Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Conservatism is Calling

Spectacular video! Watch it. Share it.

Toward the end of the video is a clip of Ronald Reagan giving a speech in 1964. If you want to see the entire speech, click
here. - Reggie

h/t The Right Scoop

The Wages of Libya

Victor Davis Hanson
Careers have ended over less than the administration cover-up.

We have had ambassadors murdered abroad before, but we have never seen anything quite like the tragic fate of Chris Stevens. Amid all the controversy over Libya, we have lost sight of the human — and often horrific — story of Benghazi: a U.S. ambassador attacked, cut off and killed alone, after being abused by frenzied terrorists, and a second member of the embassy staff murdered, as two American private citizens rushed to the rescue, heroically warding off Islamist hit teams, until they were overwhelmed and also killed.

Seven weeks after the tragedy in Benghazi, new government narratives just keep appearing, as various branches of government point the finger at one another. Now the president insists that “the minute” he “found out what was going on” he gave “very clear directives” to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” The secretary of defense argues that he knew too little to send in military forces to save the post. Meanwhile, we are hearing from other sources that the beleaguered compound in extremis was denied help on three separate occasions, and there are still more contradictory accounts.

When the government systematically misleads and cannot establish a believable narrative, almost everyone involved is eventually tarred. The final chart of those officials in the Nixon White House who were devoured by Watergate was vast — and so it is becoming with the disaster in Libya. If we have learned anything from Watergate and Iran-Contra, it is that the longer officials deceive and obfuscate, the greater the number of wrecked careers and reputations.

Most likely, the political wing of the White House almost immediately made a decision that the attack on our Benghazi consulate should not endanger the conventional narrative of a successful commander-in-chief — ahead in the polls in part because he had highlighted a supposedly successful foreign policy. Key to that story was the notion that the hit on bin Laden and the drone attacks on other Islamists had rendered al-Qaeda all but impotent. In addition, the administration’s supposed lead-from-behind strategy in Libya had served as a model for energizing a democratic Arab Spring. Commander-in-Chief Obama was intent on reminding the country of his competence and toughness as an international leader, and especially of his wise reluctance to rush into areas of instability.

In such a landscape, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were brutally murdered. And almost immediately it was clear that the ambassador had earlier warned that Libya was descending into chaos and that Americans were not safe there — only to have his requests for further protection rejected.

During the actual assault on the consulate, a real-time video, streams of e-mail exchanges, and surveys of Islamist websites confirmed that al-Qaedists were carrying out a preplanned assassination — and over the next seven or eight hours it became clear that our staff was in dire need of military assistance that was somehow never sent. Then for nearly two weeks, the president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Press Secretary Jay Carney, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice advanced a counter-narrative that simply could not have been true: A spontaneous demonstration over a two-month-old video — just happening to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11 — got out of hand as some disruptive protesters showed up with machines gun, mortars, and RPGs and began killing Americans. Since it was an American religious bigot who had prompted such terrible but “natural” riots with his video that ridiculed and injured Islam, we should apologize for the uncouth among us in the strongest terms.

Obama, Clinton, Clapper, Rice, and Carney strove to outdo each other in damning the obscure video maker — to such an extent that he was summarily arrested on a supposedly outstanding probation charge. The message? Ambassadors die and careful U.S. foreign policy is undermined when right-wing bigots abuse their free-speech rights.

Yet almost all of that story is untrue, and it will come back to haunt all those who either by intent or through ignorance engaged in the cover-up. Review the following spinners.

President Obama still does not grasp the significance of Libya. When he calls the attacks there and in Egypt “bumps in the road” or “not optimal,” and asserts that they will not play much of a role in the final weeks of the campaign, he sounds either callous or na├»ve or both. Collate the administration’s statements over the two weeks following the attacks, and they simply cannot be true. The months-old video proved just too much of a temptation for the president to resonate the themes of his Cairo speech in damning uncouth Americans for offending Muslims. When the president claims that he ordered everything to be done to save the compound, he must be aware that subordinates who did not in turn give orders that relief be sent will eventually come forward to either affirm or deny his statement. His further problem is that lax security, administration misdirection, and hesitancy to aid the beleaguered all feed into the earlier attitudes framed by “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disasters,” “workplace violence,” promises to try KSM in a civilian court, the al-Arabiya interview, the Cairo speech, and other efforts to contextualize and airbrush radical Islam’s terrorist assault on the West. In other words, fairly or not, we can discern a logic to why the president would not be candid and accurate about Benghazi.

Read the rest of the column

Change At The Pump

New Romney ad.

Yes, We Should Cut FEMA

Kevin Williamson
The agency has managed to waste truly shocking amounts of money.

