid from obstructing the people's will is to boot Tester and replace him with Rehberg, then do the thing that Reid had threatened - do away with the filibuster.
For the sake of this great nation, we cannot allow Tester to continue to support Harry Reid.
But the easiest way to keep Reid from obstructing the people's will is to boot Tester and replace him with Rehberg, then do the thing that Reid had threatened - do away with the filibuster.
For the sake of this great nation, we cannot allow Tester to continue to support Harry Reid.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
That's got to leave a mark!
The Las Vegas Review Journal has decided not to endorse Obama. From the article:
Read the whole thing.
This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.
Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.
These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.
Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
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:
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!
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 WrightNow 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.
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)
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!
Friday, October 26, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, October 12, 2012
"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.
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.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, October 08, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, October 05, 2012
You Are Not Entitled to Success
I hope you are happy with your station in life, because Obama wants you to stay there.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
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.
Keep up the good work Joe, your reward will come in less than five weeks.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)