The Forth Hood terrorist attack that killed American soldiers was declared a crime not a terrorist attack. The terrorist attack in Benghazi too is called a crime and the F.B.I. is sent to investigate but weeks later still to get there.
The “Fast and Furious” arms walking across the border causes many deaths and from Barack Obama more lies. From Big Media more exonerations of Obama and Eric Holder’s Justice Department are concocted.
Unfortunately for American Big Media and Barack Obama the Spanish language powerhouse station Univision is on the job. Univision was also on the job when they startled American viewers recently with an actual interview of Barack Obama which asked the most simple of questions not just fawning “may I fluff your pillow?” exercises in American “journalism”.
Tonight Univision’s “Aquí y Ahora” (which translates to “Here and Now”) shocks the English-only speaking populace with an example of reportage. The show airs today – Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. (ET) [6:00 p.m. in the central time zone). You don’t have to have any knowledge of Spanish to understand blood and death and in either case the show will provide English captions.
“Spanish-language television network Univision plans to air a television special that it said reveals more violence than previously known, as well as the stories of how many more Operation Fast and Furious victims were killed, the network announced in a Friday release.
“The consequences of the controversial ‘Fast and Furious’ undercover operation put in place by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2009 have been deadlier than what has been made public to date,” the network said. “The exclusive, in-depth investigation by Univision News’ award-winning Investigative Unit — Univision Investiga — has found that the guns that crossed the border as part of Operation Fast and Furious caused dozens of deaths inside Mexico.”
Among other groups of Fast and Furious victim stories Univision says it will tell in the special to air Sunday evening at 7 p.m., is one about how “16 young people attending a party in a residential area of Ciudad Juárez in January of 2010″ were gunned down with weapons the Obama administration gave to drug cartel criminals through Fast and Furious.
“Univision News’ Investigative Unit was also able to identify additional guns that escaped the control of ATF agents and were used in different types of crimes throughout Mexico,” the network added. “Furthermore, some of these guns — none of which were reported by congressional investigators — were put in the hands of drug traffickers in Honduras, Puerto Rico, and Colombia. A person familiar with the recent congressional hearings called Univision’s findings ‘the holy grail’ that Congress had been searching for.”“
For those looking for an answer to the massive drug cartel activity and huge murder rates in Puerto Rico and the countries listed by Univision, look no further than Barack Obama’s AFT.
“U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered with Fast and Furious weapons.” Also killed was “Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata and Mexican citizen Mario Gonzalez. Gonzalez’s sister, Patricia Gonzalez, was the state prosecutor for the Mexican state of Chihuahua.”
“Former White House National Security Council staffer Kevin O’Reilly — who was intimately involved in Fast and Furious planning with Phoenix ATF officials, according to emails obtained throughout the congressional investigation — has since been reassigned by the Department of State to a detail in Iraq. Obama administration officials have refused to make O’Reilly available to congressional investigators and to Horowitz’s internal DOJ investigation.
On Friday, CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson reported that congressional Republicans are now threatening to subpoena O’Reilly and force his testimony on Fast and Furious.”
We don’t like the indisputable fact that the State Department is being utilized by Barack Obama for his coverups. We don’t think Hillary Clinton is involved in any of this but even if she is we want a full and complete investigation of all these matters – NOW – before the election.
Why do we think that Hillary Clinton is not involved in any of this even though she is the leader of the State Department? Well, we’ve written extensively on the Hillary versus Barack covert war when we discussed Egypt and Libya and there is plenty of evidence of Obama undermining Hillary.
And we note with satisfaction that is was Obama hench-woman Susan Rice (who has been given cabinet level status in a widely reported attempt at the beginning of the Obama mal-administration to undermine the Secretary of State) who went on the talk shows to lie about what happened at Benghazi. It was Hillary who has been calling what happened at Benghazi an terrorist attack. Also check out the New York Times article and note the people in opposition to Barack Obama on foreign policy.
But whatever, we want a full and total immediate investigation. The fate of Hillary Clinton (who we are sure will come out smelling like a rose after a thorough investigation) is not the issue. Americans need to know the truth about what happened at Benghazi.
On the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Fox News is on the job:
“The top U.S. intelligence authority issued an unusual public statement on Friday declaring it now believed the September 11 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, was a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack.”…
Shawn Turner, spokesman for Clapper’s office, said that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, U.S. agencies came to the view that the Benghazi attack had begun spontaneously after protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo against a short film made in California lampooning the Prophet Mohammad…
In an apparent reference to a series of contradictory statements by some top Obama administration officials, Turner said intelligence agencies’ “initial assessment” had been passed on “to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”…
Within hours of the attacks ending, some government sources in Washington were already acknowledging they might well have been planned and organized in advance, and that members of two militant factions, Ansar al Shariah and al Qaeda’s North Africa-based affiliate, known as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.”
Even the Obama campaign affiliate NBC News has been forced by reality to report somewhat fairly on the Benghazi terrorist attack news:
But we have not just attacked the bumbling campaign (and the allied organizations of the campaign such as the SuperPacs). We also have slapped the “shambles” convention the RNC ran. We have been about more than “attacks” however. We have provided good advice to counter the bumbles, stumbles, stupidity and futility of the Romney campaign.
Some of our earlier advice has taken root in the Romney campaign and in the SuperPacs. No longer are we subjected to those all too clever ads only frat boys liked.
Those ads featured Obama speaking his flowery words while text on the ad mocked the boob – not a word was heard on an audio track criticizing Obama. If you just had the TV on while working or reading all you heard was Obama giving a flowery soundbite and not much else. It was almost like free advertising for Obama paid for by Mitt Romney and his allies. Thank goodness those days and ads are over.
Our more substantive overall advice has been about the lack of a coherent narrative and seeming lack of a sense of urgency in Mitt Romney ads and Mitt Romney campaign speeches. We keep hitting Romney about this and will continue to do so until the “last drug store has sold its last pill.”
What do we mean about a “lack of a coherent narrative and seeming lack of a sense of urgency”? Here is where Allen West comes in. Look at this new Allen West ad:
“Two men, a country in crisis – you decide” is the tagline. It’s absolutely brilliant and ever so simple. The ad is not about Patrick Murphy being a drunk. The ad is not about character even. The ad is about leadership.
The Allen West ad is about leadership and the American people deciding who is needed now for the crisis at hand. THAT’S WHAT THIS AD IS ABOUT – and this ad can easily be used as a template for Mitt Romney ads and Mitt Romney specifically (as we stated above, more on this next week as we provide our best debate advice).
The Allen West ad is a template. Several months back there were pictures floating around the Internets of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in their youth. Barack was smoking something and Romney was working as a missionary or some other equally salutary task. There’s no need to do an ad featuring these two men in their youth – but there are other contrasts that should be drawn.
The Mitt Romney campaign could easily borrow the Allen West ad and do an ad answering (not asking – answering) the question of where Obama was on the Sunday after September 11, 2001 and where Mitt Romney was. Show Mitt Romney at his Mormon church and Obama at his “God Damn America” Wright cell. Make it relevant to today. Tie this all to the Middle East and the Benghazi lies and state “Two men, a country in crisis – you decide who is better suited to stop the attacks on America.”