There are some things in politics that are as predictable as the changing seasons. When there is a high-profile act of violence involving a firearm, the ghouls at the Brady Center and their allies issue press releases while the blood is still hot on the ground, blaming the crime on the failure of Congress to comply with their policy preferences. When there is a natural disaster, Democrats are front and center, before the flood waters even have crested, with reminders that Republicans — wicked, evil Republicans — would cut FEMA funding if left to their own devices.

The storm is coming. But Matt Yglesias is coming first: “Romney wants to cut FEMA.”

Whenever there’s a major natural disaster, the federal government steps in to help. But that wouldn’t necessarily be the case if Mitt Romney got his way. During a 2011 GOP primary debate he said it was “immoral” for the federal government to be spending money on disaster relief when it should be focused on deficit reduction.

. . . If a storm damages basic physical infrastructure (power lines, bridges) and imperils human life it would be the height of penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking to suppose that the afflicted area should wait months or years to repair the damage. Ultimately, anyplace is going to go back to robust wealth creation faster if basic stuff gets fixed up faster. But that requires financing by an entity capable of rapidly financing expensive projects — i .e., the federal government. Left to its own devices a storm-ravaged Delaware or Louisiana is going to be squeezed between balanced budget rules and falling sales tax receipts and be forced into an increasing state of dilapidation.

Romney did not present disaster relief vs. deficit reduction as an either/or proposition. Like most Republicans, he has argued that we might have more effective disaster relief if we moved some larger part of the responsibility to the state and local levels, and into the private sector. To put the issue in a less boneheadedly simplistic fashion, the question is not whether we: A. spend money on disaster relief or B. reduce the deficit. Rather, the questions are: Given our tenuous fiscal position, is it possible that we are spending too much money on FEMA and related programs? Is that spending maximally effective? Might we be better off decentralizing these efforts?

Yglesias, like many of his like-minded compatriots, presents these arguments as though they were all-or-nothing propositions. This is strange, inasmuch as they pretty clearly recognize the merits of such inquiry when coming from their own side: There are many people who believe that we spend far too much money on national security (I am among them), but only the most gap-toothed among us equate asking uncomfortable questions about military-spending priorities with abandoning national security categorically. Sometimes it makes sense to ask whether the federal government should be doing this at all. Very often it makes sense to ask, as one expects a Romney administration would, whether the federal government is going about this the right way.

On the narrow question of FEMA, the answer is probably no. Like many otherwise worthwhile federal endeavors, including those that happen inside that famous five-sided building in Washington, FEMA has managed over the years to waste truly shocking amounts of money, e.g. spending $416,000 per capita to temporarily house people displaced by Hurricane Katrina, spending nearly $1 billion on manufactured homes that FEMA’s own regulations rendered unusable in many situations, etc. We all remember those $2,000 debit cards that were handed out like Christmas candy. In much the same way that some conservatives are more skeptical about foreign military actions when there is a Democratic president, liberals are better at recognizing government waste when there is a Republican president.

Read the rest of the column

If media is right that Ohio is key, Romney wins

Newt Gingrich
On Monday, I visited Hamilton, Warren, and Delaware counties in Ohio. Last week, I visited Wisconsin and Florida. I am writing this from Kansas City, Missouri.

Here are some observations.

First, Ohio, which the news media has designated the key swing state. If they are right, it is very likely Mitt Romney is the next president.

Hamilton County is Cincinnati and its suburbs. Historically, Cincinnati was a Republican stronghold. In 2008 Obama carried this county by 27,000 votes. I met with 75 volunteers and they unanimously thought Romney would carry Hamilton County. This is the home base of Sen. Rob Portman, and they are very proud of the role he played in debate preparation. That is helping energize the volunteer base.

We then went to Lebanon, in Warren County. This is a Republican stronghold, and the wildly enthusiastic Republican volunteers certainly reflected their passion for defeating Obama. Romney will come out of Warren County with a huge majority, much bigger than McCain in 2008.

Finally, we joined a rally for Josh Mandel at Blackwing gun store and shooting center in Delaware County. Josh is a former Marine in Iraq and the current state treasurer. He is a solid conservative running against the most liberal member of the Senate, Sherrod Brown (who literally scores to the left of Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, a self proclaimed Socialist). Mandel has a good chance to win and recent polls show the election very close.

The crowd in Delaware County was enthusiastic and very pro-Romney and pro-Mandel.

In eastern Ohio the news about the massive natural gas and oil development is moving the state toward Romney. Ohio certainly feels like Romney has the momentum to win.

