Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Last night's debate:

THE CLAIM:Obama Misrepresented Veteran Unemployment Since He Took Office. OBAMA: "The first lady has done great work with an organization called Joining Forces putting our veterans back to work. And as a consequence, veterans' unemployment is actually now lower than general population, it was higher when I came into office. So those are the kinds of things that we can now do because we're making that transition in Afghanistan." (President Barack Obama, 2012 Presidential Debate, Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL, 10/22/12)

THE FACTS: "The Rate Among Veterans Of America's Most Recent Wars - In Iraq And Afghanistan - Is Currently Higher Than That Of The General Population." "The rate among veterans of America's most recent wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - is currently higher than that of the general population. The president also may have misled some listeners when he said the veterans' rate 'was higher when I took office.' Higher than what? The rate for veterans was higher then than it is now, but it was lower than the rate for the general population both then and now." ("False Claims In Final Debate," FactCheck.org, 10/23/12)


Guess where U.S. troops go next

Deal promising military presence in Mali

by F. Michael Maloof / WND

WASHINGTON – The U.S. may commit military forces to Mali to deal with jihadists in the North African country under a proposed resolution France has drafted for the United Nations Security Council, according to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin. 

Analysts believe the resolution, which may pass within the next 30 days, calls for members to provide military training and equipment to halt the spread of jihadists in the western portion of the continent.

The object of concern is al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, which not only is threatening Mali but some of its neighbors, including Algeria and Mauritania. AQIM already is in control of the northern portion of Mali – the Azawad region — with international efforts under way to take it back.

AQIM, however, is gearing up for possible action by increasing defenses, such as laying landmines and digging trenches.

Washington is preparing to extend its unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, to target AQIM strongholds in Mali. AQIM already is in U.S. gunsights for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Until recently, the U.S. has had troops in Mali but has had to pull them out due to the increasing political turmoil in Mali’s capital of Bamako. As a result, there are fears that the northern portion of Mali will come increasingly under the influence of AQIM and become a new sanctuary for international terrorism.

The AQIM element, which seeks to bring Islamic law to northern Mali, is the Ansar Eddine. The group also is at odds with another group of Tuareg separatist rebels, the Liberation of Azawad, or MNLA, which wants an independent state in the north.

AQIM leadership is mainly Algerian and receives most of its recruits from Mauritania. It has been increasingly active in northern Mali since 2007. AQIM has become transnational in the region that encompasses Algeria, Mauritania, Mali and Niger.

Because of AQIM’s expansion, the four countries established a Joint Military Command to undertake counter-terrorism operations and intelligence sharing.

For France, Mali has historical importance as part of its colonial holdings, along with Algeria and Morocco in the 19th century. Mali gained its independence from France in 1960.

The French U.N. resolution is meant to support an effort by the Economic Community of West African States, which wants to send 3,000 African troops in an effort to take back the Azawad region.

If AQIM is successful in controlling northern Mali, its influence will cover much of the Maghreb region extending from Mauritania to Libya, which then would give al-Qaida a base from which to prepare to launch efforts into southern Europe through Spain.
Pennsylvania Is The New Ohio
Published at DickMorris.com
With Romney gaining ground gradually in the swing state of Ohio, people have not paid enough attention to his surge in next door Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania casts 20 electoral votes and Ohio casts 18. And all electoral votes are created equal. It is possible to lose Ohio if you carry Pennsylvania and still win.

In Pennsylvania, polling by Republican John McLaughlin shows Romney three points ahead of Obama and a poll by The Susquehanna Polling organization shows Romney four points ahead in the Keystone State.

In Ohio, most polls have the race tied although all show significant progress by Romney in the past two weeks.

Why is Pennsylvania, nominally a more Democratic state, more hospitable to Romney than Ohio?  Because Obama has run tens of millions of dollars of negative ads in Ohio smearing Romney, but has not done so in Pennsylvania. Indeed, current polling suggests a very good shot for Romney in a variety of usually Democratic states that are not on the official map of battleground states. Having been spared Obama's negative ads, these states are very much more inclined to back Romney.

• Latest polls in Michigan find Obama only one point ahead

• In Wisconsin, the candidates appear to be tied

• In Minnesota, Romney is only two points behind

It may be that on Election Day, we are all waiting for Ohio to be called (eventually it will go for Romney) while, in the meantime, he sweeps Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and wins the election.