Try “Two men, a country in crisis – Obama will get you killed, Mitt Romney will rescue America.” Draw a strong contrast. Use facts and visuals. This is not very complicated stuff but you have to be willing to fight.
Recently there has been a lot of chatter about “Obamaphones” – free cell phones. That’s right, free cell phones, not land lines. Americans who pay their cell phone bills are being charged a “universal service charge” to give free cell phones, not land lines but cell phones, to many for unexplained reasons.
Why isn’t Mitt Romney talking about this in the larger sense of things run amok? Representative Tim Griffin is trying to at least reform this free cell phone giveaway and Romney is AWOL.
Why doesn’t Mitt Romney do a “Two men, a country in crisis” ad telling Americans he wants a land of opportunity and jobs – not free cell phones.
The United Nations being an institution of surpassing cynicism and mendacity, the [Obama] speech was so naive it would have made a fine middle-school commencement address. Instead, it was a plaintive plea by the world’s alleged superpower to be treated nicely by a roomful of the most corrupt, repressive, tin-pot regimes on earth.
Yet Romney totally fumbled away the opportunity. Here was a chance to make the straightforward case about where Obama’s feckless approach to the region’s tyrants has brought us, connecting the dots of the disparate attacks as a natural response of the more virulent Islamist elements to a once-hegemonic power in retreat. Instead, Romney did two things:”
“He issued a two-sentence critique of the initial statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on the day the mob attacked. The critique was not only correct but vindicated when the State Department disavowed the embassy statement. However, because the critique was not framed within a larger argument about the misdirection of U.S. Middle East policy, it could be — and was — characterized as a partisan attack on the nation’s leader at a moment of national crisis.
Two weeks later at the Clinton Global Initiative, Romney did make a foreign-policy address. Here was his opportunity. What did he highlight? Reforming foreign aid.
Yes, reforming foreign aid! A worthy topic for a chin-pulling joint luncheon of the League of Women Voters and the Council on Foreign Relations. But as the core of a challenger’s major foreign-policy address amid a Lehman-like collapse of the Obama Doctrine?”
We want to be only “supportive” of Mitt Romney but here Krauthammer completely agrees with what we wrote before it happened. Romney needed to go to Florida and beat up Obama in a very public manner and link the Netanyahu snub to the Middle East debacle Obama has boobed us into. Why isn’t any of this a “Two men, a country in crisis” ad?
“It makes you think how far ahead Romney would be if he were actually running a campaign. His unwillingness to go big, to go for the larger argument, is simply astonishing.
For six months, he’s been matching Obama small ball for small ball. A hit-and-run critique here, a slogan-of-the-week there. [snip]
When you’re behind, however, safe is fatal. Even his counterpunching has gone miniature. Obama has successfully painted Romney as an out-of-touch, unfeeling plutocrat whose only interest is to cut taxes for the rich. Romney has complained in interviews that it’s not true. He has proposed cutting tax rates, while pledging that the share of the tax burden paid by the rich remains unchanged (by “broadening the base” as in the wildly successful, revenue-neutral Reagan-O’Neill tax reform of 1986).
But how many people know this? Where is the speech that hammers home precisely that point, advocates a reformed tax code that accelerates growth without letting the rich off the hook, and gives lie to the Obama demagoguery about dismantling the social safety net in order to enrich the rich?
Romney has accumulated tons of cash for 30-second ads. But unless they’re placed on the scaffolding of serious speeches making the larger argument, they will be treated as nothing more than tit for tat.
Make the case. Go large. About a foreign policy in ruins. About an archaic, 20th-century welfare state model that guarantees 21st-century insolvency. And about an alternate vision of an unapologetically assertive America abroad unafraid of fundamental structural change at home.
It might just work. And it’s not too late.“
It’s not too late. But it is getting there. Early voting is already happening. It’s getting late fella. Listen to us Mitt. Or listen to Newt. Or listen to Krauthammer. We’re all telling you the same thing.
“Senior Mitt Romney campaign adviser Ed Gillespie said the campaign has a “no whining rule” when it comes to media coverage of the presidential race.
“We have a ‘no whining’ rule in Boston about coverage in the media,” Gillespie told “Fox and Friends” on Wednesday. “We just deal with the facts.”
Republicans have long complained about a liberal bias in the mainstream media, and frustrations have been voiced in this cycle about soft coverage of President Obama and tough coverage of Romney.
Conservatives have also criticized a possible bias in polls that show Obama building a lead over Romney in several key swing states. President Obama has posted noticeable gains in most recent polling, which is magnified by the fact the race had been almost completely static ahead of the conventions.
In a post titled “Media double standards,” Washington Post conservative writer Jennifer Rubin on Wednesday criticized a lack of media outrage over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) comments that Romney had “sullied” Mormonism.
Rubin also said coverage of Obama’s remarks this week that violence in the Middle East represented “bumps in the road” was soft and showed a bias. “Media double standards are nothing new, but it seems that nothing will provoke more exacting coverage of the president,” she wrote.
Gillespie on Wednesday echoed an argument made by some conservatives in recent weeks that polling sample sizes are disproportionately weighted to include too many Democrats.”
This is a no whining zone also. No one is proposing that the Romney campaign “whine”. But we do think it is imperative that the Romney campaign recognize that Big Media is the threat. Big Media will protect Barack Obama and unless Mitt Romney overcomes that bias we are all going “forward” – into the abyss.
It’s good that in the same interview Gillespie discussed the skewed polls but this has to be part of a narrative and most certainly not a “whine”. Gillespie had this to say about the polls:
“It is not consistent with our polling,” Gillespie said. “In every single one of them they have a Democratic voter participation that is higher than the Democratic voter participation in 2008, I don’t know anyone on the ground in any of these swing states that believe there will be a higher percentage of the electorate in 2012 than 2008, and yet in every single one of these surveys there’s a higher percentage. Which explains, by the way, how Romney could be tied or leading among independents in these polls, and then losing the net poll to President Obama — it does not make sense.”
Sorry girlfriend, it makes perfect sense if you consider that Big Media is in the bag sniffing the Hopium for Obama. The problem is not just the skewed polls. The problem is Big Media and Mitt Romney’s campaign better stop whining about those of us who are alarmed at the lack of urgency in their tepid narrative which allows Big Media to write the narrative to Romney’s detriment.
“One important “tell” in my opinion, is this president’s continued weak position with independent voters, who remain the true swing vote.
Obama’s average overall margin over Romney in these same polls is roughly 4 percent. Bottom line: You do not get a four-point lead overall with a tie among independents, unless you are squeezing substantially more votes out of your base than your opponent is. And more generally, you are not “winning” an election in any meaningful sense of the word when 3/5ths of unaffiliated voters are either undecided or against you.
So, I see two ways the polls are tilted in favor of the president.