In Wisconsin, the Republican volunteers have been campaigning nonstop because of the recall effort against Gov. Scott Walker. Wisconsin Republicans are very excited about having their favorite son, Paul Ryan, on the ballot. Former Gov. Tommy Thompson, winner of five statewide elections, is now ahead by about three points in his race with Tammy Baldwin, one of the most radical members of the House. I am confident Tommy is going to win and I think the Romney-Ryan ticket is going to carry the state, but by a narrower margin than the Senate race.

In Florida, I campaigned with Congressman Allen West who is locked in a very tight race in a new district. He is one of the most courageous and committed conservatives in Congress and everyone who can help him should do so.

Read the full column

'Cooling Out' the Voters

Thomas Sowell
On Benghazi, Obama's confidence men think Americans are an easy mark.

Confidence men know that their victim -- "the mark" as he has been called -- is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called "cooling out the mark."

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out -- but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton's own White House aides later called it "telling the truth slowly."

By the time the whole truth came out, it was called "old news," and the clever phrase now was that we should "move on."

It was a successful "cooling out" of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.

We are currently seeing another "cooling out" process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year.

The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead.

About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there.

Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?

The White House knew the facts -- but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of "cooling out" the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.

Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.

All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions and inactions of the Obama administration kept in the background.

The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty -- "cooling out" the voters -- the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.

As the Obama administration's video story began to slowly unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on "the fog of war" that initially obscures many events. But there was no such "fog of war" in this case. The Obama administration knew what was happening while it was happening.

They didn't know all the details -- and we may never know all the details -- but they knew enough to know that this was no protest demonstration that got out of hand.

Read the rest of the column

"The International Debt Crisis"

YouTube description: Chair: Burton Folsom Hillsdale College

"The State of the European Union"
Eamonn Butler, Adam Smith Institute

"The Debt Crisis in the U.S."
Richard Rahn, Institute for Global Economic Growth

"The Role of China in the Debt Crisis"
James A. Dorn, Cato Institute and Towson University

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Emails: Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki knew Treasury edited GM press releases

President Barack Obama’s campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki was aware Treasury Department officials crafted the press releases and public messaging for General Motors during the 2009 auto industry bailout, documents obtained by The Daily Caller show.

Psaki was a White House deputy press secretary at the time. She and fellow White House staffers Brian Deese and Amy Brundage show up on the emails in which the Treasury Department was rewriting press releases for GM.

TheDC obtained these internal Treasury Department documents in 2011 but an agreement with the source prevented their publication until now. The inclusion of Psaki, Deese and Brundage in these communications is reported here for the first time.

Psaki has since returned to Obama’s political campaign as his traveling press secretary.

Obama campaign spokespersons haven’t responded to TheDC’s requests for comment. But in an interview with CBS News during her White House tenure, Psaki acknowledged that “anything we say can reflect on the president.”

In one email message obtained by TheDC, the Treasury Department’s Jenni Engebretsen wrote to General Motors officials on Friday, May 29, 2009. Engebretsen was reacting to a draft of a press release she received from GM, about the company ceasing operations at several factories.

“We would ask that you move the reference to Treasury down to the third paragraph, taking it out of the lede,’” she wrote. “Please let us know if this presents any issues.”

“Lede” is a slang term for the opening paragraph of a news story or press release. Asking GM to remove the Treasury Department from the lede was a request to downplay its significance, and a sign that the Obama administration sought to minimize the public perception of its role in the GM bailout.

GM’s director of policy and Washington communications director Greg Martin replied to Engebretsen: “No problems. Done.”

Engebretsen then asked: “If there is an updated version at some point over the weekend we’d appreciate a final copy. Many thanks.”

Despite the Treasury Department’s desire to de-emphasize its role in bailing out GM, Obama is now citing it as a positive campaign issue and a success story for his administration.

Read the rest of the story

The October Surprise and the November Election

Patrick Caddell
The October Surprise in 2010

At 4:22 p.m. on Friday, October 29, 2010, President Barack Obama stepped into the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House and announced some startling news: Two bombs, hidden inside printer cartridges, had been detected the previous day on a cargo plane heading from Dubai to Chicago.

The detection was obviously good news--but did it really have to be news? That is, wasn’t there much to be gained by staying mum on the news, with an eye to catching the culprits?

Even if the bombs had not exploded as the terrorists had planned, there was no need to let them know that the plot had been foiled, as opposed to the bombs having merely malfunctioned. In intelligence circles, this investigative process is called “walking back the cat”--that is, trying to reverse-engineer the process by which the security system was penetrated in the first place. And that reverse-engineering can best be done in secrecy, before the bomb-makers have a chance to scatter.

