Tuesday, October 30, 2012

The Last Argument in His Arsenal

So, as you regular readers can point out over the last few posts, I've been following the election pretty closely. In my time following the race I've seen all manner of stupidity, leadership, downright evil, and desperation. Given that the trend is showing a severe backlash against the policies of the Won, that last one isn't surprising. Come to think of it, none of these are really surprising. Every campaign season we find out the best and worst of the candidates, 2008 being the obvious exception. The links above highlight my personal favorites this year, but if I were doing a top :insert number here: list, I'd definitely have to put the subject of this post at  the number one slot. Apparently, according to Hot Air, along with several other outlets, Obama the Above it All is offended that people are daring to suggest that he sat by and watched while four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Hear that? He's OFFENDED. Because how DARE reporters try to get to the bottom of the first murder of a US ambassador in decades?

According to Hot Air, who got the story from Breitbart:

The SecDef and the president have issued contradictory explanations. Either Mr. Obama ordered the Secretary of Defense to “do whatever we need to do,” or he didn’t. And either the secretary obeyed that order, or he didn’t. And he didn’t.
It is also not clear whether the SecDef countermanded the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is the direct military adviser to the president. Did the president as commander-in-chief issue an unequivocal order that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs received but chose not to execute? Or did the chairman reply that he would do nothing?…
Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up.

Like they say at the actual source, someone needs  to be fired. With the way the polls are going, it  looks like O is going to be that someone. I'm skeptical of his being punished beyond that, of course, but you  never know what'll happen these days. Only a few months ago I thought Romney wouldn't stand a chance as the candidate and he's proven me wrong rather handily on that score. 

I Wish I was This Articulate

I stole this from one of my Facebook friends, and had to share it both there and here at Confessions. Enjoy:

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees... I don't feel threatened.. I don't feel discriminated against.. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat...

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school... The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about.. And we said okay..

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

Monday, October 22, 2012

The Anti-Reykjavik: Obama's October Surprise not Really all That Surprising

Back in the 1980s, into Ronald Reagan's time as President of these United States of America, Ronaldus Maximus met with Premier Mikhail Gorbechev in Iceland for a nuclear proliferation summit. During that summit, it was revealed to The Great Communicator that he'd been swindled into almost negotiating away our only defense against Soviet nuclear aggression: The SDI Defense, which we all know now was just a bluff on our part to fool the Soviets into thinking we could shoot down their nuclear missiles with the touch of a button. It looks like we're not facing a similar situation here under the Obama administration with Iran playing the role of the Soviets. Ronald Reagan walked away. Obama intends to hear his own particular tyrant out. Here's why it won't work:

1. Too Little, Too Late:

The president appears to have played his trump card. Dick Morris predicted an October surprise coming up in a few days involving Iran and the United States negotiating a settlement regarding their nuclear program. Obama said once or twice during his campaign in 2008 that he would be more than happy to meet with Mahmud Ahmedenijad in order to avert the possibility of their gaining nuclear capability and thus having the power to wipe Israel off the map. Obama thought back then that his winning smile and not-so-killer good looks would be enough to make the mad Iranian Hitler wannabe back down, but all he did in response to Obama's appeasement was move further toward getting the very thing we didn't want them to get: nukes.

Now Obama has revealed this supposed trump card of his two weeks before the election. The timing alone is suspect, of course, but so is the motivation of both sides. Obama no doubt is using this as the usual "October Surprise" bit that usually comes out and turns the election around, or at the very least causes a hiccup in the opposing candidate's campaign efforts. It won't work this time for a  very simple reason. As stated above, it is simply too late to stop the Romney campaign's momentum with any   token gestures of effectiveness. With Romney up 6 in the latest Gallup poll (as of this writing) and only showing signs of further widening that lead (running positive ads in the swing states, Ryan campaigning in Western Pennsylvania, among others), the Obama campaign is looking more and more desperate with every stopgap measure they unveil. First it was Big Bird, then it was Binders Full of Women, and let's not even go into Tagg Romney supposedly wanting to punch the President in the face. As a certain comedian whose name escapes me at the moment said, "if he keeps this up, by next week he'll have to hurl actual sh!t."

