President Obama’s team “put a target” on the backs of the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden, says Karen Vaughn in a video that suggests her son died three months later as a result of White House national security leaks.
“How dare they?” Mrs. Vaughn asks. “They put a target on my son’s back and even on my back. But a little over 90 days later, my son was dead.” Aaron Vaughn and 21 other Navy SEALs, “most of whom belonged to Team 6, the unit whose members were involved in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden,” according to ABC, died in Afghanistan when a helicopter he was riding on was shot down.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/10/09/video-mother-of-fallen-seal-blames-obama-wh-leaks/
Obama Campaign Scrambles to Kill Illegal Online Fundraising Story
The article has a screenshot of the donation processed illegally. It was thanks to the bank, not Barack Obama’s campaign, that the donation did not go through. Had basic checks been implemented, this donation would have been rejected. Keep in mind that all the information present except the credit card information is completely made up
http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/08/the-obama-campaign-processed-this-donation/
Minutes after Newsweek published a story on the threat of illegal foreign and fraudulent online campaign donations late Monday afternoon, the Obama campaign struck back hard with a response smearing one of the article’s authors and offered an anemic defense of its online fundraising operations.
Within hours of a Newsweek article on the report’s release, the Obama campaign issued a dismissive response. The Obama campaign’s rapid-fire attack against the report did not mention Robert Roche, Obama.com, the Obama campaign’s failure to require donors to enter their CVV code, or the report’s finding that 68% of the traffic going to Obama.com originates from foreign locations.
Governor Mitt Romney’s website requires donors to enter a credit card security code, while President Barack Obama’s does not. The GAI report also revealed that Obama.com is not owned by the president’s campaign but rather by Robert Roche, an American businessman and top Obama fundraiser living in Shanghai, China, whose company has ties to the Chinese government.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/08/Obama-Campaign-Scrambles-To-Kill-Illegal-Online-Fundraising-Story
Of course, Biden’s opposition to the bin Laden operation is not surprising. The fact is Biden has a near-perfect record of being wrong about almost every major foreign policy question that the United States has faced in the past three decades. He supported the nuclear freeze in the 1980s, opposed ballistic missile defense and warned of a new arms race if the United States withdrew from theAnti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (we did, and no arms race ensued). He opposed aiding the Nicaraguan democratic resistance that helped roll back communism in our hemisphere, the Reagan defense buildup that bankrupted the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War that liberated Kuwait, and the 2007 surge that turned back the insurgency and defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq. With this record, it is no shock that Biden opposed the killing of bin Laden as well. But it takes chutzpah for Biden to publicly castigate Romney for his imaginary opposition to the bin Laden operation, when Biden actually opposed the bin Laden operation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-bidens-bin-laden-hypocrisy/2012/10/08/990aca7c-114d-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
Phony in Chief by Thomas Sowell
A classic example was his speech to a predominantly black audience at Hampton University on June 5, 2007. That date is important, as we shall see. In his speech -- delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn't use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience -- he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does. Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans -- predominantly black -- "they don't care about as much," according to Barack Obama.
Why is the date of this speech important? Because, less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined. Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.
Some people in the media have tried to dismiss this and other revelations of Barack Obama's real character that have belatedly come to light as "old news." But the truth is one thing that never wears out. The Pythagorean Theorem is 2,000 years old, but it can still tell you the distance from home plate to second base (127 ft.) without measuring it. And what happened five years ago can tell a lot about Barack Obama's character -- or lack of character.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief
Romney offers powerful alternative to apologizing for America
On Columbus Day, Mitt Romney went to the Virginia Military Institute to outline a starkly different foreign policy vision from President Obama’s approach of apologizing for America, ignoring Islamism, mistreating our allies and embracing our enemies.It came none too soon. The Syrian war has spilled across the border of a NATO ally and there are new indications the rebellion is drifting toward the influence of radical jihadists.
In our own hemisphere, the anti-US strongman with whom Obama shared a brother handshake in public, Hugo Chavez, just claimed a new mandate to advance his anti-American cause.
The Iranian regime—the chief opponent of a modern, civilized order in the Middle East -- is lurching toward a nuclear weapons capability.
And then there is Libya, where a terrorist attack that killed US ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans has led not to reprisals and serious action, but an administration lying to the American people about national security to a degree not seen since the Vietnam era.
Mitt Romney laid out an alternative that would be stingy with lives of American servicemen, but willing to use American statecraft and power when our interests are clearly on the line.
Where Obama has done nothing to help Syrian rebels for want of a permission slip from the UN, Romney would “identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.”
Where Obama and his aides have lied to the American people about the terrorist attack in Libya, Romney vowed to “pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans,” noting that the attack was work of “terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others.”
Where Obama turned his back on pro-freedom protestors and sought to sweet talk the deadly Iranian regime out of its nuclear aspirations, Romney promised to position the military force necessary—and to stop the looming defense cuts that would eviscerate that military—in order to convince Tehran that there will be consequences to aggression.