But that’s not what happened. Here’s what the President said on that Friday afternoon two years ago:

The American people should know that the counterterrorism professionals are taking this threat very seriously and are taking all necessary and prudent steps to ensure our security. And the American people should be confident that we will not waver in our resolve to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates and to root out violent extremism in all its forms.

Yes, it’s nice to know that a bomb was thwarted, but it would have been even nicer to know that the bomb-makers had been arrested or killed.

So why didn’t the President wait until he had more good news? What was the hurry on the announcement? We might note that the October 29, 2010, announcement came just four days before the 2010 midterm elections. And the President’s announcement was soon followed byfive “readouts” of Obama conversations with the foreign leaderswhose countries helped unravel the plot. In other words, the Obama administration worked overtime to push its counter-terrorism news to the forefront, just just before the elections.

The result was a decent-sized rally-‘round-the-flag effect. After all, what could Republicans say? Who can be against good news in the war on terror? Perhaps the GOP could have made the point about premature release of sensitive information, but they would have risked looking churlish as a result.

In any case, the impact on the 2010 elections was substantial. According to the exit polls, a full nine percent of those voting on November 2 said that combating terror was the most important issue--and of that nine-percent slice of the electorate, the Democrats, boosted by the news of the cartridge bomb, won by double digits. That is, even as they were losing on just about every other issue, the Democrats won on terrorism. The result was a lift for Congressional Democrats; they probably held on to an additional Senate seat or two, and perhaps also another half-dozen House seats.

So we have to ask: Cui bono? Who benefited? If the answer is that the Democrats in Congress were the beneficiaries, then the finger of suspicion might point to Democratic politicos with access to security information. And so we can focus on Tom Donilon, whom I first met in 1976, during Jimmy Carter’s first presidential campaign. After a long career in the political vineyards--including some time spent plucking the juicy grapes at Fannie Mae--Donilon has now ended up as President Obama’s national security adviser. A political operative put in charge of national security might seem like a joke, but the real joke is on the American people, because no one ever doubted that Donilon would bring his political bag of tricks with him to the National Security Council. And as I have noted here at in the past, those damaging leaks in the summer of 2012--damaging to the country, but helpful to Obama--seem to have Donilon’s fingerprints all over them.

The October Surprise in US History

Read the full article

John Podhoretz on his Radical Agenda

John Podhoretz
A government that spends more money, and takes more control, than ever before

Let us now praise Barack Obama. For if he loses on Nov. 6, he will lose for the same reason he would have won — because of his very real, very substantial, and very consequential achievements.

Mitt Romney has based his bid to replace the president on the very simple argument that Obama is a failure — the economy is mired in the doldrums, fewer Americans are working today than in 2009, and job growth has lagged. Obama, Romney says, doesn’t know how to fix what is broken, but Romney does.

It’s a powerful argument, and it may win Romney the presidency, but it’s actually beside the point. If you look at Obama’s presidency not as a denizen of Twitter, focused on the minute-by-minute, but rather with a historian’s eye, you can see it wasn’t about those things at all.

Obama’s presidency hasn’t been dedicated to achieving economic growth in the short term, or about creating jobs.

Those would have been desirable for political reasons, of course. But he was after bigger game. His presidency has been about something larger and grander — and far more disturbing to those who don’t share his implicit sense of what America ought to be.

In his first 16 months as president, from his inauguration through the signing into law of ObamaCare, Obama arguably altered the trajectory of the United States in a manner that neither Mitt Romney (should he become president) or the president who succeeds Obama after his second term concludes in 2017 will find easy to redirect — if he or she even wishes to.

In the first place, there was Obama’s liberation from certain practical limits that would have stymied a less ambitious new leader.

By the time Obama came into office, Washington had already agreed over a period of a few weeks to a $700 billion government infusion into the world banking system. Nothing of the sort had ever been done before, and it was done spit spot with very little national debate.

That TARP program utterly changed the terms of the Washington debate about the economic crisis and the nature of the government’s role, especially since its colossal size barely slowed its rapid adoption into law. The voices raised against it were basically dismissed as being on the fringe. The system needed an expression of confidence and an explosion of liquidity.

When Obama was inaugurated, he and his team had an insight — though whether the insight was conscious or not I don’t know. But it was this: The TARP $700 billion price tag was a new kind of model. Because it got through Congress with so little controversy and was signed into law by a Republican president, TARP gave this new Democratic president who spoke forthrightly about his liberalism and his belief in the curative powers of government serious running room.

Read the rest of the column

The Mitt Boom Liberals Will Hate and Libertarians Will Pretend To

Like the hostages jetting from Iran the day Reagan raised his right hand, America’s economy is about to bust its chains.

