Category Archives: Presidential debate

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Obama and Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School.

That speaks volumes.

Ted Cruz should have gotten a ruling on his eligibiilty to be president as a natural born citizen many months ago.

Ted Cruz is an arrogant fool for not doing so.

From the Daily Mail January 29, 2016.

“Trump campaign manager to Ted Cruz: We’ll debate you one-on-one as soon as a judge says you’re eligible to be president!”

“Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Friday said his campaign will debate his closest rival for the party’s nomination head-to-head – but only if a federal judge says so.

Trump, the New York real estate tycoon who boycotted Thursday night’s presidential debate because of a long-running personal feud with one of the network’s reporters, signaled Friday that he would be happy to debate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

DailyMail.com asked Trump if he was serious about resisting Cruz until a court decides on his presidential electability.

‘Well, I think you’ve got a real problem. I think Cruz has a real problem… I would do that. I would absolutely do that. But they’ve got to rule. He’s got to go for a declaratory judgment,’ Trump said aboard his private jet on the tarmac in Des Moines, Iowa.”

“Trump went on to joke that he would debate Cruz in Canada – ‘to give him home-field advantage,’ before pledging to attend next Saturday’s Republican debate in Manchester, N.H.

But already Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, had dismissed Cruz’s proposal as nothing more than a ‘publicity stunt.’

‘What we’ve said to Ted Cruz: Go into court, seek a declaratory judgment to find out if you’re even legally eligible to run for president of the United States,’ he said Thursday in a Boston radio interview.

‘That’s the first thing. Once you’ve gotten that ruling from the federal judge and you’re the last man standing in this presidential contest next to Donald Trump, we’ll be happy to have a debate with you one-on-one, anywhere you want, because that’s the way the system works,’ Lewandowski said.

‘But, as it stands right now, we don’t even know if Ted Cruz is legally eligible to run for president of the United States.'”

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422990/Trump-campaign-manager-Ted-Cruz-ll-debate-one-one-soon-judge-says-eligible-president.html

 

Obama exposed in NC in print, October 25, 2012, Rhino Times, Obama lies on Benghazi, Romney debate performance, US economy, Israel, Liberal mainstream media having hissy fit

Obama exposed in NC in print, October 25, 2012, Rhino Times, Obama lies on Benghazi, Romney debate performance, US economy, Israel, Liberal mainstream media having hissy fit

“We tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”…Barack Obama

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times, in print in NC, October 25, 2012.

“But technology has its downside as well, and President Barack Hussein Obama is learning about the problems with electronic communication. The problem is that people can go back and find the records.

Obama tried to blame the whole Benghazi confusion on the State Department and the intelligence community. It simply was not believable that during and after the attack the State Department and the intelligence community believed that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration. Four people were killed in the attack but everyone else survived, plus there were the surveillance videos.

Obama clearly was doing his best to push this entire controversy past Nov. 6 because after Nov. 6 it won’t matter whether he got an email from Ambassador Chris Stevens the day before the attack demanding more security, or a text message during the attack describing the well-organized planned attack that was taking place.

The truth is that Obama knew that it was an organized planned attack, but it doesn’t fit in with the worldview that he is trying to sell to the American people that the US has defeated al Qaeda and the world is a safer place because of President Obama. The truth didn’t fit in with his message, so he changed the story that he told to the American people and now he has been caught. It may change someone’s vote to know that the president deliberately misled the American people to better his chance of getting reelected.”

“The polls that the public sees just aren’t that good. Proof of that is that they still have North Carolina in the “leaning Romney” category. Barring some last minute surprise that will cause even hardcore Republicans to vote for Obama there is no way that Obama can win North Carolina. So any poll that doesn’t put North Carolina solidly in the Romney camp, and I haven’t seen one that does, is automatically suspect.”

“Judging from the campaigns, not only does Romney think he is ahead, Obama is convinced that Romney has won and is running around the country like a madman attacking Romney, trying to make something happen.

And Obama has to attack Romney; he has no other viable campaign. Obama can’t run on his record and he has a big problem if he presents a great plan to bring the country’s economy back around because then the question is, Why aren’t you doing this now? Why do you have to wait to get reelected?”

“One of the biggest lies of the debate was when Obama talked about Israel being “our greatest ally in the region.” Obama refused to even meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was in the US this fall. Obama said it didn’t fit into his schedule, but during the same time he managed to find time for David Letterman and a lot of campaigning, which indicates his priorities.

Also, the White House has refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Obama has been as rude to Netanyahu as one head of state can be to another, and now he is trying to say that he believes Israel is our closest ally. You simply don’t treat your friends the way Obama has treated Israel. As president he has never visited Israel.”

“But in the debate it certainly didn’t appear that Obama knew more about foreign affairs than Romney. In fact, Romney did what presidents often do and mentioned some obscure groups and movements that may be big news in national security briefings but haven’t made the daily newspapers. It made Romney seem like he was more knowledgeable.