Outlining his approach to the world at large, Romney noted “I believe that if America does not lead, others will--others who do not share our interests and our values--and the world will grow darker.” This commitment to smart internationalism differentiates Romney from an Obama administration that has been asleep at the wheel as revolutions have swept the Middle East, stunned that the president’s repeated apologies for past American conduct and deep bow to the Saudi king somehow did not fix America’s problems in the region.
But Romney also made clear he is no neo-conservative. His plan for Syria rejects the no-fly zone approach to everything advocated by Republicans John McCain and Lindsay Graham. So instead of an open-ended military commitment Americans want least right now, the Romney plan for Syria would influence the future political outcome away from radical Islamists—what really matters most for the future government that will inherit Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. Overall, the would-be Romney doctrine has a focus on political outcomes abroad—what comes after a war or revolution—that has been missing from recent administrations of both parties.
The one matter conspicuously absent from Romney’s speech was a comprehensive approach to China, which he mentioned only once. China’s unelected government sits atop a kleptocracy that systematically steals American intellectual property and trade secrets, wages a relentless cyber war on the United States, and is undertaking a massive military buildup aimed at pushing the US out of the Western Pacific.
But at least Romney has called for what could be the most important tool in containing an increasingly aggressive China—a strong military centered around a restored US Navy. Beijing will take note of that more than hopeful statements about cooperation from Obama’s diplomats.
President John Quincy Adams famously said that America “does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” So too can we now assume a Romney presidency would avoid foreign adventures. But when others make war on us, we will no longer be afraid to see what we see and respond accordingly.
Obama Has Earned Next To Nothing In Life
By Douglas MacKinnon
As much of the far-left mainstream media continues to panic over Mr. Obama’s abject failure of a first debate, they deliberately avoid doing their jobs and reporting the real reason for his totally expected performance.Said one Obama-fawning editor from The Atlantic magazine, “…The president appeared snippy, his eyes flashing angrily during those infrequent moments when he looked at his opponent, his lips pursed and upturned when he looked down…There was, in the expression, a mixture of annoyance, impatience, and dislike”
The fact is that Mr. Obama was “snippy.” His expression did have a “mixture of annoyance, impatience, and dislike.”
Why? Because in Barack Obama, we have a man who has basically not had to earn anything since about the age of nineteen. At about that time, he was inserted into the protective liberal bubble of political correctness and has had most things handed to him ever since.
Want to get into Columbia and Harvard in spite of suspect grades? Sure. Want to become a loosely defined “community organizer?” Sure. Want to become a state legislator so you can vote “present” most of the time to protect future political prospects? Sure. Want to be the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democrat convention for reasons other than your total lack of experience? Sure. Want to become a United States Senator with no real experience and then spend almost the entire time in the senate running for President? Sure. Want to have the mainstream media line up behind you in the primary season and attack Hillary Clinton because you are the more liberal of the two and the “transformational” candidate? Sure. Want to have that same media elevate you to Messiah status and hold you accountable for nothing as they never question your missteps, misstatements, mistakes or even unlimited golf outings? Sure.
Knowing that gilded history, it’s quite easy to see why Mr. Obama would come across as snippy, annoyed, impatient and even angry. How dare Mitt Romney, Jim Lehrer or even the American people ask him to prove himself or actually earn anything. That’s simply not the way it has ever worked in the pampered and privileged world of Barack Obama. No, in that fairy-tale world, certain people are handed degrees, jobs, and titles. There is no “earning” involved. Only the little people have to earn or learn.
In many ways, Mr. Obama is the poster child for the young unchallenged and unproven wimps being created by the liberal nanny-state. Political correctness now orders that there are unlimited strikes in T-ball. No one can keep score. That everyone gets a trophy. That no one can be disciplined, called any names, or be held accountable for errors. Ever.
In this totally untethered from reality politically correct world, one never has to earn anything and experience does not matter. What matters only is what trophy, job, degree, or health-care plan the nanny-state bestows upon you.
Not only is such nonsense counterproductive and counterintuitive, it’s also quite dangerous. As we have just seen in Libya and around the world, terrorists keep score. Rogue nations know the importance of strength. The People’s Republic of China works day and night to exploit our weaknesses. Both in corporate America and within our government.
In their world and in the real world outside of the Oval Office, experience does matter. Earning a place on a team or a special operations force based upon toughness, strength, and a higher intelligence does matter. Hiring and promoting based on merit does matter.
We now have a president who has been handed most of his “achievements” in life and our country and our citizens are being made to pay the price for his entitlement. Enough.
With a massive unethical assist from the mainstream media, Mr. Obama did make history. Time now to move away from the “snippy” and the entitled and put a premium once again on experience, toughness, strength, and results.
People who always keep score and mean us unspeakable harm are watching and waiting.
http://townhall.com/columnists/douglasmackinnon/2012/10/09/obama_has_earned_next_to_nothing_in_life/page/full/
No comments:
Post a Comment