The Obama Cover Up
Oct 10, 2012 Political
A few weeks ago a US Embassy was attacked and our Ambassador was raped and murdered. Three other people were murdered as well. This all happened on 9/11. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice as well as many other toadies all claimed that this was carried out in response to an anti Muslim movie that few had actually seen.
It was obvious from the start that this was not about a movie but the regime stuck to that story. It has been shown that security was lax despite many requests for beefed up security. Obama and his people denied additional security to people who were extremely concerned about the situation on the ground. Obama and his people failed to see the need for additional security on, of all days, 9/11.
The regime concocted a lie about a movie and went so far as to arrest an American citizen (the movie maker) because he dared to make this movie and incite Muslims.
But wait, there’s more. The State Department has reported that the movie had nothing to do with the attacks and that it never made such a claim. It is bad enough that a citizen was arrested for exercising free speech but it is even more disgusting that he was arrested based on a lie, a lie that the regime concocted.
Why is the State Department coming clean? Well, people from that department are appearing before Congress today to discuss the situation. I imagine the lower level peons don’t want to get socked with perjury charges.
In any event, Barack Obama lied to America. We are not talking about some minor lie or campaign promise or talking point; we are talking about lying to cover up total and absolute incompetence and failure from Obama. We are talking about a lie designed to cover up inept leadership that resulted in the murder of four Americans.
This is not the first time Obama has lied to cover up his involvement in the death of an American. Obama and Eric Holder lied about the regime’s involvement in Fast and Furious which involved illegal activity by the government that resulted in the death of Brian Terry, a Border Patrol Agent. Obama covered that up by asserting Executive Privilege.
He is not able to do that with regard to the complete foreign policy failure in Libya. Too many people are involved and too many careers will fall.
Obama is in trouble. His next debate with Romney will be on foreign policy. It is obvious that Obama is a failure in that arena and Romney will hammer him on it. Oh, what is that? Obama will keep screaming that he killed Osama bin Laden. Then Romney can come back with, yes, Bin Laden is dead under your watch and so are our Ambassador and three other Americans. The last debate saw the regime spin that Romney lied and could not be trusted. Well, Obama lied about every aspect of this mess in Libya and Romney will be able to point that out.
As for Hillary, she can kiss any chance to run for president goodbye. She was a complete and total failure in this area and most Americans will not trust her to run the country.
It all boils down to this. In 2008 we were asked which of these two we would trust with the 3 am call (there was even an ad asking us). That call came and neither was up to the task.
Someone died and Obama lied…
Sources:
ABC
ABC
AP via Yahoo News
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: cover up, debate, Hillary, libya, lies, Obama, romney, toast
If Obama Can’t Handle Romney…
Oct 9, 2012 Political
Then how will he handle foreign leaders?
What do you mean Big Dog, Obama has been handling them for four years? Well, he has been bowing down to them but what I mean is this, the Obama surrogates have been all over the networks claiming that Obama did so poorly in the debate because Romney lied. While I concede that this was a debate and people play loose with the facts during a debate (both sides) I also know Romney used numbers agreed upon by several studies. So basically, it all depends on whose analysis one chooses to believe.
But what does this have to do with Obama and foreign leaders?
Well, the surrogates claim that Obama was stunned, performed badly and lost badly because he was unable to respond to the lies of Mitt Romney. Let us assume for a moment that this is the case. If Barack Obama is unable to effectively respond to his political opponent because he “lied” then how on Earth can we trust Obama to effectively respond to a foreign leader who is lying?
Suppose we have absolute proof that Iran has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them and Obama confronts Iran’s leader on the issue. Now let us suppose that this leader, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, lies to Obama’s face and says that Iran possesses no such weaponry. Will Obama be able to effectively handle the issue in the interest of our safety or will he become flummoxed like he was in the debate?
Does it make anyone feel safer to think that a rogue nation like Iran could launch nuclear weapons against us and we would be helpless because our leader did not know how to respond to a lie?
This, of course, assumes that Romney lied in the first place but what matters is that Obama thinks he lied and that is the excuse we have been given for the poor performance.