Obama’s comment about horses and bayonets was just rude. It was a good idea, but the way he said it was rude and mean. No one doubts that Romney knows all about aircraft carriers and submarines. But Obama is a rude man. He is rude to our allies, rude to the people he should be working with in Congress, rude to his political opponents and rude to foreign heads of state who visit him in the White House.

Romney once again didn’t take the bait.

But Romney’s big advantage in this race is the economy. The question that people are going to be asking when they go into the polls is, “Am I better off than I was four years ago?” And for the vast majority of Americans the answer is no.

Not only did Obama allow Romney to talk about the economy, he got sucked in and started talking about it himself.”

“The liberal mainstream media are having a hissy fit right now. The liberal media have figured out that their candidate is not going to win and they are beside themselves. The attitude seems to be, how can the American people ignore all the horrible things they have written about Romney and vote for him?”

“The New York Times Sunday magazine did a hit job on Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan this week. It is amazing what they manage to weave into an article like it belongs. But the reporter, Mark Leibovich, seemed to dislike Sen. Rob Portman even more than Ryan.

Here’s one phrase about Portman, which is really interesting if you have a few facts: “One mark against the wealthy senator was that he might be perceived as too much of a Grey Poupon Republican …”

Here’s the problem. Portman is certainly wealthy, and he is a senator, but he is not a “wealthy senator.” He is kind of average by Senate standards. Portman doesn’t even make the list of the 50 wealthiest members of Congress. Portman, according to Roll Call, is worth about $6.72 million.”

“So of the top 10 richest members of Congress, three are Republicans and seven are Democrats. And Portman doesn’t make the top 50, yet The New York Times refers to him as a “wealthy senator.” How many times have you read – wealthy Sen. Dianne Feinstein, wealthy Sen. John Kerry, or wealthy Sen. Frank Lautenberg?”

“The article is an incredible piece of liberal Democrat propaganda, but very smoothly done. It makes it sound like offering someone barbecue sauce is a bad thing. The tone is really incredible.”

Read more:

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2012-10-24-213602.112113-Under-the-Hammer.html

John Hammer.

Excellent!

Obama Romney third debate, Obama Benghazi lies, Obama takes credit for Osama Bin Laden but worked against efforts, Navy Seals did job Obama delayed

Obama Romney third debate, Obama Benghazi lies, Obama takes credit for Osama Bin Laden but worked against efforts, Navy Seals did job Obama delayed

“With some trying to turn bin Laden’s death into a campaign talking point for Obama’s reelection, it is useful to remember that the trail to bin Laden started in a CIA black site — all of which Obama ordered closed, forever, on the second full day of his administration — and stemmed from information obtained from hardened terrorists who agreed to tell us some (but not all) of what they knew after undergoing harsh but legal interrogation methods. Obama banned those methods on Jan. 22, 2009.”…Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. 31 year CIA veteran 

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

The third debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney takes place tonight, October 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM. The focus will be foreign policy.

Obama has a problem. The lies he and his administration told about the terrorist attack at Benghazi. He will predictably respond with Orwellian damage control.

There is a consensus that Obama will continue to brag about killing Osama Bin Laden. However, the only thing that Obama can take credit for is not delaying the operation further by giving the order.

Let’s be clear. The Navy Seals risked all and deserve most of the credit.

A new book claims that

“Obama ‘cancelled missions to kill bin Laden THREE TIMES after getting cold feet – until Hillary Clinton stepped in'”

“Barack Obama cancelled three operations to kill Osama bin Laden before finally going ahead with the mission at the insistence of Hillary Clinton, according to a new book.

The explosive allegation is contained in an expose by journalist Rich Miniter, who argues that the White House’s carefully-crafted narrative of Obama as a decisive leader who dispatched the al-Qaeda leader despite the doubts of advisers is a myth.

Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him will be published on Tuesday. Excerpts have been viewed by Mail Online.

Miniter, a former ‘Wall Street Journal’, ‘Washington Times’ and ‘Sunday Times’ of London journalist, cites an unnamed source within Joint Special Operations Command as revealing that three ‘kill’ missions were cancelled by Obama in January, February and March 2011.

Bin Laden was eventually killed by US Navy SEALs inside his compound in Abbotobad, Pakistan in May 2011.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191021/EXCLUSIVE-Obama-cancelled-missions-kill-bin-Laden-THREE-TIMES-getting-cold-feet–Hillary-Clinton-stepped-claims-explosive-new-book.html

The search for Bin Laden began years before Obama took office.

“The CIA was able to find him by tracking a courier.  This was a process that took years.  It actually began during the Bush Administration — in 2007.  How did the Intelligence Community find the courier who eventually took them to bin Laden?  They found him through information gained from interrogating terrorist prisoners.