First, many of the polls are guessing that Democrats are set to turn out at levels that match or sometimes exceed 2008. Take two examples – recent polls in Ohio and Florida. I’ve included the 2008 and 2004 exit polls as a baseline for consideration. [snip]
If it comes down to whether or not this will be a repeat of 2008 — which is basically what the latter camp of pollsters is suggesting — then my money is on no. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong. I have no crystal ball looking forward. All I can do is look back through history, where I see on average a nationwide Democratic identification edge of about 3 points, which is also roughly the midpoint between 2004 and 2008. That is my guess about 2012. It is an informed guess, but it is still a guess. If I’m right, then Rasmussen, Purple Poll, Mason-Dixon, and Survey USA are closer to the mark. But I could be wrong, in which case Fox, PPP andWashington Post are closer to the mark.
Importantly, the pollsters are guessing, too. They are guessing via the myriad of choices they make about when to poll, whom to poll, and how to poll. By Election Day, polling will be much more “scientific” than it is today; but now there is quite a bit of “art.” That’s how we wind up with two points of convergence, instead of just one. [snip]
Second major point: There is a subtler dimension to this Democratic polling advantage, one that nevertheless exercises a powerful effect on the margins between the two candidates. And it looks to apply to most of the polls, at least for the time being. It has to do with how tight of control the two sides have over their own coalitions. For instance, a recent Rasmussen poll had Romney winning 85 percent of Republicans, and Obama winning 11 percent. So, we might say that Romney is pulling a net of 74 percent from his own side. [snip]
As we can see, Obama has tighter control over his base at the moment. Now, the difference may seem insubstantial, but I assure you it is not. After all, this is a race that will see the two sides separated at most by 5 points, so this basically gives the president a one-point boost over Romney, simply by virtue of having a more unified base.
But is this historically accurate? Not really. In fact, over the last forty years, Republican candidatess [sic] have consistently had tighter control over their base than their Democratic counterparts. [snip]
In other words, the above national polls give Obama a 3.6 percent edge over Romney; if the two bases fall back into historical alignment, then that lead would be cut to about 1.5 percent. [snip]
Final thought: As I mentioned earlier, a big “tell” here is that Obama cannot build any kind of a lead among independent voters. That suggests to me that his advantage is built entirely on Democratic enthusiasm, which right now is above its historical trends and clearly on a post-DNC bump. Nobody in the postwar era has won the presidency by carrying less than 49 percent of independents, and Obama is quite a ways below that mark, even if some polls show him at or above 50 percent nationwide and in the key swing states.”
But enough on the polls. Some more alarming news: Today was the most sacred day on the Jewish Calendar, Yom Kippur. At the United Nations the featured speaker was Holocaust denier Mahmood Ahmadinejad. To this insulting outrage there there was silence, not a word of protest to change the schedule, from Barack Obama.
“Slander” is “defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander, a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.” Someone who does not believe Mohammad to be “The Prophet” and all that goes with that is conceivably “slandering” Mohammad. Is Obama saying that we all have to convert to Islam and that the “the future most not belong to those” who do not believe Mohammad to be what/who believers in Islam believe him to be?
“He doesn’t use the phrase “cover up” — but Ryan does, in saying that it’s up to Americans to decide why The One is reluctant to use the word “terrorism” to describe what happened in Benghazi even though some of his underlings aren’t. And yes, this talking point is officially part of the Romney/Ryan message on the trail today. CNN asked the same question that Carl Cameron did and got a similar answer:
When pressed on whether he stood by the attack, Romney said, “I’m not sure which developments in the Middle East he would consider bumps in the road.”
He then suggested the Obama administration was trying to hide the truth behind what really happened in Benghazi.
“The White House’s failure to acknowledge that – that the assassination of our ambassador was a terrorist attack, a terrorist event – suggests that they are trying to paper over the seriousness of what’s happening in the Middle East,” Romney told CNN.
Cameron actually gives Mitt an opportunity to go for the throat at 3:15 by asking whether he thinks Obama’s “bumps in the road” comment is a case of him misunderstanding the Middle East or a knowing attempt to minimize what’s happened there this month to cover his own ass. Romney’s answer: It’s proof that Obama misunderstands. Not sure I’d have gone the same route but that fits, at least, with the thrust of Mitt’s message that O’s in over his head on all things presidential. More of this, please — while bearing in mind Ace’s point that the economy is still the silver bullet here.”
A long time ago we wrote that Obama was not qualified to be president. It’s gotten much worse now. The views he is acting on are dangerous and add up to appeasement if not outright collaboration. Barack Obama’s focus on the “video” as a source of agitation is absolutely incorrect. The problem is the hatred of “freedom” that Islamist terrorists espouse.
“Is Islam’s prophet Muhammad to have more screen time?
A prohibition on depicting him has long been sacrosanct, but then came ‘Innocence of the Muslims.’ And two ex-Muslim filmmakers are seeking to develop biopics.
Botros is closely associated with several of the individuals behind “Innocence of Muslims,” and the filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is a devout follower.
A second film in preproduction is the work of Ali Sina, an atheist raised Muslim in Iran. A prominent critic of Islam, he maintains websites that promote what he calls “the truth” about the religion.
To date he says he has raised $2 million from Southern California investors for the film, which does not yet have a title but will portray the prophet as a cult leader in the vein of David Koresh or Jim Jones. He hopes to raise a total of $10 million, he said, and begin filming next year.
Now a resident of Canada, Sina began contemplating a biopic about Muhammad a decade ago, but stepped up his effort in the last two years as technological advances made it feasible to circumvent government censors and wary exhibitors.
“We can bypass theaters completely and sell the movie online with a profit to a large number of people, especially Muslims,” Sina said. “They can download it and watch it even if they are living in Karachi or Mecca or Medina.”
“Reactions to the films, if they are ever finished, are likely to be severe.
“This is crossing a line,” said Akbar Ahmed, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United Kingdom and now professor of Islamic studies at American University. “If there is an actor physically portraying Muhammad, there will be a violent reaction.”
Why is Islam not mocked just like any religion? Violence. The movie 2012 did not depict the destruction of Mecca because of the fear of violence. The hypocrite and cowardly filmmakers of 2012 showed Christian sites and other sites sacred to other religions being destroyed in their disaster epic but Islam was protected. It’s not the first time:
“In 2006, Comedy Central refused to air an episode of “South Park” because it depicted Muhammad, and four years later New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledged that it had removed all paintings and sculptures with images of the prophet — some centuries old — from public display for fear of inciting protest.”
These images at the Metropolitan Museum of Art have existed for centuries but only now do Islamist terrorists get their way because of the cowards and hypocrites who love every nasty story directed against Catholics, Christians, and Jews.
Evidence of I/E Republicans using Hillary Clinton as a “secret weapon” against Barack Obama comes from a website owned by the Republican National Committee. The website states “How To View The Obama Presidency Hillary Clinton Meets With 8 World Leaders” and contrast that (in photographs) with Obama’s high level summit meeting with the ladies of The View.
Newt Gingrich, who forced through the impeachment of Bill Clinton and has no love for Hillary or Bill appeared yesterday on the Greta Van Susteren show. Gingrich stayed focused on Barack Obama and deployed the “secret weapon”.