And don't forget the impact of a Romney victory on the U.S. Senate races. In Pennsylvania, Republican Tom Smith now leads Democratic incumbent Bob Casey according to McLaughlin's survey. In Wisconsin, former Governor and Republican candidate Tommy Thompson is locked in a close battle with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin for an open Senate seat. And in Michigan, former Congressman Pete Hoekstra (Republican) is hot on the heels of Democratic incumbent Senator Debbie Stabenow.

With Republican Senate takeaways increasingly likely in Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, and Ohio, victories in these other northern tier states could provide a needed cushion to assure control of the Senate (since Republicans will lose Maine and may lose Massachusetts).

If it’s October, Surprise! Obama Wants to Nuke Arm Iran to Get Elected 

By: John Ransom  / Townhall Daily

Rumors of a deal between Obama and the mullahs in Iran on the lifting of economic sanctions in return for shows of compliance by the Persian runaway state on nuclear arms inspections are gaining steam.

Obama, desperate for a diplomatic coup to cover for fading polls, fading policy and a fading public, is thought to have written a letter to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei offering to lift some sanctions in return for a show of compliance with requirements to suspend uranium enrichment, according to Dick Morris.

“Citing an Internet report on WorldNetDaily, a conservative website,” writes the Washington Times, “Mr. Morris said a deal between the White House and the Iranian regime is in the works to ease sanctions on Iran in return for concessions on the Iranian nuclear program.”

Economic sanctions have rarely worked, and in the case of Iran, while they have led to increasing civil unrest, they still haven’t worked.

The sanctions, while painful, have not changed the course of Iranian internal affairs.

“Obama’s sanctions came too late (after he wasted 18 months on ‘engagement’),” says the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, “were watered down too much and were unaccompanied by a credible threat of force. If anything, the latest ‘deal’ highlights just how preposterous the entire Obama policy has been. At the debate tonight Romney should make clear that any negotiations should demand Iran give up its nuclear enrichment claims and should entail no weakening of sanctions.”

Iran has been floating the idea of direct talks between the United States and Islamic Republic. In that way both the U.S. and Iran can avoid the messy objections that Israel might have about compromising the security of the Jewish state.

And Obama can go all Neville Chamberlain on us declaring “Peace for Our Time.”

Or at least peace just in time for the November elections.

Since the real work of negotiating won’t begin for quite awhile, Iran can do what dictatorships always do when confronted with issues of war and peace: delay, obstruct, obfuscate and delay some more.

“Just promise that this is the last territorial demand you have to make in Europe,” Obama is likely advising Iran before making sure there are no “hot” mics around. “That way I’ll have ‘more flexibility’ after the election.”

This is the same playbook Obama ran with Russian Junior Co-Czar Dmitry Medvedev in nuclear talks in March.

And Iran isn’t anxious to make the mistake they made in 1980 when they first pantsed Jimmy Carter and then rubbed his nose in his own jockstrap during the presidential campaign, all but ensuring a Reagan victory.

I seem to remember Iran taping Carter to a flag pole outside a polling station too.

Of course the ayatollahs probably sees as Romney as the tougher negotiator between the two men vying for the presidency. Of course, Iran probably sees Neville Chamberlain as the tougher negotiator between he and Obama.

Make no mistake though: The Holy Grail for Iran, if I can mix metaphors without offending the Prophet- ah, let’s offend him anyway, the old phony- is to develop a bomb that leaves fallout and makes Israel- or Manhattan- a smoking crater.

Yes. Insecure, immature, irresponsible, sexually-repressed Iran is committed to being a nuclear power, especially when the GREATEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY has no interest in stopping them.

This is what you get when you have a regime that’s so obsessed with sexuality that EVERYTHING they see is a cigar.

And that goes for the Iranian regime too.

Libya and Lies  

By: Thomas Sowell  / Townhall Columnist

It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was "offended" by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States -- followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a "transparent" government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.

Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations -- and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an "investigation" under way. An "on-going investigation" sounds so much better than "stonewalling" to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this "investigation" will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.

The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of September 11th were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, "in real time," as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming "investigation" to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.

The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don't need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don't need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.

The administration's initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama's much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.

To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama's supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that Al Qaeda was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.

Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan's Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.

Nobody tried to depict President Franklin D. Roosevelt as some kind of hero for having simply authorized the killing of Yamamoto. In that case, the only hero who was publicized was the man who shot down the plane that Yamamoto was in.

Yet the killing of Osama bin Laden has been depicted as some kind of act of courage by President Obama. After bin Laden was located, why would any President not give the go-ahead to get him?

That took no courage at all. It would have been far more dangerous politically for Obama not to have given the go-ahead. Moreover, Obama hedged his bets by authorizing the admiral in charge of the operation to proceed only under various conditions.

