The end of the Republican Party and possibly the United States – Tea Party Nation

The end of the Republican Party and possibly the United States – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Barack Obama is moving forward with two of his cherished goals.  One is destroying the Republican Party and the other is destroying the United States of America.    In both cases, Obama’s efforts are being aided and abetted by the Republican Party.

 What is going on?

 Barack Obama is planning his second term assault on America and one of the centerpieces of that assault is a bill to grant full Amnesty to 11 millions illegal aliens.

 To call this a disaster would be an understatement.

 We have been down this road before. 

 The first and most important thing for Americans is that we secure our southern border.   This will not happen under the Obama bill.  In 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed off on Amnesty, he was promised that if he agreed to Amnesty, the southern border would be secured.  

 Twenty-Six years later, we are still waiting.

 The unsecured southern border has been a magnet for not only trafficking in illegal aliens, smuggling drugs and it is inconceivable that terrorists and weapons have not come through that border.

 When Reagan agreed to Amnesty, the number of people given amnesty was supposed to be relatively small.  Instead it mushroomed into millions.   Almost anything was accepted as “proof” someone had been in the country prior to Amnesty.   We will see the same thing here.  It will not be eleven million people given Amnesty.  It will be twenty million or more.

 What have we seen with illegal aliens?  Even though illegals are not supposed to receive welfare benefits, many are.  The Obama Regime has worked with Mexico to teach illegal aliens how to apply for benefits when they get into the country.

 What will happen after Amnesty?

 The welfare rolls will explode.

 The value illegal aliens have had to the economy is that they are cheap labor.   They could be hired and paid substandard wages.  Often payments were in cash and under the table so the employer did not have to pay taxes on them.

 Once Amnesty is granted, employers will not be able to pay illegals substandard wages and will not be able to pay them under the table.  In Mexico, public education only goes through the 6th grade and many of the illegals do not even go that far.

 How are these people going to find employment in the modern American economy?

 The answer is they are not.   They will end up on public assistance.

 Finally, this is going to destroy the Republican Party as a national party.  Not only will it split the Party, it will make it all but impossible for Republicans to ever get a national majority again.

 These newly legal residents, who the Obama Regime wants to put on the fast track for citizenship, overwhelmingly like big government.  They overwhelmingly want lavish welfare packages.   

 Some Republicans are calling for Republicans to support Amnesty.

 What the hell are they thinking?

 The Republicans who think that Amnesty is a good idea are the same ones who told us Mitt Romney would be a great candidate.

 While it would be political suicide for Republicans to deport ten million illegal aliens, particularly those who have been here for decades and have family members who are legal.  For people like that who have been here ten or twenty years and have never committed a crime, let them register and they can get a “we will not deport you” card. 

 That is a huge difference between common sense and political suicide.  The Republicans do not seem to know the difference.

 

#FireBoehner – Tea Party Nation

John Boehner - Caricature

John Boehner – Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

 

#FireBoehner – Tea Party Nation.

 

Posted by Judson Phillips

 

There is a hashtag now floating around twitter.  It is simple and it is to the point.

 

 John Boehner must go.

 

 He is totally unwilling to fight Barack Obama, but he is quite willing to fight conservatives.  His white flag of surrender is out and he is ready to agree to massive tax increases that will only grow the big government state but will also destroy the Republican Party

 

 So what do we need to do?

 

 I was not the first to come up with this idea but I was one of the first to call for getting rid of John Boehner and warning that he was going to be a disaster for the conservative movement.

 

 On March 1, 2011, I wrote that then out of control actor Charlie Sheen was making more sense than John Boehner.  I also called for a primary opponent for Boehner.

 

 The fight today is much simpler than trying to primary John Boehner.

 

 If sixteen Republicans defect and refuse to vote for Boehner as Speaker, he will not have the requisite 218 votes to be reelected. 

 

 We need to put pressure on Republican Members of Congress to vote against Boehner for Speaker. 

 

 It is safe to say we already have four votes.    Those would be from the conservatives removed from Committees.   Louie Gohmert, who is one of the heroes in Congress who nominated Newt Gingrich to be Speaker during Party Leadership elections might well be a 5thvote. 

 

 That would leave only eleven members of the GOP to defect to end Boehner’s epic failure of a tenure as Speaker.