“[Obama] really is like the substitute [National Football League] referees in the sense that he’s not a real president,” Gingrich told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Tuesday night. “He doesn’t do anything that presidents do, he doesn’t worry about any of the things the presidents do, but he has the White House, he has enormous power, and he’ll go down in history as the president, and I suspect that he’s pretty contemptuous of the rest of us.” [snip]
Gingrich called Obama a “false president,” saying he has a propensity to shirk his duties.
“This is a man who in an age of false celebrity-hood is sort of the perfect president, because he’s a false president,” he said. “He’s a guy that doesn’t do the president’s job.”
Gingrich questioned whether Obama has the stamina and desire to be president.
“You have to wonder what he’s doing,” Gingrich continued. “I’m assuming that there’s some rhythm to Barack Obama that the rest of us don’t understand. Whether he needs large amounts of rest, whether he needs to go play basketball for a while or watch ESPN, I mean, I don’t quite know what his rhythm is, but this is a guy that is a brilliant performer as an orator, who may very well get reelected at the present date, and who, frankly, he happens to be a partial, part-time president.”
Good to see Gingrich call Obama a “false president” – for a long time we have declared this “The Age of Fake.”
Newt Gingrich also had this to say about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which is right on target:
“There’s a huge difference. Hillary Clinton is a serious person. Barack Obama is an ambitious person. They’re very different personalities. Hillary Clinton actually gets up every day thinking about public policy. Barack Obama gets up every day thinking about Barack Obama.”
Newt Gingrich understands narrative and the need to communicate urgency as well as the toxic role of Big Media in today’s politics. Listen to Newt, Mitt.
[The Gingrich video may be seen here and it is worth the full 15 minute watch: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/1861429922001/gingrichs-take-obama-at-un-snubs-bumps-and-more/?playlist_id=86925 ]
“JOHN DICKERSON: Governor Romney jumped in the middle of the violence in the Middle East and he broke a little bit of a tradition by inserting himself. They [sic] he disappeared on the issue. We’ve since learned that this administration first thought this uprising in Libya was just a kind of– something that bubbled up from the ground. Well, now they are calling it a terrorist attack. What went wrong there? What did you get wrong in the first place? Why weren’t you securing the embassy the way you should have been? These are points that a Republican could make that Mitt Romney need to make because he knows the press isn’t necessarily going to make that case for him. He can’t make it because he was the one who jumped in and said hey this is a very serious issue. But instead he hasn’t really come back to it.”
Mitt Romney should “come back to it” and start now laying out the groundwork for the last presidential debate, which will be about foreign policy, and which takes place in the must win state of Florida. What better place than Florida on October 22 for Romney to say again, after a month of ads stating such, “Barack Obama Will Get Us All Killed“?
Shouldn’t the United States walk out every time this creep gets up to speak?
Romney should at the October debate remind the voters of Boca Raton, Florida, and the entire nation that there was a time when Israel was America’s #1 ally in the Middle East. No longer. Barack Obama on the 60 Minutes TV show last night proclaimed Israel is now merely “one of ” our allies – not our closest ally in the Middle East.
If Israel is merely “one of” our allies it begs the question “Who are the other closest American allies in the Middle East?” Recently Obama declared that Egypt is not an American ally. So who are these secret allies Obama praises? Romney might want to ask Obama on October 22. Romney might also demand that those “American Jews” who are protecting Barack Obama explain themselves and thereby expose themselves as allied to Barack Obama, not Israel – America’s #1 friend and #1 ally in the Middle East.
Tomorrow Barack Obama will go to the United Nations General Assembly with the stated intention of speaking about the latest catastrophes in the Middle East. It will be a cascade of flowery words. The message however was delivered today.
Today Obama appeared on the TV show “The View” and the White House announced that Barack was too busy to meet with any world leaders while in New York. Barack is too busy appearing on talk shows to meet with world leaders – that’s the message. Maybe Mitt might bookmark today’s calendar for use on October 22.
Mitt Romney has had a lot of bad weeks recently. There’s no use denying that. His campaign has pretty much sucked too. There’s no sense denying that.
Mitt Romney can easily fix what ails his campaign machinery however. All Mitt has to do is give John Sununu an electric cattle prod and full charge of getting the campaign in gear, running smoothly. Problem solved.
Yeah, Mitt Romney has had a lot of bad weeks lately, and by all rights Mitt Romney should be toast but somehow Mitt keeps hanging on. Poor Mitt, other than his wife few love him, but he keeps on hanging on.
Consider: after weeks, if not months, in which the Obama campaign has been almost completely successful with their tactics of distraction, distraction, smear, distraction, distraction, lies, lies, lies, lies, distraction, smear – Mitt Romney is either tied with Obama or a few, often only 1, points behind Obama in polls which skew at least 5 points in Obama’s favor.
Consider: Big Media continues to ignore or downplay news items hurtful to Obama while playing up stories that hurt Romney’s campaign but somehow the public is closely divided between Obama and Romney.
Bottom Line: Mitt Romney’s enemy is Big Media which protects Barack Obama from his many failures. Barack Obama’s enemy is reality and reality’s intrusion into the everyday life of Americans.
Donald Trump in an un-aired segment for the Republican convention provides an all too brief summary of reality and how it is the enemy of Obama:
Donald Trump’s video is only an appetizer serving of Obama’s failures. A heftier meal of Obama failures was delivered today from of all places Latino powerhouse Univision:
“CORAL GABLES, Fla. – President Barack Obama on Thursday faced some of the toughest questioning of his reelection campaign to date, pressed repeatedly on his failure to achieve comprehensive immigration reform and other unmet promises from his 2008 run.
The Univision presidential forum at the University of Miami here kicked off with grilling on another topic which brought mounting criticism from Republicans Thursday: The government’s decision to label as a terrorist attack the violence at the consulate in Benghazi which killed American Christopher Stevens.”
“Asked why the United States was not better prepared, with better security at its embassies on the Sept. 11 anniversary, Obama responded by repeating the admonitions about not tolerating violence, but continued to discuss the incident in the context of the controversial video depicting scenes from the life of Mohammed.”
“But it was his elaboration of his usual lament about failing to change the tone of Washington that immediately drew a sharp response from Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
“I think that I’ve learned some lessons over the last four years and the most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside,” Obama said, appearing to admit his inability to fully deliver on one of the driving themes of his 2008 campaign. “You can only change it from the outside. That’s how I got elected. And that’s how the big accomplishments like health care got done.”
Speaking in Sarasota Thursday, Romney — who made his own Univision forum appearance Wednesday — said this amounted to Obama throwing in “the white flag of surrender.”
“I can change Washington,” Romney promised. “I will change Washington. I will get the job done from the inside.”
What a buffoon Barack Obama is! No doubt, the Obama imbeciles will say something stupid in defense of Barack Obama’s ‘change is hard and it’s too hard for me to get done’ whine.
“However, much of the time in front of the Spanish-language audience here was spent on Obama’s failure to get comprehensive immigration reform — something that Obama attributed to focusing instead on the economy and blaming Republicans in Congress.