Not everyone will celebrate, even though they should.

America wants to recover.

In all our history, recoveries follow crashes. Usually, the deeper the dip, the steeper the climb back out. The only crisis with a recovery worse than Obama’s is the one that led to policies even more collectively transformative than his.

Builders, growers, producers, achievers—that is, employers--don’t know whether the next blow from the White House will aim at their taxes, their energy, their emissions, their employees’ tort rights, their health care costs, or the very legitimacy of their success and earnings.

Untold trillions of dollars—investment capital that dwarfs what Obama borrowed from China for his unstimulating infusion to the public sector—is sitting safely, unproductively on the sidelines until the people who invest it feel safe that Washington wants them to produce and succeed, not salute and comply.

Mitt doesn’t have to be a genius to unleash a brilliant expansion.

The unfair advantage of leaders who believe in free enterprise is this: they don’t have to know what the next big thing is. Freedom will find it. And the next one.

Supply and demand send the signals that greedy, attentive capitalists and entrepreneurs turn into personal fortunes, with the happy byproduct of rising markets, lots of jobs, and lots of associated commerce. More people working. More people buying. More homeowners. More youth with a chance to become productive adults.

Pity poor Obama who has to choose, either by ideology or crony imperatives, upon whom to lavish borrowed billions, hoping for growth in this sector or that. Whether he’s humiliated the “shovel-ready projects” and Solyndras and Volts came to naught, or smug in the comfortable knowledge of what his ill-enriched cohorts socked away for his future, we may never know.

But it all did nothing for his legacy or chances for reelection, and even less for the economy and Americans’ quality of life.

Ronald Reagan understood this. He spoke almost mystically of the power of free Americans vanquishing both Soviet totalitarianism and the vaunted planned economies of the Asian tiger states. Sam Donaldson and Dan Rather were as embarrassed by the Cowboy as was the Harvard faculty.

Except, a miracle happened. America won the Cold War without firing a shot (not counting the Grenada rescue), produced more jobs from 1980 to 1990 than Europe and Asia combined, and ended the 90’s as the globe’s unquestioned super power.

Read the rest of the column

Early briefings on Libya strike focused on Al Qaeda, before story changed

This is another disturbing report about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Was it CIA Director Petraeus that started the "demonstration" theory? - Reggie

Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.

The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day -- and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration.

The Sept. 13 assessment was based on intercepts that included individuals, believed to have participated in the attack, who were celebratory -- as well as a claim of responsibility.

FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were a series of Al Qaeda training camps just outside of Benghazi, where the attack occurred and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as Al Qaeda in North Africa.

Fox News is told there was no mention of a demonstration or any significant emphasis on the anti-Islam video that for days was cited by administration officials as a motivating factor.

Fox News is told that the Petraeus briefing on Sept. 14 conflicted with that of the FBI and NCTC.

On Capitol Hill, Petraeus characterized the attack as more consistent with a flash mob, where the militants showed up spontaneously with RPGs. Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which also were used in the attack and to some were seen as evidence of significant pre-planning. As Fox News previously reported, four mortars were fired -- two missed the annex, but the mortar team re-calibrated and the next two mortars were direct hits.

Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.

Read the full report

And there is this...

CBS: McCain: Obama Might Be Conducting ‘Massive Cover-Up’ With Libya Attack

Changing Demographics Won't Mean the End of Republican Party

Michael Barone
When reading one of the endless stories about a just-released poll Thursday night, a pair of numbers struck my eye: 60 and 37.

Those were the percentages of white voters supporting Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in the ABC/Washington Post tracking poll. Overall, the poll showed Romney leading Obama 50 to 47 percent.

The reason those two numbers struck my eye is that they are identical to the percentages of white voters supporting Republicans and Democrats in elections for the House of Representatives in the 2010 exit poll. Overall, Republicans won the House popular vote by a margin of 52 to 45 percent, tied with 1994 for the best Republican showing since 1946.

In fact, it's the Republicans' biggest margin among white voters in House elections ever since the party was formed in 1854. Republican presidential candidates have won by bigger margins among whites only in 1920, 1972 and 1984.

Some will ascribe this to racism. But Barack Obama won enough votes from whites to win with 53 percent in 2008, more than any other Democratic nominee except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

Why are whites more one-sidedly partisan than just about ever before? Maybe because they're constantly being told that they're headed toward becoming a minority of the electorate. Self-conscious minorities tend to vote more cohesively.

Or because they're the objects of racial discrimination in, among other things, university admissions, as documented by Richard Sandler and Stuart Taylor in their recent book, "Mismatch."