Let’s repeat that point because it needs to be emphasized.  Ultimately, bin Laden was found and killed as a result of information gained from the interrogation of a captured terrorist.  Actually, given all of the ink and pixels that have been spilled over this subject, it bears repeating one more time: bin Laden’s death is a direct result of information gained from the interrogation of detainees, reportedly at the famed Guantanamo Bay prison camp.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/bin_ladens_death_and_the_vindi.html

From the Washington Post April 30, 2012.

“The path to bin Laden’s death didn’t start with Obama”

“As we mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, President Obama deserves creditfor making the right choice on taking out Public Enemy No. 1.But his administration never would have had the opportunity to do the right thing had it not been for some extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration. Much of that work has been denigrated by Obama as unproductive and contrary to American principles.

He is wrong on both counts.

Shortly after bin Laden met his maker last spring, courtesy of U.S. Special Forces and intelligence, the administration proudly announced that when Obama took office, getting bin Laden was made a top priority. Many of us who served in senior counterterrorism positions in the Bush administration were left muttering: “Gee, why didn’t we think of that?”The truth is that getting bin Laden was the top counterterrorism objective for U.S. intelligence since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This administration built on work pain­stakingly pursued for many years before Obama was elected — and without this work, Obama administration officials never would have been in a position to authorize the strike on Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in bin Laden’s overdue death.In 2004, an al-Qaeda terrorist was captured trying to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror organization’s operations in Iraq. That captured terrorist was taken to a secret CIA prison — or “black site” — where, initially, he was uncooperative. After being subjected to some “enhanced interrogation techniques” — techniques authorized by officials at the most senior levels of the U.S. government and that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel confirmed were consistent with U.S. law — the detainee became compliant. He was not one of the three al-Qaeda operatives who underwent waterboarding, the harshest of the hard measures.

Once this terrorist decided that non-cooperation was a non-starter, he told us many things — including that bin Laden had given up communicating via telephone, radio or Internet, and depended solely on a single courier who went by “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.” At the time, I was chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. The fact that bin Laden was relying on a lone courier was a revelation that told me bin Laden had given up day-to-day control of his organization. You can’t run an operation as large, complex and ambitious as al-Qaeda by communicating only every few months. It also told me that capturing him would be even harder than we had thought.

Armed with the pseudonym of bin Laden’s courier, we pressed on. We asked other detainees in our custody if they had ever heard of “al-Kuwaiti.” Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, reacted in horror when he heard the name. He backed into his cell and vigorously denied ever hearing of the man. We later intercepted communications KSM sent to fellow detainees at the black site, in which he instructed them: “Tell them nothing about the courier!”

In 2005 another senior detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, told us that this courier had informed him that Libi had been selected to be al-Qaeda’s No. 3 official. Surely that kind of information is delivered only by highly placed individuals.

A couple of years later, after I became head of the National Clandestine Service, the CIA was able to discover the true name of the courier. Armed with that information, the agency worked relentlessly to locate that man. Finding him eventually led to tracking down and killing bin Laden.

With some trying to turn bin Laden’s death into a campaign talking point for Obama’s reelection, it is useful to remember that the trail to bin Laden started in a CIA black site — all of which Obama ordered closed, forever, on the second full day of his administration — and stemmed from information obtained from hardened terrorists who agreed to tell us some (but not all) of what they knew after undergoing harsh but legal interrogation methods. Obama banned those methods on Jan. 22, 2009.”

This past weekend, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin attacked statements made in May 2011 by me, former CIA director Michael Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey regarding what led to bin Laden’s death. They misunderstood and mischaracterized our positions.

No single tactic, technique or approach led to the successful operation against bin Laden. But those who suggest it was all a result of a fresh approach taken after Jan. 20, 2009, are mistaken.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-path-to-osama-bin-ladens-death-didnt-start-with-obama/2012/04/30/gIQAfFmdsT_story.html

Obama Romney third debate, October 22, 2012, Lynn University, CBS News Bob Schieffer moderator, Foreign policy, Obama Benghazi Damage control

Obama Romney third debate, October 22, 2012, Lynn University, CBS News Bob Schieffer moderator, Foreign policy, Obama Benghazi Damage control

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”…Candy Crowley

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

The third presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will be held Monday, October 22, 2012, at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL. The moderator is Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

Obama was caught in a lie about his response to the Benghazi Embassy attack during the second debate.

What kind of damage control will Obama use?

Will Bob Schieffer be fair?

From the Commission on Presidential Debates.

“Moderator Announces Topics for the Third Presidential Debate

Oct 12, 2012

TOPICS FOR THIRD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ANNOUNCED BY MODERATOR
Bob Schieffer, moderator of the third 2012 presidential debate, has selected the topics for that debate, which is on foreign policy.  Mr. Schieffer stated:
Subject to possible changes because of news developments, here are the topics for the October 22 debate, not necessarily to be brought up in this order:
  • America’s role in the world
  • Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
  • Red Lines – Israel and Iran
  • The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
  • The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
  • The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
The debate will be held on Monday, October 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL.  The format calls for six 15-minute time segments, each of which will focus on one of the topics listed above.  The moderator will open each segment with a question.  Each candidate will have two minutes to respond.  Following the candidates’ responses, the moderator will use the balance of the 15-minute segment to facilitate a discussion on the topic.  All debates start at 9:00 p.m. ET and run for 90 minutes.”

http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=45&cntnt01origid=27&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

From the Seattle Times October 21, 2012.