But to host Jorge Ramos, that answer was not good enough.
“You promised that, and a promise is a promise,” Ramos told Obama. “And with all due respect, you didn’t keep that promise.”
Obama responded with an explanation for the Spanish-language audience about the separation of powers in the federal government.”
No matter how incompetent the Mitt Romney campaign is and how lackluster Mitt Roimney has performed, this Obama performance elevates Romney to super-genius. What a joke Barack Obama is! How loathsome the Chicago clown! Separation of powers as an excuse when Obama had full control of the congress and the executive branches of government.
“A promise is a promise” says Jorge. Obama responds with ‘it’s not a promise if you don’t promise to do the promise and promise to promise and accomplish the promise.’ We kid you not:
“So I am happy to take responsibility for the fact that we didn’t get it done, but I did not make a promise that we would get everything done, 100 percent when I was elected as president.”
For Obama, a promise is not a promise. Hey we warned you Jorge! Remember August 11, 2010, Jorge? We wrote an article called “Hey Jorge, Obama Cannot Be Trusted“. That article featured our mantra Jorge:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
“Jorge baby, Obama can’t be trusted. Get that simple fact into your head. Get that simple fact to your viewers. Whatever side of the illegal immigration issue you are on, Obama can’t be trusted. Whatever side of the legal immigration issue you are on, Obama can’t be trusted. Whatever side of whatever issue you are on, Obama can’t be trusted.
Get it now Jorge?”
Mitt Romney on his weakest day of existence is better than Barack Obama at his “best” – whatever that horror is.
“His biggest lesson, meanwhile, is that “you can’t change Washington from the inside.” Wait a second. In the 2008 primaries, his whole argument with Hillary Clinton was over this exact question. She believed that you can change Washington from the inside and Barack Obama said you couldn’t.
For example, in a Nevada debate, Obama said he wasn’t a very organized person. But that didn’t matter because it was the president’s job to inspire people. The presidency “involves having a vision for where the country needs to go . . . and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.”
Hillary rejected this formulation. She said being president is about being the “chief executive officer” who must be “able to manage and run the bureaucracy.”
Update: Until Mitt Romney realizes his enemy is Big Media first and foremost he will remain on defense. JournoListers killed the Jeremiah Wright story and stated that the reason to do so was to protect their stooge Barack Obama. Mitt Romney has no JournoListers protecting him. That’s why stories like this happen and have to be explained.
“There is no doubt that this was an Obama campaign operation, and likely we will see more such tapes dribbled out a week at a time. The team which obtained sealed divorce records of rivals certainly can plant donors at private fundraisers.
Don’t fall for pronouncements that Romney’s campaign now is over. Such pronouncements now come weekly by a media seeking a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether it was the insane overreaction to Romney’s comments on Libya or the declaration that the polling showed Romney had lost, every week there will be a new meme circulated.
Stay focused, and motivated.”
It took Big Media at least a year to confirm what we reported years earlier – that it was Obama that planted the Edwards $400 haircut story. That was nothing compared to what Big Media intends to do to Mitt Romney. To know what is happening today, don’t read the day’s headlines – read The Innocent Charles Manson.
“And President Obama needs to get his priorities straight. What he needs to do is cancel his planned interview with David Letterman, cancel his meeting with Beyonce, cancel his meeting with Jay Z, and instead agree to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, because you see, America and Israel have a commonality of interests,” Bachmann said.”
Add another component of our suggestion – the threat of continuous pummeling of Obama until he accedes to such a meeting — and 100% of what we suggested is done. Of course we said this should happen on the afternoon of September 11, 2012 so it is already a bit late.
We sometimes think the Romney campaign should shut down, fire everybody, and just read what we write and do what we say they should do. Mind, we’ve written effusively at times about the Romney campaign and we’ve even had nice things to say about Mitt Romney himself. But pretty much as soon as we write something nice about Romney or his campaign we almost immediately have to refudiate ourselves. They’re just so stupid.
Barack Obama is the Romney campaign opponent and there is even a question as to who is winning? How stupid can the Romney campaign be? The Romney campaign, as even its best friends agree, is a stupid campaign. Stupid is as stupid does.
But be of good cheer Romney supporters. If the Romney campaign is stupid, which it is, is there anything dumber, stupider, more contemptible than a true believing Obama supporter? The answer is “No”. True believer Obama supporters are by definition “imbeciles“.
We know we are being generous when we diagnose true believing Obama supporters as imbeciles, there is a lower level measurement of intelligence after all, but these imbeciles, we hear, are usually toilet trained so we give them props. But still they are truly stupid and therefore difficult to argue with.
“The clearest example of the bizarrely naive quality of hermetic liberal provincialism was attributed to the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael almost 40 years ago, and has been discussed in right-wing circles ever since. It went something like this: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Several years ago, I went on an admittedly desultory search for the original quote and was unable to locate it.
Obviously, the paraphrase is far juicier than the original, but actually, if you think about it, the version quoted by Brody is even worse, as it indicates that Kael was actually acknowledging her provincialism (“I live in a rather special world”) and from its perch expressing her distaste for the unwashed masses with whom she sometimes had to share a movie theater. What this indicates is that, even then, liberal provincialism was as proud of its provincialism as any Babbitt.”
That was 40 years ago and what once could be classified as “liberal provincialism” has to be reclassified as imbecility. Pauline Kael did not have Reagan’s campaign to reference or any of the past 40 years to inform her. But these Obama imbeciles have the past 40 years and yet they bitterly cling to their Kaelian notions.
We can understand mocking Romney. We have mocked him. But we also understand what Romney is up to. We don’t like the gamble, we think there was an easier path, but we know what Romney is up to:
“The Barack Obama campaign has run on the model of 2004. In that year an unpopular incumbent ran a base election and squeaked through to a victory.
The Mitt Romney campaign sees 1980 as their model year. In that year a Republican challenger to an incumbent president trailed or was close to the president for many months until at the very last moment, at a debate, the challenger proved his worthiness and broke the race wide open to a comfortable victory.
If you look at these two models after the events of September 11, 2012, the 1980 model appears to be the one most congruent with the current political situation. That is what scares the Obama Hopium Guzzling Big Media and other Obama acolytes. That is why the response to Mitt Romney’s mild critique of Barack Obama has been so brutal.”
Mitt Romney right now is not really campaigning. Paul Ryan is campaigning, but Mitt Romney is fundraising. Mitt Romney is hoarding cash, like Alberich in Nibelheim.
Mitt Romney is raising cash so that after the debate on October 3 he can raise hell for Obama. Somehow the Obama imbeciles don’t see that.
Mitt Romney has a very simple strategy. First raise lots of money, much more money than Barack Obama (all the while knowing that the pro Romney SuperPacs will spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Obama SuperPacs). While raising the cash just stay within winning distance of Barack Obama in the polls or if possible ahead.
Second, wait until all Americans are paying attention to politics and the presidential race, a period signaled by the debates. While waiting for the debates, heighten the probability of good debate performances by preparing for the debates. Romney has already had several debate preparation sessions and he comes fresh from a full primary campaign season of debates with people such as Newt Gingrich.