2. We're on to him.

Tying into reason number one why this little October not surprise will only result in failure is reason number two. Quite simply, we the people are on to his little game of token gestures and class warfare, and there are too many of us who are now awake (or too many of those not awake who simply decided to vote for the other guy this time) to stem the tide. Obama can make all the diplomatic gestures he wants toward Iran, Saudi Arabia, and all those other countries, but he can't change the facts. Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead. Plain and simple. He was not only killed, but tortured before he was killed. This will stick in the minds of every reasonable American who knows about it. Obama can talk all he wants about how he'll divert a nuclear Iran from becoming a reality, but people like me know the real game being played here.

3. Dick Morris is Usually Right

Former Clinton advisor and Conservative  (former) Democrat Dick Morris told everyone that Obama had an October surprise up his sleeve that would involve Iran and negotiations with the U.S. to deal with their nuclear program. Just yesterday I found this piece from the New York Times as well as the video from Dick Morris himself explaining what he meant. Comparing the video and the NYT story, not to mention the several entries on this story at Hot Air, one can clearly see that Dick had this one right on the money. Not three days after he posted that video, this hits the front page of Hotair, along with this, and this, not to mention this from the New York Times. The second one of those is rather interesting to me, given that NO ONE is supposedly owning up to these talks when they come two weeks before election day? Makes me wonder if they're even really going to happen.

4. Glora Allred has her Own "October Surprise"...and it's a Year Old.

It's taken me a few days to actually get to a point where I can finish this post, so some of the above might have changed since then, but it's not likely. Still, one thing that DID come out was everyone's favorite ambulance chaser Gloria Allred announcing that she had another victim du jour under her hat that the  news sites all said she was planning on trotting out to try to put a stop to Romney's momentum. Apparently  when Romney was in his twenties (read thirty some years ago!) he vehemently tried to convince a woman not to have an abortion. No, you read that right. Glora Allred thinks that because Romney tried to convince a woman not to have an abortion because it wasn't in line with the tenants of his faith that he somehow is guilty of harassing said woman. I'm betting that if this does get trotted out for the news sites, it'll be an attempt to resurrect the "Romney is a Bully" narrative that they had going in the first weeks of the election. What Allred likely doesn't seem to realize is that the NYT reported on this story over a year ago. Someone needs to inform Allred just what the word "surprise" means. Snark about Allred aside, this is another reason Obama's Iran story won't work. If this hits the airwaves and people scoff at it (as I believe they will) then it won't make Obama's Iran story any more credible than it is, and may even detract from whatever credibility it does have.

So when all is said and done, The above mentioned stories are going to have zero positive effect for the Obama campaign, simply because these stories aren't going to sway the undecideds. These stories are meant for shoring up the base and getting the core supporters excited. I seem to remember another campaign in 2008 that tried doing the same thing. That is, ginning up support of the base when the election was almost here. But as we all know, that one didn't turn out too well for John McCain.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

The Three Dumbest Non-Issues of This Campaign Season

Boy, what a difference a campaign makes. Just a few months ago I was lamenting over Newt Gingrich's loss to Mitt Romney in the Republican primary, sure that, even though I was willing to hold my nose and vote for the RINO we'd been stuck with, I was sure we'd be saddled with another four years of Barack Obama, and I'd be witnessing the end of the Republic as we know it because of Barack having "more flexibility" with his cronies both here and abroad. Now? I'm practically salivating to vote for Mitt. Not only because all the signs point to his eventual victory in November, but because there was simply more to the Mitt-ster than met the eye on first glance. Where I thought he was simply the flip flopper everyone tried to make him, from his Republican challengers to the leftist smear machine, it turned out that the candidate we ended up with would actually be more than qualified for the job of President of the United States. This has become more and more apparent with Romney's rise in the polls, his trouncing of Obama in both debates, and now, most obviously, from the fact that the Left is absolutely reeking with the same scent of desperation that permeated from John McCain's presidential campaign in 2008. By this time in that year, the McCain camp had pretty much folded, ceding Michigan, a state that had been in play up until the moment they'd pulled out, from my understanding. Well, now it's the left's turn to panic, and panic they are. Here are the three most hilariously stupid ways that their fear is showing:

3. Big Bird

We all know Big Bird. He is the nine foot yellow Muppet that talked to other multicolored Muppets at his address of 123 Sesame Street, and still does so to this day, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars annually. Making children love learning seems to be quite the lucrative profession for these guys, given that they've been on the air for several decades. I have a special place in my heart for the Sesame Street gang, and I always will. But to the Left, apparently, Big Bird is the be all and end all of everything everywhere ever in the history of all time, because when Mitt Romney mentioned during the debate that he was planning on cutting the public funding for PBS, the nut jobs on the other side of the river thought that a sign of the Apocalypse had been discovered, due to the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the media. The Huffington Post made hay about the governor's "Big Bird Problem", another website made no qualms and said that Romney wanted to "kill Big Bird", and the Washington Post also had no issues with baldly stating that Big Bird would "haunt Mitt Romney".

What the bleeding heck!? All these issues to talk about and your first attempt to stomp all over your opponent is BIG BIRD!? Seriously? You really think, lefties, that the election hinges on whether or not the tax payers are still handing over their hard earned money so that Big Bird and the Muppets can continue to teach kids to count to 12? Got news for you, kiddies. Those same moms? The ones with kids to feed and cars to fill with gas, as well as most likely paychecks that get deprived of take home pay to supply Big Bird with HIS paycheck? They're probably more concerned with filling those gas tanks and ensuring that those kids have food to eat more so than whether or not a fictional character is still on TV. Also, moonbats, taxpayers only pay a small fraction of Big Bird's paycheck. The rest comes from private citizens in the form of charitable donations. I don't think Big Bird is in any danger of being homeless or being taken off the boob tube any time soon.

2. Binders Full of Women

This was the one I'd only heard about during the last debate. Apparently, during his tenure as governor of the Bay State, Romney went out of his way to offer flexible hours to women who worked in his cabinet because they wanted to make sure they could get home in time to make dinner for their kids. When Romney made this point in his defense of his record during said debate, apparently women everywhere were outraged. How dare this unwitting representative of the non-existent Patriarchy offer FLEXIBLE HOURS to WOMEN to MAKE THEIR LIVES A LITTLE EASIER!? Lynch that bastard right now! He's obviously a sexist pig who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen! *snark function off*. Never mind of course, that women made up half of the governor's cabinet while he was in office. Never mind that one of his former employees absolutely GUSHED over how great a boss Mitt Romney was, and never mind that Romney went out of his way to hire women because he thought there weren't enough women working in his administration. He was probably doing all that just to cover up his natural woman-hating Republican meanness!

Yeah, right. Oh, and I guess I lied about the snark being off.

The Left even went so far as to say that Mitt using the term "binders full of women" was a sexist dog whistle, because apparently they've run out of words to use to blame him for being a racist. Does no one on the left realize that he meant RESUMES!? Resumes that are kept in BINDERS so that they're on hand for review?

Please, someone put some chlorine in the gene pool. For the good of humanity!

1. Mitt's Son Tagg Totally Wants to Punch the President in the Face

This has got to be by far the stupidest non-issue I've seen so far, but there are still three weeks left to go before Obama gets his pink slip,  so there could very well be more. Until then, this is in my top spot, and there it shall stay. Legal Insurrection brought this to my attention this morning, which was what inspired me to write this entire post, actually. So thank you, Professor Jacobson, for being the muse I needed to start blogging again. The story goes a little something like this: Apparently Tagg Romney was being interviewed by the LSM at some point, and they asked him how he felt when he saw that the left was ruthlessly attacking his father using untruths and slander. He replied to them that it made him what to "jump out of the chair" and "punch the President in the face." Well, that was the end of the story right there for the Left, who immediately tried to make Tagg sound like a terrorist for daring to use such words as "punch",  "face" and "president" in the same breath. But as usual, there was a whole other side to the story that they either did not pursue out of negligence or did not pursue out of complete idiocy. I like the idea that it was both.