“Obama, Romney allies square off on foreign policy”

“On the eve of their final presidential debate, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama – through their allies – squared off Sunday over which candidate would best protect the nation’s interests and security abroad with just two weeks left in a race that polls show is increasingly tight.

Both candidates stayed largely out of view, preparing vigorously for their Monday face-off focused on foreign policy.

Republicans accused Obama of leaking word of possible negotiations with Iran in pursuit of political gain. Democrats shot back, arguing that Romney and his party are the ones playing politics with national security.

The haggling played out on Sunday news shows at a critical time for Romney and Obama, whose marathon race has become exceedingly close as it lurches toward its November conclusion. Early and absentee voting are already under way in many of the most competitive states, upping the pressure on both candidates to lock in supporters.

Two weeks out, the race appears to be tied, with both candidates taking 47 percent among likely voters in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday that reflected a boost of support for Romney following his lauded performance in the first debate in early October.

Romney’s top supporters launched sweeping condemnations of Obama’s handling of foreign policy, assailing him over a deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and arguing that under the president’s negligent watch, Iran has crept closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who played Obama in Romney’s debate preparations, said a new report claiming the U.S. and Iran had agreed to direct negotiations seemed like “another example of a national security leak from the White House.”

“They’ve done a lot of that,” Portman said, alluding to accusations over the summer that Obama’s administration was leaking information to bolster his political prospects ahead of the election. He was echoed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who called the timing of the report “pretty obvious.”

The White House said Saturday that while it is prepared for direct talks with Iran, there’s no current agreement to meet. On Sunday, Obama’s backers credited him for isolating Iran within the global community and adopting effective sanctions that have crippled the Persian Gulf nation.

“For two years, the president traveled the world putting together a withering international coalition. And now the sanctions that they agreed on are bringing the Iranian economy to its knees,” said David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser. “They’re feeling the heat. And that’s what the sanctions were meant to do.”

Romney, taking a break from debate prep Sunday in Delray Beach, Fla., declined to answer a reporter’s question about whether he would be open to one-on-one talks with Iran.

Still, Obama’s allies were wedged into a defensive posture as Republicans undertook an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to deflating Obama’s foreign policy record. Graham said the Libya attack reflected “one of the most major breakdowns of national security in a very long time.” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., in a clear nod to Cuban-American voters in his battleground state, even suggested Obama’s loosening of travel restrictions to Cuba had provided a source of cash for the Castro regime and undermined political freedoms.

Democrats were ready with indictments of their own. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the House GOP’s release Friday of 166 pages of Libya-related documents had put lives in danger.

“People around the world will now know that you’re at risk if you cooperate with the United States,” said Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff.

Romney’s supporters waxed optimistic that the race is trending in the Republican’s direction, even in crucial states like Ohio that Obama won four years ago and where unemployment is on the decline. Portman said he’s traversed his home state over the past two weeks on behalf of Romney and likes what he’s seeing on the ground.

“The enthusiasm energy is on our side this year. I mean, it’s not like 2008 at all,” he said.

Both candidates dedicated their weekend to intensive study for the debate; Obama huddled with advisers in Maryland and Romney with his team in Florida.

On the agenda were Iran-Israel tensions, China, terrorism and the war in Afghanistan – all subjects expected to come up Monday in the 90-minute encounter moderated by CBS News’ Bob Schieffer. Although polls show the economy is of top concern to most voters, global affairs have cropped up as a key issue in the final weeks due to unrest in Libya, Syria and elsewhere.

Romney paused his preparations to attend church with his wife Sunday morning and to watch his traveling press corps play touch football against his senior staff. The former Massachusetts governor presided over a coin toss on the beach, then gathered his aides to cheer them on.

“That’s right, don’t worry about injuries guys, this counts. Win,” he joked.

Romney didn’t talk politics, refusing to answer a question about whether, if elected, he would be open to direct talks with Iran. Questions from reporters about the new poll and Monday’s debate likewise went unanswered.

Obama arrived Friday at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains, where he’s been holding 12-hour practice sessions, starting with policy discussions at 10 a.m. Obama and his team hold mock debates in the evening in a set designed to look like the one in Boca Raton, Fla., where the two White House hopefuls will square off for the last time. Ron Klain, a former White House aide brought back for debate prep, is playing the role of Schieffer.

Axelrod and Portman spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” while Emanuel appeared on ABC’s “This Week.” Graham spoke on “Fox News Sunday” and Rubio on CBS’ “Face the Nation.””