 

 We conservatives need to reach out to every Republican member of Congress.  The message needs to be the same.  Boehner must go.

 

 If Boehner does not go, a lot of Republicans are going to leave the Party.    If Boehner surrenders as I predict he will, he will destroy what is left of the Republican brand.    Conservatives will have no choice but to form a third party because the Republican Party will simply collapse. 

 

 If we are successful in kicking Boehner from the Speaker’s chair, who replaces him?

 

 It cannot be anyone in the current leadership.  Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy were up to their ears in the conservative purge.  All we would be doing would be trading one bad leader for another. 

 

 Perhaps Louie Gohmert was right.

 

 Perhaps we need Newt Gingrich.

 

 The Speaker of the House does not have to be a current member of the House.  Article One, Clause Five of the Constitution sets up the Office of the Speaker of the House but does not explicitly require that the Speaker be a current member of Congress. 

 

 Gingrich would come into the job with a wealth of experience no one else could offer.   Gingrich has dealt with a Democrat President in the past and got a conservative agenda through.

 

 Newt is a field general.  That is his greatest strength.  He can articulate a conservative vision and more importantly he can strategize to get that vision accomplished. 

 

 Of all of the potential leaders out there, Newt is the only one I can think of who I would trust and feel totally comfortable with leading the charge against the Democrats and the Party of Treason.

 

 Newt is the only leader I can think of who we could put in charge of the House and be confident that he would not only fight, but he would win.

 

 We have a choice.   Surrender or victory. 

 

 John Boehner will not fight.  He is too much of a coward to go up against Barack Obama.   Newt is not a coward.  He is a brilliant leader.  He would have done much better than Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee.  

 

 The day has come and we need his leadership.

 

 Louie Gohmert is one of the wisest men in Congress.   When he nominated Newt to be Speaker in the party leadership elections, he showed that wisdom. 

 

 We should listen to Louie more often!

 

 

 

NAPOLITANO: GOP for Big Government – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: GOP for Big Government – Washington Times.

Republicans running from punt they set up

By Andrew P. Napolitano

distressDo you know anyone who voted Republican this past election in order to further President Obama’s big government agenda? It is more likely that Republican voters sought to advance a smaller version of the federal government. Assuming this is the case, why are Republican congressional leaders offering to help the president spend us into oblivion?

I suspected that those questions might be asked when Mitt Romney was nominated to oppose Mr. Obama. My view of his campaign then and now has been that he presented a choice to the voters of big government versus bigger government, and bigger government prevailed. Mr. Romney argued during the campaign that he was at a disadvantage because the president had distributed federal tax dollars to persons and groups critical to his re-election. He has since argued that he lost the election because nearly half of Americans — some by chance, some by choice and some by force — are dependent on government for much of their income or subsistence.

His argument sounds harsh, but it’s true. A formerly working, now retired couple in their mid-80s who are receiving monthly payments from the Social Security Administration into which they were forced to make payments while they were working can hardly be considered slackers. They can be considered dupes. All of us who have fallen for the government’s nonsense about it holding our money for our future use have been duped. The government doesn’t hold anyone’s money for him. It spends whatever it collects as soon as it receives it. When its entitlement bills come due, it uses current tax revenue, or it borrows money in order to acquire the cash to make the payments.

The president knows this. Congress knows it. The courts have endorsed it. In endorsing it, the courts have held that the government’s decision to pay entitlements is a political, not a legal, one. Stated differently, the federal government has no legal obligation to pay any money to any Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid applicant. That’s why those who have relied on the political wisdom of politicians, rather than their own prudential judgment, are dupes. Let me rephrase that: Those who have permitted politicians to use the force of law to compel everyone to contribute their hard-earned income to a bankrupt government Ponzi scheme are dupes if they think this can work without end.

When FDR first proposed his Social Security scam, he knew that only force and duplicity would get enough people into the system to generate the cash flow at the entry side of the Ponzi scheme to make it salable to Congress and to the American people. LBJ knew the same was the case for his expansions of Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid. What LBJ probably did not anticipate is that health insurers would largely cease offering products of primary insurance to seniors. Seniors then required the government entitlements into which they had mistakenly believed they were contributing, because the government became the only game in town.