Finally, unfurl the flag, let the air war which many of us thought would commence soon after the end of the Obama convention) finally begin. To employ World War II terminology (apologies in advance especially since it is the beginning of the Jewish High Holy days), the sitzkreig becomes the blitzkrieg.
“If you realize that statement #1 is truer than ever and you also believe that this election will be an election of smear and fear, distract and distort, divide and conquer, corruption and complicity, consider yourself smart – you’ve been paying attention.”
Barack Obama will utilize all that data mining to slice and dice the electorate and smear and slime Mitt Romney. It’s ugly and leads to future impotence in governing. But don’t tell that to the Obama imbeciles, they’re drinking a potent new formula of Hopium.
That Hopium embalms the latter day Pauline Kael’s with new resolve to ignore reality. Obama’s failed strategy to use foreign policy to beat Romney is in flames, but the Hopium Guzzlers do not care.
The Hopium Guzzlers, like Kael generations ago, know what they know. They hate polls but love the polls they love. We’ve issued many warnings about when and how to read polls. Lately polls were raised to icon status by the Hopium Guzzlers. But not all polls:
Results such as these should give no side encouragement to loudly proclaim they know what will happen on election day 2012. Four years ago today, the financial crisis hit and John McCain’s large post convention bounce ended. The Obama Hopium Guzzlers continue to believe it was their brilliant campaign and their Mess-iah that won that campaign – but the rational know it was the financial collapse and exhaustion with George W. Bush that wrote the election day results.
Mitt Romney still understands that “It’s the economy, stupid.” That’s why new Romney ads focus on economy, deficit:
The Obama policy can be summarized as Debt And Deficits At Home To Buy Catastrophe Abroad. Don’t tell the Hopium Guzzlers that. They’re planning the Obama second inaugural. How stupid is that?
We went hunting for good news today, but came up empty. It was a gloriously beautiful day weather-wise so when we began the hunt we thought we would return with a news basketful of flowers – but weeds prevailed and the few roses found have thorns bigger than the petals.
“The president exudes an air of likability and friendliness, which is endearing,” Romney told ABC News. “But at the same time, I think people recognize that he has not done the job they expected him to do and that he promised he would do.”
Now we have heard of “damning with faint praise” as a smart tactic, but to us this sounds more like faint praise damning Romney. We loathe and despise taking precious insults away from our Obama stock to use on Romney but really….. How stupid is Romney to say such things?
“Liberal super PAC: Calling Republicans racist more effective than criticizing policy
According to an audio recording obtained by The Daily Caller, Matthew “Mudcat” Arnold, the national campaign manager of the liberal CREDO super PAC, told a gathering of supporters in Aurora, Colo., on Sept. 8 that they’ve realized “policy did not move voters.”
He used Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King as an example.
“When we said that Steve King … is pro-life and believes in cutting Social Security and voted for the Ryan budget, no one cared,” Arnold said. “When we said Steve King’s a racist, Steve King believes that immigrants ought to be put in electric fences, people moved.”
“When you talk about the substance of a man’s character, people respond,” Arnold continued.”
Well, we did not want our search for lovelies to be buried by such unpleasantness so we moseyed on over to a lush patch filled with herbs to aromatically refresh ourselves. Some bright green peppermint tickled our noses:
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote.”
“President Obama holds a narrow three-point advantage over Mitt Romney among Americans most likely to vote in November, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
With their back-to-back political conventions behind them and the general election season fully engaged, the poll found Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney running essentially even among those seen as the most probable to vote. The president has 49 percent and Mr. Romney has 46 percent, a difference within the margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points on each candidate.”
Oh dear, how unpleasant! With a frown on our faces but determined to find beauty this fine Friday, we turned to the mystical and religious. Surely some devotionals would sooth our troubled breasts. “What greater enlightenment in these days of division”, we thought, “than an ecumenical feast?” We sought refuge amidst the great religions:
“Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.”
Such wisdom, albeit garish and offensive, from a self described “satirical” magazine shook us to the core. We noted that the ecumenical cartoon lacked one group of adherents who coincidentally gather on Friday’s to perform religious devotions and prayers together in peace. “What were they up to today?” we innocently wondered.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said he was “deeply concerned” about the attacks on US embassies. He called on the countries in question to protect foreign missions. “Diplomats have to be able to do their work without fear,” he said.
Westerwelle said he could understand the outrage that many Muslims felt about the anti-Islam film. “But this outrage cannot justify violence.” [snip]
On Friday, German commentators analyze the violence and its implications for US foreign policy.
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
“The murder of an ambassador in Libya and the attacks on US diplomatic missions in other Arab countries is sure to strengthen the skepticism that more than a few Americans feel toward Muslims and the political changes brought by the Arab revolutions. The deeply held American belief that all you have to do is liberate people from serfdom and dictatorship, and then democracy and a market economy will develop more or less on their own, burned to ash in the trial by fire of Iraq. [snip]
The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:
“The attacks on US embassies and consulates in the Arab world can not be justified in any way. If it turns out that al-Qaida is behind the attacks, as some US officials suspect, then they are acts of terrorism committed under the guise of religion. [snip] But that clearly does not help US President Barack Obama very much. He has to bear the political consequences of the recent events by himself.”
“Four years ago, Obama pledged to seek reconciliation with the Muslim world. Now, it is doubtful whether he has succeeded. The US and its European allies now have to ask themselves how much support they still enjoy in the countries of the Arab Spring.”
The center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: [snip]
“America hardly has influence in the region any longer, and now sees itself confronted with anti-American sentiment in places where it no longer controls the dictators. Meanwhile, forces that simultaneously exploit and spurn America are gaining influence.” [snip]
The conservative Die Welt writes:
“US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It’s a bitter outcome for Obama.”
“Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. [snip] This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali.”
“One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America’s deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check.”
The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:
“It’s lucky for Obama that his opponent Romney is acting in such a hapless manner.”
The financial daily Handelsblatt writes:
“Three years after Obama’s speech in Cairo, which was supposed to initiate a new beginning in the Middle East, the United States now has even less support in the region than before.”
The mass-circulation daily Bild writes:
“Naked hatred is raging against a country that many people in the world regard as a symbol of freedom. When US flags burn, embassies are vandalized, and diplomats are murdered, it is an attack on the West, and not just America!”
“We rooted for the demonstrators at Tahrir Square, and many of us have longed to see democracy in the Arab nations. But democracy includes honoring the lives of fellow humans.”
“The turmoil in Libya, Cairo, and Bangladesh is a return to the Middle Ages, when people were beheaded and stoned to death. No pathetic anti-Islam film can justify hate-filled murder.”
“The West must be tough on terrorism. And it must show that it can differentiate between rabble-rousers and peaceful Muslims.”
For a few brief seconds we felt some hope. We were happy to see many recognize that appeasement never works. Now, we thought, Americans would wake up and even Obama Hopium Guzzlers would see that Obama will get us all killed.