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019488674_apuspresidentialcampaign.html

Live updates from Citizen Wells on Twitter will be provided.

http://twitter.com/citizenwells

Will this Affect Obama’s performance in the debate?

“I’ll be making a major announcement on President Obama next week–stay tuned!”

From Donald Trump on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

 

Obama fact checked in print in NC, October 18, 2012, Rhino Times, John Hammer prints truth about Obama, Economy Obamacare Libya attack debate, Obama lies

Obama fact checked in print in NC, October 18, 2012, Rhino Times, John Hammer prints truth about Obama, Economy Obamacare Libya attack debate, Obama lies

“if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them”…Barack Obama

“We tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”…Barack Obama

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”
…. Louis D. Brandeis

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times, in Greensboro, NC October 18, 2012.

“Another debate and another pounding of the economic policies of President Barack Hussein Obama by Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Obama has a difficult task running for reelection with the economy in its current shape. Romney is relentless in pointing out that the economy grew slower this year than last year and grew slower last year than the year before, and that 23 million Americans are unemployed. When Romney says the real unemployment rate is 10.7 percent Obama doesn’t argue. When Romney says that Obama has piled up budget deficits of over $1 trillion year after year, Obama doesn’t argue.

Obama does say that his policies are going to work, but it’s hard to sell the idea that policies that haven’t worked for four years are suddenly going to start working in the fifth year or maybe the sixth year or the seventh year.

Romney talks a lot about Obamacare, but Obama doesn’t. He talks about bringing health care to every American, but he doesn’t dwell on Obamacare because polls show that most Americans are against it. It’s his signature piece but he has all but given up selling it to the American people.

When it comes to the contraception aspect of Obamacare, Obama is extremely misleading. Nobody is talking about not providing contraception services. The question is, who pays. According to Obamacare it has to be a free service. Why? Why is that free? Most medical care is not free even if you have insurance. What’s more, Obamacare will force the Catholic Church and other religious organizations to provide abortion services that they believe are morally wrong.

If Obamacare is not changed by the courts or by Congress, it is likely that Catholic hospitals, clinics, social service providers, universities, schools and other outreach programs will close. Perhaps Obama has been listening to his Catholic Vice President Joe Biden and not the Catholic bishops. But he might want to pay attention because if Catholic hospitals close in the major cities, there is going to be a health care disaster, and the Catholic bishops have made it abundantly clear that they are going to have no part in providing abortions.

Biden was entirely wrong in his answer about the situation with Obamacare and the Catholic Church, but then Biden has been told by at least one bishop that he is not a Catholic in good standing and should not participate in the sacraments.

, , ,

There are only two possibilities I can think of when it comes to the response by President Obama to the planned and well-executed terrorist attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya.

One is that when an American ambassador was killed in the line of duty for the first time since 1979, during the Carter administration, President Obama decided that in the midst of a presidential election he could not afford to admit that he had refused to give an American ambassador in one of the most dangerous places on earth adequate protection. So he lied to the American people about what happened and hoped that the truth wouldn’t come out until after Nov. 6.

The other is that the Obama administration is so incompetent that it borders on criminal. For two weeks the Obama administration – through its press secretary, Jay Carney, and the US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice – claimed that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over a video some nutcase in California made.

But the night of Sept. 11, when the attack was underway, Obama should have immediately known that an American embassy compound where the American ambassador was in residence was under attack by well-organized and well-armed terrorists. We have one of the most sophisticated communications systems in the world. If the president isn’t informed about a terrorist attack on a US embassy compound immediately, then what is the system used for? To make sure Obama doesn’t miss any basketball scores? When high-level State Department officials are being killed that is an emergency.

The State Department knew. The intelligence community knew. Obama made a big deal about watching the attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan live in the White House. It wasn’t exactly true that they were watching it live, but they were watching the video the night that it happened.

The American embassy compound in Benghazi had surveillance cameras. The Rhino Times office also has surveillance cameras. You can watch The Rhino Times surveillance cameras real time from a computer, tablet or smart phone anywhere you can hook up to the internet. I cannot believe that the surveillance cameras at the American compound in Benghazi were not hooked up to some communication device so that they could be watched by people in the State Department and intelligence community.

Even without the surveillance cameras, the US had competent people on the ground who, once they got away from immediate danger, reported to their superiors. In fact, according to the State Department timeline, a call about the attack went out immediately with frequent updates. The State Department knew as soon as the men in the compound knew that they were under attack by an organized force.

Vice President Biden says that he didn’t know, and that is entirely possible. Why would anyone bother to tell the vice president, even if he were a competent, honest, intelligent human being? The vice president isn’t going to be making any decisions. He is completely out of the loop as long as the president is alive. Biden may still believe that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration or he may believe that it took place in the last century where he evidently spends a lot of his time.

But President Obama knew or should have known within minutes exactly what was happening in Benghazi. He should have received the reports from those on the ground and he should have been watching the action on the surveillance cameras. But the reports from those in the compound who escaped only to be attacked at the so-called safe house about a mile away should have been more than enough proof that this was a highly organized, well-planned attack.