Now that the emperor has no clothes, and we are confronting more and more seniors who have been lulled into this false sense of security, and fewer young workers are even entering the job market, the government’s voracious need for cash is difficult to fulfill. Earlier this year, when members of both parties in Congress recognized this ticking time bomb, they agreed to address it by punting. Now, that punted political football is falling to the earth, and no one wants to catch it. The punt they bequeathed to themselves is a tax increase for everyone and reductions in spending that even they find to be odious. The odor they dislike is the realization, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, that they are running out of other people’s money.

The president was re-elected on promises of more of the same: more borrowing, more spending and new taxes on the rich. The Republicans who got elected did so on promises of lessened spending and no new taxes, to paraphrase George H.W. Bush. The president, who is the most liberal president since Woodrow Wilson, is largely ignorant of economics 101. But his ignorance is consistent with his beliefs that the feds can continue to spend more than they collect and continue to borrow without ever repaying.

The Republicans in the House are largely more conservative than at any time since Wilson left office. One would expect them to understand the intent of the voters who sent them there and thus say no to more taxes, no to more spending and no to more borrowing. Instead, we have Republican leadership in the House that actually proposed raising more revenue by eliminating deductions on income taxes. They somehow claim that they are being faithful to their stated mission of fiscal conservatism by making you pay more money but at the present tax rates. They, too, have failed economics 101.

Any significant movement of wealth from taxpayers to tax consumers will not enhance prosperity; it will crush it, and it will breed dependence on a government that is fiscally out of control. The recipients will no doubt vote to re-elect those who gave them these payments.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2012).

CURL: Time for a new Republican Party – Washington Times

CURL: Time for a new Republican Party – Washington Times.

By Joseph Curl

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The Republican Party did not lose last Tuesday’s election. It was obliterated, crushed, slaughtered, massacred, squashed, annihilated — and, let’s hope, extinguished.

For the party of Lincoln, it’s been a week of sifting through the carnage: What went wrong? How could a party that just a decade ago controlled all of government have been so completely nullified that an incumbent Democrat who was quite possibly the worst president in a century handily defeated the Republican nominee?

The soul searching followed the standard stages of grief: There was denial. (Former electoral wizard Karl Rove made a fool of himself on Election Night by declaring Ohio still alive long after the state was lost.) Anger raged — Rush Limbaugh blamed it on the ignorant entitlement society. Some began bargaining: Next time we’ll reject a moderate candidate, and if we can just talk Sarah Palin into . Depression followed; one Fox News host gave viewers directions for the fastest route to Canada.

But so far, there has been little of Stage 5: acceptance. To reach that stage, Republicans are going to have to know the full, brutal truth, so here it is: The Grand Old Party is an antiquated throwback to another time and place, so pathetically out of touch with America that it has become a parody of itself. And if it doesn’t change — fast — it will go the way of the Free Soil Party (buried).

Consider just one fact: Mitt Romney lost blacks by 94 percent, voters younger than 30 by 63 percent, Hispanics by 54 percent, Asians by 53 percent and Jews by 39 percent.

In “The American President,” commander in chief Andrew Shepherd, a die-hard liberal who by movie’s end will seek to overturn the Second Amendment, takes aim at his conservative challenger, Bob Rumson. He cuts to the core of the GOP’s problem today: “I’ve been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn’t get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Bob’s problem is that he can’t sell it!”

He can’t sell it: The Republican Party’s problem in a nutshell.

How on Earth not? The party stands for smaller government, far less federal spending, individual freedom, less intrusion, a strong national defense, lower taxes and supply-side, business-friendly economics. Far more than half of America believes in just the same tenets: Make no mistake, the nation is still solidly center-right.

But the GOP as it exists today almost completely prevents like-minded Americans from considering the party because it puts front and center ideologies that many categorically reject. While it espouses an ideology of individual freedom, it rejects that tenet for anyone not a white heterosexual male — women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, young people.

Take abortion. Who in 21st-century America really thinks abortion will be outlawed? Only hard-core, right-wing Republicans. And they actually put forward as members of their party two men who think such things as “legitimate rape” exist or that pregnancy from rape just may be “God’s will.” Mitt Romney tried to scrub those absurd views off him, to no avail. And for good reason: They are real beliefs of some in the Republican Party. (Um, the guys who pronounced them were party nominees.)