Republicans are often told that their party is headed toward minority status because of the rising numbers of heavily Democratic non-whites. Many analysts, even the perspicacious Ron Brownstein of National Journal, tend to lump all non-whites together.

But the three categories of non-whites — blacks, Hispanics and Asians — are strikingly different in partisan terms.

Blacks, 13 percent of the electorate in 2008 and 11 percent in 2010, are almost unanimously Democratic and remain so this year. They've been about 90 percent Democratic since 1964.

But they are not a rising percentage of the population. And in post-Obama America, they may find themselves split on issues, with some switching parties, as members of other ethnically defined groups have done historically.

Even this year, they tend to oppose same-sex marriage, the opposite of the position Obama took last May.

Read the rest of the column

When They Called

Powerful, new ad from Women United (emphasis mine). Weren't we told that Romney is conducting a "war on women?" Why would they support him, then? It sure makes you wonder, doesn't it? - Reggie

YouTube description: With the mounting evidence suggesting the Obama administration was fully aware of the terror attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, within two hours of the breakout of violence and the disappointing litany of excuses, mostly blaming a virtually unseen video at the time, it is more evident than ever that is time for the truth, it is a time for change, it is time for a real Commander in Chief.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Special Report Investigates Benghazi: New Revelations

This Special Report investigative report ran on Fox News Channel over the weekend. It is a must see so watch it before YouTube pulls it. - Reggie

h/t The Right Scoop

Superstorm Sandy Makes Landfall

Sandy has come ashore in New Jersey and is beating the east coast mercilessly. Please, remember these fellow Americans in your thoughts and prayers. - Reggie

Fox News is providing four LIVE news feeds here.

Outrageous: Labor Department May Delay Jobs Report

I voted today. I have been taking advantage of early voting for two or three election cycles because my work week is Tuesday - Saturday and since Tuesday is Monday to me, it is by longest and busiest day so I vote on my day off. I have always been able to walk straight into the voting place, vote and be on my way within five minutes. Until today. When I got to the voting site, there was a line out the door and I was on my way back out the door, after having voted, thirty minutes later.

The reason I'm telling you this is to say that Obama may withhold the jobs report on Friday but there is a movement in this country to fire Obama and it is starting to boil. I didn't realize the extent of this movement until earlier today. I have heard Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris say this election will be a landslide for Romney and they may be right. - Reggie

This morning on a campaign conference call, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod pre-spun the release of the upcoming Friday jobs report. According to some reports, Axelrod predicted the numbers would not give Romney a boost. There was also a prediction released by a major pollster today that predicted a bad jobs report could be a game-changer and tip the race to Romney decisively. And then what happened…? Well, lo and behold, the U.S. Labor Department releases a statement stating the hurricane might delay the release of the jobs report:

The U.S. Labor Department on Monday said it hasn’t made a decision yet on whether to delay Friday’s October jobs report, the final reading on the labor market before next week’s federal elections.

A Labor official said the agency will assess the schedule for all its data releases this week when the “weather emergency” is over.

This would likely be an unprecedented move on the Bureau of Labor Statistic's part and is only more outrageous in the wake of an artificially low jobless claims report released earlier this month that was missing tens of thousands of jobless claims from California, one of the most populous states in the country.

Read the full post

Is Voter Fraud being Committed in Ohio?

This has been, and continues to be, my greatest fear - Obama using voter fraud to steal the election. It is a very real possibility unless the vote for Romney is huge. - Reggie

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Two volunteer poll workers at an Ohio voting station told Human Events that they observed van loads of Ohio residents born in Somalia — the state is home to the second-largest Somali population in the United States — being driven to the voting station and guided by Democratic interpreters on the voting process. No Republican interpreters were present, according to these volunteers.

While it’s not unusual for get-out-the-vote groups to help voters get to the polls, the volunteers who talked to Human Events observed a number of troubling and questionable activities.

A source, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a volunteer outside the Morse Road polling center. She has witnessed Somalis who cannot speak English come to the polling center. They are brought in groups, by van or bus. The Democrats hand them a slate card and say, “vote Brown all the way down.” Given that Sherrod Brown is the incumbent Democrat Senator in Ohio, one can assume that this is the reference.

Non-English speaking voters may use an interpreter. The interpreters are permitted by law to interpret for the individual voting; however, they are forbidden from influencing their vote in any way. Another source who also wishes to remain anonymous has seen Democrat interpreters show the non-English speaking Somalis how to vote the Democrat slate that they were handed outside. According to this second source, there are not any Republican Somali interpreters available.