So in this next debate Obama needs to explain to the American people what happened. Was there such a tremendous communications breakdown that he didn’t get word from Libya about what happened for two weeks? Did the State Department put the Benghazi terrorist attack report on a sailing ship to send it to the White House? How on earth could a report and surveillance video take two weeks to get to the White House?

Obama needs to explain. If the first day the White House had gotten the story wrong that could be attributed to an honest mistake, but in today’s world to claim that the White House didn’t get information from its embassy for two weeks is simply a lie or evidence of overwhelming incompetence.

, , ,

Liberals love this, and the moderator for the presidential debate, Candy Crawley, is certainly a card-carrying liberal, which is why she re-asked the incredibly stupid question about making AK-47s illegal in the United States. Romney answered the question correctly by saying that fully automatic weapons are already illegal in the US. They have been since 1934. It is possible to get a license to have one, but it is not easy or cheap.

One of the so-called fact checkers said Romney was wrong when he said that fully automatic weapons were illegal. Technically Romney was wrong. Most people would tell you that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without the proper permit, but the fact checkers evidently would tell you that is wrong because you can carry a concealed weapon on your own property without a permit. Technically there was no Vietnam War, but that is simply not how we speak. Technically only a couple of hundred people get to vote for president, but candidates and pundits talk about voters in the presidential race all the time. Nobody says “people who vote for electors committed to one candidate,” we call them voters.

However, what the question was about were “assault weapons,” which is a term invented during the Clinton administration. The AK-47 is not an assault weapon; it is an assault rifle because it is fully automatic and for all practical purposes illegal. The assault weapons ban was not about banning a particular kind of rifle but banning rifles because of the way they looked. Rifles that operate identically could be legal or illegal based on how they looked. One that looked like a hunting rifle would be legal and one that looked like an assault rifle would be illegal.

It was a law that simply made people who want all guns to be illegal happy, but didn’t really do anything. Now many hunters are using what are technically assault weapons for hunting. They are lightweight, accurate and make good hunting rifles. And it is true that they are used to kill people. But knives are also frequently used to kill people and there was no question for the candidates about making knives illegal.

, , ,

President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat who won the respect of both parties and whom history has smiled upon, had a plaque on his desk that read, “The Buck Stops here!”

President Obama, a Democrat who has not won the respect of Republicans and is losing the respect of many Democrats and whose place in history is unknown, has no such plaque, and up until Tuesday night did not follow the philosophy expressed on the plaque.

We know this because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sent out to take the fall for Benghazi. The buck stopped with the secretary of state, not the president. You have to wonder what Truman would say about such cowardice by an American president.

Obama takes full credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden although he was over 7,000 miles away. That was Obama who took Bin Laden out, not the Navy Seals who were onsite risking their lives and doing the shooting. But when an American ambassador gets killed in the line of duty for the first time since 1979, it was not Obama’s fault, but the fault of the secretary of state.

During the second presidential debate on Tuesday night, the story changed again. Evidently having Hillary Rodham Clinton take the fall for the terrorist attack in Benghazi was not working with the American people. So during the Tuesday night debate Wendy Crawley threw Obama a softball so he could take full responsibility for the failure.

The attack was on Sept. 11, and on Oct. 16 the president finally takes full responsibility. It does make you wonder how many months it would have taken for Obama to take full responsibility if it wasn’t an election year.

, , ,

The more we learn about Obama the more questions arise. According to his own personal history Barry Obama quit being Barry and became Barack when he was at Occidental College in Los Angeles. By the time he went to Columbia University he was going by Barack exclusively, even to the point, according to his sister, of trying to get his family to call him Barack. But Martha Raddatz reportedly invited Barry Obama to her wedding. So if everyone called him Barack and had no reason to even know that he was called Barry as a kid, why was Barry invited to the wedding.

Or did really close friends at Harvard call him Barry? We’ll never know.

, , ,

They call it the Stupid Party for a reason, and unfortunately the reason hasn’t gone away. Four years ago the moderator of the vice presidential debate, Gwen Ifill, had written a book about Obama. If he were elected her book would make money, if he lost then the book would go in the remainder bin. She had a lot of money riding on the outcome of the debate and the election.

But then the Republicans allow that snafu to be topped. Barry Obama went to Martha Raddatz’s wedding and she was invited to the Obamas’ wedding but didn’t attend. However, her husband (now her ex) did. Do the Republicans vet these people at all? Do they have a list of Obama’s immediate family and if the person is not on that list, not named George Obama for instance, then they are eligible?

Then when you think it can’t get any worse they come up with this woman for the second town hall meeting, Candy Crawley, who gave Obama 9 percent more time than Romney and was much harder on Romney than on Obama. She also selected the questions, which were Obama-friendly, and asked her own follow-up questions, which she was not supposed to do according to the agreement signed by both campaigns.