Appeasement never works. But for the deluded Obama supporters the bumbling of Obama will be taken as a rallying cry to love Obama greater, bigger. Only a fool, will vote for Obama. But there are a lot of fools walking about these days.
In Hollywood rapist Roman Polanski (a great filmmaker for sure) is defended as not doing “rape-rape”. The vilest misogyny in rap music is defended as righteous free speech which reflects “the culture”. Gay people and women are degraded by Muslim savages but not a word from those who purport to respect the rights of gay people and women. Crucifixes of Christ in urine is defended as a free speech issue. Unpopular atheism is defended. Pornography is exulted as another legitimate viewpoint. No unpopular viewpoint or outright abomination is left undefended but a film that has a controversial viewpoint, one not shared by the Hopium Guzzlers who love Obama, is left undefended.
Yet these people who reside in the hills of Hollywood and the latitudes of Manhattan don’t see the hypocrisy they engage in when they defend Barack Obama or denounce an unpopular film whose message they deplore. Vipers brood! These are unprincipled and extremely stupid people who think they are smart and think they are principled. We wish them all retroactively to the top floors of the World Trade Center circa September 11, 2001 to contemplate on their stupidity.
We went looking today for flowers of beauty to contemplate peacefully on the state of the world. Unfortunately we only found festering lilies and flowers of evil.
Check out the Obama apologist Big Media outlets. They are in full rabid attack mode against Mitt Romney and in support of Barack Obama. There’s a reason for this.
Regular readers know we started writing about Big Media as adjuncts of the Obama campaign back in 2007. The JournoList scandal proved our observations to be accurate. But since September 11, 2012 Big Media has gone whole hog in attacking Mitt Romney and protecting Barack Obama.
At Arriana’s Huff n’ Puff website some anti-Romney screeds are getting close to 40,000 comments. The DailyKooks are full out KooKoo in vitriol against Romney and hosannas for Obama.
Why are the DailyKook type websites and Big Media in a tornado frenzy? Hint: it’s not because they are in a position of strength.
Fear is driving the rabid attacks. Fear. Fear of the unknown and an even more profound fear which lies at the heart of every Obama Hopium Guzzling Dimocrat. That fear is not nameless. That fear has a name.
The name of that fear is “Jimmy Carter”.
* * * * * *
The Barack Obama campaign has run on the model of 2004. In that year an unpopular incumbent ran a base election and squeaked through to a victory.
The Mitt Romney campaign sees 1980 as their model year. In that year a Republican challenger to an incumbent president trailed or was close to the president for many months until at the very last moment, at a debate, the challenger proved his worthiness and broke the race wide open to a comfortable victory.
If you look at these two models after the events of September 11, 2012, the 1980 model appears to be the one most congruent with the current political situation. That is what scares the Obama Hopium Guzzling Big Media and other Obama acolytes. That is why the response to Mitt Romney’s mild critique of Barack Obama has been so brutal.
“I’m having the strangest sense of deja vu over the last eighteen months or so, and the attacks on two diplomatic missions in the Middle East over the last 24 hours has only intensified it. Once again we have an American government that either tacitly or actively undermined an ally in the region in favor of supposedly democratic Islamist radicals, and once again we have an American government that gets taken by surprise when the government that results either fails to protect our embassies and consulates or arguably participated in an attack on them. Once again, the response to those attacks have been more mea culpa than mighty, and once again the weakness of the response puts our other diplomatic missions at risk.”
None of this is too surprising. This is not what alarms Obama’s henchmen in Big Media. But that is not all there is to the Big Media “malaise” and the need to attack Romney with ferocity.
Big Media and the astute observer, like hurricane watchers over the African coast, can see the mists congregating and the winds begin their spiral dance. Big Media (a.k.a. the Obama campaign) sees the gathering storm. First there was the Obama convention giving Romney a vast opening with the “God” and “Jerusalem” disasters forever documented on Youtube.
The “God” and “Jerusalem” revelations at Obama’s convention were followed up by Obama’s snub of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on September 11, 2012. These events were stirring up worries in the Obama Big Media mob for days (Obama quoting Jimmy Carter isn’t helping). But then what they feared most happened.
What Obama’s Big Media henchmen most feared is usually one of their most useful tools: pictures.
Looking at the pictures of an American flag ripped to shreds by Muslim mobs, arrayed like hungry crows on an embassy wall, it is hard to distinguish the 2012 pictures from the 1979 pictures. The videos are equally hard to catalog. Are these from ’79 or are these ’12? Is that Muslim thug on the wall vintage age of high Jimmy Carter gas prices or high Barack Obama gas prices? Is that bearded thug ripping the American flag an Obama unemployment rate Muslim or a Jimmy Carter era bum?
The pictures are deadly. Big Media knows that no matter how much they write in defense of Obama those darn pictures speak for themselves. Americans watching the stars and stripes ripped for mob souvenirs might just get a clue that not all is well. That is why Big Media is doing all it can to cast the blame on Mitt Romney and stoke the fires of love for Barack Obama.
“The substance of what Romney said at the time was absolutely right,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the situation in Libya and Egypt on “Special Report” tonight. “The problem is he needs to make a larger argument. There is a collapse of Obama’s policy. It began with the Cairo speech, it began with the apologies to Iran. It began with regret for the Iraq war, it began with the so-called outreach and it completely collapsed. It has gotten nowhere on Iran. These are the fruits of appeasement and apology.”
“He should make a general speech, not attack here and there but a speech explaining and connecting all the dots. That’s what a candidate ought to do and to leave attacks to surrogates and to Ryan,” Krauthammer said.
Romney indeed needs to make the “larger argument”. These are the words that Mitt Romney must include in that speech or series of speeches:
“appeasement, Cairo speech, war on terror, Jimmy Carter, appeasement, mob rule, Arab winter, snub Israel, snub Netanyahu, Obama will get us all killed, free speech, Muslim Brotherhood, appeasement, thugs, bowing, scraping, failure of leadership, Iran murderers, Holocaust, nuclear winter, moral cowardice, Iron Veil, delusion, morass, treachery, God, Jerusalem, appeasement”
Mitt Romney must provide a narrative for what is happening in America and the world. That narrative must start by laying out the facts. The conclusion will be: Obama must go or be removed. Make the case Mitt.
These same Big Media pigs once praised Barack Obama as the man that would raise respect for America among Muslim men “not a notch, but a logarithm“.
Other Big Media pigs that fell in love with the disgusting “Arab Spring” put their efforts in protecting the failure that is Barack Obama and attacked Mitt Romney for introducing rationality into the discussion.
“The film’s 52-year-old writer, director and producer, Sam Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. “Islam is a cancer,” he said in a telephone interview from his home. “The movie is a political movie. It’s not a religious movie.” [snip]
The flashpoint appeared to be the film about the Prophet Muhammad, portions of which in recent days have been circulating on the Internet. Contravening the Islamic prohibition of portraying the prophet, clips from the film show him not only as flesh and blood—but as a homosexual son of undetermined patrimony, who rises to advocate child slavery and extramarital sex, for himself, in the name of religion. [snip]
While protesters in Cairo said they understood American laws on free expression, they saw them as secondary to their religious practice. “Freedom of belief is more important than freedom of expression,” said Ashraf Ibrahim, 34, who was at Tuesday’s protest.[snip]
Though the film was the focus of demonstrators’ outrage, the spirited protest amounted to more of a general outpouring of grievances against U.S. policy in the Islamic world. Several signs and chants decried the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as American support for Israel.