The Republican Party — which, by the way lost women to President Obama by 12 points — needs to run away from its archaic stance. Yes, object to abortion. Yes, work to make it rare. But move on: Abortion is here to stay. (And while you’re at it, GOP, it might just be time also to abandon that vaunted “abstinence-only” policy that has been such a dismal failure.)

Second, gay marriage. On this, simply — who cares? America 2012 has enormous problems. Is this really an issue that matters to — anyone? Christians, two men getting married doesn’t affect your marriage in any way. Get over it. The Republicans are on the wrong side of history on this issue, and Mr. Obama swept in millions of young voters by his tolerance. It’s time to walk away.

On both issues, the GOP can make a clean break: As the party of individual freedom, the GOP can simply say it now sees that Americans — especially women — do have the right to choose their own path. In fact, the party espouses the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, always has, so the turnabout won’t even raise an eyebrow.

Such a recalibration would allow the millions of Americans who believe in the core Republican tenets to give the party a real evaluation at election time. Gone would be the hypocritical stances that invalidate the party for many voters before they can even weigh its differences with the Democratic Party.

If the Republican Party continues to press the notion that its biggest difference with Democrats is that it will fight to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, the GOP is done for good. Simple as that.

Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.

NUGENT: Four more years of debt and class warfare – Washington Times

Ted Nugent Live

Ted Nugent Live (Photo credit: The Toad)

 

NUGENT: Four more years of debt and class warfare – Washington Times.

 

D.C. pigs at home in the capital swamp

 

By Ted NugentThe Washington Times

 

We have fallen far and fast.

 

Instead of electing a serious-minded, proven professional, America went once again with a guy whose most impressive qualification is that of a questionable “Chicago” community organizer. I don’t mean Chicago in a geographic sense.

 

President John F. Kennedy would have been appalled. Instead of asking not what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country, in just 50 years since Kennedy uttered that famous phrase, it appears that a majority of Americans now demand that their country do for them. It’s America turned upside-down.

 

We have decayed into a nation of gluttonous, soulless pigs who feast on whatever Fedzilla provides by taking from one group of Americans (the producers) and giving to others (the takers) who haven’t earned it and don’t deserve it.

 

Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous French thinker who visited America almost 200 years ago, saw the dangers of our experiment when he wrote, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

 

There you have it, America. The pigs have come home to wallow in the mud of the Washington swamp, and we have a group of professional political punks — master scam artists — who are all too happy to shovel more slop while advocating that the producers should be punished further by raising their taxes and restricting entrepreneurs with business-wrecking overregulation. And you thought “Planet of the Apes” was a movie.

 

This is where America is today. Too many Americans have become entitlement chumps who have been convinced by Democrats and other liberal scammers that they are entitled to the sweat and hard work of other Americans. Free cellphones aren’t free. Food stamps have become vote-getting extortion vouchers.

 

Couple that sense of entitlement with the abject stupidity of basic free-market principles by Mr. Obama’s supporters, and it isn’t surprising to me that Mr. Obama was given four more years to wage class warfare, drive our nation into more unsustainable debt, and institute policies that put Americans out of work and cause energy prices to skyrocket.

 

I’m not nearly as surprised with the outcome of the presidential election as I’m disheartened and disgusted that my fellow Americans can be this woefully uninformed, easily manipulated and thunderously ignorant. I’ve got a rotting fence post smarter than these mouth breathers.

 

If you voted for Mr. Obama, you are thunderously dumb and incredibly naive. Believe it. For your intentional ignorance, you will ultimately pay a heavy price that you are obviously too ignorant to understand. Your children and grandchildren will pay an even heavier burden. America will pay the heaviest burden. Thanks for nothing, numbskulls.

 

Mitt Romney was by far the better candidate, though he may not have been as “cool” or likeable as Mr. Obama. Electing our leaders based on their likeability factor is slightly less amusing than listening to “Say It Ain’t So, Joe” Biden stick his foot in his mouth.

 

Twenty years ago, the results would have been different. America wasn’t nearly as stupid back then as we are today. The presidential election proves that the dumbing down of America is complete.