The reality, of course, as Professor Jacobson rightly points out, is that the clip was doctored in the media to be cut off immediately after the word "face" was spoken. In reality, Tagg said of the president that he would LIKE to punch the guy in the face sometimes, but because of the Secret Service and the fact that this whole mudslinging thing is par for the course, that you just have to roll with the punches. Sounds like a pretty reasonable stance on issues to me, no? not if you're a lefty, it would seem.

In conclusion: Let the stupidity and desperation continue. Honestly, they  can only get worse from here on out, as the polls continue to surge in Romney's favor and Obama continues to stumble his way through the debate process. I'll be nearby popping popcorn and getting ready to watch Monday's debate, and to watch the third and final time that Mitt scores a victory over the Boy King.

Here's  hopin' gang.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Secretary Clinton Takes Blame for Benghazi, Obama and Romney Spar Once Again

I have to admit that I really am behind with my watchdog duties these days, but I've been doing my best to keep up at least on the presidential campaign. I have to admit that the  initial results of the polls had me wondering whether or not we'd have a new president by January of next year, but with recent developments clearly shifting in favor of Mitt, not the least of which was his nuclear payload of a victory against The Manchurian Moonbat, I'm much more enthusiastic about the outcome of the race in November.

I've been hearing a lot about a supposed "October Surprise" that usually hits in the aforementioned month, almost always to the detriment of the challenger, from what I understand. The reason I say "almost" always is because this particular surprise that I've discovered doesn't affect Romney, but rather The Won. What is it? Read on, fellow patriots.

According to Fox News, the Obama administration has decided to make Dear Leader look tough on terror again by using special forces and other assets to take out a few of our old buddies in AQ. Oh, did I mention that these are the guys that initiated the attack on our Benghazi embassy? I didn't, did  I? Well, they are. Convenient timing, no?

Of course it's convenient timing. Not to mention the news that Hillary has decided to throw herself under the bus in order to save the Almighty O. Will this help Obama? No, no it won't. Why? Because we're three freaking weeks out from the election and the Obama campaign is trying to shore up their base. This is the electoral equivalent of bailing out a sinking cruise ship with a thimble. Hillary, to use a more classical analogy, is now the boy who has put her finger in the dike to stop the leak. I seem to recall that the dam burst anyway and drowned the young boy after the townspeople made their way to safety, so one can expect that in this situation the same will happen to Mrs. Clinton and her fellow cronies in the administration.

The question of Mrs. Clinton's movies also comes to light in this development. Did she do this to help stop the bleeding, or did she try to exacerbate the situation by showing leadership where President Obama has previously shown none at all? Only you, the reader, and the facts as they come to light, can decide that. Unfortunately I don't have enough information at this point to make a call on what her motives were.

On the debate front, I must admit that I wasn't able to watch the whole thing given that I was busy working to support our bloated federal government, but I did catch a lot of the post debate coverage and have already seen the spin mills try to frame Obama as the Comeback Kid. Already Google turns up 12,000+ news items alone carrying that phrase, some of which are those of El Rushbo and other conservatives predicting the media's desire to paint Barack Obama as a sort of Rocky Balboa figure circa Rocky 2 or 3. Still, 12,000 hits in less than a second? Sounds like the Rushmeister was pretty prophetic to me.

But while the Media decided to give Obama a "comback" narrative to try to help bolster his flagging campaign, the citizenry who saw that same debate are largely giving the debate to Romney on the crucial issue of the economy. Hotair points to a focus group done by Dr. Frank Luntz, wherein about half voted for The One in 2008, and now only about four or five still plan on voting for him after this latest attempt to make it seem like he has a vision for a second term.

That's another thing: Obama did nothing, according to the coverage on both sides, to lay out an agenda for a second term. Here's the video, which aired on that bastion of Conservative thought, MSNBC: 

As Morrissey notes in the post I linked earlier, this is a big problem for President Obama. Why? Mainly because it leaves voters asking the all important question "why should I vote for you again"? If you can't answer that question with three weeks left to go before Election Day, you're in a heap of trouble.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

John Galt Lives


Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]
To All My Valued Employees,As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best. 
I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.
Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?
Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50 percent of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50 percent of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.
Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore — to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.
So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.
You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.
Signed, your boss,
David Siegel