Are the Libs Starting to Get It? Help Black Americans Regain Exceptionalism-Vote for Ben Carson, MD

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval OfficeImage

AMAZING!!! The Cover of Liberal Newsweek Magazine:

Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about 0bama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about 0bama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the protective wall built around him by the liberal media….  (HOW ABOUT A “DO-OVER FOR THE 2012 ELECTION?)

I Too Have Become Disillusioned
By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist – Opinion Writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack 0bama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining 0bama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as 0bama’s “spiritual mentor;” a real-life, actual terrorist who served as 0bama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. 0bama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberals to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were ‘a bit’ extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: 0bama was given a pass – held to a lower standard because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the 0bama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to 0bama. True, 0bama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, 0bama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, 0bama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time 0bama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about 0bama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)

And what about his character? 0bama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.

Let’s hear that one more time:

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.

WHY OBAMA LET THEM DIE IN BENGHAZI!

Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi
By Karin McQuillan
Nov. 2, 2012

The burning question is why Obama didn’t give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi. The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation of their inaction.

To the president’s surprise, he chanced on an honest reporter during a local interview on the campaign trail in Denver. On October 26, for the first time, Obama was asked directly about the explosive reports on CBS and Fox News, a week earlier, that the CIA and our military denied direct requests for help by the Americans fighting for their lives during the seven-hour battle in Benghazi.

Denver TV’s Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”

Obama’s answer is the proof of his guilt, and it gives us a clue as to the doctrine informing his decision to do nothing. The most damaging part of Obama’s evasive answer is this:

… the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. … I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.

This is the blatant lie that condemns the liar. The president says here that immediately, “the minute I found out what was happening,” he gave the order to the military, the CIA, to everyone, to secure our personnel in Benghazi and do “whatever we need to.”

Yet the undeniable fact is that nothing was done. We know that the CIA security agent in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods, asked for permission to rescue Ambassador Stevens when Stevens was still alive and in the safe room. Woods was told twice by the CIA to stand down. He then disobeyed direct orders and rescued the survivors at the consulate, but it was too late for Stevens and Sean Smith.

Secretary of Defense Panetta tells us the military had gunships and Special Forces less than two hours away in Sicily but felt it was too “risky” to send in reinforcements or air cover. It would have been normal military procedure to pre-position air cover and assets from Sicily to Benghazi, but Panetta says this was not done. The air support and FAST platoons, we are told, were left in Sicily. All the U.S. military did was send two unarmed drones to observe the battle.

So if President Obama is not lying about his directives, he is saying that the CIA and the Defense Department and our military chain of command disobeyed the direct order of our commander in chief to do everything in their power to rescue our people under attack in Benghazi. And that as commander in chief, Obama did nothing in response to their dereliction of duty.

That doesn’t happen. No one believes that; the president is lying. He did not issue directives to the CIA, our military, and State to “secure our personnel” and “do whatever we need to do.”

We know it was not the CIA on its own that made the decision to abandon Ambassador Stevens and the eight others with him in the consulate. The CIA say they did not advise anyone in the administration to deny help to the Americans in Benghazi. A CIA spokesman on October 27 issued this statement:

No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.

General Carter F. Ham, the combatant commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM), says he was never asked to send help.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi.

On October 18, General Ham resigned.

Panetta explained why no help was sent on October 26, the same day Obama was telling the Denver reporter he had ordered the military to do “whatever we need to.”

Panetta admitted we did nothing. He says the military had the readiness and capability to help. He says the military responded quickly and deployed forces close to Benghazi, ready and capable of responding “to any contingency.”

We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

Panetta then tells us why the forces were never deployed. He says the top leadership of our military didn’t want to send reinforcements, even air support, into harm’s way. It was too risky. Panetta does not indicate that he knew of Obama’s supposed directives to do “whatever we need to” to save the Americans trapped in the 9/11 attack.

“[The] basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Note that General Ham had already told Congressman Chaffetz he was never asked to provide military support.

Panetta’s statement that we didn’t have enough intelligence to risk sending air or combat support is not credible. We had real-time information by video, radio, and e-mail. We had laser targets painted on their mortar nest. When else do you send reinforcements, if not into dangerous situations?