The Obama camp just told us that something as simple as a lie is enough to throw Obama off and render him ineffective.
If this is the standard by which Democrats want to judge then it is obvious we all need to vote for Romney. He looked confident, was assertive and presidential and he was able to do that despite the lies coming from Obama.
The governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, was part of the apology tour and chimed right in on the lie meme. Now if anyone knows about lying it is O’Malley because that man rarely tells the truth. He was also a bit mixed up with his analysis of Romney. He said that Romney promised everyone that they could eat cake and lose weight.
Martin, you can eat cake and lose weight. The issue is how much cake you eat. Since Democrats do not know what constraint is I would not expect you to understand but here is a study showing that you can eat cake and lose weight.
And this goes back to my earlier point. It all depends on the parameters and which study you want to follow…
But if I apply the Democrats’ logic, O’Malley lied because you can eat cake and lose weight.
Do you suppose Obama got confused listening to O’Malley?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
–
Tags: cake, debate, foreign leaders, lies, O'Malley, Obama, romney
Obama Got Mittslapped
Oct 4, 2012 Political
Barack Obama has been used to getting his way. For the past four or five years Obama has been shielded from tough questions by his handlers and a compliant media. He was able to verbally assault Hillary Clinton without any pushback because the media were in the tank for him. He has been able to do the same to Mitt Romney during campaign speeches and in the nightly news sound bites. Hell, he has even been able to put out ads saying what he wanted because very few bother to question the king.
Then last night arrived. It was the first presidential debate and pre debate polls showed that Americans by and large expected Obama to trounce Romney. Obama, after all, is a gifted speaker and the smartest man in the room. Just ask his sock puppets in the media and they will confirm.
Last night was Obama’s 20th wedding anniversary so according to tradition he should receive China. He got plenty of China as he was schooled on the dangers of borrowing money from China.
Mitt Romney started off strong and got stronger as the debate went on. Obama was left behind from the start, appeared stunned, looked down a lot and appeared agitated on a number of occasions. Romney was confident, prepared, well versed, and dare I say, presidential.
There were no real gaffes from either candidate (though both played loose with some of the facts) but Obama had a smirk that was evident throughout and made him appear petulant.
Usually after a debate the candidate’s surrogates spin the event in an attempt to make their candidate the winner. This was attempted by the Obama surrogates (including Maryland Governor Martin O’Moron) but their efforts were to no avail. The Democrat controlled media were in full meltdown over Obama’s performance.
Yes, he was so bad that even they could not cover for him. Even they could not lie and say he won. In fact, their own polls (liberal polls mind you) showed that Romney trounced Obama. On Fox News the focus group of undecided voters nearly all turned to support Romney after the debate.
MSNBC and CNN were in full tilt meltdown because Obama was exposed. They have been covering for him for years now and now that he was out there on his own he was unable to demonstrate competence. He was unable to live up to the fairy tale story the media created for him. He failed miserably.
Yes, Obama got Mittslapped.
Related:
Washington Times
CBS DC
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: debate, lies, mittslapped, Obama, romney
How Democrats Plan To Win – Cheat
Oct 26, 2010 Political
The Democrats are pulling out all the stops to win next Tuesday but things are still looking rough and they are likely in for a long night. But that is not to say they are throwing in the towel. They have an ace in the hole, or up their sleeves, as it were.
They plan to cheat. There is no other way to put it, they plan to cheat.
We already have evidence in the Florida Governor’s race. Alex Sink broke the rules to which she agreed in her debate and read a note from her make-up person. Candidates signed an agreement not to get notes during the debate but during a commercial Sink’s make-up artist brought her an electronic device with a message from an aide.
Sink read the message instead of shooing the person away and telling her it was against the rules. Sink only addressed the issue after she was outed by her opponent, Rick Scott.
Then we have early voting, where in several states the machines have been doing things to benefit Democrats.
In Nevada the polling machines already have Harry Reid’s name selected when the voter puts a voting card into the machine. This is one way to steal the election, program the machines to select the candidate the Democrats want.