 

The cultural tapestry of America is changing with more people of color inhabiting America and voting. I have no issue with that. What I have issue with is anyone believing he is owed something without working for it and a president who agrees. That’s considered un-American by the roughly 50 percent of us smart enough to have voted for Mr. Romney, the far better choice.

 

Ted Nugent is an American rock ‘n’ roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of “Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God, Guns & Rock ‘N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing)

 

Scandal – Tea Party Nation

Scandal – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

This is now growing to be the biggest scandal in American Presidential history.   If the mainstream media were objective instead of part of the propaganda arm of the Obama Regime, this story would be headline material.

 You may know what the story is, but there are shocking details you may not know.  What must we do about this scandal?

 The scandal is the attack on our American consulate in Benghazi.  This scandal has gone from bad to worse.  Usually it is the cover up that is worse than the scandal.  Remember, it was the cover-up, not the break in at the Watergate that brought down Richard Nixon.

 For two weeks, the Obama Regime lied to us about the attack, claiming that this was not an organized terrorist attack but a response to an anti-Muslim film.  Every member of the Regime was dutifully trotted out to not only lie to the American people but to make a full frontal assault on the First Amendment.

 Then we find out that Hillary Clinton and others in the State Department had requested more security for the Benghazi site and Obama denied that request.

 The media reporting on the attack on the compound makes it sound like the Compound was quickly over run.  Former Navy Seals Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods were part of a unit that was near by.  They repeatedly asked for assistance and fought for seven hours before being killed.

 Part of the compound was a CIA operation to help track down weapons missing since the end of the Qaddafi regime.  The existence of this CIA operation and its headquarters was apparently an open secret in Libya.

 As the CIA operators called for help, a CIA paramilitary team was a mile away and was told repeatedly to stand down.  Special operations forces, including C-130 Specter gunships were an hour away.

 They were not sent.   Reports are now coming out that there was a drone over Benghazi at the time sending back real time images to the White House.

 Now even more reports are coming out that the slain Ambassador Chris Stevens may have been up to his eyeballs recruiting jihadists for Syria.  Before his death, a freighter from Libya, with a Captain from Benghazi docked in Turkey carrying 400 tons for weapons for the rebels fighting in Syria.  These included sophisticated surface to air missiles.  These surface to air missiles are shoulder fired, meaning they are very portable and only need one or two people to fire them.  This is an arms smuggling scandal that could make the former Iran-Contra scandal look insignificant. 

According to Aaron Klein at WND, the Consulate itself was not a consulate but an operations hub that served to coordinate aid for rebel led insurgencies through out the Middle East.

 The weapons that Chris Stevens and the American government were helping to smuggle to Syria, with the help of the Islamist government in Ankara, were going to not to the secular moderates, but to Al-Qaeda type terrorists. 

 Republicans have a habit of coming into power and deciding they are simply going to ignore scandals from the previous Democrat administration. 

 This cannot happen this time.

 Mitt Romney’s first priority when he is sworn in must be the economy.   That is good.  But he needs to find a really tough Attorney General and tell him to launch an investigation, get to the bottom of what happened and present the matter to a Federal Grand Jury and start getting indictments and convictions.

 When an American President leaves Americans to die the way Obama did, it is criminal.  When American forces that could easily help are told repeatedly to stand down, and other Americans who are calling for help are killed, it is murder.   When American officials are funneling weapons to Al-Qaeda type terrorists, weapons that one-day might be used against us, that is not just wrong.  It is illegal. 

 Republicans far too often treat Democrats as “Members of the club.”  That club being the political class that runs Washington.  They believe there are certain courtesies you give to members of the club, including covering for them.  Remember what the Clinton administration people did to the White House when George W. Bush was sworn in?  What did Bush do?  He simply ignored it.

 Remember what happened to Bill Clinton and the independent investigation into his conduct?  The day before he left office, it ended with a joke.   He paid a $25,000 fine to resolve the issues related to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and agreed to be disbarred in Arkansas.    On the last day in office, he pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive financier.  Many have argued that this was done in exchange for various contributions.  That might have been bribery but the Republicans would not investigate. 

 The American people are tired of business as usual.  The Benghazi scandal is the biggest scandal ever to reach a President.  There have been other scandals but no one died in those scandals.