The logical follow-up question is whether a non-English speaking person is an American citizen. Although Republican leadership in Ohio passed a voting reform law, it was repealed by the legislature itself after the Democrats threatened a referendum. According to the Ohio Secretary of State’s web site, someone wanting to vote early in Ohio must supply one of the following in writing on the absentee ballot form, whether voting early by mail or in person: an Ohio driver’s license number; the last four digits of the social security number; or a copy of a current and valid photo identification, military identification, or a current — within the last 12 months — utility bill, including cell phone bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the person’s name and address in addition to the voter registration acknowledgement.

The voter is not required to show the driver’s license or social security card, but must merely write it on the absentee ballot request form. While the individual would be required to show a utility bill, bank statement or other printed document if he or she chooses that option, this is in lieu of writing the driver’s license or social security number. Therefore, the information cannot be checked against the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or other state databases. Essentially, a person is asked to check a box stating that they are a citizen, and the poll worker is to trust that they are the person who is listed on the item being shown or the information being written. In other words, someone can be an illegal resident of the state of Ohio and the United States, get an apartment, turn on the heat, bring in the Columbia Gas bill, register to vote by the deadline, and vote by showing that same bill. There is then no verification that this individual is a citizen of the United States.

Read the full article

And there is this...

Fox News: New poll shows Romney, Obama tied at 49 percent in Ohio

Ohio Poll: Romney, Obama Tied Among Likely Voters

Retired Lt. Col.: My Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack Happen

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.

Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched
to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

Read the full article

And there is this...

Breitbart: Benghazi Witnesses: 150 Terrorists, No 'Spontaneous Protest'

The Obama Legacy

These are the men murdered by Islamists in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Unlike thousands of Americans in the past, they could not count on their Commander-in-Chief to send lifesaving help. Barack Obama is a disgrace to our nation. - Reggie

US Ambassador Chris Stevens, former SEAL Glen Doherty, Air Force vet Sean Smith & former SEAL Tyrone Woods

Jed Babbin: Benghazigate: Chapter Two

The American Spectator: From Firestorm to Perfect Storm

TheBlaze: ‘The Stories Keep Changing’: President Stonewalls Morning Joe’s Libya Questions

The Right Scoop: Charles Woods to Obama: “It’s better to die the death of a hero than to live the life of a coward”

“Alger Hiss Day” a Reminder of U.N.’s Anti-Americanism

The United States of America should resign from the United Nations, stop giving them our money and evict them from New York. It is a completely anti-American organization that we are funding. I can't understand why Congress and the White House do not acknowledge this truth. - Reggie

Accuracy in Media
October 24 is United Nations Day, or as Barbara Marx Hubbard calls it, “Global Oneness Day.” It has also been labeled “Alger Hiss Day,” in recognition of the Soviet spy and State Department official who played a major role in founding the world body. Don’t expect the major media to remind us of that fact.

One of the best sources of information on the role of Alger Hiss in the U.N. is the important new book, Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason, by Christina Shelton.

The Shelton book notes, “Following Yalta, preparation for the establishment of the United Nations was Hiss’s primary mission.” Hiss was appointed acting secretary-general of the U.N. founding conference and was involved in staffing the U.N. by selecting people for employment in the world body. “About fifty showed up as permanent employees and a couple of hundred in part-time assignments,” Shelton says of Hiss’s efforts.

One of Barack Obama’s fundraisers was Anthony Lake, a former Clinton official who had publicly questioned whether Hiss was guilty of espionage-related charges. Obama appointed him Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund.

Obama’s U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, has been strongly criticized for lying about the nature of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She blamed the murders of four Americans, including the Ambassador, on a spontaneous reaction to a film attacking Islam, rather than an al-Qaeda terrorist affiliate which claimed responsibility for the assault.

Almost as controversial, the Obama State Department has announced that “observers” from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), an ad hoc organization under the United Nations Charter, have been invited to monitor U.S. elections on November 6.

On the 2007 anniversary of the U.N., I wrote about a State Department document on the founding of the world organization, “The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941 – October 1945,” which ignored Alger Hiss’s role. I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out why.

It took several years for the State Department to release the documents, which I have now posted. The material consists of 215 pages of internal State Department documents which explain how the role of communist spy and State Department official Alger Hiss in founding the U.N. was covered up during the 60th anniversary of the world body. There is no smoking gun, in the sense of the documents showing a controversy over some official working to get a mention of Hiss’s name in the report and other bureaucrats objecting to it. Instead, the documents include several drafts of the report, “The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941 – October 1945,” which examines minor controversies over mostly trivial matters.

The material constitutes an indictment of the State Department’s failure to acknowledge, let alone explain, how a communist assumed a major position of authority and power in the State Department and then used that influence to create a world organization that has been exploited for anti-American purposes ever since.