Max Boot writes in Commentary:

Special Operations Forces and other military forces are used to acting on incomplete information, especially in a situation where Americans are under fire and in danger of being overrun. At that point, caution is normally thrown to the wind, and Quick Reaction Forces are launched.

We certainly could have saved the lives of CIA agents Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty if President Obama had given orders to do so. There were two drones and perhaps a gunship overhead. The two men died because they painted laser targets on the jihadi mortar nests. They were radioing for air cover, expecting that the target would be bombed and the jihadi attack ended. This is what Navy SEALs do. We have learned from experts that American Special Forces paint such laser targets only when air cover is immediately available, as it gives away your position to the enemy. According to these experts, Woods and Doherty must have believed that air cover was immediately available. Their calls for air support went unanswered, and they died.

If there weren’t a manned drone and a gunship sent out — it was now six hours into the battle — that indicates that Obama and Panetta did not direct the military to be ready to intervene if necessary. If the drone was sent unarmed and the gunship never sent, it says the military never intended to help under any circumstances.

Bing West, a distinguished combat correspondent and former assistant secretary of defense, has produced a timeline of the Benghazi attacks, which went on for most of the night, suggesting there was plenty of time for substantial U.S. forces to scramble from the U.S. base at Sigonella, Sicily, located almost exactly as far away from Benghazi as the Libyan capital of Tripoli, from whence a small, ill-armed quick-reaction force of 22 men was finally sent. “Stationed at Sigonella,” he notes, “were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft – a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy.”

President Obama says, “I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” It is clear that he did not issue such a directive, or else the CIA and the military defied him.

Why would our president not come to the defense of our consulate under attack? This is an attack on American soil. This was a 9/11 attack by an al-Qaeda branch in Libya. Therein lies the answer.

Obama does not believe in using the military to defend our national security, which he sees as aggressive, Republican, and cowboy. This was Obama’s 9/11, not Bush’s. He did not see the attack on our embassy as a jihadi attack on American soil. He saw a group of aggrieved Muslim citizens, with good reason to be angry — the spontaneous mob enraged by an offensive video. He would follow a Democrat policy of promoting peace, not war, in which avoiding civilian casualties is the paramount goal.

The other answer is directly political. It would be damaging for Obama’s already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring. Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama’s foreign policy all too evident. An American military response would have undercut one of Obama’s main campaign slogans: “GM is alive and Osama is dead.”

Treating Benghazi as a spontaneous mob attack inflamed by an offensive, Islamophobic video was a flimsy story, but the liberal media was quite willing to accept it without question. Our politically corrupt media not only went along with that nonsense, but so crucified Romney for daring to comment on what happened that Romney shut up. The story of the offensive video played to Obama’s progressive base, which believes that there is no war on terror — just bad behavior by bigoted Americans that causes Muslims to attack us.

Obama’s ideology blinded him to the need to defend American lives under al-Qaeda attack on 9/11/12. He put his ideology and his politics ahead of Americans lives. He let four brave men serving our country fight without help and die.

This decision will doom Obama’s chances of re-election if widely known. That is why our politically corrupt media is censoring this news as hard as it can. They do not want the majority of Americans to know. But they cannot keep the lid on. It is too big, and too awful. The only question is one of time before Election Day.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/why_obama_chose_to_let_them_die_in_benghazi.html

SCREAMING FOR HELP, THE WHITE HOUSE SAID, “NO!”

WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE BENGHAZI TRAGEDY? THIS terrible murder of 4 Americans, one of which was the Ambassador to Libya, happened 7 weeks ago. The answers appear to have been there within the first few days, but someone in The White House, deflected the TRUTH with lies and obfuscations. Did the president give the order to save the lives of the 4 public servants? If he did, who disobeyed the order? Was it the Secretary of Defense Panetta, or one of the generals? Was it the Secretary of State Clinton, or one of her underlings? Whoever it was has a lot to answer for!

This is what we know! The Benghazi compound was attacked in April 2012, again in June 2012, The Ambassador asks for more security! Again, in August, he asks for more security, but Obama’s State Department actually pull out much of the security that was there before the end of August! What were they thinking?!?

So, here we are, still in Benghazi, after all the other Westerners, plus the RED CROSS pull out! The extra security is pulled out, and 9/11 is near at hand!