This meant that success would be credited to Obama and failure could be blamed on the admiral -- who would join George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and other scapegoats for Obama's failures.

Radical Islamists routinely visit White House

WhiteHouse34Records show 'hundreds of visits' by those fronting for Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas

WND Exclusive

Barack Obama is compromising American security by allowing “radical Islamists” access to the White House, according to a report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

The organization reported this week that “scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.”

The information was obtained from visitor logs at the White House as well as court documents and “other records” that have identified many of the visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant groups.

“President Obama opening the White House to radical Islamists compromises American security in at least two ways. First, it legitimizes groups and individuals whose track records beg skepticism and scrutiny.

Second, White House visitor logs show that top U.S. policy-makers are soliciting and receiving advice from people who, at best, view the war on terrorism as an unchecked war on Muslims,” said the report. “These persons’ perspectives and preferred policies handcuff law enforcement and weaken our resolve when it comes to confronting terrorism.”

The report was complied by Steve Emerson and John Rossomando.

It said among the visitors have been representatives of groups designated by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in terror trials as well as those who “obstructed terrorist investigations by instructing their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement.”

Also visiting the White House were those who “promoted the incendiary conspiratorial allegation that the United States is engaged in a ‘war against Islam,’” and those who claim Islamic terrorists convicted since 9/11 were “framed by the U.S. government.”

IPT reported officials from the Council on America-Islamic Relations, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror money laundering case in the nation, the Holy Land Foundation trial, were among those visiting Obama’s advisers.

In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the association” of CAIR to Hamas. He refused to reverse the listing.

Specifically, the logs shows Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR’s Los Angeles branch, met with Paul Monteiro, associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, and Amanda Brown, assistant to the White House director of political affairs, the report said.

“IPT has learned that the White House logs curiously have omitted Ayloush’s three meetings with two other senior White House officials,” the report said.

In another situation, Esam Omeish, who formerly headed the Muslim Brotherhood-created Muslim American Society, visited the White House three times, IPT said.

“In 2000, Omeish personally hired the late terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to be the imam of Falls Church, Va., Dar al-Hijrah mosque. According to IPT analysis, more terrorists have been linked to Dar al-Hijrah since 9/11 than to any other mosque in America,” the report said.

“Interestingly, the Obama administration’s enthusiastic support for gay rights did not prevent it from inviting Islamists who support laws overseas giving gays the death penalty,” the report said. “In a June 21, 2001, article in The San Francisco Chronicle, Muzammil Siddiqi, the former head of Islamic Society of North America, said he ‘supported laws in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.’ Siddiqi met with Monteiro on June 8, 2010.”

IPT said it actually is the Muslim Public Affairs Council that has “secured the closest working relationship with the Obama White House” with 15 officials from the group welcomed to the White House.

“Executive Director Salam al-Marayati enjoyed at least six White House visits between September 2009 and July 2011, mostly involving meetings with Monteiro. Alejandro Beutel, who was MPAC’s government liaison until July 2012, had 10 White House visits between July 2010 and May 2012,” the report said.

“MPAC’s Washington director Haris Tarin made 24 trips to the White House between December 2009 and March 2012. Those meetings often were intimate in nature, involving a handful of people at most,” it said.

Also visiting from MPAC was Edina Lekovic, a spokeswoman for the group. As a student, she served as an editor of a Muslim magazine called Al-Talib, which in 1999 published an editorial praising Osama bin Laden, explaining, “We should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah’s cause…”

“White House logs show Islamists visiting the White House who may have lower profiles, but who also defended terrorists and terrorist groups, and repeatedly castigated law enforcement, especially in counter-terror sting operations,” the report said.

It listed Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates and the National Association of Muslim Lawyers. “She casts FBI counter-terror stings as ‘entrapment,’” the report said. “Khera also has compromised FBI operations and coached mosque personnel on how to evade FBI surveillance.”

Also listed was Hisham al-Talib, a founder and current vice president of finance for Herndon, Va.-based, International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), an organization the FBI believes has housed key Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the United States since the late 1980s.

Also, Imam Talib El-Hajj Abdur Rashid, a religious and spiritual leader of Harlem’s Mosque of the Islamic Brotherhood. “Rashid rationalized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stance on destroying Israel, saying it merely is a ‘sentiment born of the legitimate anger, frustration, and bitterness that is felt in many [parts of the Muslim world’ because of Israel’s ‘ongoing injustice toward the Palestinian people.’”
The statesman vs. the bully
By: Diane Sori

The name of the game is strategy as Mitt Romney wins last night’s debate war.  This is an economic election first and foremost, and all Romney had to do was pass the Commander-in-Chief test...proving to America that he could lead with common sense and reason...and pass that test with flying colors he did.