This just in for the next and final debate, Obama’s campaign Communications Director David Axelrod is unexpectedly unavailable to moderate the debate so the Commission on Presidential Debates has asked Michelle Obama if she will step in. The Commission on Presidential Debates has noted that Mrs. Obama is a Harvard Law graduate like president Obama but did not attend Harvard Law School at the same time as President Obama, so they do not think she will have a conflict of interest based on their law school years.

The Republican Party has reportedly agreed to accept Michelle Obama as a fair and impartial moderator but has insisted that her daughters not be allowed to sit with her while she moderates the debate.

Who are these people on the Commission on Presidential Debates? Do they pick moderators from a list submitted by the Obama campaign? It’s like having the Ram’s Club pick the referees for the Duke-Carolina game. The Republicans have four years to get their act together but they had better get some conservative Republicans appointed to the Commission on Presidential Debates.”

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2012-10-18-213522.112113-Under-The-Hammer.html

 

Rush Limbaugh declares Romney winner of debate, Facts not lies win presidential debates, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley lies being discussed

Rush Limbaugh declares Romney winner of debate, Facts not lies win presidential debates, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley lies being discussed

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”…Candy Crowley

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels

From Rush Limbaugh October 17, 2012.

RUSH:  I’m seriously amazed.  I really am, ladies and gentlemen, seriously amazed at the uniformity of thought and opinion across the spectrum on the debate last night.  I must tell you, in all honesty, my view of what happened last night is not even close to what I’m hearing on Fox News, on MSNBC, on CNN, in the New York Times and the Washington Post.  Well, actually, you know, some of the newspaper editorials are closer to the way I saw this last night than some of the people on television.

Let me start out by stating something patently obvious.  Maybe put it to you in the form of a question.  Addressing one of the things that I have detected that people on our side are most concerned about, outside of Candy Crowley, which we’ll deal with here in just a second.  Libya.  Romney had a big opening.  He didn’t close it.  He didn’t secure it.  He could have said, “What are you talking about, terror attack?  You blamed a video for two weeks.”  He didn’t say that.

Are any of you not going to vote for Mitt Romney because he didn’t have something to say at a crucial moment that you wanted him to say?  Is somebody gonna vote for Barack Obama that wasn’t going to because Mitt Romney didn’t say, “You were talking about a video for two weeks.”  No, of course not.  There weren’t any votes lost by Romney last night, and there weren’t any votes gained by Obama.  Seriously.  So the whole notion I’m hearing of scoring this thing on points, this isn’t a college debate where you lose for technique according to some scoring system.  This was an entirely different dynamic, and it’s one that Obama came nowhere near overcoming.  The problem that he had going in is not one that he got anywhere near solving.

My friends, I want you to know something here.  I’m not speaking with preferences guiding my comments, and I’m not speaking with hope or false promises.  I’m shooting you straight as best I can.  I watched this debate last night and I saw another halting, choppy, staccato-speaking Barack Obama, wandering aimlessly, speaking in theory, speaking in faculty lounge lizard theoretical non-reality.  I saw cliche after cliche.  I heard liberal cliche after cliche.

The first question was some college kid who wants to know about a job and Obama talks to him about manufacturing jobs?  This kid isn’t going to college to learn how to weld.  He’s not going to college to find a manufacturing job. And Obama answers his question that way?  Through most of this debate I was thinking, here’s Romney, Mr. Smooth, he is in total command of the facts.  He is once again totally decimating Obama’s economic performance.  Obama, in his closing remarks, was reduced to sounding like me, when everybody knows he doesn’t believe a word of what he said.  He doesn’t believe in rugged individualism.  He doesn’t believe in self-reliance.  He doesn’t believe in any of those things.

Why doesn’t that matter when people start scoring these debates?  They look at these debates and they score some system that’s foreign to me.  Style points or any number of odd things that are irrelevant in a presidential campaign.  But I didn’t see Barack Obama dazzling anybody with a defense of his record.  I didn’t hear Barack Obama talk about his great plans for the future.  I heard Barack Obama even at one point say “when I was president” as though it’s in the past tense.  I saw a nervous, staccato speaking, choppy. In fact, everybody talks about how Romney got a raw deal from Candy Crowley, and he did, but it is what it is.

There was a point in that debate last night — Kathryn and I are sitting there watching it — and I was so stunned by what I saw that I hit the pause on the DVR.  And I said, “Do you realize what we just saw here?”  And what it was was a full-fledged destruction of the Obama record by Mitt Romney.  Every stat you could want.  Household income falling, unemployment up, the number of people out of the workforce, the number of jobs lost since Obama took office, the number of people totally out of work, 23 million.  Every economic statistic that detailed the crumbling aspects of this regime.  And Candy Crowley — on second thought, maybe she did him a favor — did not let Obama respond.  She didn’t make Romney stop prematurely, he finished, and then she went on to the next question.