On 9/10/2012 another memo was sent to the State Department, asking for more help! During the day of 9/11 a memo was sent claiming, “People are watching us.”

Our Ambassador has dinner with the Turkish Ambassador. One hour after the Turkish Ambassador leaves the battle begins! The battle lasted 7 or 8 hours (depending on which report you read). It is 4:05 pm in the USA. The White House calls in Secretary Panetta and Joe Biden as they watch what is going on in “real time” in the Situation Room!
We now have drones giving “real time” information, as well as the security cameras at the consulate. At 6:07 pm the CIA notifies everyone that the attack is by an El Quaida affiliate called Ansar El Sharia!

By the time America was waking up on 9/12/2012 an ambassador was murdered, along with 3 other Americans. Obama and Clinton give a short announcement then go about their daily tasks. For Obama, it meant a fund-raising trip to Las Vegas! He also scheduled a number of celebrity interviews on TV, and several celebrity magazine interviews.

Obama claims to have gone to bed after giving the order to “do all that is necessary to save the lives of the Americans in Benghazi.”

I know he had a heavy schedule the next day, as the Celebrity-in-Chief, but the question remains, “Why haven’t heads rolled since obviously, someone disobeyed his order to save the people in Benghazi?”

I hope it wasn’t General Petrius, because in all other regards, his service has been outstanding and without blemish!
Panetta also seems to be a good public servant. So, I hope it wasn’t him. More than likely, some general will take the fall for this disaster, because all of the higher ups will have been able to “CYA” themselves!

Oh, I don’t want to forget Hillery Clinton. She is the most responsible person, after the president, for the affairs in Libya. What did she know and when did she know it? Remember, Hillary is supposed to be the “smartest women in the room” working for the president that carries the label, “smartest man in the room!” When the Clinton’s held the presidency, remember it was Hillery that took control of smearing women molested by her man in what came to be known as the “Bimbo eruptions.”

Maybe she is not so smart after all! Or, she is smart, but with a devious, black-hearted side: She was in the middle of the 900 missing FBI files; she and Bill fell into the “White Water Scam” and avoided prosecution because others in the scam KEPT THEIR MOUTHS SHUT! We also have the Clinton “Travel Office” caper where instead of just quietly replacing the Bush travel office with her own people, she had to claim they were criminals! Later court proceeding proved the claim was false, and the long-term travel office people that served presidents of both parties for more than 20 years still do not have their honest names restored! Then, there is the funny $100,000 Cattle Futures event! Maybe it was a real success, or maybe it was a payoff of some kind to the Clintons! Don’t know for sure, but it was funny!

That leaves President Obama! Did he really leave for bed giving the order “to save those men”? I’m not sure about his blaming other people for all of his SNAFUs! In fact, he always tells us how bad things were when he assumed office. IN FACT He inherited a situation that any president would love to have. Problems, “YES!”
Every person in that office is faced with problems. Yet, he had a 70% approval rating! He had a veto proof Senate! He had a massive majority in The House of Representatives. The wealthy 1% of America was in his pocket! All over the world he had people believing he was next to God, maybe the “Messiah” himself! He got the “Peace Prize” without doing a thing! He had so much good will, he could have fixed the economy and foreign affairs in his first two years. Instead, he squandered all of the good will and wasted his time continuing his campaigning and playing with his Hollywood friends! Instead of the “Messiah”, we got the High School Freshman class president!

He is not so Smart! Ignore a dead Ambassador, Rush to storm Sandy, then Campaining Again!

Obama Hit By Storm Backlash
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 3, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version

Natural disasters usually follow the same political trajectory: First the incumbent experiences a bounce as he tours the impacted area, shows his concern, and pledges help to his beleaguered constituents. But then reality sets in and the shortages, delays, mishaps, deaths, and devastation becomes apparent and people turn against the incumbent.

George W. Bush had his Katrina.

And now Barack Obama has his Sandy.

Last week, Obama asserted a kind of ownership of the storm by touring New Jersey in the now infamous embrace of Republican stalwart Governor Chris Christie. Now that we are all appalled by the lack of food, gas, water, heat, and the basic essentials of life throughout the storm zone, Obama’s government doesn’t look so good anymore.