 If Mitt Romney’s administration will not investigate and prosecute this because it is the right thing to do, then they should do it out of a sense of self-defense.

 Obama’s “Arab Spring” which has toppled regimes all over the Middle East, has opened the door for terrorists to acquire not only surface to air missiles but also possibly chemical WMD’s.  Thousands of these shoulder fired surface to air missiles that were in Libya are now missing. 

 It is not a question of if, but only when some of those weapons will be used against America. 

 If the Romney administration does not aggressively investigate and prosecute those responsibly early, the Democrats will show them no such mercy.

The dumbest lawyer in America – Tea Party Nation

The dumbest lawyer in America – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Who is the dumbest lawyer in America?  This one will give you a laugh.  You might be able to guess.  You’ll have fun not only trying to guess but once you find out, you will be amused.

 Who is the dumbest lawyer in America?

 It is far left wing, Botoxed nut job fame whore Gloria Allred.

 Everyone knows the most dangerous place in America is the turf that stands between her and a TV camera

 This time she really beclowned herself.

 Poor little Gloria thought she had the October surprise.  She was going to bring down the Romney campaign.

 How?

 Staples founder Tom Stemberg, who is a friend of Mitt Romney, went through a nasty divorce a number of years back.   All of the testimony from depositions and other hearings in the divorce was ordered sealed.  While the news stories do not specify this, it seems likely at some point the divorce settled by Tom Stemberg’s ex-wife agreed to a really tight non-disclosure agreement as a part of the settlement.

 Such agreements are not uncommon.  Top-level executives do not want bitter ex-wives (or now ex husbands) running around saying nasty things about them.  Those kinds of things can destroy a career.

 Gloria Allred somehow connected with Stemberg’s ex-wife and figured she had just hit the win-win scenario.  Mitt Romney testified in a deposition in the divorce.  According to published reports, most of his testimony dealt with the valuation of Staples. 

 Yawn.

 Allred figured either there was something really damning in the deposition or better yet, Romney would raise hell about releasing the sealed deposition.  That could be even better because it would open the door to all kinds of speculation.

 Romney threw her when he said he had no objection to the deposition being unsealed.

 Oops.

 Turns out there is nothing there.

 Of course, given Gloria Allred’s track record, that should be no surprise.

 But then came the really funny part. 

 Allred wanted the Judge to release Stemberg’s wife from the non-disclosure agreement so presumably she could trash Mitt Romney.

 The Judge told her no.

 Why did the Judge tell her no?

 Because Allred did not file a motion requesting this!

 Every lawyer will tell you and even first year law students know, if you want the Judge to do something, you have to file a motion.  The purpose of a motion is to put the other side on notice as to what you want.  Due process requires notice so that if there is an objection, they have time to raise it and properly prepare.

 Allred apparently thought just because she was Gloria Allred, this judge was going to simply roll over and grant her request, without a motion.

 Allred was stunned.  She went out later and blamed this on the Boston Globe, which had also filed a motion to have the transcript unsealed. 

 It looks like the Botox has gotten to Allred’s brain.  Of course, she is a far leftist, so she isn’t that bright to begin with.  She is fortunate that California does not require lawyers to be recertified or take the bar over. 

 Otherwise, she might have to find a real job.

 

PAUL: Where were the Marines? – Washington Times

PAUL: Where were the Marines? – Washington Times.

Buck stops with Obama in Benghazi security breach

By Sen. Rand Paul

Monday’s foreign policy debate between President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney was designed to help voters better understand each man’s vision for America’s role abroad. While I have publicly taken issue with both candidates on aspects of their foreign policies, there is no question that Mr. Romney remains the right choice for Americans on Nov. 6.

However, it is also clear neither candidate adequately addressed the gross intelligence failure in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. Too many important questions remain unanswered concerning Mr. Obama’s entire mishandling of the recent siege of Benghazi.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the questions Americans want answered.

The first and most pressing question for Mr. Obama remains: Where the hell were the Marines?

Two of the most potentially vulnerable or dangerous American embassies are in Iraq and Libya. In Iraq, we have roughly 17,000 people guarding our ambassador. Not all of them are Marines, but some several hundred are, and they guard our ambassador behind a 10-foot-high walled fortress. In Iraq, we cannot afford to take any unnecessary risks with our diplomats and go to great lengths to ensure that there are plenty of armed personnel between our representatives and any potential threats.