Using a deliberately calculated move of NOT being confrontational with Obama on his Libya debacle, Romney cleverly forced a checkmate by showing he was NOT a war monger against a man who was condescending, petty, and bullying in his response...a man who has tried to paint him as a George Bush clone when it comes to the Middle East.  Being calmly measured by saying to Obama, “attacking me is NOT an agenda, attacking me is not about how we’re going to deal with the agenda of the Middle East...” Romney showed the cool steady hand needed in a true leader of men...a true leader of America.

But the needed tone of anger did surface in Romney’s response in regards to Israel when he said, "The president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America...and the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq.  And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations...by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel...”

“And then in those nations and on Arabic TV you said that America had been dismissive and derisive.  You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations...No Mr. President America does not dictate to other nations, America frees other nations from dictators.”

This response by Romney hit home the point not only in regards to Israel but also brought to the forefront the fact that Obama failed to provide support for protests by Iranian dissidents, leading the mullahs who run the country to conclude that they could keep pushing toward development of nuclear weapons...weapons to use to wipe Israel off the map.

And Obama’s response was to bloviate about the trip he took to Israel when he was a candidate the first time he ran...the first time he ran back in 2008...the man who has NEVER visited Israel as president...the man who bold-faced snubbed Prime Minister Netanyahu so he could sit and chat with the ladies on The View instead of sitting and talking with Netanyahu about the threat Israel faces from Iran.

This point alone drives home the contrast between a sitting president who has made clear to both the American people and to the world that he really could care less about Israel, made it clear to all that while saying the right words about Iran publicly but doing otherwise behind the scenes, the difference with Mitt Romney’s stance of standing behind our ally and friend (even if it means supporting Israel militarily) against Iran became evident for all to see. 

And no matter how much bullying Obama tried to do, bullying so evident in his grimaces, hautiness, and jittery moving about shown in the split screen images flashed throughout the debate, Mitt Romney was extremely successful in turning the tables on Obama and tying foreign policy into how it effects economic policy here in America.  Using a key point of speaking of how the economy ties into our debt to foreign nations and stressing how can you lead in the world when you owe foreign nations so much money, Romney rightly brought home to the viewers the point that everything America does throughout the world does indeed revolve around and effect the economy here at home.

And this link between foreign and domestic policy came to the forefront when the issue of China came up.   

Repeating his previously said statement that he would declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office while stressing that China is a valuable trade partner but one who will NO longer be allowed to set the game but one who will abide by the rules we set down for the game.

“I want a great relationship with China. China can be our partner. But that doesn’t mean they can roll all over us and steal our jobs,” Romney said.

Obama replied by accusing Romney of shipping U.S. jobs overseas as a businessman, and of encouraging the growth of automobile manufacturing in China...not Detroit.

“If we had taken your advice, Governor Romney, about the auto industry, we’d be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China,” Obama said.

Well guess what Obama...all one needs to do is check out the numerous production facilities GM has opened in China with American monies, borrowed from China, Obama invested in China to create jobs for the Chinese NOT for Americans and ALL on your watch!

But the bottom line in last night’s debate is that while it’s obvious that a political outsider will always be at an obvious disadvantage to a commander-in-chief when foreign affairs are the topic, Mitt Romney finished strong and steady. Obama’s nasty, childlike, and very un-presidential snide remarks and butt-in attempts to make points while Romney was speaking, showed that Romney remained above the fray sticking with facts and facts alone...something a true statesman will always do.

Obama had to show mastery over Romney and he failed to do that on all accounts.  Mitt Romney had to show that he is NOT a warmonger eager to send U.S. troops into sovereign country’s affairs and he did that. Mitt Romney looked presidential as he spoke of wishes for ALL Americans while Obama talked about ‘me, myself and I’ first and the nation second.   

Mitt Romney displayed control and humility, showing a presidential aura we haven’t seen these past four years as he spoke of his plans for America’s future with a voice that was hopeful, knowledgeable and reassuring as he asked Americans do you want more years of the same failed policies or a vision for the future.

Last night Mitt Romney proved to all that he is a statesman...a statesman for ALL Americans willing to work across 'the aisle'...while Barack HUSSEIN Obama put forth the face of a bully and a whining child, a man truly out of his league and I hope out of a job on November 6th.