Why didn’t FEMA stockpile food, water, and gasoline? We had a week’s notice to prepare for Sandy. There was no shortage of time. Did the government not realize that people needed to eat, drink, and drive?

All throughout America, we are asking these questions of our television sets as we watch the evolving story of human misery.

Meanwhile, Obama has resumed the campaign trail, pounding the opposition in the same relentless and partisan style which he used before the storm. When Obama said that voting was “the best revenge,” he threw away whatever presidentiality he displayed in touring storm damage earlier in the week.

As he entered the last week before the Congressional election of 1994, President Clinton returned to the U.S. after having presided over the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. He called me on his return and asked where he should campaign? Which incumbent Democrats should he try to help get re-elected?

I told him he should not campaign for any of them.

“No, you don’t understand,” he explained. I just came back from the Middle East and my ratings are up ten points. Before, I would have hurt the candidates I campaigned for, but not now. Now I can help them.”

“Your ratings are up because your trip hyped your presidentiality. Now, if you start campaigning, you’ll look like a politician and your ratings will come down again. You’ll end up doing more harm than good to those you are trying to help.”

He disregarded the advice and lost both houses of Congress in the elections.

Now Obama is making the same mistake. By campaigning, particularly by using the same harsh partisan rhetoric which has characterized his campaign, Obama is dragging down his ratings and with it his chances of victory.

Particularly when we see the juxtaposition of the mounting disaster in New York and New Jersey and the President out on the campaign trail attacking his opponents, we realize that Obama is a candidate before he is president, more worried about his second term than the welfare of his constituents.

In yesterday’s polling numbers, I saw a rise in Obama’s ratings and warned that the race was far from over. Now, we see him throwing it all away and resuming his crash into a single term presidency.

Navy Seals to Obama:”We bow to no man!”

George W Bush proved the Muslim Terrorists only respect the strong horse.  A few examples: While Bush was in office, Qaddafi gave up his nuke capacity; attacks on American soil ended; and logical methods of interrogation and spy systems had the terrorists on the run everywhere!

Obama, whether by incompetence or design, has shown that he is a weak horse.  A few examples: Bowing to the Saudi king;
his support for removing the man that kept peace, Mubarak of Egypt; attacks on our soil again (ie Ft Hood, plane bombers, etc);and his lack of concern for our Ambassador and staffs safety in Libya.
When you look at a weak-kneed, Chicago amateur compared to a morally upright, experienced and Presidential, Romney, you know how to get the respect for the STRONG HORSE back when you vote in November.  Find out what our Special Operational Forces believe by going to the following SOFA 30 second message:
Yes, Barack, this is the choice as you laid it out in your acceptance speech:
This is the choice we now face. This is what the election comes down to. Over and over, we have been told by our opponents that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way; that since government can’t do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you can’t afford health insurance, hope that you don’t get sick. If a company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well, that’s just the price of progress. If you can’t afford to start a business or go to college, take my opponent’s advice and “borrow money from your parents.”
You know what? That’s not who we are. That’s not what this country’s about.
We believe in something called citizenship — word at the very heart of our founding, at the very essence of our democracy; the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations.
We believe that when a CEO pays his autoworkers enough to buy the cars that they build, the whole company does better.
We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into signing a mortgage they can’t afford, that family is protected, but so is the value of other people’s homes, and so is the entire economy.
We believe that a little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the founder of the next Google, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States — and it’s in our power to give her that chance.
Barack believes (his vision is): To thoroughly rejects the idea that free markets work on the basis of voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. This is a person who thinks that despite competition CFO’s and CEOs are free  to underpay their workers and that bankers are so stupid as to want to make loans that they know they will have to write off.  By the way Mr. Prez, if we have an obligation to “future generations” why are you putting them in the poor-house before they are born?
This is Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s vision: .
As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights — rights that no man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility and we celebrate individual initiative. We’re not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk-takers who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system — the greatest engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever known.

Hayden: Obama’s Libya Adventure to Blame for Ambassador Death

Wednesday, 12 Sep 2012 12:05 PM

By Jim Meyers and John Bachman

Read more on Newsmax.com: Hayden: Obama’s Libya Adventure to Blame for Ambassador Death

The Battista’s
We thank God for the Blessings we have; and the blessings we are receiving!
We thank God, for everything!