In Libya, there were no uniformed Marines guarding our ambassador. Originally, there was a 16-person security team led by Col. Andrew Wood, who had requested to stay in Libya. In July, Stevens sent memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee requesting an “extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel.” Stevens was referring to Col. Wood’s 16-man team, which was scheduled to leave in August. Stevens requested on Aug. 2 — just six weeks before his murder — to keep security personnel in Libya “through mid-September,” calling the conditions there “unpredictable, volatile and violent.”

Col. Woods has also said that he repeatedly requested to remain in Libya because he felt both the environment and the ambassador were unsafe. Now, after the tragic fact, no one knows what happened to Stevens‘ original request.

Why was the security team that both Stevens and Col. Woods requested sent home? Who made this decision?

What happened to the plane, Mr. President? There was supposed to be a DC-3 available to help people get out of Libya or to travel around the country as needed. But that plane was taken away on May 4. On May 8, just four days later, the State Department spent $108,000 on a new electrical charging station to “green up” our embassy in Vienna.

You have to ask: Was this “green” initiative more important than the security of our embassy in Libya? We spent about $1 million on electric cars to make a political statement in Vienna, but we somehow couldn’t find the time or resources to have just one Marine guarding our Libyan embassy, much less a much-needed 16-man personnel team. We spent $100,000 on an electric car-charging station to show Vienna how green we are, but did not keep a plane in Libya that could have been instrumental in transporting our own diplomats to safety.

The president now says the buck stops with him. Fair enough. So, President Obama, again: Where the hell were the Marines? Where was the plane? Saying the buck stops with you sounds good, but you have to follow through.

We’ve seen this kind of government incompetence before.

Once the initial shock and horror of Sept. 11, 2001, began to subside, the finger pointing commenced. Everyone agreed that our intelligence had failed — massively — but no one would claim responsibility for this failure. Reports of possible terrorist attacks had been repeatedly ignored, including the FBI turning down search warrants from their Minnesota branch that could have potentially provided us valuable information.

Still, after the worst terrorist attack in American history, no one was held accountable.

In 2001, 3,000 innocent people lost their lives — but not one government bureaucrat lost his job.

The siege of our embassy and the murder of our diplomats in Benghazi should never have happened. But these events did happen, and this administration continues to be reluctant to give us answers and provide accountability.

As a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, I am calling for hearings and a full investigation into what really happened in Benghazi, how our intelligence failed and how, ultimately, we failed to protect our own people.

What happened in Libya was inexcusable. I’m tired of hearing too many government officials make too many excuses. Those responsible must be held accountable and those at fault should be fired.

The president now says, “The buck stops here.” It’s time for him to prove it, and if he won’t, it is time for Congress to do its job and get to the bottom of it.

Sen. Rand Paul is a Kentucky Republican.

EDITORIAL: Obama, horses and bayonets – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Obama, horses and bayonets – Washington Times.

Condescending debate outburst exposes weak defense strategy

Note to President Obama: Stop pretending you’re a military genius. “Commander in chief” is simply a title, not a skill set.

In Monday night’s foreign policy debate, Mr. Obama mocked Republican challenger Mitt Romney for daring to discuss the dangerous diminution of American naval assets to levels of a century ago. “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed,” said Mr. Obama. “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships.” Rarely has a president come across as more petulant on such a serious topic.

Mr. Obama meant to belittle Mr. Romney by comparing his ship metric to a children’s game, but Mr. Romney was speaking with a shorthand familiar to all military specialists — except, apparently, Mr. Obama. Until this year, Navy planners spoke of building up to a 313-ship fleet. The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan attached to the 2012 budget request projected the addition of 57 new ships by 2017. Last January, the Defense Department scaled this back to 41 vessels with planners abandoning all hope of reaching 313. This was the background to Mr. Romney’s comment, and it demonstrates he knows more about how the military works than Mr. Obama.