Many recalled the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that killed thousands of U.S. citizens 11 years earlier.
“Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!” went one chant, referring to Osama bin Laden, the late head of Al Qaeda, the militant Islamist organization widely believed to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks.”
None of the above should surprise anyone and none of the above issues is unknown to Americans. The producers of the film claim it is a “political film” and Americans know the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and what happens in a free society when there are attempts to shut down political expression. Ain’t gonna happen here Muslim savages and opponents of free speech (which we are indulging in today even though we recognize that there are good and bad people in all groups).
The Muslim savages want Muhammad exempt from a modernity that commonly depicts religious figures without having members of that faith kill others and destroy property. ‘Mo-ham-mud’s biography is also subject to scrutiny – and ridicule – and we will spell that name any damn way we please.
To the Muslim savages, “freedom of expression” which they understand quite well, is subservient to “freedom of belief”. In America you can worship goats or rubber ducks and we have the right to laugh at you. Islam is not and should not be exempt from ridicule or examination no matter how cruel or vicious.
“Unless the Romney campaign has gamed this crisis out in some manner completely invisible to the Gang of 500, his doubling down on criticism of the President for the statement coming out of Cairo is likely to be seen as one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign.”
Big Media or as Halperin calls his fellow pigs “the Gang of 500” will attempt to portray Romney’s tepid statement as “one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign”. Romney should take on Barack Obama and his Big Media campaign affiliates full on.
Conservative Daniel Foster of National Review, like Mark Halperin, thinks Romney has a problem too. But that’s because Daniel Foster (and Politico and the rest of Big Media) have the timeline all wrong. What’s missing in their analysis?:
“But he’s been screwed by the timing.
If I’ve got it straight, here’s the actual order of events: 1) U.S. diplomats in Cairo shamefully apologize more or less preemptively for private U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment rights in a way that “hurts the religious feelings” of Muslims. 2) “Protests” intensify into attacks on embassy in Cairo and consulate in Benghazi. 3) Romney calls Cairo embassy response disgraceful. 4) Reports of murders of Americans in Benghazi confirmed. 5) Obama administration disavows Cairo embassy line. 6) Obama campaign flack LaBolt shames Romney for politicizing murders.
But the instant narrative from the media is that Romney “jumped the gun,” that he has used the death of Americans as a campaign prop and broken the sacred rule that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Except that’s not what happened at all. Cairo jumped the gun on its controllers in Washington, and by the time Cairo’s disgraceful response filtered out into the media ether it was being rendered more disgraceful still by the violent turn the protests took, and Romney rightly condemned it as disgraceful. The Obama administration then caught up to Romney and muzzled Cairo. So how is Romney the one with the bad messaging here?”
Again, “The embassy killings are a symptom of Obama weakness and signals to Muslim savages that they will win if they fight against American freedom.” Got that Mitt?
Mitt Romney has to declare that Obama is the problem. Obama bowing and scraping, in between apologies, is the problem. It sends a message of weakness. Of course Obama is weak so the message is apropos. Mitt Romney has to denounce Obama’s pusillanimous postures and demand that Obama be thrown out of office because Obama will get us killed.
We recently discussed George W. Bush’s message in 2004. It was simple: “Bush will keep you safe, John Kerry will get you killed.” Mitt Romney better appropriate that message before Obama gets his slimy hands on it.
Obama wants to run a Bush 2004 campaign with a weak incumbent eventually winning. Mitt Romney has to block that and use the Bush message: “Mitt Romney will keep you safe, Barack Obama will get you killed.”
Mitt Romney has the capacity to win this foreign policy argument, place the blame where it belongs – on weak Barack Obama – and garner the votes of the majority of Americans. Today Mitt Romney tried but he left out the key component – the Obama snub of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Impromptu asides are insufficient and will not work.
The Obama policy of appeasement is what Mitt Romney must attack. Romney has to remind Americans of Barack Obama’s weakness: It’s the surrender to the Iranian mullahs as the Iranian people rose up. It the “without preconditions” Obama destruction of America. It’s the corrupt bowing to the corrupt. It will get us killed and Mitt Romney has to make that clear.
It is clear that these attacks were staged and planned for September 11. the embassy is American soil and the terrorists attacked America once again on September 11. Mitt Romney must put the blame squarely on the Muslim savages that attacked American embassies and on Barack Obama’s policy of snubbing Israel and appeasement of savagery.
Anyone seen Mitt Romney? According to Buzzfeed Barack Obama is going to use foreign policy to attack Romney. As we write below, Mitt Romney has to put Obama in a lose/lose position.
Mitt should demand in as public a venue as possible (hint: Florida press conference) that Obama meet with Netanyahu. Mitt should say that until Obama capitulates to this demand Mitt will hammer Obama daily until Obama bows and agrees to Mitt’s demand. Hammer Obama daily.
When Obama capitulates Romney can take full credit for the capitulation. Until Obama capitulates Romney can beat on him like a rented donkey. It’s a win/win for Mitt a lose/lose for Obama. We cannot make this clearer to you Mitt. But ya gotta act fast Mitt. Get your ass in gear here.
It’s September 11, 2012. The date has a certain resonance for Americans. For Obama it’s “Hate Israel Day.”
In Egypt the American Embassy was attacked, the stars and stripes torn down. The flag of Al-Qaeda, the killers of Americans on 9/11, was raised in Old Glory’s stead.
It’s imperative that Mitt Romney make sure that Americans know what happened at the DNC when it comes to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the softening towards HAMAS, and the borders of Israel. Mitt Romney has a new hammer to pound on these important issues.
Mitt Romney must declare in a most public way that Barack Obama must be forced to change his mind and be forced to be “present” and not his usual “not present”. Mitt Romney must demand that Barack Obama stop his campaign of hate against Israel and meet with the Israeli Prime Minister.
Mitt Romney must declare in a most public way that Barack Obama clear his schedule and meet with Benyamin Netanyahu at this crucial time. Mitt Romney should immediately declare that he is willing to meet with Netanyahu on September 25 or on a mutually convenient date this month.
In “This Weekend In Jerusalem” we detailed how Mitt Romney greatly helped Israel just by visiting Israel and forcing Obama’s hand on several issues of concern to Israel. Mitt Romney must help Israel again (and himself while doing so) by in a most public way denouncing Barack Obama.
“The White House has rejected a request by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet President Barack Obama in the United States this month, an Israeli official said on Tuesday, after a row erupted between the allies over Iran’s nuclear programme.
An Israeli official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that Netanyahu’s aides had asked for a meeting when he visits the United Nations this month, and “the White House has got back to us and said it appears a meeting is not possible. It said that the president’s schedule will not permit that“.