Read the full article

Obama offered to reestablish full ties with Iran, Israeli paper reports

Have you ever asked yourself if Obama intentionally gave Iran the drone that "dropped out of the sky" last year? I have wondered. - Reggie

Israel was told about and opposed president’s diplomatic incentives package, initiated soon after he took office, and Iran rebuffed it, according to Maariv

Soon after he took office, President Barack Obama began a process ultimately designed to reestablish full US diplomatic relations with Iran, including a reopening of embassies, an Israeli daily reported Sunday. The initiative, part of a wider shift in America’s diplomatic orientation, aimed at reaching understandings with Tehran over suspending its nuclear program, Maariv claimed, citing “two Western diplomats very close to the administration.”

The initiative led to at least two US-Iran meetings, the report said. Israel was made aware of the contacts, and opposed them.

But Iran rebuffed the “diplomatic hand” offered by the White House, Maariv reported. The Islamist regime “opposed any sign of normalization with the US, and refused to grant a ‘prize’ to the Americans,” according to an anonymous Israeli source quoted by the paper.

The information — the lead item on Maariv’s front page, headlined “Obama offered to renew relations with Iran” — comes on the heels of reports earlier this month that the US and Iran held back channel contacts toward establishing direct talks over Tehran’s nuclear program. Both the White House and Iran denied those reports.

According to Maariv, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met with chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili for an hour in 2009, and one other meeting between officials from both sides took place as well.

Included in the diplomatic incentives package offered by Washington would be, in the first stage, the opening of interest sections in Washington and Tehran, with the possibility subsequently of expanding to full diplomatic ties, including US and Iranian embassies and ambassadors in each other’s capitals, Maariv claimed.

As part of restored diplomatic relations with Iran, Maariv reported, Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, to agree to reciprocal visits, to approve security cooperation between the countries, direct flights between the US and Iran, and the granting of visas to Iranians wishing to visit the US.

The report, if true, would indicate a readiness by Obama to oversee a sea change in American policy toward Iran. The two countries have not had direct diplomatic relations since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1981, when the Shah was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution and workers in the American Embassy held hostage for over a year. The US currently maintains a trade embargo with Iran and any diplomatic contacts are officially handled through third parties.

Read the full article

And there is this...

Reuters: Iran has advanced drone technology: defense minister

Old Is New: Glossy 'MIttZine' Insert Included In Battleground State Sunday Newspapers

This is a great idea for the final week of the campaign. This MittZine is not only in newspapers in battleground states but you can download and print it from the web if you don't live in a swing state and give it to family & friends that may still be undecided. - Reggie

Readers of Sunday newspapers in the key swing states of Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and Virginia will see a glossy, 12-page color magazine--or "MittZine"--insert that highlights Mitt Romney's personal side, including how he once helped save a co-worker's daughter who was kidnapped. The insert profiles Paul Ryan as well.

The Ending Spending Action Fund Super PAC, hoping that old print newspapers can be 2012's "new" media, spent more than $1 million to put the 4.5 million copies of  the "MittZine," which can be seen here, into influential newspapers like the Richmond Times-DispatchDes Moines RegisterMilwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer to appeal to independent voters and older Reagan Democrats, two groups towhich the Super PAC has effectively appealed in innovative ways this election season.

Brian Baker, president of the Ending Spending Action Fund, which TD Ameritrade co-founder Joe Ricketts started to focus on the country's spiraling debt, told Breitbart News that the MittZine will appeal to independent voters whose primary focus this election is on the economy and debt.

"Poll after poll shows that voters trust Governor Romney on the two key issues facing America: jobs and who will tame the deficit," Baker told Breitbart News. "So, voters know in their heads who should be the next President; once they read the MittZine, they will know that in their hearts, too."

Will Feltus, a senior Vice President at the innovative firm National Media, put together the "MittZine" and told Breitbart News the magazine would be more effective than direct mail advertisements because it would more likely find its way onto the coffee table and have a higher probability of being read.

“An voter who hasn’t completely made up their mind and is still looking for information, isn’t going to take this thing out of the newspaper they paid for without at least seeing what it is," Feltus told Breitbart News. "We wrote it so they’ll at least look though it and see if anything is worth spending time with before they throw it away.”

According to information Feltus shared with Breitbart News, research from Scarborough Research found that "old-fashioned newspapers represent an undervalued political advertising opportunity" because "newspaper readers are more likely to vote than users of other media."

The annual survey of over 200,000 adults nationally found those who watch television most regularly in addition to those who read newspapers most regularly are more likely to vote, consume news and information about politics and tend to be older.

On the other hand, the heaviest internet users are likely to be younger and therefore less likely to vote, the study found.

Read the full article