The “horses and bayonets” line was supposed to evoke images of wars gone by, but the jape is backfiring on Mr. Obama. Critics recalled the innovative use of horses by special operators in Afghanistan, where the rocky terrain often makes travel by Jeep difficult. Soldiers and Marines objected that they still grasp the spirit of the bayonet. Bayonets remain part of the military inventory, doubling in the field as a general-purpose knife. There are undoubtedly more of them now than 100 years ago when the land force was seven times smaller. Last year, the Defense Department issued a solicitation for 40,000 new blades as a 100 percent small-business set-aside. Mr. Obama’s laugh line was some small-business owner’s livelihood.

The condescending lecture about “ships that go under water” was supposed to create the image of Mr. Obama as a great strategic leader, but his record proves he’s anything but. As a senator in 2007, he adamantly opposed the successful surge strategy that won the war in Iraq. As president, he launched a surge in Afghanistan that has been a high-casualty failure. He is radically depleting the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal which fatally undercuts the credibility of his promises to extend deterrence to worried states on Iran’s periphery. He claims to have won the war against al Qaeda while giving encouragement to radical Islamists in Egypt who are pursuing the same strategic goals as Osama bin Laden. He is shifting the U.S. military focus to the Pacific at a time when the Middle East is becoming greatly destabilized. He has reduced America’s presence in space while competitor states expand theirs.

As China works to launch a blue-water fleet, Mr. Obama continues to sink plans for the force that could dissuade them from even trying. Mr. Obama may not count ships, but Beijing certainly does.

The Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Benghazi lie – Washington Times

Benghazi Mosque

Benghazi Mosque (Photo credit: an agent)

 

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Benghazi lie – Washington Times.

 

Presidential whopper is easily debunked

 

Debate moderator Candy Crowley stepped out of her purportedly neutral role in Tuesday’s presidential debate by spontaneously fact-checking Mitt Romney’s assertion that President Obama delayed calling the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya an act of terrorism. She later corrected herself, saying Mr. Romney was “right in the main” on Benghazi but that the Republican “picked the wrong word.” In fact, Mr. Romney simply was right.

 

Contrary to his boast, Mr. Obama did not single out Benghazi as an act of terrorism in his Sept. 12 Rose Garden statement. He referred to it as an “attack” and to the perpetrators as “killers.” He then said, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” an obvious reference to the YouTube video to which he alluded as the motive for the mayhem. Later he said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” but this was in the context of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn’t a direct reference to Benghazi. The presidential proclamation on Benghazi, issued the same day, made no reference to terrorism. That evening, however, Undersecretary of State Patrick F. Kennedy, whose portfolio includes overseas facilities and operations, called Benghazi a terrorist attack in a private conference call with congressional staff.

 

On Sept. 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed the spate of Mideast unrest, including the Benghazi assault, was “in response to a video that Muslims find offensive.” He avoided calling those who attacked the Benghazi consulate terrorists, referring instead to “assailants” and “attackers.” The same day, Mr. Obama attended the transfer-of-remains ceremony for the Benghazi fallen and made no reference to terrorism in his remarks. In his weekly address on Sept. 15, Mr. Obama made much of the denigration of Islam and angry mobs but said nothing of terrorism. On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice was dispatched to the Sunday talk-show circuit to state authoritatively that the attacks were “spontaneous — not premeditated” and “in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.”

 

The White House stuck to this line until Sept. 19, when National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen testified publicly before Congress that Benghazi was an act of terrorism. Even after this admission, the White House kept promoting the spontaneous-mob theory. On Sept. 20, Mr. Carney said the Benghazi tragedy was “an opportunistic attack” that grew from alleged video-based unrest. In his speech to the United Nations on Sept. 25, Mr. Obama referred to the video six times but didn’t once describe the events as terrorism.

 

The Obama administration’s video-inspired, spontaneous-mob fiction was concocted so the White House could dodge charges of massive intelligence failure. The reality — a planned, focused, al Qaeda-linked jihadist battlefield victory — didn’t fit the White House’s rosy election-year storyline. Instead, Obama officials tried to make the tragedy into a teachable moment to lecture Americans on tolerance for Islam and the limits of the First Amendment. The story keeps shifting. In the wake of the debate, Mr. Obama admitted he delayed using the terrorist designation in the interest of acting on sound intelligence. We’ll see how long this new tale lasts.

 

The Washington Times

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,552 other followers