Nevada is not the only place. In Craven County, North Carolina, the machines select the entire Democrat ticket when voters slect the button to vote the entire Republican ticket. Voters who select the button to vote the Republican party are seeing the screen come back with all Democrats selected. This happened several times after a voter cleared the screen and tried again.
Cheating and stealing elections is their specialty. In the Democrat party the dead and the illegals are allowed to vote right alongside the felons.
After Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and John Murtha died, they were removed from the rolls of Congress and placed on the voter rolls in Chicago.
That is how they roll so watch out for cheating and check your ballot several times before submitting it.
And be sure to report all suspected voter fraud.
I also recommend using a cell phone video to record the problem so you have proof (Check to make sure it is legal to record there).
UPDATE: No wonder Nevada is able to cheat. The voting machine technicians are SEIU. They are in the bag for Reid and the Democrats. If it is shown they cheated there will be hell to pay. We can either do it the right way or we can do it the hard way…
UPDATE 2: Dems try to deceive voters in PA
UPDATE 3: Democrat union official discusses being involved in voter fraud. What a surprise.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: debate, Democrats, florida, fraud, nevada, north carolina, Obama
Obama Wants Spending Freeze He Once Opposed
Jan 26, 2010 Political
What a difference a campaign makes. Back when Obama was a candidate he opposed the idea of a spending freeze. In the presidential debates John McCain said he would consider a spending freeze for the government except for veteran’s programs, national security and certain other vital programs. Obama said that the problem with this was that it was taking a hatchet to the budget when a scalpel was needed. Obama said that the freeze would halt vital programs that would hurt people.
Obama is expected to call for a spending freeze during tomorrow night’s State of the Union Address:
The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama’s first term, senior administration officials said Monday, imposing sharp limits on his ability to begin initiatives in education, the environment and other areas of domestic policy. Washington Post
When John McCain proposed this idea Obama poo pooed it but now that he finds it necessary to tact to the right he is in favor of it. The right is not happy because Obama raised the budgets of most agencies by as much as 50% so the freeze will be at a higher level and the left is upset because it does not want any freeze on its ability to spend, spend, spend.
By requesting this freeze Obama is admitting that the country cannot afford his agenda. He tried pushing it and the public became outraged at the excessive spending particularly in these hard economic times. Obama has ceded the fact that we cannot afford what he wants and has given the right ammunition. Any Democrats who oppose the freeze will be labeled as out of touch while the right points out that even Obama wants the freeze. If things in the economy get better during Obama’s time in office and he tries to push his agenda the public will quickly be reminded that he admitted we could not afford what he wants.
Considering that Obama has tripled the deficit which will hit 1.4 TRILLION dollars again this year, the freeze amounts to very little but it is nothing different than what McCain called for and Obama discounted out of hand. Obama is a rookie and this pandering to the middle class will not work. People have seen the man behind the curtain and they do not like what they have seen.
Nancy Pelosi tried to pin the deficit increase on Bush but Gateway Pundit sets the record straight:
For the record, during the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. These were amazing accomplishments considering the unexpected challenges. You certainly didn’t read much about this in the press.
But, things changed in 2007. Democrats took over Congress, gas prices started to rise, and at the end of the year and into 2008 several financial institutions started to crumble as the housing bubble began to burst. Of course, it should be noted that President Bush publicly called for the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Democrats, on the other hand, blocked reform numerous times. It was later reported after the 2008 election that Bush had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell wrote in Barron’s in February of 2009 that the present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. This risk was acknowledged in the Bush administration’s first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. Sadly these warnings were ignored by Congress.
Obama said he would rather be a real good one term president than a mediocre two term one. Of course people who have real good first ones usually get a second one. Obama will be lucky to be as high as mediocre when his first (and only) term ends.
Barack Obama took an axe
And gave the budget 40 whacks
When the libs saw what he’d done
His term in office was just one.
Others:
Pajamas Media
Real Clear Politics (video of Obama opposing spending freeze on four different occasions)
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: budget freeze, debate, lie, McCain, Obama