Now that I think about it now, and now that we know what we know, there’s no question she was trying to save Obama by making sure he didn’t have to deal with that.  But the bottom line is, for everybody who thinks that Romney had a minor screw up here because he didn’t point out that Obama had been saying it’s a video for two weeks, Obama did not have a syllable to say in refutation, in disagreement with Romney’s sterling recitation of his failures.  There wasn’t one retort. There wasn’t one reply to it. There wasn’t one accusation that Romney had said anything that wasn’t true.

In fact, today, the day after, the only people who are accused of saying things that are not true are Barack Obama and Candy Crowley, not Mitt Romney.  I kid you not.  That’s the debate I saw.  I once again saw an Obama who looked uncomfortable and unprepared and full of, “Eh, uh, eh, uh.”  I didn’t see Mr. Smooth. I didn’t see Mr. In Command of Facts. I didn’t see anybody who was eager to defend his performance and his record.  Folks, I’m gonna apologize to you because I simply do not have a recollection or an analysis of what I saw last night that is anywhere close to what I’ve seen — and I haven’t seen it all — to what I saw on television last night. ”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/17/my_debate_analysis_defies_the_uniformity_of_thought_that_pervades_virtually_all_media

Obama wins hustle Romney wins debate, John Sununu trumps Queen of media bias and stupidity Soledad O’Brien, Facts not lies win debates and voters

Obama wins hustle Romney wins debate, John Sununu trumps Queen of media bias and stupidity Soledad O’Brien, Facts not lies win debates and voters

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”…Candy Crowley

“But Crowley and Obama had it wrong. the Post’s Glenn Kessler explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.”…Washington Post Oct. 17, 2012

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

Rush Limbaugh today stated that he believed that Romney won the debate. I agree. Focus groups gauging the reaction of formerly undecided voters confirm the win as well.

Obama, as usual, won the lie contest. Obama the hustler.

From GOPUSA October 17, 2012.

“CNN Anchor Slammed Over Twisting of Obama Statement on Libya”

“Don’t mess with John Sununu… at least if you don’t come armed with the facts. That’s what CNN’s Soledad O’Brien found out when she tried to imply that Mitt Romney erred at Tuesday night’s debate when he called out Barack Obama over the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

First, a review for those of you who missed the debate and have not followed the timeline regarding the murders in Libya and Obama’s public statements regarding them. Make no mistake… Barack Obama and his team purposely tried (and are still trying) to mislead the American people over the cause of the attack.

September 11, 2012 — Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens were murdered in a terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The very next day, Obama gives a speech in the Rose Garden talking about the murders. The full transcript can be found here. The important passage as follows:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

When you look at the context of the full speech AND the exact words as presented here, it is clear that this is a GENERIC statement of American policy. Basically, acts of terror will not be condoned. Barack Obama did NOT say that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist act.

Here’s the video of the speech:

So… what happened next? September 11, 2012 was a Tuesday. On that Sunday, September 16, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on five talk shows and mentioned NOTHING about a terrorist attack. She said over and over again that it was a spontaneous uprising because of an anti-muslim Internet video.

Barack Obama was interviewed by Univision and asked if the attack was terrorism. He said he’d get back to them. He was asked on The View… same response. Obama also made a speech to the United Nations and NEVER mentioned that the murders were an act of terrorism. Oh… but he did mention the Internet video six times.

Why is all this important? Because during the debate, Obama made it sound as if he stated it was a terrorist attack the very next day:

Candy Crowley’s behavior here was not only unprofessional, it was wrong. She was wrong when she sided with Obama. As pointed out by Fox News, in a interview on CNN, Crowley admitted she was wrong:

The moderator in Tuesday night’s presidential debate, after appearing to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start, conceded afterward that Mitt Romney was “right” on the broader point — that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.

“He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word,” Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.

Crowley was referring to the tense exchange in the final half-hour of the debate, when Romney questioned whether Obama had called the attack an “act of terror” rather than “spontaneous” violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.

So Romney was right. We all know he was right. For days and days, Barack Obama and his team perpetuated a lie. The murders were never about an Internet video. And yet, that’s what he kept saying. At the debate, he tried to step back from that storyline, and Romney would have hammered him on it if not interrupted by Crowley.

Those are the facts, and yet, people like Soledad O’Brien continue to spin for Obama. Watch John Sununu work his magic:

It’s unreal that O’Brien tries to label as fact something that does not exist. Obama did not say the Libyan murders were a terrorist act. Yet she goes on and on.

Even though the economy still is front and center on the minds of most Americans, this is a HUGE issue. Please inform people about it. Why would Obama perpetuate a story about a video knowing that it was untrue? What does he have to gain by that? To make it seem that is efforts against terrorism are working? Guess what? They aren’t!”

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2012/10/17/cnn-anchor-slammed-over-twisting-of-obama-statement-on-libya/?subscriber=1

For her Orwellian efforts to prop up Obama,  Soledad O’Brien and CNN are awarded 5 Orwells.